Loading...
03-04-14 Searchable PacketTable of Contents Agenda..... ..............................3 Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014 -2022 Housing Element Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CC -1: Housing Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CC -2: Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CC -3: Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated. . . . . . . 32 CC -4: Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 19, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 CC -5: Memo - Applicability of SIB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Study session to provide an update on the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01) process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City -wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 CC -1 - February 19, 2014 Planning Commission staff report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 CC -2 - Settings and Opportunities Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 CC -3 - Market Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 CC -4 - Concept Alternatives Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 CC -5 - Concept Alternatives Comparison Tables . . . . . . . . . 81 CC -6 - Community Workshop # 1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 86 CC -7 - Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary . . . . . . 87 Presentation from Richard Price demonstrating his company's new application called Pulse Point No Written Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Planning Commission annual update No Written Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Approve the February 18 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 14, 2014 A - Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Set the dates for the Teen Commission application deadline and interviews Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Approval of an agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1 A - Draft of Agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Approve the sale of surplus City property on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326 -41 -114) Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 A - Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 B - Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 C - Sale Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Consideration and approval of the Mid -Year Financial Report and recommended adjustments for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 A - 2013 -14 Mid -Year Financial Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 B - Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 C - Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 D - Budget Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 First reading of Cupertino Municipal Code amendments to Chapter 16.58, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, relating to plug in electric vehicle charging systems; and Chapter 1.08 relating to the right of entry Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 A - Draft Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Consider cancelling the first meeting in August Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 E AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 3:00 PM ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1. Subject: Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014 -2022 Housing Element Recommended Action: Review report and prioritize housing sites in order of preference, if desired Description: Application No.: GPA- 2013 -02; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location /APN: Citywide Staff Report CC -1: Housing Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2014 CC -2: Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with PC and HC Priorities Tn(lic.gfPci CC -3: Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated CC -4: Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 19, 2014 CC -5: Memo - A1121icability of SS 50 to Consideration of Development A112lications Page: 8 3 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Cupertino City Council 2. Subject: Study session to provide an update on the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01) process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City -wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas Recommended Action: Review the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR and provide comments Staff Report CC -1 - February 19, 2014 Planning Commission staff report CC -2 - Settings and 0112ortunities Report CC -3 - Market Study CC -4 - Concept Alternatives Report CC -5 - Concept Alternatives Comparison Tables CC -6 - Community Workshop # 1 Summary CC -7 - Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary Page: 57 CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS — 6:45 PM 3. Subject: Presentation from Richard Price application called Pulse Point Recommended Action: Receive presentation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet demonstrating his company's new 4. Subject: Planning Commission annual update Recommended Action: Receive update Description: Present Planning Commission Work Program Planning Commission goals and accomplishments No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ideas and discuss 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. a] Tuesday, March 4, 2014 CONSENT CALENDAR Cupertino City Council Unless there are separate discussions and /or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5. Subject: Approve the February 18 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes Page: 90 6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending February 14, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -124 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending February 14, 2014 A - Draft Resolution Page: 96 7. Subject: Set the dates for the Teen Commission application deadline and interviews Recommended Action: Staff recommends the following deadlines: 1. Applications due in the City Clerk's office by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 9; and 2. Interviews held beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27 and Wednesday, May 28 (as needed) Staff Report Page: 112 8. Subject: Approval of an agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with Perkins +Will for urban planning and architectural design services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design, from the date of execution through March 31, 2015 for an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Seventy -one Thousand Dollars ($571,000) in substantially similar format to the attached draft agreement Staff Report A - Draft of Agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design Page: 113 9. Subject: Approve the sale of surplus City property on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326 -41 -114) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -125 approving the sale of surplus City property on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326 -41 -114) to Karkada 5 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Cupertino City Council and Vijaya Vasantharam, in the amount of $38,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute all the necessary documents to complete the sale Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Map C - Sale Agreement Page: 145 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 10. Subject: Consideration and approval of the Mid -Year Financial Report and recommended adjustments for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager's Mid -Year Financial Report; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 14 -126 approving the Mid -Year Budget adjustments related to pass thru Revenues; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 14 -127 approving the Mid -Year Budget adjustments Staff Report A - 2013 -14 Mid -Year Financial Report B - Draft Resolution C - Draft Resolution D - Budget Tournals Page: 163 11. Subject: First reading of Cupertino Municipal Code amendments to Chapter 16.58, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, relating to plug in electric vehicle charging systems; and Chapter 1.08 relating to the right of entry Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14 -2117: "An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 16.58 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and adopting the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code with certain modifications relating to plug in electric vehicle charging systems and amending Chapter Municipal Code regarding the right of entry" Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance Page: 238 0 1.08 of Title 1 of the Cupertino Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12. Subject: Consider cancelling the first meeting in August Recommended Action: Staff Report Page: 248 Cancel first meeting in August REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT Cupertino City Council The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi - judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City's decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk's office for more information or go to http : / /www.cupertino.org /index.aspx ?page =125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408 - 777 -3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda /minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 7 CUPS TMNO SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014 -2022 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: Review the report on potential Housing Element sites to be studied in the joint General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 2. Prioritize the housing sites in order of preference, if desired. BACKGROUND: Project Description Application No.: Applicant: Location /APN: GPA- 2013 -02 City of Cupertino Citywide Housing Element Overview In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing Element content, please see Attachment CC -1 (Housing Commission Staff Report). State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre- determined cycle. For the current cycle, the updated Housing Element must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120 -day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). The City Council approved the project scope of work and authorized the budget for the project on November 4, 2013. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels: Income Group Very Low ( <_ 50% of Area Median Income(AMI)) RHNA 356 Low(51— 80% of AMI) 207 Moderate(81 - 120% of AMI) 231 Above Moderate(> 120% of AMI) 270 FTotal 1,064 The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites /units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. General Plan Amendment In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also preparing a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for City Council consideration, as directed by the City Council in August 2012. The primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re- allocate, and increase citywide development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the community's character, goals, and objectives. The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, under a comprehensive community vision. DISCUSSION: Housing Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. For additional details on HCD's site suitability requirements and criteria, please see Attachment CC -1. A key point to note in HCD's criteria is that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting affordable housing requirements. With Cupertino's last Housing Element (2007- 2014), HCD accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city - specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, while the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25 * 85 %) = 21 units. Therefore, most sites discussed later in this report are in areas that are at or above this density. 9 Affordability Criteria HCD requires an additional component of the site suitability analysis for those sites identified to meet the lower income portion of the RHNA (this includes the very low -, low -, and moderate - income RHNA). Cupertino's lower income RHNA requirement for the 2014 -2022 Housing Element is 794 units. To identify the sites and establish the number of units that can accommodate the RHNA for lower- income households, the Housing Element must include an analysis that demonstrates that the sites identified have zoning regulations and densities in place that encourage and facilitate the development of housing for lower- income households. Alternatively, Housing Element law allows local governments to utilize "default" density standards determined by HCD. Per HCD's determination, suburban cities in Santa Clara County require a minimum "realistic" density of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater to meet lower income requirements. Additionally, if properties need to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA on the sites identified, the zoning should be done in conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Element to avoid additional requirements that may be imposed by the HCD. The City intends to complete the necessary rezoning in conjunction with the Housing Element. Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State -wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and the One Bay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). Cupertino's PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment CC -3. The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan. For additional details on the other secondary criteria, please see Attachment CC -1. Potential Housing Element Sites The City has solicited public input on the selection of sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Through community workshops and study sessions with the Housing Commission and Planning Commission, conversations with property owners and stakeholders, and review of the previous Housing Element, multiple sites have been identified. Sites in four categories have been identified on the map: ■ Existing Housing Element sites — Seven sites identified in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element are currently available. The others have either been redeveloped or do not meet the criteria. ■ Sites Proposed By Property Owners — Ten property owners have indicated an interest in being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of the developers have indicated a density range higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site. 10 ■ Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants — Workshop participants at the January 23, 2014 and February 12, 2014 workshops identified 28 sites which could potentially be included in the Sites Inventory. ■ Lot Consolidation Potential — A few parcels indicated on the map are adjacent to existing Housing Element sites or proposed sites —these "lot consolidation potential" sites could be considered for addition with the adjacent site to facilitate a more cohesive development. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites proposed to date exceeds the City's RHNA. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units (with some additional surplus to meet HCD's realistic capacity and Affordability criteria requirements). A map has been prepared (see Attachment CC -2) that identifies all the sites proposed to date. An accompanying table (Attachment CC -3) provides additional information about each site. Sites are listed in alphabetical order by category except lot consolidation potential sites which are listed immediately adjacent to the site for which potential has been identified. The attachments include direction and preference as indicated by the Housing Commission as well as the Planning Commission (see discussion below). Sites that do not meet criteria or were suggested by the Planning Commission for removal have been indicated with a strikeout. The consultant has reviewed and categorized sites for their potential to meet HCD as well as the secondary criteria and listed them as Low, Moderate and High priority. It is recommended that the sites that have been categorized "low" be removed from the list of sites to ensure a manageable list of sites for study in the Environmental Impact Report. Summary of February 19, 2014 Planning Commission Open House and Study Session On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission held an Open House and Study Session on the Housing Element, with a focus on reviewing and commenting on potential Housing Element sites identified to date. This meeting also addressed the concurrent General Plan Amendment process. (See Attachment CC -4 — Planning Commission Staff Report) During the open house, residents and stakeholders were invited to review posters to understand "What is a Housing Element" and a map indicating potential Housing Element sites identified to date. Posters showing the General Plan alternatives were also available. Staff and consultants answered questions at the Open House from several residents and stakeholders. Staff and consultants provided a presentation on the GPA and Housing Element during the Study Session and the Planning Commission received public testimony and provided comments on the priority of on Housing Sites. The following is a summary of comments from the Planning Commission and the public. Where applicable, staff comments are noted in italics. 11 Comments from the Public The following is a summary of the key points made at the meeting: • Building heights should reflect the character of the City and neighborhoods in which they are located • New housing should be distributed throughout Cupertino • Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the siting of housing (see comments on school impacts later in this staff report) • There is a need for more affordable housing, especially rental housing • Smaller units are preferable over larger units Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission recommended that in addition to retaining existing Housing Element sites that the balance of the sites be prioritized. They also recommended that the list of potential Housing Element sites be shortened with the following criteria in mind: • Successful Shopping Centers - The Planning Commission noted that the existing uses on sites should be reviewed carefully to purge the list of sites that should not be considered housing element sites. Particularly, the Commission discussed that sites that are developed with currently successful commercial centers should not be priority housing sites. Specifically, the Commission discussed not considering Cupertino Village and Marketplace as good candidates for the Housing Element sites list. • Institutional Sites - The Planning Commission agreed that sites that are owned by utility companies or by the State or Federal Government should not be considered as good candidates for the Housing Element sites list since the likelihood of these properties being redeveloped in the current Housing Element cycle is minimal. • Small Sites with low yield or no Property Owner interest - The Planning Commission recommended that smaller sites that yield limited or marginal housing or where property owners have not indicated interest in redevelopment as a housing site be removed from the list. ■ Distribute Housing - The Planning Commission recommended that the Hamptons site and the Vallco site be reviewed as high priority Housing Element sites. In addition to these, the Planning Commission indicated their preference to include sites along Foothill Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard to distribute potential housing development throughout the City. ■ Encourage Development along Priority Development Area (PDA) - The Planning Commission suggested that the City Council review densities along major mixed -use corridors and possibly amend existing densities along the City's PDA to be consistent with existing densities along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. This is consistent with the secondary criteria developed for the housing sites. ■ Minimize Impacts to Schools - Some Commissioners stated that the preference be that housing sites be selected based on where the school impacts might be low. The City cannot 12 consider impacts on schools as a result of new housing developments. SB 50 (State Government Code sections 65995 -65998 and Education Code sections 17620 - 17621) preempts CEQA consideration and mitigation of impacts on school facilities (such as the need for new or expanded schools due to additional enrollment caused by new development). If new development pays standard school impact fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools nor may such projects be denied based on schools impacts (See Attachment CC -5 — Memo on Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications). In addition, State law prohibits the City from using its planning and zoning powers to deny residency to, make housing unavailable to, or discriminate against, families with children. However, for large projects, there is the potential for negotiated Development Agreements to result in additional benefits such as contributions towards schools, pocket parks, and traffic improvement. The following table indicates the sites, in addition to the existing Housing Element sites, that the Planning Commission recommended as priority sites for study: Site Site Name and Land Use Current Size Density Realistic No. Location Designation Zoning (Acres) (DU /A) Capacity Lot Consolidation Sites (adjacent to existing Housing Element sites) East of E. Estates Commercial/ P(CG, Res) 25 19541 Richwood Dr. Office/ Residential East of E. Estates Commercial/ L7 P(CG, Res) 2.16* 25 45 19550 Stevens Creek Blvd Office/ Residential East of E. Estates Commercial/ 10055 Miller Ave Office/ Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Property Owner Development Interest Sites (Density requested indicated) Batch Brothers Commercial/ P1 P(CG) 0.67 20-35 11 —19 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd Residential Foothill Market ( @McClellan) Commercial/ P3 P(CG) 1.3 20-25 22-27 10625 S Foothill Blvd Residential The Hamptons High Density 686— P6 P(Res) 12.44 65-110 19500 Pruneridge Ave Residential (20 -35) 1162 Vallco Mall Commercial/ P(Regional P7 32.9 35 600-800 10123 N Wolfe Rd Residential Shopping) Summerwinds & Granite Rock Commercial/ P(CG, Res P8 1471, 1491 & 1505 S De Anza 4.13 25-40 87-140 Of Office/ Residential 5 -15) Blvd * Includes portion of E. Estates Drive 13 Environmental Review A combined Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the General Plan Amendment and the 2014 -2022 Housing Element projects. The preparation of the EIR will commence once the City Council provides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as part of each alternative studied in the EIR. The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting (scheduled for March 11, 2014), which includes a 30 -day comment period, to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the contents of the EIR, including the range of alternatives. The final scope of the EIR, including possible additional alternatives, will be determined following completion of the scoping process. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable range of alternatives," and should briefly discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected for further analysis during the scoping process. A proposed alternative need not be considered if it would not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, would not meet most of the basic project objectives, is infeasible, or is not needed to have a "reasonable range" of alternatives. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months, and that the Draft EIR will be released for a 45 -day public review period in late Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR and responses to comments will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014. EIR Alternatives and Density Considerations for Sites At this time, the only sites proposed to be eliminated from the study are those that do not meet the HCD and secondary criteria ( "criteria "), and those suggested by the Planning Commission for removal. In addition, each General Plan alternative will include sites as follows: ■ Alternative A - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that meet the 2005 General Plan. Sites that are proposed with minimum densities exceeding the 2005 General Plan or those that require land use changes or rezoning will be eliminated except for one site located in the South De Anza Area. The density in this area is being increased to 25 dwelling units per acre. ■ Alternative B - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included at densities that fall between Alternative A and Alternative C. This alternative will include sites that require changes to General Plan land use and rezoning but at densities lower than the maximum densities proposed by applicants. The densities will be reviewed for building height assumptions in Alternative B to ensure that the building envelopes do not exceed the 14 assumptions. Housing Element sites proposed by property owners along major transportation corridors will be studied at 35 dwelling units per acre. ■ Alternative C - All housing sites that meet criteria will be included in this alternative. This alternative includes sites that range from those that meet the 2005 General Plan to those that require land use and increased densities. This alternative includes sites at the maximum density proposed by applicants. It should be noted that a lower density on a site will increase the number of sites that need to be picked to cumulatively reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation. Additionally, sites that do not have densities of 25 dwelling units per acre (realistic density of 20 dwelling units per acre) will not meet HCD's affordability criteria. As noted above, the final scope of the EIR, including possible additional alternatives will be determined following completion of the scoping process. The final decision on the list of sites will be made in Fall 2014 upon certification of the EIR. Other Housing Element Requirements Update Housing Policies The update of the Housing Element has been divided into two areas of review. The first area of review is the subject of this meeting - identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the City to accommodate the City's RHNA. The second area of review is an analysis and update of the existing policies and programs which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1, 2014 at a Joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting.) Streamlined HCD Review HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain criteria. Streamlined review provides for expeditious review and limits the areas of the Housing Element on which the HCD staff can comment. HCD's standard review generally takes longer, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. For details on the criteria for eligibility for streamlined review of the Housing Element, please see Attachment CC -2. The City currently complies with almost all of the requirements to qualify for the streamlined review except for the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms to State Law. The City has to comply with State Law with or without an updated ordinance. However, having an updated ordinance will allow the City to be eligible for streamlined review and needs to be completed prior to HCD review of the Draft Housing Element. This ordinance will be available for Planning Commission review and Council adoption at the same time as the Draft Housing Element in Fall 2014. The Draft will be forwarded to HCD as soon as it is adopted in Fall 2014. The HCD has 60 days to comment on the document, after which the City has to make any necessary revisions to the Draft and adopt the final Housing Element. The due date for adoption is January 31, 2015. An additional grace period of 120 days is also provided. If the City does not meet the deadline for adoption, the Housing Element will have to be updated 15 every four years instead of every eight years. In addition, the City, potentially, could be subject to litigation and automatic approval of housing on identified Housing Element sites at a minimum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Other Items for Council Consideration Gross Density vs. Net Density The Council has in the past indicated that density should not be calculated on the gross acreage (including a portion of adjacent street area) of a property as currently allowed by the City's Zoning Code. The number of units assumed for the Housing Element sites are based only on net lot area and do not include portions of adjacent streets. The related changes to the Zoning Code will be made in conjunction with the General Plan amendment. In addition, the Heart of the City Specific Plan allows residential density to only be calculated on the acreage of a property net of the areas that service retail development. This requirement may reduce the yield and net density on a project site, which could either result in the mixed - use sites not meeting affordability criteria and /or requiring additional sites to be rezoned due to the low yield. These issues will be analyzed and discussed in the Draft Housing Element. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH In addition to the open house and study session at the Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date. Postcards A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce upcoming dates on the General Plan and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provides a brief description of the two projects and identifies the project website where interested person may sign up for project updates and further notices. Website A website has been set up for the combined General Plan and Housing Element projects at www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices and other important information are available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website. The website also has a separate tab for the Housing Element project which provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Meetings Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. A summary of the key comments from this meeting is available in Attachment CC -2. 16 Joint PC /HC Workshop On January 23, 2014 the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. A summary of the comments is available in Attachment CC -2. February 12 Housing Commission Workshop On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the RHNA of 1,064. A summary of the comments from the workshop is available in Attachment CC -2. The Housing Commission recommended forwarding all the sites highlighted by the workshop participants as priority sites to the Planning Commission for consideration. Noticing for March 4, 2014 City Council meeting The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting. NEXT STEPS The goal for this study session is for the City Council to review and provide comments on the Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. City Council may choose to organize priority sites into tiers based on preference for inclusion or provide direction on removal of sites. The policy portion of the review of the Housing Element will be presented to the Housing Commission on March 19, 2014 and the Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint meeting on April 1, 2014. Upon completion of the Final EIR in late Summer 2014, the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and presented to the Council in Fall 2014 for adoption. The approved Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housing sites to meet the RHNA (which may include sites that require General Plan Amendments and rezoning, depending on Council's selection of sites). In addition, in order to comply with streamlined HCD review, a Density Bonus Ordinance will be prepared for review 17 • Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project website board (one week prior to the hearing) • Letters sent to current Housing Element ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site site property owners, interested (one week prior to the hearing) property owners and owners of sites ■ Posted on the project Website (one week prior identified at the workshops to hearing) NEXT STEPS The goal for this study session is for the City Council to review and provide comments on the Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. City Council may choose to organize priority sites into tiers based on preference for inclusion or provide direction on removal of sites. The policy portion of the review of the Housing Element will be presented to the Housing Commission on March 19, 2014 and the Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint meeting on April 1, 2014. Upon completion of the Final EIR in late Summer 2014, the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and presented to the Council in Fall 2014 for adoption. The approved Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housing sites to meet the RHNA (which may include sites that require General Plan Amendments and rezoning, depending on Council's selection of sites). In addition, in order to comply with streamlined HCD review, a Density Bonus Ordinance will be prepared for review 17 and adoption. After Council adoption, the Draft Housing Element will be forwarded to HCD for its review. Upon HCD's review, any necessary revisions will be made and the final Housing Element will be presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in January 2015. Prepared by: Pin Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Reviewed bv- Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments CC -1. Housing Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2014 CC -2. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated CC -3. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with PC and HC Priorities Indicated CC -4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 19, 2014 CC -5. Memo - Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications im ATTACHMENT CC -1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 CVPERTINO HOUSING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: February 12, 2014 SUBJECT: 2015 -2023 Housing Element Update —Sites Identification RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Housing Commission accept the report on potential Housing Element sites, host a community workshop to discuss housing site identification criteria and sites, and reconvene to provide direction to staff on priority housing sites. BACKGROUND: Housing Element Overview The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element specifies ways in which housing needs of existing and future resident populations can be met, and provides a comprehensive strategy for maintaining and expanding the City's housing supply available to all economic segments in the community, including very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development. State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre- determined cycle; for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120 -day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). As required by the California legislature and codified in the Government Code, Housing Elements must include specific analysis and must meet statutory requirements regarding contents. State law mandates that all Housing Elements must: 1) identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs, 2) discuss constraints to housing development, and 3) identify resources to meet housing needs (including identification of adequate sites to accommodate housing needs of all economic segments of the community). The Housing 19 Page 2 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Element must include a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for reviewing Housing Elements to determine compliance with Housing Element law. HCD also is the responsible body for establishing the statewide the quantified objectives for regional housing needs —the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( "RHNA "). Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA estimates are also correlated with long -term regional transportation plans. HCD allocates the RHNA to each region. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the regional planning agency, is tasked with the responsibility of developing a regional housing plan—with a RHNA for each jurisdiction —to meet existing and future housing needs. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels. The income levels are separated into four categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City's housing needs allocation for the period of 2015 -2023 is 1,064 new housing units. The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. Income Group Very Low RHNA 356 Low 207 Moderate 231 Above Moderate 270 Total 1,064 HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites /units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. DISCUSSION: Housing Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. This analysis must 20 Page 3 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 demonstrate that identified sites can accommodate the housing needs —by income level — within the planning period of the element (2015- 2023). While the site suitability review has a degree of subjectivity, HCD review primarily focuses on the following criteria in determining the likelihood that a developed site will be converted to some form of housing over the planning period: existing use on the site, realistic potential for recycling, site size and ownership patterns, and development density. 1. Existing Use on the Site. HCD generally does not consider the following types of sites good candidates for private residential development: • Sites with existing multi - family housing developments consisting of 10 or more units, due to the potential loss of existing investment and revenue stream to the owner, unless the owner indicates his/her interest in redeveloping the site with additional residential uses. • Sites with condominium developments, since they typically have complicated ownership patterns and a developer would have to reach sales agreements with multiple owners. • Well- established organizations and institutions because of the difficulty such organizations and institutions would face relocating to locations, unless the owner indicates his /her interest in redeveloping the site with residential uses. HCD requires a more detailed analysis of redevelopment potential on sites with the above types of uses. However, where adjacent vacant space is available and existing uses would not be removed, HCD does not generally consider the existing use on the site a cause for concern. 2. Realistic Potential for Recycling. HCD evaluates the feasibility of redevelopment based on a variety of factors, some of which include property owner interest in redevelopment with housing, market factors related to location or site characteristics, existing uses on the site that are highly valued and anticipated to remain, the condition and age of existing development on the site, and environmental liability risks, such as land contamination. 3. Site Size and Ownership Patterns. HCD believes that larger sites provide the opportunity to increase capacity potential and to provide flexibility with regard to design, public amenities, mix of housing types, and mixed use development. It also believes that lot consolidation potential of parcels can be a factor in determining site suitability. Lot consolidation potential can be based on ownership patterns (single, limited, or multiple owners), history of lot consolidation in the area, and specific knowledge of owner interest in lot consolidation. Where lot consolidation potential is likely, the time and cost associated with development is reduced and thus the likelihood of redevelopment is increased. 21 Page 4 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 4. Development Density. HCD has identified a density of 20 units per acre as adequate to encourage the development of affordable housing in Santa Clara County due to economies of scale that a developer can achieve. Sites that permit a density of less than 20 units per acre would not be considered as appropriate for fulfilling the lower- income RHNA requirement but could be appropriate for fulfilling the moderate and above moderate income RHNA requirement. In addition, HCD also evaluates the realistic yield for each site proposed to be on the Housing Sites Inventory. In Cupertino, HCD has accepted a realistic yield of 85% of the maximum density allowed on the site, based on city- specific historic project approval data. This means that for a one acre site, the maximum yield at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre is 25 units. However, the realistic yield for Housing Element purposes is (25 * 85 %) = 21 units. Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State -wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The One Bay Area Plan is a long -range integrated transportation and land- use /housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013. ABAG determined the City's and other local jurisdictions RHNA based on the Plan. Pursuant to SB375, the Plan includes the regions Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). PDA's are locally designated areas within existing communities that have been identified and approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are typically accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and other services and absorb much of the growth anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the Priority Development Areas are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280 (see Attachment HC -1 — VTA PDA Map) The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan. Key themes include: 1. Location along major transportation routes with access to transit or within 1/2 mile of a VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) 2. Proximity to employment and activity centers 3. Proximity to amenities 4. Corner lot(s) preferred — such parcels provide the most flexibility to accommodate mixed -use developments and avoid impeding parking and connectivity between mid -block parcels. 22 Page 5 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Potential Housing Element Sites Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. No decisions regarding rezoning, density increases, or inclusion in the Housing Element has yet been made. Through this study session, the City will continue to discuss sites with the public. Additional sites may be identified via public input and Commissioner discussion. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites listed below, at the maximum densities proposed, is 5,426. A map has been prepared (see Attachment HC -2) which identifies all the sites discussed below. Existing Housing Element sites: The 2007 -2014 Housing Element identified 13 sites (See Table 1 below.) Of these, four sites have since been developed and three sites do not meet the criteria discussed previously and have been identified in the table below with strikethroughs. For specifics on these sites, please see Attachment HC -3 (Site Criteria). Table 1: Existing Housing Element Sites No Sites Address Size (acres) Max. Density (DU/gr. ac.) Current Land Use Designation Current Zoning r�9 Res) r�„V� r� 94 2-5 Res) r�„V� 2. I- Restaurant 20007 Stevens Creek Blvd 1.35 25 Commercial/ Office/ Residential P(CG, Res) 3. 7 'r rl site nn r�} 4a. r,,.,,.,a tz „FF ti fleas 20 0-30 c +,,.,e r d iiOffiE, i Res} R„V; ai -- -- -� Pr--p. 40074 S. �� 9� zZJ Commer-Eiall QffiEe� � ^, Reo 1? -- -- -� - - -r' 4.96 2-5 4b. r,. ,,.,,, , ,.f � ;nnl n r ,,,, -� 9-47 Q f fiE, i �7 Res} r� C,,,,4 94 2-5 Q f fiE, i Res) n 23 Page 6 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 24 Size Max. Current Land Use Current No Sites Address Density (acres) Designation Zoning (DU/gr. ac.) � g I aa2( R r � 9- 2-5 6. cry +4,,,,, I aann c+ ., r,.,,,,,, i i Q f fiEe i r� r,,,,,l�� Res} 7. United 10025 E. Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates 0.92 25 Residential Res) United 10075 E. Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates 0.53 25 Residential Res) United 10075 E. Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Furniture Estates 0.86 25 Residential Res) 8. Barry Swenson 19160 Stevens Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Site Creek Blvd 0.55 25 Residential Res) 9. Loree Center 10029 Judy Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Ave 0.43 25 Residential Res) Loree Center 19060 Stevens Commercial/ Office/ P(CG, Creek Blvd 0.86 25 Residential Res) 10. 40500 1,- ,a44 0- +„;. v Rage n ,tea? Rem) 40400 lndi str-i i i Rage n ,tea? Rem) 11. Glenbrook 10160 Med /High Density Apt. Parkwood 11.62 20 (10 -20) R3 Glenbrook 21297 Med /High Density Apt. Parkwood 19.72 20 (10 -20) R3 12. The Villages 20800 Valley Med /High Density Apt. Green Dr. 5.35 20 (10 -20) R3 The Villages 20975 Valley Med /High Density 5.49 20 R3 Apt. Green Dr. (10 -20) The Villages 20990 Valley Med /High Density Apt. Green Dr. 6.78 20 (10 -20) R3 The Villages 20800 Valley Med /High Density 2.69 20 R3 Apt. Green Dr. (10 -20) The Villages 20875 Valley Med /High Density Apt. Green Dr. 6.79 20 (10 -20) R3 13. Carl Berg 20705 Valley Office / Industrial/ property Green Dr. 7.98 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Residential ML, Res) 24 Page 7 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Sites Proposed By Property Owners Several property owners have indicated interest in being considered to be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory list. Table 2 below identifies the sites and the current and desired development potential. Sites are listed in alphabetical order and are not in any particular order of priority. Details about the site criteria are available in Attachment HC -3. Table 2: Sites Proposed By Property Owners 25 Existing Desired Current Land Size Density Current Site Density Use Current Use (acres) (DU /gr. Zoning (DU /acre) Designation ac.) Bateh Brothers (S -W ±0.67 15 20-35 Commercial/ P(CG) Convenience corner of Foothill Residential store Blvd & Stevens Creek Blvd) Cupertino Village ±12 25 35-40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Commercial Residential strip mall Foothill Market ±1.3 15 20-25 Commercial/ P(CG) Commercial (Stevens Canyon Rd Residential strip mall at McClellan Rd) Marina Plaza ±4.35 25 25-40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Commercial Residential strip mall Market Place ±9.9 25 25-35 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Three newer & Residential one aging commercial building Stevens Creek Office ±4.8 25 35 Commercial/ P(CG, Res) Office Center Residential buildings The Hamptons ±12 25 65 -110 High density P(Res) Apartment residential 20- complex with 35 DU/gr ac 342 units Vallco Mall ±35 35 No Commercial/ P(Regional Indoor Mall change Residential Shopping) Wonderland ±1.83 None/ 1 -5 20-25 Quasi- public/ BQ/R1 -10 Pre - school/ Chinese School & Institutional & After - school & 10921 Maxine Low Density Single family Avenue Residential home Yamagami s ±2.33 15 25-40 Commercial/ P(CG, Res Commercial Nursery Office/ 5 -15) strip mall and Residential nurser 25 Page 8 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants In addition to the sites that have been proposed by property owners, participants at the January 23, 2014 workshop identified several other sites as having potential for residential development or redevelopment. These sites have been provided in Table 3 below. Sites are listed in alphabetical order and are not in any particular order of priority. Details about the site criteria are available in Attachment HC -3. Table 3: Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU /gr. Designation acre) 21731 Stevens 0.62 4.4-12 Neighborhood P(CN, Strip mall Martial Arts school, dry Creek Blvd (Next Commercial, ML, Res cleaners and beauty salon to Post Office) Industrial and 4.4 -12) Residential 76 gas station and ±0.7 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Gas station Odd shaped site. adjacent office Residential ML, and office building (10625 N. Res) building De Anza Blvd & 20545 Valley Green Ave) Abundant Life ±3.8 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Church This site was considered Church (N. Residential Res) as a Housing Element site Stelling Road) in the 2007 -2014 planning cycle. At that time the property owners had not expressed interest Caltrans (on Bubb ±2.9 20 Industrial/ ML -rc Service/ This property owned by Road) Residential Corp. Yard the State of CA is used as their Corp. Yard. Cupertino ±14.7 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Shopping A portion of the site was Crossroads Residential Res) Center recently redeveloped and the balance of the site is mostly tenanted with the exception of one or two tenant spaces. Cupertino ±4.4 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Office This site has recently been Financial Center Residential OP, complex acquired by JP Morgan (NE corner of Res) and has an office Wolfe and SCB) building. 26 Page 9 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU /gr. Designation acre) Cypress Hotel ±1.3 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Hotel Site is developed with a Residential Res) hotel that has property lines contiguous with its footprint. Evulich Ct @ Linda ±2.5 5 Low Density R1 -7.5 Single Older homes on Vista Dr Residential Family underdeveloped lots Good Samaritan ±1.36 25 Quasi- public/ BQ Church Existing Church Church Institutional (Homestead Rd) Homestead Lanes ±4.6 35 Commercial/ P(Rec, Bowling Older shopping center and adjacent sites Residential Enter) & alley & (20990, 20956 & P(CG) adjacent 20916 Homestead) strip malls Homestead Road ±5.4 15 Commercial/ P(CG) Office May be an appropriate (21020, 21040, Residential buildings, multi - family housing site 21060, 21070 parking lot at a higher density. Homestead and and tennis APN: 326 07 036 courts and 326 07 033) Main Street (East ±11.5 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Mixed use Site is currently under of Finch Ave) Residential OP, with hotel, construction pursuant to Res) commercial entitlements that the and office property owner received in 2012. Oaks Shopping ±7.9 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Site has entitlements for a Center Residential Res) and theater mixed use office building and hotel which expires in Sept. 2014. PG &E Service ±21.6 N/A Quasi- public/ BQ Corp. Yard PG &E has not expressed Yard (N. Blaney Institutional interest in redevelopment Ave) of site PG &E lower ±10.6 N/A Quasi- public/ A Power PG &E has not expressed Substation (CA Institutional Substation interest in redevelopment Oak Way) of site Portal Plaza ±5.22 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Shopping Center. (Between Portal & Residential Res) Minimal vacancy at this Perimeter) site. 27 Page 10 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 Site Size Current Current Land Current Current Comments (acres) Density Use Zoning Use (DU /gr. Designation acre) Post Office site ±5.2 4.4-12 Neighborhood P(CN, Post Office This site is owned by the Commercial, ML, Res US Postal Service. Industrial and 4.4 -12) Residential St. Joseph's Place ±2.2 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Strip mall Older shopping center (Cafe Torre site) Residential Res) Union Church of ±3 25 Commercial/ P(CG, Church, Existing Church with Cupertino Residential Res) Pre - school historic designation. This (Stevens Creek site has recently added an Blvd) annex building to increase services at the site. Village Green ±7.5 16 High Density R3 Existing Based on R3 zoning, Apartments Multi- family apartment maximum yield is 161 residential (20- complex units. For HCD's 35 DU /gross with 122 purposes, realistic yield is acre) units 137 units. Therefore, this property has the potential to add 16 more units. Very low yield. Open space availability needs to be studied. Vivi s Falafel 0.44 4.4-12 Neighborhood P(CN, Strip mall Restaurant and shoe (21771 Stevens Commercial, ML, Res repair store. Creek Blvd/ Next Industrial and 4.4 -12) to Post Office) Residential PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. A summary of common themes from the interviews is attached as Attachment HC -4. Summary of January 23 Joint PC /HC Workshop On January 23, the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased Page 11 Housing Commission Housing Element Study Session February 12, 2014 density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. See Attachment HC -5 for transcribed comments from the January 23rd small group discussions and Attachment HC -2 for a consolidated map of potential housing sites. The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting: Notice Agenda • Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project board (one week prior to the hearing) website ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web • Letters sent to current Housing site (one week prior to the hearing) Element site property owners and ■ Posted on the project Website (one week interested property owners prior to hearing) CONCLUSION The goal for this study session is to review the sites that have been presented to date, identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to, potentially, rank the sites in order of preference with the understanding that sites must be chosen such that the cumulative yield of all the sites picked add up to a total of 1,064 units to make a recommendation to Planning Commission on priority housing sites that should be considered to meet the RHNA. Prepared by: MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: /s/ Gary Chao Gary Chao City Planner Attachments HC -1. HC -2. HC -3. HC -4. HC -5. Approved by: /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director VTA PDA Map Consolidated Sites Map - Potential 2015 -2023 Housing Element Sites Site Criteria Matrix Common themes from Stakeholder interviews Transcribed comments from January 23, 2014 meeting 29 ATTACHMENT HC -4 Common themes that emerged from December 11 & 12, 2013 stakeholder interviews ■ Housing Needs: • Overall housing affordability and the difference between housing demand and supply at all income levels • Need for diversity of affordable rental units at all income levels and all household types • Need to accommodate a growing aging population • Smaller units including innovative housing models (e.g. dorms/boarding houses, senior care homes, efficiency studios, shared & co- housing, micro units) • Community acceptance: • Acceptance is low due to impacts on schools, privacy, parking, noise and traffic • Support for mixed use development in the style of Santana Row and Downtown Mountain View • Improved local governmental transparency and community development • Type of development: o Developers and advocates felt that three to five story development is appropriate for adding units but community representatives are concerned about increased height of multi - family development • Barriers to development of affordable housing include: • Financial constraints, particularly due to the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and elimination of many federal and state funding sources and • Lack of community and political support for housing • Community and Business Groups: • Housing is a "choke point" in regional economy since it is hard to attract and retain employees in a highly competitive housing market • Several interviewees felt that private employers should be obligated to provide more resources to housing • Many felt that while employers feel concerned about schools and housing, they generally work to limit fees and taxes to businesses • School Districts: • Schools in the northern part of the City are impacted due to higher student generation rates in existing housing while capacity in the south of the city is declining, likely due to aging households. • Capacity, where needed, is being expanded by adding new buildings or, preferably, temporary and modular units. • Currently using programs, centers and busing to distribute students • Reluctant to re- district since homeowners purchase homes based on the school service areas • Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fees will be allocated to the Santa Clara Unified School District while they expect that most employees who move to the area will reside within the CUSD service area 30 ATTACHMENT CC -2 i/ /�„ /ice i i, y �. MX �' HOMESTEAD RD "„ r v , /, �'�! „ "', „`� •� •w vn��ev �RF .. I �'RUNEI2► GE AV / lj / /`• !: L ".�r.r �•� } C FN • W ...:.. Q LU / o o o Q �l w °z ¢ ,� "' LU C m z z > ca Q 0 u 1/0 SALEM AVE 2 f Z s ALVES R � � I BALL Op 4,'j= LLJ !/ %' w "' �� '¢ STEVENS CREEK BLVD I .: f7 7 % ma o L�- •''L.. w ¢ �� ���y„ H J N FFF 2 7 MCCLELLAN RD � Q vi z [Vir� - z T _ w � W • Q W �r HYANNISPORT DR r .�.. �,. _J •• I, BOLLINr' J .. o ""�*►, •#....DER R cc 0 z r //a, Aj /F r RAINBOW DR 1114, Off J / *,, idenfied a; ,,, / iii, / � i // PROSPECT RD ; I i/ / z� !"AAA/1111111, % GIS / Sc c � .. o f i - / r r I .. City Boundary Potential to Meet HCD Criteria Priority Sites based on Planning Commission Workshop oz 1 ❑ Y g P ( / 9/ 4) Site Number: Realistic Capacity Note. see attached list or site details. f WaterFeature High Remove g SiteT a (examples): YP Realistic capacity is 85% Of Freeways Moderate Priority Sites based on Housing Commission Workshop (02/12/14) Site included in 2007 Housing Element maximum capacity, consistent the Housing Element. Ma'or Roads i VTA Priority Development Area (PDA) VIVIVI Low Conflicting Consensus based on Housing Commission Workshop (02/12/14) Site Proposed by Property Owner with � Site Proposed by Workshop Participants [a 31 Potential Housing Sites Potential Housing Element Sites ATTACHMENT CC -3 32 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. L` Frioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP 0 0 v v o � w o � m y Q Current v 3> O o a°, 0 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q U C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X •m ,� N Q iC •� U m > '� Q C7 Q BOA U w � v� +' y y O U') 0 Existing Sites in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element (+ Consolidation Sites) Commercial/ Furniture 2000 19875 Stevens Existing HE Office/ P CG, Res X X 1.78 25 37 NA 1 Residential Commercial/ — Yoshino� 19855 Stevens — Existing HE — — —cam P(CG, Res — X — i_ — 0.24 25 — 5 — — — — IAA — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �reeTc ICvc s Residential sa ri estaurant 20007 Stevens Existing HE ommercia 2 (Erstwhile I- Office/ P(CG, Res) 1.35 25 Viable site based on previous review by HCD Creek Blvd site Restaurant ) Residential 10041 N. Blaney Commercial/ Former Q -mart site and China Dance Studio. L2 Q -Mart Ave New site Office/ P(CG, Res) 25 36 • These two additional parcels (one parcel owned by the propertjsite Residential for Shaan Restaurant) improves site potential and allows for bet Commercial/ design and integration. L2 China Dance Studio 20021 Stevens LNewe Office/ P(CG, Res) 25 •Has been recommended for inclusion by workshop participant Creek Blvd Residential PC. Commercial/ 3 7 -11 site behind 10073 Saich Way Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) X X 0.77 25 16 NA b Residential Commercial/ 20030 Stevens Existing HE Grand Buffet/ Boas Office/ P(CG, Res) 1.16 25 NA — - -- — EreelrBl� — sites — — — -- - -- — - -- — -- — — -- — -------- - - - - -- Residential Commercial/ Lackey Prop. (SCB & Existing HE 4a. 10071 S. S. Blaney Ave Office) P(CG, Res) X X 0.37 25 59 NA — siw — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Residential Commercial/ Lackey Prop. (SCB & Existing HE 10031 S. Blane Ave Office/ P(CG, Res ) 1.36 25 NA 1 Residential Commercial/ Corner of SCB & 20010 Stevens Existing HE 4b. Office/ P(CG, Res) X 0.47 25 9 NA -------- - - - - -- Residential Commercial/ 19930 Stevens Existing HE Ara Office/ P(CG, Res 0.44 25 9 NA 1 s' 5 Residential X Commercial/ 19936 Stevens Existing HE Ar a Parking Lot Office/ P(CG, Res) 0.52 25 10 NA --&e 1 s' Residential 32 Potential Housing Element Sites Page 2 of 11 33 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site YP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X •m ,� N Q iC •� U m > '� Q C7 Q BOA V w � v� +' y y O U') 0 Commercial/ 6 SD Furniture 19900 Stevens Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) X 1.92 25 40 NA 1 s' Residential Commercial/ United Furniture 10025 E. Estates Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) 0.92 25 site Residential Commercial/ 7 United Furniture 10075 E. Estates Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) 0.53 25 58 Viable site based on previous review by HCD site Residential C ommercial/ United Furniture 10075 E. Estates Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) 0.86 25 site Residential ommercia 19541 Richwood Dr. New site Office/ P(CG, Res) 25 [L7 7ofE. Residential Faa e sites in conjunction with the United Furniture site could allo 19550 Stevens Commercial/ . designed mixed use develo ment. g P Creek Blvd New site Office/ P(CG, Res) 25 45 • Some of these properties are owned b the same property owner as the P P Y P P tY Residential United Furniture sites. Commercial/ L7 East of E. Estates 10055 Miller Ave New site Office/ P(CG, Res) 25 Caniniefc.a a w WRTFAREMMM 8 Barry Swenson Site 19160 Stevens Existing HE Office/ P(CG, Res) X X 0.55 25 11 Viable site based on previous review by HCD Creek Blvd site Residential Commercial a Center 10029 Judy Ave Existing E g Office/ P(CG, Res ) 0.43 25 • Strip mall with low vacancy IIII site Residential •Decreased vacancy and site improvements (compared with conditions in 9 27 " "" 2007 HE). 19060 Stevens Existing HE Commercial/ • Site has had a minor facelift and shell is from the 1950's. HCD may still Y Loree Center Creek Blvd site Office/ P(CG, Res) 0.86 25 / / a rove of this site as a HE site. PP Residential Existing HE Industrial/ Morley Bros. 10500 Pruneridge P(MP, Res) 2.8 25 NA site Residential X 7 Existing HE Industrial/ Morley Bros. 10400 Pruneridge P(MP, Res) 5.69 25 NA site Residential 33 Potential Housing Element Sites Le end: Glenbrook Apt. 10160 Parkwood Legend: Density Residential R3 rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) (10 -20) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Glenbrook Apt. 21297 Parkwood Existing HE site Density Residential R3 HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - nr The Villages Apt. �n �n 20800 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site edigi Density Residential �w�wn nm R3 �n Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP (10 -20) Med /High 0 0 The Villages Apt. 20975 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 v v o � w 10 -20 Med /High o � m v The Villages Apt. 20990 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 U 10 -20 o 0 3 a Site Current Current to v 3> a, •� o a°, U v a° v G Q N Q C5 m C5 Notes, Comments and Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use c" Q o w v F� U 0 3 0 20875 Valley Green Dr. 0 No. R3 Zoning ,� v o 0. ala-24aL ffice/ a ° a v H Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Mr Designation 13 X 20705 Valley Green Dr. N Q Industrial/ Commercial/ P(CG, ML, Res) U m > Q C7 Q 'NM ... U �wwwry .. mm mw Ow "nom w "nom ..,. wry MW I w � v v v G U') 0 c o 11.62 25 � 93 19.72 25 5.35 25 5.49 25 X 1 6.78 1 25 1 62 2.69 1 25 6.79 1 25 7.98 L 25 169 t � j M" NINNMR "wire WRY � 34 II p II I site based on previous review by HCD site based on previous review by HCD able site based on previous review by HCD Page 3 of 11 11 11 Glenbrook Apt. 10160 Parkwood Existing HE site Density Residential R3 11 (10 -20) Med /High Glenbrook Apt. 21297 Parkwood Existing HE site Density Residential R3 nr The Villages Apt. �n �n 20800 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site edigi Density Residential �w�wn nm R3 �n nm (10 -20) Med /High The Villages Apt. 20975 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 10 -20 Med /High 12 The Villages Apt. 20990 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 10 -20 Med /High The Villages Apt. 20800 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 10 -20 Med /High The Villages Apt. 20875 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Density Residential R3 0. ala-24aL ffice/ 4M on OW am WWWWWW Mr 13 Carl Berg property 20705 Valley Green Dr. Existing HE site Industrial/ Commercial/ P(CG, ML, Res) �N euire wm wren euIMP nm wren wirer euirereww mm 'NM ... Residential » ..... �wwwry .. mm mw Ow "nom w "nom ..,. wry MW I 11.62 25 � 93 19.72 25 5.35 25 5.49 25 X 1 6.78 1 25 1 62 2.69 1 25 6.79 1 25 7.98 L 25 169 t � j M" NINNMR "wire WRY � 34 II p II I site based on previous review by HCD site based on previous review by HCD able site based on previous review by HCD Page 3 of 11 11 11 Potential Housing Element Sites Page 4 of 11 35 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� U v v G N Q U C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site YP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X ,� N Q U m > Q C7 Q U w � v v v G U') 0 Owner Development Interest Sites (+ Consolidation sites) • Existing convenience store and undeveloped site. 7Commercial/ • Viable site due to expressed property owner to redevelop, largely Property (rolperty unimproved property conditions. Bateh Brothers 22690 Stevens Owner P(CG) X X X 0.67 20-35 11-19 X X • Will not meet affordability criteria at density of 15 du /ac (Alternative B) Creek Blvd Development but will meet them at 25 du /acre (Alternative C). Interest • Location on City's west site was recommended by groups to distribute housing throughout the City. V" ww"Mmig ;"—MR MRIF "ff mpg" MRIF "WWWWR "MMM RWW am ""Mm no PF WN www"W" Romp go 9""P "MR" "M "Wim ""'prow ymp"r omm" "Womf "F WN "W"W "Pow9w "F"" %vow"" • " N ow "" Shopping Center with entitlements for 24,00 ss.f of commercial ' development and a parking garage. �) • While this is an adequate site, it is also a successful shopping center and Property an important tax generator. 10825 -10983 N Owner Commercial/ • The planned commercial additions to the site also lower its P2 Cupertino Village PLCG, Res 10.8 35-45 321-413 X Low —Vft fe � eve vrnmrrt — RenTterttiat — _ — — _ — _ — — — — — — — _ _ — — reetevelvprnrrtt pr"ntra+a"he e=ent CF- Ttensitp ofd dT"c— — Interest • In order to make redevelopment viable, and rebuild a good portion of the i� existing retail, this site would require a minimum density of over 35 du /aci and increased building heights. Perhaps more appropriate to be included in Alternatives B and C. " 7Property • Stri p Mall • Viable site due to expressed property owner to redevelop, and low Foothill @ McClellan intensity of usesl. 10625 S Foothill wner Commercial/ � � � � density du P3 Center (Foothill P(CG) X X X X L3 20-25 22-27 X X •Will not meet affordability criteria at of 15 /ac (Alternative B) Blvd Development Residential Market) but will meet them at 25 du /acre (Alternative C). Interest • Location on City's west site was recommended by groups to distribute housing throughout the City. • Commercial center Property •Relatively viable site due to expressed property owner interest to P4 Marina Plaza 10118 Bandley Owner Commercial/ 6.86 25-40 145-232 � 35 DUA - � 40DUA - � "�� redevelop, location at the City's core, and only if higher densities are Drive Development P Residential , �� .... allowed. However, this site will have to be combined with adjacent sites 1 Interest along tevens Creek and Bandle to create a mixed -use development g Y P includin g retail per City's preference. reference. Include in Alternatives B and C. 35 Potential Housing Element Sites Page 5 of 11 36 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site YP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X •m ,� N Q iC 1'+' •� U m > '� Q C7 Q BOA V w � v� y y O U') 0 IMNROMiNiu iu Property P h' mm""M "O"N""M ra_.._.. _.._.. • Office Complex P Stevens Creek Office 20823 Stevens wner Commercial/ � � � � � � "; � 'Viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop, P5 [D:evelopment P CG Res) ( ) X 6.31 35 241 X 35 DUA - ,� 's Center Creek Blvd Residential [[ [[[[ location at the Ci core and if hi her densities are allowed. Include in h' g terest Alternatives B and C. • Existing 342 unit apartment complex on site. • Viable site only if densities and heights are increased consider7ablyablv Property High Density existing (from 25 du /ac to 65 -110 du /ac). P6 The Hamptons 19500 Prnneridge Owner Residential P(Res) X 12.44 65 - 110 686 - 1162 X 65 DUA - � 110 DUA - • Expressed property owner interest to redevelop and close pro Ave Development � (20 -35) major transportation route (freeway) is a plus. Interest • Has the capacity to provide a considerable number if units if densities a increased. • Existing indoor mall with high vacancy rate with Sears and Macy's as anchor tenants. I Property P(Regional • Viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop, P7 Vallco Mall 10123 N Wolfe Rd Owner Commercial/ Shopping, � � � � � � � 32.9 35 600 - 800 � � � develo er interest in consolidation, close roximi to ma or trans orta p p ty j p Development Residential CG) route (freeway), and potential to provide a considerable number of units Interest VIII the site. Due to size of site, density of units may not have to be increased greatly over existing (35 du /ac) if entire site is used as a base. • Nurser and Outdoor building supply warehouse retail Y g PP Y Property hCommercial • Viable site due to expressed property howner interest to redevelop, the to P8 Summerwinds & 1471 1491 & 1505 S Owner Office P CG Res 5 X X X � � 4.13 25 - 40 87 -140 � 35 DUA - � 40 DUA - � intensity nature of the site a financial incentive for redevelopment), and if h' Granite Rock De Anza Blvd Development 15) densities are higher (25 du /ac) than currently allowed (15 du /ac.) Residential Interest • The location of the site in the southern end of the City presents an opportunity to distribute housing throughout the City. PP h' g g h' lopportunity Jack • in the Box drive-through Property • The low intensity nature of the site is a financial incentive for h' Commercial/ LP8 Jack in the Sox 1451 S. De Anza Owner Office/ P (CG Res 5 X X X � � 0.44 25-40 9 -14 � 35 DUA - � 40 DUA - � redevelopment, and if densities are higher 25 du ac than currently Blvd Development 15) allowed (15 du /ac.) Residential Interest • The location of the site in the southern end of the City presents an to distribute housing throughout the City. 36 Potential Housing Element Sites Page 6 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP v v 0 0 o � w o � m y Q Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� U v v G N Q U C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site YP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X ,� N Q U m > Q C7 Q U w � v v v G U') 0 ool After - school care and sin le famil residence l g Yte site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop an Property Quasi - public/ Wonderland Chinese e. P9 School and 10921 10931 and 10921 Owner Institutional & BQ/R1 -10 X X X X 1.83 20 - 25 31- 38 X X 25 DUA - � Low bility will depend on rezoning of the site (currently surrounded =WV\Thetherthe Maxine Ave Development Low Density Maxine density - 5 - 7 du /ac). If rezone at a higher density (20 du /ac) is n Interest Residential deemed incompatible with the surrounding area, remove. k. ommr r the site meets affordability criteria depends on rezoning. • Three newer and one older commercial building. • While this is an adequate site, it is also a successful shopping center and Property an important tax generator. P10 Marketplace 19750 and 19620 Owner Commercial/ P CG Res X 9.92 25 -35 210 -295 Low - The recent commercial additions to the site also lower its redevelopment i e t s e 1 e s t potentia as it signa s t at that t o property wi 1 pro a y remain a Interest commercial site in the near future. Lsife. • Viability depends on the realistic possibility of an approved rezone of the If rezone, is not realkfi, Sites Identified at Housing Element Workshops (1/23/14 and 2/12/14) • Office building Neighborhood • No expressed property owner to develop property. 21731 Stevens Creek Additional 21731 Stevens Commercial, P(CN, ML , � � � � � � • Will need increased density (about 20 du /ac.) to be viable, which is above W1 Blvd (Next to Post Potential Site X X 0.44 4.4 - 12 1- 4 Remove Creek Blvd Industrial & Res 4.4 -12) current maximum (12 du /ac.) Office) (Workshop) � Residential • Size of site (less than 0.5 acre) will create low yield to justify inclusion in Sites Inventor • 76 Gas Station and adjacent office building 76 Gas Station /Office Additional • Less than 1 acre in size, z 10625 N De Anza S' Commercial/ P(CG, ML , e v s p e e vd esi en is es) Valley Green) (Workshop) • Two separate property owners • Odd shape of site would also lend poorly for site planning purposes. • Church/Institutional site. Additional W3 Abundant Life li 10100 Stel n Rd Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG Res � X 3.8 25 80 � Remove • Unless there is expressed property owner interest to add housing to the hurch esi en is sire—or re eve op comp e e y, e poten ial or re eve opmen o c urc (Workshop) sites is low and HCD would be critical in reviewing this site. Additional • Caltrans Corp. Yard Caltrans 3 S. Industrial/ • Institutional. afn enance a ion esi en is _207 _41,_ Site s oul e remove due to current use as a altrans maintenance (Workshop) r rl F F I in an industrial area. 37 Potential Housing Element Sites Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Legend: Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. Page 7 of 11 i 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q U C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •m ,� iC +' •� U > C7 U w v y z 3 v Q v x v U') 0 • Bulk of site recently renovated. Rest of site mostly tenanted with one or two vacancies. Additional • Questionable viability as a housing site due to recent improvements and Cupertino 10041 S De Anza Commercial/ W5 Potential Site P(CG, Res) X 14.7 25 312 Low relative stability of the shopping center. Crossroads Blvd (Workshop) Residential • As there is no expressed property owner interest, the potential for redevelopment of a shopping center is very low. • Additionally, the City may want to preserve the site as a tax generator. • Well maintained office buildings in an office park environment recently Cupertino Financial Additional acquired by JP Morgan W6 Center (NE corner of 10050 N. Wolfe Rd Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG, OP, � X � � � � � 4.44 25 94 � � � Low • Redevelopment of this type of sites depend largely of developer/ property Wolfe and SCB) (Workshop) Residential Res) owner interest, which this site does not have. • While a case can be made for this site, a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential. • Hotel with property lines contiguous with hotel and parking garage • Low redevelopment potential due to current use as a newer, mid level Additional hotel W7 C ress Hotel 10050 S De Anza Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG Resj X X X 1.32 25 28 Remove • Redevelopment of these sites depend lar el of develo er ro er ty vd es- en is (Workshop) owner interest, which this site does not have. • HCD would look closely at this site and will likely not pass it since property owner interest is not there. • Church/Institutional. Good Samaritan Additional 19624 Homestead Quasi - public/ � � � � � � � � � Remove • Unless there is expressed property owner interest to add housing to the W8 Church (Homestead Potential Site B X 1.36 25 28 s i mm %iMM MMMrT 7MprMl7,-The7MeMMl ?(TrrJMe?TmTM o & Wolfe) (Workshop) sites is low and HCD would be critical in reviewing this site. • Single family homes and undeveloped land • Low density nature of the site and current use as single family homes 10857, 10867, 10877, Additional lowers the potential for redevelopment. W9 Evulich Ct @ Linda 10887 Linda Vista Potential Site Low Density R1 -7.5 X X 2.49 5 10 Remove • While the parcels have common ownership, the lack of property owner �is�a Dry �es�enhar _ _ _X _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ interest to mtensi y�owers t�sites potential. Dr (Workshop) ( p) • To accept the site, HCD would require the City to prove there is some potential for redevelopment or financial incentive to the property owner to redevelop. i Potential Housing Element Sites Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Legend: Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. Page 8 of 11 39 0 0 v v o � w o � m y Q Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •m ,� iC +' •� U > C7 V w v y z 3 v Q v x v U') 0 • Strip malls and bowling alley. • The large size of the site, lower intensity /marginal uses and the deferred maintenance on the site in addition to its corner location provide a realistic Homestead Lanes + 20916, 20956, 20990 Additional Commercial/ P(Rec, redevelopment opportunity as a mixed -use site. W10 Adjacency Homestead Rd Potential Site Residential Enter) & 4.61 20-35 78 -137 • Will require site assembly. (Workshop) P(CG) • Corner site is a recently improved fast -food use. • Development standards at the level currently allowed in this area of the General Plan or higher (35 du /ac. or higher) could provide a financial • Office and commercial buildings, tennis courts and parking lot (Church property). • Variety of uses (office/ commercial/ recreation) and multiple property Homestead Road - 21020, 21040, 21060, Additional owners could make this site challenging to redevelop without expressed j W11 IntraHealth /Office/ 21070 Homestead Potential Site Commercial) P(CG) � � � � � � � 5.42 15 69 � � � property owner interest. s" _ � P P � Tennis Courts Rd & APN: 326 07 (Workshop) Residential • Size of site could allows for development of a substantial mixed use P (Homestead /Stelling) 022, 326 07 036 development. • True viability will also be dependent on rezoning of the property. Current density is 15 du /ac. Could be increased to 35 du /ac. to be consistent with flie rest of flip, Homestead Road area • Property has entitlements and is under construction for a mixed use office Additional and commercial development and a hotel. Main St (SCB btwn Commercial/ P(CG, OP, W12 — — Ei�lTi /T�3it�iir APN: 316 20 109 Potential Site nesiL4�iit3'ii' 'ice) — — X — — — — — 11.57 — 25 245 — — — — Remove — • Sj$g,.sl�d1g.;e v�s d=sitQis uncle��v�Qp171P11t._jjpl7Slllg_ (Workshop) currently approved on the site does not qualify for inclusion in the 2014- 2022 Housing Element. am wax " am u� u� •Property has entitlments for mixed use office /commercial building an hotel which expire in Sept. 2014. Additional •The size, density and mixed use entitlements in addition to the site's clos� ` W13 Oaks Shopping 21255 Stevens Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG, Res) � � � � � � � 7.9 25 167 � � � proximity to a freeway and adjacent to residential development make this Center Creek Blvd Residential an potential housing element site. (Workshop) •However, the development may need additional density 35 du /ac. or higher) if retail in an amount commensurate to existing conditions is to be included in the project to make it financially viable. M0 I on WN 60 MR low MR WN WA MR am WW am I an WN ON I am mix an am min an mb min ajob awk WMA-Mm on-No am WW am W4 WN am W& am WWI ow an-mm-min an-mm aw-mm-min vo -wo -am - _Ww -am -my -MR Additional -min -Am • Used by PG &E as a maintenance and corporation yard �.4 PG &E Corporation 1�Q � ' .Psteujli l aila Quasi - public/ 2� 1 _ _ LL .N /� _Nl� 1 1 _ '.( tiLidflA�1�.P�Y]l • nrd— ns�tional Worksho 39 Potential Housing Element Sites Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Legend: Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. Page 9 of 11 M 0 0 v v o � w o � m y Q Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •m ,� iC •� U > C7 V w v +' y z 3 v Q v x v V) 0 Additional W15 PG &E Lower California Oak Way Potential Site Quasi - public/ A � X X X X X 10.56 N/A A X X X Remove • PG &E Substation u s ation (Workshop) ns i tional nsti Iona owners ip. • Commercial center with no vacancies • The site's size, density and location in the City's core, adjacent to the Vallco property, and along the City's major thoroughfare make it a Portal Plaza Additional relatively suitable site. W16 (between Portal and 19900 Steven Creek Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG, Res) � � � � � � � 5.22 25 110 � � � Low • May require a density of that above the currently allowed 25 du /ac for a Perimeter) Blvd (Workshop) Residential mixed -use retail project to be financially viable. • Without expressed interest by property owners or developers to redevelop with hosuing or mixed use, LICE) will require a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential and N7JAhJlJh7 Neighborhood Additional • U.S. Post Office W17 U.S. Post Office 21701 Stevens e Commercial, P(CN, ML, - 5 Remove e ree v n us ria es - (Workshop) • Is not currently on the list to be closed. Residential • Commercial center with no vacancies • The site's size, density and location in the City's core, adjacent to the Vallco property, and along the City's major thoroughfare make it a Additional relatively suitable site. W18 St. Joseph's Place 20375 Stevens Potential Site Commercial/ P(CG, Res) � � � � � X � 2.2 25 46 � � � Low • In addition the center exhibits relatively marginal uses and lower (Cafe Torre site) Creek Blvd (Workshop) Residential patronage than nearby centers. • Without expressed interest by property owners or developers to redevelop with hosuing or mixed use, LICE) will require a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential and viabilih7 • Church with historic designation Additional • Recent addition to site to increase services at church. Union Church of 20900 Stevens Commercial/ W19 Potential Site P(CG, Res) X X 3.05 25 63 Remove e s r t t d e ti e 1 (Workshop) site or redevelop completely, the potential for redevelopment of church sites is low. M Potential Housing Element Sites Page 10 of 11 Le end: Legend: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site YP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation X •m ,� N Q iC •� U m > '� Q C7 Q BOA V w � v� +' y y O • Existing 122 unit apartment complex developed at a density of -15 DUA. • The site's current use as higher density housing makes it unlikely to Additional High Density Village Green 21230 Homestead � � � � � � � redevelop without expressed property owner interest. HCD would be very W20 --4p0k4n@"@ — —Rd— — Potential Site Residential R3 — — X X — — — — X — — — 7.5 — 20 - 35 — 137 — — — — — — — Remove — — e cafe# t4K-si48as *is wok sites de*eI@ped irWh (Workshop) (20 -35) • The net yield remaining on the property is too low to justify inclusion in the Sites Inventory. • Strip Mall Neighborhood Additional • Less than 1 acre in size, only allows up to 12 du /ac W21 Vivi s Falafel 21771 Stevens e 1 at,. Commercial, P(CN, ML, —012— - - tL&ove nex o ostce ree vd n ust rWa es ) (Workshop) current maximum (12 du /ac.) Residential • Adequate site due to expressed property owner interest to develop. . Various office buildings and service uses (Jiffy Lube ) • While the site is large and has the potential for significant residential Jiffy Lube +Office 19376, 19400, 19450 Additional Commercial/ development, it would be challenging to convince HCD of the sites Blds (SE of Stevens & 19480 Stevens five W22 Potential Site Office/ P(CG, Res) 5.21 25 110 Low potential when there are separate property owners and the uses on the Creek Blvd and Creek Blvd & 10062 (Workshop #2) Residential site are successful. U� Miller) Miller Ave • Owner interest unknown. • This site is not ideal but it is not unviable. �Y 'Aw AWWM�M WW . "W, "W, ' "W, "W, - "W, WW1 AIMUMA!N AIMUMA!N AWWM�M WW � 'Aw WW "M � w im . AW9�W mm � AW9�W AWIUM�M' , PdMMMWE P' AW9�W AW9�W AWDW✓�W AWWWY AW9�W AWIUM�M' -O on "MANN MW OR WW AYpW ,.... POP ...., NAMWNA 01 WW on ..,,.. Nu" WYpW WYpph,17 _... NAMWNW "M WYpW ..... OW POP AYpW OW .... FF WW4,A on . WW NA WUW Wyp" on NAMWNA NAMWNA WYp" NUNIWM ow AYp" ..., WYp" .... W?WWM • Citibank Sunflower Learnin g Center, and older office blds density location location The site's size nd in the City's core and along ty ty g the City's major thoroughfare make it a relatively suitable site. This site does have potential due to its size and density and being owned Opposite Main 19200 19220 & Additional Commercial / b two property owners. Because the site looks to be developed at a lower Y P P h' P j W23 PP 19280 Stevens Potential Site Office/ P(CG, Res) 4.98 25 105 � � � � -� intensity than W22, it is possible to make the case for intensification with Street Creek Blvd ( P ) Worksho #2 Residential mixed uses. • Without expressed interest b Yproperty owners or developers to redevelop with housing or mixed use, HCD will require a more in depth anaylsis and data will be required to illustrate redevelopment potential ` and viabili}� / NMN . N N NWI", W NN NWI OR" NWINW W NN NN lr OR" W NNMWNN NWIWW, N NNWNMN " W RM NNW�WM NNNMN'N NWIWW, W W,WAWN N NNWNMN OR" RM W N NNMWNN NWI", min NWI", mp NN WIN, W }'. /` i NN W9 owl RM "M NAM M' " NWIWW RM "IWW RM NNNWNN 4W6WW NA Nom' • Modern Furniture Store Modern Furniture + Additional Commercial/ • Less than 1 acre in size, no expressed property owner interest. W24 Barn NE corner of 20149 Stevens — Potential Site — — Offices Pte, Res X 0.63 — 25 — — _ 13 Remove •,A],sg Wt�a�pQ de ret�1 a mi�tj- u=.Lop =Q VPr�w Cr Mvd -gLYgn SCB and Randy Ln) (Workshop,72)1 Residential its recent issues with tenanting. • Not suitable for only housing along a major thoroughfare. 41 Potential Housing Element Sites Le end: rioirty Sites based on Planning Commission Study Session Feedback (2/19/2014) rioirty Sites based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) MR ,Prioirty Sites with conflicting consensus based on Housing Commision Workshop Feedback (02/12/14) Legend: Site available but not specifically identified as Prioirty site at Housing or Planning Commission Workshops HCD's Development Secondary Criteria - Potential Criteria SCS, Plan Bay Area & GP Site no longer available or does not meet criteria. Page 11 of 11 * - Site previously erroneously listed as Yamagami's Nursery Site 42 0 0 v v o � w o � m v U Current v 3> O o a°, a° 0 Q 3 a Site Current to o" a, •� V v v G N Q V C5 3 m C5 Notes, Comments and No. Site Name Address Type of Site yP Land Use Zoning Q o v w o v F� 0 a ° 0 a v 0 H '� Reason For Recommendation for Removal or Inclusion Designation •m ,� iC +' •� U > C7 V w v y z 3 v Q v x v V) 0 • JC Penney and Parking Lot • Relatively viable site due to expressed property owner interest to redevelop, developer interest in consolidation, close proximity to major JC Penney + Parking transportation route (freeway), and potential to provide a considerable Additional Lot site (NE corner of 10150 N. Wolfe Rd Commercial/ P(Regional number of units at the site. Has the potential to be part of a mixed -use W25 N. Wolfe Road and & APN: 316 20 092 Potential Site Residential Shopping) 14.93 35 444 project combining parcels in Vallco on the west side. Increased (Workshop #2) Vallco Parkway) redevelopment potential on this site, even if this is not housing, could go a long way to creating financial viability toward redeveloping the entire Vallco parcel on both sides. • Proximity to Rosebowl and Main Street mixed -use projects a plus. • This is a successful commercial use with high sales tax generating potential and is unlikely to redevelop with housing in the near future. Additional Commercial/ • Redevelopment potential for major /chain store /restaurant because the W26 Taraet 20745 Stevens Potential Site Office PLLG, Res) X X 8.26 25 175 Remove removal of such use involves the stra�ic Manning of a mayor corporation. _ B1�tl — — — — _ _ — — — _ _ _ — — (Workshop) Residenential Unless there is some expressed desire by a property owner or developer to redevelop with housing or mixed use, the site should be removed. • HCD would require in depth analysis on its redevelopment potential • Residential four - plexes /two duplexes • The site's current use as housing, in addition to the number of units Additional Park Circle 4 -plexs Bound by Bearden � � � � � � � currently developed, could make it challenging to redevelop without a W27 Potential Site Res MH (10 -20) R3 X X X 7.52 20 127 Low (North of Target) Dr. & Bandley Dr. significant density increase (35 du /ac). (Workshop) • Site assembly could be a challenge due to multiple- ownerships. • HCD would be critical of this site without a significant density increase. Additional Commercial/ • Two story office building W28 Kalio 19330 Stevensc P(CG Res 0.84 25 17 Remove r s' ree v (Workshop) Residential • No expressed property owner interest * - Site previously erroneously listed as Yamagami's Nursery Site 42 ATTACHMENT CC -4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 CVPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Application No.: Applicant: Location /APN: SUBJECT: GPA- 2013 -02 City of Cupertino Citywide Agenda Date: February 19, 2014 Study Session to review Housing Element requirements and sites to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 2014 -2022 Housing Element RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Review the report on potential Housing Element sites and 2. Discuss potential housing sites and provide comments on the priority housing sites to be studied in the joint General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND: Housing Element Overview In accordance with State law, California cities must have an adopted General Plan, which must contain a Housing Element. Housing Element law requires that all jurisdictions facilitate housing development by creating policies and adopting land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for housing development, including units that could accommodate households with very low, low, moderate and higher incomes. For information on Housing Element content, please see Attachment PC -1. State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a pre- determined cycle; for this cycle, Housing Element updates must be adopted by January 31, 2015 (plus a 120 - day grace period). If this adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023 (or eight years). Otherwise, the City must update the Housing Element again in 2019 (every four years). 43 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA identifies Cupertino's regional housing needs by income levels: Income Group Very Low RHNA 356 Low 207 Moderate 231 Above Moderate 270 Total 1,064 The City is not obligated to construct the housing units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City's responsibility is to demonstrate adequate capacity, by identifying specific sites, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy. HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites /units in order to guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. General Plan Amendment In addition to the Housing Element, the City is also processing a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The GPA was authorized by the City Council in August 2012 and begun in March 2013. The GPA includes an analysis of the following key topics: A. Development Allocations - The primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re- allocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the community's character, goals, and objectives. B. Consolidate Review Of Individual GPA Requests - The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan. The community vision developed as part of the GPA process will help evaluate the development requests along with the associated General Plan amendments being requested. The consolidated General Plan amendment process also provides a unique opportunity for the community to provide input on the various requests received at a citywide level, instead of a site -by -site basis, which only looks at a limited scope. Three draft General Plan Concept Alternatives have been prepared that outline different future scenarios. The alternatives were developed to reflect community input (workshops and online input) as well as to respond to regional economic growth factors and housing needs. The alternatives range from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A) to more moderate growth (Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners' requests (Alternative C). .. These changes in development intensity include changes to land uses, heights and development allocation. The alternatives specifically focus these changes on five major mixed -use corridors in the core of Cupertino — Homestead, North Wolfe, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De Anza. DISCUSSION: Housing Element Sites Criteria HCD Criteria HCD reviews each Housing Element's sites inventory to determine if adequate sites have been identified to meet the RHNA. Preparation of a "site suitability analysis" is an important step in addressing the adequate sites requirement. For additional details on HCD's site suitability requirements and criteria, please see Attachment PC -1. A key point to note in HCD's criteria are that sites with a net density lower than 20 dwelling units per acre do not qualify for meeting affordable housing requirements. Therefore, most sites discussed later in this report are in areas that are at or above this density. Other Secondary Criteria (Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan and Cupertino General Plan) In addition to the State -wide criteria that HCD uses to determine site suitability, the Sustainable Communities Strategy /One Bay Area Plan contribute additional criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG region. The region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and the One Bay Area Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). The City's General Plan policies are generally consistent with the strategies in the One Bay Area Plan. For additional details on the other secondary criteria and PDA's please see Attachment PC -1. Cupertino's PDA has been identified with a yellow outline on Attachment PC -2. Potential Housing Element Sites Consideration of Housing Element sites is still in the preliminary stages. Through this study session, the City will continue to discuss sites with the public. Additional sites may be identified via public input and Commissioner discussion. While several sites are discussed in the report, the City is only obligated to pick sites enough to cumulatively add up to 1,064 units. The cumulative total of the realistic yield of all the sites proposed to date far exceeds the City's RHNA. A map has been prepared (see Attachment PC -2) that identifies all the sites proposed to date. An accompanying table (Attachment PC -3) provides additional information about each site. Sites are not in any particular order of priority. Sites in three categories have been identified on the map: ■ Existing Housing Element sites — Seven sites identified in the 2007 -2014 Housing Element are currently available. The others have either been redeveloped or do not meet the criteria. o Lot Consolidation Potential — Sites adjacent to existing Housing Element sites that could be considered for addition into the Housing Element for more cohesive development. 45 Sites Proposed By Property Owners — Ten property owners have indicated an interest in being included in the Sites Inventory. Most of the developers have indicated a density range higher than that currently allowed by the General Plan and zoning for their site. ■ Sites Proposed By Workshop Participants — Workshop participants at the January 23, 2014 workshop identified 21 sites which could potentially be included in the Sites Inventory. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project. The preparation of the EIR will commence once the City Council provides its comments on the sites to be analyzed as part of each alternative studied in the EIR at its March 4, 2014 meeting. The 30 -day Notice of Preparation (NOP) period will commence soon after the City Council meeting, with a scoping session scheduled for March 11, 2014. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months and will be released for public review in Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45- day public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014. DISCUSSION: Summary of February 12 Housing Commission Workshop On February 12, the Housing Commission hosted a workshop to continue the Housing Element Sites discussion and prioritize sites for inclusion in the Housing Element. Following a project update presentation, approximately fifteen (15) participants broke into three groups and discussed identification of new sites and prioritizing potential housing sites to meet the RHNA of 1,064. The groups generally seemed to agree that sites with multiple access points, minimal impacts to schools and generate minimal level of neighborhood concerns would be appropriate as Housing Element sites. Some of these included sites previously identified in this report. Some participants also added new sites to the list. Some of the sites were prioritized by one group but not by others and some of sites were only acceptable if new development was a mixed use one. The balance of the sites have been left on the list since there was no consensus on whether to keep or remove the sites. These have all been included in Attachments PC -2 and PC -3. Comments from the Public The following is a summary of the key points made at the February 12 meeting: • Building heights should reflect the character of the City. • Impacts of new housing on schools and traffic need to be carefully considered in the siting of housing. • A balance of retail /restaurants and housing needs to be achieved. Do not eliminate places where residents shop and dine out. • New housing should be distributed throughout Cupertino. • Provide opportunities for different forms of housing that may not be in Cupertino today, particularly for senior residents and recent college graduates who do not need as much living space. • Given that the city is virtually built out, ensure that in future RHNA processes that Cupertino is not overburdened by a commitment to accommodate even more housing. • The Hampton site is a good location to accommodate a large portion of the current RHNA. • The current stock of affordable housing needs to be preserved to the extent possible. The Housing Commission recommended forwarding the sites highlighted by the workshop participants. Attachments PC -2 and PC -3 highlight the sites that the Housing Commission recommended forwarding to the Planning Commission for consideration. EIR Alternatives and Density Considerations for Sites The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that alternatives to a project be studied. These must avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. In addition, CEQA does not permit projects to be analyzed incrementally. A combined Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the General Plan Amendment as well as the 2014 -2022 Housing Element. The EIR will analyze the following key issues: ■ The General Plan Amendments - As mentioned earlier in this staff report, the City is currently processing a General Plan Amendment. Three draft General Plan Concept Alternatives ranging from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A) to more moderate growth (Alternative B) to a greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners' requests (Alternative C), have been prepared for analysis in the EIR. Alternatives A and B avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project (Alternative C). At this time, no sites are proposed to be eliminated from the study except as discussed below for each alternative. The preferred sites will be noted when a review and decision on the final list of sites is made by the City Council. The final decision on the list of sites is expected in Fall when the information on the EIR is available. It should be noted a lower density on a site will increase the number of sites that need to be picked to cumulatively reach the 1,064 units RHNA obligation. o Alternative A will include potential housing sites only within existing density ranges in the General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A will not include sites that propose a minimum density exceeding that allowed in the 2005 General Plan. The only change to this concept is in the South Sunnyvale- Saratoga area (De Anza Boulevard area south of Highway 85), which is proposed to be combined with the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan (West side of De Anza Boulevard between Stevens 47 Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road). The density in the South Sunnyvale- Saratoga area will change from 15 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre to be consistent with the density in the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area. One site proposed by the property owner (Yamagami s Nursery) is located in this area and will be studied in this Alternative. o Alternative B represents moderate growth along five mixed use transit corridors. Therefore, in this Alternative, sites proposed by property owners along major transit corridors, and selected by the City Council for inclusion, will be studied at a density between that in Alternative A and Alternative C (highest density alternative). In this alternative, these sites would be studied at a density of 35 dwelling units per acre instead of 25 dwelling units per acre. In general, the current General Plan allows 25 dwelling units per acre except in the South Vallco Area where it is 35 dwelling units per acre. One property owner (the Hamptons at Wolfe Road and Hwy 280) has proposed a density ranging from 65 to 110 dwelling units per acre on their site. Therefore, their site is the only one selected at the lower end of the density at 65 dwelling units per acre. The reason this site has been included at a higher density than 35 dwelling units per acre, is that it is located near the freeway and will cause minimal neighborhood and school impacts (this site is served by the Santa Clara Unified School District). • Under Alternative C (the proposed project), Housing Element sites proposed by Property Owners, and selected by the City Council to satisfy the RHNA requirement, will be studied at the maximum density requested by the property owner. • Finally, CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes no change to the current General Plan. The analysis for this alternative will include buildout of the current 2005 General Plan. Therefore, only the existing housing element sites will be included in the analysis. Under this scenario, there are no changes to existing land use policies, height limits, land use designations, or any additional development allocation for office, commercial, hotel and residential units. No new sites will be studied. Other Housing Element Requirements Update Housing Policies The update of the Housing Element has been divided into two areas of review. The first area of review is the subject of this meeting - identification of adequate sites appropriately zoned in the City to accommodate the City's RHNA. The second area of review is an analysis and update of the existing policies and programs which will be presented at a later date (tentatively April 1, 2014 at a Joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting.) Streamlined HCD Review HCD allows for streamlined review of the Housing Element if the jurisdiction meets certain criteria. This provides for priority review for jurisdictions that are eligible over jurisdictions that are eligible for standard review and limits the areas in which the HCD staff can comment on. These criteria include the adoption of an HCD - certified Housing Element, the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms with State Law, the completion of re- zoning of all Housing Element sites that needed re- zoning with the 2007 -2014 Housing Element update, the adoption of adequate zoning to permit emergency shelters and transitional /supportive housing, and the establishment of a reasonable accommodation procedure. If a jurisdiction is not eligible for the streamlined review, HCD's review generally takes longer —up to the 60 day period they are permitted by law to review the documents, thereby potentially delaying the adoption of the Housing Element. The adoption deadline remains January 31, 2015 (plus a 120 -day grace period.) The City currently complies with almost all of the requirements to qualify for the streamlined review - the City has a HCD certified Housing Element that has been adopted, all the re- zoning that was required with the last Housing Element cycle was completed at the same time as adoption of the Housing Element, completed updates to the municipal code to allow adequate emergency shelter and transitional /supportive housing and the establishment of a reasonable accommodation procedure. The final requirement - the adoption of a Density Bonus ordinance that conforms to State Law - needs to be completed prior to forwarding the draft of the Housing Element for HCD review. The City would have to comply with State Law with or without an updated ordinance. However, having an updated ordinance will allow the City to be eligible for streamlined review. Staff anticipates preparing this ordinance for Planning Commission review and Council adoption at the time of presenting the Draft Housing Element for forwarding to the HCD for its review in Fall 2014. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH In addition to the workshop at the Housing Commission meeting on February 12, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date. Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews were conducted on December 11 & 12, 2013 to solicit input from stakeholders ranging from community members, property owners, housing developers, service providers, School Districts and the business community. The following is a summary of comments from the interviews: • Overall housing affordability and the gap between housing demand and supply at all income levels • Need diversity of affordable rental units at all income levels and all household types • Need to accommodate a growing aging population • Smaller units including innovative housing models • Support for mixed -use similar to Santana Row or downtown Mountain View • Should be low impacts to schools, privacy, parking, noise and traffic • Significant financial constraints to affordable housing developers due to dissolution of Redevelopment • School Districts north of the city are impacted due to higher student generation rates • Looking to increase capacity by adding new buildings and temporary, modular units • Most of the Apple Campus 2 school impact fee allocated to Santa Clara Unified District while the expectation is that most employees who move will reside within the CUSD service area. Summary of January 23 Joint PC /HC Workshop On January 23, the Planning Commission and Housing Commission hosted a joint workshop to begin the Housing Element Sites discussion. Eleven participants broke into small groups and identified potential future sites for housing and criteria for increased density in certain areas including community benefits. Participants drew on maps and placed stickers to identify potential housing sites. The following is a summary of comments from the meeting: ■ Demand for market -rate small-sized units (limited bedrooms) to cater to people working at Apple • Add levels to school buildings to increase capacity • Concerns about: • Churches now having to be considered Housing Element sites • Sustainability of the One Bay Area Plan • Size of the City's RHNA obligation • Loss of community amenities to housing The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting. Notice Agenda • Email sent to all interested parties ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin signed up through the project website board (one week prior to the hearing) • Letters sent to current Housing ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site Element site property owners and (one week prior to the hearing) interested property owners ■ Posted on the project Website (one week prior to hearing) NEXT STEPS The goal for this study session is to review the Housing Commissions' input and sites presented to date, identify any other new potential sites for consideration, to place the sites in order of preference. The City Council will meet on March 4, 2014 to provide staff with final direction on the Housing Element sites and densities to be studied in the EIR. The policy portion of the review of the Housing Element will be present to the Housing Commission in March 2014 and the Planning Commission and City Council at the Joint meeting on April 1, 2014. 50 Upon completion of the Final EIR, the Draft Housing Element will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the Council in Fall 2014 for forwarding to HCD. The Draft Housing Element will include: housing policies as well as the final list of housing sites as well as the related General Plan Amendments and rezoning for the sites. In addition, in order to comply with streamlined HCD review, a Density Bonus Ordinance, will be prepared for review and adoption. Upon HCD review and potential certification, the final Housing Element will be presented for Planning Commission review and City Council decision in early 2015. Prepared by: Pin Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner MIG, Consultant to the City of Cupertino Reviewed by: /s/ Gary Chao Gary Chao Asst. Dir. of Community Development Approved by: /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development Attachments PC -1. Housing Commission Staff Report PC -2. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Map, with HC Priorities Indicated PC -3. Potential 2014 -2022 Housing Element Sites Summary Table, with HC Priorities Indicated 51 SHUTE MIHALY & - WEINBERGER►_►_p 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: 415 552 -7272 F: 415 552 -5816 www.smwiaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Carol Korade, City Attorney FROM: Ellen J. Garber DATE: February 25, 2014 ATTACHMENT CC -5 ELLEN J. GARBER Attorney garber @smwlaw.com RE: Application of SB 50 to Consideration of Development Applications INTRODUCTION and SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 ( "SB 50")' preempts the issue of impacts of new development on school facilities. Therefore, if a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB 50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "),2 no mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required, and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to the inadequacy of school facilities. Hence, state law limits the City's discretion to (i) consider the effects of new development on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, (ii) require mitigation, and (iii) deny projects. A relatively recent case, Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, holds that development applications may be analyzed under CEQA, and mitigation may be required, if the potential impacts are indirectly caused by the operation or construction of schools on the non - school physical environment. 1 Gov. Code §§ 65995 -65998 and Educ. Code §§ 17620 - 17621. 2 Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 52 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION I. SB 50 Pursuant to SB 50, which was enacted in 1998, impacts on school facilities are not to be considered in an EIR, and SB 50 fees constitute adequate mitigation of those impacts. As SB 50 states, payment of fees "shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities," and "are ... deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Gov. Code §§ 65996 (a) and (b). See Part II, below. In addition, A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable. Gov. Code § 65995(i). Even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, however, if the proposed development, including the school expansion it requires, would cause other environmental impacts — traffic or construction impacts, for example —then those impacts to non - school resources may be analyzed under CEQA. This is discussed in Part III, below. II. Impacts of New Development On School Facilities SB 50 limited the scope of CEQA analysis of impacts on school facilities, making the fees set forth in Government Code section 65995 "the exclusive means of both `considering' and `mitigating' school facilities impacts of projects. The provisions of [S.B. 50] are `deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. "' Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (2012), § 14.28 (citations omitted). According to the Kostka & Zischke treatise, SB 50 appears to transform CEQA review of impacts on school facilities into a ministerial function after the applicant agrees to pay the required mitigation fees. Id., § 14.28 (concluding that the law limits not only mitigation but also the scope of the EIR).3 No case expressly reached 3 C .. 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25.49, 25 -213 to 25 -214, fns. omitted ( "SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development (footnote continued) S H U T E� M f H A LY 53 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 3 this conclusion until the Chawanakee Unified School District case, discussed below, but logic seemed to dictate this outcome based on the statutory language. Therefore, if a project applicant has agreed to pay school mitigation fees, the lead agency may not consider the following items in an EIR, nor deny the project based on these considerations: • impacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings, etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment; • mitigation measures above and beyond the school mitigation fee ; • other non -fee mitigation measures the school district's ability to accommodate enrollment. 3. Physical Effects on the Environment Because of School Facilities Despite the restrictions on environmental review and mitigation discussed above, SB 50 also states that "[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section." Gov. Code, § 65996(e). This leaves the agency free to reject a project based on impacts other than impacts on the need for "school facilities . "4 Any number of impacts could fall outside of this definition; for example, impacts on wildlife in the development site, impacts on air quality, or inadequate water supply. fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities and to overturn [Mira and its progeny]. First, it provides for a cap on the amount of fees, charges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting refusals to approve legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts `to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [.] "' (emphasis in original). 4 SB 50 defines "school facilities" as "any school - related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." Gov. Code § 65996(c). SHUTE� MIHALY 54 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 4 In 2011, the court in Chawanakee Unified School District carefully interpreted the statutory language of SB 50 and held that while an EIR need not analyze the impacts on school facilities as a result of accommodating more students, the document must consider the impacts on traffic of additional students traveling to the school and consider other impacts to the non - school physical environment from construction of additional facilities. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 - 1029.5 Courts have found the physical activities caused by school growth to be outside the definition of "school facilities," and therefore not shielded from review by SB 50. For example, as discussed above, Chawanakee Unified School District interpreted the traffic associated with more students traveling to a school to be something other than impacts on school facilities, and therefore subject to review and mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, traffic impacts resulting from more students traveling to the school, dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities, and any other impacts to the non - school physical environment were not impacts on "school facilities," and must be addressed in an EIR. According to the court in Chawanakee: Consequently, the phrase `impacts on school facilities' used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation ... the prepositional phrase `on school facilities' limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and `any school - related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment.' Therefore, the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1028 (internal citation omitted). Hence, the lead agency must determine whether impacts fall outside the definition of "school facilities," thereby making them subject to environmental review. In light of the Chawanakee case, however, the agency's discretion to conduct environmental review, to require mitigation, and to consider denying the would be limited to physical effects on the non - school environment. 5 While SB 50 was not at issue in this case, in City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889 the court held that an EIR prepared in connection with the construction of a new school properly analyzed health and safety issues, air quality, traffic impacts, and land use issues. SHUTE� MIHALY 55 Memo to Carol Korade, City Attorney February 25, 2014 Page 5 Therefore, a lead agency may consider, in an EIR, among other factors the following impacts potentially caused by school expansion or construction: • traffic impacts associated with more students traveling to school; • dust and noise from construction of new or expanded school facilities; • effects of construction of additional school facilities (temporary or permanent) on wildlife at the construction site; • effects of construction of additional school facilities on air quality; • other "indirect effects" as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15258 (a)(2) (growth - inducing effects, changes in pattern of land use and population density, related effects on air and water and other natural systems). See Chawanakee Unified School District, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 1029. CONCLUSION When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially ministerial. Agencies must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities. However, nothing in SB 50 or in CEQA or current case law prohibits an agency from conducting environmental review of an application that creates significant environmental impacts on non - school- facility settings or sites, regardless of whether the applicant has agreed to pay mitigation fees under SB 50. 567716.2 56 SHUTE� MIHALY i° 1 ii Subl ect COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Study Session to provide an update on the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01) process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City -wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: ■ Review the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR and provide comments. Discussion This report is an update to the discussion at the Planning Commission study session on the GPA Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR. A detailed discussion of issues is provided in the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment CC -1). Background On February 19, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the GPA Concept Alternatives to be studied in the EIR. Members of the public attended an open house prior to the study session that included stations showcasing Draft General Plan Community Vision and Guiding Principles, Concept Alternatives, and the proposed Housing Element sites. Please refer to Attachment CC -1 for the Planning Commission staff report for a detailed discussion of the GPA process overview, a summary of the various reports that have been produced for the project, and description of the Concept Alternatives. Also attached to this report are the other attachments including the Settings and Opportunities Report (Attachment CC -2); Market Study (Attachment CC -3); Concept Alternatives Report (Attachment CC -4); Concept Alternatives comparison tables (Attachment CC -5); Community Workshop #1 Summary (Attachment CC -6); and Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary (Attachment CC -7). 57 Discussion from the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission Study Session The following is a summary of Planning Commissioner comments at the February 19, 2014 study session. Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics. Project - wide /community benefits to be considered for future projects with heights and /or densities above the base allowances in any corridor should not allow heights and densities beyond the maximum contemplated in the General Plan — The GPA alternatives propose specific heights and densities even for projects that provide project - widelcommunity benefits. Therefore, projects that require heights and densities beyond those proposed will not be allowed under the proposed General Plan alternatives. Project - wide /community benefits for increased heights and /or densities should be clearly stated in the General Plan and should not be negotiable — It is intended that the General Plan provide a clear list of project- widelcommunity benefits related to height and/or density. ■ Visualizations of the different heights and densities proposed in each of the Concept Alternatives should be provided — These will be provided at the presentation at the March 4, 2014 Council study session. Impacts to schools should be considered with respect to increased development potential — The City cannot consider impacts on schools as a result of new housing developments. SB 50 (State Government Code sections 65995 -65998 and Education Code sections 17620 - 17621) preempts CEQA consideration and mitigation of impacts on school facilities (such as the need for new or expanded schools due to additional enrollment caused by new development). If new development pays standard school impact fees, there is no further role for CEQA with regard to impacts on schools. In addition, State law prohibits the City from using its planning and zoning powers to deny residency to, make housing unavailable to, or discriminate against, families with children. However, for large projects, there is the potential for negotiated Development Agreements to result in additional benefits such as contributions towards schools, pocket parks in the development, traffic improvements beyond required mitigations, etc. The specific allocations for the Vallco Shopping District should be clarified under each of the Concept Alternatives — Allocations are distributed by corridors and other existing General Plan Special Centers in the Concept Alternatives Report in order to allow flexibility of use across a greater area. Therefore, there are not specific allocations assigned for the Vallco Shopping District. However, the following are assumptions for the Vallco Shopping District in Alternatives A -C: Vallco Shopping District Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Office (s.f.) 0 (no change) 1,000,000 2,000,000 Commercial (s.f.) 1,267,601 (no change) 625,335 Hotel (rooms) 150 400 Residential (units) 0 (no change) 600 800 ■ Densities along major mixed -use corridors should be reviewed and possibly amended to provide residential densities that are consistent with that along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road — The GPA Alternatives do not contemplate changes to densities on a corridor -wide scale, with the exception of the South De Anza Corridor, from 15 to 25 du /ac, to ensure that Housing Element sites in the corridor meet density requirements for affordable housing. However, there are targeted changes to densities in the sites proposed in the Housing Element (see staff report for the Housing Element). • The Commission also asked if stakeholders had reached out to the community with their specific projects — The applicants have not solidified their site specific plans as yet. This will be done once the Council has made a decision on the General Plan amendment and the allowable heights and densities have been determined. This process allows community involvement at a much earlier level than is typical for most projects. Once the developers draft their site - specific plans based on the final adopted General Plan, neighborhood meetings will be scheduled to gather community input on the projects. • There may be concerns with Alternative C since there have been historic community concerns on higher levels of development and increased heights and densities. • There are concerns with BRT, particularly with the option involving a dedicated BRT travel lane. • The Vallco Shopping District should be redeveloped. Residential development should only be allowed with a complete redevelopment including viable retail. • Residential uses in the Vallco Shopping District may not guarantee viable retail. • Potential office and residential components in the Vallco Shopping District could be synergistic with a retail component. • There is heightened community sensitivity with school and traffic impacts. • Consider distributing housing development throughout the City in order to balance potential impacts. The following is a summary of public comments at the February 19, 2014 study session: • Vallco Mall needs to be revitalized. • Height limits should remain unchanged. • Maintain existing residential neighborhoods and shopping districts. • New development should consider school and traffic impacts, as well as traffic estimates from recently approved projects. • Consider traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road on the east side of Cupertino, and the traffic impacts to neighborhoods bounded by these streets. • Neighborhood traffic impacts should be included in the EIR. • Cupertino residents' input on densities and heights in the Concept Alternatives should be considered, rather than that of property owners and developers. 59 • Residential allocations in the Concept Alternatives should consider previous ABAG projections — The previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2007 -2014 Housing Element (1320 units) was greater than that for the 2014 -2022 Housing Element (1064 units). • Consider the seven study area sites and others to meet ABAG residential projections. • In the community design surveys, Cupertino residents should have been able to give their preference on existing Cupertino buildings and streetscape features. • What criteria determine retail and project - wide /community benefits? • Residential allocations should be distributed throughout the City, particularly in the Monta Vista area and along Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard. • The City has sufficient office and commercial development. • Mixed -use development is not desirable. • Residential densities should be low. • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is not desirable, particularly the option involving a dedicated BRT travel lane. • Not enough notice was given for the community workshops. Noticing In addition to the open house and study session at the Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 2014, the following outreach efforts have been undertaken on this project to date. Postcards A postcard was delivered in February 2014 to all postal addresses in the City to announce upcoming dates on the GPA and Housing Element projects. The postcard also provides a brief description of the two projects and identifies the project website where interested persons may sign up for project updates and further notices. A previous City -wide postcard was sent in July 2013 announcing Community -wide Workshop #1 (discussed below). Website A website has been set up for the combined GPA and Housing Element projects at www.cupertinogpa.org. All technical reports, notices, and other important information are available at the website. Interested persons may also submit comments at the website. Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Committee Meetings, and Stakeholder Meetings ■ Community -wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a community - wide workshop to kick off the GPA project. As discussed above, a City -wide postcard was sent to all City addresses, and the City's website and project website also announced the workshop. In addition, e -mails were sent to all stakeholders and other interested parties. Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss and participate in .1 small group exercises which included a discussion of assets and mobility, urban design or economic challenges that should be addressed by the GPA and opportunities for future development. See Attachment CC -6 for a workshop summary, which contains a compilation of the assets, challenges, and opportunities identified by the workshop participants. ■ Community -wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) - On October 23, 2013, the City held a second Community -wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design and mobility concepts along major mixed -use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and Stevens Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E -mails were sent to all study area stakeholders, Community -wide Workshop #1 participants, and other interested parties. The City's website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to participate in a Community Design Survey and Vallco Mapping Exercise. See Attachment CC -7 for a workshop summary. ■ Other Public Meetings — The City also held the following additional meetings which covered essentially the same concepts from Community -wide Workshop #2: • Follow -up meeting for interested Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013 • Meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2014 • Annual meeting of the Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014. See Attachment CC -7 for the meeting summaries. ■ Commission and Committee Meetings — City staff introduced the GPA project before certain City Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Action Committee (LAC) in order to expand awareness of the project, receive feedback, and answer questions. Staff presented the project at the: • October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting; • December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and • January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting ■ Stakeholder Meetings — Meetings with key neighborhood representatives, organizations (including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property owners in the study areas, etc. were held from May 2013 through February 2014. The following table summarizes the noticing for the March 4, 2014 Council meeting: 61 • Email sent to all study area ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin stakeholders, prior workshop board (one week prior to the hearing) participants, and interested parties ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site signed up through the project website (one week prior to the hearing) • Citywide postcard sent to all addresses ■ Posted on the project Website (one week in the City prior to hearing) 61 Environmental Impact Report The goal for this study session is for the Council to collect public input and provide comments on the Concept Alternatives. The next step of the EIR involves a scoping meeting, which includes a 30 -day comment period to consult with agencies, organizations or individuals on the contents of the EIR, including the range of alternatives. The final scope of the EIR and additional alternatives may be identified through the scoping process. CEQA requires the EIR to discuss a "reasonable range of alternatives," and should briefly discuss alternatives that are considered but rejected for further analysis during the scoping process. A proposed alternative need not be considered unless it would reduce significant impacts, meet most of the basic project objectives, is feasible, and is needed to have a "reasonable range" of alternatives. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will be released for public review in late Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45 -day public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014. Next Steps The following additional meetings have been scheduled for the GPA: • March 11, 2014: Environmental Scoping Meeting on the GPA and Housing Element • April 1, 2014: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the GPA and Housing Element. This meeting will involve a discussion of policies to be included in the GPA and Housing Element. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: CC -1. February 19, 2014 Planning Commission staff report CC -2. Settings and Opportunities Report CC -3. Market Study CC -4. Concept Alternatives Report CC -5. Concept Alternatives Comparison Tables CC -6. Community Workshop #1 Summary CC -7. Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary Z ATTACHMENT CC -1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 CUP'ERTII` O PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01) RECOMMENDATION: Agenda Date: February 19, 2014 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: a. Review the report on the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Concept Alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and provide comments. b. Discuss the land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and provide direction. DESCRIPTION: Open House and Study Session to provide an update on the focused General Plan Amendment (GPA- 2013 -01) process and review land use alternatives to be considered for analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Proposed alternatives include options for City -wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities for corridors, special centers, and seven study areas. BACKGROUND: Initial Council Direction At its August 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the initiation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and directed staff to present a scope of work for the GPA process, including: • The schedule for a specific and /or master plan for the Vallco Shopping District; • A proposal to fund the GPA process; and • A list of properties where CG (General Commercial) zoning could be added. (See Attachment PC -1 for the staff report and meeting minutes.) 63 Page 2 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 At the March 5, 2013 meeting, the City Council approved: • The scopes of work for the GPA, Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan, and associated EIR; • Authorized the project budget and consultant contracts; • Provided direction to staff to: ■ Exclude the church site on Homestead and Stelling Roads as a study area; • Include the PG &E site at Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road as a study area; and • Review adding CG zoning and /or BA (Public Facility /School) uses to PG &E's existing BQ (Quasi - Public Building) zoning. (See Attachment PC -2 for the staff report and meeting minutes.) General Plan Amendment Overview The City's current 2005 General Plan controls the amount of commercial, office, hotel, and residential built in the City through development allocations in terms of square feet (commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units (residential). Allocations are geographically assigned in certain neighborhoods, commercial centers, and employment centers so that private development fulfills City goals and priorities, and reduces adverse impacts to the environment. A. Development Allocations: The primary purpose of the GPA is to replenish, re- allocate, and increase citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential allocations in order to plan for anticipated future development activity while keeping with the community's character, goals, and objectives. B. Consolidate Review Of Individual GPA Requests: The secondary purpose of the GPA is to consolidate development requests by several property owners for amendments to the General Plan. The community vision developed as part of the GPA process will help evaluate the development requests along with the associated General Plan amendments being requested. The consolidated General Plan amendment process also provides a unique opportunity for the community to provide input on the various requests received at a citywide level, instead of a site -by -site basis, which only looks at a limited scope. In addition to the various property owner requests, at the March 2013 meeting, the City Council added the PG &E corporation yard site at Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road to the list of study areas to explore the possibility of a commercial overlay. The seven project study areas and the General Plan amendments being requested by property owners are listed below: 1. Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire — Increased height and additional hotel allocation 2. City Center — Increased height and additional office allocation 3. PG &E site at Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road — Add commercial overlay 4. Mirapath (adjacent to PG &E site) — Add commercial overlay X Page 3 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 5. Cupertino Village — Increased height and additional allocations for mixed -use 6. Vallco Shopping District — Increased height, land use changes, and additional allocations for mixed -use 7. Stevens Creek Office Center (Peet's /Panera site) — Increased height and densities and additional allocations for mixed -use. C. Inform Vallco Shopping District Specific and /or Master Plan: The Vallco Shopping District contains a significant amount of existing commercial built area (approximately 1.3 million square feet), and is one of the few major commercial areas in the City that has significant redevelopment potential. The community has also expressed great interest in seeing the mall revitalized. It is anticipated that the GPA process will help create a community vision for the Vallco Shopping District that will guide the development of a new set of land use parameters and development objectives that would provide a framework to evaluate development requests and clear direction for its future development. Prior to the City approving any significant development applications in the Vallco Shopping District, a Specific and /or Master Plan will be required. Since the City Council's authorization of the process, a developer has approached staff with an interest in redeveloping the entire Vallco Shopping District, with the exception of the Rose Bowl parcel, the KCR -owned parcel behind JC Penney's along I -280, and possibly the Simeon -owned parcel behind the Macy's garage along I -280. D. Update To Address State Law And Clean Up: Lastly, the GPA process will also address recent State law requirements for General Plan Amendments, including the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 — 2006), Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375 — 2008), General Plans and Military Facilities (SB 1468 - 2002 /SB 926 — 2004) , and the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358 - 2008). The GPA will include other administrative "clean-up", including correcting erroneous zoning and densities, formalizing some existing City policies, and other language related to recent developments, such as the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. E. Municipal Code /Zoning Ordinance Clean Up: There may be also be additional "clean up" revisions to the Municipal Code, including such items as revising the definition of gross density to exclude adjacent street widths. Settings and Opportunities Report In September 2013, the City released a Settings and Opportunities report that provides an overview of the project, a summary of the current planning context in Cupertino, and a detailed analysis of existing land use, design, and mobility conditions for each of the seven project study areas (see Attachment PC -3). The report also includes an initial list of key findings of existing conditions and opportunities. 65 Page 4 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 Key opportunities include: 1. Exploring the possibility of creating a community benefits incentives program for development; 2. Identifying strategies for diversifying and strengthening Cupertino's local economy; improving multi -modal circulation through the City; and 3. Identifying a viable, community -based strategy for revitalizing the current Vallco Mall and broader shopping district so that it remains a regional shopping destination. Market Study and Retail Strategy Report An analysis of the sales data for Cupertino's retail trade area indicates that there are significant sales tax leakages in to areas outside the City. The community has indicated that there is support for capture of the lost sales tax revenue. In order to determine the areas in which the City can capture some of the lost sales tax, a Market Study was prepared (See Attachment PC- 4). The purpose of the Market Study is to assess market trends and demand for new commercial, office, hotel, and residential development in Cupertino. The Market Study's demand estimates that the existing 701,500 square foot of commercial space available in the City's General Plan Allocation pool is adequate to meet the high end of additional demand in the City through the year 2035. However, the study indicates market support for an additional 3.6 million net square feet for office space; 985 net hotel rooms; and 4,420 residential units through the year 2035. In addition, a Retail Strategy Report has been commissioned to review the estimates provided in the Market Study and provide recommendations on the retail viability of each of the seven study areas and alternative recommendations for revitalizing the Vallco Shopping District. Housing Element Update and Recent Regional Planning Considerations The Alternatives presented in this report are also informed by the concurrent Housing Element update and by Regional Planning considerations such as the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) called the One Bay Area Plan and transit plans such as VTA's Bus Rapid Transit. Housing Element Update In this study session, the Housing Element Update potential sites will be discussed in conjunction with the GPA alternative considerations. While no decisions regarding rezoning, density increases, or inclusion in the Housing Element has yet been made, some of the potential Housing Element sites are from the GPA's seven study areas, including Cupertino Village, Stevens Creek Office Center, and the Vallco Shopping District. The property owners of each of these and other sites proposed by property owners as Housing Element sites have proposed densities ranges higher than those allowed by the General Plan. As a result of the Housing Element Update process, the Housing Element sites may be allowed higher densities than what are normally allowed in their respective corridor /special center. The densities for these sites .. Page 5 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 have not been included in the General Plan Alternatives since the final list of sites to be studied in the EIR have not been selected at this time. See the Housing Element Update staff report for more information. At that discussion, staff will look for direction from the Commission on the densities that will be studied. Once the Council reviews the Planning Commission s recommendation and makes the decision on the final list of sites to be studied for each General Plan Alternative, they will be included in the EIR analysis. Plan Bay Area Plan Bay Area is a long -range integrated transportation and land- use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 2013. Pursuant to SB 375, the Plan includes the regions Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Plan focuses development in Priority Development Areas (PDA). The forecast estimates in Plan Bay Area formed the basis of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for jurisdictions in the Bay Area. This is discussed in further detail in the Housing Element Update staff report. PDA's are locally designated areas within existing communities that have been identified and approved by local cities or counties for future growth. These areas are typically accessible to public transit, jobs, recreation, shopping and other services and absorb much of the growth anticipated in the region. In Cupertino, the PDA's are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the border with the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 280. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA), the South Bay's regional transportation agency, is studying the possibility of creating a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along Stevens Creek Boulevard from De Anza College to the Transit Mall in downtown San Jose. The goal of this project is to address projected increased transit demand along Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is currently the second highest ridership route in the VTA region. VTA is proposing to add BRT stations at De Anza College, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road in Cupertino. Options being studied by the VTA include providing a dedicated route for the BRT in the center of Stevens Creek Boulevard, which would involve the removal of a driving lane in each direction, as well as, using the existing lanes in their current configuration for the bus line with reduced stops. While a new BRT line along Stevens Creek Boulevard would provide increased transit opportunities for residents and students at De Anza College, there was some community concerns expressed about removing a driving lane in each direction along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Since BRT is a proposed regional project, the EIR analysis will include an optional analysis of the impact of BRT in Alternatives B and C. 67 Page 6 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 DISCUSSION: Concept Alternatives Three draft General Plan Concept Alternatives have been prepared that outline different future scenarios (Attachment PC -5 - Concept Alternatives Report). The alternatives were developed to reflect community input (workshops and online input) as well as to respond to regional economic growth factors and housing needs. The alternatives range from minimal change to the current 2005 General Plan (Alternative A), to more moderate growth (Alternative B), to a greater change in development criteria which reflect the various property owners' requests (Alternative C). These changes in development intensity include changes to land uses, heights and development allocation. The alternatives specifically focus these changes on five major mixed -use corridors in the core of Cupertino - Homestead, North Wolfe, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De Anza. Major Mixed -Use Corridors Each of the alternatives A, B and C are organized by the mixed -use corridors in which allocation is distributed. Other Special Centers in the City remain the generally the same. The alternative maps (on pages 27, 29, and 31 of Attachment PC -5) identify the following five mixed -use corridors: A. Homestead The Homestead corridor consists of the area on the south side of Homestead Road between the City's eastern boundary with the City of Sunnyvale ( -1/4 mile east of N. Blaney Avenue) to the City's western boundary with the City of Sunnyvale ( -600 feet west of N. Stelling Road). It includes properties on the north side of Homestead Road close to the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road bounded by the City's northern boundary with Sunnyvale. This mixed -use corridor expands the boundaries of the existing Homestead Road special center in the 2005 General Plan. B. North Wolfe The North Wolfe corridor includes properties on the west side of N. Wolfe Road, bounded by I -280 to the south and Homestead Road to the north and includes the Hampton Apartments site at the NE corner of N. Wolfe Road and I -280. This area consists of a portion of the existing Vallco Park North special center in the 2005 General Plan, with the exclusion of the recently approved Apple Campus 2 project. .: Page 7 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 C. Heart of the City The Heart of the City corridor consists of the area currently defined in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and includes properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 on the west to the City's eastern boundary near Lawrence Expressway and portions of De Anza Boulevard (up to Alves Drive to the north and Scofield Drive to the south) and Stelling Road. This area also consists of the existing Heart of the City, Vallco Park South, and City Center special centers defined in the 2005 General Plan. D. North De Anza The North De Anza corridor consists of the North De Anza Boulevard Special Center boundaries in the 2005 General Plan, generally North De Anza Boulevard between Alves Drive to the south and I -280 to the north, including portions of Valley Green Drive, Mariani Avenue, Bandley Drive, and Lazaneo Drive west of De Anza Boulevard. E. South De Anza The South De Anza corridor consists of the South De Anza Boulevard Special Center boundaries in the 2005 General Plan. South De Anza Boulevard bounded generally by Scofield Drive to the north and Bollinger Road to the south. This area also includes the portion of the city previously known as the South Saratoga - Sunnyvale Conceptual Plan area which is located on the west side of S. De Anza Boulevard between Rainbow Drive and Prospect Road. Other Existing Special Centers The 2005 General Plan Special Centers located outside the major mixed -use corridors will remain as part of this GPA. These areas include Monta Vista, Oak Valley, Fairgrove, Other Neighborhoods, Other Commercial Centers, and Bubb Road. With the exception of re- assigning allocations to replenish certain types of development potential in mixed -use areas ( Monta Vista, Other Commercial Centers, and Bubb Road) and clarifying boundaries /names, there are no significant changes (particularly height and density) proposed. In addition, the non - geographically specific Major Employers allocation category will remain. Gateways, Sub - Areas, and Nodes Following input from the various stakeholders at community meetings, the following gateways, sub -areas and nodes have been identified. The purpose of identifying gateways, sub - areas, and nodes is to organize requests from applicants within the mixed -use corridors. These areas have been organized to reflect requests for increased residential density and /or heights based on locations near freeways or where they would not impact existing neighborhoods and would provide retail and project -wide or community -wide benefits. If development is proposed in areas that abut single - family residential development, the development is expected to maintain a setback to height ratio of 1:1. .• Page 8 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 A. City Center Node The City Center Node (one of the seven study areas) is identified as being bound by Stevens Creek Blvd to the north; S. De Anza Blvd to the west; Rodrigues Avenue to the south; and Torre Avenue to the east. Due to the height of the existing buildings in this node, the input from community workshops ranged from not allowing any increased heights to allowing some increase in heights. B. North Crossroads Sub -Area The North Crossroads Sub -Area consists of the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd between N. De Anza Blvd and N. Stelling Road, with the exception of the Abundant Life Church site, since it abuts single - family residential uses. The North Crossroads Sub -Area includes the Stevens Creek Office Center study area. Input from the community workshops noted that this area is ideal for active commercial space along Stevens Creek Boulevard, similar to the existing Peet's and Panera development at the site. C. North De Anza Gateway North De Anza Gateway consists of the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire study area sites at the northwest corner of the N. De Anza Blvd and I -280 intersection. These have been identified consistently at the community workshops as an area where some increased heights may be acceptable due to its proximity to the freeway and distance from single - family residential uses. D. North Vallco Gateway The North Vallco Gateway consists of the west side of N. Wolfe Road, bounded by I -280 to the south and Homestead Road to the north and the Hampton Apartments site at the NE corner of N. Wolfe Road and I -280. The width of the gateway on the west side of N. Wolfe Road is proposed at approximately 275 feet wide (the width of the Duke of Edinburgh and Hilton Garden Inn sites fronting Wolfe Road). The North Vallco Gateway includes a portion of the Cupertino Village study area. This has also been identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased heights may be acceptable due to its proximity to the Apple Campus 2 currently under development and the freeway. E. South Vallco Gateway West The South Vallco Gateway — West consists of the west side of N. Wolfe Road south of the I- 280 freeway. This is generally bounded by I -280 to the north; Perimeter Road to the west; and Stevens Creek Blvd to the south. The South Vallco Gateway East includes a portion of the Vallco Shopping District study area. Heights directly along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road are proposed to be increased to reflect a developer's request as well as input from community workshops. Heights adjacent to single - family neighborhoods in this area are proposed to be lower than those directly along the major corridors. 70 Page 9 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 F. South Uallco Gateway East The South Vallco Gateway - East consists of the east side of N. Wolfe Road south of the I- 280 freeway. This is generally bounded by I -280 to the north; Stevens Creek Blvd to the south; and Tantau Avenue to the east. This has been identified by in community workshops as an area where increased heights may be acceptable if appropriate community benefits were provided, due to its proximity to the freeway and distance from existing neighborhoods. Therefore, heights reflect the workshop comments and a developer's request. The South Vallco Gateway East includes a portion of the Vallco Shopping District study area. G. Stelling Gateway The Stelling Gateway consists of the south side of Homestead Road, bounded by The Markham Apartments to the east; I -280 to the south; and the City's boundary with Sunnyvale to the west ( -600 feet west of N. Stelling Road). This area has been identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased height and mixed -use, including residential development, may be appropriate. H. Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway Stevens Creek and 85 Gateway consists of the current Oaks Shopping Center site on the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd between Highway 85 and Mary Avenue. This has also been identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased height and mixed -use development may be appropriate due to the proximity to the freeway and distance from single - family neighborhoods. Alternatives A - C Each alternative is represented diagrammatically in Attachment PC -5 which shows the boundaries for the five mixed -use corridors and includes tables that summarize primary uses, maximum residential densities, maximum heights, and development allocation. Tables also summarize specific standards for the eight different gateways, nodes, and sub -areas identified within the mixed -use corridors. While development allocation is divided by corridor, maximum residential density and building heights vary through each of the eight smaller areas. Allocation adjustments for the other existing Special Centers are identified. Alternative A Alternative A consists of the following themes: • Maintain the policies of the 2005 General Plan • Increase office and hotel development allocations • Streamline General Plan area boundaries Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continues the policies of the current 2005 General Plan, while making minor development allocation and boundary changes. 71 Page 10 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 Under this alternative there are no changes to existing land use designations, height limits, development standards and densities (with the exception of South De Anza - from 15 to 25 du /ac in order to be consistent with other corridors). This specifically includes focusing office allocation increases within the Heart of the City Corridor, which is the area that can absorb new office development under the framework of the 2005 General Plan and as envisioned in the One Bay Area Plan adopted by ABAG and MTC in 2013. Under the land use standards in the 2005 General Plan, Vallco Shopping Mall would remain the same under this alternative because there is not enough allocation or economic incentive to redevelop the site. Alternative A does not add additional citywide residential allocation. However, it does re- allocate the existing allocation in order to address Housing Element requirements, with the particular goal to ensure that existing Housing Element sites are accommodated based on their realistic yield (85% of maximum allowable density). State law requires the City to identify land suitable to hold its regional fair share of housing for the 2014 -2022 timeframe (known as the RHNA allocation). This alternative meets current RHNA requirements given that the residential allocation (1,895 total) is above the current RHNA allocation of 1,064 units. However, this alternative does not include enough residential allocations to fully achieve the One Bay Area requirements for 2040 (discussed later under Alternatives B and C). Alternative B Alternative B is derived from the following themes: • Focus new growth along major mixed -use corridors • Revise height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed -use corridors • Increase office, hotel and residential development allocations • Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating existing commercial allocation • Streamline General Plan area boundaries Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed -use corridors in order to create more complete commercial, office and entertainment areas, and to address mid- term housing needs. It increases development allocations at a level above Alternative A in order to better capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for office development. Heights and residential densities in key nodes, gateways and sub areas reflect areas along the five mixed -use corridors where additional development allocation in the General Plan may be located. This alternative also provides guidance on where increased heights may be considered if a development meets certain criteria (e.g., includes a retail component, is away from residential neighborhoods or is near freeways) and provides project -wide benefits. Similar to Alternative A, it includes streamlining the current 2005 General Plan boundaries. This alternative includes a broader range of Complete Streets and transit improvements than those included under Alternative A which would better connect the major mixed -use corridors to surrounding residential neighborhoods through bicycle, pedestrian and intersection 72 Page 11 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 improvements. This alternative also includes studying the proposed dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along Stevens Creek Boulevard, which connects De Anza College and major intersections in Cupertino to San Jose and the greater Bay Area. Similar to Alternative A, this alternative adds additional residential allocation as part of the Housing Element update. However, it adds 1,421 new residential units to the current allocation of 1,895 units that will meet both the current RHNA requirements and 75 percent of the 2040 One Bay Area requirement. Alternative C Alternative C is derived from the following themes and reflects the property owners' requests: • Support the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping District by reallocating existing commercial allocation • Revise density and height standards at key nodes, gateways and sub areas along major mixed -use corridors • Increase office, hotel and residential development allocations • Streamline General Plan area boundaries Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and account for a large portion of the City's RHNA. Under this alternative, the Vallco area becomes the "downtown" of Cupertino, serving the mixed -use hub for residents, workers and the larger region. Alternative C also includes streamlining the current 2005 General Plan boundaries, similar to Alternatives A and B. It also increases development allocations at a level above both Alternatives A and B in order to fully capture retail sales leakage and regional demand for office and hotel development. Heights and densities in key nodes, gateways and sub -areas reflect areas along the five mixed -use corridors where City -wide development allocation in the General Plan may be located. It also provides guidance on where increased heights may be considered if a development meets certain criteria (e.g., includes a retail component, is away from residential neighborhoods or is near freeways) and provides project -wide benefits. Similar to Alternative B, this alternative includes the broader range of Complete Streets and transit improvements, such as bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements and an option to study the proposed dedicated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This alternative also includes updating the Housing Element as required by State law and includes an option for an allocation of 4,421 units (2,526 units more than currently allocated in the General Plan), consistent with 2040 One Bay Area Plan projections. 73 Page 12 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 Comparison of Existing Conditions and Alternatives A, B and C Please refer to Attachment PC -6 for a comparison of the different alternatives prepared above with the Existing 2005 General Plan conditions with respect to allocations, heights, and densities. In addition, please refer to page 34 of the Concept Alternatives Report in Attachment PC -5 that shows how the different alternatives affect the GPA's seven study areas. Purpose of the Concept Alternatives The purpose of the alternatives is to not to make determinations on the final General Plan concept. Instead, it is to allow the opportunity for a community -wide dialogue on heights, land uses and development allocations. The EIR will be program -level with enough detail to help future applicants expedite environmental review by tiering off the EIR with Mitigated Negative Declarations. Given that the development allocation system is dynamic and allocated to projects on a "first come, first serve" basis, allocations would be reserved for the seven study area stakeholders for five years after the conclusion of the GPA process. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for this project. The preparation of the EIR will commence once the City Council provides its comments on the alternatives. The Council meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2014. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that alternatives to a project should be studied. These must avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project for the EIR being requested by the study area property owners is Alternative C. Alternatives A and B have been identified as alternatives to the project that will avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Finally, CEQA requires the analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes no change to the current General Plan. The analysis for this alternative will include buildout of the current 2005 General Plan. Under this scenario, there are no changes to existing land use policies, height limits, land use designations, or any additional development allocation for office, commercial, hotel and residential units. The 30 -day Notice of Preparation (NOP) period will commence soon after the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting with a scoping session scheduled for March 11, 2014. It is anticipated that preparation of the Draft EIR will take about four months and will be released for public review in Summer 2014. A community open house is planned during the 45- day public review period. Following the close of the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee, public hearing for 74 Page 13 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 the Planning Commission and public hearing for the Council EIR review and certification are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2014. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH Project Website In June 2013, the project website (www.cupertinogpa.org) was launched in order to collect and convey information related to the project. The website provides updates on upcoming events and recently released reports; provides background information on the process and existing General Plan; allows users to submit comments and questions; and provides information on the concurrent Housing Element Update project. Workshops, Public Meetings, Commission/Committee Meetings, and Stakeholder Meetings ■ Community -wide Workshop #1 (July 18, 2013) - On July 18, 2013, the City hosted a community -wide workshop to kick off the GPA project. A citywide postcard announcing the workshop was sent to all City addresses, and e -mails were sent to all stakeholders and other interested parties. The City's website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to discuss and participate in small group exercises which included a discussion of assets and mobility, urban design or economic challenges that should be addressed by the GPA and opportunities for future development. See Attachment PC -7 for a workshop summary, which contains a compilation of the assets, challenges, and opportunities identified by the workshop participants. ■ Community -wide Workshop #2 (October 23, 2013) - On October 23, 2013, the City held a second Community -wide Workshop to discuss community ideas for future uses, design and mobility concepts along major mixed -use corridors (Homestead, De Anza, Wolfe, and Stevens Creek) and within the Vallco Shopping District. E -mails were sent to all study area stakeholders, Community -wide Workshop #1 participants, and other interested parties. The City's website and project website also announced the workshop. Following a presentation, workshop participants were asked to participate in a Community Design Survey and Vallco Mapping Exercise. ■ Public Meetings - The City held a Neighborhood Meeting specifically for interested Cupertino residents on December 5, 2013, which covered the same concepts from Community -wide Workshop #2. The City held similar meetings for the Chamber of Commerce and Cupertino Neighborhood Block Leaders on January 29, 2014. ■ Study Area Stakeholder Meetings — These include meetings with key neighborhood representatives, organizations (including the Chamber of Commerce and VTA), property owners in the study areas, etc. 75 Page 14 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 See Attachment PC -8 for a summary of Workshop #2; the meeting on December 5, 2013; and meetings on January 29, 2014; which contains a compilation of the responses received for the survey and pictures of the Vallco exercise maps. Commission and Committee Meetings City staff introduced the GPA project before certain City Commissions and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Action Committee (LAC) in order to expand awareness of the project, receive feedback, and answer questions. Staff presented the project at the: • October 2, 2013 Teen Commission meeting; • December 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014 Legislative Action Committee meetings; and the • January 15, 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting February 1914 Planning Commission Open House and Study Session The following table summarizes the noticing for this meeting: Notice Agenda • Email sent to all study area ■ Posted on the City's official notice bulletin stakeholders, prior workshop board (one week prior to the hearing) participants, and interested parties ■ Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site signed up through the project website (one week prior to the hearing) • Citywide postcard sent to all addresses ■ Posted on the project Website (one week in the City prior to hearing) NEXT STEPS The goal for this study session is to review the proposed land use alternatives, collect public input, and provide comments and recommendations for the City Council's consideration at their similar study session on March 4, 2014. The following additional meetings have been scheduled: • March 4,2014: City Council Study Session on the GPA and Housing Element • March 11, 2014: Environmental Scoping Meeting on the GPA and Housing Element • April 1, 2014: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the GPA and Housing Element. This meeting will involve a discussion of policies to be included in the GPA. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner 76 Page 15 Planning Commission GPA Open House and Study Session February 19, 2014 Reviewed by: /s/ Gary Chao Gary Chao Assistant Director of Community Development Attachments Approved by: /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development PC -1. August 21, 2012 City Council Staff Report and Meeting Minutes PC -2. March 5, 2013 City Council Staff Report and Meeting Minutes PC -3. Settings and Opportunities Report PC -4. Market Study PC -5. Concept Alternatives Report PC -6. Tables with Comparisons of Existing 2005 General Plan and Alternatives A, B, and C PC -7. Community Workshop #1 Summary PC -8. Mobility and Design Concepts Input Summary 77 Due to the large volume of this Attachment, please use the link shown below: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Council`/`20Pac 4-14%20CC- 2%2OSettings%20and%200pportunities%2OReport.pdf? subiec t uid= 23136642 &w= AACTCUuu ilXU9iW8h LE6zFKNa 6WrLZA M M rtorwv -5XQ Or access it via the City Council Packets folder in Dropbox Or please use the path shown below to view it in Laserfiche: • City of Cupertino (www.cupertino.org) • Public Records • City Council • City Council Agenda Packets • 2014 CC Packets • 03 -04 -14 Due to the large volume of this Attachment, please use the link shown below: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Council`/`20Pac 4-14%20CC-3%2OCuPGPA MarketStudy Final 02-13 - 2014.pdf? subject uid= 23136642 &w= AABwo3wmf3gTRM7elk SBRISi tFPQHAUSgn w3tsibiwPA Or access it via the City Council Packets folder in Dropbox Or please use the path shown below to view it in Laserfiche: • City of Cupertino (www.cupertino.org) • Public Records • City Council • City Council Agenda Packets • 2014 CC Packets • 03 -04 -14 79 Due to the large volume of this Attachment, please use the link shown below: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Council`/`20Pac 4-14%20CC-4%2OCuPGPA ConceptAltsReport Final 02-24 - 2014.pdf? subject uid= 23136642 &w= AABk6Mldolbs7PgiYOFY g4hG u LbzeZk7zxXT8l u2ZgrR6g Or access it via the City Council Packets folder in Dropbox Or please use the path shown below to view it in Laserfiche: • City of Cupertino (www.cupertino.org) • Public Records • City Council • City Council Agenda Packets • 2014 CC Packets • 03 -04 -14 M ATTACHMENT CC -5 Comparison of Different Alternatives with the Existing 2005 General Plan Conditions Concept Alternative Height Comparison (in feet) Corridor or Special Ctr Existing A B C Subarea/Node/Gateway Homestead Corridor 30 or 45 on the s. side b/w De Anza & Stelling Stelling Gateway 30 (w. side of Stelling), 45 (e. 45 or 60 w/ retail side of Stelling) N. De Anza Gateway 45 ■ 60 ■ 60 ■ 75 w/ retail. ■ 75 w/ retail. ■ 95 w/ retail and project -wide ■ 145 w/ retail and project -wide benefits in select areas' benefits in select areas' N. Wolfe Corridor 60 N. Vallco Gateway 60 ■ 60 ■ 60 ■ 75 w/ retail along Wolfe Road. ■ 75 w/ retail along Wolfe Road. ■ 95 w/ retail and project -wide ■ 130 w/ retail and project -wide benefits in select areas2 benefits in select areas2 Heart of the City Corridor (areas 45 expect those below) S. Vallco Gateway East ■ 60 ■ 75 ■ 45 ■ 75 w/ retail. ■ 90 w/ retail. ■ 60 w/ retail ■ 110 w/ retail and project -wide ■ 160 w/ retail and project -wide benefits in select areas' benefits in select areas' S. Vallco Gateway West ■ 45 ■ 60 ■ 45 ■ 60 w/ retail. ■ 75 w/ retail. ■ 60 w/ retail ■ 75 along SCB and Wolfe w/ retail ■ 85 along SCB and Wolfe w/ retail and project-wide benefits and project-wide benefits City Center Node ■ 60 ■ 75 ■ 75 w/ retail. ■ 90 w/ retail. 45 ■ 90 w/ retail and project -wide ■ 110 w/ retail and project -wide benefits in select areas4 benefits in select areas4 N. Crossroads Sub Area 45 ■ 45 ■ 60 ■ 60 w/ retail ■ 75 w/ retail SCB & 85 Gateway 45 ■ 45 ■ 60 w/ retail ■ 60 ■ 75 w /retail North De Anza Corridor 45 60 75 South De Anza Corridor 30 Other Com'l Mixed Use 30 Major Employers 30, or per corridor allowance Bubb Road 45 Monta Vista 30 Oak Valley 28 or 30 Fairgrove 28 Other Neighborhoods 30 or where zoning dictates height 1. Select areas = Goodyear Tire site 2. Select areas = Duke of Edinburgh and Courtyard Marriot site 3. Select areas = East side of Wolfe bounded by I -280 to the north, Vallco Parkway to the south, and Perimeter road to the east 4. Select areas = Surface parking lot along SCB and existing parking garage to the rear Concept Alternative Density Comparison (in du/ac) Corridor or Special Ctr Subarea/Node/Gateway Existing A -C Homestead Corridor 10 (townhomes b/w Blaney & Blue Jay); 20 (apartments and townhomes b/w Blue Jay & De Anza, and condos /apartments on the n. side of Homestead b/w De Anza & Franco); 35 (everything on s. side of Homestead b/w De Anza and Sunnyvale boundary, except condos at terminus of Franco along 280, which is 20) Stelling Gateway 35 North De Anza Gateway 35 North Wolfe Corridor 25 North Vallco Gateway 25 Heart of the City Corridor 25 (35 South Vallco) 25 S. Vallco Gateway East 35 S. Vallco Gateway West 35 City Center Node 25 N. Crossroads Sub Area 25 SCB & 85 Gateway 25 North De Anza Corridor 25 Corridor or Special Ctr Subarea /Node /Gateway Existing A -C South De Anza Corridor 15 25 Other Com'l Mixed Use 15 Major Employers - Bubb Road 20 Monta Vista 12 Oak Valley Slope Density Formula Fairgrove 5 Other Neighborhoods 1 -35, depending on location Concept Alternative Office Allocation Comparison (in square feet) Corridor /Special Center Existing A B C Homestead - 10,000 25,000 50,000 North Wolfe - 30,000 75,000 90,000 Heart of the City 17,113 315,000 1,500,000 2,700,000 North De Anza - 25,000 200,000 400,000 South De Anza - 10,000 25,000 50,000 Other Com'1 Mixed Use - 5,000 10,000 Major Employers 523,118 625,000 Bubb Road - 15,000 70,000 100,000 Monta Vista - 5,231 10,231 15,231 Oak Valley - Fair rove - Other Neighborhoods - Totals 540,231 1,040,231 2,540,231 4,040,231 ,-*y Concept Alternative Commercial Allocation Comparison (in square feet)* Corridor /Special Center Existing A B C Homestead - 70,000 250,000 North Wolfe - 50,000 100,000 Heart of the City 695,629 500,000 750,000 North De Anza - 10,000 25,000 South De Anza - 50,000 125,000 Other Com'l Mixed Use - 12,000 75,000 Major Em to ers - Bubb Road - Monta Vista 5,784 9,413 18,679 Oak Valle - Fairgrove - Other Neighborhoods - Totals 701,413 701,413 1,343,679 1,343,679 * Concept Alternative B and C assumes that the existing Vallco Mall square footage (1,267,601) will be demolished and go back into the allocation pool. 625,335 square feet will be reserved for Vallco. Concept Alternative Hotel Allocation Comparison (in rooms) Corridor /Special Center Existing A B C Homestead - 125 150 300 North Wolfe - 100 150 300 Heart of the City 339 375 439 639 North De Anza - 100 100 South De Anza - Other Com'l Mixed Use - Major Em to ers - Bubb Road - Monta Vista - Oak Valley - Fairgrove - Other Neighborhoods - Totals 339 600 839 1,339 -* Concept Alternative Residential Allocation Comparison (in units) Corridor /Special Center Existing A B C Homestead 184 200 550 1,000 North Wolfe 297 100 230 Heart of the City 608 1,000 1,570 2,100 North De Anza 97 170 South De Anza 230 150 301 400 Other Com'l Mixed Use 70 120 Major Employers - Bubb Road 94 - Monta Vista 74 70 75 101 Oak Valley - Fair rove - Other Neighborhoods 241 135 300 Totals 1,895 1,895 3,316 1 4,421 Due to the large volume of this Attachment, please use the link shown below: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Council`/`20Pac 4-14%20CC- 6%2OCommunitv%2OWorkshop%20%231%2OSummarv.pdf? su biect uid= 23136642 &w =AAD- ERVMwKKdWruxZdiG7omIAWIWshOnOxVE- IxNV -Y12w Or access it via the City Council Packets folder in Dropbox Or please use the path shown below to view it in Laserfiche: • City of Cupertino (www.cupertino.org) • Public Records • City Council • City Council Agenda Packets • 2014 CC Packets • 03 -04 -14 :. Due to the large volume of this Attachment, please use the link shown below: https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Council`/`20Pac 4-14%20CC-7%2OCuPGPA ComDesignSummary FinalDraft 02- 13- 2014.pdf? subject uid= 23136642 &w= AACz7EtFYK131dXCPJXxi DOeifly -FSVIJ 018WmzZ -VuA Or access it via the City Council Packets folder in Dropbox Or please use the path shown below to view it in Laserfiche: • City of Cupertino (www.cupertino.org) • Public Records • City Council • City Council Agenda Packets • 2014 CC Packets • 03 -04 -14 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject: Presentation from Richard Price demonstrating his company's new application called Pulse Point. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject: Planning Commission annualupdate. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET :• I . i1 k. 4 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:48 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular City Council meeting to order in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Proclamation to Joshua Robinson recognizing his achievement of earning Eagle Scout Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Wong presented the proclamation. 2. Subject: Proclamation celebrating the 35th Anniversary of the Toyokawa, Japan and Cupertino, USA Sister City relationship - postponed from December 17 Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Wong presented the proclamation. .0 Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Cupertino City Council 3. Subject: Proclamation to the Toyokawa Sister City Committee - postponed from December 17 Recommended Action: Present proclamation Mayor Wong presented the proclamation. 4. Subject: Presentation of Lunar New Year posters from the Hsinchu Sister City Committee Recommended Action: Receive the presentation Angela Chen and Chia Ching Lin from the Hsinchu Sister Committee presented a poster to Cupertino Librarian Gayathri Kanth and a poster to the City Council. 5. Subject: Housing Commission annual update Recommended Action: Receive presentation Written communications for this item included a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Nicole Maroko presented the annual update via a PowerPoint presentation. She highlighted the General Plan 2015 -2023 Housing Element update; the Below Market Rate (BMR) for -sale program; the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and the General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) program. Council received the update. POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Anjali Kausar, Executive Director of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce thanked Mayor Wong and Council for attending the Lunar New Year luncheon. She also invited everyone to the STAR Awards on March 22 at 6:15 p.m. at the Cypress Hotel. The Citizens of the year are Helene Davis and Hsing Kung, the Large Business of the Year is PG &E, the Small Business of the Year is Bitter + Sweet, the Ambassador of the Year is Patty Peterson, and the President's Award will go to Mahesh Nihalani. Tickets are available at www.cupertino- chamber.org. 91 Tuesday, February 18, 2014 CONSENT CALENDAR Cupertino City Council Sinks moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Sinks noted that he would recuse himself from voting on item number 12. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Recuse: Sinks recused on item number 12. 6. Subject: Approve the February 4 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 17, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -117 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending January 17, 2014 8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 24, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -118 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending January 24, 2014 9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 31, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -119 to accept Accounts Payable for period ending January 31, 2014 10. Subject: Consider updates to the City's Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities and International Delegate policy Recommended Action: Approve recommended updates to the City's Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities and International Delegate policy Written communications for this item included: emails to City Council, a staff memo to Vice Mayor Sinks regarding budget and actual expenditures, and an updated redline on the Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities for City of Cupertino. Director of Parks and Recreation Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report. Mayor Wong asked a representative from each sister city to summarize their program: Lucille Honig - Toyokawa Chia Ching Lin - Hsinchu (Angela Chen also answered questions) Mahesh Pakala - Bhubaneswar (Anjali Kausar also answered questions) Helene Davis - Copertino M Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Cupertino City Council The following individuals spoke in support of the sister city program: Nathan Chen Janaye Sakkas Patricia Wei Josh Miller Grace Hsue Vicky Tsai Angela Chen Lucille Honig Virgil Klein Helene Davis Mark Chen Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded, and the motion carried unanimously, to approve the following updates to the City's Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities and International Delegate policy: • Require a 5016 application to become a new sister city • Staff to look into insurance question for sister cities • Provide a small meeting room once a quarter or four times a year for sister cities who do not have student exchange programs (must have 5016 status for free use of the rooms) • Modify the policy of two times a year to three times a year to provide a large meeting room for sister cities who do have student exchange programs (must have 5016 status for free use of the rooms) • Sister cities will not be charged for a night attendant • For a sister city to qualify for student exchange status must have a minimum of 10 students and must be open to any Fremont Union High School district boundaries at large • Add to the policy that the City of Cupertino will pay for 1/2 of a plane ticket for Council members, maximum of one time per year per member and the trip must be part of an official sister city delegation • Staff will account for room use and staff time for budgeting purposes 11. Subject: Approval of an agreement for consultant services for the Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Ranch Preserve Corridor Master Plan Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with MIG to provide services to the City that will result in a comprehensive master plan 93 Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Cupertino City Council for the corridor and associated Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), for an amount not to exceed $425,000; and 2. Appropriate an additional $180,000 to provide for the expanded EIR cost and alternatives ($150,000) and noticing, meetings and supplies ($30,000), for a total budget not to exceed $480,000; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve Contact Change Orders (CCO) for Items 1 and 2 above to the extent that total expenditures do not exceed the total amount of the project budget 12. Subject: Professional Plan Check Services for the Apple Campus 2 corporate auditorium project Recommended Action: Authorize the City manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. to provide plan check services for the Apple Campus 2 corporate auditorium in the amount of $421,580 Council member Sinks recused himself from voting on this item. 13. Subject: Purchase and Lease After Sale of Property Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -120 approving the purchase and lease after sale of property at 22050 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 357 -10 -002) from George and Yoshiko Blesch, in the amount of $1,575,000, authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to complete the acquisition and the lease agreement Santoro moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14 -120 approving the purchase and lease after sale of property at 22050 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 357 -10 -002) from George and Yoshiko Blesch, in the amount of $1,575,000, authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to complete the acquisition and the lease agreement. The motion carried unanimously. 14. Subject: City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1, Project No. 2013 -01 Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2013 -01 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES — None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS - None ., Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Cupertino City Council REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 10:47 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, Feb 25 at 6:45 p.m. for a special meeting to hear items regarding Main Street and a Call for Review of a Planning Commission approval, Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA. Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777 -3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT &T U -verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777 -2364. 95 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING February 14, 201.4 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof, and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: -A�- 4V14--o,- Sheila Mohan, Interim Finance Director PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of 1 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino M 4\ H H Q W H 0 [ % a 0 6 6 0 O H N O C� Cx, H O H N ,70 ' 0 W r H 7 U 6 i o Q � o w 6 H Ma U0 6 tk H N 0 W H x O U N p'. 3 a� m 'C7 U] C �1 !4 A� u fn H 11 m H C) H p U i� Q U@crT Ha H H H W a \ • • rx ca, CM N' U H H rr C7 U\•• zz N In' C7 r -( El O H H H K o Ln o r m o d) CB o o r o H M 'T o 'e5+ d' W ,1 r•i o H X H H N L L Q M rvl r m L w O �.D lD v1 0 lD 6 N e1 N C;' O .-4 o r N m 6 D7 m N N N N v`l� N N a) Ln H m v H H v m a) LIl Q d' MNI HMr h O w m' m 0 w4,N N Ln M O'00r 60r H mlD w HID M. rnr a*7 HNHm cq * �o w V' n0 N N Ln W N M r' °# a,r d^'V'sf'N q3 p -i v W N w N wO(N MN N N 0 d' M Ln im N m N H to w N 'o H M H H H m H H o lf7 H N H m m M 1 H 0000000 0 b 0 6 O 0 000 6 b 0000000000 0 0 0 6 '6 0 6 6 6 0 C7'0 PQ C7 f7 [7 P O q 0 4 O4 C1 O 'C] i7O44C14OQ Q f7 2?'C"sO9OO qRC? W ul zz U Q I H H H i) z mH C) w H H P, U O z El U z U U 7 0 U W 9 U U W Q* P4 El f-� a CL H H H H H H z�zzz� H H H H H H aaaaaa 0000 0 0 u' 04c9'C7C7U w�www w w w w w w N N N N N N i M rn ut un Ln Ln Ln wi C� H HHH H H W H �D H H H H H H H H H H H 41] N'N NN NN H'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 0 N 1 r/y C6 m CQ m m m !rru -rrr c> > > > a' H U H w x U C-1 H W u x ,rj 0 0 0 6 0 b Cli N NN N NH �' 06660 6� U H H H H H H H Cn U7 Cf} r'1 M d+ tiri rJ7 C#7 c1k I^ h N N irl W Pl t? C7 N N H H H H r 6— aD wD N 0 N N rn m r m xt xt D D cq H Ln H H U U N N 0 U \ \ G] co Lo Gh 0) a� w o w <T u k.0 O O O O O 6 00 H w m H H H H Ln LSY H In I!1 H H H H m z rn w r a H fJ O O W H U E, 11 a H w w q r w '.H 14 00 E. 1� El H, H 0 z U U zn H m a z z a n, O W m m m aT CC3 f"t N N N N H H r, flr N N b p o 0 [i° m to H H H H H H H H H H H. H H H r °# r-P N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 6 o f7 0 w ul W EA H w H rn M H H H rY r 1 M M M 1 tv7 \ W H'. -. -1' rtn \ H H H H H. H H H H H I \, NNN NN NNN er1 H o 1 1 1 o I 1 H \ w H H H H H H H H I \ \ N N N N N N N N\ r H' HHHHHH+°#HH 10 0 m mHe 0000 40w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 LI1 H H H H H ifl H H H H z U) U) H H H H H H HHH H H Izi L6 �� 0 W W Q1 0 Ld u; C -� f °- ,Hf,HHHH HH z 9 U) N w w w w m m m m w M CA rhrrhrrrr � tD rrrrrrr«`r H H H H H H H H H H H rl rl rml HH H HH HHHH c� ca c>oc�eraoaoo rn V• « w r w In a. 6 m m m m m m OD co m U x U b b b O O O 6 6 P 0 N N N N N N N N H N 6 6 O 6 0 O 000 0 97 H H H H H HI H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U'U UUtJUUUU aaaaaan.aa U U U U U U U U U 1449 PIPti FC C A. a a a a a a a U U'U U%`3jU UUU H', m r w O Ln V" lD i o o o o H o o H o LIT Ban Ln m m o w m all w m m w m m m m w aocaoc�©cac>c� HHHH u'a HHHH. LL a CII nC (14 01 000000000 H H h9 H N °1 I..v F °tl N 1 -1 U U U U U U U U U aaaaaaaaa mm mmmmmm a:r��a'a:c�aaxa' aaaaaaaaa i9 C9[?L7C9C4C7C9C7 < KC<FG< KC9 <FC O) M0,m MO) 0), 0) 0) V' V, lq aT V' V' V' d1 V+ H H H H H,-# H H H N N " N NN \\\\ N N N N N N N N 000000000 6 H H H H H 0 I ri H N N N NNN N N N H HH HHH HHH H Hr-9H H HH H HH w�r'vw r IV 11, �rwfrvVa V.a +vv<q, r rrrrrhrrh rhrr�-rr w tD tOw w�D�iDw �.uurw".aw u� �aw' U w 0 N N NNN NNN NNF °v NN NNN NNNN O 0000000000 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H .-d H H H H H. H H H' F H H H H', H H H H rl H a U U H U H m E-4 B 0 U U Lfl ;E H E, H C, 0 H H w r 0 m m w o i w r- V^ o w H m w o m m w o o a Q u Ln H r, rq j, r- H o t H r o N m w m Ln o M w Cp q' 0 Cl V 0 0 o c, Q m w OD N o N m r H w r m m m v m m a) m H 'n 1, lPl rh m m IIl m lfl 0 Lf) , w In rl 11 OD (14 W U) Un 00 col w cc rq H w U) 0 r- 'N W ID r-I H N I N 10 0) co N m r- H �D r� m m m G9 E 0 0 0 000 'D 0 0 C, 0 0 000 a 0 cooc 0 0) c C 0 a 0 Q 0 000 0 0 a 0 C' 0 000 a 0 0000 0 IN 0) H 0 0 0 0 0 El O® O CJ C� C, CJ C� C� o C] C� C; C; C] C; C; Cl CJ C? C� C� C] Ct m C� CJ C� C3 C� u7 roW I U7 Pa G > 0 El U) H H 11 0 uo U La V) ni ri) W 000 co u > u w Pa Q U u CA NN > w 0 0 El 'I U) N z z H F-4 H H H -I H W w Q P, CL D, H U) 0 CN 3 fl' W. CN H Z C>a U FC C11 U w P+ Gal U `i:) � 4 co >i IH H H -1 0 oll El I r.Q U) ul U) '.o 0 rl I cq n1-1 'r w W W H H H H w W w U El F, N (13 U) Ot m q, -1 H 1-4 N W m W r- R. W (4 ua N z P7 m m r- H U7 rd Q 0 0 In w v 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 U) IV Lr) rq 11, IV N 1� N � Ln m It m m m w m d" E" co w w w w m m m H m m m �o 0 Q 0 Q Q 0 C) 0 0 0 0 co n 0 a Q 0 0 a H w L, �- H w m - H li " H r" m 1) 111 In H H H H H H 00 04 H 0 'A Lr) N Lr) Iq Ln N 'D 11 H H �o �o �v ID Q 10 w Iq H H In ,'::) 0 1 u 0 z z P4 " H u 0 IX z 21 C1u P, I PI U1 ca El U7 ua Q) O I co UJ w rid w El El F, 4i Z z H u w w P4 W W 0 0 U M 0 00 H r�� W rQ E, x 7i m m '£x ix X,£7. El UUU m W E, (n ul H Lo rar 0 a U U I N w W H E' E- H 00 pa Pi W N U) M W nQ >1 0 0� 6 P� al 'D f'4 It 'p >- >1 >, W 1�4 14 N �11 0 u H co f:l 14 (1) M PQ E, N � U U U 0 P4 DQ P4 W P4 P4 P4 Q z x 41 C) El p El 22: 12, 1p�lo 21 m pq w x Q (d m 'A �o w 'A CN 0 Ln Ln N H In �n m 0) ch In N �n r- a, n m Ln w M m H n H rq N 1) m n tea w N rq �c 0) N r- c- r- r- m N N H o 0 0 W c) (N m N N m 11, LO -41 IV w r- r- Kv Iu"e Ln m r N t, v Ir V 'a" �4 Q H H H H H 'A H ri ri H 11 H H H 11 H H H Iq H H H H 11 H -1 H 'A H H H -1 H R1 N N N N N CN C9 rq (N C9 N CN N N rq N N N CN N rq C'q IQ H C) 0 0 0 C) C, 0 0 C) 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Q 0 n 0 C) 0 .j 00 0 N m In w r W 01 0 H N N m It In Ill m ID r r m P3 m m H Q I z. 'i H ri 1-1 H 1-4 H H 14 N N N N rq N N N CN (N N, N N N N P4 0 r- r, r- [- t- fl- rl- t-- r C, r- r- H li, z" t� If v v <v IV It 1�1 I:r 'T 14, 1�1 'p Pi u I- r- r rr r r t- t-- r r rr r rl- [I- r- rl r r-r rrr r- w ko w IL w Q w W kjV W w w El 2 11 (N (N N N cl N N N (q N N N N N N El N, N N N H W c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � C) � 0 C) 0 00 C) � 0 � Q C) � Ln U - �, H. A � H F, H I -, I.., H H [-A H H H H H El H -I H E-, r4 H H H H m E-4 B 0 U U Lfl ;E H 1� P7 CJ C� 0 Ea N PNu PQ a, I-A C� ,-4 0 u 0 w 0 P� 'A H C. ov 4J Cti ul i4 YJ Uk 41 u4 4J CO 0 0 D� u u wH 0 U cq c N 14 tj 0 F4 U EA ()I < cl- 0 14, m 0 m 0 CA N a 0 Q 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 d d 0, H o 0) m 0 w 14, 0 m �t fn m o Pry m d d 1i N N d1 C� N m 0 m 0 N IV 0 41 w r H H H q1 m 0) 0 0) El- m kZ Q 0 m 0 0, M n Ln qO U) c- N q v H H m r- r- r- H IV 111 ca w m C, 0 (N q N v H M m H r N N 11 N C1 H H H Ln Ln H N Lf) c 0000000 'D c o c o o oaoc cl c o o o D o o KD 0 Cl 0 (D 0 C o c o c dD O a o 0 o o a o a a o c o c O 0 o 0 0 o o 1� o q 1> 0, a o o o a a o o o Do En r1l, r� :r P4 D� P� El W� W Ul w x P, w m FY4 Si HI a� W Ix co m m 0 G 0 m dM PLI u 21 H � E,: v. v v, q. P' (N H m W w w H P, C) o H. H H r1 .-I -I U) w V) H 'n w a, N u 0, H W 4 v f too (n EL H cl 4 m x. c a) " > Ln 0 r H m i a H El w E-4 W Pi v4 F 1 04 0. a rl Z jd H 0 4 N 0z m m Iv rq N (N (N N N z Z 14 04 .4 0 41 O H 0,-1 W 0 P4 W Fu P4 P, U En m N H -i H H H H fli u Q C4 u I- :F, 0 0 c U pr I 11 u OD 0 -0 oil- u 0 H H H 0 dD Ln om, rn Ln v C,d) m W w co co w of o O Ln 000000 1-1 H H -d H H -d H 11 -1 H 11 H F4 w pq Dq w W > > > A4 w 14 w 14 14 J) IQ m co m U) ul 14 N N N m �q w W I. 01 w 0 :4 < 9 r�4 u 0 , rli Im4 C4 a� m 04 W 00002� CN 14 .0 44 �74 P El C) >-4 x PQ H U UP U rq m 11 m A H A A H A ri Iq IV d1 ff1 H H -1: N N 01 CN rq N CN Q o 0 000000 0 H N m m m m M m 0 H H 'A ..I I rA ra F,-1 0 " a, 0 (7) IV H H H cyl 0) 0 0 t-- N m a -dl 0 0 0 C) " q. IV m 0 m 0) m d0 to 00 c 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 c a 0 c 0 0 c H Iq H H L() (N H li Lf) Ln kD lO Ln N H H u Ud U z z '.4 4 z U 02 000 HH � H " H: H F-, F-� E-. 0 0 E-, El �l 0 x �z () 0 U 0 0 C) fil C) H H a' d+ C14 PI El u H H ;� W, m r� w 0� 00 >� �4 0 00 0 U) 0 u E� w u u u u E. 0 t:D z 14 H �i 0) 11 14 ppqq KC U 04 co m m H z 2 H El El EA cl. Si < m 00 P� z z z W: N U d-I 4 0 x H " " 1-1 0 " Q 0 U u U u W. u u u U u u u u u P, u u a) CD l0 0 0 Q 0 o ID N 11 11 0) w W h O I.fl Q it Q Q 0 14, l0 rtA m Ln rq w N N -41 rq H m N 0 a 0 m Ln m r- In m H rq H Lrl In IH Iq H ri I H H -f r-I ri H '-f H 1-4 H d! li A H (N N N C9 rq N N N " N N N N (N 0 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 c 0 0 C) C, C) u o a d. Ln w x 0) 0 00 'A N m er Ln t, q w a1 'll IV -1 d, J1 It IV m It 'D lD w Q W �D 0 W w U u U X u 0 a o o s,' 0 0 0 o d o d d 4 o or Q c o N N El N N (A N N N N " N N N cq N N 0 c 0 c 0 CD C 0 c 0 0 c 14 H -, -, H H H H -4 H 14 li H m 0 U U z IR 44 d H 0 DI E-4 9 W E-1 Q Q Ol Ci 1.0 l0 h d It H d d d 0 O d O m N N N • °a 4'7, C`' M O M O V' M [" �O O l.m N x d' 4G M H h C P H H m O O O tfP. 0 6f7 d1 Lfl H d +.fa m H m tJ 0 H Q N o N nn H O O Cl N M L'} W b o Q m b 'cr 000 h 0 [^• H lc r'Y m m rn M 0) O <T' 0 0) w I.Il <]' 0) H U U7 CD Q N h Lfl M m H m Cr' L'] ' r m m d^ dw d' m' m H Q M Q w to m Ln Q Q l0 h d'1 M H ik rt4 <M H H O M Q O H N dw m 1 N M H H r4 N U➢ WW 'N4 1 G` 0) H H 0 m N 07 N H N tT' m Ln w a H w a H w 11 11 044 w'ww w rna H H P7 ri f1d H N H w W Mi ( H 41u w Cu " QV H H! w CD 'w ml' H4 H H a-7 W fa' m U Gar; u Vj W N w a 11 DQ 04 N 04 04 rHr�� IV IV *'{ W N '4'2. 6�-H 11 W 04 PI P4 PI O uN' DU 0L H H b' 'd+ \ N s. ',,.7 H H N ', ', g G7 (13 'a m 'd7 ID W H W I-7 H 4.1 H H Q ua U) 3 �t W �t W ua In In ul w H P4 rIr W fJ U \ w 0 000 0 0 O 0 0 O coo 000 O 000000 0000 0� 000 00 I Q 000 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q COO d QQ d O d d d d d d d d d d 000 6 0 W Rl !+7 W H w H 6. W C414 H 14, H 0 u . . . . 'U k7 U 0 0 O D OSJ Q Q Q O O Q 0' 0 Q, SJO Q Q QO Q QQQ QQO Q Q Q Q,Q O'Q Lol GfD W u7 14 1 N N N N N fw H 0 W W H� r17 f+ H� '(J U V1 U) V] PQ H H h pa �i U] 0 q Q Q d Q 0 0 d V' q N d� C*. H O H N W O w G H (Y, (Yp o W u] O na H O fa U O I O w aw C) N o F El o H H d wq �d$ H N x p u d' 3 N aF C7' G". fb ai iJ 1J f➢ N U rt H' W H 0 F.. O 0, O u El H R d N H H H W a 1x N r1,MN U HHm E7 N (7H d H H El H (A. W W 14 W 0 y H w u q H ul� I O N N 1 117 r H M N O H H U q q 1s. ^>r 00 000 m 0 HU1 w w Lf7 tYl A A l l.m N x C'Y Q N m w 0. 1 1O o w W N N N N N l0 1 w m m m 0 00 m o H O O O 0 u O O M H O Q w H H H H wN N N N H H M M N H H H H H H 1 H 1 1 N H H U U7 CD Q w u7 W QQ a w w W k, W q n a bra t7 N N N W w w H r4 N U➢ WW 'N4 Ui rn Ui N' P q 0 a H w a to w 11 11 044 w'ww w rna H H f1d H N H w W Mi ( H 41u w Cu " QV H H! w CD 'w ml' H4 H H a-7 W fa' m U Gar; u Vj W N w a 11 DQ 04 N 04 04 rHr�� IV IV *'{ W N '4'2. 6�-H W 04 PI P4 PI O uN' DU 0L H H b' 'd+ \ N s. ',,.7 H H N ', ', g G7 (13 'a m 'd7 ID 4J W I-7 H 4.1 H H Q ua U) 3 �t W �t W ua In In ul w H P4 rIr W M 0lM \ w "1 Ln H \. H E- ua co H H N9 H w W 0 H 0 H H PK H u7 rO LQ LO ul m N -. H H p m M I { E M M I H H OrL v1 H\ H fa f� 14 H H F W W W 'v^ m H H \ 1 W P: W W Rl !+7 W H w H 6. W C414 H 14, H 0 u 'U k7 U 0 0 PX f4'9 N H d 9 fk A,' 04 04 H H H Lol `.'-� u7 14 1 N N N N N fw H 0 W W H� r17 f+ H� '(J U V1 U) V] PQ H H h pa H N W fa f� W d Ql O O N N 1 117 r r11 M M N N Q Q Q q Ln q q q q W W m m 0 0 m w w Lf7 tYl A A l l.m N N C C'Y Q Q M m w m m 1O o H C CID l l0 1 1S) m m m m 0 00 m o H O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O Q H H H H H H H H'. N N N N H H M M N H H H H H H 1 H 1 1 N H H U U7 CD Q 'y' W Q N CM W N mLn LI1 !^ m H0 L 1 O O O O O H H O O O VD <O Ln H H d' m lf1 d' CF1 f"B t"7 It d' d' m m N , °4 0) m M [m 00 00 m m W m 00 C11 m H d1 0 0 q q 0 0 q q O O C] 0 d O 0 d N C H H H H H C h h H H' H H H d1N WJ H HH H H N (N N A HH U ur4uuu H uu H rH is r arilm H 1111 wUl z aaaaa 2 X X U a�a, E H H NNNn,N ©0G rata W �n�rnn G1 C1U C�H 'q s 'HZd 2 H H V) En m OD ul m W (A to 3 0 wA7 417 0 000'0 (D c.7 w n U)my H z7,2zz mud u •cl 4, H H H H H (0 V) Ln ix P4 a a 00 O HHHHH 'z CJ'U u7 P> P4 P�P4 00 O WW W W w W w U U U U H H 00 H f1lwn,.Nw > 00 m m U] ',J" `,J U' ',_7 "M.J" W W W W r -T H7 H H u U u u U U U 'U o Gl C� q f.°.l C) n f,7 O H 07 IT d+ cT 0 0 M N N N 0) 0) 0) N N I d O Q d O h 0) CV l0 lU U) d' Vv <7" d' d' 01 m m H d" C W w I H:H H H H m r H HH hh N H01 HmO1 H Hd+ m 00 md" M N d'' N H H 41 d'•' d° H H H H H H H H d•• CI'7 Ln M f'7 d' It d' d' It IT d' dd d° IV d" d`• sM d" IV G' fj H H H H H H H H H H H H H' H H H H H H H H H'.. H H H H H l H I H I I H H H J' H H H H 'M7 H H H H'.. H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Hi N H H H H. H V 1 N N N N N N N N N N' N N N N N N N N N N N N C V N N r] H cc d d d d d 6, 00 d d © d C, O Q d Q Q Q Cl Q 00 00 f7 W 2 O m m 'Ol O H N M m u7 m m t10 Q C N `° m m m m m Ol Cn fD1 (l ,H', H N 1 ,' „ d� d" d'• Ln >.r7 �r7 7n Ln m u7 wn r- w r r r r r r r r r r r r r r IV IV 'r h h h 'r q, eJ x d• � ter' d' d' w d" d• d" d• d' ar w � Er tr' d• 4r w a' d• d• � 4r «r d' x ra u U U u U U u U 00 gory' O q q 0O cF 0 q0 q qO d 00 V] H N NEli N N N N N N NNH N NE N N N N N N E N NNE N N NH N N r y' i7 g q C 7 0 q 0 q 0 0 q 0 O 000 q q O' O 0 O Q 0 0 0 O d o O O do U E H -1 F, H H H H H H HHEw H E °1 H H H Hr -IH H H H H HI Hr-1H H H 100 O H 07 IT d+ cT 0 0 M N N N 0) 0) 0) N N I d O Q d O h 0) CV l0 lU U) d' Vv <7" d' d' 01 m m H d" C W w I H:H H H H m r H HH hh N H01 HmO1 H Hd+ m 00 md" M N d'' N H H 41 d'•' d° H H H H H H H H d•• CI'7 Ln M f'7 d' It d' d' It IT d' dd d° IV d" d`• sM d" IV G' fj H H H H H H H H H H H H H' H H H H H H H H H'.. H H H H H l H I H I I H H H J' H H H H 'M7 H H H H'.. H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Hi N H H H H. H V 1 N N N N N N N N N N' N N N N N N N N N N N N C V N N r] H cc d d d d d 6, 00 d d © d C, O Q d Q Q Q Cl Q 00 00 f7 W 2 O m m 'Ol O H N M m u7 m m t10 Q C N `° m m m m m Ol Cn fD1 (l ,H', H N 1 ,' „ d� d" d'• Ln >.r7 �r7 7n Ln m u7 wn r- w r r r r r r r r r r r r r r IV IV 'r h h h 'r q, eJ x d• � ter' d' d' w d" d• d" d• d' ar w � Er tr' d• 4r w a' d• d• � 4r «r d' x ra u U U u U U u U 00 gory' O q q 0O cF 0 q0 q qO d 00 V] H N NEli N N N N N N NNH N NE N N N N N N E N NNE N N NH N N r y' i7 g q C 7 0 q 0 q 0 0 q 0 O 000 q q O' O 0 O Q 0 0 0 O d o O O do U E H -1 F, H H H H H H HHEw H E °1 H H H Hr -IH H H H H HI Hr-1H H H 100 100 mm LL' W fl7 H z W F i7 U PA a O 0 4' O H r� N [la H O H N W •d z ca reF H � P: PI d cu H d Q U o' V O' o4 o GL' O W �E FU) I-I H O U C7 W' o a H N x d c� W H x fl U N s� v A m �s U7 it iJ t� U Rf a@ w E+ () C4 0 U dX U U W H a �4 ca m N U HHm C7 N w p H O H El F W G7 W N z -I U I -7 Cr l .Cl F H w w o 0 0 u 0 o m o m m r O w c? In o m N m w w o d m H w w c O o d d r d m N v1 m m d r.7+ d N o N rn o r r ul 'm r N r w O �a O k!'1 O m q r7 Q m <j" w H r O N d N m H tiJ m f, N N f` "- q, .o m m d` m Ln It N m 'D r r N H rn V^ Ln w m Vn v r In N m H H dl m O? CV m H Ln .3'' 11 N M H tl7 H N H H H O O N N Ln ri h h w M, N H r"a H' H N i0 H m 1-I 1 O O O d O O O 0 O O o O O O O d Odd d d O d d d d O d d O C7 4 O Q C, O 0 0 O O 000 O O O 000 O COO O O O O O O O O O O d d d d d d 1� d d 1J d d d d C) 1 i d q d d d 1l C7 O C; 1) 17 C1I W Ln Ln m d1a. O rn C7 is N G' H N W r°' >, E+ H G1 H r+ m N N ?* U] I p rr E r7 F U.. o>, nC W W ti7 fq I >, H H H ',7., H III ',K Lq I°7 H ] W 2 r''', µ' ca [%X o7 .� H V 7 {n Ifl [�A U cn 'r-d H H C7 N W C+, xC W '> W CL .7 a H 'r do rz W a Cw x H W I U1 U7 H Hill P< Pl F H SA ,-+ " C, I U 0 z W m i a� P, of Pi \, � '�.. H o E m m 04 W !z; H cn P, H H' N M�:) �D ?C O w 1n In 04 U h 14 of ' ; m uu tw (n U) W H u N clw a) m a 7 in P, N L%9 \ m 5 w N N w WI P, m N N La W 3 U] cn tL a m H m F- O 0 CY Z w W FC m E'. n: Wa Q a v' C7 1n U 0 n w 1 Q H H H tx O r a s W P, �. , [7.v w 3: r1 H 4 W ]' W W r \. �7 t1.� P, m G7 mot' fh P, W r1 '� Pr P4 H W w H H w °I H Wr N H 4 CL' P, H [A H C) 0 P, W p \ r PD [A U W W W � n Pi w'3 u i E \ Lo U) 4 M NI \ m UI D, 11 F, H N E r P« 7'k U) Gu. [!] UD N u7 N U! Sl1 E. W W H m U3 '[i) W H [: • E w W C] (a H i U7 �1 H 4x, H H z H a� a H H m " O m ID m O O Ir d H it 0 W' v V' It m In IV W m m m w m IV w m w m w d d O d O d O d O O m H.. H w H H H w m r U1 H H In H H H 0.n w w u Ei z z H H W z o W Q 0 a tza u H H W W H rat, U E u) 00 Q W p � H r x x w fl� 0 a W WQ 0 w W W W m n O m w q o O o 0 Ln w a' w a' ID m m m w O O O d C] H r H H H H N H H H a z p H H w U z ) W U U7' tW-w rWi ^QV,, a a+ H w zz -Ul w E �� x 94 El El zwww a m w' d m sr m m O O O H fn r H w' N 0 0 W H �4 �4 u z 111 m O U`i m w r cr tr N a' 1n -s w r w uawmmm Ln a oca000 w H HC` HH N In H N H H H y Pa H a 1� H zzzzz R3 F, HHHHH w U ¢ar9a xfx9 1�1 z zzzzz � � HHrw wuH I 101 U hw E 0 u u GJ a H U z H �J T I N w h Ln w d'' H lYY H to d' Ln h l IG H H m r H.. O m Ln .-U ri H n o r H H H [V H w m m m m m I I TM T'Y N Ln H m N Ul h i' r1l) I*1 N X N N N N w w =.1' d' rl m N N w m N w w �' � M r) m m m N N In r`"1 m m N m m m m rq N N N N N v« w <H H H A H H H H H +� CO U1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O 00 O O C7 O O CS Q W 7 W Q" N i+l w 4 w lf7 In w w r U} m W m. kO O r H H. [^ r N r Cn C'° W r m Ln r [^ w r r r h h m 6'� m h O O O O O m m m m m H v r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U x w w w w a F u u u u U a a a a o .El d o a d c3 O o o d 2 0 N 00000 w N E N N N N N N CV', N N (N (q N N S N N N N N N N N F N N NNE-+ N N N N N N N N N < Ci © O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 000 C} C] Q d d d U U H E H r_I ra .-1 H H H H H H0 H H Ew H H H H H E, r-0 H r4 [-A ril H H r °i r °I H rl N 101 U hw E 0 u u GJ a H U z H �J W iCA N' o omO m o00 r- Q b Ln 0 W Ln 1-4 Q m4mpm W N Ln H h h jp C- w o) Ln 'v: uro rn N 9 cn M rn m o N 11 m 1D h m o 'la ry o) N,. N 'n b m b (] W N Q bIb H HQ 4 M N H M 00 mm C' MmO mH'. d" W Nh\Oh Ol0 m, ml`°h w r- p o W o W C- N m +�' H m w 'T m '.A m m of o r+'D In W 'ql+ h N Il'l N �^v H d' �o m P P 0.' O H N IT Q m, Q m N N d" N r°Y (*1 h m qV GSA Ln m r T'1 m L w H m N' x-tl H m N Ln m H H W (N H W r H ry wl 2 d WH ocD Q Q o Q P P p p p p o o p 0 o p O o O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o o p <7 O 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b cc O O o b Q Q b Q Q Q Q Q P P P Pc) �� fr P P o dp pd p d p p o C7 CJ CJ oO C: O OOOOOOQ OO QQ Q b,Q QQU rTl I-� 0i Cn I p H co wm of W o0 N � www vJ a NN y. k (xl W H r%1 v w w I G° ZJ 0 H M -1 $-0 0 a N N N nl W W 7 in u' a w w nxa IEl 11 H o rwa H aaa �' a > av qq a aaa a a a a a a a a a W H xxx FCC \ H dM d1 'r v N0.IN NNNNNNNNNN ,.�.. 04 H M H H. AH 1 w N CL 04 C4 CL 04 N C4 P, N 04 01 01 QQ \ '\ \.'\ a) ' D �D �D 5 �::) �D �:) =1 �D M �:) W �D A4l (N r' H N N N N N {Y, G7 u) V) ul (J) rA' u) cn oa u) G11 u1 En U 0 f�' M N H W H F Q N w E 23 p Ow C W cA o oot oo m h remhQm r*iQhwr+:h rl rl w U] ['� 1+t Q crl r+) H In vt d' m H444N P4 N p+ -74'4 p 4 M d• 7^ M ✓Y m f -� G7 m f�i W Cd !A ltl \D l0 m 90' m m m m o P Q d d 4 o p p p p d d o d p cl o p o a 0 p p p p 4 p p p 4 o o o o 0 p p DI La W iiJ H H H H H h h 'IX) CO r'-4 M M: H M M H r-C H ri H H .-Y H H rV H ,-+ H H H' H PV H b c w H W e-1 H H Lfl t11 tf1 4n H H M H H H r'°i U 4 o U U U [-,[,[A rJ} U7 w v) Cn HHH H HH H HH H H w HH H H �D.D iD > > > > >' > > >�>> v '0N d U U P.'r4 P'. P4 P: P: P: Pb. P'I w c; P� R'. P4 P; N W o i U 0 (D U U H E H w w w w w w w W w w w w W > F n �C q n nr nuau'uJU7 nco acn' n H HM b I F'YFE. u F+ 'Y^ P+ r�,� FFFF FHFFFFHFH Qr�i I `w' ',T^'' w ` 24 �(', F [ H HH 4 HH HHH H H H H HHH H rsa O I u'i7ED �-i i) n r) QQ nn0npr) 0 W 7 H H H H U ax Pu' W W W z W W W W W W w W'. m W W W W '44 Q O 0 n Q Q w P« P4 P� P4 P4 m ix Pk Pa c4 Ix m P4 x C L) U UQ rA 11 H [ UCJUUC L i U VUU u �m P� z z zzz H m ce 04 www 'W H Q H H HHH TAM KC 6L N ix�PS C H HHHHHHHHHHHH x o n vlrnrll HH w I I KM '© 000C�G700000000 U N z N m 91414 U U W 'a n fa U U C�J .u..l N P� Pe " Pi Pi N P^ N N P. W P^. - DI W �D CQ Wm WW P' 7 LP WWWW WWWWWWG]'W W,, ':.. > [7 U gix vJ Q Q xx'x caC]aQ[7C1caQC]caQG1C� QQ c I Z H FHE LL P, M W W HHH tU 1 H K'91C a a E E as wW w'wwWw W WwwW W HI' --a' �l 0.." y0-", 'U' ".U,' ".UL" '.Q"C 'U, °.UC '.U7, .Q`�, d1 I A i r mmm ti+� W H W WWW aim � W m Q1 m x °1 N N N e1^ 'c11' q^ V' J' cl� c7^ cl^ y^ W ey+ q� m m 0 m m t+v, W W W b b c C H H art I N N W b b G] t"1 m f"P !'1 m m E'1 +'1 m f") i'1 m f'1 m H H H 1tl H �r �r Ha <r 'rrHa^ YI mHH ar' rHwd'arw r 'v 'j, ?1 Q H H HH H H H H H M H r1 I o-I H ri M M a-V r°i'. A H H H M H H H H'. H H rl r� H H HI w d r w r1r w w aq er vie ^c r rwa�ra ^rn�a^ a ^� HH H H>"'I I H H H H H li liHH H HH H H H HH H H HH HHHHH HH NN N NN N N N N NNN N N NNN NNNN NNN'.00 NN rn ul a', H o 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O Q Q'O O O O o 0 0 Q 0 Q Q � v^ L7 fu H 41 m H' W O HC] I CJ b W H m N N [`A co mco .•+)m mm V m fln m ',D w K` W m m'm W x m m Qo Q - Q d d - P dd44 0c)m0 Mmm 0) ch m Q1m M H m Ol U' P4 h r-- r- hh r- r- h r- r- h rhh r- rrrrr- rr- rrrrrr rr U W H 0 v d' G' IT <N'' 'r d' I1' Iv d' d' d° d' d" d" d' b' da d^ �ql 'p d' <'7"m H Py H U h h hr-h h h h rh h h hh h i- hr-hh r- hf^h h r- hh hh H H H w H w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a •• (X n, x �mN u u x x x x x x H H r•'� L7 U U E W W p} W w w o ff M E LJ U U CJ U C7 U W W W W Q x: p p C")p p Q. pp d, p C5 p 0 4 pp p{']p CJ p pO ppppl� ppA'i EZ I U) rq N N'(,4 Nf-'+ NCq N N N N N NCN N N NNNN NNN NNN NNE NN E 1 H w u t Q () Q 0P Q (,) Q Q Q Q Q o Q P Q Q Q P P Q Q O P Q Q Q o 6 Q Q 4 Q Q Po (�'. H g M'74 U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 102 z� z H u u u �i w� H z w m 6n H W E eN M m N p W' H �e n w r G G 00 O GO G OGOG O G00C] P+ MA OICf]lO OQ h rN d+• ° °F d+ Lo MN If] M o o o d dPdPPPPPPPPOPPOP mwwntc>�Hrt° -rm rMaHr c M arc -ovr r G G o U N Q5 N M d III. H h H H N M H r H M W H P Fn M N �O M M M tr M r H r W M r O O Lt➢ G O o to H t31M o'rN mWN Hr W H O W HON LP7 loN Cp8 GcT+HN Y7 w N m(N N O r N h P° Ff„ r m. 10 m Mto Lf1 N'lC1 NerM m(' Hm m MrH W N H 471H H Hlp a) H mm r- N N N W H' .N H to M r N w M PQ �i wH Ch U P o 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O G G O O 0 0 0 G O G G G 0 G G G O O o O G OOO O G C7 C7 CJ O C?Od060d Q 406 Od O d P PPP P P P Poo 0 0 0 0 �� � 0 o G O G O G O G O O G O O G O G O O' G G O G O C7 C) C3 U C7 CS O d 01 ad d O O O w G 0 H Cj N cJ Cs: H 0 H. N z W 0 0 W C z (7 m rH f� r4 PP ul 0 P H P q U O r 0 9x o w P H to d H H O ow P P', H N u W H u U N as 47 .j as a7 J� N ro rn C N F7 U u L7 H �L1 W H Klw u P 0 H U 0 C a H P: H H H w Ua•• Cz N O H G H F, [ w W W w 0 El H wu�.+ E °+ U 4 U d,' [F7 G] C>7 U1 [n C15 CA [n tf] U] Uf U➢ U1 4!] [n I W U CJ C)UUiJU C.7UU UU'UUU � rn en Uf U cn va rn u] cn ry cn U Cn cn rn HUI Ff ' KEG KC cPv KC KC. KC EH H HFA 1 -1 hl 1-4H HHH HHHHH H Pn Pi Pi w Pi P' P4 iYi w PG Pi w w H © 000000000000000 R' M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U \ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I H H. H H 4 H d+ 4M+ H d� I H H H H H H H H H. H H H H H H P w a'1 rH.N m+3' Vl for W OtHNM W'O ^� �^ rn u'1 u'r ut ut vl ul u7 u, In vi rn m yr u1 k48 ✓A 97 m A5 W tt3 m W ¢] m m 07 QY [6 m "�` o P000 Po o i'?o o C?C}5700 W H H ,-1 ,-i H ri HHH H H HHH h Pa I.rl H'H H HH H HHHHH HH Ht/7 I 0000000oo000aoo I H H HY H IH H H H H H H H H H H I wW W 1.27 W P] P7Www W w w I aa a U14 vuUUUUU eoUUUU U P7 0 PI P P P P P P P PAP P P P q 000000004000000 0 11 01 01 f2l 04 04 C14 04 04 CII P4 01 M f1l 04 > I ,�+ UuUU[.�UU[JUUCISZUU I a w 01 G]P]w w ww www ww wG] I P H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H P r rrr r r r r r r r r r r r � r rre -rnr rrrrrrc�rr r H m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m H � cr tr �r r w a� �r �r a' � •r s r c O o o c d d 0 O P O N NNN "J+NN NNN NN (U 14 W wPu W V7 w w GrM U}(zA G.G W w www W H N NMI:] H. www W Wwwaw .W Wrx7 H -i 1 PPN Pi0 04 P ax wD % Pa C4 PPP UJ'PPPW PP P ¢77 rrD 0 QQP4 o o o o w o o o w o o o U'o U U H Q O O &A o o U �NdM W rm 411 d'r uflNN M M eN CI WA M m W CY.] W W f11 m Q] m m m m L7 Cao 0C]o 00 b 000 H H H H H H H H H H H H n a a,r.h M aa,,awaCL 0, wi'l�P4 iZ4P�]w6:�P ua u] u] rn cn U ua U7 U u] ¢n sn P�a�r�Pxax7�PerxrxP�aP� wWwWWWwWWwwca �..7� -a ,- 7oaaa,aaa :4Zz;4zz 2�4 �4'4 axPxr�xaxaPrPrrx P P4 PI P P P P+ P� P P C11 f14 aw-P'A a.10 aaa 1� K[ KG 1C KGB KC, P. a P:. P: P: PG P: P' P" Pi P' 9: P1 w w G] w w w w w W W w PL 01 04 04 PI P+LLPP4LPP H H H H H H H H H H H H O H M rtl N WH H w d d � 61+ N N' U] > P� W Ul H 417 u7 04 ww 04 H H H P 7 m P Pu El H u� ww Ln o O G P cq N w W w H' W m H m m 0 0 0 0 h H M M N H 4n io 0 4n U P4 H H E. El E4 o HH z as U � -a F C7 C) C? u U PS Q P �t P: rq w u Q o N H W G H lP O r P P H L4T ull e9' C!ti M r H -4 u 0 0 I H 4D tID o N H Z P4 H w q U PSG o a w w El > u m 0 w ID a a H Aj W w w a u W z u A a U d' Kr' T C d+ d+ � W Cn =r' � W H M M 'VD 1.➢ O N V7 4P3 tf1 117 uf1 ilp Uk W'7 Lf7 Lf1 lfl !1'i C6 M H H d^^ +-Y+. N �0' m m m m m W e0' m ap W en ep Era. ata M M an CN N 'j, r IV a+ r d' rsr N �s rmd'w� r b+ •s w H H ...... 1 H ri H H H IHHf�rH'I H bE I H H H HH H H. � °i ri rl wM H r °i H nl H r'4. r °0 H rH w °I H H O O G O G O© D C7 C] C} O O CZ d O C] CZ O O C} C) O d d O d d O O d O P O d d w z 1z] U U N Mt'14"Y r'1 MMMM MmM Mm Mai V'd' CC' GM 'C b' V' 7' d'"ak' K3+ �'1 l[1 rr CO Ql C? H I 2 O1 CT 431 dl 0501 C71 al, 01 Gl 01. 010lm 0 01 6) 71.. 014710ti m m m of m m m m Cal mm m m G 0 r hrr r hrr hr r rrh r rr r 1`•h rr^ r r- c- -r [- r [^ rr h r W W H Cf r rr r ['� hr h hr r rhh hr rr hrr r r r rrr h h C� r r r r P+ h ,H w rir wwv� 1�1.ow va u3 �+.P �ww u+ to wto flaw mto .a ',D�a stn to U u U U C? W KC ','3; o P i.3 C ?C7 CJ C30C?C70 CJ 4700E G G00OG0 GG(N N(N U]' N N N NNN N NN,N NNN NNN E-I N NNN NNN CV NN NNE+ N N ON N N N N rS o 00000PC3 P[?Ci [aooK�ofl aHH A€J00aon00C3 0 H GGO G G cs H ,-r H � H H H,, ,� rl ,A r1 ,� ,� Ei ,� � ,� ,. ¢ H r1 rl ,� ,� 103 l� z H 0 0 U U a U z z 4w I N m LP w F m H N P Cx7 H Li R;', 104 El O L) I-q I CN X Ca I f9 E� c 00 c �v In n m o Ln H (,4 (- Ln N o w c noorn in v rn ru man in rmo r 0 m 1[`^ Ln Ll , 0 N N C7 47 c 0 M -W Cq 13) 14 , H 'p 0 , , rq I�v H Ln . . . . ID p CJ r- . . . . . . . . . . . C) kD 0 l0 Q M M W M 1,0 1- r- > H m 0 u 0) a) a) Ln r- H H c '1 1) 0 N m c- r- N N r- -1 IV -T M m H c m 0 H H H H , O H W El 000 0 'D C) C, 0 Q 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 000000CCOCC 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 11 c: a C� 1� P, '4 0 0 c 000 0 en Ca Ca ;E: rq N Lo H H H En 0 c �: Ln N "i w DI r4 H O E- N W rQ .4 nQ i cO ID C� PQ fl, E — X v el P, p C) § n pi H 0 H H H no �D a, 12n rk� § m 0 L) w w P4 o 41 W w Y H ui in D >+ r ul 00 m cq H H H E R li w w M CA 9 .1 �4 l4 9 9 1-4 11 11 (N E, C� H clo El P CX PK 04 P4 a al 04 01 01 04 W 01 al 04 al H 14 -1 (A m pi pi P" P, LL P, P., pi P., i11 ;z ;z N 0 P CN S4 P r4 0 40 q .D :5 D rD rD .':) p a; p p w E4 H Er. EA r- El 0 A a, M CQ M mm w m wmmwumw Qv r4 H CS C14 0 w rl c 0 rq 0 0) 0 0 (N 0 01 H H 00 A H H 0 " 0 H 0 -1 U3 1�5 H H H w A 1-4 0 a IT 110 0 �n 0 0 00 0 a v 0 H 0 00,D Ln Ln " Ln In o m w 'I M Ln N c Q NN - ZINmN�NN -tin E-, N 0) 14 1p �o m m m c Q m im m m in m 1, m r- 0 00 C) C) 0 Ci u o u) 000000000on c H H H -1 -f m H H H 'A H w -1 -1 H H " A r- " M H H I H H ral H 11 m ri -�i H H W -�! r-I kn 10 H H H Iq I-q H N H lo H H H CD z z 0 P: 0 I yl W u7. H z z z Q w 43 El W u p lx Ca w U 0 P >1 " W P, N u w m 0 w � 4 w NI E� F� P E, H EH E+ H E, E1 E-� U Ir ce (X cx w m z u Q E4 H H W 14 W 00000000000 0 N w U H U Z X >> ftI rH H H 04 " CU 04 a' CL Cl P+ CL O M > H, z u a 0 z 0 �4 ;4 rA o W H H H �:) " u 0 n � �4 �14 H 0 P, H Co u U 0 H LQ H U� 00 0 w U 0 fzi 4� C�, F, C� rn N D, N " Pr4 F4 PI w r4 f 44 r4 PI 00000000000 �j in m N �D M) C, H H Oft u) Ln H 0) m in Ln c o eTF t-- q L, m in v t- N N (N 0 cT) 0) 0 0) m m m 0F m m w I N rq m H H N Ln o) Ln rq Je 1p H Ir Ln x IV IV 1� V. IV I- v. P dI A H H H I I I I I 1 -1 H I I I I I H I I H I �A H A -1 H H H H H H li 11 H H 11 H I H H H H I H H H H r-f H H �d rq (N IN rq N rq (N N rq (N N N (N rq N N rq N rq N (N (N (N N N IN N to cc 0 0 C) 0 CD 0 0 0 0 cc C 0 0 cQo DOD CO000000 0 H H cN in W r- w m o ri H N v in Ln in DID WIDW Wwlo QWQ rHH u ril 0 m cc m co co co co o) w cc m m m m w co co co w m m w m mmmmmm u I- g ZI, a, EA 04 -1 0 r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r� r- r- r- r- r- rl r- �- r- r, r- r- r- " N �i ID ID In ID lD w "D ID w Q �D w w u Z Z Q E. Ln 0 PA O H H [-A E oc o u o Q u o o o oo� 0 0 ocu4 00000000000 N N � N " N N N N N N " N " N rq N N E� I H �A U 0 0 c C) 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 C' C) 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 ci 1� in � H A El H H H H I H H A -1 -1 H El H -4 H H H -4 p A HHH W I H HI HHI 104 El O L) I-q I CN X Ca I f9 a, P, W P7 Ym{ �i PSI W H W U O q C7 p d d k1' H d� N Cir � 0 H N z CJ W 4' F /K P7 d W to ea iaa H o `J 1� V p i o H tr� a VWcn 0 x o w uN U N w w 3 v u fd z3 Ea N Ua crs fa H \ H yj m O P� 0 u W H N �A H W H Hrn U NLn 07 0 • U 0 q H W u �7 H ell < El m 4 w w C 0 0 0 Ir N O m O m ri 0 H co C- H d �o ifl Ln q i a) o Ln 0 lIl N r N Ln N rq H Ln r r, N t+1 cT, rn ul O p WMp 1' N H m m O' O m O 0 Ln m m L {nNp m m m m 0 m H 04'o a) N�^ r-imh r ID 0 m d' w r In' H m h NmN hh Nln In m H d'"r..I w Ol an w m m I fl1 It m l0 H i+l m N w, IT 1F1. r t0 m N H m H H N 10 m r m H H N m H N H w O m m �, 00 b dd d d C]' C] O Q O O Q C5 q O qq q q gg00 0000 OOO d d O c]gICJ op p p p p p p 6 b o d Od dO dOd d40 CJ C?e7 C366e76Ct O OOC.�C7 C7 O o p p p O p p 0 O OOOO d Oo0 000 d0 O O CJ C7 Ca C> C] C6 W a cn cn H C' W N N Q H to p p H p �•. � w In H C3 rhrnm bbbCa HHH H try HHHH 00000 P, 14 GL M WWWW qQ�W W w w W u u u u 0 0 0 0 p N p at o H m y 1n rYr w � H H e m rf m ID H w �D en u, 0 m' ca Cr] W �, 0x7 V W.. V m z H. o H H p 0 V a H H oil u7 ,-1 � d+ al b+ bl er gal v� �" w w H a^ A en H H -�1 -{ H H H H H H 0 W W W a © to PL a, P4 U Q c,"1 h a ry CV m u �. 0 W [J N m 0 mmt'1 fr] m mrrB m mr^I mmmm m mm m '\ Gel w C7 G 7 G Ems' H�' 11 m W TJ H I I 1 I I I 1 I m I a asG H a H fl� C' a PN m rqmrq mmmm mrq m m mmmm H 1 C4 PL Pe lD w rl]' u � p, Pla N NN NNN NNNN NNN NN NN N N \ w a3 vD A H H H H M a, a 2 z w w H 1 (n fkl. \ a W \ O 6 I m Crl er1 U U)c u N N N U] C4 [`- t-1 P�' CO f� W H C' W N N Q H to p p H p �•. � w In H C3 rhrnm bbbCa HHH H try HHHH 00000 P, 14 GL M WWWW qQ�W W w w W u u u u 0 0 0 0 p N p at o H m y 1n rYr w � H H e m rf m ID H w �D en u, 0 m' CJ7 Cr] W W 0x7 V W.. V m z o H z a 2 0 O en 0 W W W a © to PL a, b ON mN GI IIlH hHr*1�ellw('- HNw O m d d HO dH HHNd 7Od0pCJ HHH H o m Inmmmmmm�vmmInml mmmm<r m m r3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m q r O q N H m r—AHc H bHH H H H H HHH c7 H Oo00 HH Hw �' H N 4D If1 HH'.HHHHHH HHHH H HH Htn W ill W W tl, W al C1, G, W G4,. 04 Caa Ol t1 P, W [d, 000000000000000000 V VV cn P: PxPiP4 ''PLrxrx'PdrxwrxP4wrxP4rxrxrx ,a H U W W W W W w w W w w W W Gil W Gil W wW Q) t � �< d g << d rc< E-, a H W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ur H W u c a n n y ca Q� e u3 n c n n cn u cn n �C of z 000000000000000000 0 0 om 'r r r m m m m m f)ti H p M m w .j, H w In N In N 111 N !N In N N (N to In LIl UB m In CN Ln 011 Vl tllm H. O O CN m [P m d H NNN NN NNN NNN NNN N NNN I V "'�' V "+y" H. LI.1 u➢ N w ST' 0 W, lo LDl0 'wwl0 t0ww'1410101i1 w+.01Q tir <r w a" ly rn 'r 14, It IV vl r 1r d"' 1�1 Ga H H I H H H H H H H H H H H A H H H H -1HH H H, ° #H H o a \ a \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \v d^��ra'�•r�r r���w� mmmmnsr `:J H HHH H H H H H H H H H ,--1 H rY H H HHH H r1 N HHH ri H r E H H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N'. N N N N N N N N N N N N H g d O p q p p O p, p p O 0 0 O O O O O d d C] 6 d O d d O d 0 0 6 6. W z W C7 0 wwiow r m m o r-a N In ID rrrr- r- r[,rrrrrr- - rrr C--c•.. °.may r-f H H H H H H N N N' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •, m m m m [O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w d" VI 1p It V' 'V" 5: tit' , W d' d" d< dl' st, W 'I' H U r r rr H W ID'lDw w w 141 Q w w w w Q w w 'ID ID '.D (D wID wLD wa.➢'D ww ua tow V u U x ts, Q V u 7 5 x dOd OF V7' p O 7 O N. 0 b N N N N N N N N N , rq N N bO0 d O O d d O O O C H - H ON C7 b N Ca N O0 b N CA CN O] ON C.� CN d J CN O} 6N C7 CcN 77 O N Ca N Cd7 oN p SN C7] ON O aNp' CN C37 0 N C] FO . rl [ --I' H H H H H H H H H H H.. H H H HHH HHH H H H H H H. H H H 105 O r�- wo H H u a V El El w m OP H a N O em`a d H H N N f� H H W El 0 m H V N w f-+ o E' 000000 c mr- y co)w r- H r- o moo Q Ln Lf) co t- H .Q m en u o w r. o Ln r- no o cc c o mHan , a + rr cP aLn c� (� r c� r� r� c- c o Ln a) r- as r- o) ca N c c) o o o o Q, o, p, mNln '.orrl m t a) o n o cD co v MN ' H' c' H' m' m' c oo' NlnHVaw D o m m Ln u) H Ln co cN N aft H r- o m tf7 Ln v o N m ri H Cq N H o o Ln 'D Qo N (N 01 H m er r- m c m o M r- r- m N m Ln rl H eG r- w n � -4 H cc0000 o coo oQo c 000000 coo c00000 c o o ocooQ c00000 o coo coo u 000cco coo 000Qco o o o oc000 c� c� 0 o c� O c� Cr O O O p p o, o, c, o, o, o, o, o" o,o, o, o, c o, c c� c� c� O c� c� O c rj) (1) W > C4 fx �4 >1 M DI PQ Ix � W, H F-I �D 0 CQ ww BIN >1 N U U P, 4 w u w [A 0 10 (Y Od P4 u) 0 q o El 000 (D 0 u 00 (n a^ H o 4 z �z Z FA N wa cc P, t, 19 14 0.-1 W w I- -- DI w w 0 p Ln m t- In Lo lw 11 " •zv It A o M coa %J H H H H H > kD 1 - 1 1 - 1 u 0 Ln A H v H H M -- El ul Dw a. r4 Ll rq u In m m m M i. w x C1 n F F El E- 04 01 04 n4 M m a, I I H \ \ \\ H 'I H 0 H O c x x x x x CO " 1�1 q. " 'n H t-- .4, A co H rq H (, I Z Ol M Q4 al OL P PL PL P P, 'A 11 H P� 04 12r 04 DI N (�4 0� x N N D D o w r4 w N W Iq N N H H H H H H li H 11 11 u) M ca M M H rl fN M u) ul, (a O El 0 W r- W o rq (N (N o c o lo In Ln m a) :v m m m M H o o M Z (A rd o0 oo � w n o m t-P Q q, 4, q, v w 0 r-I 'T Ln I I H Ln Ln N 0 N N o � N " � m H - N N Ln � Iv rq N r L- m � rl 11 W Ua o w w M �G �o �o c oocoo co O c ocnon cc 0000c ocoo o H H H H 1-4 H H H H I N I H H (N r I H H I H � H N m m H -1 1 w LL Fi O H rl H H H 'A 'A H H H H H IfA Ln H H -i H H H H QY In Ln ri H I-q In Ce. P� p p El p E. w N E-A H H H H E, F, El w rr co u) u) w w w U U U U �Li p p < < 4ku 00 u n w H H �4 u u 0 0 00 Ci u u 8 u w 14 u) LI) r4 W W e farj F- E- E, F4 E, >4 00 cUi z El 00 u) to H Q Ln E, Ew E, N u u u u v) u) WWWWW w w 11 1 ,4 , o Q H H H u Z 4 4 4 4 �4 �4 0 0 ll� • W > u u () u u u u u u a � � z � Z 00000 � z 00 1414 � 014 0 f1l w U) ul M u) rA F4 w w Q � < � 9 F!4 4 LI) W U �) U U U u u P [A [I P El 144,4 El El EA [I Ee El El x 0 NH . H H H H 0 "t 4 wMm m ca w rjl ca W LO (0 w u) LO w w w u) u) cl� 1-3 1 v) ul u) Lo En 4j 10 71 : N N (N N N m (N rq cc to m m m m m to Ln H -1 H H H N I N N N N N l0 rq N H -4 o m In In V L m m w w M m w In o w H H H H N In u) w mm M mm Mm N N N NN H N -4 mm MM fu H q r v v q -41 lzr -41 H H H H H Ir Iv Ir Hi H-1 -1 -4 H H H 1p Ir 14, q H H H H H Iv H �41 '4V H H H H It `1"d+'' 11, t 4J --I I -I H H H li 1 11 H H H H H I H 'I A H A H A H H H Ilf H oouoa o oo oo N o N N (1) N N c0oco N N cc N (14 N N N ococo N Q N N N N N �4 El u. It It " v Iv Ln Ln w m o o c o 0 In m m m �n rl) m In In In (I lzv It -;v I*- u P� 0 w m w w w oo co w mm m w w m m m mm OD co w co QD cu w w w w w If It t, IT Iv Ir Iv Iv c, -41 -41 �41 r, v r- Ir �- ID kD ID w w ID u+ w w IL �o w x Hm 0 u u 2 El W W W W w w W N Ln off u El < W x o o o o o o co� o 00000� cog 00000� o c o 000c,� .1 u rq NN N (N N N rq rq N N E, NN N N (N N N NN NNE- H 000coo a cc 0 oo 0 o cncco C coo cocco C) o fl F, UJ FG a H H H H li El H H ri El H H El H H H rH H H F H eN E-. H 'A H H li P -1 106 0 u Cl 0� U I z H. ro 107 0 U U A� 11 rq rn E, El N CN Ln 01 0 ommmom 0 o 0 0 0H 11 0 0 C) 0 Q 0 m Ln m H c w m 11) 01 m q 0 )R kD 0 m 0 0,� m m m 0 'j, N N N N 0 1 co IV 0 H I...1 n q �p 01 0) 0 m r- m Ln 0) 'A m 'A cq (N m IZO N , a) H H H m IL H (N H m w CU 0 ooQ 0 11 0 0 C, CICI"C000 - c� c� c� Q000000 0 a 0 0 O O O c c q c C� OC)CIO 0 O000QQo Q o Q Q o o o 0 0 0 0 o o oQocQg q cn U t17 0 H I-q H H H H Lo w N N cn i7 KC 1 w 0 000000 1�4 w w w E. I H m W �D z z >1 .- w 1 01 o El C) H E� 1� 4� El 0 N � 0 :4 'j, w w CY u �4 m El o H o 0 U) U) U) (0 U) U) E-A H �f �11 H H �* W IV CY m El 'o 0 .4 W N r-I W N N 11 H H. 414 14 U " " H H " H E H 010, \ 0 4 4 .4F4 4 ..] :E N q 0 P4 PI 0 0 0 Fil 0 Ln 2 D' U z m Cx 0 FD �D N m fil ril n, n, is al 04 it al al O� P4 (14 10 ::� V) m W, >A N 4 0 H 0 U w rf) W r`D 1.) � rn `D � 4, H ID Fli w 0 o DI W: N N ri) Lo U) Ln Lo (o U) C4 pq P4 E al E r4 N DII f:l W C11 H p E-+ E. 1-1 El E H H 1.1 E p w N H H li H -f N > X 0 W (0 \ l\ 0 Z 4 H 00 Di rA W DI m w - W W E, E, 04 D, 4 H Cl, 94 -1 0 p wwwwww 14 P4 m 4 4 4 4 4 4 EE E, �D �D 0 W ��4 01 N VII CY4 F4 r, Ul U) r- A r- rj M E, U w m w r� w o o O o00 0 ch 0✓ m m Ln u) m a) 0) 0 c 0 z (a A IT IV IV 'r IV IV IT 'p 0000000 v N CC Ca oo oo Co oo 'dm m Ln Ln Ln cc -j� 4 xmmmmm Q h m � [ I �o o�uQ Q o o o w U) A H A �u to ID �o ID u) m In u) N LP u) ul li H H H H H H H N tD n 0 o El � m aiA� C, P4 0 4 < j N �11 uuu uuu 6 E-1 E cn 0 EE E, ra � z OERROROQ7 z z z 0 4 z z a] w W y1 LI) u " H " I xxx Z H CIlwwmwwww �rl r1l w 11" U 4 (N U) Lo Lo W 222221, W ;4 0 0 H %P�P4 ';4 000000 H � w x W. 0 crt uuuuuuuu t, P4 17) rD n W W N W N W W 0 P, 0 z D40' r. P' fli C4' P PU ca m w u wn :D W W W H a U .1 4 11 KC 9 9 04 0 m p zz El FA U 0 C) wwwwwwmw co m co w U) U) m w F�� 13 �j «D LD �D �:) :D m Ln m m w m m w H m m m w Ln m w Ln Ln r- r- u w 01 0) fn Lf) N N N N N (N N (N Ln U1 LO 0� 0 al a� 0710 t- N 0 m H 'i -� H H �l V] w w w w W H r- '3' H 11 r, Ln Ln H -4, q. m' cv -tv v. Si LZ H: A H A H A H H H H H H H A H H H H H H H H H IV H m H H H H H H I H H IV 'p -I H H, i H H H 'i ru rj) N (N N N V4 N N N N N N rq cN N rq N cq N (N N N ri N (N N N N N (N rq ul coo 0 000000 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z E, E- mmmmmm LO Q r- m m U) 0 H N IV r- r- > r- r- > Z -T Iji IT 1�1 �- Id, -4 " 4-4. ll� on Ln V) u) �n Ln a) Lf) Ln �n rel 0 mmm w mmmmmm m m m m w m ro oo oo m co w 10 m co 00 w co 00 m u F4 H -41 41 q. IV • w kD Q �D '.6 tD W 5D w Q 5o ID 04 P4 0 off HE U, u u u F-I u N w0 N rq N N N N N N N CN N N N cq N N N rq N N N FC 000c o oQ0000 C) c o o 0 n o 000n0000 H (n zc H r-i H E-, H H r-4 H H H H E, H H I H H H E� H H H H H H H H ri H H,-i H 107 0 U U A� 11 rq rn E, • 0 0 u u fJ fPi E. I W W v H m r, w 0 Mm ONQ L� 0 , c c c r c C� C� G� "I C! C� C� 0 N m "T Q co 03 kD 00 r- r- W 0 0 'r+) IZ V Ln 0 Ch 01 0 U) MV W 0 11 W Ln M W 01 U) H 0 Ln In a 0 M W H � MC) W M M N �, M N Ln W 0M M rq H M MN W Q M H H NiO W M W M W H H m H N m N cc N00 Y MON H m W MN I N 1-1 H Ln I-q 7 ri m El n, C� C� C� 0 a a a a C� C� a O O b b C; 0 0 0 b 0' O O O O O O Q, 0 a, 0 0 0' a' C� 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' a' C� UI 0 u 0 U) U) 0 w P� 1 04 n4 co E- m r) 04 P to H 9 0 > N H 124 CA 0 .4 E+ x C7 z '14 U 0 m E, w u fwa E, V-1 cn 'I 1'S rq E tX co L) 0 CD m 0 pq F�c 0 A A , w m 0 z x 0 H 1-1 w �°- P, N 04 04 12� 04 01 a� 04 94 N rl, N m a, N n, 04 >4 rL m fl, N X4 0, 00 W w fx r"700 w"3 ra r,3 0 m 0 D P� 0 W C14 0 H r� P4 Q� w co U � U u u co u U) 0) (n u m H H N 'd, r� C) x 2: Lax H O pa El ru N 00 Moo HLn" Nl- Ln "Q)o Hr0000 000 00 OMO) Ln�- OOWOOHO z w H ro 0 o 0 0 H 00000° H IV 0 0 m 0 " 0 " N 0 0 a IV HO �p v �v v v It v 0 v v v �D v H w v 0 r. 0 0 coca o NLnLnu)Ln Liit ",) O Nkp,)u) co nmn LntonLn u)�nmLn rqcq �)O Mn It NN Iq N E- -- m m w m w M, m MD 'o m ""-, ""T w w M q � M 1-0 M ID 11D 111' W 1-0 ID 1-0 IJO ID 10 10 11D r-I 10 10 kU 10 r � � 'HI mm ON, 'H P4 m 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 C 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 CD Ln 0 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U° 0 C 0 0 0 0 C m U) 0 11 �i H H H H �,- H H H H N H A H H H H H �� m H H H H H H q H H H H w W H H H r, H H H H H wH O 44 kD W m H m H H H H " N q H HHH^ H H H H H w H w ko H H H H H H " H H H " Ln m " H HHIf1 H H H H H Humbun HUH MMMMM, 0 i u(n H HH HH"H� HHHHFIHHHHHHHHHHH" H 0 U, u u u u u u u u u u ri u u Ei li u u u u u u u u u u Ei U u U u 0 U ci Cl ci u u U u u u u u tj u u u u w 0 P� P� P� w P4 P� CK IX �D tD �D �D �D �D �D �Dl 1p, III:,) �D 01 M I'l M IIA PI 11 01 111 11 01 111 M III III III f)r a, I'l N n, III N III M III P,4 P'l Pl M CL P, a m ol P4 - P� a� P, a, 04 N u . ....... ............. ..... ' ... t4 �4 xxx ex a5 a mwmm mmm wAm4mmmpQ MPQMPQ MMPQ mm Comm mmm MMMMPQ 0 mMPQ MgQMMPQ OWLowtowo mwwunw wwcn WuiW(A Moo MWOWLO Ul Lnwwoww WU)w r3 r) r) 105 I Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln u) IN N1 Ln m Lo Ln m m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m m Lf) Ln Ln Ln IN m w m m m m Ln m m m m m m m m m m "Ill N N N N " N N " N " (N N N ri N N rq N (N N CN N N cli N N N (N " rq N N N N (N N IV 11, 1*- Ir It d1 It Id, 1*1 V' q IV V' -41 q. q IV IV v IZV IV Vp 1p Jr IV V1 q v lw IV I*, " V V" '�" VK HHHHHHHH H H H H H H H, - , H H H H H 41 1p w 1p �r v IV v 'r v *1 v <r IV IV Ir It 11 'r v v It v -4114,14, Ir It 'v IV It 14, v a. rl5 'b7 N N N N rq N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (N N N (N N (9 N N N El iJ r . . . . . . . . . . r- r- Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln m m tin m all un On w Ln Ln m ul Ul Ln Ln u) o Ln o m Ul m NI m m Un Ln m o un In Ln Ln Ulm In U) IN u P4 co co ca m m co co m cc co 0000 m 00 ca 00 00 cc co m m m m cc m OD ca 00 co Do co co 00 00 co m co co CD OD co m m m w m w m u H V * p " I p ;p �t �� V �ql 11 �* " V V " V I �t p 4 �j V q " V t �W �� tl �� T ;p IV Ir 1p %' 11, �l -V 11, �v 'v IV V 4 I I o H w w %D w w w w w W w w w w W W w w w w w w W w w w w W W W W w w 0 W w w W w W w W w w Io w W W w W C-) El El El El X 11 U WU A" F, rA 9 H H H I H H -4 H H H H H H H H: -i H H H H H H H H H HHHH HHHHHH H HHH H H HIH H H • 0 0 u u fJ fPi E. I rn P Ln 0 m m 0) m m 41 0 m w 0 0 0) 0 H rv) w 0 w o ,v o co w o Lj) v w r- m m m din o Ln r C� N N m17 N O� O) 0 0 0) r, w 0 wm6NO In m m a N Ch riHg1 a) 0 0 Mm Hr ko Ln 00 m �D 'r Lp -W G1 rq C m U) 0 m 1) H r) 0.o H rc, -11, (N r- w d4 r1l CC m r-I fr N v91 H -4 Pe WH M U 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0000 000000000000000000 00000000 0 0 0 c 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0' 0' 0* 0' 0' 0' Q, 0' 0' a' a' 0' C; C� d d d C� 0 0 ca O 1� C; C; 0 C; H 0000 C)OU N ri (N ri vq N CN 4 a,4 H 0 >1 ,'v > `r- >1 >+ >1 H �rl F� N N r�l N r�l c N H N pa w DQ 14 (n 0 El H " H Z 29, F4 W W W DQ w w U4 C� P� � > ;E C) P� H H " H H H I I P4 P4 E+ 0 P4 W 0 0,3 11 1-1 1.; 1-1 0 114 Nwwwwwmw a: 0) 04 a W W CL Qr CL P, a, P (14 U E-, E E- W '�.: � � W \0 Pr P, P1 P4 PI In 4 z � bxw w w HP co w x r� r) �]) �D �D 0) CAW N ril pq U) (B LOU) w (n U) 0 04 44 01 El W W r1l 0 �N (14 L� � � N N W P, 0 0 0 0 N � N 41 04 A, 04 4� W W W w DO pi m 0 �:) P r) (n 0 U) U CO 04 M n4 P4 M ni H H > ax U) U) En U) U) 11 0 m W �D m �q �l 1; w w PN F11 11 1-1 Iq w VP �1 z E. 0 M 0 rA N C) 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ln h y1 ri 01 C, cr, 0 H m 0 0 0 0 0 fo 'r -W 0 0 IV co �v -41 'p 0 0 H Ln M Ln W 0 0 N Ln 0 w N NNUWWMMM m m m "D In 'A I�t D OD co co OD co co E P1 w 'j, w 'T V. -V �� �f v I ,I v .4, H H 4, w m m m m �o kD co m m m �o 10 w 00 co m m fl�rq 0 0 0 m r- 0 O0Qo o0a w (A o 04 H Lf) 'IV ID IV I w ID w w W 'D w rD Q U noonnnnnn Ix Pp m P4 W. 04 r,. mm re 04 r4 fx 0 Ix Lx a L4 z rn H H H P P E74 H u HUH u x QQ E. E. F- E. >� El p(o Ley HH ;H� ZH :H4 ZH ZH ZH ZH Z" ZH Fil ZH Z" Z" MH El W 434 H 1p� 04P, Qi 04 H H u (D IA I I H HZ �ZA I FZq 9 tD n U U (.) w 0 U) H P4 (Y 0000 D� P4 Q� (x r-I 0 1�1 w OU w P u Q M w T: ri W H 0 C4 1 - x ol w m Ix � �7) �D n R N, 1 � �� 0 �, � 1, � N N N m N m � N N w w r� m 17� fli r4 000 u () u m 0 b2l (10 04 a4 ol 04 PI PI PI PI N N PI PI PI PW P4 PI CII 124 Pi r[4 04 H oi F w w w 41 U . . . . . . . . w E4 El p E4 p [-4 u p m (n CC M co 000 2" 2 wU H 3 P, Ln mmmm (L)Uuu ww (DOO ZZ�z zzz m HHHH H 4J 41 fa 1 m m un m m Ln iLn u) u) u) m In Ln m In an m m m w m m w m w 0) w Ln r- r- r- r Ln Ln Ln w -() Ln �- I- r- r- m m m 1 r9 m m Ln m N N N N r- r- r- to IV v 1p 1p 1p It 'p q q v �41 It -;I, IV 'r Ln Ln Ln a) Ln lz� 9 W H rrr<rerwwlp 11 r p 'r 'p IV sr v wv It IV -V rw 7I ri H 11 H -1 A H H A H H H H H H H A rA H H H H ri H H H 'A rq H H H li H r-t li -i H 1J H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H NH H H ri ri N ri A H -i H H H H rl H H H CN N N N N N (N N (N N C9 (N rq N N (N N Lu H d d d 0 0 0 0 d d d O d O 0 0 O O d 0 0 0 0 4 Ca 0 0 0 C, C, 0 0000 cloo 41 w O c- r- r- r- c-- r- c-, r- r- r- c-- r- r- m m 0 H rq m m rl) m 0 H 2) r Z m � iLn w � Ln m m Ln Ln m w m m w m m m m m m m in m Ln Lf) u o w w P4 0 w mwm w m mmm m co OD co co CON co co 00 m 00 �o 00 co 00 co co CC, w w w co w m w w w W H 0 � IV -W IV IV 'j, 1p v q v q. IV v 'IV 1p IV 'IF Ir v IV v IV IV I- s W P4 04 w x wwww w %0 w g r) rq u z 2 Ln 0 H U o 1.4 r'll4pq wo w 0000000000ao0a00000000000� 0 0 0 o c 00004 000r4 El x .4 u (n N N " N N N N N N N N N " N N N N (N N N (N N N N N (N N N N NN NNE N N (N AI NU 0 0 0 0O000 ooOo [A Q< H H A H -t ri A H A A H A H . . . HHHHHHHHH EM 14 H " H " H H E. A H " E 109 0 U C) 4 U B P4 0 ca O O O a. H Ca A u >+ El U +Ti CJ TS SJ 4 4-) rd H S4 -1 E, 0 Q C) f� 0 41 H m El P4 0 H El E 9 - U F. E-, al I P4 al > 0 0 rr er m F N w 10 0 0 0 0 'n N w -e H 0) �v c 0 E ' O w N m a m cN -1 m m m H H c o m m oD m N H u) v H o o In c W 0 r- r r- H u H N --I rq r cl H H N co co x H li li W H 0 00 O o o o ood oQno o) a) o) 9 d o o o o o o u o o O O H H 'i FEl c� c, 0 c� c3 0 o' Q" m, 0 ca O O O a. H Ca A u >+ El U +Ti CJ TS SJ 4 4-) rd H S4 -1 E, 0 Q C) f� 0 41 H m El P4 0 H El E 9 - U F. E-, al I P4 al > 0 0 rr er m W P.' LO In 0 w w F, 0 s Cl W 0 H u H N --I rq r cl H r- rl- E-a #1 IV Ln Ln in ID 41 14, co 0 (N 0 1-4 H H It 'A w El 0 G 0 04 x x tl 0 04 01 04 Q 00 C4 pj PG n Ln H H x 00 El z z z W � :Z: En t, IV QL CL C4 00 0 w w w LI) U) " " I .1 4i F4 Ell w I�c < 0 O 0 It 0 rq H H m li m 0) V) V) co x m q, 1M In O H H 00 m 0 0 0 Iq ri IV In w11 Ln p un to U' v lzr IV 'r � I'll IV li H H H H H �j 'A H H H C9 N N 11 11 C, C, C, C, 0 0 0 �o m cn m m I" �o El Z It co co co w H H 0 H 'A c 0 0 N H H H Q w w 0 Q rq N CN U Chi to U u E P� 0 0 00 C) c o (N m N E, N N (14 N N N El N N N H E, F, 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H EA H H H ^-! r-I HI H j -4 H H H H H 110 tJ F-; U rV Ga r4 CJ O ITI u) rd CK m o o w w a� H CJ cr I c7 U 0 p4 aj �g �j 4j ro Cn W, 0 w H E, D' rq �n HC Z EA F E, P, P� > 0 co ri, H H O OQ P F, N �o w o o 0 O m CN m � q m 4 o 0 0 z E- n H CJ H Iq 0 0 0) 13) W N H Xn J) 0 rn r- D m m co m I- r r- H rq H r- r- r- -1 11 H QY 000 0 Q u 0 000 0 0 C, 0 IH H O ITI u) rd CK m o o w w a� H CJ cr I c7 U 0 p4 aj �g �j 4j ro Cn W, 0 w H E, D' rq �n HC Z EA F E, P, P� > 0 co ri, H H O OQ P E. 0 U) I C O O I 44 000 I 1 0 0 P, a, 01 PI C4 0 u Tj 0 H H H >1 a a 11 I F i7 4u PD ar P, 04 Ln M H 00 n f-I u 0 u fl] Q z q M 14 W W Kc u u u HH w m m win xww Ln H H � m a O O tp I- IT v) Ln Ln E- IV le Ip Ir It IV A 'A , I q. I H Ii H 11 H 'I H H U) N rq N N N N N N N N (N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 L➢ L➢ ID I- q. .4. ca cc co m w m H H IV 'p 0 r- H Ii I-i Lo 117 QQ 1.0 l0 C, 0 rq N N fi Q 0 91 P U u C1 G. Ix E, N N N r4 N E, N N (NI g oa() o o coo o o 0 0 0 0 U � H EA H H H F H I P E, D P 111 Qi O E, z E- n H P.' 0 H rq H r- r- r- E. 0 U) I C O O I 44 000 I 1 0 0 P, a, 01 PI C4 0 u Tj 0 H H H >1 a a 11 I F i7 4u PD ar P, 04 Ln M H 00 n f-I u 0 u fl] Q z q M 14 W W Kc u u u HH w m m win xww Ln H H � m a O O tp I- IT v) Ln Ln E- IV le Ip Ir It IV A 'A , I q. I H Ii H 11 H 'I H H U) N rq N N N N N N N N (N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 L➢ L➢ ID I- q. .4. ca cc co m w m H H IV 'p 0 r- H Ii I-i Lo 117 QQ 1.0 l0 C, 0 rq N N fi Q 0 91 P U u C1 G. Ix E, N N N r4 N E, N N (NI g oa() o o coo o o 0 0 0 0 U � H EA H H H F H I P E, D P 111 Qi O OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3223 www.cupertino.org C PERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject Set the dates for the Teen Commission application deadline and interviews. Recommended Action Staff recommends the following deadlines: 1.) Applications due in the City Clerk's office by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 9; and 2.) Interviews held beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27 and Wednesday, May 28 (as needed) Discussion The Teen Commission has only three vacancies this year due to a one -year appointment and three two -year appointments in 2012, leaving six vacancies for 2013. Each of the appointments in 2013 was for a two -year term. The Parks and Recreation Department will print and distribute flyers, as well as include the information in the summer Recreation Schedule and the Cupertino Scene. The City Clerk's Office will advertise the vacancies in the Courier and the World Journal. Interviews should be scheduled in May in order to interview applicants before they leave the area for summer activities. Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk A112roved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager 112 N .......i� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject Approval of an agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design. Recommendation Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with Perkins +Will for urban planning and architectural design services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design, from the date of execution through March 31, 2015 for an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Seventy -one Thousand Dollars ($571,000) in substantially similar format to the attached draft agreement. Back rg ound The Capital Improvements Program Budget for FY2013/14, approved by Council in June 2013, includes four projects at the Civic Center complex. • Civic Center Master Plan • Civic Center - Parking Structure — Conceptual Design • Library - Book Drop -off Shade Canopy • Library Story Room Expansion A consultant selection process was initiated in August to select one or more consultants to provide the professional services necessary to undertake the design work of the projects. Discussion A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued on October 1, seeking Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) from interested urban planning /architectural services firms. The City received nine SOQs by the October 30th due date. A four - person selection panel, including two department directors, the Community Librarian, and an architect from another city, reviewed and ranked the firms based on selection criteria. The five highest ranked firms were invited to interview. Interviews were conducted on December 3rd by 1 113 a panel of five, made up of the same four members plus the City Manager. The five firms were evaluated and ranked based on selection criteria. Perkins +Will, from San Francisco, was the top- ranked firm. Perkins +Will is an international firm with a Bay Area presence. The firm has a strong history of urban planning and architecture in the Bay Area for municipal facilities, including having performed the design services for the Cupertino Library and Community Hall, and the earlier stage of the Civic Center master planning effort that resulted in the Civic Center Master Plan Framework, completed in 2012. Staff proposes to use the services of Perkins +Will for all four projects and also proposes that their work on the four projects be executed under three agreements — 1. Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design 2. Library - Book Drop -off Shade Canopy (Design) 3. Library Expansion (Design) Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design Agreement: Given that parking and traffic circulation are major factors to be considered in the master plan, staff recommends merging the master planning and the garage conceptual design efforts under a single agreement. The traffic circulation, parking options, and conceptual design options for a garage will be early products for Council consideration during the course of the master planning process. Starting from the Alternative 3 -Civic Life plan of the Civic Center Master Plan Framework, the consultant's scope of services is to carry out a process to develop and refine a preferred plan for Council approval. The scope of services includes community outreach, traffic and parking analyses, along with cost analysis and funding strategies for the Civic Center. The process includes three occasions when the project status will be presented to City Council and input will be solicited. Additional Concurrent Agreements: Agreements for architectural design services for the Library - Book Drop -off Shade Canopy and the Library Expansion are anticipated to be approved by the Director of Public Works under existing authority and to be in effect and underway concurrent with the Civic Center /Parking Garage design process. The Library Story Room Expansion project will track in parallel with the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design. 2 114 Environmental Analysis An agreement(s) for environmental analysis for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design and the Library Story Room Expansion projects will be authorized under the authority of the Director of Public Works, and will run concurrently with the planning and design projects. Alteration or expansion of facilities, or expansion of programming at the Civic Center site, whether at the Community Hall, City Hall, or Library, or any other proposed future facility, must be considered collectively for the supporting environmental analysis. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the agreement with Perkins +Will for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design in the amount of $571,000. The agreement includes $521,000 for the basic urban planning and architectural service and an allowance of $50,000 for additional services as needed or desired during the course of the project, which would be authorized by the Director of Public Works. Fiscal Impact The FY2013/14 appropriations for the Civic Center Master Plan (Budget Unit 420 -9144) and the Civic Center - Parking Structure - Conceptual Design (Budget Unit 420 -9272) projects are collectively sufficient to encumber for the amount of the recommended agreement. The potential for additional expansion of the library resulting from the design processes for the Library Story Room Expansion and the Civic Center Master Plan projects may require additional funding be committed to the project. Prepared by: Katy Jensen, CIP Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works A112roved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft of Agreement for consultant services for the Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Design 115 DRAFT 140220 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND PERKINS +WILL FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR URBAN PLANNING & ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN & PARKING GARAGE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING THIS AGREEMENT, for reference dated March 4, 2014, is by and between CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and PERKINS +WILL, a (California corporation) whose address is 185 Berry Street, Lobby One, Suite 5100, San Francisco, CA 94107 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Constitution and the statutes of the State of California and the Cupertino Municipal Code. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for urban planning and architectural services upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date this agreement is executed and shall terminate on March 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit A, titled "Scope of Services" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE: The Services of Consultant are to be completed according to the schedule set out in Exhibit B, titled "Schedule of Performance ", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 1 OF 10 116 DRAFT 140220 The maximum compensation to be paid to Consultant under this agreement shall not exceed Five Hundred Seventy -One Thousand Dollars ($ 571,000). The rate of payment is set out in Exhibit C, titled "Compensation ", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Consultant shall furnish to City a detailed statement of the work performed for compensation during the term of this Agreement. Consultant may submit monthly invoices for interim progress payments during the course of each phase, clearly stating as a minimum the total Contract amount, amount paid to date, percent complete and amount due. 5. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. 6. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. 7. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 8. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 9. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 10. PROJECT COORDINATION City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 2 OF 10 117 DRAFT 140220 CITY: Director of Public Works shall be representative of City for all purposes under this Agreement. Katy Jensen, is hereby designated as the Director of Public Works' designee and Project Manager, and shall supervise the progress and execution of this Agreement. CONSULTANT: Consultant shall assign a single Consultant Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for Consultant. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of the Agreement require a substitute Consultant Project Manager for any reason, the Consultant Project Manager designee shall be subject to the prior written acceptance and approval of the City Project Manager. The designated Consultant Project Manager shall be Geeti Silwal. 11. HOLD HARMLESS: A. Indemnit)� Obligations Subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8. 1. Where the law establishes a standard of care for Consultant's professional services, and to the extent the Consultant breaches or fails to meet such established standard of care, or is alleged to have breached or failed to meet such standard of care, Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all services performed in connection with the Agreement, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant or Consultant's employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Consultant shall not be obligated under this Agreement to indemnify City to the extent that the damage is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City, its agents or employees. 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant has no duty to provide or to pay for an up -front defense against unproven claims or allegations, but shall pay or reimburse the City for its reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant or its employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. However, the Consultant shall provide its immediate and active cooperation and assistance to the City, at no additional cost to the City, in analyzing, defending, and resolving such claims. B. Claims for Other Liability. For all liabilities other than those included within paragraph A. above, Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever from and against any of them, including any injury to or death of any person or damage to property or other liability of any nature, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or Consultant's employees, officers, officials, agents or independent contractors. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 3 OF 10 118 DRAFT 140220 expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Consultant shall not be obligated under this Agreement to indemnify City to the extent that the damage is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City, its agents or employees. C. Claims involving intellectual property. In addition to the obligations set forth in (A) and (B) above, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees, and volunteers, harmless from and against any Claim in which a violation of intellectual property rights, including but not limited to copyright or patent rights, is alleged that arises out of, pertains to, or relates to Consultant's negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct under this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel of City's choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. 12. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 12A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Cupertino, Attention: City Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and authorized to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured in relation to the commercial general liability and commercial automobile liability policies shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Workers' Compensation: Statutory coverage as required by the State of California. (2) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (3) Automotive: Commercial automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence or City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 4 OF 10 119 DRAFT 140220 Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each accident (4) Professional Liability: Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at least $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide commercial general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing commercial general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any worker's compensation and professional liability insurance, required by this Agreement. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 5 OF 10 120 DRAFT 140220 cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 15. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names are included in this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 16. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 17. OWNERSHIP OF WORK: A. Any interest (including copyright interests) of Consultant and its subconsultants in each and every study, document, report, draft, memoranda, work product, map, record, plan, drawing, specification and other deliverable, in any medium prepared or created by Consultant or its subconsultants pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. To the extent permitted by Title 17 of U.S. Code, all work product prepared or created under this Agreement shall be deemed works for hire and all copyrights in such works shall be the property of City. In the event that it is ever determined that any works prepared or created by Consultant or any subconsultant under this Agreement are not works for hire under U.S. law, Consultant hereby assigns to City all copyrights to such works when and as created. With Owner's prior written approval, Consultant may retain and use copies of such works for reference and as documentation of its experience and capabilities and in its promotional materials. With respect to Consultant's standard details, Consultant may retain the copyright, but grants to City a perpetual non - exclusive license to use such details in connection with the Project. B. Without limiting any other City right to any of the works prepared or created by Consultant or its subconsultants, all works may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others; (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and /or (4) Other City projects as appropriate. C. Any City reuse of works shall be subject to California Business and Professions Code Sections 5536.25, 6735, 6735.3 or 6735.4, if and to the extent applicable. Any City reuse of works for any purpose other than those in B(1) through B(3) above, and any modifications to any of the works, shall be at City's sole risk and expense. D. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. E. All written work required to be provided by this Agreement (other than large -scale architectural plans and similar items) shall be printed on recycled paper and shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 6 OF 10 121 DRAFT 140220 F. No work, information or other data given to or prepared created or assembled by Consultant or any of its subconsultants pursuant to this Agreement, shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant or any subconsultant without prior approval by City. G. Electronic and hard copies of Consultant's work product shall constitute the Project deliverables. Plans shall be in CAD and PDF formats, and other documents shall be in Microsoft Word and PDF formats. 18. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts there from as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 19. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. at: All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 Attention: Katy Jensen All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Perkins +Will 185 Berry Street, Lobby One Suite 5100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Attention: Geeti Silwal 20. TERMINATION: City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 7 OF 10 122 DRAFT 140220 In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within the time specified after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. In the event of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City, copies of all reports, documents, and other work performed by Consultant under this Agreement. 21. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 22. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 23. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 24. WAIVER: A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 25. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 26. GIFTS: A. Consultant is familiar with City's prohibition against the acceptance of any gift by a City officer or designated employee, which prohibition is found in City Administrative Procedures. B. Consultant agrees not to offer any City officer or designated employee any gift prohibited by the Administrative Procedures. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 8 OF 10 123 DRAFT 140220 C. The offer or giving of any prohibited gift shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement by Consultant. In addition to any other remedies, City may have in law or equity, City may terminate this Agreement for such breach as provided in Section 19 of this Agreement. 27. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 28. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 9 OF 10 124 P.O. No.: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed. CONSULTANT Perkins +Will A California Corporation By_ Name Title Date Tax I.D. No.: Address: 185 Berry Street, Lobby One Suite 5100 San Francisco, CA 94107 CITY OF CUPERTINO A Municipal Corporation By David Brandt, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Carol Korade, City Attorney ATTEST: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Contract Amount: Account No. : DRAFT 140220 City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 10 OF 10 125 DRAFT 140220 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN & PARKING GARAGE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA CONSULTANT shall perform professional services as detailed in the following sections related to the master planning of the Cupertino Civic Center area and the feasibility analysis and conceptual design for the parking option. SECTION 1 GENERAL A. General PROJECT Description: The PROJECT involves the development of a Civic Center Master Plan, and to develop a feasibility analysis and conceptual design for a parking structure at the Civic Center. The CONSULTANT shall provide all services required to manage the project, including all processes, all communication, all coordination, all record - keeping, and all process documentation. The CONSULTANT shall propose a detailed schedule for the project for review and approval of the CITY. The CONSULTANT shall solicit and obtain decisions from CITY as the project process requires in order to advance the project in accordance with the approved project schedule. The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the CITY a project and process update report at least monthly, or more frequently as project process requires. B. General Performance Requirements: 1. The performance of all services by CONSULTANT shall be to the satisfaction of the CITY, in accordance with the express terms hereof, including but not limited to the terms set out in detail in this scope of services and the standard of care provisions contained in this AGREEMENT. 2. The CITY's Department of Public Works shall manage the design and construction of the PROJECT and this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall receive final direction from the CITY's Director of Public Works or his/her authorized designee (hereinafter collectively "CITY ") only. The CITY shall resolve any conflicting direction from other groups, departments or agencies. 3. CONSULTANT shall coordinate this scope of services with the CITY as well as with other CITY consultants and contractors, as needed or as directed by the CITY. CONSULTANT shall schedule meetings and prepare meeting agendas and action item list for all PROJECT meetings under the scope of work. All City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 1 OF 10 126 DRAFT 140220 action item list of meetings are due to the CITY within five (5) working days after the meeting. CONSULTANT shall provide copies of such documentation to the CITY, to be shared by the CITY to other appropriate agencies and entities. CONSULTANT shall coordinate all responses to comments through the CITY. 4. The CITY shall direct CONSULTANT with respect to programming and functionality of the PROJECT space. The CITY shall approve design milestones through all tasks. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, direct written authorization or approval from the CITY shall mean and require the signatures of the CITY before proceeding to the next phase of work. 5. CONSULTANT shall designate and provide to the CITY the names of their team members for the PROJECT. The team members shall be satisfactory to the CITY. The team members shall include Karen Alschuler as CONSULTANT's Principal -in- charge for the duration of the PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall not substitute any team members without the prior approval of the CITY. 6. CONSULTANT's services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly process of the work. The schedule for the performance included in EXHIBIT B, may be adjusted by mutual agreement. 7. CONSULTANT shall manage its SUBCONSULTANTS, and administer the PROJECT. CONSULTANT shall consult with the CITY, research applicable design criteria, communicate with members of the PROJECT team, and issue progress reports as necessary and directed by the CITY. 8. CONSULTANT shall submit design documents to the CITY, according to SECTION 2 — "SCOPE OF SERVICES ", of this EXHIBIT A for purposes of evaluation and approval by the CITY. The CITY will review the design during each task. CONSULTANT will meet with the CITY for progress review at various stages of the PROJECT. CONSULTANT will be responsible for calling the appropriate SUBCONSULTANT(S) to attend any meetings included in this SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall make revisions to the design documents as required for each task in a timely manner. 9. CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY, as requested by the CITY, in connection with the CITY's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the PROJECT. 10. CONSULTANT shall prepare and make presentations to explain the design of the PROJECT at various occasions to representatives of the CITY, as directed by the CITY according to SECTION 2 — "SCOPE OF SERVICES" of this EXHIBIT A. 11. CONSULTANT shall prepare and present to the CITY an Organization Chart, Directory, and Communication Flow Chart at the PROJECT Kick -Off Meeting. This meeting shall introduce team members, establish routes of communication, and discuss the participants' roles, responsibilities, and authority. 12. CONSULTANT shall submit written requests for all information and official documents related to the PROJECT to the CITY. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 2 OF 10 127 DRAFT 140220 13. Communications Protocols • Team Meetings and Conference Calls: CONSULTANT will initiate the team /client meetings that allow for essential brainstorming and sharing of ideas among consultants and the CITY, leading to well- conceived final products. Attendance at these meetings will vary, based upon the work in progress and need for collaboration. In addition, it is important to have a weekly conference call with the CITY that will be attended by the invited consultants as needed. This will be a means to strategize the efforts and coordination needed for the upcoming weeks, update the CITY about work in progress, discuss points of collaboration to inform the products, and lay down the next steps for a seamless work process. Meeting Agendas: CONSULTANT to prepare, or have prepared by the particular meeting leader, draft meeting agendas for the team meetings and the weekly conference calls. CONSULTANT will send draft agendas to the CITY for review and comment. The finalized agenda will be distributed to required attendees by the CONSULTANT. Meeting Notes: CONSULTANT to prepare the meeting action item list for the team /client meetings and the conference calls. The action item list notes will focus primarily on documenting agreed -upon follow -up actions and responsibilities for the consultant team and CITY. Other Communication: In addition to the team meetings and the conference calls, all consultant team members are expected to be in direct communication with CITY for discussion and feedback specific to their scope, as required. The record of these independent meetings will consist of notes on key decisions made and action items, and will be completed by the respective consultant team member on behalf of CONSULTANT. This information will be reported by CONSULTANT in a timely manner at team meetings, during conference calls, or sooner via email if key decisions and directions need to be communicated to other consultant team members. 14. Management Protocols • Project Management: Project management actions are critical to the success of the project. As such, close coordination will be required between the CONSULTANT and CITY at each step in the process. Weekly phone calls and exchange of e -mail messages are anticipated to make up the bulk of these communications. In addition a brief bi- weekly status update documenting past 2 -weeks effort and next 2 weeks effort memorandum will be produced by CONSULTANT for CITY. • CONSULTANT will maintain overall control of the subconsultant team throughout the process, ensuring completion of draft and final documents, and any related actions, consistent with this overall Scope of Work, Project Timeline and Project Budget. CONSULTANT, their subconsultant team, and the CITY will share ideas and offer constructive feedback as the various studies are being City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 3 OF 10 128 DRAFT 140220 prepared, working to ensure that key findings and concerns generated through one subtask are considered in overall project findings and recommendations. As part of this action, CONSULTANT and CITY, will ensure seamless transition from one task to the next through a written sign -off of CITY approving the end of each phase and acknowledging the start of the next. Document Management: CONSULTANT will set up an internet -based document management /exchange platform called Newforma for efficient and secure sharing of information among consultants and CITY. Newforma tracks all files shared and maintains a record of files accessed by user group. It will help team members effectively communicate and share information throughout the course of the project. 15. Deliverables Format: The format of all text and graphic documents must be compatible with MS Word, Excel, or Adobe Creative Suite (e.g. Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat), respectively. All digital maps shall be in pdf, unless otherwise directed by the CITY. For all deliverables, one hard copy as well as a copy (in PDF format) shall be provided to CITY. Steps to Deliverable Completion: Working as partners toward completion of the scope, the CITY will participate in the evolution of the Master Plan through team work sessions and sharing of early concepts. Draft and final documents will be submitted by CONSULTANT to CITY. CITY will ensure timely review of all draft documents, providing a single set of consolidated City staff comments back to the CONSULTANT within 15 days of receipt of the documents from CONSULTANT, as well as meeting other responsibilities as contained in this Scope of Work. Comments received from CITY on the draft documents will be addressed in the next deliverable. C. Estimate of Probable Construction Cost: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the conceptual design of the PROJECT to allow a comprehensive Estimate of Probable Construction Cost and states the valid timeframe for the estimate. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 4 OF 10 129 DRAFT 140220 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES GENERAL The CONSULTANT shall provide all services necessary required to complete the tasks identified in the Scope of Services The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and manage all subconsultants in each project task. The CITY shall use the minimum work items identified in Appendix A as evidence that the CONSULTANT met the Task deliverable submission for billing purposes. Any deficiencies in the minimum work items identified shall cause the CITY to reject the entire submission, require the CONSULTANT to make appropriate corrections, and resubmit, at no cost to the CITY. Earned value for submissions according to the EXHIBIT C, Compensation Schedule shall not be considered earned until the Task Deliverable meets the minimum work standards set for in the Appendix. TASK 1— PROJECT INITIATION Task 1.1— Project Kick -Off • Preparation for project kick -off meeting • CCMP consultant team + client + environmental consultants kick -off meeting to confirm project goals, scope, approach, roles and communication protocols. • Discuss and establish a clear 3 -part project schedule to identify critical milestones in the 3 different scopes — Civic Center Master Plan +Parking, Book Drop -Off Canopy, and Library Story Room Expansion + Teen Room — that will need to track in parallel to enable flow of information /findings from one scope of services to the other. • Reiteration of preliminary understanding of the issues and opportunities as studied in the Master Plan Framework effort • Preliminary discussion on the envisioned experience of the Civic Center Master Plan area. • Discuss project /site energy, water, resiliency goals and targets, both quantifiable and experiential. Task 1.2 — Develop Outreach Plan • Establish clarity of process, participants and consultant /City roles at various outreach meetings • Develop list of attendees for the various outreach meetings and establish format for notification • Discuss schedule for community engagement • Discuss goals for each of the public outreach engagement and possibility for larger communications strategy • Discuss format /logistics of each event • Describe tools for effective communication and decision - making Task 1.3 — Analysis of Issues and Opportunities for next phase of CCMP Conduct in -depth analysis of parking /circulation/land use /open space /infrastructure Circulation /Parking Analysis - City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 5 OF 10 130 DRAFT 140220 • Study traffic and travel patterns • Conduct parking demand (vehicle & bicycles) surveys and circulation observations on two days TBD in collaboration with City staff • Establish target for number of additional parking spaces needed • Identify opportunities for providing additional parking o Expansion of surface parking • Location(s) • Approximate number of spaces • Possibilities of shared parking within or outside the site • Parking under new buildings • Building purpose/location • Parking footprint • Stand -alone parking structure • Locations • Footprint /Number of levels • Study pedestrian access and circulation network Land Use /Open Space Analysis — • Study context and its relations and connections with the project area. • Discuss opportunities Infrastructure Analysis — Issues and constraints relating to infrastructure and its ability to serve the area will be studied. Task 1.4 — Coordination with Environmental Consultants Coordination meeting with the EIR Consultants early on in the design process to help inform the design team of environmental constraints. Task 1.5 — Develop Range of Program Elements for CCMP • Discuss and define experience map for CCMP, with desired attributes and outcomes per piece. Establish list of all program elements (built and open space) that address project goals and enhance the district's economic and civic presence. With established program elements, and project vision as a base, use the experience mapping to articulate and align key design elements, processes, and potential users for this site. TASK 1 DELIVERABLES — • Memo summarizing findings of the analysis TASK 2 — MASTER PLAN OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT Task 2.1— Develop & Evaluate Master Plan Options for Alternative 3 — Civic Life • Study precedentsibest practices relevant to the site City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 6 OF 10 131 DRAFT 140220 • Develop up to 3 options for CCMP to incorporate various program elements. This task will be done in parallel with Task 2.3 - Develop Parking Options. • Develop land use, circulation and conceptual landscape plans for each option • Study three - dimensional concept massing of each option to understand view impacts on adjoining neighborhoods • Develop conceptual development program of each option • Study conceptual phasing plan for each option • Evaluate plans according to their ability to meet project goals Task 2.2 - Develop & Evaluate Parking Options (with & without structure) for Alternative 3 - Civic Life • Develop vehicle parking demand estimates based on selected program, including potential reductions associated with various TDM measures • Develop parking options identified in Phase 1, Task 1.3 • Prepare sketches for each alternative showing • Facility massing • Parking layout • Entry /exit locations and vehicle circulation paths • Pedestrian accommodations • Identify and discuss pros and cons of each alternative • Select preferred alternative(s) for further development • Develop short -, mid -, and long -term options for vehicle and bicycle parking • Develop interim parking solutions (parking management) to address parking demand until permanent additional parking is constructed. Task 2.3 - Cost Estimation of Master Plan Options + Parking Options • Develop costing options for CCMP master plan • Develop ROM cost estimates for parking options Task 2.4 - Develop Funding Strategies • Meet with City staff (Public Works /Finance) to review the types of funding sources that have been used by the City • Research additional local, regional, state and federal funding sources • Recommend funding strategies that could be utilized for Master Plan and Parking options • Analyze the potential use of tax exempt bond financing to fund all or a portion of the improvements • Analyze the potential use of public private partnerships Task 2.5 - Focus -Group Stakeholder Meeting 1 • Plan, coordinate and staff /facilitate stakeholder meeting to garner input on Master Plan options • Prepare presentation material City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 7 OF 10 132 DRAFT 140220 • Summarize stakeholder meeting Task 2.6 - City Council Meeting 1- Study session This is intended as an across the table discussion with the City Council to walk them through the conceptual options developed and get their buy -in on the preferred direction. • Preparation of presentation material • Share presentation material 1 week in advance of Council Meeting for one set of consolidated City comments • Attendance and presentation at the City Council Meeting • Incorporate comments received for final submission of Phase 2 material Task 2.7 - Community Workshop 1- Master Plan + Parking Concepts • Pre - meeting 2 weeks in advance of workshop to review workshop material and finalize plan preparation Strategize format and prepare presentation material Facilitate and attend workshop Summarize workshop findings Task 2.8 - City Council Meeting 2 - Approval on preferred direction • Preparation of presentation material • Attendance and presentation at the City Council Meeting • Incorporate comments received from City Council for submission of Phase 2 material TASK 2 DELIVERABLES - • Memorandum summarizing the Stakeholder Meeting and Community Workshop • Memorandum summarizing cost estimation • Memorandum summarizing funding strategies • Draft and final City Council presentation TASK 3 - PREFERRED MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT Task 3.1- Develop Preferred Master Plan Develop preferred Master Plan which could be a combination of components from various options. The preferred Master Plan will incorporate preferred parking option. Develop land use, circulation and landscape plan for preferred option Refine phasing plan for preferred option Task 3.2 - Refine Funding Strategies • Prepare projections for potential parking revenues and potential bond capacity analysis (and any other revenue sources identified in recommendations) • Prepare more refined funding strategy including evaluation of public private partnership options. Task 3.3 - Coordination with Environmental Consultants City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 8 OF 10 133 DRAFT 140220 • Coordination meeting with the EIR Consultants to discuss the preferred Master Plan Task 3.4 - Finalize Master Plan • Develop illustrative Final Master Plan • Develop land use plan illustration • Develop open space and streetscape plan illustration • Circulation plan • Conceptual elevation sketches • Site section • Development Phasing Plan • Develop 3- dimensional views /renderings for ease of visualizing the future Civic Center area Task 3.5 - Community Workshop 2 - Draft Master Plan • Pre - meeting 2 weeks in advance of workshop to review workshop material and finalize input strategy • Preparation of presentation material • Facilitation and attendance at workshop • Workshop summary memo TASK 3 DELIVERABLES - • Memorandum summarizing the Stakeholder Meeting and Community Workshop • Final illustrative Master Plan and 3- dimensional views • Draft and final City Council presentation TASK 4 - MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT Task 4.1 -Draft Master Plan Document • Prepare draft master plan document for City review and comments Task 4.2 - Planning Commission Meeting • Prepare presentation of draft master plan document • Share presentation material 1 week in advance of Commission Meeting for one consolidated set of City comments • Attendance and presentation at the Planning Commission Meeting. Attendance by other consultant team members shall be additional service. Task 4.3 - Final Draft Master Plan Document • Prepare final draft master plan document to incorporate City Council comments Task 4.4 - City Council Meeting 3 - Plan Adoption • Prepare presentation of final draft master plan document • Share presentation material 1 week in advance of Council Meeting for one consolidated set of City comments City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 9 OF 10 134 DRAFT 140220 • Attendance and presentation at the City Council Meeting by Perkins +Will. Other consultant attendance if needed will be discussed with the City as an additional service. Task 4.5 — Final Master Plan • Prepare final master plan document to incorporate City Council comments TASK 4 DELIVERABLES — • Draft Master Plan document • Final Draft Master Plan document • Final Master Plan document TASK 5 — ADDITIONAL SERVICES Consultant services not specifically identified in the Scope of Services shall be considered Additional Services. At the CITY's request, the CONSULTANT shall provide a fee proposal for specific additional services consistent and in accordance with the Exhibit C . Some of the additional tasks that may be requested are - Task 5.1— Eco- charrette to Develop Sustainable Strategies Task 5.2 — Develop branding /identity of the Civic Center District Task 5.3 — LEED ND documentation Task 5.4 - Preparation for and attendance by subconsultants at Planning Commission Task 5.5 - Preparation for and attendance at additional City Council Meetings This is not an exhaustive list but based on preliminary understanding of the project. END OF EXHIBIT A City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 10 OF 10 135 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN & PARKING GARAGE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA This is an exhibit attached to, and made a part of this Consultant Services Agreement with THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ( "City ") and Perkins +Will ( "Consultant ") for the provision of professional urban planning and architectural services ( "Services "). CONSULTANT shall complete all work by March 31, 2015. The following sets forth the distribution of CONSULTANT's Schedule of Performance for the project. The CITY may approve in writing the extension of any milestone date set in this Exhibit. Task #1: Project Initiation 2 months after execution the agreement Task #2: Master Plan Options Development 3 months after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this task Task #3: Preferred Master Plan Development 2 months after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this task Task #4: Master Plan Document 3 months after Notice to Proceed (NTP) for this task END OF EXHIBIT B City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit B Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 1 OF 1 136 EXHIBIT C SCOPE OF SERVICES CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN & PARKING GARAGE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA This is an exhibit attached to, and made a part of this Consultant Services Agreement with THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ( "City ") and Perkins +Will ( "Consultant ") for the provision of professional architectural services ( "Services "). A. Maximum Compensation. The CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, including both payment for professional services, additional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Five Hundred and Seventy -one Thousand DOLLARS ($ 571,000). CONSULTANT agrees that it shall perform all of the services set forth in Exhibit A of this AGREEMENT, except for additional services required pursuant to Section 2, Task No. 5 and inclusive of reimbursable expenses, for the lump -sum amount of Five Hundred and Twenty -one Thousand dollars ($ 521,000). The maximum amount of Additional Services are authorized under Section G of this Exhibit C is Forty -five thousand DOLLARS ($ 50,000). B. Method of Payment For Task Nos. 1 through 5 CONSULTANT shall, during the term of this AGREEMENT, invoice the CITY monthly based upon a percentage of completion of each milestone set forth below in the Payment Schedule (Schedule D below) for services performed, and reimbursable expenses incurred if applicable, in completing that milestone under this AGREEMENT. Provided CONSULTANT has completed the services and incurred the reimbursable expenses covered by the Invoice in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, as determined by the CITY, the CITY shall pay CONSULTANT the amount shown on the Invoice within thirty (30) working days of receipt of the Invoice. Earned value for submissions according to the EXHIBIT C, Compensation Schedule shall not be considered earned until the Task Deliverable meets the minimum work standards set for in the Appendix. The Invoice shall be based on the percentage of milestone completed, and it shall describe the topics and tasks completed during the Invoice period in accordance with the Budget Schedule and Payment Schedule set forth below. The Invoice shall list work completed and reimbursable City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit C Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 1 OF 6 137 expenses if applicable, in accordance with the Budget Schedule and Payment Schedule set forth below. CONSULTANT also shall include supporting documents for any reimbursable expenses. The Invoice shall also show the total to be paid for the Invoice period. C. Budget Schedule The Budget Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: Task Task Description Compensation Task #1: Project Initiation $103,500 Task #2 Master Plan Options Development $ 167,000 Task #3: Preferred Master Plan Development $ 152,500 Task #4: Master Plan Document $ 98,000 TOTAL $ 521,000 CONSULTANT shall not exceed any of the specified budget amounts for any Task without prior written authorization from the CITY. The CITY may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the Tasks listed above provided the total AGREEMENT amount does not exceed Five Hundred and Twenty -one thousand DOLLARS ($521,000). City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Consultant: Perkins +Will 138 Agreement - Exhibit C PAGE 2 OF 6 D. Payment Schedule The Payment Schedule for this AGREEMENT shall be as follows: TASK MILESTONE Task #1 — Project Initiation a. Task 1.1 to Task 1.3 b. Task 1.4 to Task 1.5 Task #2 — Master Plan Options Development a. Task 2.1 to Task 2.4 b. Task 2.5 to Task 2.6 c. Task 2.7 to Task 2.8 Task #3 — Preferred Master Plan Development a. Task 3.1 to Task 3.3 b. Task 3.4 to Task 3.5 Task #4 — Master Plan Document a. Task 4.1 to Task 4.2 b. Task 4.3 c. Task 4.4 to Task 4.5 Task — Additional Services E. Subconsultant Services. PERCENT OF TASK COMPENSATION PAID UPON COMPLETION OF MILESTONE 70% 30% 60% 20% 20% 70% 30% 50% 30% 20% Paid pursuant to Subsection G below. CONSULTANT is directly responsible for any payment for SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT. SUBCONSULTANT work on this PROJECT is included in the Budget Schedule shown above and shall be billed to the CITY by CONSULTANT as part of the Basic Services. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Consultant: Perkins +Will 139 Agreement - Exhibit C PAGE 3 OF 6 F. Reimbursable expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in CONSULTANT's lump sum compensation, including, but not limited to, any expenses related to CONSULTANT's internal plan checks, CAD test prints, 8 1/2" x 11" copies or fax copies. Plotting and Printing for public distribution shall be the responsibility of the CITY. There are no separate reimbursable expenses for Basic Services performed under Tasks 1 -5 of EXHIBIT A. G. Additional Services. CONSULTANT shall not perform Additional Services without prior written authorization of the CITY. Additional Services shall be separately negotiated to be paid on a lump sum or a time and material basis at the rates set forth herein, as authorized by the CITY. The CITY has set aside the sum of Fifty Thousand DOLLARS ($50,000.00) for the payment of Additional Services. The CITY shall not authorize and CONSULTANT shall not perform any Additional Services that result in charges in excess of the above amount. CONSULTANT shall submit an Invoice to the CITY for payment on a monthly basis for authorized Additional Services rendered during the previous month. In the event Additional Services are authorized, CONSULTANT shall submit Invoices in accordance with the Schedule of Consultant Hourly Rates for Additional Serivices included in this Exhibit C. The rates shown in the Schedule of Consultant Hourly Rates for Additional Serivices shall stay in effect during the full term of the contract. The CITY shall pay for Additional Services Invoices as provided for in this EXHIBIT C. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit C Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 4 OF 6 140 SCHEDULE OF CONSULTANT HOURLY RATES FOR ADDITONAL SERVICES Perkins +Will Principal $295 Senior Project Manager $220 Senior Project Architect /Designer $210 Project Architect/Designer $170 Architect/Designer III $150 Architect/Designer III $120 Architect/Designer I $110 Senior Technical Coordinator $210 Administrative $90 Fehr & Peers Principal $290 Associate $170 Engineer /Planner $120 Graphics & Data Visualization $135 Administrative $110 Walker Parking Principal $255 Senior Project Manager/ Senior Parking Consultant/ Senior Engineer /Senior Architect $235 Project Manager /parking Consultant $195 Engineer /Architect $170 Parking Analyst /Planner $165 Designer $150 Senior Technician $145 Technician $120 Field Auditor /Senior Admin Assistant $95 Administrative Assistant $80 TBD Consultants (Cost Estimator) Principal $165 Project Manager $155 City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement - Exhibit C Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 5 OF 6 141 Senior MEP / Estimator $145 Senior Scheduler $150 Estimator /Scheduler $135 Assist Estimator $115 Administrative / Technical Support $70 Seifel Consulting (Economist)) President $250 Consultant $125 Public Dialogue Consortium Project Team Lead $190 Project Team Senior Consultant $160 Project Team Consultant $110 Public Dialogue Facilitators $50 END OF EXHIBIT C City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Consultant: Perkins +Will 142 Agreement - Exhibit C PAGE 6 OF 6 APPENDIX A CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN & PARKING GARAGE CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION and TASK 2: MASTER PLANS OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT A PURPOSE: Appendix A describes the minimum content required for project deliverables identified in Exhibit A Scope of Services Tasks 1 and 2. Project deliverables under all Tasks must be reviewed and written City approval obtained prior to start of a subsequent task. B GENERAL: CONSULTANTS deliverables shall include, at a minimum, the work described in each task identified in this appendix. The CONSULTANT may include other work in the Task deliverable submission as it sees fit to meet the intent of a Task submission. C The CITY shall use the minimum work items identified in Appendix A as evidence that the CONSULTANT met the Task deliverable submission for billing purposes. Any deficiencies in the minimum work items identified shall cause the CITY to reject the submission, require the CONSULTANT to make appropriate corrections and resubmit, at no cost to the CITY. Earned value for submissions according to the EXHIBIT C, Compensation Schedule shall not be considered earned until the Task Deliverable meets the minimum work standards set for in this Appendix. D The Appendix shall be used as a guideline for professional services performance in this Agreement and shall not modify the CONSULTANT's inherent responsibilities identified in this AGREEMENT. In the event of any conflict with Exhibit A, Scope of Services, Exhibit A governs. TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION A. PROJECT INFORMATON ANALYSIS: 1. Review of CITY provided Guidelines and Program Documents. 2. Review of CITY Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations & adopted model codes. 3. Review of CEQA Report. 4. Review existing site information available from the CITY or other sources 5. Review other applicable reports and data. City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Agreement- Appendix A Consultant: Perkins +Will PAGE 1 OF 2 143 B. BASE INFORMTION GENERATION Based on information provided by the City - Base map production at a scale suitable project site study and visibility. Existing site conditions analysis 3. Existing topography, infrastructure, and utilities analysis 4. Site opportunities and constraints analysis. TASK 2: MASTER PLANS OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT The minimum Conceptual design deliverable shall consist of the following: 1) Define project goals and objectives 2) Three (3) different concepts showing project design solutions given the site analysis. 3) Existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation. 4) Existing and proposed pedestrian circulation 5) Building massing 6) Solar impact 7) Analysis of each concept providing site opportunities, constraints, and conceptual solutions. -- END OF APPENDIX A — City of Cupertino Civic Center Master Plan & Parking Garage Conceptual Planning Project Consultant: Perkins +Will 144 Agreement- Appendix A PAGE 2 OF 2 N .......i� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject Approve the sale of surplus City property on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326- 41 -114). Recommended Action Adopt a resolution approving the sale of surplus City property on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326 -41 -114) to Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam, in the amount of $38,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute all the necessary documents to complete the sale. Discussion The City of Cupertino has owned the subject lot on Greenleaf Drive since the 1960's. The lot formerly contained a water well, which was part of the City's water system. The well on the site was abandoned and formerly destroyed by the City over twenty years ago when the well casing failed. The City determined at that time that this well was not necessary to support the capacity of the water system. The owners of the adjoining lot at 10500 Castine Avenue expressed an interest in purchasing the lot from the City. Staff hired Hulberg and Associates, Inc., to appraise the property. At a closed session meeting of the City Council, held in November of 2013, City Council directed staff to negotiate a sale price for the surplus property. City staff has negotiated a sale price of $38,000 with the Vasantharam's and has prepared an agreement for the sale. The Vasantharam's have accepted the terms of the agreement and have signed as to their intent. Fiscal Impact The sale price is $38,000. The funds will be deposited to the City's General Fund. Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A- Draft Resolution B - Map C -Sale Agreement 1 145 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY TO KARKADA AND VIJAYA VASANTHARAM LOCATED ON GREENLEAF DRIVE NEAR CASTINE AVENUE (APN 326 -41 -114) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City Council, in a closed session meeting on November 4th, 2014, had directed staff to negotiate the sale of City -owned surplus real property located on Greenleaf Drive near Castine Avenue (APN 326 -41 -114) ( "Property ") to Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam; and WHEREAS, in February of 2014, staff completed negotiations and the property owners have signed a sale agreement for the Property, by and between the City of Cupertino and Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam ( "Agreement "), subject to the approval of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the sale of the Property, to Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam in the amount of $38,000, as set forth in the Agreement; and further authorizes the City Manager to execute all of the necessary documents to complete the sale of the Property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 4th day of March 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino 146 AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF SURPLUS CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY TO KARKADA VIJAYA VASANTHARAM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation OF THE State of California (hereinafter "CITY") and KARKADA AND VIJAYA VASANTHARAM (hereinafter "BUYER") upon execution by CITY (hereinafter "Effective Date "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in EXHIBIT "A" and depicted in EXHIBIT "B" (hereinafter "PROPERTY ") attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the PROPERTY is not needed for, nor adaptable to, municipal purposes and is therefore surplus property, and that the public interest and necessity will be served by its sale; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to sell, and the BUYER desires to purchase the Property: and WHEREAS, BUYER is the adjoining property owner located at 10500 Castine Avenue, Cupertino, CA. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Property to be Conveyed. Subject to the provisions of this AGREEMENT, CITY shall transfer and convey to BUYER by Quitclaim Deed in substantially the same form as Exhibit "C ", and BUYER PSA Greenlee 148 shall purchase and take from CITY, all of CITY's right, title and interest in and to the PROPERTY. 2. Purchase Price. BUYER shall pay to CITY, in consideration of CITY's conveyance to BUYER of said PROPERTY the sum of THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND NO /100 DOLLARS ($38,000). Said sum shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Purchase Price ". 3. Tender and Acceptance of Payment. BUYER shall deposit with the CITY a $10,000.00 non - refundable check made payable to-the CITY OF CUPERTINO upon delivery to CITY of this AGREEMENT signed by BUYER. By its execution of this AGREEMENT, CITY accepts the Purchase Price as full compensation for the PROPERTY. The remaining balance will be delivered to CITY no later than three (3) business days after CITY's execution of this AGREEMENT. 4. Additional_ Fees and Charges: Condition to Closing. Except as is expressly provided herein to the contrary, BUYER shall be responsible for the full payment of all title insurance costs. CITY and BUYER will evenly share the cost of escrow, recording fees, documentary transfer taxes, and other fees and charges associated with this transaction. 5. Delivery and Recording of Deed and Real Property Taxes. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of the execution of this AGREEMENT by the CITY, CITY shall record a Quitclaim Deed conveying title to BUYER of said Surplus Property in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder. The Santa Clara County Recorder's Office shall mail said Quitclaim Deed to BUYER after its recordation, with a copy to CITY. Real property taxes and assessments, if any, shall be payable by BUYER from and after the date of recordation of the Quitclaim Deed. -2- PSA Greenleaf 149 6. Buyer's Sole Remedy for Failure to Convey. In the event that CITY's Quitclaim Deed shall, for any reason, be insufficient to convey fee title to the PROPERTY on or before the Closing Date, as shall be evidenced by Escrow Holder's unwillingness to issue a CLTA Owner's policy of title insurance insuring such title in the name of BUYER in the amount of the Purchase Price, BUYER shall have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT, but shall have no other right of action against CITY and shall not be entitled to recover any damages from CITY, and all parties hereby shall return to status quo ante. BUYER's agreement to proceed to closing of escrow shall constitute BUYER's waiver of its right to terminate this AGREEMENT pursuant to this Section 6 or other right of action against CITY in regards to failure to convey fee title. 7. Condition of Title. CITY's right, title and interest in and to the PROPERTY shall be delivered by CITY hereunder subject to all exceptions, encumbrances, liens and restrictions of record and not of record, per the Preliminary Report from First American Title Company dated January 8, 2014, as of the Closing Date. 8. AS -IS Condition of Property /BUYER's Due Diligence. BUYER agrees that: i) it is purchasing the PROPERTY "as is" and in reliance on BUYER's own investigation, which it has had the opportunity to conduct to its satisfaction prior to the Effective Date, ii) no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, have been made by CITY regarding the PROPERTY or the legal or physical condition thereof ( "Property Condition "), including without limitation any zoning regulations or other governmental requirements, the existence of "Hazardous Substances" (as defined in Section 9, below) or other site conditions, or any other matters affecting the use, value or condition of the PROPERTY, and iii) it shall take the PROPERTY in the condition that it is in at the Closing Date. To the extent that CITY has provided to BUYER information or reports regarding the PROPERTY, CITY makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness thereof. -3- PSA Greenleaf 150 9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. BUYER agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless, CITY, its officers, employees, or agents, from and against all claims, response costs, losses, demands, debts, liens, liabilities, causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interest, fines, charges, penalties and expenses (collectively, "Claims ") of any kind whatsoever paid, incurred, suffered or asserted, on or after the closing directly or indirectly arising from or attributable to the PROPERTY Condition or any use of the PROPERTY (including, without limitation, BUYER's use of the PROPERTY before the Effective Date), including without limitation any repair, cleanup or detoxification, or preparation and implementation of any removal, remedial, response, closure or other plan concerning any Hazardous Substance on, under or about the PROPERTY, regardless of whether undertaken due to governmental action. The foregoing hold harmless and indemnification provision and the following release provision shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by law, including where such Claim is the result of the act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents or employees. Without limiting the generality of this indemnity and hold harmless provision in any way, this provision is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(e) and California Health and Safety Code Section 25364 in order to indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents or employees for any liability pursuant to such sections. CITY and BUYER agree that for purposes of this AGREEMENT, the term "Hazardous Substance" shall have the definition set forth in EXHIBIT ` ll) ", which is attached to this AGREEMENT and incorporated by reference. BUYER, for itself, its legal representatives and assigns, releases CITY, its officers, agents or employees from any and all Claims that it had, now has, or claims to have, or that any person claiming through them may have, or claim to have, arising out of any use of the PROPERTY, or the Property Condition (including, without limitation, uses of or conditions on the PROPERTY undertaken or caused by BUYER prior to the Effective Date). 10. General Release. BUYER acknowledges that it has read and understood the following statutory language of Civil Code Section 1542: A general release does not extend to a claim, which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. -4- PSA Greenleaf 151 Having been so apprised, to the fullest extent permitted by law, BUYER elects to assume all risk for Claims heretofore or hereafter, known or unknown, arising from the subject of this release, and BUYER knowingly and voluntarily expressly releases the CITY, its officers, agents or employees from all Claims, unknown or unsuspected, arising out of any use of the PROPERTY, or the Property Condition. The provisions of Sections 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 shall survive the close of escrow or earlier termination of this AGREEMENT. 11. Binding on Successors. This AGREEMENT inures to the benefit of and is binding on the parties, their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 12 Merger; Entire Agreement. This AGREEMENT supersedes any prior agreements, negotiations and communications, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between CITY and BUYER relating to the subject matter hereof. No subsequent agreement, representation, or promise made by either party hereto, or by or to any employee, officer, agent or representative of either party shall be of any effect unless it is in writing and executed by the party to be bound thereby. The terms of this AGREEMENT shall not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing executed by each of the parties hereto. 13. Acknowledgements. BUYER acknowledges that it has received: a. a copy of the Preliminary Report on fee title ownership of the City of Cupertino dated January 8, 2014 b. a copy of the Well Destruction Completion Notice from the Santa Clara Valley Water District dated August 23, 2005 C. a copy of the finalized and signed -off Public Works Encroachment Permit Application for disconnection of the well site from the San Jose Water main in Greenleaf Ave dated January 16, 2014 PSA Greenleaf 152 14. Notices. Any notice which is required to be given hereunder, or which either party may desire to give to the other, shall be in writing and may be personally delivered or given by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To the BUYER: Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam 10500 Castine Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 or to such other place as BUYER may designate by written notice. To the CITY: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA, 95014 Attn: Chad Mosley With a Copy to: City Attorney 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA. 95014 or to such other place as CITY may designate by written notice. 15. Miscellaneous. a. Whenever the singular number is used in this AGREEMENT and when required by the context, the same shall include the plural and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders. b. If there be more than one entity designated in or signatory to this AGREEMENT on behalf of BUYER, the obligations hereunder imposed upon BUYER shall be joint and several. C. Time is and shall be of the essence of each term and provision of this AGREEMENT. d. Each and every term, condition, covenant and provision of this AGREEMENT i.s and shall be deemed to be a material part of the consideration for CITY's entry into this AGREEMENT, and any breach hereof by BUYER shall be deemed to be a material breach. Each term -6- PSA Greenleaf 153 and provision of this AGREEMENT performable by BUYER shall be construed to be both a covenant and a condition. e. This AGREEMENT shall be deemed to have been made in, and be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any proceeding to enforce the provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be in the County of Santa Clara. f. The headings of the several paragraphs and sections of this AGREEMENT are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions of this AGREEMENT and shall not be construed to affect in any manner the terms and provisions hereof or the interpretation or construction thereof. g. In the event any covenant, condition or provision herein contained is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such covenant, condition or provision shall in no way affect any other covenant, condition or provision herein contained, provided the invalidity of any such covenant, condition or provision does not materially prejudice either BUYER or CITY in its respective rights and obligations contained in the valid covenants, conditions and provisions of this AGREEMENT. h. All exhibits and addenda referred to herein, and any exhibits or schedules which may from time to time be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto, are by such reference incorporated herein and shall be deemed a part of this AGREEMENT as if set forth fully herein. The exhibits to this AGREEMENT are as follows: Exhibit A — Legal Description of PROPERTY Exhibit B — APN Map of PROPERTY Exhibit C — Form of Quitclaim Deed Exhibit D — Hazardous Substances i. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed only by the contents hereof, and there shall be no presumption or standard of construction in favor of or against either party. j. Days, unless otherwise specified, shall mean calendar days. -7- PSA Greenleaf 154 k. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute, on behalf of the CITY, deeds and all other documents as may be necessary to effectuate this AGREEMENT and the transfer of property rights herein. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF on the date of execution by CITY as written below: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney PSA Greenleaf "CITY" CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California By:_ Name: Title: Date of Execution: "BUYER" KARKADA AND VIJAYA VASANTHARAM By: K I V \/ - av -8- 155 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property In the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of Callfarnla, described as follows, BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM EARL T. FISCHER, EC UX; TO THE STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORDED MAY 04, 1960 IN BOOK 4783 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 583, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 890 58'30" WEST, 37.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL CONVEYED TO THE STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SOUTH 00 04'30', EAST, 33.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 890 50'30" EAST, 37.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE LEAVING.SAID LAST DESCRIBED PARALLEL LINE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 0° 04' 30" WEST, 33.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 326.41 -114 PSA Greenleaf 156 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT `IB" APN Map of Property 0 j '� �� I� �� 1•A �� 4ty 9 EN 'I 1�. '� � � I� al I� � 1. kl SD +Si �� � 9 �,�\ IfA l � ,r ! va ,D F• Ra ro- �� YzrY . �'I `�tY bl��g�3f rWSS roI9J -+OID! wdlJ oiiJ / •F/ rvPFR Ddx �° r0ia��v � IV kx w � /arc ro+sF mraa w•re mirr m•er fwn +o•er � =' Uw t$ �o' � e •Y a yi.0 Rc Rh ih Zi ss � K '� � 1 .� t3 x = � s Iw � i�"m I `.� g„ � iz 6 n 1 �� ,_ •e ,! 3 � I __ —__ —____ I B +j0" • fiD� roe +, wiPF +e«: z i p AR£WER UVE. + 18 l� _ - ----- ._ R+ � sxw re•sr roF+ w` Ly "d 71 3+ A � a � � ___.___ Z �^ ffff ° Y' t ye - -i I o - x' -,rsT I m la o ., 5 I y— l— i __ iu„u R gl N i x fi km F 4n h- 6 I /l R+ .v11! fn1Y3 1GP6f I A : GFiISHOLM AVP. I Ile P Dr3f F�FF oor � __�___ I� � i ♦ m+ P� .ail R. / •� n ------- +V " -------- ' ?d , c - - - -- •� --- ;e;RO —_a � �~ � �_ � � �Y41 —_� p e .P IR IV I I� It'1 i k qq •IlVlo I 17 1 R4 44 Ri '1Q �h ef — ����s,2 4 I raFl rolPf rGdl1 •D d+/ +Dd {+ -rwar ro ++r +_+ 3 � CAST It3E AVE. S• a Z3 I` // / se .e+Fe iW6 i+ or +oRiO /afro 101, +n+ec /y •( Q9 16 %I 7v .p r� relo +'M24 M 'p NIG ff1° +PS3 IOSA¢py� k �h` N W s! U G N A ul 4 N I AEI nj —1— PSA Greenfee.doc 157 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT "C" QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Cupertino WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: With a copy to: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA. 95014 Attn: (space above for recorder's use only) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Document transfer tax is Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam Computed on full value of property conveyed 10500 Castine Avenue City Transfer tax is Cupertino CA 95014 Signature of declarant QUITCLAIM DEED The CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereby REMISES, RELEASES AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMS to Karkada and Vijaya Vasantharam, Trustee any and all right, title or interest in the real property located in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in the attached Exhibit 1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Quitclaimor has caused this instrument to be executed as of this day of , 2014. CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California 1 PSA Greenlee 158 EXHIBIT C CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California -2-- PSA Greenleaf 159 EXHIBIT 'I TO QUITCLAIM DEED Legal Description of Property LEGAL, DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows. BEGINNING ATTHE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM EARL T. FISCHER, ET UX; TO THE STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORDED MAY 04, 1960 IN BOOT{ 4783 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 583, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE LEAVING SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 890 58'30" WEST, 37.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL CONVEYED TO THE STONESON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SOUTH 00 04'30', EAST, 33.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LIME SOUTH 890 58'30" EAST, 37,00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID LAST DESCRIBED PARALLEL LINE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 00 04' 30" WEST, 33.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, APN, 326 -41 -114 FlrstAmerlcan 77tle Insurance Company -3-- PSA Greenleaf 160 EXHIBIT "D" Hazardous Substances. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, "HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES" shall mean any and all: (a) substances, products, by- products, waste, or other materials of any nature or kind whatsoever which is or becomes listed, regulated or addressed under any Environmental Laws; (b) materials, substances, products, by- products, waste, or other materials of any nature or kind whatsoever whose presence in and of itself or in combination with other materials, substances, products, by- products, or waste may give rise to liability under any Environmental Law or any statutory or common law theory based on negligence, trespass, intentional tort, nuisance, strict or absolute liability or under any reported decisions of any state or federal court; and, (c) substances, products, by- products, wastes or other materials which may be hazardous or harmful to the air, water, soil, environment or affect industrial hygiene, occupational, health, safety and/or general welfare conditions, including without limitation, petroleum and /or asbestos materials, products, by- products, or waste. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, "ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS" shall mean and include all federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, decrees, and/or rules now or hereinafter in effect, as may be amended from time to time, and all implementing regulations, directives, orders, guidelines, and federal or state court decisions, interpreting, relating to, regulating or imposing liability (including, but not limited to, response, removal, remediation and damage costs) or standards of conduct or performance relating to industrial hygiene, occupational, health, and /or safety conditions, environmental conditions, or exposure to, contamination by, or clean -up of, any and all Hazardous Substances, including without limitation, all federal or state superlien or environmental clean -up. 1 PSA Greenleaf 161 EXHIBIT D CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of �+�- 64 I(L — On before me, �.5 -mot d)� IL 11N(e " � N1r10I- ( ore insort name arld title of the officer) personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persorjgDwhose name (qis /(6 subscribed to the withNies ' stiument and acknowledged to me that he /she/ cy executed the same in his /her/ ei authorized capacity , an d that by his /her /their signatur (s on the in nent the persolo , or the entity upon behalf of which the perso {s acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. JULIA KINS Cammisslon # 2002313 Rotary Public • Califunum WITNESS my hand and official seal. Santa Clare County M Comm, Expires Jon 25 2017 Signature Ootary Public (Notary Sea]) ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT (Title or desciip n of attached do ent) (Title or descripti n oc ut he docR c to ed) Number of Pages Document Date (AdditfGnAl information) CAPACITY CLAIlVIED BY THE SIGNER ❑ Individual (s) ❑ Corporate Officer (Title) ❑ Partner(s) ❑ Attorney -in -Fa ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other 2008 Version CAPA ❑]2.10.07 800- 873 -9865 www.NotaryClasses.00m INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM Any acknowledgment completed in California must contain verbiage exactly as appears above in the notary section or a separate acknowledgment form must be properly completed and attached to that document. The only exception is if a document is to be recorded outside of California. In such instances, any alternative acknowledgment verbiage as may be printed on such a document so long as the verbiage does not require the notary to do something that is illegal for a notary in California (i.e. certifying the authorized capacity of the signe),. Please check the document carefullyfor proper notarial wording and attach thisform ifrequired. • State and County information mast be the State and County where the document signer(s) personally appeared before the notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of notarization must be the date that the signer(s) personally appeared which must also be, the same date the acknowledgment is completed. • The notary public must print his or her name as it appears within his or her commission followed by a comma and then your title (notary public). • Print the name(s) of document signer(s) who personally appear at the time of notarization. • Indicate the correct singular or plural forms by crossing off incorrect forms (i.e. #e /sho/##ey is /tyre) or circling the correct forms. Failure to correctly indicate this information may lead to rejection of document recording. • The notary seal impression must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not cover text or lines. If sea[ impression smudges, re -seal if a sufficient area permits, otherwise complete a different acknowledgment fort. • Signature of the notary public must match the signature on file with the office of the county clerk. Additional information is not required but could help to ensure this acknowledgment is not misused or attached to a different document. Indicate title or type of attached document, number of pages and date. Indicate the capacity claimed by the signer. If the claimed capacity is a corporate officer, indicate the title (i.e, CEO, CFO, Secretary). • Securely attach this document to the signed document 162 N .......i� CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject Consideration and Approval of the Mid -Year Financial Report and recommended adjustments for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014. Recommended Action 1. Accept the City Manager's Mid -Year Financial Report. 2. Adopt Resolution No 14— Approving Mid -Year Budget adjustments related to pass thru revenues. 3. Adopt Resolution No 14— Approving Mid -Year Budget adjustments. Fiscal Impact On November 19, 2013, City Council accepted the City Manager's First Quarter Financial Report. Included in this report was an update to the City's Amended budget as of September 30, 2013 of $102,393,086 for encumbrances and carryover of funds from the 2012 -13 fiscal year. Between October and December 2013 the General Fund and Capital Project budgets were increased by $33,661 and $1,000,000 respectively. The increase to the general fund was to account for the carryover of grant funds for the Walk, Bike, and Carpool to School Program. On November 19, 2013 the City Council approved an increase to the McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project of $1 million. Changes by quarter since the adoption of the final budget are summarized in the table below: 1 163 Fund FY13 -14 FY13 -14 Budget FY13 -14 Final Adopted Amended Budget Adjustments Amended Budget as as of 1St Quarter Oct -Dec Dec 31, 2013 /i' ' o rlrr � �rr� f i //' ' rf'�'rr�r ��r'` ra Special Revenue 9,160,496 11,329,413 0 11,329,413 � r i i �i i iiai or r r rii of i i irra o- r Capital Projects 4,302,000 11,076,271 1,000,000 12,076,271 Internal Service 6,747,947 7,548,122 0 7,548,122 Mid -Year Financial Report Summary by Fund Fund Amended Budget as of Requested Mid -Year Year End Projections Dec 31, 2013 Adjustments Special Revenue 11,329,413 317,350 $11,646,763 r err � � rr r � i r. r Capital Projects 12,076,271 0 $12,076,271 i r i r oii rr� ri i, r ra i Internal Service 7,548,122 8,993,536 $16,541,658 As part of the Mid -Year Financial Report $28,745,654 in budget adjustments are requested. The recommended increases are funded using department revenue of $19,931,615, general fund unassigned fund balance of $8,791,309 and department fund balances of $22,730 as summarized in the table below: FUND DEPARTMENT General Various Fund FUNDING OSOM C. E SUMM ARY ' " REQUESTS $19,412,038 $10,620,729 2 164 $0 $8,791,309 Various, see details in General Fund Expenditure Section FUND DEPARTMENT FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY Special Non $17,350 $0 $17,350 Revenue Departmental $0 Transfer out to Dog Park CIP for purchase of Trees and Tree Enhancement Enterprise Non- $17,350 $17,350 $0 $0 Dog Park CIP Departmental increase funded from a transfers in from the Tree Fund Internal Public Affairs $993,536 $993,536 $0 $0 Transfer out of Service depreciation funding from IT to City Channel and Purchase of camera 3 165 Discussion The Mid -Year Report primarily deals with the status of the City's budget as of December 31, 2013 and recommends adjustments to ensure the City ends the fiscal year within budget. General Fund Update Revenue Year -end projections for all revenue accounts are completed based on a rolling 5 year average of actual revenue collected as of the mid -way point of the year and at year end. If any new revenues are identified they are added to the revenue projections and if a valid trend line is not identified further research is conducted to determine a year end projection. Four revenue categories require Mid -Year adjustments, they include, Property Tax, Other Taxes, Charges for Services and Miscellaneous /Non- Operating. The majority of requested adjustments in revenue are related to pass thru or development agreement dollars related to Apple Campus 2. These include $6,792,000 for a one -time construction tax payments, $11,751,029 in pass thru and administrative fee revenues for a contract inspection contract and legal costs and $23,814,257 for the sale of Pruneridge Ave. An additional $1,321,000 is requested to reflect the County's increased estimated property taxes for Cupertino and $25,000 in miscellaneous revenue for a grant received from Silicon Valley Energy Watch; the grant was received earlier this year for the City to expand its GreenBiz services. 9 166 Expenditures As of mid -year several general fund departments are requesting adjustments totaling $19,474,038. These requests are funded by increased department revenue, general fund unassigned fund balance or a combination of two. These requests are summarized in the table below: DEPARTMENT City Council & Commissions FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND „ REQUESTS 13,750 0 13,750 Staff costs associated with Sister Cities ($10,000) and backfilling an employee Public Affairs 6,144 0 6,144 Transfer out to fund part time staff costs in GIS, transfer in the of part - time staff costs from Public Works and Parks and 221,725 0 221,725 Backfilling of employees out on leave Recreation and 2 new full time positions Public Works 1,333,242 1,327,131 6,111 Capital project management service, Apple Campus 2 inspection contract, Tree survey and removal and the transfer out to Public Affairs for part time staff costs i Increase fund balance contribution from Planning Plan Check and Building will be added to current General Building Assignment of fund balance 5 167 DEPARTMENT Total All $19,412,038 $ 0,6 0, 9 $8,791,309 General Fund Requests Fund Balance SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REQUESTS At First Quarter the City updated its fund balance to include an additional $2.7 million in available projected year end unassigned fund balance. As part of the Mid -Year Financial Report the City projects unassigned fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14 will total $28.5 million, an increase of $21.4 or 302% over the first quarter projection. This increase is driven primarily by projected increases in Property Taxes, several one -time dollars the City will receive from Apple Inc., as part of the development agreement signed by Council on November 19, 2013 and pass thru revenue received from Apple as part of the Apple Campus 2 project. The following chart summarizes the changes to fund balance as of the Final Budget, First Quarter, Mid -Year and year -end projected fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14 0 FUNDING SOURCE II����lllllllllllll�llll�ll�������� Total All $19,412,038 $ 0,6 0, 9 $8,791,309 General Fund Requests Fund Balance SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REQUESTS At First Quarter the City updated its fund balance to include an additional $2.7 million in available projected year end unassigned fund balance. As part of the Mid -Year Financial Report the City projects unassigned fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14 will total $28.5 million, an increase of $21.4 or 302% over the first quarter projection. This increase is driven primarily by projected increases in Property Taxes, several one -time dollars the City will receive from Apple Inc., as part of the development agreement signed by Council on November 19, 2013 and pass thru revenue received from Apple as part of the Apple Campus 2 project. The following chart summarizes the changes to fund balance as of the Final Budget, First Quarter, Mid -Year and year -end projected fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14 0 General Fund Classification of Fund Balance Non Spendable Loans Receivable 937,011 920,593 - 920,593 Total Non Spendable 1,003,439 956,827 - 987,021 Restricted - Public Access Television 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 Total Restricted 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 Committed - None in this classification - - - Total Committed - - - - Assigned Economic Uncertainty I 12,500,000 12,500,000 - 12,500,000 Economic Uncertainty H 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 Economic Fluctuation 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 PERS 500,000 500;000 - 500,000 Reserve for Encumbrances 172,659 172,659 - 172,659 Revenue Liability 3,920,000 3,920,000 - 3,920,000 General Building 357,449 357,449 771,100 1,128,549 I -280 Trail Study per Apple DA Agreement , - - 250,000 250,000 Wolfe Road Transporation Study per Apple DA Agreement - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Assigned 20,850,108 20,850,108 2,021,100 22,871,208 Unassigned 4,416,454 7,100,287 21,416,859 28,517,146 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 26,965,565 29,633,125 23,437,959 53,070,939 7 169 Staffing Impacts As part of the Mid -Year Budget the following staffing changes were requested: New Positions The recommended increase of 3 positions will result in total full time benefitted positions of 167.75. Parks and Recreation Parks Restoration and Full Time Conclusion The Mid -Year Financial Report shows the City is well - positioned to move forward. City staff will continue to monitor the 2013 -14 Fiscal Year Amended Budget and be prepared to make appropriate recommendations and changes if necessary before June 30, 2014. This fiscal year will mark a fiscal anomaly related to the receipt of several large one -time revenues related to the Apple Campus 2 project and development agreement. The City will continue to be fiscally conservative and use these funds only for one -time expenses and budget its use over several fiscal years. Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, Interim Director of Administrative Services A112roved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A: Mid -Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 B: Draft Resolution — pass thru revenue mid -year budget adjustments C: Draft Resolution — all other mid -year budget adjustments D: Budget Journals 170 171 172 WIT I I INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... ..............................1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... ..............................1 BUDGETOVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ ..............................2 Changes to the Budget since the First Quarter ................................................... ............................... 2 Mid -Year Financial Report Summary .................................................................. ............................... 3 GENERALFUND UPDATE ...................................................................................................... ..............................5 Revenue.................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 RevenueProjections ................................................................................................ ............................... 7 Recommended Budget Adjustment ..................................................................... ............................... 8 Expenditures............................................................................................................ ............................... 9 ALL OTHER FUNDS UPDATE ............................................................................................... .............................11 All Other Funds Revenue Projections .................................................................. .............................11 Recommended Budget Adjustment ..................................................................... .............................11 AllOther Funds Expenditures .............................................................................. .............................12 FUND BALANCE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... .............................12 GeneralFund ........................................................................................................... .............................12 General Fund Classification of Fund Balance ..................................................... .............................13 SpecialRevenue Funds ........................................................................................... .............................14 DebtService Funds ................................................................................................. .............................14 CapitalProject Funds ............................................................................................. .............................14 EnterpriseFunds ..................................................................................................... .............................14 InternalService Funds ............................................................................................ .............................15 173 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................15 NewPositions .......................................................................................................... .............................15 CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS ............................................................................... .............................16 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................16 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................16 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................17 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................17 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................18 ADMINISTRATION................................................................................................................. .............................19 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................19 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................19 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................21 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................22 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................22 LAWENFORCEMENT .............................................................................................................. .............................23 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................23 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................23 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................24 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................25 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................25 PUBLICAFFAIRS ....................................................................................................................... .............................26 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................26 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................26 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................27 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................28 174 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................28 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ............................................................................................. .............................29 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................29 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................29 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................31 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................32 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................32 PARKSAND RECREATION ................................................................................................... .............................33 DEPARTMENTUPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................33 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................33 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................35 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................36 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................36 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... .............................37 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................37 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................37 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................38 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................39 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................39 PUBLICWORKS ........................................................................................................................ .............................40 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ...................................................................................................... .............................40 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ...................................................... .............................40 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................42 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................43 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................43 175 NON - DEPARTMENTAL .......................................................................................................... .............................44 UPDATES.................................................................................................................................... .............................44 STAFFING................................................................................................................................... .............................45 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................46 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. .............................46 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... .............................47 176 INTRODUCTION This is the City Manager's Office Mid -Year Financial Report for the period of July 2013 - December 2013 for the 2013 -2014 Fiscal Year. It has been prepared to inform the City Council, City leadership and the public of the City's financial status at the mid -point of this fiscal year. The report provides revenue and expenditure summaries for City programs by department and recommends adjustments to City budgets needed since the adoption of the Final Budget in June 2013. The Mid -Year Report primarily deals with the status of the City's budget as of December 31, 2013 and recommends adjustments to ensure the City ends the fiscal year within budget. SUMMARY On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Final Budget for the City of Cupertino. This spending plan of $89,074,272 for all funds reflected a 3.4% or $2,918,500 increase from the 2013 -2014 Proposed Budget of $86,155,772. The 2013 -2014 Final Budget was funded using $90.8 million in revenue and resulted in a projected increase to fund balance across all funds of $281,440. It also included funding for 164.75 benefitted full -time positions, an increase of 2 positions from the FY 2012 -13 Final Budget. The following chart reflects the total Final Budget by Fund for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014: 1 177 Final Adopted Budget by Fund $89,074,272 Cap: $4,30. 4.8' Debt $3,171,838 3.6% Spec $9,16, 10.: Internal Service $6,747,947 Enterprise 7 6% BUDGET OVERVIEW general 7,505,270 64.5% The Final Budget is adjusted throughout the year. These adjustments include carrying forward appropriations for obligations from the previous fiscal year, adjustments as part of mid -year financial report, as well as adjustments approved as part of any separate City Council item. Combined, these adjustments result in an adjusted operating budget. Changes to the Budget since the First Quarter Between October and December 2013 the General Fund and Capital Project budgets were increased by $33,661 and $1,000,000 respectively. The increase to the general fund was to account for the carryover of grant funds for the Walk, Bike, and Carpool to School Program. On November 19, 2013, the City Council approved an increase to the 2 178 McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project of $1 million. The following chart reflects the amended budget by fund as of December 31, 2013: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fund FY13 -14 FY13 -14 Budget FY13 -14 Final Adopted Amended Budget Adjustments Amended Budget as as of 1St Quarter Oct -Dec Mid -Year Special Revenue 9,160,496 11,329,413 0 11,329,413 Debt Service 3,171,838 3,171,838 0 3,171,838 Capital Projects 4,302,000 11,076,271 1,000,000 12,076,271 Enterprise 8,186,721 9,909,822 0 9,909,822 Internal Service 6,747,947 7,548,122 0 7,548,122 Mid -Year Financial Report Summary The FY 2013 -14 Mid -Year Financial Report reflects a fiscal review of departmental budgets, a fund balance analysis as of mid -year and recommended adjustments. After the requested Mid -Year adjustments, all departments are on target to finish the year within their approved budgets. The City Managers mid -year recommendations include a total increase in appropriations of $28,745,654 and an increase of estimated revenue of $43,703,286 in the General Fund and $13,279,044 in the Special revenue funds for a total of $56,982,330 across all funds. The following table summarizes mid -year requests. Requested General fund adjustments are discussed in greater detail in the General Fund Expenditure section of this report: 3 179 FUND DEPARTMENT FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY OF REQUESTS General Various $19,412,038 $10,620,729 $0 $8,791,309 Various, see Fund details in General Fund Expenditure Section Special Non Revenue Departmental $17,350 $0 $17,350 $0 Transfer out to Dog Park CIP for purchase of Trees and Tree Enhancement Enterprise Non- $17,350 $17,350 $0 $0 Dog Park CIP Departmental increase funded from a transfers in from the Tree Fund Internal Public Affairs $993,536 $993,536 $0 $0 Transfer out of Service depreciation funding from IT to Ci 4 :1 Channel and Purchase of camera GENERAL FUND UPDATE Revenue As of December 31, 2013, $21.6 million was posted to the General Fund revenue accounts. This amount represents 41% of the 2013 -14 Final Adopted Budget amounts of $52.2 million and 24% of the estimated actual collections of $95.9 million. Typically, general fund revenue collected at this point of the fiscal year ranges from 35% to 73% of the total year -end actual collections, when looking at the prior five years. This comparison indicates that general fund revenue is below the typical range when assessing the year -end position. This is primarily due to the timing of large one time revenues from the Apple Campus 2 project and development agreement which will be received in the third and fourth quarter of this fiscal year. The following chart reflects a comparison of General Fund Revenue for a five -year period, including the current fiscal year: 61 181 General Fund —General Fund Revenue Five Year Comparison $120.0 $100.0 E $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 16 month Actual W Budget W Year -End Actual Projected revenue for year -end is $96 million, approximately 84% higher than the final budgeted amount, resulting in a requested increase of $43.7 million in estimated revenues. The projected increase will be used to assist in funding some of the mid -year requests recommended in this report. Following is a summary of activity and Mid -Year Projection in the various General Fund revenue categories: I :. Revenue Projections Year -end projections for all revenue accounts are completed based on a rolling 5 year average of actual revenue collected as of the mid -way point of the year and at year end. If any new revenues are identified they are added to the revenue projections and if a valid trend line is not identified further research is conducted to determine a year end projection. Four revenue categories require Mid -Year adjustments, they include, Property Tax, Other Taxes, Charges for Services and Miscellaneous /Non- Operating. Property Taxes: The most current estimate provided by the County for FY 2013 -14 has been revised up to $14,459,000 from $13,138,000, an increase of $1,321,000. This represents a 6.5% growth over initial projections and a 10.46% increase over FY 2012 -13 year end actuals. This growth is the strongest among all cities in the Santa Clara County but is not expected to continue as the real estate market has already started to cool. Looking forward to next fiscal year the County is projecting only a 2% property tax growth for the City. Other Taxes: On November 19, 2013 the City Council approved a Development Agreement with Apple Inc. for the construction of Apple Campus 2. Included in this development agreement were several one -time revenues. This includes $6,792,000 in one time construction tax revenues based on the gross building area. 7 183 Charges for Services: Increases in Charges for Services are due to the Apple Campus 2 project and Development agreement. On January 21, 2014 the City Council approved a construction inspection contract for the Apple Campus 2 project. The total contract approved was $9,403,139; the contract is fully funded through pass thru revenues received from Apple. In addition, Apple pays the City a 10% administrative fee that will cover the administrative and overhead costs to the City. The current budget already assumed a contract amount of $400,000 and revenues of $440,000. An additional $9,031,390 is anticipated in pass thru revenues to cover the actual costs of the contract and $903,139 is anticipated for administrative and overhead costs. In addition, legal costs related to Apple Campus 2 were not originally budgeted as part of the Final Budget. As part of mid -year the City Attorney's Office is requesting $515,000 to fund legal costs related to Apple Campus 2. Again, these expenses are covered 100% by Apple along with an additional 10% of administrative fee resulting in $566,500 in additional revenue. Development agreement dollars related to Apple Campus 2 are $1 million for the Wolfe Road Transportation Study and $250,000 for the I -280 Trail Study. It is anticipated these studies will be completed in FY 2014 -15 and new assigned reserves will be recommended as part of mid -year to restrict the use of these revenues. Miscellaneous Revenue: The increase in miscellaneous revenue is driven by the sale of Pruneridge Ave to Apple Inc. as part of the Apple Campus 2 development agreement. The sale price of the property is $23,814,257 and escrow on the property is expected to close sometime in April 2014. Uses for this one time revenue were discussed as part of the 2013 -14 Final Budget and will be further discussed in the Fund Balance section of this report. In addition, the City's Environmental Affairs Division of the City Manager's Office was able to secure a grant for $25,000 with Silicon Valley Energy Watch; the grant was received earlier this year for the City to expand its GreenBiz services. Recommended Budget Adjustment: It is recommended to increase the general fund revenue projections by $43,703,286. This increase is primarily related to Apple Campus 2, pass thru and administrative revenues as well as development agreement and projected increased property tax dollars. E:? Expenditures As of December 31, 2013, actual General Fund expenditures are $26.4 million compared to $30.6 million for the same period one year ago. This amount represents 34% of the projected year end expenditures which places this year well below the range used for comparative purposes. This variance is driven primarily by large anticipated expenditures in third quarter for Retiree Health Liability payoff and contract service costs related to Apple Campus 2. For the previous four years, mid -year General Fund expenditures have ranged from 44.5% to 68.4% of the total year end actual expenditures. The following chart shows a five -year history of mid -year activity: General Fund Expenditures— Five Year Comparison (In Millions) $90.0 $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 2009 -10 2010 -11 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 0 6 month Actual a Budget W Year -End Actual As of mid -year several departments have identified issues that require a budget adjustment to ensure they end the year within budgeted appropriations. Citywide requests across all funds totaled $28,746,654. The bulk of the adjustment request are for general fund departments or funded with general fund revenue and total $19,412,038 I 185 for the general fund. The majority of these adjustments are related to special projects and the Apple Campus 2 project and development agreement. These requests are discussed in further detail in the department section of this report and summarized in the table below: DEPARTMENT FUNDING SOURCE Appropriations Department General Request Revenue Fund Unassigned Fund Balance SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REQUESTS Administration 664,544 591,500 73,044 Legal Costs related to Apple Campus 2, printer maintenance costs and the Climate Action Plan costs Administrative 690,000 0 690,000 Cost related to the purchase and Services implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Management System, including a new limited term position and increase ABAG general liability claim costs Planning and 8,107,633 8,702,098 (594,465)1 Apple Campus 2 professional plan Community check services, workstation revisions 1 Increase fund balance contribution from Planning Plan Check and Building will be added to current General Building Assignment of fund balance 10 :• DEPARTMENT FUNDING SOURCE Appropriations Department General Request Revenue Fund Unassigned Fund Balance SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND REQUESTS Non- 8,375,000 0 8,375,000 Transfers out to fund costs related to Departmental the pavement management project, the payoff of Retiree Health Liability and the purchase of camera equipment related to the Quinlan ALL OTHER FUNDS UPDATE All Other Funds Revenue Projections At the mid -year point on the year most funds are on track to meet the final budget projected revenues. A mid -year adjustment is requested for only the Special Revenue Funds. As part of the development agreement for Apple Campus 2 the City will receive $5,008,050 for an affordable housing contribution to be deposited in the Housing and Community Development Fund. In addition, the City will also receive $8,270,994 from Apple as a Parkland Contribution to the City's Park Dedication Fund. The City must use these dollars to acquire a 1.1 acres of parkland, purchase park equipment and provide maintenance and capital replacements for 20 years. Apple still has the option to purchase park land in lieu or providing the $8.2 million dollars to the City. In that case the City would reimburse Apple $5,511,200 the portion of the $8.2 million related to the purchase of land. Recommended Budget Adjustment: It is recommended that projected revenues for the Special Revenue funds be increased by $13,279,044, specifically fund 265 Below Market Rate Fund and Fund 280 Parkland Fund be increased by $5,008,050 and $8,270,994 respectively. 11 187 All Other Funds Expenditures As of mid -year several non - general fund departments have identified issues that require a budget adjustment to ensure they end the year within budgeted appropriations. These requests totaling $9,629,616 can be found on the summary chart on pages four and five of this report. FUND BALANCE REVIEW General Fund At First Quarter the City updated its fund balance to include an additional $2.7 million in available projected year end unassigned fund balance. As part of the Mid -Year Financial Report the City projects unassigned fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14 will total $28.5 million, an increase of $21.4 or 302% over the first quarter projection. This increase is driven primarily by projected increases in Property Taxes, several one -time dollars the City will receive from Apple Inc., as part of the development agreement signed by Council on November 19, 2013 and pass thru revenue received from Apple as part of the Apple Campus 2 project. All these items are discussed in greater detail in the General Fund revenue section of this report. In addition, is it important to note that the City as part of the FY 2014 -15 Proposed Budget, will bring before Council a revised Reserve and Use of One -Time revenue Policy that will assist the City in planning for the future use of these funds. The following chart summarizes the changes to fund balance as of the Final Budget, First Quarter, Mid -Year and year -end projected fund balance for Fiscal Year 2013 -14: 12 Im General Fund Classification of Fund Balance Non Spendable Loans Receivable 937,011 920,593 - 920,593 Total Non Spendable 1,003,439 956,827 - 987,021 Restricted - Public Access Television 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 Total Restricted 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 Committed - None in this classification - - Total Committed - - - - Assigned - Economic Uncertainty I 12,500,000 12,500,000 - 12,500,000 Economic Uncertainty 11 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 Economic Fluctuation 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 Reserve for Encumbrances 172,659 172,659 - 172,659 General Building 357,449 357,449 771,100 1,128,549 I -280 Trail Study per Apple DA Agreement - - 250,000 250,000 Wolfe Road Transporation Study per Apple DA Agreement - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Assigned 20,850,108 20,850,108 2,021,100 22,871,208 Unassigned 4,416,454 7,100,287 21,416,859 28,517,146 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 26,965,565 30,727,699 23,437,959 53,070,939 13 :• Special Revenue Funds As of mid -year, budgets within the Special Revenue Fund had fund balances totaling $6.5 million compared to $5.3 million for the same period last fiscal year. The result is an increase of $1.3 million in fund balance when compared to the same period last fiscal year. This increase is driven primarily by increased fund balance achieved through decrease spending and increased revenue at the end of FY 2012 -13 of $745,000 and decreased expenditures over the same time period a year ago of approximately $500,000. Debt Service Funds As of mid -year, budgets within the Debt Service Fund had fund balances totaling $3.3 million compared to $2.7 million for the same period last fiscal year. The result is an increase of $608,000 in fund balance when compared to the same period last fiscal year. This increase is driven primarily by decreased expenditures in the current year due to the timing of an interest payment on the City's 2012 Certificates of Participation. Capital Project Funds As of mid -year, budgets within the Capital Project Fund had fund balances totaling $4.9 million compared to $6.9 million for the same period last fiscal year. The result is a decrease of $2 million in fund balance when compared to the same period last fiscal year. This decrease is driven primarily by decreased Capital Reserve revenue of $1.2 million due to anticipated Apple Campus 2 revenue that did not materialize. This revenue projection was adjusted as part of the FY 2012 -13 Mid -Year budget and in addition, increased expenditures of approximately $898,000 as a result of increased spending in the Stevens Creek Corridor Project of $2.6 million offset by decreases in transfers out of $1.6 million. Enterprise Funds As of mid -year, budgets within the Enterprise Fund had fund balances totaling $11.7 million compared to $11.8 million for the same period last fiscal year. The result is a decrease of $61,000 in fund balance when compared to the same period last fiscal year. This decrease is driven primarily increases in fund balance of approximately $324,000 in the Sports Center and Recreation Program funding, offset by decreases in Resources Recovery and Blackberry Farm fund balance of $386,055. 14 190 Internal Service Funds As of mid -year, budgets within the Internal Service Fund had fund balances totaling $12.1 million compared to $18.1 million for the same period last fiscal year. The result is a decrease of $6 million in fund balance when compared to the same period last fiscal year. This decrease is driven primarily a decrease in revenue in the Retiree Medical budget due to projected revenue from the Apple Campus 2 project that did not materialize in FY 2012 -13. At that time the City anticipated paying off the unfunded retiree health liability. An adjustment was made as part of the Mid -Year budget to adjust transfers out to account for the decreased revenue. The unfunded liability was not paid off in FY 2012 -13. STAFFING As part of the Mid -Year Budget the following staffing changes were requested: New Positions The recommended increase of 3 positions will result in total full time benefitted positions of 167.75. Parks and Recreation Parks Restoration and Full Time 15 191 City Council and Commissions DEPARTMENT UPDATES The Public Safety Commissions budget was increase by $33,661 to account for a year- end carryover of the Walk, Bike and Carpool to School Program Grant that was inadvertently missed as part of the year -end close. FY13 -14 Budget Division Amended Adjustments Budget since 1St Qtr. Community Funding 30,000 0 Sister Cities 19,000 ! 0 Commissions 230,848 33,661 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 0 30,000 3,750 268,259 For the program budgets that are part of Councils and Commissions, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected was $112,892 or 50% of budgeted revenue. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $343,279. This represents 44% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 49% and 56% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year slightly below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Councils and Commission's: 16 192 City Council and Commissions Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ Telecommunications Commission - A decrease of $50,000 related to an education grant expenditure that occurred in FY 2012 -13. MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Sister Cities - The Department is requesting and additional $10,000 in appropriations to fund additional staff time related to the administration of the Sister Cities program. Teen Commission - The Department is requesting an additional $3,750 for staffing costs related to backfilling an employee out on leave. STAFFING No staffing changes. 17 193 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $13,750 in increased appropriations for City Council and Commission be approved and funded by the general fund unassigned fund balance. 194 Administration DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. FY13 -14 Budget Division Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec City Clerk 672,933 0 City Mgr. Disc Fund 427,374 0 City Attorney 1,275,539 0 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 7,544 680,477 614,500 1,890,039 For the program budgets that are part of Administration, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected was $163,476 or 50% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $1,627,356. This represents 40% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 41% and 49 % of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Administration: w 195 Administration Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ City Manager - An increase of approximately $135,000 due to staffing. As of December 31, 2012, the City Manager position had only been filled for approximately 3 months and a new Senior Management Analyst position was added in FY 2012 -13 that was not previously included in the budget; ■ City Attorney- An increase of $605,000 is primarily due to staffing and costs related to the Apple 2 Campus. In FY2012 -13 the Assistant City Attorney and Legal Service Manager were both vacant. As of the first quarter in FY 2013 -14 both positions had been filled resulting in higher salary costs from prior year. In addition, in the current year costs associated with the Apple Campus 2 are included in program budgets resulting in increased expenditures. 20 196 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS City Attorney — The department requests an increase to the budget of $614,500. The majority of the increase $515,000 will fund contract legal costs related to the Apple Campus 2 project. These funds are completely reimbursed by Apple and in addition the City receives 10% in administrative and overhead revenue. The remaining $99,500 funds Council directed legal projects and increased salary costs due an unanticipated extended leave of the Legal Services Manager. City Clerk - Duplicating and Mail Services — Maintenance costs for copiers were inadvertently cut from the final budget. In addition, nothing was budgeted for the new Neopost postage machine & folder- inserter machine. A mid -year adjustment of $7,500 is requested for costs associated with both machines. Environmental Affairs — The Environmental Affairs Division requests $75,000 to support the completion of the City's first Climate Action Plan (CAP), which will serve as a comprehensive plan that consolidates and institutionalizes the City's core sustainability strategies, processes, and actions into an overarching document that quantifies greenhouse gas emissions reductions on an ongoing basis. Developing a CAP will enable the City to address California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for developing a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, as required by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), for the City's forthcoming General Plan Amendment. As such, this "special project" is assigned to both the Environmental Affairs Division ($37,500 to 110 -1210) and the Community Development Department ($37,500 to 110 - 7302). A grant obtained earlier this year but not included as part of the Final Budget will enable the City to reallocate $25,000 of existing consulting service funds to offset this $100,000 project. Aligned with this effort, The Division requests an additional $5,000 in part -time salaries to supplement the anticipated rise in workload associated with the City's forthcoming Climate Action Plan (CAP). This funding will support the retention of a part -time employee to support community outreach efforts aligned with the Plan (e.g. design and implementation of civic media assets, responding to resident inquires, supporting community meetings, etc.). 21 197 STAFFING There are no staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $664,544 in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $591,500 in increased department revenue and $73,044 from the general fund unassigned fund balance. 22 .m Law Enforcement DEPARTMENT UPDATES As of first quarter there are no updates to report. Division FY13 -14 Budget Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Amended Interoperability Project 48,000 0 0 48,000 Code Enforcement 517,369 0 0 517,369 De artment Total $9,992,234 $0 $ 0 $9,992,234 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $4,984,795. This represents 50% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 52% and 53% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Law Enforcement: 23 199 Law Enforcement Three Year Expenditure Comparison s Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: • Law Enforcement Santa Clara Sheriff - An increase of $240,885 as a result of service enhancements added to the FY 2013 -14 contract, including the addition of 1.0 Sheriff position and • Code Enforcement - An increase of $227,717 given the reallocation of two Code Enforcement Officers from the Administrative Services Department to Law Enforcement in FY 2013 -14; MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Department is not requesting any mid -year adjustments. 24 200 STAFFING There are no staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the mid -year point of the fiscal year, program budgets within Law Enforcement are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 25 201 Public Affairs DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. FY13 -14 Budget Division Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec Government Channel 984,546 0 City Webste 236,096 0 Information Technology 2,428,918 0 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 75,000 1,059,546 918,536 3,347,454 For the program budgets that are part of Public Affairs, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected was $1,421,429 or 50% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $1,216,720. This represents 23% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 44% and 47% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is due to the transfer in of Information Technology from Administrative Services as part of a restructure and the transfer in of depreciation funding from Information Technology fund to the Government Channel fund. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Public Affairs: 26 202 Public Affairs Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ Information Technology — An increase of $590,872 due to the transfer in of the Information Technology budget from Administrative Services. MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public Affairs — The Department requests to increase the budget by $6,144. After the adoption of the Final Budget it was discovered that part -time costs related to after - hours receptionist services were allocated to the Public Works City Hall Maintenance budget. These services are scheduled by Public Affairs and it is requested that $9,000 be transferred in from the engineering design budget. The department will also be transferring out $11,000 to the Information Technology budget to fund part -time hours 27 203 for GIS functions. The remaining $8,144 will fund costs related to the printing of the annual report that were not included as part of the Final Budget. Information Technology - The Department requests to increase the budget by $918,536 which represents a transfer out of funds and funding for additional part -time hours for GIS. As part of the Final Budget a new Internal Service Fund for the Government Channel was formed. Depreciation funding related to Government Channel items had previously been partially accounted for in the Information Technology fund. This request will transfer out deprecation funding form the IT fund to the Government Channel fund. In addition the department has requested additional GIS staff support for asset and infrastructure management systems used by the City. Funding for part - time hours will come from a transfer in of appropriations of $11,000 from the Public Affairs budget. Government Channel - The department is requesting to transfer in revenue of $907,536 from the IT fund to establish depreciation funding for the Government Channel. In addition the department is requesting to increase appropriations by $75,000 to create and equip a fiber connection to the Quinlan Community Center. This is an existing CIP project, but was previously budgeted assuming the City could utilize the existing Comcast conduit. The conduit has proven not to be a feasible option, so the additional funds are to install a separate conduit. STAFFING There are no staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $999,680 in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $913,680 in internal service fund balance and $86,000 in department revenue from a transfer in from the general fund unassigned fund balance. 204 Administrative Services DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. FY13 -14 Budget Division Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec Finance 1,079,983 0 Human Resources 3,568,915 ! 0 Information Technology 0 0 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 680,000 1,759,983 0 0 For the program budgets that are part of Administrative Services, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected is $1,409,660 or 48% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. As the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $1,961,526, which represents 34% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 40% and 52% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the average expenditure range. This is due to large expenditure that is expected as part of the purchase and implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) for Finance, Payroll, and Human Resources The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Administrative Services: w 205 Administrative Services Three Year Expenditure Comparison s N S Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ Finance - A $52,750 increase due to new internal service fund charges related to Government Channel and the City Website and consultant costs related to the new Financial Management System; ■ Human Resources Division - A $1.2 million decrease due to a lower level of funding for Retiree Health. Last fiscal year additional revenue was originally assumed as part of the final budget that did not materialize. This additional revenue was to fund the unfunded retiree health liability. An expenditure adjustment was made as part of the Mid -Year Budget last year but did not post until January 2014 and 30 206 ■ Information Technology Division — A $556,245 decrease due to this program being transferred out to Public Affairs in the first quarter of FY 2013 -14. MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finance — Purchase and implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) for Finance, Payroll, and Human Resources. The City currently uses the Pentamation System that was acquired by Sungard several years ago. Sungard is phasing out this application and will cease to service the system in a few years. The application was developed nearly 20 years ago and is increasingly obsolete. As part of the Final Budget the department requested $250,000 for the purchase of a new system. This estimate did not include installation, migration services, required third party software, consulting services and additional staff support for testing and transition of the new system. As part of mid -year the department is requesting an additional $680,000. This request will fund the purchase of the ERP system and hardware ($600,000), the department requests hiring a two -year limited term Account Clerk position ($30,000) for the current year and $160,000 for FY14/15 and FY 15/16 to relieve staff to work on migration and implementation, and funding for professional project management consulting services ($60,000) to keep the project on time. These costs represent estimates based on vendor proposals and may be revised once the vendors are selected and contract is signed. Staff estimates that a contract will be signed in April. Total projected costs for the project are listed below: Installation /Migration Services $300,000 ect Management Consulting Services $90,000 Total Costs for New ERP System $930,000 Human Resources — The department is requesting an additional $10,000 funding due to higher than anticipated general liability claims cost through Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 31 207 Retiree Medical Liability - The department is requesting an additional $8,000,000 to pay off the retiree medical unfunded liability. This request was originally approved by Council as part of the FY 2012 -13 Final Adopted Budget but was later removed due to revenue related to the Apple Campus 2 that did not materialize. It is anticipated the City will receive this revenue as part of this fiscal year and thus this request has been reestablished. STAFFING The department is requesting a new two- year limited term Account Clerk position to assist with the implementation of the new ERP system. This position will relieve staff and allow them to concentrate on learning and testing the new system during implementation. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $8,690,000 in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $690,000 general fund unassigned fund balance and $8,000,000 in department revenue from a transfer in of fund from the general fund unassigned fund balance. 32 No Parks and Recreation DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that are part of Parks and Recreation, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected is $2.2 million or 32.4 %. Golf course revenues are down this fiscal year due to the impact of the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail — Phase 2 construction encroachment on the course. Once the trail is completed, revenues should return to normal. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $4,483,795 this represents 42% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 47% and 51% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Parks and Recreation: 33 209 FY13 -14 Budget Requested FY13 -14 Division Amended Adjustments Mid -Year Projected Budget Oct -Dec Adjustments Amended Budget Parks and Recreation $337,209 0 $70,700 $407,909 Facilities and Community 1,782,667 0 54,420 1,837,087 Events Youth and Teen Programs 2,152,949 0 25,730 2,178,679 Sports and Fitness 4,062,598 0 0 4,070,598 Senior Programs 1,449,313 0 71,160 1,520,473 Neighborhood Services 689,685 0 5,095 694,780 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that are part of Parks and Recreation, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected is $2.2 million or 32.4 %. Golf course revenues are down this fiscal year due to the impact of the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail — Phase 2 construction encroachment on the course. Once the trail is completed, revenues should return to normal. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $4,483,795 this represents 42% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 47% and 51% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Parks and Recreation: 33 209 Parks and Recreation Three Year Expenditure Comparison s M Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ Parks and Recreation — A $44,606 decrease due to savings associated with the cost sharing of the Parks and Recreation Director with the Administrative Services Department. ■ Neighborhood Services — An increase of $146,220 is due to the transfer in of several programs including, Community Outreach, Disaster Preparedness Library Extra Hours and Neighborhood Watch and ■ Youth and Teen Programs — An increase $143,505 is due to increased demand in program offerings. This increase will be offset by program revenue. 34 210 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Parks and Recreation Administration - The Department is requesting $70,000 in additional appropriations to fund a new Parks Restoration and Improvement Manager position to work on various parks capital and special projects. The Parks Restoration and Improvement Manager was a position previously funded in the Parks and Recreation Department prior to the first phase of the Stevens Creek Trail project. The position was moved to Public Works to work on that project. This recommendation would restore the position to the Parks and Recreation department to manage the larger parks planning and development projects. Some of duties associated with this position were previously completed by the Parks Restoration and Improvement Manager position in Public Works and the incumbent will transfer from Public Works to Parks and Recreation. It is anticipated that Public Works will underfill the position with a traditional CIP Manager. The remaining $20,390 will fund additional department training and conference attendance and staffing costs due to backfilling of an employee out on leave. Quinlan Community Center Supervision - The Department is requesting $3,500 in additional appropriations to fund costs due to backfilling of an employee out on leave. Blackberry Farm Picnic Area - The Department is requesting $15,300 to fund items related to Birthday packages, Cupertino Day expenses and Pool Inspector costs. Cultural Programs - The Department is requesting $26,950 in additional appropriations to fund additional tarps to cover the tennis courts at Cupertino High School during the City's Fourth of July fireworks and staffing costs due to backfilling of an employee out on leave. Youth and Teen Programs - The Department is requesting a total of $21,250 to fund increased staffing costs related to backfilling an employee out on leave and part time costs needed for nests deterrent at McClellan Ranch to ensure construction on the Environmental Education Center can begin on time. Senior Programs - The Department is requesting $71,160 for the Senior Programs Division. The Senior Case Manager program is requesting $44,132 to fund a new full time, permanent Case Manager Position and staffing costs due to backfilling of an 35 211 employee out on leave. There is a great need in the Community for a bilingual case manager. The current case manager is carrying a case load of about 90 cases. The industry standard is 45 cases. The addition of this position will enhance services available to the City's senior population. In addition the requested funding will also be used for expenses related to the New Volunteer recognition week. Disaster Preparedness — The Department is requesting $5,095 for the purchase of six surface tablets and five iPads as part of 2013 EMPG Technology Project allocation. Although the costs of the tablets and iPads is $10,190 the City is only required match half of the cost to draw down the other $5,095. STAFFING The department is requesting to add one Senior Case Manager at a cost of $20,000 for the current Fiscal Year and ongoing staff cost for FY 2014 -15 of $110,086. The department is also requesting to add a Parks Restoration and Improvement Manager position at a cost of $50,000 for the current fiscal year and ongoing staff cost for FY 2014- 15 of $191,751. This position originally in the Parks and Recreation Department, was transferred for several years to the Public Works Department for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project. In addition, the department is requesting $14,000 in additional funds for the reclassification of three Recreation Supervisors to Senior Recreation Supervisors effective as of the first full pay period in January as recommended by the classification study conducted by Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai Public Law Group, LLP. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $227,105 in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $5,380 in enterprise fund balance and $221,725 in unassigned fund balance in the General Fund. 36 212 Planning and Community Development DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. FY13 -14 Budget Division Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec Planning 4,435,050 0 Housing Services; 824,331 ! 0 Building 3,824,258 0 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 176,635 4,611,685 7,930,998 11,755,256 For the program budgets that are part of Planning and Community Development, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected is $5.4 million or 41% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $3.7 million, representing 21% of the projected year end actuals. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 24% and 41% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year within the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Planning and Community Development: 37 213 Planning and Community Development Three Year Expenditure Comparison s s s s s Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: ■ Building Divisions — An increase of $922,743 is due primarily to increased building activity related to the Apple Campus 2 project; ■ Planning Division — An increase of $967,778 is due to primarily to increased activity related to the Apple Campus 2 project. MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Building Construction Plan Check — The Department is requesting an increase of $7,930,998 for professional plan check (7,510,998) and building inspection services ($400,000) and for costs ($20,000) related to new workstation for a contract position 214 related to Apple Campus 2 project. This contract was approved by Council on February 4, 2014 but not funding was allocated at that time. Mid /Long Term Planning - The Department is requesting an increase of $176,635 to fund a portion of the Climate Action Plan ($37,500) and to account for carryovers ($139,135) that were inadvertently not requested at FY 2013 -14 year -end for the General Plan Amendment and the Tree Ordinance. STAFFING No changes in staffing. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $8 million in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $8.7 million in increased department revenue from pass thru and administrative revenues related to the Apple Campus 2 project. w 215 Public Works DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the First Quarter Financial Report. Division FY13 -14 Budget Requested FY13 -14 Amended Adjustments Mid -Year Projected Budget Oct -Dec Adjustments Amended Budget Administration $664,767 $0 $0 $664,767 Environmental Programs 2,752,897 0 0 2,752,897 Engineering Services 1,454,911 0 1,260,392 2,715,303 Service Center 807,263 0 0 807,263 Grounds and Fleet $3,353,322 0 48,000 3,401,322 Streets 7,625,467 0 300,000 7,925,467 Trees and Right of Way 2,511,252 0 0 2,511,252 Facilities 2,867,120 0 -9,000 2,858,120 Transportation 1,427,010 0 33,850 1,460,860 i Fixed Asset Acquisition 361,870 0 0 361,870 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that are part of Public Works, as of December 31, 2013, actual revenue collected is $2.9 million or 37% of estimated revenues. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of December 31, 2013, expenditures are $10,229,151 representing 40% of the budgeted appropriations. Expenditures at the mid -year point of the prior three years were between 45% and 48% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Public Works: 40 216 Public Works Three Year Expenditure Comparison s s s N S Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period a year ago and accomplishments include: ■ Engineering Services - A variance of $46,000 due to the filling of one vacant full - time Associate Engineer, the temporary two -year addition of an Associate Engineer, the promotion of an Associate Engineer to a Senior Engineer, the promotion of an Engineering Technician to a Senior Engineering Technician, new cost allocations, and staff training. An additional $87,000 variance in General Service Agreement due to Construction Project Management Services, Wilfred Jarvis Institute related charges and new subdivision map signing and land surveying services. 41 217 ■ Environmental - A variance of $40,000 due to filling a vacant 2 -Year Environmental Programs Assistant position charged to Resource Recovery; and added 50% Code Enforcement Officer to Resource Recovery. There is an additional $280,000 variance for charges related to the plastic bag ordinance, trio bins for city facilitates and a 2 -month delay with receiving the invoices for the Solid Waste Program (at -125K per invoice) last fiscal year. At this point last year the program had been billed 3 times. This fiscal year the program has been billed 5 times at December close. ■ Streets - A $2.1 million increase due to the pavement repair and resurfacing program moved from the Non - Departmental capital budget to this Public Works operating program in FY 2013 -14. New cost allocations and the annual contribution to the new health reimbursement account this quarter also caused the increase over last year. Lower streetlight electricity costs this year tempered the increase. Retroactive electricity costs for streetlights added through annexations were paid last year. MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Inspection Services - The Department requests $1,180,392 for Apple related contract inspection services. This contract was approved by Council on February 4, 2013 but not funding was allocated at that time. Engineering Design - The Department requests an $80,000 increase for a master agreement for construction project management services for projects added after the adopted budget. This is a one -time, Council directed cost. Neighborhood Parks - The Department requests a $48,000 increase for a tree survey to ensure the stability of trees at Blackberry and McClellan Ranch and removal of hazardous trees. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - The Department requests a $300,000 increase to prepare streets for FY 2014/15 pavement management project. This project will repair and make accessibility improvements to the City's sidewalks, curbs and gutters. This work needs to be completed before the pavement management project can begin. Building Maintenance Cites - After the adoption of the Final Budget it was discovered that part time costs related to after -hours receptionist services were 42 218 allocated to the Public Works Building Maintenance City Hall budget. These services are generally scheduled by Public Affairs and it is requested that $9,000 be transferred out from the City Hall Maintenance budget to Public Affairs. Transportation - The Department requests a $33,850 increase for Apple related traffic contract services (Control traffic counts for neighborhood cut - through traffic monitoring program, Peer Review and Cost Estimating Services and Consultant traffic signal design review services). STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that $1.6 million in increased appropriations be approved and funded by $1.3 million in increased department revenue from pass thru and administrative revenues related to the Apple Campus 2 project. Requests related the curb and gutter preparation will be funded by $300,000 in department revenue from a transfer in of general fund unassigned fund balance. 43 219 Non - Departmental UPDATES On November 19, 2013 the City Council approved a $1 million increase to the McClellan Ranch Preserve Environmental Education Center and Blacksmith Shop Relocation Project. Division FY13 -14 Budget Amended Adjustments Budget Oct -Dec _ Debt Service $3,171,838 0 Employee Housing 1,256,000 0 Assistance Transfers Out 15,095,804 0 Capital Projects 15,778,734 1,000,000 Requested FY13 -14 Mid -Year Projected Adjustments Amended Budget 0 1,256,000 17,350 16,796,084 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES As of December 31, 2013, inter -fund transfers total $7,547,987, which is on -track at 50% of budget. Transfers are done in twelve equal monthly installments. Principal and interest on the City's debt is paid semi - annually, debt service expenditures are incurred in the second and fourth quarters of each fiscal year. The employee housing assistance program for City executives has incurred no expenditures to date. The budget is a set -aside for a new housing loan if ever it is applied for and approved. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows mid -year and year -end for a three -year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Non - Departmental: 44 220 Non - Departmental Three Year Expenditure Comparison s M S S S S Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include: • Capital Projects — Projected expenditures can vary widely year -to -year depending on the phase of active projects and whether a project has ended or commenced. The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase 2 project and pavement rehabilitation projects, all carried over from the prior year, comprise $898,477 and $190,000, respectively, of the FY2013 -14 variance. • Inter -fund transfers — A $6 million decrease in transfers out is due the anticipated payoff of retiree unfunded liability that did not occur but was anticipated in FY 12 -13. STAFFING There is no staffing associated with this department. 45 221 MID -YEAR BUDGET ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Transfers Out — An increase of $8,392,350 is requested for transfers out. This request will fund the following transfers out: 1 . Admin Services - Retiree Medical Liability Special Revenue — Non-Departmental Tree Fund — Fenced Dog Park Eys"ITOW, ! $8,000,000 Fund the payoff of the City's unfunded retiree medical liability $17,350 Fund Tree Enhancements and Tree Purchases Fenced Dog Park — An increase of $17,350 is request to fund new trees and tree enhancements at the dog park. This request is funded by the Tree In -lieu Fund and no new general fund dollars are requested. Fees collected for this fund specify it must be spent on purchases related to trees. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that appropriations be increased by $8,409,700 funded from $17,350 in department revenue as a result of a transfer in of funds from the Tree Fund and $8,375,000 in general fund unassigned fund balance and $17,350 in tree fund balance. 46 222 CONCLUSION The Mid -Year Financial Report shows the City is well - positioned to move forward. City staff will continue to monitor the 2013 -14 Fiscal Year Amended Budget and be prepared to make appropriate recommendations and changes if necessary before June 30, 2014. This fiscal year will mark a fiscal anomaly related to the receipt of several large one- time revenues related to the Apple Campus 2 project and development agreement. The City will continue to be fiscally conservative and use these funds only for one -time expenses and budget its use over several fiscal years. 47 223 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 -14 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED AMENDED REVENUES TO THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER AMENDED APPROPRIATED MONIES AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of amended anticipated revenues, has determined that estimated amended revenues are adequate to cover amended appropriations, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities WHEREAS, portions of the City Attorney, Community Development and Public Works Department budgets require mid -year adjustments for fiscal year 2013 -2014 that involve revenues paid to the City by applicants to cover the costs for various consultants needed on the Apple Campus 2 project, which have been included in the budget to provide transparency and accountability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby ratify the attached anticipated amended resources are to be received in the General fund during fiscal year 2013 -14 and that such resources are sufficient to cover the attached amended appropriations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is appropriated from the General fund the sum of money set forth as amended expenditures for those funds, to be used for the purposes as expressed and estimated in the report before City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of March 2014, by the following vote: 224 Page 2 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino 225 Attachment B 1 Summary of Pass thru Adjustments Department - Program Budget Appropriation Estimated Description Amount Revenue Planning - Construction Plan $ 7,510,998 $7,510,998 Construction Inspection Public Works - Inspection $ 1,180,392 $1,180,392 Services Contract Public Works - Traffic $ 33,850 $ 33,850 Traffic Services 226 Attachment C RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 -14 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED AMENDED REVENUES TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUNDS TO COVER AMENDED APPROPRIATED MONIES AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of amended anticipated revenues, has determined that estimated amended revenues are adequate to cover amended appropriations, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby ratify that the attached anticipated amended resources are to be received in the General and Special Funds listed in the attachment during fiscal year 2013 -14 and that such resources are sufficient to cover the attached amended appropriations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is appropriated from the General and special funds the sum of money set forth as amended expenditures for those funds, to be used for the purposes as expressed and estimated in the report before the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of March 2014, by the following vote: 227 Page 2 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino 228 Attachment Cl Revenue Adjustments by Fund Fund Revenue Amount Taxes 1,321,000 s for Services 11,751,029 Total General Fund Revenue Adjustments 43,703,286 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Parkland 8,270,994 TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS ALL FUNDS $56,982,330 Expenditure Adjustments by Fund Fund Expenditure Amount SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS TOTAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS ALL FUNDS 229 317,350 22,730 $19,105,414 General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE FUND - DEPT -ACCT Transfer out for costs related to pavement management project 110 -0 -8020 300,000.00 Transfer out funds to Payoff of the unfunded Retirement Health liabilti 110 -0 -8020 8,000,000.00 Transfer Out for costs relate to the Quinlan Fiber Project 110 -0 -8020 75,000.00 Additional Sister City Funding (staff time ) 110- 1010 -5501 10,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 1065 -5502 3,750.00 Climate Action Plan 110- 1210 -7014 42,500.00 Copier maintenance costs not included in the FB 110- 1251 -7013 7,544.00 Apple Campus 2 Legal Costs, and increased staff costs 110- 1500 -9327 614,500.00 Transfer Out to IT Budget for new PT staff costs for GIS 110- 3300 -8020 - 1'000'00) Annual Report printing costs 110- 3300 -7014 8,144.00 Transfer in PT staff costs for receptionist 110- 3300 -5502 9,000.00 Increased ABAG Costs 110- 4540 -7022 10,000.00 New Park Restoration Manager, previously in Public Works but duties will be moved to Parks and Recreation along with new responsabilitie, PW will keep existing position and downgrade to a project manager. This will be ongoing and added to FY14 /15 110- 6100 -5501 50,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6100 -5502 5,000.00 Departmental Training to cover NRPA and CPRS conferences 110- 6100 -6216 15,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6200 -5502 10,050.00 BBF Birthday Packages 110-6220-614, 3,800.00 General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Cupertino Day expenses 110- 6220 -6327 5,000.00 OSHA/Pool Inspectors 110- 6220 -7014 4,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6248 -5502 4,950.00 Add'1 tarps to cover tennis courts for 4th of July fireworks 110- 6248 -9300 22,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6343 -5502 3,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6344 -5502 5,250.00 Leadership 95014 110- 6010 -5501 280.00 Administration 110 -6100 -5501 420.00 Quinlan Community Center Su v 110- 6200 -5501 3,500.00 BBF Picnic 110- 6220 -5501 1,120.00 Youth Teen Supervision 110- 6300 -5501 1,680.00 Nature Programs 110- 6347 -5501 420.00 Senior Adult Programs 110- 6500 -5501 4,200.00 PT staff to provide nesting deterrent @ mcclellan ranch 110- 6347 -5501 10,000.00 New Full Time Case Manager (3 months FYI 3 /14 +on oin 110- 6529 -5501 13,800.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6529 -5502 30,332.00 New Full Time Case Manager (3 months FYI 3 /14 +on oin 110- 6549 -5501 6,200.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6549 -5502 13,628.00 New volunteer recognition week 110- 6549 -6304 3,000.00 Match needed for grant of $10,190 110- 6720 -9400 5,095.00 Capital Project Management Services 110- 8101 -7014 80,000.00 Apple Campus 2 Inspections 110- 8102 -9327 1,180,392.00 Tree survey and removal 110- 8314 -7014 48,000.00 Transfer out PT costs for After Hours Receptionist 110- 8501 -5502 (9,000,00) New Finance/Payroll System and 110- 4100 -9301 600,000.00 Consultant Cost for new ERP 110- 4100 -7014 50,000.00 1 Limited Term position (Account Clerk ) 110-4100-930j,,, 30,000.00 sM General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Apple Campus 2 Profession Plan Check Services 110- 7502 -9327 7,510,998.00 Workstation remodel 110- 7502 -7014 20,000.00 Apple Campus 2 Contract 110- 7503 -9327 400,000.00 Climate Action Plan and added carryovers that where not requested at year end 110- 7302 -7014 176,635.00 Apple related traffic services 110- 8601 -9327 33,850.00 TOTAL 19,432,038.00 (20,000,00) PREPARED BY: APPROVED: POSTED: 232 General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 ACCOUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE FUND - DEPT -ACCT Transfer out for costs related to pavement management project 110 -0 -8020 300,000.00 Transfer out funds to Payoff of the unfunded Retirement Health liabilti 110 -0 -8020 8,000,000.00 Transfer Out for costs relate to the Quinlan Fiber Project 110 -0 -8020 75,000.00 Additional Sister City Funding (staff time ) 110- 1010 -5501 10,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 1065 -5502 3,750.00 Climate Action Plan 110- 1210 -7014 42,500.00 Copier maintenance costs not included in the FB 110- 1251 -7013 7,544.00 Apple Campus 2 Legal Costs, and increased staff costs 110- 1500 -9327 614,500.00 Transfer Out to IT Budget for new PT staff costs for GIS 110- 3300 -8020 - 1'000'00) Annual Report printing costs 110- 3300 -7014 8,144.00 Transfer in PT staff costs for receptionist 110- 3300 -5502 9,000.00 Increased ABAG Costs 110- 4540 -7022 10,000.00 New Park Restoration Manager, previously in Public Works but duties will be moved to Parks and Recreation along with new responsabilitie, PW will keep existing position and downgrade to a project manager. This will be ongoing and added to FY14 /15 110- 6100 -5501 50,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6100 -5502 5,000.00 Departmental Training to cover NRPA and CPRS conferences 110- 6100 -6216 15,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6200 -5502 10,050.00 BBF Birthday Packages 110-6220-614, 3,800.00 General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Cupertino Day expenses 110- 6220 -6327 5,000.00 OSHA/Pool Inspectors 110- 6220 -7014 4,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6248 -5502 4,950.00 Add'1 tarps to cover tennis courts for 4th of July fireworks 110- 6248 -9300 22,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6343 -5502 3,000.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6344 -5502 5,250.00 Leadership 95014 110- 6010 -5501 280.00 Administration 110 -6100 -5501 420.00 Quinlan Community Center Su v 110- 6200 -5501 3,500.00 BBF Picnic 110- 6220 -5501 1,120.00 Youth Teen Supervision 110- 6300 -5501 1,680.00 Nature Programs 110- 6347 -5501 420.00 Senior Adult Programs 110- 6500 -5501 4,200.00 PT staff to provide nesting deterrent @ mcclellan ranch 110- 6347 -5501 10,000.00 New Full Time Case Manager (3 months FYI 3 /14 +on oin 110- 6529 -5501 13,800.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6529 -5502 30,332.00 New Full Time Case Manager (3 months FYI 3 /14 +on oin 110- 6549 -5501 6,200.00 Cost to backfill employee on leave 110- 6549 -5502 13,628.00 New volunteer recognition week 110- 6549 -6304 3,000.00 Match needed for grant of $10,190 110- 6720 -9400 5,095.00 Capital Project Management Services 110- 8101 -7014 80,000.00 Apple Campus 2 Inspections 110- 8102 -9327 1,180,392.00 Tree survey and removal 110- 8314 -7014 48,000.00 Transfer out PT costs for After Hours Receptionist 110- 8501 -5502 (9,000,00) New Finance/Payroll System and 110- 4100 -9301 600,000.00 Consultant Cost for new ERP 110- 4100 -7014 50,000.00 1 Limited Term position (Account Clerk ) 110-4100-930j, 30,000.00 GJ`T General Fund Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Apple Campus 2 Profession Plan Check Services 110- 7502 -9327 7,510,998.00 Workstation remodel 110- 7502 -7014 20,000.00 Apple Campus 2 Contract 110- 7503 -9327 400,000.00 Climate Action Plan and added carryovers that where not requested at year end 110- 7302 -7014 176,635.00 Apple related traffic services 110- 8601 -9327 33,850.00 TOTAL 19,432,038.00 (20,000,00) PREPARED BY: APPROVED: POSTED: 235 All Other Funds Revenue Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Transfer in from GF 270 - 8403 -4020 300,000 Transfer in from GF 642- 4512 -4020 8,000,000 Transfer in from GF 615- 3500 -4020 75,000 Transfer in from GF 610- 3800 -4020 11,000.00 Transfer in from Tree Fund 580- 9137 -4020 17,350.00 Transfer in from GF 615- 3500 -4020 907,536.00 Apple DA Agreement Housing Mitigation 265- 0000 -4065 5,008,050.00 Apple DA Agreement Parkland Contribution 280 - 0000 -4090 8,270,994.00 TOTAL 22 589 930.00 0.00 PREPARED BY: APPROVED: POSTED: 236 All Other Funds Expenditure Journal Attachment D BUDGET JOURNAL ENTRY BATCH CONTROL 4 MONTH ENDING: MARCH Period/Year: 2013/2014 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER FUND - DEPT -ACCT INCREASE DECREASE Prepare streets for pavement management project 270 - 8403 -7014 300,000 Transfer Out to Mary Ave Dog Park for Trees 281- 0000 -8020 17,350 Cost to backfill employee on leave 580- 6349 -5502 3,000.00 Recreation Programs Reclass 580- 6349 -5501 2,380.00 Purchase of Trees and Tree Enhancement for Mary Ave Dog Park, funded from Transfer in of Tree Fund fund balance 580- 9137 -9300 17,350.00 Transfer out to Depreciation Funding 610- 3800 -8020 907,536 Equipment Replacement /Quinlan Fiber 615- 3500 -9400 75,000 Transfer in of PT costs from Public Affairs to IT for new PT staff costs for GIS 610- 3800 -5502 11,000 Payoff of the unfunded Retirement Health liabilti 642- 4512 -7014 8,000,000 TOTAL 9,333,616.00 0.00 PREPARED BY: APPROVED: POSTED: 237 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- BUILDING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3228 www.cupertino.org IOVF1247141 k CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT March 4, 2014 Subject: Amendments to Chapter 16.58, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to Plug in Electric Vehicle Charging Systems; and Chapter 1.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to the Right of Entry. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the first reading of an "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino: 1. Amending Chapter 16.58 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to adopt the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code related to Plug -In Electrical Vehicle Charging Systems with certain modifications; and 2. Amending Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding the Right of Entry." Discussion: On November 19, 2013, the Cupertino City Council conducted the second reading of the ordinance necessary to adopt, amend and implement the 2013 Uniform Building Standards Code. At that time, staff recommended that two items be returned to Council for review: (1) requirements for electrical charging station systems; and (2) clarification of the right of entry. This action addresses these remaining items. A. Pre - wiring for Electrical Vehicles The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to require pre- wiring for electric vehicle charging systems in new buildings to lower the cost for the future installation of those systems. By pre- wiring buildings and parking areas, future electric vehicle charging systems can be installed later at a minimal cost, which lowers barriers to the use of electric vehicles. The proposed amendments to Chapter 16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code set forth minimum pre- wiring requirements for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) in new development. The application of these requirements will further the goals and policies of the City regarding environmental protection and will reduce future greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the goals established under AB 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act. 1 238 Comparison with Ordinances in Other Jurisdictions Other jurisdictions that have adopted or are in the process of adopting a similar EVSE ordinance are the City of Sunnyvale, the City of Palo Alto, and the County of Santa Clara. The City of Sunnyvale adopted an ordinance to require pre- wiring for electric vehicle chargers for residential garages /carports, residential shared parking facilities, and new industrial, research and development, and office buildings having 100 parking spaces or more. The City of Palo Alto introduced a similar ordinance at the regular City Council meeting in September, 2013. Although the ordinance was not approved, staff was directed to follow through with several items. Staff plans to take the ordinance back to Council in mid -2014. The County of Santa Clara adopted a very similar ordinance in December 2013, as this ordinance presented to the Cupertino City Council. Ordinance Highlights The proposed Ordinance adopts, for the most part, the California Green Building Code related to electrical vehicle charging stations. The ordinance requires: • For new one- and two - family dwellings, one- and two - family dwelling rebuilds, new multi - family dwellings, and new non - residential buildings, a listed conduit such as a metal or plastic pipe, (otherwise referred to as a raceway) is required to be installed from the main building electrical panel out to the parking area. The minimal cost of installing the raceway will alleviate increased expenses of installing such wiring in the future and encourage use of electric vehicles. • For new multi - family dwellings, and new non - residential buildings, at least 3% of parking spaces, but no less than one, must be capable of supporting future electrical vehicle supply equipment. This is consistent with the lower Tier 1 voluntary requirement in the California Green Building Code. Tier 2 requires at least 5% of the parking spaces, but not less than two, to be capable of supporting future EVSE systems. Other provisions of the ordinance relate to the method of installation and the labeling requirements. Findings To the extent the requirement of this ordinance are deemed to constitute changes or modifications to the requirements of the California Building Standards Code and the other regulations adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17922, a City is required to adopt findings that the provisions of the ordinance are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The findings are listed in detail in the ordinance amending Chapter 16.58 (Attachment A). 2 239 B. Right of Inspection During the review of the Building Code, it became clear that Chapter 1.08, although entitled the "Right of Entry for Inspection', improperly refers to "search warrants." A search warrant is obtained for criminal investigationsi. In contrast, Chapter 1.08 of Cupertino Municipal Code governs the circumstances when a city official, in the course of his or her duties, needs a court order to be able to carry out his necessary function. State law defines this as an "inspection" warrant. In order to obtain an inspection warrant, under state law, the City must apply to the Court and demonstrate that the public official needs the inspection which is required or authorized by state or local law or regulation relating to "building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning." (Code of Civ. Proc. §1822.50.) Cause exists for an inspection warrant if there are legislative or administrative standards for a routine or area inspection, or if there is reason to believe that a condition exists that does not conform to the Code. (Code of Civ. Proc §1822.52.) For the Building Official, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 16.02.090 describes when a building official needs to enter a structure to fulfill his or her duties. If the Building Official is refused entry, however, then the City must obtain an inspection warrant from the Court, unless the exceptions exist (in an emergency, for example). Thus, the Building Official's duties under the Municipal Code are the first step in presenting the Court with a need for an inspection warrant. It is recommended that those duties remain unchanged. However, to clarify the process, the proposed Ordinance replaces the term "search warrant" with "inspection warrant" to appropriately characterize the type of order needed from the Court. Environmental Review: The adoption of these amendments is categorically exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §15308) because it is an action taken by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment and no exceptions to this categorical exemption apply. Fiscal Implications: There are no fiscal impacts to the General Fund as a result of this action. Prepared b3�: Albert Salvador, Building Official, Colleen Winchester, Assistant City Attorney Reviewed bv: Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director A112roved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance amending Chapter 16.58 and Chapter 1.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code 3 240 See, Penal Code Section 1525, and following. 241 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.58 OF TITLE 16 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO PLUG IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SYSTEMS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 1.08 OF TITLE 1 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE RIGHT OF ENTRY WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City of Cupertino may adopt the provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code, with certain amendments to those provisions which are reasonably necessary to protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Cupertino because of the local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, over the years, the City Council made factual findings set forth in respective sections of Chapter 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and additional findings on November 4, 2013, relating to the amendments to the California codes; and WHEREAS, the factual findings made then continue to be valid and relate to the amendments made to the California codes in this adoption, and are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following additional factual findings with respect to the local geological, topographical, and climate conditions including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino support policies and programs that reduce regional pollutants, greenhouse gases, and support sustainability objectives; and 2. Emissions from conventional gasoline powered vehicles are a major source of pollutants and greenhouse gases in Santa Clara County; and 3. Plug -in electric vehicles derive some or all of their energy form the electrical grid; and 4. Per State requirements, California's electrical grid is required to derive 33% of all energy from renewable resources by 2020; and 5. The use of plug -in electric vehicles substantially reduces emissions and pollutants in comparison with conventional gasoline powered vehicles; and 6. According to the California Air Resources Board, emissions from plug in electric vehicles are 75% lower than the average conventional gasoline powered vehicle and 55% lower than the average conventional hybrid vehicle; and Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 1 242 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 7. Conventional gasoline powered vehicles use energy from petroleum which is a non- renewable resources; and 8. Plug -in electric vehicles derive some or all of their energy from the electrical grid that increasingly uses renewable resources, which provides a sustainable energy resource; and 9. The availability of plug -in electric vehicles is growing. The International Energy Agency projects that Plug -in Electric Vehicles will account for up to 15% of the vehicle fleet globally by 2020; and 10. The requirement to install pre- wiring for electric vehicle charging systems in new buildings decreases costs associated with installing charging systems at a later date; and 11. By decreasing the cost required to install electric vehicle charging systems, owners can more easily install charging systems, increasing their visibility and reducing "range anxiety" for those intending to purchase plug in electric vehicles; and 12. The goals of these amendments are consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan, which sets forth goals to minimize the environmental impacts of land development including increased vehicle emissions; and 13. Nothing in these amendments is intended to duplicate, contradict, or enter a field which has been fully occupied by, federal or state law or regulation. WHEREAS, this Ordinance was found to be categorically exempt from environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15308; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision - making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the statement of exemption determination under CEQA prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance; and NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 16.58.400 of Chapter 16.58 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby added to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: Add Section A4.106.8 of the 2013 CalGreen Code as follows: A4.106.8 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. Dwellings shall comply with the following requirements for the future installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 2 243 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 A4.106.8.1 One- and two - family dwelling rebuilds and new one- and two - family dwellings. Install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1 -inch inside diameter). The raceway shall be securely fastened at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure. Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed or concealed areas and spaces. A raceway may terminate in an attic or other approved location when it can be demonstrated that the area is accessible and no removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. Exception: Other pre - installation methods approved by the local enforcing agency that provide sufficient conductor sizing and service capacity to install Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). Note: Utilities and local enforcing agencies may have additional requirements for metering and EVSE installation, and should be consulted during the project design and installation. A4.106.8.1.1 Labeling requirement. A label stating "EV CAPABLE" shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the service panel or subpanel and next to the raceway termination point. A4.106.8.2 New Multifamily dwellings. At least 3 percent of the total parking spaces, but not less than one, shall be capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). A4.106.8.2.1 Single charging space required. When only a single charging space is required, install a listed raceway capable of accommodating a dedicated branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1 -inch inside diameter). The raceway shall be securely fastened at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure. Exception: Other pre - installation methods approved by the local enforcing agency that provide sufficient conductor sizing and service capacity to install Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). A4.106.8.2.2 Multiple charging spaces required. When multiple charging spaces are required, plans shall include the location(s) and type of the EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics and electrical calculations to verify that the electrical system has sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all the electrical vehicles (EV) at all designated EV charging spaces at their full rated amperage. Plan design shall be based upon Level 2 EVSE at its maximum operating ampacity. Only underground raceways and related underground equipment are required to be installed at the time of construction. Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 3 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 244 Note: Utilities and local enforcing agencies may have additional requirements for metering and EVSE installation, and should be consulted during the project design and installation. A4.106.8.2.3 Labeling requirement. A label stating "EV CAPABLE" shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the service panel or subpanel and the EV charging space. A.4.106.8.3 Alternative Means for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for Residential buildings. The provisions of Section A4.106.8.1 and A4.106.8.2 are not intended to prevent the use of any alternative means of achieving the standards for electric vehicle charging, provided that any such alternative is approved by the Building Official based on findings that the proposed alternative is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions and is at least as equivalent as the prescribed requirements. SECTION 2. Section 16.58.420 of Chapter 16.58 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby added to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: Add and Amend Section A5.106.5.3 of the 2013 CalGreen Code as follows: A.5.106.5.3 New non - residential buildings. A5.106.5.3.1 Single charging space requirements. When only a single charging space is required, install a listed raceway capable of accommodating a dedicated branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1 -inch inside diameter). The raceway shall be securely fastened at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box or enclosure. Exception: Other pre - installation methods approved by the local enforcing agency that provide sufficient conductor sizing and service capacity to install Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). A5.106.5.3.2 Multiple charging spaces required. When multiple charging spaces are required, plans shall include the location(s) and type of the EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics and electrical calculations to verify that the electrical system has sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all the electrical vehicles (EV) at all designated EV charging spaces at their full rated amperage. Plan design shall be based upon Level 2 EVSE at its maximum operating ampacity. Provide raceways from the electrical service panel to the designated parking areas which are required to be installed at the time of construction. Note: Utilities and local enforcing agencies may have additional requirements for metering and EVSE installation, and should be consulted during the project design and installation. Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 4 245 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 A5.106.5.3.3 Tier 1. At least 3 percent of the total parking spaces, but not less than one, shall be capable of supporting installation of future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). A5.106.5.3.4 Tier 2. Not adopted. A5.106.5.3.5 Labeling requirement. A label stating "EV CAPABLE" shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the service panel or subpanel and the EV charging space. A.5.106.5.4 Alternative Means for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for Non - residential buildings. The provisions of Section A.5.106.5.3 are not intended to prevent the use of any alternative means of achieving the standards for electric vehicle charging, provided that any such alternative is approved by the Building Official based on findings that the proposed alternative is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions and is at least as equivalent as the prescribed requirements. SECTION 3. Section 1.08.010 of Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.010 Inspection Warrant Required. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any ordinance or resolution or whenever there is reasonable cause to believe there exists an ordinance or resolution violation in any building or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of the city, any authorized official of the city may, upon presentation of a valid inspection warrant and proper credentials, enter the building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the building or premises or to perform any duty imposed by ordinance. SECTION 4. Section 1.08.020 of Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.020 Exceptions. The city is not required to obtain an inspection warrant to search or to seize property in the following circumstances: A. Where the city has obtained consent of the owner or occupant of the property in the manner provided in Section 1.08.030; B. Where the property exists within an open field, on public streets, parking lots or other open places; C. In an emergency; and /or D. Where the seizure of the property is authorized pursuant to the police power of the State of California and does not involve an invasion of privacy. Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 5 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 246 SECTION 5. Section 1.08.030 of Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.030 Consent to Inspect. Prior to obtaining consent to an inspection of property, the owner or occupant of the property shall be informed that they have the right to refuse entry and that, if the entry is refused, inspection may be made only pursuant to a valid inspection warrant. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the day of 2014 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, Gilbert Wong, City Clerk Mayor Council Agenda: March 4, 2014 Page: 6 247 Revision Date: February 26, 2014 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 4, 2014 Subject Consider cancelling the first meeting in August. Recommended Action Provide direction to staff. Discussion It has been past City Council practice to cancel one or two meetings during the summer to accommodate Council members' vacation plans. August 5 was a requested date to cancel. When considering which meeting(s) to cancel, please take note of the following: Weed abatement lien assessment must be approved no earlier than July 1 and no later than August 5 Prepared b� Grace Schmidt, City Clerk A112roved for Submission b3�: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: None am