Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
