The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 07-17-00AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, July 17, 2000 6:45 p.m. Legislative Review Committee - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Report from Godbe Research and Analysis on 2000 Community Satisfaction Survey. POSTPONEMENTS Withdrawn: Item 11, Adzich Properties, application 16-U-98. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff, or a member of the public, it is requested that items 2 through 10 be acted on simultaneously. 2. Minutes: June 5 regular meeting and June 15 regular adjourned meeting. 3. Accounts payable: June 16, June 23, and June 30, 2000 - Resolutions 00-198, 00-199 and 00-200. 4. Payroll: June 23, and July 7, 2000 - Resolutions 00-201 and 00-202. 5. Treasurer's Budget Report, May 2000. July 17, 2000 Page 2 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Authorize City Attorney to defend Cupertino Community Services with respect to a potential claim related to administration of the City's housing program, Resolution 00- 203. Make determinations and approve the reorganization of territories designated: (a) "Upland Way 00-03," approximately 2.836 acres located on the north side of Grenola Drive between Flora Vista Avenue and Ann Arbor Drive; Liou and Chen (APN 326-28-009), Resolution 00-204. (b) "Grenola Drive 00-02," approximately 0.215 acre located on the north side of San Fernando Avenue between Byme Avenue and Orange Avenue; Wang and Yen (APN 357-15-048), Resolution 00-205. (c) "Alcazar Avenue 00-08," approximately 0.183 acre located on the south side of Alcazar Avenue between Orange Avenue and Imperial Avenue; approximately 0.183 acre, Bruffey and Eastman (APN 357-19-012), Resolution 00-206. Change order No. 4, Cupertino Senior Center Expansion, Project 99-9210, McCrary Construction Company (agreement 00-004), Resolution 00-207. Accept (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (19 (g) (h) (i) of municipal improvements (no documentation required): Surinder Singh, 10633 Johansen, APN 375-37-059 Alan and Cheung Meekie Y. Yuen, 22277 Crescent Road, APN 326-16-084 Orchard Court, 10036 Crescent Road, Lot 5, APN 326-17-031 CTL Engineering, 20697 Garden Gate Drive, APN 326-33-017 Peter Tan, 10472 Johnson Avenue, APN 375-26-043 Sandra Lee, 19010 Bamhart, APN 375-37-041 Rick Simonini, Jack Goodman and Marilyn Goodman, 22032 San Femando Court, APN 357-12-015 Qingyu Li and Xianing Zhu, 1554 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-16-040 (Grading only) Partial acceptance of various O'Brien Group projects at Oak Valley: On-site grading-Unit 5, Area 1, Tract 9077; Unit 1, Area 2, Tract 9054;Unit 2, Tract 9075; Unit 3, Neighborhood 4, Tract 9076 · Park Improvements-Unit 1, Neighborhood 2, Tract 9054 · Joint Trench Improvements-Unit 2, Neighbor-hood 3, Tract 9075; Unit 4, Neighborhood 1, Tract 9077; Unit 5, Neighborhood 1, Tract 9078; Unit 1, Neighborhood 2, Tract 9054; Neighborhood 4, Tract 9076 10. Quitclaim deed, Hugh Freeman Jackson Sr., Trustee of the Jackson Family Trust, Children's Trust, created under the Agreement dated December 22, 1988, APN 326-50- 063, Resolution No. 00-208. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) July 17, 2000 Page 3 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the June 19, 2000, Redevelopment Agency meeting. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Joint public heating of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed redevelopment plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Continued from June 19. NEW BUSINESS C. Agency certifies and makes findings based upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Resolution No. RA-00-06. Continued from June 19. Agency finds that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project, Resolution No. RA-00-07. Continued from June 19. ADJOURNMENT - Redevelopment Agency meeting adjourns, City Council meeting continues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Council certifies and makes findings based upon consideration of the final Environmental Impact Report, Resolution No. 00-187. Continued from June 19. City Council adopts findings in response to written objections on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Resolution 00- 197. Go Ho City Council finds that the use of taxes allocated fi.om the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the project, Resolution No. 00-188. Continued.from June 19. City Council approves and adopts the Redevelopment Plan, first reading of Ordinance No. 1850: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, Approving and Adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project". (Second reading and enactment scheduled for August 21, 2000.) Continued from June 19. July 17, 2000 Page 4 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Application 16-U-98, Adzich Properties. Use permit to demolish an existing house and construct four single-family detached residences on a net 12,480 square foot lot located at 10216 Pasadena Avenue. App.ellants: Radovan and Helen Adzich. ~4ppellants have withdrawn their appeal, 12. Hossain Khaziri, Application 4-Z-97, 5-U-97, 7-TM-99, 14-EA-97, and 32-EA-99. Request to consider rezoning APN 326-02-051 located at 22020 Homestead Road to P (Res) Zone, a use permit to demolish a vacant service station and construct 7 single family residences, and a tentative map to create 7 lots. Negative Declarations are recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1851: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Cupertino Approving the Rezoning of a 0.96-Acre Lot From P(Cg) to P(Res) Located At 22020 Homestead Road". Actions to be taken: 1. Grant Negative Declarations. 2. Approve 4-Z-97 per Planning Commission Resolution 6037, modify or deny. 3. If approved, conduct first reading of Ordinance 1851 4. Approve 7-TM-99 and 5-U-97 per Planning Commission Resolution 6038 and 6039, modify or deny PLANNING APPLICATIONS 13. Report to City Council fi.om the Planning Commission regarding a use permit to demolish two single-family dwellings and construct eight townhomes totaling 13,686 square feet on a 23,170 square foot lot (applications 16-U-99, 31-EA-99). Stanley Wang; 10060 S. Stelling Road and 10051 Bianchi Way (APN's 359-07-003, 359-07-004, and 359-07-015). A negative declaration is recommended and this item is recommended for approval. Actions to be taken: 1. Grant Negative Declaration 2. Approve application per Planning Commission Resolution 6041, modify, or deny 14. Use permit to demolish a restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot, 77-room hotel. Applications 01-U-00, 02-EA-00; Pinn Brothers (The Adobe Inn Hotel); 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001. A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. Actions to be taken: 1. Grant mitigated Negative Declaration 2. ApprOve application per Planning Commission Resolution 6043, modify, or deny July 17, 2000 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 5 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 15. Request from Stephen C. Porter for a permit to use sound amplifying equipment in the amp.hitheater at Memorial Park on Sunday, July 30, 2000, for a wedding ceremony. Staff recommends denial of request. 16. Set application deadlines and interview dates for an unscheduled vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission. 17. Designate voting delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference 18. Clarify council intent regarding funding (loan vs. grant) awarded to Cupertino Community Services (CCS) for affordable housing project. 19. Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes - the request is to continue the existing assessment for Nonpoint Source without increasing the fees, Resolution 00-209. 20. Set date for adjourned Council meeting: (a) Award Stevens Canyon Road Widening project (b) Public hearing regarding assessment of fees for annual weed abatement program (private parcels). ORDINANCES 21. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1851: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Establishment of Parking Prohibition on the North Side of Bollinger Road From De Anza Boulevard West + 546 Feet." STAFF REPORTS 22. Status report regarding construction at Biltmore Apartments. 23. Status report on interim teen center and selection of skateboard park 24. Update on Measure A project for extension of sales tax for transportation purposes. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Statton: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Legislative Review Committee July 17, 2000 Page 6 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and City Managers Vice-Mayor James: Library Expansion Committee Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Santa Clara County Cities Association - Alternate Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee West Valley Mayors and City Managers - Alternate Councilmember Bumett: North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Public Dialog Liaison ' Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative, A.BAG Board of Directors Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Block Grant Program Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors - Alternate Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Councilmember Chang: Association of Bay Area Governments Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Expansion Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Block Grant Program- Alternate Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Councilmember Lowenthal: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors July 17, 2000 Page 7 Cupertino City Council and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CLOSED SESSION Pending litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a): 1. Nemetz vs. City of Cupertino 2. Fong vs. Cupertino Community Services (CCS) Significant exposure to litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1): 1. Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) issue regarding contract dispute Negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property - Government Code Section 54956.8: 1. city manager's house ADJOURNMENT rap 7/13/00 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, June 5, 2000 CALL TO ORDER At 6:00 p.m. Council convened in Conference Room A, Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, 95014. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Bumett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staffpresent: City Attorney Charles Kilian. CLOSED SESSION At 6:30 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session to pursuant to Public Employment - Government Code Section 54957, regarding city manager recruitment. RECESS At 6:45 p.m. Council reconvened in open session in the City Council chambers for their regular business meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Statton called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Bumett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Don Brown, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piaseeki, Public Information Officer Donna Krey; Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, City Planner Ciddy Wordell, Planner Michele Rodriquez, Recreation Supervisor Mike O'Dowd, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS Mayor Statton announced that the new city manager is David Knapp. He explained the selection process, noting that Knapp was chosen over 50 candidates. He was formerly with Boulder, Colorado, and is currently the town manager of Los Gatos. He will start in Cupertino on July 10. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood would be acting city manager in the interim. Presentation by student co-chairs regarding the National Association of Student Councils Conference (NASC 2000) scheduled for June 24-28, 2000, hosted by Fremont Union High School District. Student co-chairs of the NASC 2000, Brian Dong, Mike Kalisvaart, David Lowe, and Vicki Ho, invited council members to the conference and thanked them for their support. Harry Bettencourt, adult chairperson, was also present. They outlined some of the activities that will take place, noting that 400 homes will host delegates. A conference banner, a copy of the conference brochure, washable tattoos containing the conference logo, and volunteer tee shirts were presented to council members. Presentation of award to City Building Inspector Jerry Brager from the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO). Mr. Dan McEverly, plumbing and mechanical code compliance investigator for the State of California, presented the IAPMO Government Man of the Year award and said Brager had served as chair of the code-writing body for IAPMO. In addition he serves on the board of directors for IAPMO. Brager thanked Mr. McEverly, the council, and his family members. POSTPONEMENTS - None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deke Hunter said he and his business partner are in the final stages of acquiring Cupertino Town Center. He advised council that there might be an opportunity to consider it as an alternative location for the library. CONSENT CALENDAR The city clerk noted an amendment to the contract with JeffPiserchio (Item 14). James moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, as recommended. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 3 o o o ° 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Minutes: May 15 regular meeting and regular adjourned meeting (workshop). Accounts payable: May 12, May 19, and May 26, Resolutions 00-151, 00-152, and 00- 153. Payroll: May 12 and May 26, Resolutions 00-154 and 00-155. Treasurer's Budget Report, April 2000. Making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated "Orange Avenue 00-04," approximately 0.237 acre located on the west side of Orange Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Lomita Avenue; Kang (APN 357-16-060), Resolution 00- 156. · Acceptance of municipal improvements (no documentation required): (a) George Adzich, 21850 Granada Avenue, APN 357-16-139 (b) SLS Associates, 20745 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 326-32-055 (c) Kok Y. Ho, 10247 Byme Avenue, APN 357-11-016 Authorizing execution of improvement agreements: (a) Johan A. Darmawan and Susana T. Darmawan, 22650 Alcalde Road, APN 342- 16-042, Resolution 00-157 (b) Sanjay Swamy and Tulsi B. Swamy, 10655 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-17-007, Resolution 00-158 Establishing an annual Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal, Resolution 00- 159. Authorizing execution of Program Supplement No. 007-M for Federal Aid projects (1-280 and Hwy. 85 ramp meter & traffic signal interconnect), Resolution 00-160. Acceptance of city projects performed under contract (no documentation required): (a) Stevens Creek Boulevard Overlay, Project 99-101 (b) Annual Overlay, Project 99-108 Change orders: (a) No. 2, Stevens Creek Boulevard Overlay, Project 99-101, Resolution 00-161 (b) No. 2, Annual Overlay, Project 99-108, Resolution 00-162 (c) No. 2, Senior Center Expansion, Project 99-9210, Resolution 00-163 Authorizing execution of contract with Blackberry Farm Golf Course Pro, Jeff Piserchio, Resolution 00-164. Award of contract to PrintCom for printing of the recreation schedule brochure. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 4 16. Setting date of July 19 for consideration of reorganization of area designated "Upland Way 00-03," property located on the west side of Upland Way between Rainbow Drive and Upland Way; approximately 2.836 acres, Wang, (APN 366-03-011), Resolution 00- 165. 17. Fee reduction of Blackberry Farm costs for Cupertino Union School District. 18. Consider increasing the medical contribution for unrepresented employees, Resolution 00-166. Vote Council members Ayes: Burnett, Chang, James, Lowenthal, and Statton Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group and Cupertino City Center Land (comer of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards), lot 1, Tract 7953. Request to consider a general plan amendment to exceed the allowed height of 75 feet and to project into the 1:1 setback ratio from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Also request use permit and Heart of the City Specific Plan amendment and exceptions to construct a new 206 unit, 206,72'5 square foot multifamily residential building and 6,775 square feet of retail space on a vacant parcel. Applications 2-GPA-99, 33-EA-99, and 9-EA-00, 06-U-00, 03-EXC-00. Negative Declarations are recommended. The use permit and Heart of the City Specific Plan amendment and exceptions are recommended for approval. The General Plan amendment is recommended for denial. Resolution 00-167. Continued from May 15. City Planner Ciddy Wordell introduced a video roll-in and provided an overview of the general direction of the project and specific information on the hotel. She said the Planning Commission had concluded their review of the apartment portion of the project but not the hotel portion. Council will hear the hotel application at the June 19 meeting. Wordell showed slides of the location of the hotel and apartment sites as well as the Four Seasons Plaza. With respect to the amendments to the general plan, City Attorney Kilian reminded council that state law allows only three general plan amendments a year. Planner Michele Rodriguez provided background on the apartment project specifically. She had provided council members with a proposed amendment to condition 17 regarding the Sanitary District. She said there would be approximately 20 or 21 affordable units (10 percent of the total number). June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Public Works Director Viskovich reViewed the table entitled, "Intersection Level of Service Summary" on page 19-18 of the staff report. He described the basis for the conclusions reached. He confirmed that the traffic study was for both the apartments and the hotel and explained how the cumulative traffic numbers were calculated. Rodriquez confirmed that staffwas recommending approval of the height exception. John Moss, Pegasus Development, said this was the culmination of over two years of planning effort by their firm working with city staff, and with the Kimpton group for over a year. The goal of this project is to create a sense of place, vitality, and community. He said they felt that this mixed use project with the city plaza, active retail, a first class hotel and restaurant with outdoor dining on the plaza, along with market rate and affordable housing, will create a landmark project for the city. So far there have been three study sessions with council and the planning commission and two public meetings with the planning commission. He said they appreciate the feedback and have made modifications to the plans that have improved the overall design of the project. He said the overall plans are the same as those shared at the November and January study sessions with the exception of the following improvements: · formally offered to have this project participate in the Teachers Moving-in-for-Less program; · offered to have all 710 of their existing apartments in Cupertino participate in that plan; · relocated the fitness center to provide more space for retail adjacent to the plaza; · introduced the outdoor balconies; introduced bike racks to the retail area; · encouraged easier pedestrian access to the site with crosswalk improvements planned at Stevens Creek and De Anza; · provided for access for the apartment residents in addition to hotel guests to the existing swimming pool and amphitheater within the city center; · provided outdoor seating and dining area adjacent to the existing fountain which is effectively an extension of the retail space; · as requested by council, the plaza will have lighting, public art, seating and outdoor dining; · additional tree plantings will be made at the existing at-grade parking lot; · incorporated direct connection for pedestrian access from the garage through the retail to the plaza; · reduced the 'building height by approximately one story by further burying the parking lot into the ground; · removed all but two architectural elements out of the 1:1 setback plane for the project; · reduced planter wall fi.om 8 f~. to 4 f~.; · replaced pre-cast concrete elements at the base of the building exteriors with stone tiles; screened drop off areas for retail deliveries and apartment move-in tracks with evergreen plantings in addition to the deciduous trees originally planned for that area. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 6 In conclusion, he said they felt they had listened and responded to all the issues that have been brought up at previous meetings. They also felt that the development meets and exceeds all the goals of the city and community and will be a world-class mixed use project. In answer to questions about public access to the podium portion of the project, he said it would be secure for the residents, and that element of the plan had not changed. Paul Lettieri, Guzzardo and Associates, said his finn was the landscape architect for the apartments, hotel and the Four Seasons plaza. He showed details of the three zones that have been created in terms of the development of the apartment site and the adjacent Four Seasons Plaza: the park and the retail frontage; the perimeter of the site defined by Stevens Creek Boulevard, the unnamed access road, and the fire/service/pedestrian way between the office building and the apartments; and the podium. He said the podium is not part of the basic circulation space on the site, whether or not there were fences. All of the sites council had visited on the tour had a fence that enclosed that space. He said that since council had last seen plans for the project, an exterior spa has been added. Ernie Vasquez, McLaren, Vasquez and Parmers, building architect, gave an overview of how they have adhered to goals established in November. The architect said they were very mindful of the specific plan specifying an active retail use fronting onto the plaza. He pointed out that the architecture wraps around the project so that none of the garages behind the retail or lobby area would be exposed. He showed drawings of the project and described each element. Randol Mackley, principal with the Retail Real Estate Group, said there are about 7,000 square feet of retail here. Signage will be an important part of the project. They expect that the retail will be 70% food, such as unique eateries, and 3-4 tenants. They have found that the best mix in Silicon Valley is a mix between a national and local tenants. Mr. Mackley discussed the security for retail and guest parking. There will be an open parking area with no gate, and a gated private garage for residents. Bicycle parking areas sprinkled throughout the project and said there are '83 bicycle stalls in the garage. He indicated where additional storage might be in parking area. Mr. Moss said the proposal for a higher building is consistent with what they shared with the city over a year ago, partially based on what is viable in the market. In addition, they did not feel there is an aesthetic relative to the other buildings. Madeline Kasof, 10197 Cold Harbor Avenue, expressed objections and concerns regarding the proposal. She referred to the general plan and said she did not believe it to be in the best interest of the people of Cupertino to change their lifestyles with corporate, high-density developments and buildings over 100 feet high which greatly exceed the limits. She talked about setbacks, parking, traffic, and density. She asked that they listen to the people and adhere to the general plan. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Burnett said the project is quite massive and is more dense than any other in Cupertino. He commented on the model, and noted that Armadillo Willy's site is not reflected. He talked about the bonuses that had been allowed in the past, and said he basically supported this project. The need for housing is desperate and this will project will provide some. He had serious concerns about the sewer situation and how it may impact the city's finances. There have been difficulties already in this area and it may be necessary to put in a new sewer ,and this developer should be responsible for that cost. He said the podium area must be open in order for him to vote in favor. The developer must also make sure people are able to have a bicycle and a safe place to store it. Chang said they had waited a long time to develop this important comer in Cupertino. He felt the design of the apartments is outstanding. He felt that the height works when compared with the overall configuration. He was impressed with the amount of work and attention to detail, and would support the proposal and Burnett's suggestions about sewage issue. He supported reconsideration of opening the podium. Lowenthal said that housing was needed, and this provides that as well as being a landmark use of the property. He expects that the combination of retail, housing, hotel, and first-class restaurant will re-energize the comer. The project doesn't work without the hotel and restaurant, and the city needs the conference center the hotel brings. The height exception is okay if it makes the project economically viable. He agreed there was a need for individual bicycle lockers, and it is a good idea to have this developer share heavily in the cost of improving sewer service. The developer should make the open podium work so that these residents will use the services on Stevens Creek Boulevard instead of driving. People must be able to walk in and out of the project easily, especially the residents. James said that the entire community knows there is a housing issue, and the city is mandated to provide even more than it does. This is an opportunity to build a more dense development that will fit into the existing environment. She said the articulation on the building is beautiful. She disagreed with the other members about the need to make the podium open, and felt it was more secure as planned. The landscape architect has done an outstanding job of landscaping. She was concerned and disappointed that the Planning Commission did not move the hotel along with this apartment project, and she would insist that the hotel be heard at the next commission meeting or that it be referred up to the council so that it will not be delayed any further. Statton said this is a massive, high-rise project, and it is needed. The way it has been designed is as good as it can get in a large project. He agreed with the other council members about the desperate need for housing and the improved economics provided by the hotel, and he agreed with the suggestion to make the apartments contingent upon the hotel. If residents cannot put bicycles on their balconies, he would like to see safe storage in the parking structure for them, without them having to pay any additional cost. Regarding the open podium, he felt it was important to have an easy flow of foot traffic through the project, and would like to see more ground level access. Statton was also concerned about the sewer capacity for the project. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Kilian said that a condition about the sewer capacity is already included, and the final decision on that belongs to the Sanitary District. James moved for a straw vote to approve the project, and that the final decision be reserved until the hotel project could also be heard. Chang seconded. Burnett moved to amend the motion to require open access to the podium and adequate bicycle facilities. Lowenthal seconded and the amendment passed 4-1 with James voting no. The vote on the main motion was 5-0. 20. 21. First of two public heatings to review proposed 2000/01 budget. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood said that council held a study session the previous week, and this was the first of two public heatings. She said the total revenue budget was approximately $55 million, which includes all services and enterprise funds. For city services, the revenue budget was about $31 million, the majority of which is sales tax. Only 2.2 cents for every tax dollar that is paid in property taxes is received by the city. She said the total expenditures are estimated at $58 million, of which $34 million comes from the general fund. Atwood said the projected decline in reserves was because council had committed about $27 million in capital improvement projects in a three-year span, including purchase of the Stocklmeir property, the new senior center, and the library project. Council will be conducting a study session in mid-July to look at the reserves and capital improvement projects. Atwood talked about the proportion of property tax, how it has changed in the last ten years, and future trends. Prezoning of a single family residential lot to Pre RI-10 (residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. fl. minimum lot size) zone, Application 4-Z-00, Ker-Chung Liou and Lih-Yn Chen, at 21095 Grenola Drive (APN 326-28-009). A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance 1849: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Prezoning an Existing Single-Family Residential Lot Located at 21095 Grenola Drive to Pre RI-10 (single family residential) zoning district." City Planner Ciddy Wordell reviewed the staff report. Jordan Leung, 21084 Grenola Drive, said his property is 200 feet away from the property in question. He said he was almost ready to submit his plans to the county. He said if this property were annexed he would be within 300 feet of the city boundary and the county might reject his application. He talked about the impacts if he had to submit the application to Cupertino, including loss of 1,000 sq. ft. ofbuildable space and loss of the fees he had already paid his architect. He said he that people who live in the community should have a chance to vote, and did not feel that people who live outside of the community should tell them what was best for them. He submitted petitions with over 100 signatures of people who believe if there is going to be an annexation, it should be put up for a vote. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Howard Leung, 10308 Glencoe Drive, said he lived on the other side of Stelling. He was opposed to the prezoning because it is a prelud6 to the annexation. He said his fundamental issue with this was the approach to annexation. He believed that people residing in the area should have the right to voice their opinion through voting. Wor.dell clarified said both property owners would be going through the county. In addition, staff is working with the county and holding some neighborhood meetings to assess the sentiments of the area in regard to annexation. City Manager Don Brown said it may be a protest situation versus a vote. Chang said he thought they should go through a process where people are allowed to be heard in terms of what they want to do with their own area rather than trying to project council's preferences. He said he would like to move forward on the process of working with the county to see what should be done in this area. James said city policy always has been not to force an area to annex. She said that part of the redevelopment contract with the county is that they want the city to take over the Garden Gate and Monta Vista county pockets. Bumett moved to grant a Negative Declaration. Chang seconded and the motion passed 5-1. Bumett moved to approve Application 4-Z-00 per Planning Commission Resolution 6022. Cha¢, ge seconded and the motion passed 5-1. City Clerk Kim Smith read the title of Ordinance No. 1849. Burnett moved that Ordinance No. 1849 be read by title only and that the city clerk's reading constitute the first reading thereof. James seconded and the motion passed 5-1. 22. Ordering abatement of public nuisance (weeds and brush) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance 724 and Resolution 00-145, Resolution 00-168. City Clerk Kim Smith said the purpose of the hearing was for council to note protests and order abatement of the nuisance on the two remaining properties on the list The Mayor asked for public comment. There were no comments or protests. Bumett moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-168 ordering abatement of the public nuisance. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 10 NEW BUSINESS 23. Selection of artist for Four Seasons Plaza, comer of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. The City Clerk highlighted the report and a video roll-in was shown illustrating the existing open space and the models prepared by the four artists who were finalists in the selection process. The City Clerk reviewed the staff report, noting that the dollar amount expended to date on the landscape architect was actually about $4,000, not $30,000 as shown in the report, which reflected encumbrances. She stressed that this is a recommendation of the fine arts commission only, not the ad hoc committee, the landscape architect, or the property owner. She introduced a video roll-in of the previous work of finalists Roger Berry and Richard Deutch. Steve Beard, Fine Arts Commission, emphasized that the decision process was not a process of elimination, but a process of selection. He expressed appreciation for all the artists who submitted their work. He said they felt Mr. Berry's work was most closely consistent with the idea of the Four Seasons Comer. The Mayor thanked the Commission for their work on this project. Bumett said he liked Mr. Berry's work, particularly the sundial element. Chang also thanked the Commission and ad hoc committee. He said he would prefer a design that would rise higher above the ground. Lowenthal said if they chose a plan similar to the model, he would like to have interpretive plaques to explain the concept. He agreed with the Commission's recommendation. James said she liked the mass and the simplicity of Mr. Berry's previous work. She thanked the commission for their work. Mr. Beard said despite the fact this was a selection process, they would continue to consider the other artists for any future projects. James moved to select Mr. Roger Berry as the artist for the Four Seasons Plaza art project. Bumett seconded and the motion carded 5-0.. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 11 24. Review of bid opening and award of contract for street maintenance slurry seal, Project 2000-102. Bumett moved to utilize the alternative bid and award the project to the lowest bidder, Valley Slurry Seal, in the amount of $154,237.90, and authorize a 10% contingency for a total project of $169,661.69. James seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 25. Approval of draft agreement between the city and the County of Santa Clara regarding Vallco redevelopment (requires a 2/3 vote), Resolution 00-169. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report. James moved to adopt Resolution 00-169. Bumett seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 26. Update regarding the Annual General Plan Review and Planning Department 2000 Work Program (Planning Commission Resolution 6030). City Planner Wordell said the development status had not changed since the end of 1999. She reviewed how they were doing on implementation of the general plan policies. She also presented the annual traffic level of service update and Planning Commission comments on the report. She outlined the Planning Commission's proposed work program for the year. Council received the report. STAFF REPORTS 27. Status report on student parking on Hyannisport Drive and Dolores Avenue. Public Works Director Viskovich said the report contained a summary of the meetings that had taken place on this subject. He said the committee has developed criteria for the pilot program that could be described at a public heating, perhaps at the next meeting. Mr. Gene Longinetti from the Fremont Union High School District indicates they are interested in revisiting em'pooling and bicycling. He referred to the petition from the residents on McClellan Road who wanted permit parking on a short stretch of that street, and said they had been informed that they would have to be part of the pilot program. Mayor Statton said the school impacts the community in the same way that a corporation does, and they should implement traffic demand management techniques to take care of the problem. By consensus, council set a public hearing on June 19 to discuss the program with Hyannisport, Dolores, and McClellan Avenue residents. June 5, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 12 COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Statton noted that this was City Manager Don Brown's final council meeting before his retirement. City Manager Brown commented on his relationship with council and commissions, the community, .and city staff, and expressed how much he had enjoyed serving as city manager. Council members and staff commented on positive experiences in their work with Don Brown. ADJOURNMENT At 9:45 p.m., council adjourned to June 15, 8:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, for Leadership Cupertino graduation. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Thursday, June 15, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 8:30 a.m. Vice-Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burnett, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: Mayor John Statton, Council member Michael Chang Staff present: City Clerk Kimberly Smith, Administrative Secretary Dorothy Steenfott ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. Leadership Cupertino presentation and graduation. Leadership Cupertino Director Darryl Stowe introduced the four project teams to City Council and described the exercise, which was for each team to make a case for the award of funds to accomplish their project. Council had $35,000 to divide, and could only split it two ways. The four projects were (1) Economic Vitality of the City: A Retail Plan; (2) Youth and Teen Programs: A Skate Park Proposal; (3) Affordable Housing for Teachers; and (4) Changing Demographics: Bringing Everyone Together. The Council members unanimously awarded the $10,000 of the mock funds to the Retail Plan team and the remaining $25,000 to the Skateboard Park Proposal team. Council also agreed that they would waive the fees for block parties, which would benefit the Changing Demographics team, and they would support the Affordable Housing for Teachers team at a later time when a suitable location was found. Luncheon followed at De Anza College, Hinson Center, Conference Room A, at 12:00 p.m. with a presentation by spokespersons for the class, Leslie Kloes and Pat Wilcox, a keynote address by Don Allen, and the graduation presentation by Vice Mayor Sandra James. ADJOURNMENT At 1:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk {/-/5 RESOLUTION NO. 00-198 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 JIJ-~E 16, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the mounts and fi-om the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Dir~io-r o~ Ad[aihi~tr'~tiv~' Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 577763 06/15/00 1914 GATEWAY COUNTY 1101300 1020 577764 06/16/00 1912 ELESCO 1108502 1020 577765 06/16/00 1350 A & R BOOTH RENTAL 1106448 1020 577766 06/16/00 1543 A&D AUTOMATIC GATE AND A 1108503 1020 577767 06/16/00 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 6204550 1020 577768 06/16/00 1923 AD CLUB 1104510 1020 577769 06/16/00 1880 ADVANCED ENTERPRISE SOLU 6104800 1020 577770 06/16/00 1680 ADV;~'TAGE GRAFIX 1108101 1020 577771 06/16/00 M i~, KYUNG SOOK 580 1020 577772 06/16/00 25 AIR COOLED ENGINES INC 6308540 1020 577773 06/16/00 29 LYNNE DIANE AITKEN 5806449 1020 577773 06/16/00 29 LY1TNE DIANE AITKEN 5706450 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577774 06/16/00 918 ALAMO WORLD TRAVEL AND T 5506549 1020 577775 06/16/00 888 ALOHA POOL MAINTENANCE I 5708510 1020 577776 06/16/00 40 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 6308540 1020 577777 06/16/00 44 AMERICAN RED CROSS 5806449 1020 577777 06/16/00 44 AMERICAN RED CROSS 5806449 1020 577777 06/16/00 44 ~RICAN RED CROSS 1104400 TOTltL CHECK 1020 577778 06/16/00 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 1020 577779 06/16/00 1533 AN ARRAY OF FLOWERS 5606620 1020 577780 06/16/00 48 ANACOMP INC 1108101 1020 577780 06/16/00 48 ANACOMP INC 1108101 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577781 06/16/00 1903 ARCHCO 6104800 1020 577782 06/16/00 1287 ASTRO J~3MP 5806349 1020 577782 06/16/00 1287 ASTRO J~3MP 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577783 06/16/00 864 CAROL ATWOOD 4209217 1020 577783 06/16/00 864 C~OL ATWOOD 1101000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... GIFT CERTIFICATE SUPPLIES BOOT~ RENTALS 7/4/00 TIME & MATERIAL WC ADMIN FEE 6/00 RECEPTIONIST AD AUTOCAD 2000 SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND PARTS RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM ADD'L PMT/ALAMEDA DAY TIME & MATERIAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES RANDALL CHUN 5/29-6/4 RENTAL DINO RENTAL ELEPP2%NT SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 1 AMOUNT 1000.00 64.16 370.00 2272.00 774.21 508.74 3083.07 133.79 86.00 240.98 92.00 115.00 2' q0 300.00 453.88 282.10 70.00 571.00 192.00 833.00 3547.89 39.93 226.45 222.77 449.22 2720.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 3383.29 '0 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:08 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/06 ACCOT~ING PERIOD: 12/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO CMECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND '~ .-TION CRI~RIA: transact.trans_date between -06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT C~ECK NO 1020 577783 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577784 06/16/00 M 1020 577785 06/16/00 1814 1020 577786 06/16/00 M 1020 577787 06/16/00 71 1020 577787 06/16/00 71 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 577788 06/16/00 M 1020 577789 06/16/00 M 1020 577790 06/16/00 720 1020 577791 06/16/00 M 1020 577792 06/16/00 96 577793 06/16/00 M 1020 577794 06/16/00 867 1020 577795 06/16/00 872 1020 577795 06/16/00 872 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577796 06/16/00 M 1020 577797 06/16/00 821 1020 577798 06/16/00 120 1020 577799 06/16/00 133 1020 577800 06/16/00 M 1020 577801 06/16/00 127 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 .1020 577802 06/16/00 148 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 1020 577802 06/16/00 148 / 577802 06/16/00 148 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/16/00 864 CAROL ATW00D 1104001 AUSTEFJORD, TANIA 580 AUTOMATIC DOOR SYSTEMS I 1108501 AVERIANOVA, NAT;tLIYA 580 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 5606620 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 5606620 BACHAL, MOHAN 580 BASU, DIPAK 580 BATTERY SYSTEMS 6308540 BENDINELLI, JEANNE 580 BLACK MT SPRING WATER 5606620 BOKLUND, SANDRA 580 BRIAN KANGAS FOULK 4209430 BSA ARCHITECTS 4249210 BSA ARCHITECTS 4249210 BUCUR, CONSTANTIN 580 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IN 1104510 C. B. TOOL CO 1103500 CAL-LINE EQUIP~T CO IN 6308540 CALIF DEPT OF PARKS & RE 5806349 THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL 1103500 CASH 1108530 CASH 1108501 CASH 1108506 CASH 6308540 CASH 1108501 CASH 1108312 CASH 1108201 CASH 6308540 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 2 AMOUNT REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 37.00 0.00 3455.27 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 14.25 TIME & MATERIAL 0.00 1065.20 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 15.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 963.85 SUPPLIES 0.00 769.15 0.00 1733.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 47.00 REFUND DEPOSIT 5/21/00 0.00 500.00 BATTERIES 0.00 41.11 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 S0.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 139.20 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 51.00 PROF SVCS 3/20-4/23 0.00 28388.86 SR CTR EXPANTION PMT22 0.00 3229.10 SR CTR EXPANSION PMT22 0.00 6111.58 0.00 9340.68 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 48.00 ERGONOMICS 6/1/00 0.00 500.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 141.21 PARTS 0.00 73.10 PARKING PASS/SBACLIFF 0.00 40.00 BROADCAST FEE 6/00 0.00 205.92 PET~f CASH REIMBURS~ME 0. O0 23.01 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME 0.00 5.40 PET~ CASH REIMBURSE~ 0.00 12.83 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME 0.00 61.23 PET~"f CASH R~IMBURSEME 0.00 43.86 PET~"f CASH REIMBURS~ 0.00 9.12 PETTY CASH REIMBURS~ME 0.00 8.25 PET%~f CASH REIMBURS]~M~ 0.00 9.00 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:08 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 577803 06/16/00 150 1020 577804 06/16/00 155 1020 577804 06/16/00 155 1020 577804 06/16/00 155 1020 577804 06/16/00 155 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577805 1020 577806 1020 577807 1020 577807 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577808 1020 577809 1020 577810 1020 577811 1020 577812 1020 577813 1020 577814 1020 577814 1020 577814 1020 577814 1020 577814 1020 577814 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577815 1020 577815 1020 577815 1020 577815 1020 577815 1020 577815 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577816 1020 577817 1020 577818 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERI 4209530 CENTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108321 CENTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108408 CENTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108321 CENTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108321 06/16/00 1820 06/i6/00 M 06/16/00 911 06/16/00 911 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CHAN, KIT KAN 580 RAYMOND CHONG 1108602 RAYMOND CHONG 1108602 06/16/00 1318 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 166 06/16/00 112~ 06/16/00 1824 06/16/00 173 06/16/00 173 06/16/00 173 06/16/00 173 06/16/00 173 06/16/00 173 CHORALIERS 5506549 CHU, EVELYN 580 CJN & ASSOCIATES 1100000 KIMBERLY MARIE CLARK 5806449 PEGGY CLARK 5806249 CLARKE'S MACHINE SHOP 6308540 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5606620 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLABOTTLING OF CA 5606620 06/16/00 175 06/16/00 175 06/16/00 175 06/16/00 175 06/16/00 175 06/16/00 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 COCA-COLAUSA 5606620 COCA-COLAUSA 5606620 COCA-COLAUSA 5606620 COCA-COLAUSA 5606620 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 984 06/16/00 191 CRANE, KING 110 CROSSROADS CHEVRON SERVI 6308540 CUPERTINO CHAMBER OF COM 1103300 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX 0.00 PROF SVCS 4/00 0.00 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 172.70 1992.5£ SUPPLIES 0.00 40.59 SUPPLIES 0.00 423.53 SUPPLIES 0.00 40.59 SUPPLIES 0.00 190.41 0.00 695.12 ADMIN FEES 5/00 RECREATION REFUND REIMBURSEMENT RE IMEURSEMENT 0.00 SOCIAL/B-DAY PARTY 0.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 REFUND/DUP BUSINESS LI 0.00 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 PARTS 0.00 BEVERAGES SUPPLIES BEVERAGES BEVERAGES BEVERAGES SUPPLIES 0.00 FOUNTAIN MACHINE FOUNTAIN MACHINE FOUNTAIN MACHINE FOUNTAIN MACHINE FOUNTAIN MACHINE FOUNTAIN MACHINE 0.00 REFUND BOND R7404 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GASOLINE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SEMI ANNUAL CONTRACT 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.80 42.00 215.00 149.00 364.00 25.00 85.00 O0 300.00 1122.00 60.00 199.04 150.00 102.15 419.80 536.42 369.00 1776.41 21.65 21.65 21.65 27.06 21.65 21.65 135.31 500.00 623.22 6' "10 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:09 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 0~/1~/00 CZTY OF ctrI~ERTZSO ACCOUF~ING PERIOD: 12/00 C~ECK R~GISTER - DISB~ ~ION ~I~RIA: transact.trans_~e ~tween "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" ~ - 110 - G~ ~ ~H AC~ ~ NO ISS~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/DE~ 1020 577819 06/16/00 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108506 1020 577819 06/16/00 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 2708405 1020 577819 06/16/90 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108315 1020 577819 06/16/00 194 CUPF~TINO SUPPLY INC 1108407 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577820 06/16/00 201 DA~PER TIR]; CO 6308540 1020 577820 06/16/00 201 DA~PER TIRE CO 6308540 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577821 06/16/00 209 1020 577821 06/16/00 209 1020 577821 06/16/00 209 1020 577822 06/16/00 M 1020 577823 06/16/00 210 1020 577824 06/16/00 M ].Q~O 577825 06/16/00 1893 .0 577826 06/16/00 220 1020 577827 06/16/00 1918 1020 577828 06/16/00 225 1020 577828 06/16/00 225 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577829 06/16/00 M 1020 577829 06/16/00 M TOTAL C~CK 1020 577830 1020 577831 1020 577832 1020 577833 1020 577833 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577834 1020 577835 1020 577835 /~mIL~ CHECK 06/16/00 1397 06/16/00 240 06/16/00 1435 06/16/00 1493 06/16/00 1493 06/16/00 234 06/16/00 249 06/16/00 249 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606640 DE ANZASERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606620 DE BRUEHN, TOM 580 DEEP CLIFF ASSOCIATES L 5806449 DINGWALL, JENNIFER 580 DIRECTIONAL BORING SYSTE 2709435 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 1106342 DISPERSER ~JICE INC 5606620 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209206 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209206 DROUPADI, PR 580 DROUPADI, PR 580 BYRON J DI]HON 5706450 ELIZABETH ANN ELLIS 1101070 EMED CONPANY INC 6308540 EMPIRE L~4BER COMPANY 4209216 ~MPIRE Lb~4BER COMPANY 1108312 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 1104300 ESBRO CHEMICAL 5606620 ESBRO C~MICAL S606620 ..... DESCRIPTION PARTS & SUPPLIES PARTS & SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PARTS & SUPPLIES TIRES TIRES JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 SPECIAL SERVICES 5/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 RECREATION REFUND RECRe-AT I ON PROGRAM RECREATION REFUND T~ & MATERIAL SUPPlieS SUPPLIES TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL RECREATION REFUND REC~I~ATION REFUND RECREATION PROGRAM TRANSCRIPTION SUPPLIES TIME & MATERIAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC HEARINGNOTICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SA~ES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 4 7.82 8.60 26.11 S1.42 93.95 324.58 160.95 485.53 401.80 125.00 401.80 928.60 15.00 2688.00 60.00 2200.00 228.13 370.80 S980.00 5980.00 11960.00 172.00 17.00 189.00 92.00 850.00 136.14 1933.89 1994.52 3928.41 187.17 353.32 358.60 711.92 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:10 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FLTND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 5 AMOUNT 1020 577836 06/16/00 251 EVANS NEST VALLEY SPRAY 1108315 1020 577836 06/16/00 251 EVANS WEST V~LL~y SP~AY 1108315 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577837 06/16/00 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5806249 1020 577837 06/16/00 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 1020 577837 06/16/00 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577838 1020 577839 1020 577840 1020 577840 1020 577840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577841 1020 577842 1020 577843 1020 577844 1020 577844 1020 577844 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577845 1020 577846 1020 577847 1020 577847 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577848 1020 577848 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577849 1020 577849 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577850 1020 577851 1020 577852 06/16/00 1922 06/16/00 931 06/16/00 1255 06/16/00 1255 06/16/00 1255 06/16/00 264 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1210 06/16/00 1808 06/16/00 1808 06/16/00 1808 06/16/00 275 06/16/00 1268 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1275 06/16/00 1275 EXPRESS SIGNS 1108303 FIREMASTER 5606620 FIRST AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIB 6308540 FIRST AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIB 6308540 FIRST AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIB 6308540 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE & 2708404 FORBRICH, KAZUE 580 FORMATOP 1103500 KIM FREY 5806449 KIM FREY 5806249 KIM FREY 5806349 SUSAN FUKUBA 5806449 GALLI PRODUCE 5506549 GANS, LARRY 1106448 CANS, LARRY 1106448 GARDEN CITY SUPPLY INC 5606620 GARDEN CITY SUPPLY INC 5806249 SERVICES TURF APPLICATION SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PARK SIGN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CREDIT 5/9/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES CREDIT 10/6/99 06/16/00 281 GARDENLAND 1108303 SUPPLIES 06/16/00 281 GARD]~9I~%ND 1108303 SUPPLIES GARG, PALLAVI 580 GOLDEN TOUCH LANDSCAPING 1108312 GOVWORKS INC 1104510 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 291 06/16/00 1913 RECREATION REFUND TIMB & MATERIAL EMPLOYMENT ADS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 4200.0C 4450.00 52.93 222.12 224.52 499.57 3464.00 323.62 -10.68 11.62 153.90 154.84 290.00 145.00 64.45 64.46 64.46 193.37 3511.00 72.55 0.55 164.00 164.55 409.41 -11.91 397.50 360.54 126.25 486.79 33.00 7500.00 qO RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:10 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND r~ ~TION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 6 AMOUNT 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5706450 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5706450 1020 577853 0~/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108508 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 4209216 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5706450 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308540 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5706450 1020 577853 06/16/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577854 06/16/00 1349 1020 577854 06/16/00 1349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577855 1020 577856 1020 577856 TOTAL CHECK 577857 1020 577858 1020 577859 1020 577860 1020 577860 TOTAL CH~CK 1020 577861 1020 577862 1020 577863 1020 577864 1020 577865 1020 577866 1020 577867 1020 577868 1020 577869 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COM 2708404 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COM 2708404 06/16/00 315 JILL HAFF 5806449 06/16/00 328 LAUREN HENSHALL 5706450 06/16/00 328 LAURENHENSHALL 5806449 06/16/00 1228 LIZZ HODGIN 5806249 06/16/00 M HOFF,.PHYLLIS 580 06/16/00 1858 HONEYWELL INC 1108501 06/16/00 1898 HORIZON 1108407 06/16/00 1898 HORIZON 2709309 06/16/00 M HSIEH, YEMAY 580 06/16/00 M HSU, RONG 580 06/16/00 M HUANG, LIN 580 06/16/00 336 HUMANE SOCIETY OF SANTA 1104530 06/16/00 M HURLEY, SARAH 580 06/16/00 341 ICE CHALET 5806449 06/16/00 1847 TH~ IDEA BRORERS 5606620 06/16/00 M IMAZATO, TAEKO 580 06/16/00 M I~%N, GENE 110 SUPPLIES CREDIT 5/23/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CREDIT 5/23/00 SUPPLIES SCB OVERLAY ANNUAL OVERLAY RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT 5/21/00 RECREATION REFUND FIELD SVCS/SHELTER 7/0 RECREATIONREFUND RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES RECR~ATIONREFUND REFUND BOND R1725 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 0.00 0.00 14.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 211.47 217.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.37 -48.66 522.43 331.68 285.07 42.41 97.32 191.72 -48.66 43.10 1513.78 55723.82 34165.16 89888.98 287.50 230.00 115.00 345.00 3338.80 104.00 476.29 78.72 2774.76 2853.48 212.00 100.00 110.00 5984.00 35.00 2812.00 2275.45 95.00 500.00 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:11 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-7 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT C~ECK NO 1020 577870 1020 577870 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577871 1020 577872 1020 577873 1020 577874 1020 577875 1020 577876 1020 577876 1020 577876 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577877 1020 577878 1020 577879 1020 577879 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577880 1020 577881 1020 577882 1020 577883 1020 577884 1020 577885 1020 577885 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577886 1020 577886 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577887 1020 577888 1020 577889 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/16/00 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1107301 06/16/00 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1107301 06/16/00 1915 06/16/00 M o6/16/oo M 06/16/00 1122 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1657 06/16/00 1657 06/16/00 1657 IRS 1104100 IRVING, LY~ 5500000 JAYARAMAN, GURUMOORTHI 580 JOHNSTON SUPPLY 5606660 JOHNSTON, LORI 5500000 JOSEPHINE'S PERSONNEL SE 1106265 JOSEPHINE'S PERSONNEL SE 1106500 JOSEPHINE'S PERSONNEL SE 1106265 SAICHI KAWAHA~ 1106248 KELLEY DISPLAY INC 1106343 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 4209216 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 1108504 KESTERSON, DENICE 580 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 KIM, HYUNG JOO 580 KIM, SOOK 580 KIRK XPEDX 1104300 KNORR SYSTEMS INC 5606620 KNORR SYSTEMS INC 5606620 PETER KOEHLER 5806249 PETER KOEHLER 5806249 KOT~A, JYOTHIRMAYI 580 MICHAEL LAMB 5806349 LEDERER, LEE 5500000 06/16/00 367 06/16/00 1454 06/16/00 369 06/16/00 369 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1630 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 373 06/16/00 376 06/16/00 376 06/16/00 377 06/16/00 377 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 386 06/16/00 M PAGE 7 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PLANNING TEMP 0.00 390.00 PLANNING TEMP 0.00 458.25 0.00 848.25 PENALTY/941 DEPOSIT 0.00 2267.89 REFUND/QUILT SHOW 0.00 15.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 120.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 37.93 REFUND/QUILT SHOW 0.00 15.00 RAFAEL VILLALOBOS 0.00 904.40 RAFAEL VILLALOBOS 0.00 608.00 RA~AEL VILLALOBOS 0.00 171.00 0.00 1683.40 PERFOPJ~ER 0.00 600.00 SUPPLIES 442.60 5820.29 SUPPLIES 0.00 9 SUPPLIES 0.00 143.53 0.00 167.52 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 70.00 RECRF~ATION PROGRAM 0.00 9946.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 200.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 34.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 557.50 SUPPLIES 0.00 148.89 SUPPLIES 0.00 349.26 0.00 498.15 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 322.00 RECREATION P~OGRAM 0.00 207.00 0.00 529.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 177.00 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 180.00 REFUND/BAYMEADOWS 0.00 46.00 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:11 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 C~CK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~'~C~ION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENEP, AL FUIFD CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 577890 1020 577891 1020 577892 1020 577893 1020 577893 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577894 1020 577895 1020 577895 1020 577895 1020 577895 1020 577895 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 577896 1020 577897 577898 1020 577898 1020 577898 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577899 1020 577900 1020 577901 1020 577902 1020 577903 1020 577904 1020 577904 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577905 1020 577906 1020 577906 TOT~J~ CHECK 1020 577907 , 9 577908 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/16/00 393 06/16/00 396 06/16/00 1658 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M JOHN I~E 5806449 PHILLIP M LENII~ 5806449 LI~I~R MENDEL~ON P C 1104511 LOMAN EDUCATION SERVICES 1108201 LOMAN EDUCATION SERVICES 1101500 I~DNGS DRUGS #114 5806349 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHO 5606620 I~S GATOS F~AT & SMOKEHO 5606620 LOS C~TOS ~T & SMOKEHO 5606620 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHO 5606620 LOS GA~)S MEAT & SMOK~HO 5606620 MAII~ENIMNCE SUPERINTENDE 1108201 JD l%%RTINEZ 1106248 RICAI~DO M~TINEZ 5706450 RICARDO MARTINEZ 5706450 RICARDO 14~%RTINEZ 5706450 MAY, ANE 580 MCCRAY CONSTUCTION COMP 4249210 MI(~L P MCHUGH 2708404 MCSI4EPFP, EY, SHAI~ 580 MEI, YAN 580 ~KO ITEWSP;LPERS 1104300 METRO NEWSPAPERS 1104300 MI(~I~ #13333 5806349 MILL~IUM MECHANICAL IN 5708510 MIr.?.~mINID~M I~CHANICAL IN 1108501 MARY MINOW 1101040 MII~N'$ LD~ER 6806349 06/16/00 405 06/16/00 408 06/16/00 408 06/16/00 408 06/16/00 408 06/16/00 408 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1835 06/16/00 1378 06/16/00 1378 06/16/00 1378 o6/16/oo M 06/16/00 1780 06/16/00 1377 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 437 06/16/00 437 06/16/00 439 06/16/00 443 06/16/00 443 06/16/00 1921 06/16/00 444 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM SCOTT NEMETZ CASE B RIZZO & R SILVA CONFERENCE/C KILIAN SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SI/PPLIES 2000/01 DUES PERFORMER EQUIP MAII~ANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE RECREATION REFUND SENIOR CENTER SUPPLIES RECRRATIONREFUND RECREATION REFUND LEC~%L PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SUPPLIES TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL SUPPLIES S~J~ES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 340.00 112.00 1651.40 478.00 249.00 727.00 40.01 960.47 173.74 2195.93 179.87 845.92 4355.93 45.00 550.00 125.00 412.74 105.98 643.72 31.50 124182.83 306.00 100.00 100.00 35.00 27.50 62,50 16.89 381.41 748,20 1129.61 192.44 17.48 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:12 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 5606620 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108501 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1107503 1020 577908 0~/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108511 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1103500 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1103500 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1107503 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108314 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 4209216 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108501 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108501 1020 577908 06/16/00 444 MINTON'S LUMBER 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577909 06/16/00 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 1020 577909 06/16/00 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577910 06/16/00 448 MISSION VALLEY FORD INC 6308540 1020 577910 06/16/00 448 MISSION VALLEY FORD INC 6309820 TOTAL CHECK 1020 . 577911 06/16/00 1383 1020 577911 06/16/00 1383 1020 577911 06/16/00 1383 1020 577911 06/16/00 1383 TOTAL CHECK MITCHELL BROS AUTO PARTS 6308540 MITCT{ELL BROS AUTO PARTS 6308540 MITCHELL BROS AUTO PARTS 6308540 MITCHELL BROS AUTO PARTS 6308540 1020 577912 06/16/00 455 ~ATHER MOLL 5806249 1020 577913 06/16/00 1920 MARIE MOORE 1104400 1020 577914 06/16/00 463 VICTOR G MOSSOTTI 5806449 1020 577915 06/16/00 465 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 1020 577916 06/16/00 M MUSTON, JOAN 5500000 1020 577917 06/16/00 473 NASER DISTRIBUTORS INC 5606620 1020 577918 1020 577918 TOTAL CHECK 06/16/00 479 NATURES WOOD 5606620 06/16/00 479 NATURES WOOD 5606620 1020 577919 06/16/00 1550 ADONIS L NECESITO 1103501 1020 577920 06/16/00 485 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 2708405 1020 577921 06/16/00 489 NOTEWORTHY MUSIC SCHOOL 5806249 1020 577922 06/16/00 1681 NU-WAY TOOL SUPPLY INC 1108315 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICE PARTS & LABOR FORD RANGER 2000 PARTS PARTS PARTS PARTS RECREATION PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES REFUND/O'KEEFFE EXHIBI SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PROF SVCS SUPPLIES RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1085.37 1085.37 5.04 0.75 9.90 2.53 18.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 57.97 36.08 37.97 33.65 19.26 29.27 159.35 8.75 53.09 10.34 36.55 10.49 510.25 84.32 84.32 168.64 561.10 14241.37 14802.47 ~' 14 9 1~.84 33.24 239.01 888.00 61.40 230.00 28.09 39.00 1543.20 353.98 384.18 738.16 300.00 280.00 4898.10 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:13 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~'C~ION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" amd "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENER~tL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSU~ DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE l0 AMOUNT 1020 577923 06/16/00 499 1020 577924 06/16/00 494 1020 577925 06/16/00 498 1020 577926 06/16/00 1190 1020 577927 06/16/00 503 1020 577927 06/16/00 503 1020 577927 06/16/00 503 1020 577927 06/16/00 503 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577928 06/16/00 1650 1020 577929 06/16/00 M 1020 577930 06/16/00 507 1020 577930 06/16/00 507 1020 577930 06/16/00 507 '~ 577930 06/16/00 507 577930 06/16/00 507 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577931 06/16/00 1528 1020 577931 06/16/00 1528 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577932 06/16/00 515 1020 577932 06/16/00 515 1020 577932 06/16/00 515 1020 577932 06/16/00 515 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577933 06/16/00 M 1020 577934 06/16/00 1917 1020 577935 06/16/00 M 1020 577936 06/16/00 535 1020 577937 06/16/00 536 1020 577938 06/16/00 537 1020 577938 06/16/00 537 1020 577938 06/16/00 537 1020 577938 06/16/00 537 '~'L CHECK DEBBIE O'NEILL 5606620 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 1101500 MARY JO OKAWA 5806449 RONALD OLDS 1103500 ORCNARD SUPPLY 5606640 ORCF. ARD SUPPLY 5606620 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606640 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606620 ORLANDO'S CHRISTMAS TREE 6308540 ORUGANTI, LALITHA 580 DAN OSBORNE 4209206 DAN OSBORNE 4209216 DAN OSBORNE 1108312 DAN OSBORNE 1108602 DAN OSBORNE 1108503 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPMEN 1108530 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPMEN 6309820 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108506 PARSLEY, EVELYN 5506549 PENNBROOK INSURANCE SERV 2204010 PERNG, DAVID 1100000 PETERS-DE LAET INC 6308540 ANNE MARIE PETERSON 5806249 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108315 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108302 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108314 PETPR0 PRODUCTS INC 1108303 PERFORMER 0.00 360.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 94.34 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 590.00 PROF SVCS 0.00 180.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 405.28 ON TIME PMT DISCOUNT 0.00 -2.72 ON TIME PMT DISCOUNT 0.00 -2.71 SUPPLIES 0.00 132.57 0.00 532.42 SUPPLIES 0.00 82.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 49.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 466.89 SUPPLIES 0.00 1662.53 TIME & MATERIAL 0.00 492.12 TIME & MATERIAL 0.00 635.67 TIME & MATERIAL 0.00 585.00 0.00 3842.21 TIME & MATERIAL 212.69 2790.69 OUTRIGGER 187.04 2454.04 399.73 5244.73 ACCESS SYS 9/00 0.00 98.00 ACCESS SYS 8/00 0.00 98.00 ACCESS SYS 7/00 0.00 98.00 SERVICE CALL 0.00 84.44 0.00 378.44 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 90.52 INS 8165-9608 0.00 2048.00 DESIGN REVIEW REFUND 0.00 506.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 120.81 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 727.20 SUPPLIES 0.00 831.84 SUPPLIES 0.00 831.83 SUPPLIES 0.00 831.83 SUPPLIES 0.00 831.83 0.00 3327.33 RUN DATE 06/1~/00 TIME 09:52:13 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-11 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENE~L Ft~rD CASH ACCT CT~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. I~dND/DEPT 1020 577939 06/16/00 538 PFS TIRES BRAKES AND ALI 5606640 1020 577940 06/16/00 M PHOTO-ME USA 1100000 1020 577941 06/16/00 541 ROBIN PICKEL 5706450 1020 577942 06/16/00 542 PINE CONE LUMBER 1108302 1020 577943 06/16/00 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 1020 577943 06/16/00 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 1101300 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577944 06/16/00 M PONCE, LISA 580 1020 577945 06/16/00 M QUAH, TIONG CHOON 580 1020 577946 06/16/00 1759 R GUNN CONSTRUCTION INC 2709435 1020 577947 06/16/00 1406 RAINES C~VORLET 6308540 1020 577947 06/16/00 1406 RAINES CHEVORLET 6308540 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577948 06/16/00 1409 THE RAPIDS WATERSLIDE 5806349 1020 577949 06/16/00 574 REACH FITNESS CLUB 5706450 1020 577950 06/16/00 944 REHABILITATION RESOURCES 1104510 1020 577951 06/16/00 581 RELIABLE 1107301 1020 577951 06/16/00 581 RELIABLE 1107301 TOTAL CEECK 1020 577952 06/16/00 844 ROTARY 1104001 1020 577953 06/16/00 606 JOYCE RUSSUM 5706450 1020 577954 06/16/00 610 S & S WORLDWIDE 1106342 1020 577955 06/16/00 1069 SAFE-HIT CORPORATION 1108602 1020 577955 06/16/00 1069 SAFE-HIT CORPORATION . 2708405 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577956 06/16/00 345 SAN FRANCISCO ELEVATOR 1108502 1020 577956 06/16/00 345 SAN FRANCISCO ELEVATOR 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577957 06/16/00 628 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 1020 577958 06/16/00 308 SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF 1107301 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 11 AMOUNT REPAIR FLAT TIRE 0.00 70.00 REFUND/DUP BUSINESS LI 0.00 90.00 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 455.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 95.66 PROF SVCS 0.00 1705.00 GOLF CLUBS/D BROWN 0.00 850.00 0.00 2555.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 102.00 TIME & MATERIAL 0.00 504.00 PARTS 1.29 16.92 PARTS 2.34 30.74 3.63 47.66 ADMISSION 7/14/00 0.00 0 FITNESS/WELNESS SVCS 0.00 2153.00 WORKSITE EVALUATION 0.00 229.65 SUPPLIES 0.00 76.72 SUPPLIES 0.00 24.11 0.00 100.83 2000/01 DUES 5 MEMBERS~ 0.00 1050.00 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 184.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 369.42 SUPPLIES 0.00 286.16 STARTER KIT 0.00 597.38 0.00 883.54 ELEVATOR SERVICE 6/00 0.00 47.24 ELEVATOR SERVICE 6/00 0.00 140.01 0.00 187.25 SECURITY 0.00 1779.77 MICROFILMING 5/1-5/28 0.00 63.00 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:14 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 12 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND '~ION C~IT]~RIA: ~ransac~.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASE ACCT CHECK NO 1020 577959 1020 577959 1020 577959 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577960 1020 577961 1020 577961 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577962 1020 577963 1020 577964 1020 577965 1020 577966 1020 577967 577968 1020 577968 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577969 1020 577970 1020 577971 1020 577972 1020 577973 1020 577973 1020 577973 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577974 1020 577975 1020 577976 1020 577977 1020 577978 / 577979 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/16/00 639 SAVIN CORPORATION 1107501 06/16/00 639 SAVIN CORPORATION 1108101 06/16/00 639 SAVIN CORPORATION 1107301 06/16/00 644 06/16/00 1749 06/16/00 1749 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 SHANNON ASSOCIATES 1104510 SHANNON ASSOCIATES 1104510 ELIZABETH S}~/qNON 5806449 SHARMA, RAGNAV 580 CAROL SHEPHERD 1104510 SHU, DARREN 110 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 5606640 SILICON VALLEY PAVING CO 1108314 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 SLS ASSOCIATES 110 SMITH, REBECCA 580 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 6308540 LESLIE SOKOL 5806449 JOAN SPITSEN 5506549 JOAN SPITSEN 5506549 JOAN SPITSEN 5506549 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHIN 1104300 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 C~ERYL STODDARD 5806449 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 SUPERIOR PAVING INC 6308540 SURI, HAMSA 580 06/16/00 647 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 1916 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 651 06/16/00 1837 06/16/00 658 06/16/00 658 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 M 06/16/00 663 06/16/00 200 06/16/00 891 06/16/00 891 06/16/00 891 06/16/00 671 06/16/00 1011 06/16/00 684 06/16/00 690 06/16/00 1649 06/16/00 M ..... DESCRIPTION ...... CONTRACT DIFFERENCES CONTRACT DIFFERENCES CON~,ACT DIFFERENCES T SHIRTS PW DIRECTOR RECRUITMEN CITY MGR RECRUITMENT RECREATION PROGRAM RE(ARF2%T I ON REFUND EDUCATION RE IMBURSEMEN REFUND BOND R1518 SUPPLIES ASPHALT PATHWAY REPAIR EMPLOYEE WATER EMPLOYEE WATER REFUND BOND R6970 RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES RECREATION PROGRAM EXPENSES GRATUITY GRATUITY PKG HEPAIR OF COPIER SALES/USE TAX 5/1-6/15 RECREATION PROGRAM PARTS PARTS HECREATION REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 /~OUNT 880.47 880.47 880.47 2641.41 1376.94 6000.00 1000.00 7000.00 322.00 138,00 438,00 22500.00 103.92 20310.00 71.50 132.00 203.50 9675.00 220.00 48.44 2527.00 200.00 40.00 2028.00 2268.00 282.28 2431.00 258.75 19.12 62.17 124.00 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:14 - FINANCI3%L ACCOUNTING 3-/3 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 13 AMOUNT 1020 577980 06/16/00 694 SYNCHRONEX 1108602 1020 577981 06/16/00 695 1020 577981 06/16/00 695 1020 577981 06/16/00 695 1020 577981 06/16/00 695 1020 577981 06/16/00 695 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 1020 577982 06/16/00 696 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577983 06/16/00 698 1020 577983 06/16/00 698 1020 577983 06/16/00 698 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577984 06/16/00 M 1020 577985 06/16/00 700 1020 577985 06/16/00 700' 1020 577985 06/16/00 700 1020 577985 06/16/00 700 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 1020 577986 06/16/00 701 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577987 06/16/00 M 1020 577988 06/16/00 708 1020 577989 06/16/00 709 1020 577990 06/16/00 710 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CREDIT 6/7/00 TADCO SUPPLY 1108303 SUPPLIES TADCO SUPPLY 1108302 SUPPLIES TADCO SUPPLY 1108321 SUPPLIES TADCO SUPPLY 1108314 SUPPLIES TADCO SUPPLY 1108312 SUPPLIES TADCO SUPPLY 1108315 SUPPLIES TALLY'S ENTERPRISES TALLY'S ENTERPRISES TALLY'S ENTERPRISES 2709435 2708403 2709435 TAMADON, MAZIAR 580 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108201 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108315 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 TIME & MATERIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF CURB TIME & MATERIAL RECREATION REFUND TRAINING 5/17/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5706450 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STOP. ES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 1106265 SUPPLIES TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES TECHSPAN INC 110 NANCY THOMPSON 5806449 LOU THURMAN 5806449 KAR~ TOOMBS 5806249 REFUND DEPOSIT R4882 RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROORAM RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 139.43 61.38 154.38 355.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.20 1058.7C 3559.87 121.44 2791.64 -228.75 7302.90 79.25 79.25 79.25 79.25 79.25 79.26 475.51 2000.00 23289.80 14000.00 39289.80 ~0 420.00 1829.43 805.44 2025.71 5080.58 34.60 147.44 48.60 3.78 19.81 100.00 14.54 25.70 35.26 43.25 46.67 519.65 500.00 230.00 624.50 5 ~0 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:15 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND '---~CTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 577991 06/16/00 717 PAMELA J TREDER 2308004 1020 577991 06/16/00 717 PAMELA J TREDER 2308004 TOTAL CHECK 1020 577992 06/16/00 1201 1020 577993 06/16/00 1836 1020 577994 06/16/00 725 1020 577995 06/16/00 M 1020 577996 06/16/00 1919 1020 577997 06/16/00 M 1020 577998 06/16/00 746 1020 577999 06/16/00 M TRIELOFF TOURS & TRAVEL 5506549 TRIPLE PLAY VENDING COMP 5706450 TWISTERS GYMNASTICS INC 5806449 VAIDYA, NEELAM 580 VA?,T.~Y TRANSPORTATION AU 5806349 VENKATRAMANAN, USHA 580 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 VILEN, JUNE 5500000 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA ~ 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA 1020 578000 06/16/00 749 VISA TOTAL CHECK 1020 578001 06/16/00 840 1020 578002 06/16/00 754 1020 578003 06/16/00 1508 1020 578004 06/16/00 M 1020 578005 06/16/00 761 1020 578005 06/16/00 761 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578006 06/16/00 762 1020 578007 06/16/00 M 1020 578008 06/16/00 779 578008 06/16/00 779 1100000 6104800 1101200 1102100 5806349 1100000 1104100 6104800 1104001 1104100 BERT VISKOVICH 1108001 BARBARA WALTON 5806449 JOSEPH H WALTON 1108601 WANG, JIAMING 110 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 WEDEMEYERBAKERY 5606620 WEIGELMECHANICAL 5606620 WELLS, TROY 580 WEST-LITE SUPPLY CO INC 1108530 WEST-LITE SUPPLY CO INC 1108530 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 14 AMOUNT CREEK PROGRAM DOCENT 0.00 485.50 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 338.24 0.00 823.74 ADD'L PMT/MAHONEYS 0.00 5368.20 SUPPLIES 0.00 202.36 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 14437.00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 110.00 150 YOUGH TOKEN PKGS 0.00 955.00 REFUND DEPOSIT 5/14/00 0.00 100.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 79.07 REFUND/OAK HARBOR 0.00 26.00 PALM PILOT/M HENDERSON 0.00 412.00 LUNCH 0.00 48.10 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 0.00 138.81 AOL/SHERIFF 0.00 21.95 SUPPLIES 0.00 649.74 CAKE/M HENDERSON 0.00 54.00 CAR RENTAL 0.00 98.35 ANNUAL FEE 0.00 40.00 AOL/C ATWOOD 0.00 21.95 LUNCH/M HENDERSON 0.00 217.47 0.00 1702.37 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 56.55 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 1728.00 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 355.20 REFUNDDEPOSIT R6239 0.00 291.70 SUPPLIES 0.00 386.26 SUPPLIES 0.00 177.64 0.00 563.90 REPAIR/WALK-IN COOLER 0.00 765.86 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 100.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 55.64 SUPPLIES 0.00 128.60 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 15 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.trans date between "06/12/2000" and "06/16/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK 1020 578009 06/16/00 774 1020 578010 06/16/00 775 1020 578010 06/16/00 775 1020 578010 06/16/00 775 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578011 06/16/00 781 1020 578012 06/16/00 M 1020 578013 06/16/00 792 1020 578014 06/16/00 793 1020 578015 06/16/00 794 1020 578015 06/16/00 794 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578016 06/16/00 1081 1020 578017 06/16/00 M 1020 578018 06/16/00 M 1020 578019 06/16/00 800 1020 578020 06/16/00 1558 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 1108602 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL L 4209524 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL L 1108602 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL L 1108602 DOLORES WHITTAKER 5706450 WISLER, KERRY 580 LILY WU 5706450 NANCY WULFF 5806249 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 YAMAGAMI'S NURSERY 1108303 YOUNG, MIMI 580 YUEN, STEVE 580 Z.A.P. MANUFACTURING INC 6308540 JOSE ZGNIGA JR 1106265 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION REFUND RECREATION PROGRAM RECREATION PROGRAM COPIER LEASE AGMT BASE CHARGE 5/00 SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES SECURITY STAFF SALES TAX 0.00 145.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.57 96.95 167.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2849.63 2849.63 2849.63 AMOUNT 184.24 1906.57 3897.00 995.46 512.95 5405.41 460.00 200.00 230.00 1431.80 926.04 1272.07 2198.11 67.62 0 100.00 13.44 135.00 622449.98 622449.98 622449.98 RUN DATE 06/16/00 TIME 09:52:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NO. 00-199 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 JUNE 23, 2000 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: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July ., 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 06/2~/U0 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT S~--~TION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 578021 1020 578022 1020 578023 1020 578023 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578024 1020 578024 1020 578024 1020 578024 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578025 1020 578026 1020 578027 1020 578028 ~ 578029 1020 578030 1020 578030 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578031 1020 578032 1020 578033 1020 578034 1020 578035 1020 578035 1020 578035 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578036 1020 578037 1020 578037 1020 578037 1020 578037 1020 578037 1020 578037 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 06/20/00 1924 D.L. DRILLING 1108408 06/20/00 1090 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 1104300 06/23/00 1695 3M 2708405 06/23/00 1695 3M 2708405 06/23/00 13 06/23/00 13 06/23/00 13 06/23/00 13 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 1108321 A(~IE & SONS SANITATION C 4209206 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5208003 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 1108303 06/23/00 M o6/23/oo 36 06/23/00 1903 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 1745 06/23/00 1057 06/23/00 1057 ACOSTA, KAKEN 5706450 A?J.RN'S PRESS CLIPPING 1103300 ARCHCO 6104800 BASINA, IRINA 580 BAYSIDE EQUIPMENT COMPAN 1108501 BENEFITAMERICA 110 BENEFITAMERICA 110 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 106 06/23/00 124 06/23/00 1145 06/23/00 1145 06/23/00 1145 BERNARDO, ERIC 5606640 BREWER, KATHRYN 580 BRID~E RADIO CO[~WUNICATI 1108501 CALIFORNIA SAFETY AND SU 1107503 CALIFORNIA SURVEYING & D 1108101 CALIFORNIA SURVEYING & D 1108101 CALIFORNIA SURVEYING & D 1108101 06/23/00 M CAPIO 1103300 06/23/00 146 06/23/00 146 06/23/00 146 06/23/00 146 06/23/00 146 06/23/00 146 CASH 5806349 CASH 5806449 CASH 1106343 CASH 5800000 CASH 1106647 CASH 5806349 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... TIME & MATERIAL ANNEXATION FEES #00-17 PARTS & SUPPLIES PARTS & SUPPLIES TOILET RENTAL TOILET RENTAL TOILET RENTAL TOILET RENTAL REISSUE STALEDATED CK CLIPPINGS 5/00 RANDALL CHUN RECR~%TIONREFUND SERVICE CALL & PARTS FLEX DEPENDENT CARE FLEX HEALTH PdgISSUE STALEDATED CK RECREATION REFUND REPAIR RADIO SUPPLIES PAPER & TONER PAPER PAPER DUES P~:~-z'~ CASH REIMBURS~ME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME p~:-z-.-f CASH REIMBURSEME P,:'r*'f CASH REIMBUP~EME P~l-rf CASH Pd~IMBURSEME P~--'~ CASH REIMBURSEME SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.49 17.46 8.54 68.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 1 AMOUNT 350.00 300.00 2386.72 1591.15 3977.87 154.13 332.01 181.66 1386.60 2054.40 47.30 36.00 3655.00 60.00 456.03 769.24 118.65 887.89 39.91 75.00 70.12 40.92 562.34 229.04 112.04 903.42 125.00 61.66 44.74 21.36 10.00 19.38 6.00 163.14 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:31 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 3-t7 06/23/'00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GE~R3~ ~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104100 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1107200 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 4259314 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104000 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104510 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 2204010 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104400 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1108001 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1108601 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1100000 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104001 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1107503 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1107501 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1104000 1020 578038 06/23/00 149 CASH 1101000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578039 06/23/00 150 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERI 1108602 1020 578040 06/23/00 152 CEB 1101500 1020 578040 06/23/00 152 CEB 1101500 1020 578040 06/23/00 152 CEB 1101500 1020 578040 06/23/00 152 CEB 1101500 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578041 06/23/00 1156 CHA 110 1020 578042 06/23/00 M CHEN, SHERRY 580 1020 578043 06/23/00 1824 CLARKE'S MACHINE SHOP 6308540 1020 578044 06/23/00 M CI]NNINGHAM, SHIRLEY 580 1020 578045 06/23/00 M DREW, KIM 110 1020 578046 06/23/00 1434 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 2708404 1020 578047 06/23/00 1809 1020 578047 06/23/00 1809 TOTAL CHECK EL CAMINO ROOFING CO INC 1108509 EL CAMINO ROOFING CO INC 1108509 1020 578048 06/23/00 242 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 1020 578049 06/23/00 243 EMPLOYM~3~T DEVELOPMENT 110 1020 578050 06/23/00 251 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1108314 1020 578050 06/23/00 251 EVANS WEST VAkJ~EY SPRAY 1108314 1020 578050 06/23/00 251 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1108303 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578051 06/23/00 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS COHP 1104001 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY C3%SH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH .REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PROF SVCS THRU 1/31/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS RECREATION REFUND SERVICE RECREATION REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT R5026 SUPPLIES TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL STATE WITHHOLDING STATE DISABILITY INS TURF FERTILIZING TURF FERTILIZING TURF FERTILIZING STANDARD OVERNIGHT SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 25.00 15.99 29.25 31.77 42.92 50.47 10.07 18.75 8.00 0.50 6.25 70.00 12.00 31.00 106.49 458.46 1270.00 62.87 87.77 62.87 2 130.50 71.00 92.00 99.00 500.00 11.91 786.09 4995.00 5781.09 13790.08 638.19 1000.00 2500.00 3000.00 6500.00 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:32 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND F~CTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578051 06/23/00 260 FEDERAL EXPI~ESS CORP 1107301 1020 578051 06/23/00 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 1020 578051 06/23/00 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1107301 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578052 06/23/00 818 FLOYD D BROWN FIRST AID 1108312 1020 578052 06/23/00 818 FLOYD D BROWN FIRST AID 1108312 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578053 06/23/00 M GANAPATHY, GAUTAM 580 1020 578054 06/23/00 M GARCIA, ANGELA 580 1020 578055 06/23/00 281 GARDENLAND 1108321 1020 578055 06/23/00 281 GARDEi~LAND 1108315 1020 578055 06/23/00 281 GARDENLAND 1108321 1020 578055 06/23/00 281 GARDENLAND 1108408 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578056 06/23/00 1489 GODBE RESEARCH & ANALYSI 1103300 1020 578057 06/23/00 M GOEL, MALINI 580 578058 06/23/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 1020 578058 06/23/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308540 1020 578058 06/23/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108005 1020 578058 06/23/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108005 1020 578058 06/23/00 298 GP. AINGER INC 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578059 06/23/00 1214 LINDA GRODT 1101031 1020 578060 06/23/00 1136 ANDREA HARRIS 1101070 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108303 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108315 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOM~ DEPOT/GECF 2708405 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECP 4209216 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 4209216 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108503 1020 578061 06/23/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578062 06/23/00 M HSIEH, YEMAY 580 1020 578062 06/23/00 M HSIEH, II]MAY 580 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578063 06/23/00 M HSU, RONG 580 1020 578063 06/23/00 M HSU, RONG 580 TOTAL CHECK ..... DESCRIPTION ...... STANDARD OVERNIGHT STANDARD OVERNIGHT STANDARD OVERNIGHT SERVICE CALL SERVICE CALL RECREATION REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT 5/21/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CITY SURVEY RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PUBLIC ACCESS GRANT REISSUE STALEDATED CK SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REC];~ATI ON REFUND RECREATION REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT 6/11/00 RECREATION REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 46.30 14.44 17.56 99.24 325.89 1688.70 2014.59 60.00 100.00 106.77 477.36 154.45 423.05 1161.63 9127.50 102.00 534.76 10.72 437.89 26.36 34.46 1044.19 594.00 147.82 42.64 15.96 51.65 60.71 75.35 15.41 54.01 315.73 145.00 113.00 258.00 100.00 25.00 125.00 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:33 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/U0 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and #06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DE~T 1020 578064 06/23/00 343 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 1020 578065 06/23/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1020 578065 0~/23/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1020 578065 06/23/00 995 INSERV COMPANY TOTAL CHECK 1020 578066 06/23/00 M 1020 578067 06/23/00 M 1020 578068 06/23/00 M 1020 578069 06/23/00 1927 1020 578070 06/23/00 M 1020 578071 06/23/00 M 1020 578071 06/23/00 M TOTAL CHECK 1020 578072 06/23/00 1226 1020 578073 06/23/00 1217 1020 578074 06/23/00 M 1020 578075 06/23/00 1404 1020 578076 06/23/00 M 1020 578077 06/23/00 M 1020 578078 06/23/00 437 1020 578078 06/23/00 437 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578079 06/23/00 439 1020 578079 06/23/00 439 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578080 1020 578081 1020 578081 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578082 1020 578083 1108504 1108502 1108501 JO}~SON, SARA 580 KAO, ERIC 580 KIM, KYUNG SOON 580 GARY KORNAHRENS 1104520 KOVACS-BIRKAS, ATTILA 580 KULKARNI, JITENDRA 580 KI/LKAR/~I, JITENDRA 580 LANDS' END CORPORATE SAL 5806249 THE LEAP/NING GAME 5806349 LEWIS, RANDI 580 MARIANIST CENTER 1106500 MARSHA~ & SWIFT 1107502 MCGINN, MELINDA 580 METRO NEWSPAPERS 1101070 M~TRO NEWSPAPERS 1104001 MICHAELS #13333 5806349 MIC~I~ #13333 5806349 06/23/00 448 06/23/00 465 06/23/00 465 MISSION VALLEY FORD INC 6309820 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN C~N 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 06/23/00 1191 06/23/00 475 NAKANURSERY INC 4209526 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RE 1108312 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... DEFERRED COMPENSATION WATER TREATMENT 6/00 WATER TREATMENT 6/00 WATER TREATMENT 6/00 REFUND DEPOSIT 6/2/00 RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND REIMBURSEMENT RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES RECREATION REFUND RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION RECREATION REFUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 2000 FORD F450 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CARPET ROSE FENCE RENTAL 5/30-6/27 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2289.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.20 0.00 PAGE 4 AMOUNT 6740.06 159.49 159.49 159.49 478.47 100.00 42.00 410.00 366.00 102.00 173.00 100.00 273.00 1164.40 7 535.00 320.00 129.95 60.00 97.50 3237.50 3335.00 38.97 6.31 45.28 30038.29 28.09 28.09 56.18 2338.20 41.65 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:33 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~--~-CTION CRITERIA: =ransact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578084 06/23/00 M NGUYEN, KIM 580 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT ~ 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1020 578086 06/23/00 493 OFFICE DEPOT TOTAL CHECK 1108601 5706450 2204011 1104000 1104400 1106265 1104100 1106265 1108101 5208003 1101000 1103501 5606620 6104800 1106265 1106265 1104400 2204010 1108601 1104400 1104000 6104800 1108601 4239214 1106342 1108601 1104200 1104400 1106265 1106265 6104800 2204010 1106265 1020 578087 06/23/00 501 OPERATING ~NGINEER~ #3 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 578088 06/23/00 833 P E R S 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578089 06/23/00 510 P.D.M. STEEL 1020 578089 06/23/00 510 P.D.M. STEEL /~*' 578089 06/23/00 510 P.D.M. STEEL 1108303 2708405 1108314 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... REFL1ND DEPOSIT 9/15/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CREDIT 6/14/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES UNION DUES PERS BUYBACK PERS SPECIAL *PERS BUYBACK PERS 1959 SURVIVORS PERS EMPLOYEE *PERS BUYBACK PERS EMPLOYER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 100.00 204.57 124.91 24.52 166.10 119.49 71.77 12.71 201.68 20.37 4.77 169.92 60.21 555.84 292.94 475.89 30.46 16.48 34.78 -204.57 9.16 22.82 110.97 277.63 130.16 36.01 240.70 282.89 75.39 166.38 150.97 182.15 73.43 2.99 4144.49 415.50 67.68 105.41 742.45 72.54 20973.28 305.65 2842.60 25109.61 300.00 100.00 137.14 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:34 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ? 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FI/ND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578089 06/23/00 510 P.D.M. STEEL 1108303 1020 578089 06/23/00 510 P.D.M. STEEL 2708405 TOTAL C"rIECK 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108508 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106647 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104200 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104510 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108511 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108504 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107301 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5708510 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606640 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606620 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6104800 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108201 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 2308004 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106647 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104530 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104400 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106100 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106529 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106500 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5208003 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107200 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108602 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108601 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107301 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5706450 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108706 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107302 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107501 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606620 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108507 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108503 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108501 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108102 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108101 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108001 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107502 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107503 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108407 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101200 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101000 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108504 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108509 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1102100 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT SUPPLIES 0.00 300.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 224.80 0.00 1061.94 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 57.49 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 346.79 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 231.19 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 77.06 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 154.13 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 77.06 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 269.73 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 308.26 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 198.48 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 351.04 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 732.12 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 425.99 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 38.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 38.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 269.73 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 1'- -60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 2 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 3~.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 462.39 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 38.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 154.13 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 346.79 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 462.39 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 81.25 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 77.06 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 500.92 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 385.32 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 128.80 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 1061.86 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 965.65 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 118.44 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 38.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 361.26 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 192.66 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 38.53 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 154.13 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 15.13 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 115.60 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 231.19 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 31.34 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 51.74 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 ~6 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:35 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~'CTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT C~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101500 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104300 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1103300 1020 578092 66/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1103500 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104000 1020 578092 06/23/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104100 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578093 06/23/00 1528 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPMEN 6309820 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108506 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108506 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108501 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5708510 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108511 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108508 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108504 1020 578094 06/23/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108507 TOTAL CHECK 578095 06/23/00 524 PD PROGRA~94ING INC 6104800 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 P~NINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 1108101 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 1108101 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSUI~ BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 4209114 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 1108101 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 2708404 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 2708404 1020 578096 06/23/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578097 06/23/00 527 PENINSULA BUILDING MATER 5806449 1020 578098 06/23/00 533 PEP~ LONG TERM CARE PRO~ 110 1020 578099 06/23/00 534 T~4E PET ~ 1106647 1020 578100 06/23/00 M PIKOVSKY, GALINA 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE INSTALL AERIAL DEVICE SERVIUE 5/19/00 SECURITY/FIRE JUL- SEPO SECURITY/FIRE JUL=SEP0 SECURITY/FIRE JUL- SEP0 SERVICE 020506332 SECURITY/FIRE JUL-SEP0 SECURITY JUL-SEP 00 SECURITY/FIRE JUL-SEP0 FIRE SYS J~JL-SEP00 SECURITY/FIRE JUL-SEP0 ANNUAL UPDATES BLUELINE PRINTS R7286 BLUELINE PRINTS R7307 BLUELINE PRINTS R7405 CREDIT 5/24/00 INCOP, RECTLY BILLED BLUELINE PRINTS R7307 BLUELINE PRINTS R7289 BLUELINE PRINTS R7093 BLUELINE PRINTS BLUELINE PRINTS R5472 BLUELINE PRINTS R6218 BLUELINE PRINTS R7277 BLUELINE PRINTS BLUELINE PRINTS R7433 BLUELINE PRINTS BLUELINE PRINTS BLUELINE PRINTS R7417 SUPPLIES PERS LONG T~RM CARE REISSUE STALEDATED CK RECREATION REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3856.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 423.86 337.96 77.06 115.60 115.60 231.19 12432.35 50606.88 84.44 135.00 354.00 387.00 1116.82 198.00 105.00 225.00 597.00 306.00 3508.26 750.00 13.41 468.51 977.76 -816.55 816.55 256.31 525.38 464.37 8.12 461.94 464.37 145.49 8.12 209.81 10.88 12.37 65.81 4092.65 82.27 343.38 79.35 40.00 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIMIi: 15:06:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GF2~RAL FUN/) CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578101 06/23/00 M SACRAMENTO HEALTHCARE DE 5506549 1020 578102 06/23/00 1867 SAN JOSE GENERATOR 6308540 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~Y 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAi9%f 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~IY 1108315 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/qY 1108315 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN J6SE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108503 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108312 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108408 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS REBUILT ALTERNATOR WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 15.00 92.01 21.04 1016.22 16.03 16.73 70.13 12.50- 12.50 89.65 16.73 8.61 36.44 30.50 75.57 30.50 52.35 1484.46 30.42 873.23 10'~ 31 7 1~,.73 1178.85 212.01 86.84 486.69 16.73 30.42 30.42 115.19 56.04 16.73 30.50 19.88 541.94 22.69 85.62 9.00 26.58 9.00 233.31 107.96 403.73 78.77 609.07 305.33 1112.15 90 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK ~E~ISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~--~CTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108302 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~/~Y 1108507 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606640 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 5606620 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~NY 1108312 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/~ 1108303 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 ~'~ 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~ 5606620 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~Y 1108407 ~luZO 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 578106 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578107 06/23/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 4249210 1020 578108 06/23/00 979 CITY OF SAN JOSE 2708404 1020 578109 06/23/00 M SCOTT-PONCE, LiSA 110 1020 578110 06/23/00 1488 SEARS 6308540 1020 578111 06/23/00 1925 SIEGMAN & ASSOCIATES 1108101 1020 578112 06/23/00 1837 SILICON V~L~Y PAVING CO 1108303 1020 578113 06/23/00 SKRZYPEK, TRACEY 580 1020 578114 06/23/00 663 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 6308540 1020 578115 06/23/00 671 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHIN 1104530 1020 578116 06/23/00 677 STATE S~ET BANK & TRUS 110 1020 578117 06/23/00 1016 JOHN STATTON 1101000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT WATER SERVICE 0.00 127 . 87 WATER SERVICE 0.00 303 . 92 WATER SERVICE 0.00 853.20 WATER SERVICE 0.00 984.18 WA~ER SERVICE 0 . 00 75.76 WATER SERVICE 0.00 98.29 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 147 . 59 WATER SERVICE 0.00 1499.46 WATER SERVICE 0.00 58.98 WATER SERVICE 0.00 151.81 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 14 . 24 WATER SERVICE 0.00 134.91 WATER SERVICE 0.00 157.00 WATER SERVICE 0.00 9.00 WATER SERVICE 0.00 205.14 WATER SERVICE 0.00 127.68 WATER SERVICE 0.00 485.60 WATER SERVICE 0.00 759.46 WA~"R SERVICE 0.00 778.36 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 156 . 04 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 215 . 00 WATER SERVICE 0.00 154.44 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 110 . 78 WATER SERVICE 0.00 80.10 WATER SERVICE 0.00 23.77 WATER SERVICE 0 . 00 12 . 50 WATER SERVICE 0.00 40.67 0.00 19633.92 INSPECTION/BY PASS MET 0.00 342.00 RESURFACE BOLLINGER RD 0.00 80551.02 REFUND DEPOSIT R4628 0.00 S00.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 159.99 PROF SVCS 0.00 2500.00 REPAIR/ASPHALT PATHWAY 0.00 3336.67 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 372.73 COPIER'REPAIR 0.00 112.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 0.00 842.14 REISSUE STALEDATED CK 0.00 285.81 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/30 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 578118 1020 578119 1020 578120 1020 578120 1020 578120 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578121 1020 578122 1020 578123 1020 578123 1020 578123 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578124 1020 578125 1020 578126 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 1020 578127 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578128 1020 578129 1020 578130 1020 578131 1020 578132 1020 578133 1020 578134 1020 578135 TOTAL CASH ACCOONT ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/23/00 1883 06/23/00 1825 06/23/00 701 06/23/00 701 06/23/00 701 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC 6109850 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308540 T~RGET STORES 5806349 TARGET STORES 5806349 TARGET STORES 5606620 PAMELA J TREDER 2308004 TSUKADA, KAZUNO 580 U S POST~ASTER 5806349 U S POSTMASTER 5806449 U S POSTMASTER 5806249 UMEMOTO, LORI 580 UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 110 VERIFONE INC 6104800 VISA 1103300 VISA 1101000 VISA 1101000 VISA 1107200 VISA 1101200 VISA 1104300 VISA 1101000 VISA 1101200 WALKER, KEITH SBO WANAMART, MAJA 580 WASHINGTON MUTUAL 110 WEST V~?.T.m-Y sBc73RITY 5806349 YEE, ROBERT 5506549 YODq~, MYUNG IL 580 06/23/00 717 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 727 06/23/00 727 06/23/00 727 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 1154 06/23/00 1926 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 749 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 302 06/23/00 771 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 M 06/23/00 800 06/23/00 799 Z.A.P. MANUFACTURING INC 2708405 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208003 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... DATA LINE CHARGES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CREEK TOUR DOCENT RECREATION REFUND POSTAGE STAMPS POSTAGE STAMPS POSTAGE STAMPS RECREATION REFUND EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS THERMAL PAPER MEETINGS & SUPPLIES MEETINGS LUNCH MEETINGS SUPPLIES LUNCH MEETINGS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES MEETINGS RECREATION REFUND RECREATION REFUND DEFERRED COMPENSATION KEYS RECREATION REFUND RECYCLE SIGNS COMPOST DELIVERY 5/00 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 185.72 0.00 6578.58 AMOUNT 132.48 85.92 59.92 47.08 46.67 153.67 1007.00 60.00 66.00 66.00 66.00 198.00 45.00 131.75 c~ ~0 lb~.34 148.69 65.56 51.42 67.59 393.88 238.78 104.45 1173.71 94.00 95.00 17328.43 57.13 27.24 195.00 3341.05 700.00 341~ ~5 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIME 15:06:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/23/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND .~-~CTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/19/2000" and "06/23/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT TOTAL FUND TOTAL RI~PORT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX 6578.58 6578.58 PAGE 11 341059.45 341059.45 RUN DATE 06/23/00 TIM~ 15~6:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NO. 00-200 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 JUNE 30, 2000 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 fi.om the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Adr~inistrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 06/29/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING P~RIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTIOR CRITERIA: transact.trans date between ',06/26/2000" and "06/30/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578136 06/27/00 400 1020 578137 06/30/00 7 1020 578138 06/30/00 13 1020 578139 06/30/00 57 1020 578140 06/30/00 864 1020 578141 06/30/00 71 1020 578141 06/30/00 71 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578142 1020 578143 1020 578144 1020 578145 1020 578145 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 578146 1020 578147 1020 578148 1020 578148 1020 578148 1020 578148 1020 578148 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578149 1020 578150 1020 578151 1020 578151 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 1020 578152 LIFETIME TENNIS INC 5706450 ABAG PLAN CORPOP. ATION 6204550 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 ARAMARK 1104510 CAROL ATWOOD 4209217 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 5606620 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 5606620 06/30/00 1557 06/30/00 1900 06/30/00 872 06/30/00 125 06/30/00 125 DAVID BARATES 5806249 NICK BARSETTI 5606620 BSA ARCHITECTS 4209114 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 06/30/00 1460 06/30/00 143 06/30/00 147 06/30/00 147 06/30/00 147 06/30/00 147 06/30/00 147 TONI CARREIRO 5606640 CASEY PRINTING INC 1103400 CASH 5506549 CASH 5506549 CASH 5506549 CASH 5506549 CASH 5506549 06/30/00 157 JASON H CHAN 5806249 06/30/00 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5606620 06/30/00 1293 COSMO JUMP 5606620 06/30/00 1293 COSMO J~MP 5606620 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 06/30/00 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 6308540 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 DE ANZASERVICES INC 1108503 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 1 AMOUNT TENNIS INSTRUCTIONS 0.00 68494.37 WCADMN FEE 9/99 0.00 774.21 TOILET RENTALS 0.83 168.83 EMPLOYEE COFFEE 0.00 235.47 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 206.80 SUPPLIES 0.00 626.30 SUPPLIES 0.00 319.70 0.00 946.00 CATERING PROGRAM PROF SVCS PROF SVCS 4/29-5/26/00 DIGITAL SENDER FASEXPRESS WEB SITE ADDITION CUPERTINO SCENE 6/00 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME PETTY CASH REIMBURSEME 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.93 363.13 460.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RECREATION PROGRAM SUPPLIES CLOWNPYG & YELLGRYHOUS 13' CASTLERWB RENTAL JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 210.00 1350.00 248.46 1209.08 4526.73 57' ~1 198.00 2966.00 60.17 7.48 40.00 51.15 8.00 166.80 131.25 51.30 300.00 150.00 450.00 6051.55 900.37 2252.24 250.00 2139.71 429.14 3754.15 8 RUN DATE 06/29/00 TIME 21:21:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/29/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 C~CK REGISTER - DISBURSE~ TTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/26/2000" and "06/30/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 1020 578152 06/30/00 209 TOTAJ~ CHECK 1020 578153 06/30/00 1354 1020 578153 06/30/00 1354 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578154 06/30/00 225 1020 578154 06/30/00 225 1020 578154 06/30/00 225 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578155 1020 578156 1020 578157 ~'~' 578157 L C~ECK 1020 578158 1020 578159 1020 578160 1020 578161 1020 578161 TOTAJ~ CHECK 1020 578162 1020 578163 1020 578164 1020 578165 1020 578166 1020 578167 1020 578168 1020 578169 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108511 DIRECT SAFETY COMPAN~ 1108312 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 1108312 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209206 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209206 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209206 06/30/00 233 06/30/00 240 06/30/00 253 06/30/00 253 ECONOMIC DRIVING SCHOOL 5806249 ELIZABE/~ ~ ELLIS 1101070 EXC~GE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 06/30/00 274 06/30/00 1932 06/30/00 1335 06/30/00 1349 06/30/00 1349 FRY'S ELEC'fRONIC 1108601 GAME TIME 4209108 DENISE GOSS 5806249 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COM 2708404 GR~ITE CONSTRUCTION COM 2708404 06/30/00 1933 06/30/00 1760 O6/3O/00 369 06/30/00 1901 06/30/00 385 06/30/00 386 06/30/00 386 06/30/00 395 C4%RY IBSEN 5506549 INSPECTION CONSULTANTS I 4249210 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 1103500 MIK~AIL K}{ARKOVSKY 5606620 ~ SAFETY SUPPLY 1108407 MICHAEL LAMB 5806349 MICHAEL LAMB 5806349 RICHARD LEE 5806249 DESCRIPTION ...... JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 JANITORIAL SVCS 6/00 HAZMAT SUPPLIES HAZMAT SUPPLIES TIME & LABOR TIME & MATERIALS TIME & MATERIALS RECREATION PROGRAM TRANSCRIPTION SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PRINTERS PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT RECREATION PROGRAM RETENTION 99-108 RETENTION 99-101 40 ~ $50EA(-DEP 100.00 PROF SVCS SUPPLIES PROF SVCS SUPPLIES MAGIC SHOW MAGIC SHOW RECREATION PROGRAM SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 2 AMOUNT 5303.77 610.96 309.25 636.85 1375.87 1042.18 26846.92 663.60 578.00 1241.60 5980.00 5980.00 851.32 12811.32 2700.00 425.00 162.44 204.36 366.80 1209.99 1988.21 50.30 10276.48 13359.49 23635.97 1900.00 92.00 50.36 300.00 180.85 80.00 80.00 447.00 RUN DATE 06/29/00 TIME 21:21:16 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/29/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/26/2000" and "06/30/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 578170 1020 578171 1020 578171 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 578172 1020 578172 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578173 1020 578174 1020 578175 1020 578176 1020 578177 1020 578177 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578178 1020 578179 1020 578180 1020 578181 1020 578182 1020 578183 1020 578183 1020 578183 1020 578183 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578184 1020 578185 1020 578185 1020 578185 1020 578185 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578186 1020 578187 1020 578188 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/30/00 1899 INGA LEVINSON 5606620 06/30/00 398 LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING 1101500 0~/30/00 398 LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING 1101500 06/30/00 408 06/30/00 408 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHO 5606620 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHO 5606620 06/30/00 1500 DEBRA MCGANN 5806249 06/30/00 454 PABLO A MOLINA JR 5606620 06/30/00 455 HEATHER MOLL 5806249 06/30/00 902 DAVID MOYER 1108315 06/30/00 826 MULTITRANS 1108601 06/30/00 826 MLTLTI~TLANS 1108601 06/30/00 473 06/30/00 479 06/30/00 1556' 06/30/00 M 06/30/00 494 06/30/00 507 06/30/00 507 06/30/00 507 06/30/00 507 NASER DISTRIBUTORS INC 5606620 NATURES WOOD 5606620 ADONIS L NECESITO 1103501 NG, ANNE 1108602 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 1101500 DAN OSBORNE 1108303 DAN OSBORNE 1108602 DAN OSBORNE 1108602 DAN OSBORNE 1108312 06/30/00 1909 06/30/00 526 06/30/00 526 06/30/00 526 06/30/00 526 C3%ROLYN PAGIN 5606620 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 PENINSUI~ BLUEPRINT 110 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 06/30/00 545 06/30/00 1810 06/30/00 M JEFF PISERCHIO PLAYGROUND BY DESIGN RECK}{OLDER, FR~CES 5606640 4209108 5800000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PROF SVCS CA DEER ADV LEGIS CA DEER 2K VEH SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CATERING PROGRAM PROF SVCS RECREATION PROGRAM PROF SVCS TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTIO TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTIO SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PROF SVCS REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL PERFORMER BLUELINE PRINTS 151253 BLUELINE PRINTS 151257 BLUELINE PRINTS 151254 BLUELINE PRINTS 151255 PROF SVCS CUSTOM PLA194;~KER UNIT RECREATION REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4476.29 0.00 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 200.00 216.53 170.41 386.94 1604.28 1501.64 3105.92 161.00 400.00 685.00 1900.00 7500.00 3000.00 10500.00 10' 7 330.16 315.00 100.00 157.78 2400.00 1080.00 1080.00 405.00 4965.00 180.00 8.12 70.75 70.75 70.75 220.37 1705.00 82914.29 RUN DATE 06/29/00 TIME 21:21:17 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/29/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~-~-~TION C~ITERIA: cransact.trans_date between -06/26/2000" and "06/30/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 578188 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578189 1020 578190 1020 578190 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578191 1020 578192 1020 578192 1020 578192 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578193 1020 578193 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 578194 578195 578195 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578196 1020 578197 1020 578198 1020 578198 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578199 1020 578200 1020 578200 TOTAL CHECK 1020 578201 1020 578202 1020 578203 1020 578204 1020 578205 ? 578206 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 06/30/00 M RECK~OLDER, FRANCES 5800000 06/30/00 579 KEVIN REID 5606620 06/30/00 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 06/30/00 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 06/30/00 588 BART RIBOTTA 5606620 06/30/00 614 SAFE MOVES 1108603 06/30/00 614 SAFE MOVES 1108603 06/30/00 614 SAFE MOVES 1108603 06/30/00 1442 06/30/00 1442 SAN JOSE ICE COMPANY 5606620 SAN JOSE ICE COMPANY 5606620 06/30/00 625 06/30/00 628 06/30/00 628 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 4209114 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 06/30/00 665 06/30/00 668 06/30/00 698 06/30/00 698 SOUT}{ BAY METROPOLITAN SPINNAKER SAILING TALLY'S ENTERPRISES TALLY'S ENTERPRISES 5806449 5806449 4209206 1108530 06/30/00 1201 06/30/00 761 06/30/00 761 TRIELOFF TOURS & TRAVEL WEDEMEYER BAKERY WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5506549 5606620 5606620 06/30/00 768 06/30/00 782 06/30/00 794 06/30/00 M 06/30/00 798 06/30/00 1558 WEST GROUP TRAVICE WHITTEN XEROX CORPORATION YANG, JEFF MERCY ZAMORA JOSE ZUNIGA JR 1101500 4249210 1104310 110 5606620 1106265 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... RECREATION REFUND PROF SVCS TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL PROF SVCS PROF SVCS 4/00 PROF SVCS 3/00 PROF SVCS 5/00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES GENERAL METERED SVC SECURITY SECURITY UMPIRES 5/00 RECREATION PROGRAM TIME & MATERIAL TIME & MATERIAL CANADIAN ROCKIES TRIP SUPPLIES SUPPLIES WESTLAW ACCESS 5/00 PROF SVCS 5/29-6/26/00 SUPPLIES REFUND BOND R6450 PROF SVCS PROF SVCS SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 80.00 160.00 2240.00 1061.67 2099.13 3160.80 1680.00 1620.00 2070.00 1440.00 5130.00 200.00 200.00 400.00 2975.00 1363.94 997.99 2361.93 1879.20 486.00 5800.00 1000.00 6800.00 2959.10 126.29 136.01 262.30 267.06 4785.00 1316.32 14175.00 500.00 150.00 RUN DATE 06/29/00 TIME 21:21:18 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 06/29/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "06/26/2000" and "06/30/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 578207 1020 578208 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND 06/30/00 M BLACK, JENNIFER 5706450 06/30/00 M EILTS, AMY 5806449 TOTAL REPORT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX REISSUE PR CK47035 REISSUE PR CK47443 0.00 0.00 5029.40 5029.40 5029.40 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 15.77 24.39 317733.82 317733.82 317733.82 RUN DATE 06/29/00 TIME 21:21:18 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-201 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON JUNE 23, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $357,609.29 Less Employee Deductions $(114,846.61) NET PAYROLL $242,762.68 Payroll check numbers issued 47975 through 48211 Void check numbers 47974 Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17t:h day of July ,2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON JULY 07, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $578,238.35 Less Employee Deductions $(190,114.99) NET PAYROLL $388,123.36 Payroll check numbers issued 48212 through 48483 Void check CER;-TIFIED: . ~, DireCtor of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of auty ,2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEi(TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Agenda Item No. ~ SUMMARY Meeting Date: July 17, 2000 SUBJECT Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - May 2000 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended May 31, 2000. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of our current portfolio totaled $42.6 million at month end with a maturity value of $43.0 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities currently with a maturity value below market value. The current investment portfolio remained relatively unchanged during the month of May with incoming revenues offsetting expenditures. The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends General fund revenues exceed budget projections at the end of May by 2.14%. Operating expenditures for the General Fund remain below budget by 6.84%. 5'-/ Printed on Recycled Paper - RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the May Treasurer's and Budget report. Submitted by: L~. Eagle~~17~ Deputy Treasurer Ap~or submission: David W. Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino . I ! Budget Report - I I I Actual Actual % of Budget 5f31/00 _ ~ 1998/99Budget1~ 1999/00Budget' YTD05-31-99iYTD05-31-00 Over/Under Analysis of Trends GENERAL FUND Taxes: ~ Sales Tax "- 8,606,000 9,497,000 7,756,178~ 10,253,186 17.78% _pi0Perty Tax ~ 3,708~000 3,862,000 ' 1,250,733 1,687,988 -52.32% Payments rec Nov-Jan & Apr-June Utility Tax 1,964,000 2,308,000 1,866,986 1,829,588 -13.52% Fran_chise &.L!cense _ . 2,027,000 2,393,000 : 1,861,261 2,099,061 -4.31% Large payments rec in June Other_ _ 1,628,000 2,015,000 I 1,375,022 1,705,308 -7.68% Construction tax lower than expected Use of Money & Property 2,158,000 1,930,0001 2,030,331 1,756,4 i I -0.72% Intergovernmental 2,041,331 2,490,706 2,470,6331 2,730,810 19.61% Increased grant and motor vehicle revenues ~Charges for Seyvices . 1,428,000 1,465,000 2,005,057 1,704,134 26.90% Fines & F0r_feitures 180,000 361,000 ~ 356,8621 419,873 26.88%1 Othe~Reven_ue 61,000 161,000 i 94,549 610,025 313.34% ~ Sale of property .~ Total_~?enue 23 801 331 26,482.706 i 21,067,612 2_4.796.3851 2.14% _Opera_ting Expe_ _n~it~ures: _Admini_s~ative j 1~, 168,0 !7 1,426,787 1,019,625 1,137,005 -13.07% Law Enforcement i 5,008,479 5,275,673 4,494,828 4,561,723 -5.67% Community Service 596,465 736,281 i 569,850 725,211 7.45% i Ad-mi-~istrat~;'~ervice _ 2, i10,092 2,479,812i 1,916,747 2,165,056 -4.76% Recreation Service 1,305,016 1,516,572[ 1,191,548 1,314,660 -5.43% 1,536,664 1,815,402i -0.72% . 6,758,2831 -10.16% Public Works 7,9_ 12,243 8,206,032 6,373,3241 _ Total ExPenditures 19,782,180 21,635,989 I 17,102,586 18,477,3401 -6.84% OPerating Transfers In 475,000 725,000 435,411 664,5871 0.00%1 Ope?_tingTransfe_r. sOut _ _ -9,498,000 -8,838,539 ! -8,706,502 -8,156,565~ 0.67%! Net l~co{ne/Loss "' -5.003 849 _3 266 822 i -4,306,065! -1,172,934 -60.83%[ P 'l Rate of Return Comparision 6.20% 6.00% 5.80% 5.60% 5.40% 5.20% 5.00% 4.80% 4.60% · LAIF ~ Cupertino 4/99 5/99 6/99 7/99 8/99 9/99 10/99 11/99 12/99 1/00 2/00 3/00 4/00 Investments By Type Managed Portfolio (Jasrl 0% Corporate Bonds 0% LAIF 28% US Treasury Note 54% Money Market 3% Mortgage Obligation 15% City of Cupertino May 2000 AU'I 1VITY DATE PURCHASE I MATURITY [ ] ADJUSTEDIMATURITY! MARKET ]UNREALIZED KEF YIELD COST VALUE I~ALVC- l'PRO'mmoss None SEL'~3RfflES MATURED 01/14/00 05/25/00 'lreasury Note 6a 5.58% 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 SECUgITi~P~ ~None CURRENT PORTFOLIO 05TJ1/00 lCupertifio National o 0 0 0 CORPORATE BONDS o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 LAIF 05/31~0~ State Pool ; 6f 6.19% MARKET FUNDS 12,153,101 12,153,101 1 ,2~5~,10]- 0 05/31/00 Cupertino Natl Bank ! 6j 05/31/00 Cupertino ~atI-Sweep account !6j .......... 0~ 1/00 Schwab 6j 5.74%: 5.47% 5.36% 223,438 - ..... 2-23~3~- -- -- ~ 2~ f4~g ...... 0- 303,25~-- ..... 3~ 303,255 576,887. 576,887 ...... 37-6~88-7-- ~ 1,103,580, 1,103,580: 1,103,580 0 MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS 07/09/93 ~5~-07 FHLMC(P) ~]30[93--~09/15/07 : FHLMC(P) 05/15/08 FHLMC(P) 16k 6k 6k 6.11%- -1-,~T0,968: 1,000,000 i 985,180 (34,788~ 7.42% 2,502,252 2,400,000 2,413,752 ~g'g3~0) 6.62% 2,947,5~1 2,860,000 2,713,854 (233,677) 6,469,751 6,260,000 6,112,786 (356,965 U-S G-O¥-E~E~I-T SECURITIES 12/12/96 06/30/00 127Y~--' 06/30/00 08/04/97 11/30/00 08/06/97 05/31/01 -- -08~29/97 07/31/00 10/08/97 09/30/00 ~)T08/97 ' 03/31/01 10/08/97 09/30/01 -- 96/25/99 ' 11/30/02 01/10/00 12/31/01 Treasury Note Treasury Note !Treasury Note Treasury Note ;Treasury Note Treasury Note !Treasury Note i Treasury Note ' Treasury Note 'Treasury Note i6a i6a i6a {6a i6a 404 404 (S,79~) (15,396) (1,881 (14,896) (54,092 (17,324 01/10/00; ;'-- 01/14/00' 02/07/00 ] 06/30/02 i Treasury Note 08/17/00 lTreasury Note 06/30/03 ITreasury Note Total Managed Portfolio Average Yield' Average Length to Maturity '(in years) 6.00%i 999,906 1,000,000 1,000,31~- 6.oo%1 999,906 170-0~ ,~ 0 1,000,310 6.01%i 2,495,643 2,500,0001 2,489,850 6.05%! 2,509,921 2,500,000 i 2,494,525 6.03%1 1,000,143 ' 1,000,000 ! 1,000,3101 5.71%[ 1,001,261 i 1,000,000 ', 999,380 ' 5.75%i 2,009,276~ 2,000,000[ 1,994,380 5.79%1 2,013,826 !- 2,000,000! 1,989,380! 5.90%i 2,498,617! 2,500,000 '. 2,444,525 ! 6.31%! 2,493,099i 2,500,000 '~ 2,475,775: 6.33%1 2,496,3791 2,500,000! 2,476,575i 5.75% 494,047 500,000I 494,140! 6.62'~1 2,415,231 ~ 2,500,000 I 2,413,2751 I 23,427,254:23,500,000I 23,272,7351 43,153,686I 43,016,681 [ 42,642,202 r ( 19,804)] (154,519) (511,484] 6.07% 1.36 City of Cupertino May 2000 !ACTIVITY DATE I iPURCHASEIMATURITY - DESCRIPTION I I / ADJUSIED MATURITY MARKET/UNREALIZI~D i TRU~T & AGENCY PORTFOLIO UE~TYFYCATES OF DEPOSIT: 07/26/99 -~7'00 Cupertino Natl(Kestcr Trust) 6b -- 4.15% 36,685 36,685 Total Trust & Agency Portfolio 36,685 36,685 36,685 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO Traffic Impact Franklin 5.68% 19,100 19,100 19,100 -0 Memorial/Wilson Escrow B (# 400948) Cash 1,463 1,463 1,463 0 06/30/00 U.S. Treasury- Stripped 5.38% 6,567,000 -- 6,567,000 6,567,000 0 6,568,463 6,568,463 6,568,463 0 Escrow Reserves .... ~T0~/9-3- - - 01/01/03 Repro - Escrow A (400972) 6.25% 2,833~,4~23-- 2,833,425 12/16/92 12/16/99 Repro - Escrow A (400957) 6.10% 849,412 849,412 12/16/92 12/16/99 !Repro - Escrow B (400963) 6.10% 1,350,074 1,350,074 5,032,911 5,032,911 2,833,425 ---849,412 1 ;-3~,0-7~-- ........ 5,032,911, 0 Blackberry/Fremont Older 1'993 Escrow A (0400966) Cash 04/06/93 08/15/00 U.S. Treasury ..... ~'- 02/15/01 U.S. Treasury Stripped Iht 3,496 3,496 3,496 0 6.23% 919,810 915,000 920,147 337 6.05% 27,930,853 28,910,000 27,739,434 (T9T,~ig] 28,854,159~ 29,828,496~ 28,663~77 (191~82] T~l-l]~d~ese rye Portfolio 40,474,633 41,448,970: 40,283,551, (191,082] City of Cupertino Summary of Budget Transfers 5/31/00 Budget Revenue Expenditure Acct # Adjustment Budget Budget Description 1999/00 ADOPTED BUDGET 47,967,000 49,753,447 PROJECT CARRYOVERS various 1998/99 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances :various 3,461,392 3,461,392 Department carryovers 610-98xx-9400 107,572 107,572 Grant carryovers 110-2401-7014 127,689 127,689 Grant carryovers 110-2402-7014 28,366 28,366 Project carryovers various 7,989,841 7,989,841 Budget carryovers :various I, 166,310 1,166,310 Budget carryovers ~ 610-9853-9400 20,000 20,000 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: Grant funded projects various 1,742,354 Grant carryovers 110-0000-4432 105,811 Block Grant carryover 110-0000-4431 28,366: TCI equipment purchase 110-0000-4054 155,0001 Local law enforcement block grant 110-0000-4431 25,529: OTI for property purchase ~ 420-0000-4900 470,699 Donation - Lions : 560-0000-4811 1,000 Apple in-lieu fees for public art 110-0000-4811 100,000 OTI for Target contribution 420-0000-4910 50,000 TFCA-Bollinger Rd bike improvement 270-0000-4432 140,000 TFCA-Wolfe Rd bike improvement :270-0000-4432 100,000' TFCA-Woife Arterial Management 420-0000-4432 120,000! Authorized Gas Tax appropriation 270-0000-4910 51,840' EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: Youth Leadership :220-4011-6111 5,000 5,000 Grant funded projects . various 1,742,354i 1,742,354 City channel equipment 110-3500-9400 155,000 155,000 Human service program 110-3300-7102 29,585 29,585 Telecom grant-K. Tully 110-1031-6206 250: 250 Stelling Rd Annexation 110-7305-7014 4,000 [ 4,000 Local law enforcement block grant 110-2402-7014 28,366 28,366 SJ Conservation Corp P.O. 29939 110-8601-7014 , 5,568 5,568 HR Litigation cost 110-4511-7014 25,000 25,000 Telcom grant adjustment i110-1031-6206 ~ -2501 -250 OTO for property purchace '110-0100-8020 i 470,699! 470,699! 470,699 Purchase of property 1420-9217-8020 ~: I 470,699 Donation - Lions i 560-6620-9300 1,000i 1,000 Library expanded hours 110-1040-7018 85,000 85,000 425-9313-9300 143,000 143,000 Four Seasons Plaza Four Seasons Art 425-9314-7014 100,000 100,000 Apple in-lieu fees for public art 110-1042-7014 100,000 100,000 OTO for Target contribution 110-0100-8020 50,000 Traffic signal Saich Way 420-9526-9300 50,000 Add'l appro. To local share projects 1270-9420-9300 51,840 Add'l appro. To local share projects 110-8604-7014 50,000 TFCA-Bollinger Rd bike improvement 270-9443-9300 50,000 51,840 25,000 25,000 140,000 140,000 TFCA-Bollinger Rd bike improvement 270-9443-9300 35,000 35,000 TFCA-Bollinger Rd bike improvement '270-9420-9300 -35,000 -35,000 TFCA-Wolfe Rd bike improvement 270-9440-9300 100,000 100,000 TFCA-Wolfe Arterial Management 420-9529-9300 120,000 120,000 TFCA-Wolfe Arterial Management 420-9529-9300 30,000 30,000 TFCA-Wolfe Arterial Management 270-9420-9300 -30,000 -30,000 Authorized Gas Tax appropriation 110-0100-8020 51,840 51,~4~ 1999/00 ADJUSTED BUDGET 51,057,599 66,608,569 12,000,000 IRevenue Comparison 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 Utility Tax 4 Franchise & License 5 Other 6 Money and Property 7 Intergovernmental 8 Charges For Services 9 Fines & Forfeitures 10 Other Revenue OYTD 05/31/99 · YTD 05/31/00 8,000,000 IExpenditure Comparison I 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1 Administration 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Admin. Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Dev. 7 Public Works I · YTD 05/31/99 ! I rnYTD 05/31/00 ~ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino ay_ Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues' No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $20 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 years Complies (FHLMC at 9.5 yrs) "Remainder up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except govts) Complies Bankers Acceptances 270 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 15% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies fn:g:\finance\jessef19900audit.xls I of 2 7/13/00 10:46 AM Filename:g:\finance\jessef19900audit\proj600.xls i 5131100 ! ~ I Fund Proi~ Description i CIO enc CIO budget! Adopted i chan.qe ~ Total Bud.qet I Encumbrance' Expenditure i Current Bal~ 210 961~. Minor Storm Drain Improv 75,000' [ 75,00~.00 ] 3,948.62 71,051.38 2i5 9620 Storm Drain Projects ' 1,084,7431 t 1,084,743.001 0.00 55,538.68 1,029,204.32 270 9306 §rev Crk/Tantau to E.city ITt. 57,585[ ~ ~ 57,585.00i 0.00 55,999.58 1,585.42 - ~70 930~ DeAnza Rainbow-Prospect I 15,836 15,836.00 i 15,836.00 ;)70 9401 Barrier Removal I 41,839 ~ 41,839.00 6,686.13 35,152.87 ~_7~ 9465. ~eAnza/Stev Creek to Alves~! 301,690 (50,000) 251,690.001 5,900.00 17,996.87 227,793.13 ....... ~ ! 32,000.00[ 32,000.00 270 9410 ~ikeway master plan I 32,000 ! ] 270 9411 W. Stev Creek bike lane 1,617.981 23,824 ~ 25,441.98 10,028.69 2,752.30 12,660.99 27_0 '9~!2 S:Stelling bikelane 13,500.00 86,500 50,000 1 150,000.00 36,614.67 23,487.68 89,897.65 270 9413 De Anza bike lane 60,000 60,000.00 2,452.50 5,047.50 52,500.00 270 9420 _L0__c~l share of grants 0 200,000 (200,000) 0.00 Q00 270 9421. . Measure A CIP improvements 0 2,000,000 ~i 2,000,000.00 2,000,006.00 270 9422 Stevens Creek Improvements 14,297.00 6,623 ~ I 20,920.00i I 20,919.28 0.72 270 9431 i Stev Crk/Blaney TlS modification 0 75,000i 75,000.00t 800.00 I 74,200.00 276 9432: Hmstd belleville TlS modif. 0 75,000 ! 75,000.00 ! 75,000.00 270 9434 Underground Stev Crk I 0 80,000 ! 80,000.00 6 3 80,000.00 ~70 9435i Neighborhood traf calming I 0 100,000 50,000 150,000.00 23,493.44 84, I .67. 41,892.89 270 9436 Stev-Crk Trail Bike facilities i 0 50,000 50,000.00 4,085.49 7,364.51 38,550.00 :~0 943~IBike lanes on Tantau ave. ~ 350,000 I 350,000.00 12,954.00 4,546.00/ 332,500.00 270 9438' Miller Ave bike facilities 275'000 I 275,000.00 43,045.50 3,954.50' 228,000.00 ~-7_0 9439_-. Mc_~lella_n ped~s_ Safety ' 01 35,000 i 35,000.00 0.00 35,909.30 (909.30) 270 _94_40~ Wolfebikefaci!itiy improv 001 225,000 1 225,000.06 38,413.00 2,087.00 184,500.00 270 9441 Bike detection enhancement , 26,495 r 26,495.00 19,772.54 6,722.46 --~7~_ _~ 944_~ ~olling_erped_estrian'~V~lk I 0 j 146,000 ] 146,000.00 145,777.64 222.36 270 9443 Bo_lli_ng_? R_d bike facility i_m_pr0y. I [ 0 I 175,000 ~ 175,000.00 12,387.00 2,613.00 160,000.00 270 9502 Saratoga/Sunnyv'l TlS interconne 13,588.00! 12,587 0 ' 26,175.00 0.00 24,402.30 1,772.70 '~7~_ _95_? ~iiier a_t_Phil - '- '- ! 34'07610 34,076.00 23,848.76 11,163.77 (936.53) 270 9531 Ramp meter signal 280~85 ~ 500,000 ~ 500,000.00 ; 500,000.00 2~0 -'9~)3~ §R8~/,~v (~-r~-~/S modifi~cafion 100,02~ , 75,000 75,000.00 9,227.80i 772.20 65,000.00 28~--' (~1~ M~,ClelI~ ~anch bldg improv. 133,000 i 233,023.021 82,914.29' 21,302.35i 211,720.67 -~'~- 910~5~r~( ~enovations i08,338 250,000 i 358'338'00i 103,384.42 172,039.29 4_2-0 9110 _St0ck!me!r Property Acquisi!ion 4,990.00 20,025 i 25,015.001 22,742.32 2,272.68 420 9113 Stev Crk trail masterplan t 0 80,000 ~, 80,000.00i 63,371.46 16,671.03 (42.49) 4'~0 9114 M-emorial Park bathroom remodel I 0 200,000 ~ 200,000.00! 842.50 38,576.98 160,580.52 49,697.90 ~20 ~,~06 ADA91 "- 271,964 400,000 671,964.001 48,056.47 574,209.63 420 92i(~ Service center expanison ' j 0 250,000 250,000.00[ 11,195.701 13,918.45 224,885.85 ~ ~,20 ___9217 ~ousing Assis-_ta_nc_e I 0 *YE adj. I 470,699 470,699.46 i 476,737.69' (6,038.23) 420 9429 D e_A_nz_a_ B_r!d g_ e Wid eni ng .... 20,264 20,264.00 6,482.30 13,781.70 .._420 94__3.0_.Ste_v Canyon Rd_w!dening 17,732.00 10,460 1,000,000 I 1,026,192.00 178,330.47; 56,021.531 793,840.00 __4_20 9523 ~8_5_ @__Sty.Creek RT lane __ ~ 5,9261 5,926.00 i I 5,926.00 42_0 9~24- DeAnza/Stev Creek arterial mgmt 266,257.14 312,170 i 578,427.141 162,774.36i 383,452 08! 32,200.70 420 ~25 Homeste. ad'~,~terial Mgmt Proj. 77,928.81 2,738 i 80,666.81~ 10,999.24 66,929.57! 2,7? 4201 .,526 Stevens Crk @ Saich Signal 117,~19.83~ 2,535 i 50,000 ~ 170,254.83i 3,006.83 133,506.03~ 33,74 .... I fn:g:\finance~jesset19900audit.xls 2of2 7/13/00 10:46 AM Filename:g:\finance\jessef19900audit\proj600.xls ~U~C~ ['- ~roi# I -- DeScriPt!on Homestead/Tantau T/S upgrade traffic safety improv. Wolfe Rd.arterial Phase III Hmstd arterial mgmt Stevens Canyon Landfill Stev. Creek Specfic Plan Creekside Park Library expansion Seni0~ Center Expansion Four Season Corner Four Season Art Sculpture Blackberry Farm BBF masterp~an s{ud~ ~lue Pheasant ADA Sports Center ADA Sports Ctr.fitness expansion TO{al [ cio enc 63,477.16 7,400.00 335,218.73 26,518.76 12,216.46 8,548.15 0.00 981,010.02 C/O budget 71,000 500,000 0 0 0 7541 138,656 45,122 3,855,982 70,171 165,645 0 15,729 3,467 436,569 7,989,844 513110 Adopted *YE adj. 57,000 175,000 50,000 5,125,000 change 300,000 146.699 143,000 100,000 Total Budget I E_ncumbrance 71,000.00 500,000.00 300,000.00 146,699.00 0.00 64,231.16 138,656.00 52,522.00 4,191,200.73 296,689.76 100,000.00 352,861.46 50,000.00 4,094.28 16,704.74 10,912.50I 23,841.36 0.00 11,162.00 0.00 15,060.24 3,155,470.00 25,432.16I 0.00 7,020.00 Expenditure ~ Current Bal. 4,705.72 62,200.00 4,332.26 478,963.00 4,087.50 285,000.00 21,209.82 101,647.82 105,497.41 (105,497.41) 52,912.88 156.28 5,553.23 133,102.77 33,751.35 3,710.41 663,299.24 372,431.49 i,086.60 270,171.00 5,372.76 94,627.24 53,842.78 291,998.68 50,000.00 15,729.00 __[ 15,729.00 12,015.15 2,602.32/ 5,945.83 ' -3,467.00 436,569.00 0.001 1,360.00 435,209.00 2,917,893 17,013,744.50 4,078,455.74~ 2,866,319.13 10,068,969.63 I ok RESOLUTION NO. 00-203 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO A POTENTIAL CLAIM RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY'S HOUSING PROGRAM. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: The City Attorney of the City of Cupertino is hereby authorized to defend Cupertino Community Services (hereinaRer "CCS"), a nonprofit, charitable corporation, with respect to the potential claim of Paul Fong related to the administration by CCS of the City's housing eligibility program for below market rate housing units. In granting this authority to the City Attorney, the City Council hereby expressly and unconditionally waives any actual or potential conflict of interest which may exist between his duties as City Attorney and his representation of CCS with respect to said claim. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17thday of July ,2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino b-/ RESOLUTION 00-204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "UPLAND WAY 00-03", APPROXIMATELY 2.836 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF UPLAND WAY BETWEEN RAINBOW DRIVE AND UPLAND WAY; WANG (APN 366-03-011) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 2.836+ acres on the west side of Upland Way (APN 366-03-011) has been filed by property owner Roger and Annie Wang; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-165 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Upland Way 00-03"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 35150.5 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 35150.5 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated "Upland Way 00-03", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; 2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: a. That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 2.836 acres. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. Resolution 00-204 Page 2 c. The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. d. The City Council on July 17, 1995, enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory to City of Cupertino Pre RHS-40 zone. e. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. f. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions. h. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. i. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. j. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. 1. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. m. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. 3. That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 35151 et seq. of the Government Code. 4. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached fi.om the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. Resolution 00-204 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Council of the City of City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A UPLAND WAY 00-03 All of that certain parcel of land situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and described as follows: Being all of LOT 6 and a portion of UPLAND WAY as said LOT and WAY are shown on that certain map entitled "TRACT NO. 492 - MARQUETTE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - Portion of the NW ¼ of Section 26, T.7S.,.R.2W.', filed in Book 18 of Maps at Pages 4 & 5, Records of Santa Clara County California, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said LOT 6 and said comer being on the west line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "UPLAND WAY 86-02''; Thence southerly along the said westerly line of the said annexation ("UPLAND WAY 86-02") SOUTH 180.00 feet to the southerly line of UPLAND WAY (60 foot street); Thence westerly along said southerly line West 190.66 feet to the beginning of a curve; Thence along said curve concave northerly with a radius of 230 feet through a central angle of 25°00'00'' and an arc length of 100.36 feet to a point of compound curvature; Thence along said compound curve concave northeasterly with a radius of 171.36 feet through a central angle of 42°59'00'' and an arc length of 128.55 feet to the point of tangency; Thence North 22°01'00" West 135.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve; Thence along said curve concave southerly with a radius of 45.00 feet through a central angle of 124°41'00" and an arc length of 97.93 feet to the point oftangency; Thence South 33018'00" West 80.86 feet to the beginning of a curve; Thence along said curve concave southeasterly with a radius of 370.00 feet through a central angle of 14o12'00'' and an arc length of 91.70 feet to the most northerly comer of LOT 9 of said TRACT NO. 492 and said comer also being on the line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "UPLAND WAY 90-05'; Thence westerly along the easterly line of said "UPLAND WAY 90-05" North 70o54'00'' West 60.00 feet to the sideline of said Upland Way and to the most northerly comer of said "UPLAND WAY 90-05" and also to the easterly annexation line of "BUBB NO. 2"; Thence along the said easterly line of"BUBB NO. 2" the following three (3) described courses: 1. Thence along a curve concave easterly from a tangent that bears North 19006'00'' East with a radius of 430.00 feet through a central angle of 14o12'00'' and an a~c length of 106.57 feet 2. Thence North 33018'00'' East 80.86 feet to the beginning of a curve, 3. Thence along said curve concave southerly with a radius of 105.00 feet through a central angle 101o44'35" (101o45'00" per TRACT NO. 492) and an arc length of 186.45 feet (186.47 feet per TRACT NO. 492) to the most westerly comer of LOT 5 and said comer being on the northerly line of UPLAND WAY as said LOT and WAY are shown on the said map of TRACT NO. 492 Thence leaving the said "BUBB NO. 2" annexation and along the northeasterly line of UPLAND WAY and along a curve concave southwesterly from a tangent that bears South 44057'25'' East with a radius 105.00 feet through a central angle of 22°56'25'' (22o56'00'' per TRACT NO. 4920 and an arc length of 42.04 feet (42.02 feet per TRACT NO. 492) to a point oftangency; Thence southerly along the easterly line of said UPLAND WAY South 22°01'00" East 87.56 feet (87.55 feet per TRACT NO. 492) to the comer common to LOTS 5 & 6 of said TRACT NO. 492; Thence easterly along the northerly line of said LOT 6 EAST 336.83 feet (336.84 feet per TRACT NO. 492) to the westerly line of"UPLAND WAY 86-02' and to the point of beginning. Containing 2.836 acres of land, more or less. APN: 366-03-11 Date of Revision: May 6, 2000 uplandwayO0-03 7/4-s GROSS AREA; 2.836 acres of land, more or less. ~N: 366--03-11 This Plot Map is based on record information and does not represent o field survey. See the map of Tract No. 492 filed in Book 18 of Mops at Pages 4 & 5, Records of Santa Clara County, California. Boundary line of proposed annexattion --Existing city limits line BUBB NO. 2 Ex. City limit line of Cupertino as estoblishe( by annexation entitled "BUBB NO. 2" C6 C7 g LOT Ex. City limit line of Cupertino as established by annexation entitled "UPLAND WAY 90-05" CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RA]~IUS DELTA C1 78.54 50.00 90'00'00' CE 100.36 230.00 ES'OO'OQ· c-3 IE8,55 171.36 4E'59'00' C4 74,18 170.00 PS°O0'O0° C5 83,54 111.36 4P'59'00° -% tot. EE8,49 105.00 IE4'41'00° C7 97.93 45,00 1E4'41'00' CB 91.70 370,00 14*1P'OO' [:9 106,57 430,00 14'12'00' CIO I96.45 105.00 101'44'35' CIO(R£C) (186,47) (I05,00) (101'45'00°) Cll 4P.04 105000 2P'56'25° C11(REC) (4E,OE) (I05.00) (2E'56'00°) 'iRA 81TE LOCATION MAP no scale N 90'00'00' E 340,00' NROSP 0 LOT 4 ,-~ [CT ROAD N 90'00'00° E 340,00' LOT 5 Ex. City limit line of Cupertino os .0" by annexation entitled "UPLAND WAY 86-02" aa S 90'00'00° E 336.84' % PARCEL B 504 M. 44 RUBEN BEJARANO P.LS. 5841 EXPIRES: 12-31-00 10755 PORTER LANE SAN JOSE, CA 95127 ~(4i8) 272-2975 LOT 6 ?p-~ N 90'00'00' W 140,66' N 90'00'00° ~/ 265.00' WAY "" N 90'00'00° ~/ 190,66' PARCEL C 165 M..37 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED UPLAND WAY 00-03 REVISED DATE: 5/8/2000 7A'~ b RESOLUTION. 00-205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "GRENOLA DRIVE 00-02", APPROXIMATELY 0.215 ACRE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GRENOLA WAY BETWEEN FLORA VISTA AVENUE AND ANN ARBOR DRIVE; LIOU AND CHEN (APN 326-28-009) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0.215+ acre on the north side of Grenola Drive (APN 326-28-009) has been filed by property owners Ker-Chung Liou and Lih- Yn Chen; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-182 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Grenola Drive 00-02"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 35150.5 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CounCil of the City of Cupertino as follows: That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 35150.5 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated "Upland Way 00-03", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; 2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: a. That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.215 acre. bo That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. Resolution 00-205 Page 2 Co The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. do The City Council on June 5, 2000, enacted an ordinance prezoning the territory to CitY of Cupertino Pre RI- 10 zone. subj eot e. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions. ho That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. j. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. ° That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 35151 et seq. of the Government Code. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. Resolution 00-205 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Member__s o__f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENT I TLED: ~' GRENOLA DRIVE 00-02 All that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being all of Lot 87 in Tract No. 682, GARDEN GATE VILLAGE UNIT No. 2, a map of which was filed for record on February 20, 195'0 in Book 26 of Maps at page(s) 24 and 25, said lot being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot on the Southerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino, California, entitled "STELLING PARK 65-6"; Thence along said Northerly line of said Lot also being the southerly line of said annexation S89°57'40"E 65.71 feet to an angle point on the Northerly line of said Lot; Thence along the Easterly line of said annexation of said City N00°03'55"W 0.70 feet to an angle point on the Northerly line of said Lot; Thence leaving said Easterly line of said annexation S89°54'E 9.29 feet to the most Northeasterly corner of said Lot; Thence along the Easterly line thereof, South 125.53 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot on the Northerly line of Grenola Drive, 60 feet in width; Thence along said Northerly line of said Grenola Drive, West 75.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot; Thence along the Westerly line thereof, North 124.89 feet to the point of beignning. Containing 0.215 of an acre, more or less. Date: February 25, 2000 APN: 326-28-009 Site Address: 21,095 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA Revised: March 23, 2000 VIC EY, I 5 TIN~ AgIMEY, A'rlQN: ",~TP_.LLII4~ PARY-.6'B-6' l,,I 58'9 ~7 40 E 7~oo ~ .-$89 54E 9.29 ~oT To .5 cALF__ E~,,HII~ IT "B" PROPOSED AN NEY, ATI 0 TO THE C.l-t"( OF CLJPERTII,,iO ENTITLED: GEENOLA ~)E. 00-07- rrEIs. 2.6~ '2.00(...) 5CALF__: RESOLUTION 00-206 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "ALCAZAR AVENUE 00-08", APPROXIMATELY 0.183 ACRE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALCAZAR AVENUE BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE AND IMPERJakL AVENUE; BRUFFY AND EASTMAN (APN 357-19-012) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0.183+ acre on the south side of Alcazar Avenue (APN 357-19-012) has been filed by property owner Bill Bruffey and Patricia Eastman; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-195 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Alcazar Avenue 00-08"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 35150.5 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 35150.5 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated "Alcazar Avenue 00-08", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; 2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: a. That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.183 acre. bo That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. Resolution 00-206 Page 2 Co The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. The City Council on May 16, 1983, enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone. e. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. j. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. me That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. o That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 35151 et seq. of the Government Code. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. Resolution 00-206 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO T~E CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ENTITLED: ALCAZAR AVE. 00-08 Ail that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being all of Lot 20 of Tract No. 300, MAP OF NOONAN SUBDIVISION - UNIT No. 2, which map was filed for record on May 6, 1946 in Book 10 of Maps at Page 16, in the Office of the Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot on the Southerly line of AlCazar Avenue, 50 feet wide, said.point being distant S89°58'E 200.24 feet from the Southwesterly corner of the "Alcazar 86-01" annexation to the City of Cupertino, California. Thence along the Northerly line of said Lot, also being the Southerly line of said Alcazar Avenue and the Southerly line of said annexation, continue S89°58'E 60.00 feet to the North- easterly corner of said Lot, also being the Northwesterly corner of the "Alcazar Ave. 97-10" annexation to said City. Thence along the Easterly line of said Lot, also being the Westerly line of said "Alcazar Ave. 97-10" annexation, South 132.59 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot, also being the Southwesterly corner of said "Alcazar Ave. 97-10" annexation. Thence along the Northerly line of the "Noonan 73-8" annexation and along the Southerly line of said Lot, N89°58'W 60.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot. Thence leaving said Northerly line'of said Noonan annexation and along the Westerly line of said Lot, North 132.59 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.183 of an acre, more or less. APN: 357-19-012 Date: May 10, 2000 Prepared by: E.J. Hahamian, Civil Engineer 60.00 "' '"' '. N ~9° 5~'W' 73- o0" RESOLUTION 00-207 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 SENIOR CENTER EXPANSION, PROJECT NUMBER 99-9210 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, that Change Order No. 4 for changes to work which has been approved by the Director of Public Works and this day presented to this Council, be, and it hereby approved in conjunction with the project known as SENIOR CENTER EXPANSION, PROJECT NUMBER 99-9210 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds are available and no further appropriation is necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CLJPEI INO c~u 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408)777-3354 FAX: (408)777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO SENIOR CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 99-9201 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 Contractor McCrary Construction Company 1300 Elmer Street Belmont, CA 94002=4011 The following changes are hereby approved: 4~_ 4B. 4C. 4D. 4E. 4F. Upgrade 2 Modemfold Partitions to STC Rating of 55 Add studs to P2 Partition per Structural Engineer Install (4) Simpson THA-1 Hangers Fire Dept. Plan Checking Fee Install Fab. Angle Brackets for Restroom Counters Add Shear Panel Blocks for Roof Tresses Total Change Order No. 4 Total Project: Original Contract Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Change Order No. 4 Revised Contract $ 3,357,800.00 2,753.92 9,171.00 175,674.00 14,271.00 $ 3,559,669.92 10,361.00 259.00 105.00 553.00 1,643.00 1,350.00 $ 14,271.00 CONTRACTOR CITY OF CUPERTINO Title Date Ben J. Viskovich Director/ffPublic Works City counca: ~d,/ /?~'~' (o~) Resolution No. OOi& o)' Printed on Recycled Paper RESOLUTION 00-208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM HUGH FREEMAN JACKSON SR., TRUSTEE OF THE JACKSON FAMILY TRUST, CHILDREN'S TRUST, CREATED UNDER THE AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 22, 1988, APN 326-50-063 WHEREAS, Hugh Freeman Jackson Sr., Trustee of the Jackson Family Trust, Children's Trust, created under the Agreement dated December 22, 1988, has executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all his rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17t~ day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Hugh Freeman Jack.~n: ,qr.:Trll.q~m ~F ~h~ .T~mm ~mily Trust, Children's Trust, created under the Agreement dated December 22 1988 ~~e~ r~~ ~ ~ ~ "~~', ~~J ~y of -~~ ' ~e, ~~, ~, c~ ~ ~, ~ at law ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~t ~ r~ ~ si~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ C~, ~ of ~~a, ~ ~i~ly ~~ ~ folly: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley for beneficial use upon the lands overlying said un~er~ basin, and GRANTOR hereby irrevocably authorized GRANTEE, its successc=s and assigns, an behalf of the GRANTOR and its succesac=s in ownership or overlying lands in the said lots to take fr~ said u~ basin within the said lots any and all water which the owner or owners of said overlying ~ may be entitled to take for beneficial use an said lands ar~ to supply such water to such owner or cont~ne~_ in th~.~ instrument shall be deemed to authorize GRANTEE to enter authorize GRANTEE to make any withdrawal of water which will result in d~mage to any building or structure erected ~pon said lots. This assignment, conveyance ar~ authorization is made for the k~_nefit of lots within the above described plat and description and shall bir~ the owner of said lots within said plat and description. /{~._ ~ IN ~S WHEREOF, ~ has execut~ this ~ th~ day and year first above writtan. ~g~F-'reem22 ~a-ckso~,/ sr., Trustee of the Jackson Family Trust, Children's Trust, created under the Agreement dated December 22,1988 (Acknowl~t and Notarial Seal Attached) Order No. 712791 Page No. 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on April 7, 1983 in Book 510 of Maps, page 40. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the portion conveyed in Deed recorded April 14, 1988 in Book K501, page 558 and more particularly described as follows: A portion of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record in Book 510 of Maps, at page 40, Santa Clara County Records, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the Southwesterly line of said Parcel 1', South 51 ° 52' 30" East, 43.02 feet to the West line of that certain Ingress-Egress Easement recorded in Book [903 of Official Records, at page 732, Santa Clam County Records; thence along said West line, North 00° 00' 46" West 40.80 feet to the Northerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said Northerly line, North 89° 53' 00" West, 14.63 feet to a tangent curve to the left in said Northerly line, having a radius of 20.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 73° 28' 41" an arc distance of 25.65 feet to the point of beginning. APN: 326-50-063 ARB: 326-50-x19, x20 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) ) County of Santa Clara ) SS On this 21st day. of June, 2000 before me, CECILIA J. O'BRIEN, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Hugh Freeman Jackson, Sr., personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacities, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting Monday, June 19, 2000 ROLL CALL At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Statton called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. City Council members present: Mayor John ShaRon, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Redevelopment Agency members present: Chairman John Shatton, Vice-Chair Sandra James, and Agency members Don Bumett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Redevelopment Agency members absent: None. Staffpresent: Carol Atwood, Acting City Manager, City Administrative Services Director and Finance Director of the Agency; Charles Kilian, City Attorney and General Counsel to the Agency, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, City Planner Ciddy Wordell, Public Information Officer Donna Krey, Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, and Kimberly Smith, City Clerk and Secretary to the Agency. Redevelopment Attorney for the City and Agency: Nicole Murphy. Representatives ofKeyser Marston: Debbie Kern and Paul Andersen. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Ae Joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed redevelopment plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Statton opened the public hearing. Atwood reviewed the history of the Vallco Shopping Center and discussed the intent of the redevelopment project. Nicole Murphy, Redevelopment Attorney, entered into the record the following: Exhibit 1, affidavit of publication; Exhibit 2, certificate of mailing to property owners and business owners and operators; Exhibit 3, certificate of mailing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency; and Exhibit 4, certification of legal actions taken by th~ City Council, Planning Commission, and Agency. Murphy summarized the proposed redevelopment plan, and it was entered into the record as Exhibit 5. She reviewed the major evidentiary findings, which are as follows: A finding that the project area is a blighted area, meeting the legal qualifications June 19, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 2 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency prescribed by the Legislature, and that redevelopment of the project area is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the community redevelopment law; a finding that the adoption and carrying out of the redevelopment plan is economically sound and feasible; a finding that the redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Cupertino; and a finding that the condemnation of said property as provided for in the redevelopment plan is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan and that adequate provisions have been made for the payment of properties to be acquired as provided by law. She said the evidence supporting these and other findings is contained principally in the Agency's report to the City Council. Mr. Paul Anderson, Kaiser Marsten Associates, summarized parts of the report of the agency to the City Council that included the basic supporting documentation for the redevelopment plan and the ordinance that will adopt a redevelopment plan. He summarized the blight findings, the implementation plan, the supplement, and a report to City Council. Debbie Kern, Kaiser Marsten, reviewed the projects and programs and the financial feasibility component of the report to Council. The Report of the Agency to the City Council was entered into the record as Exhibit 6, and the Supplement to the Report of the Agency to the City Council was entered into the record as Exhibit 7. City Planner Wordell summarized the environmental impact report, which was entered into the record a submitted as part of the report to City Council, identified as Exhibit 8 The roles governing property owner participation were entered into the record as Exhibit 9. Wordell said that some written comments had been received and were already a part of the record. One was a letter received May 31 st from Public Economics, Inc., which is a consulting firm representing Foothill-De Anza College District and Fremont Union High School District. The letter states that it is not a written objection, but represents an ongoing dialogue that they would like to have. She said a second letter was submitted this evening and which was distributed to City Council. It will also be made part of the record and is again part of the continuing dialogue hoping that there would be some provision made for an affordable housing program to specifically address school district employees. She noted that two other letters that also been received today and would be included as part of the record, as Exhibit 10. (This exhibit is comprised of (1) A letter from Public Economics, Inc., dated June 19; (2) A letter from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority dated June 16); (3) A letter from Bay Area Legal Aid dated June 19; and (4) Two letters from Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines & Bamh, dated June 19). Statton asked for oral testimony in favor or opposed to the redevelopment plan. Mr. William Litt said he was an attorney with Bay Area Legal Aid which represents low income residents of Cupertino. He said he was submitting for the record a letter containing their objections. He also submitted a videotape of the proposed project area June 19, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 3 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency which he would like to have included in the official record. His primary objection on behalf of his client was that there is not substantial evidence supporting the findings of physical blight or economic blight. They also objected to the fact that the project area is entirely commercial and does not now and will not have any affordable housing on it. Also, it appears that the primary purpose of this project is to subsidize private development and private improvement of the shopping center. The Supreme Court in Court of Appeal have consistently spoken out against that kind of use of the power of redevelopment, including taking property by eminent domain and reselling to private parties. In addition, the California Legislature has declared the fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to extend a supply of Iow to moderate income housing, and this proposed project does not do that. Mr. Don Favorito said he was the owner of Penguin's Frozen Yogurt. He said about two years ago he heard of the possibility that the lower level of the mall would be removed and replaced by parking. He thought that was the wrong thing to do, and now it seems like it will come to pass. In 1988 the lower level was constructed because Valley Fair expanded and Vallco was afraid of losing business, so they put the lower level was constructed at great cost. Now it is going to be done away and turned into parking, and that doesn't seem the right way to go. He asked when the construction of the parking structure will begin and when will Vallco be put into the redevelopment agency plan. Wordell said a specific development has not yet been applied for, so there is no approval date in site and therefore no construction schedule of which the city is aware. She explained that the Vallco redevelopment area is the Vallco shopping center. There was a motion and second to close the public hearing, and motion carried unanimously. Murphy said written objections have been received, but it is not clear whether the written objections are from affected property owners in the project area. Bay Area Legal Aid represents citizens of Cupertino, and is not clear whether those are property owners. Also there are two other letters from a law firm representing an un-named client. She recommended that the City Council act on these letters as though they were written objections requiring a response, and she will prepare a response for City Council consideration. Council concurred to continue this item until the next regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on July 17. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. Minutes of the May 15, 2000, Redevelopment Agency meeting. Burnett moved to adopt the minutes as presented. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. June 19, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 4 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency NEW BUSINESS C. Agency certifies and makes findings baSed upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Resolution No. RA-00-06. Continued to July 17, 2000. Agency finds that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project, Resolution No. RA-00-07. Continued to July 17, 2000. ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 p.m., the Redevelopment Agency adjourned. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk CITY OF CUPEP T NO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 FAX: (408) 777-3333 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Agenda No. ~'A" SUMMARY Agenda Date: July 17, 2000 Application Summary: Joint Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project RECOMMENDATION: Cupertino · Cupertino · Redevelopment Agency: Certifying and making findings based upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. RA-00-06. · Finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing'the community's supply of low- and moderate- income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. Resolution No. RA-00-07. City Council: Certifying and making findings based upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. 00:187. · Adopting findings in response to written objections on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Resolution No. 00-197 · Finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low- and moderate- income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. Resolution No. 00-188. · Approval and adoption of Redevelopment Plan (first reading). Ordinance No. 1850. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency and the City Council convened a joint meeting of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency on June 19, 2000. Staff and consultants presented the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report and other background information in support of the Redevelopment Plan. Oral and written testimony was received from William Litt, attorney for Bay Area Legal Aid. Written testimony was received from Daniel S. Gonzales, attorney with Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines and Baruh, LLP. The joint public heating was closed, after which the City's legal consultant, Nicole Murphy, recommended that the Council act on the testimony as written objections. Written responses are required, resulting in the Agency and Council continuing the item to this meeting. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this continued hearing is to take action on the items outlined in the recommendation section. There are two new areas of information in this packet: 1) The written responses to the written objections, and the accompanying resolution to adopt them. 2) The mitigation monitoring program, Exhibit B of Resolutions RA-00-06 and 00-187. This program was not available for the June 19 meeting. It would have been submitted at a subsequent meeting, had not the June 19t~ meeting been continued. Nicole Murphy, the City's legal consultant to the Vallco Redevelopment Area, will attend the meeting to present the agenda item and respond to questions. Enclosures: Cupertino Redevelopment Agency: Resolution No. RA-00-06. Resolution No. RA-00-07. Cupertino City Council: Resolution No. 00-187. Resolution No. 00-197 Resolution No. 00-188. Ordinance No. 1850. City Council staff report of June 19, 2000 [Please note that the spiral-bound Exhibits 5 and 8 are not resubmitted] Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: David Knapp City Manager G:planning/pdr~porffce/redevel71700 RESOLUTION NO. RA-00-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF THE MNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to 'as the "State CEQA Guidelines") and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Agency transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies that have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Redevelopment Plan, to the affected taxing agencies, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the Agency's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received and the responses of the Agency thereto, and is part of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto and that the Agency has reviewed and Resolution RA-00-06 Page 2 of 19 considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to adopting this resolution. The Agency hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Agency. Section 2. The Agency hereby adopts the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations relating to the environmental impact of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures set forth therein). Based upon such Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened except the following unavoidable adverse impacts: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pnmeridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based upon the foregoing, the Agency finds and determines that the Redevelopment Plan will have a significant effect upon the environment but that the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, in particular, Part V thereof. Section 3. The Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Upon approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council, the Agency Secretary is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Santa Clara pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of CEQA and Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines, along with two copies of the Certificate of Fee Exemption as required pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(e). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency this 17th day of July 2000, by the following vote: Resolution RA-00-06 Page 3 of 19 Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the Redevelopment Agency APPROVED: Secretary Chairman, Redevelopment Agency EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") provides, in Section 21081, that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: "(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: "(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. "(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. "(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment oppommities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. "(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." As defined in CEQA, "'significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Public Resources Code Section 21068.) Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 5 of 19 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL For purposes of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") is the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). As more particularly identified in the Final EIR, The Project Area is more particularly identified in the Final EIR. Under the Redevelopment Plan, the Project would be developed in accordance with the land uses designated and permitted by the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. The RedeVelopment Plan also specifically recognizes the development rights vested under that certain Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino by Ordinance No. 1540 on July 15, 1991. The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and identifies, where applicable, measures which would mitigate significant effects on the environment to a level of insignificance. Findings regarding the significant effects of the Project are set forth below. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT; FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT This Part III identifies the potentially significant and unavoidably significant effects of the Project as determined by the Agency and the City Council, including the findings and facts supporting the findings in connection therewith. A. Land Use and Planning I. Environmental Impact Land Use Incompatibilities Between Proposed Modifications and Adjacent Areas: The proposed location of the new 168-room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, could result in potentially significant adverse land use compatibility effects on adjacent existing residential areas to the west of the project site. These potential adverse effects could include: height and scale incongruities, introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 6 of 19 Co In conducting the design review process for Hotel #2, particular emphasis will be placed on the need to incorporate building design, setback, lighting controls, and other measures to ensure against adverse impacts on the nearest residential neighborhood to the west. The construction period air quality (dust) mitigation measures identified in Section 9.3 of the Final EIR will be implemented. Visual Factors 1. Environmental Impact Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Tree Removal: The proposed new department store and to a lesser extent, the proposed expansion of the retail bridge across Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street trees, resulting in the loss of visually important mature street trees and the conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe Road visual character at this location. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) To the extent possible, the layout for the proposed new department store and retail bridge will retain and protect some of the existing street trees and/or a street tree replacement plan will be implemented which, to the satisfaction of the City, will be sufficient to offset project- related losses and restore visual continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Transportation and Parking 1. Environmental Impact Project Impact on Westbound Left-Tm Storage at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Intersection: The estimated maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 7 of 19 o the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed project, the queue is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the westbound left-mm pocket at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping on the Homestead Road approach to provide two 320-foot left- mm lanes. Environmental Impact ao Project Impact on Eastbound Left-Tm Storage at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection: With the addition of traffic associated with the proposed project, the maximum queue in the eastbound left-.n~n pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: O) As part of the project development, the eastbound left-mm pocket at the Wolfe Rload/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-turn lane. Environmental Impact Project Impact on Westbound Left-Tm Storage at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard Intersection: The maximum queue projected in the westbound left-turn pocket at the Steve~ Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection is 18 vehicles Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 8 of 19 under existing conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing turn pocket storage is approximately 16 vehicles in two 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under project conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two 250-foot-long left-turn lanes. Environmental Impact ao Potential Operational Impact at the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking Structure Driveways: The design of relocated Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been finalized. If separate left-tm lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the provision of separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway driveways will be required. Environmental Impact Potential Increased Demand for Bicycle AcCess: The project has the potential to increase demand for bicycle access to the site. There are no existing bicycle facilities serving the site. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 9 of 19 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) The project design shall incorporate support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle lockers and showers for employees). 6. Environmental Impact ao Potential Parking Impacts: The project has the potential to substantially increase the demands for-convenient on-site parking which may result in locational and overall shortages in parking supply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Parking will be required to be constructed at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement (August 15, 1991) and/or at the parking ratios specified in the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, to the extent necessary and feasible, off-site employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season shall be implemented. 7. Environmental Impact a. Cumulative Impacts on the Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Homestead Road and Wolfe Road is projected to deteriorate from LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page lo of 19 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Implementation of the City's planned Homestead Arterial Management Program would improve operations at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with improved signal progression along Homestead Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. 8. Environmental Impact Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue Intersection: · With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. bo Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Public Services 1. Environmental Impact ae Increase in Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Central Fire Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 11 of 19 District may require additional staffing and/or equipment to provide an adequate level of service to the project. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, compliance with all applicable codes will be required, including the 1994 Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of sprinkler systems, water delivery systems, and other provisions. (2) As part of the project development, compliance with detailed project design features identified by the Central Fire District will be required during the City's plan review and permitting process. Environmental Impact Increase in Demand for Police Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), 'and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department may require additional staffing to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Fa. ets in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, coordination with the City and the County Sheriff's Department will be required to quantify potential impacts on police services and develop Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page ~2 of ~9 o an appropriate mitigation strategy, including adequate site lighting, for security. Additional Facts: The City of Cupertino has approved an agreement with the County of Santa Clara whereby the City has agreed to pay the cost of one additional sheriff's deputy for a certain period of time. Environmental Impact ao Potential for Delays in Emergency Response: The numerous access points to the project site may create confusion to emergency respond,rs, possibly adding to response times. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Ce Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: O) Coordination with the Sheriff's Department and Central Fire District will be required, as necessary and appropriate, to assign specific access point designations. Environmental Impact Project Sanitary Sewer System Impacts: The sewer collection demands associated with the proposed project could exceed the capacity of the existing sewer main under 1-280 currently serving the project site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, wast,water generation increases shall be compared by a civil engineer to determine whether existing capacity is sufficient and, if not, collection capacity improvements shall be required. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 13 of 19 mo Air Qualit7 1. o Environmental Impact Construction Emissions: Project construction activities such as building demolition, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. b° Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Fugitive dust control measures will be required to be implemented during project demolition and construction activities. Environmental Impact ao Regional Emissions: Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Facts' in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 14 of 19 F. Geology and Soils 1. Environmental Impact ao Expansive Soils and Soil Settlement: New development on the project site may be subject to foundation and infrastructure (i.e., utility pipe) damage fi:om expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although it is likely that any such soils on the site were treated or removed prior to the construction of the existing structures, it is possible that some hazards remain or that remediation standards have increased. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: O) In accordance with standard City procedures, a soils report will be required in connection with project development, which shall be based on a sufficient analysis of soils conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist and include appropriate soils, foundation and structural engineering to adequately account for any expansive soil underlying the site. 2. Environmental Impact ao Seismic Shaking Hazards: The project would be subject to strong to very strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in turn, result in ground failure fi-om liquefaction or differential settlement. Shaking or resulting ground failure could damage or destroy improperly designed or constructed new structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concern due to the likely high concentration of occupants. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 ~ Page 15 of 19 Go Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Submission of a detailed site-specific geotechnical investigation for the project, and commitment to compliance with all recommendations, will be required prior to project development. (2) The use of flexible connections for all water and sewer lines and, as appropriate, underground power and telecommunications lines will be required. Cultural Resources 1. Environmental Impact Disturbance of Historic Archaeological Resources: Although the potential for the project site to contain archaeological resources is currently considered low, construction of the proposed new store, cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could disturb sensitive,, as-yet unknown historic archaeological resources.. bo Finding:- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources shall also be reported to the Califomia Historic Resources Information System and, if Native American artifacts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City will be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall be halted and the County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If disturbance of a cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section Exhibit A 1-7 Resolution RA-00-06 : Page 16 of 19 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 2. Environmental Impact Disturbance of On-site Culturally Significant Trees: Project construction could disturb culturally significant trees at the project site, especially those located near the proposed new department store, parking structure, and peripheral retail store. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) A survey of existing trees on the project site shall be conducted. In connection with any tree defined as a "heritage tree" or a "specimen tree" by the Cupertino Municipal Code (chapter 14.18), compliance with City policies and ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance shall be required. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or to its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As more particularly set forth in the Final EIR, the Project was compared to the following alternatives: (1) no project; (2) alternative land use mix--2,984-seat cinema in place of 95,000- square-foot retail store; (3) mitigated project alternative; (4) modified redevelopment area boundaries; (5) alternative project location. The analysis in the Final EIR concludes that the Mitigated Project is the environmentally superior alternative. The Mitigated Project is the proposed project incorporating all of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR. Based on the information contained in the Final EIR and the foregoing, the Agency and the City Council find that none of the other alternatives (those alternatives other than the Mitigated Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 ~ Page 17 of 19 Project) are feasible in that none of the other alternatives will accomplish the basic objectives of the Project to eliminate blight in the Project Area. As a result, none of the other alternatives are acceptable when compared to the project as proposed and modified by the mitigation measures adopted by the Agency and City Council, i.e., the Mitigated Project. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. As set forth in Part III hereof, the Agency and the City Council have determined that the only unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are the following: Transportation and Planning: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Air Quality: Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQivlD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Agency and the City Council find that the above-referenced unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are acceptable when balanced against its benefits. This finding is based on the following facts: The Project will serve a critical need, that being the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan for the City of Cupertino and local codes and ordinances. The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area will prevent the loss of and facilitate the capture of commercial sales activity. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 ~' Page 18 of 19 The Project will allow for the elimination of blight through rehabilitation and reconstruction, new development, and the assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. The Project will result in the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard'vehicular circulation systems. o New construction within the Project Area will result in an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Project implementation would result in the retention and expansion of businesses by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting in the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. Revitalized commercial development will result in the creation and development of local job oppommities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. Project implementation will strengthen the economic, base of the Project Area and the City by installing needed site improvements and stimulating commercial development. o Project implementation will expand and improve the City's supply of affordable housing. Exhibit A Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan Cupertino Redevelopment Agency July 13, 2000 EXHIBIT B Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Page I MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATE MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS CEQA Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to environmental impact reports or mitigated negative declarations. The mitigation monitoring program must be implemented by the Lead Agency (in this case, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency) subsequent to certification of the EIR. The following mitigation monitoring and reporting checklist has been formulated for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan, May 2000 (the Final EIR incorporates the November 1999 Draft EIR). MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST The following mitigation monitoring and repOrting checklist identifies: (1) each significant impact identified in the EIR, (2) each mitigation measure included in the EIR, (3) the party or parties responsible for implementing that mitigation measure, (4) the type of implementation required, (5) the timing of implementation, (6) the party responsible for performing the mitigation monitoring, and (7) the mitigation verification signature and date. These checklist items are discussed in more detail below. Identified Impact. This checklist column includes each significant .adverse impact identified in the Final EIR (Draft EIR section 2, except as revised in Final EIR section 3~). Identified Mitiqation Measures. This column includes each mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR (Draft EIR section 2, except as revised in Final EIR section 3~). Monitoring. This colUmn describes (1) the "implementation entity" responsible for carrying out each mitigation measure--e.g., future shopping center and/or hotel development applicants ~From the yellow Summary table in section 2 of the Draft EIR (pages 2-4 through 2-15), except as superseded by section 3 of the Final EIR. WP51L596tFEIRiMITMON.596 ~..I Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan Cupertino Redevelopment Agency July 13, 2000 Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Page 2 ("appl.") arid/or the City and/or the County Fire Department (CFD);~ (2) the "type of monitoring action" required (e.g., revisions to the overall development plan, or conditions of project approval); (3) specific implementation timing requirements (e.g., implement during design review of prior to project approval); and (4) the "monitoring and verification entity" responsible for performing the monitoring and verification of each mitigation, which for every mitigation is the City/Agency's Department of Community Development (DCD). Verification. The verification column provides a space for the DCD staff signature and date when a monitoring milestone is completed. ~The County Fire Department (CFD) is incorrectly referred to as the Central Fire District in the EIR document. WP51t5961FEIRiMITMON.596 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST--CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The environmental mitigation measures listed in column two below have been incorporated into the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with, and that City and state monitoring requirements have been fulfilled with respect to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity' Action= Requirements' Verification Entit~ Signature Date LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-I: Land Use In~,ompatlbitltles Mitigation LU-I: In conducting the design review City Incorporate into the Implement DCD Between Proposed Modifications and process for Hotel #2, place particular emphasis on. and project during design Adjacent Areas. The proposed location of the the need to incorporate building design, setback, appl. review new 168-room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, lighlfng controls, and other measures to ensure could resuff in potentially significant adverse against adverse impacts on the nearest residential! land use compatibility effects on adjacent neighborhood to the west. Implement the existing residential areas to the west of the construction period air quality (dust) mitigation project site. These potential adverse effects measures identified in section 9.3 of this EIR could include: height and scale Incongruities, (Mitigation AQ-1). Introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. VISUAL FACTORS impact V-l: Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Mitigation V-l: To the extent possible, formulate Appl. Incorporate into the Implement i[:)CD ~ Tree Removal. The proposed new department a layout for the proposed new department store project during design store (Dillards) and to a lesser extent, the and retail bfldge that retains and prote .cts some of review proposed expansion of the retail bridge across the existing street trees, and/or incorporate a Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street tree replacement plan into the project street trees, resulting in the loss of visually which, to the satisfaction of the City, is sufficient important mature street trees and the to offset project-related losses and restore visual conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Road visual character at this location. WP5115961FEIRIMMCH7'.596 MONITORING I VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementatlor Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action= Requirementss Verification Entity~ Signature Date TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING Impact T-l: Project Impact on Westbound Mitigation T-1. Require the applicant to lengthen City Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-turn Storage at the Wolfe Road/ the westbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe and project project Homestead Road Intersection. The estimated Road/Homestead Road intersection by modifying appl. approval maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left- the striping on the Homestead Road approach to turn lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road provide two 320-foot left-turn lanes. intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed Vallco redevelopment plan project, the queue Is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Impact T-2: Project Impact on Eastbound Mitigation T-2. Require the applicant to lengthen city Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-turn Storage st the Wolfe Road/Stevens the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe and project project Creek Boulevard Intersection. With the Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Road intersection appl. approval addition of traffic associated with the proposed by modifying the striping and median on the project, the maximum queue in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-turn lane. Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. Impact T-3: Project Impact on Westbound Mitigation T-3. Require the applicant to lengthen City Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-tum Storage at Stevens Creek the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens and project project Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard Intersection. Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection appl. approval The maximum queue projected in the westbound by modifying the striping and median on the left-tum pocket at the Stevens Creek Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection is 18 250-foot-long left-turn lanes. vehicles under exisUng conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing turn pocket storage is approximately 16 vehicles in Iwo 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under Project Conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. Page 2 WP51i5961FEIRIMMCHT.596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action; Requirements~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date Impact T-4: Potential Operational Impact at Mitigation T-4. Provide separate left-turn lanes Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway project project Structure Driveways. The design of relocated driveways, approval Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been'finalized. If separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. Impact T-5: Potential Increased Demand for Mitigation T-5. Incorporate support facilities for Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Bicycle Access. The project has the potential bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle project project to increase demand for bicycle access to the lockers and showers for employees) into the approval site. There are no existing bicycle facilities proposed project design. serving the site. The project as proposed does not include support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, etc.). Impact T-6: Potential Parking Impacts. The Mitigation T-6. As discussed under subsection Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD project has the potential to substantially increase 7.2.2 above, the 1991 Development Agreement project project the demands for convenient onsite parking requires that new parking for added retail space approval which may result in Iocaflonal and overall be provided at a ratio of one parking space for shortages in parking supply, every 248 square feet of gross leasable area of retail space. The agreement does not address hotel parking. Even with the provision of this retail parking ratio, a parking shortage may occur during the peak holiday shopping season. Additional retail parking can be provided during peak holiday periods by requiring employees to park offsite and to use shuttle buses to free-up onslte spaces for mall patrons during peak conditions. Another option is to use valet parking where patrons drop off their vehicle at a v~let booth and a parking attendant then parks the vehicles. Under the valet option, vehicles ara parked closer together than in a typical lot, by Pag~ 3 WP511596tFEIRiMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementatlor Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action= Requirements~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date disregarding the space delineations and by parking vehicles in the clmulation aisles, thus increasing the effective parking supply. Provide parking at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement, implement offsite employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season, and provide hotel parking ratios as specified in the City's zoning ordinance. Impact T-7: Cumulative Impacts on the Mitigation T-7. ImplementaUon of the City of City Implement the City imple- DCD Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection. Cupertino's planned Homestead Arterial Blayney Avenue to mentatlon With the traffic associated with the proposed Management Program would improve operations Tantau Avenue expected to project, approved developments in the area, and at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with synchronized signal be complete other reasonably foreseeable development, improved signal progression along Homestead component of the by Fall 2001 operation of the intersection of Homestead Road Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. Homestead Arterial (DEIR page and Wolfe Road Is projected to deteriorate from Management 7-18). LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Program Implement prior to bulldout of cumulative development (e.g., Compaq campus, etc.) ~ Impact T-8: Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Mitigation T-8. There are no feasible physical ...... Road/Pruneridge Avenue Intersection. With improvements that could be constructed at this the traffic associated with the proposed project, intersection; i.e., this is a significant unavoidable approved developments in the area, and other cumulative impact. reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. Page 4 WP5 II596iFEIRiMMCH T. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) . Entity~ Action' Requirements= Verification Entity~ Signature Date PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-l: Increase in Demand for Fire Mitigation PS-l: Require the applicant to comply City, Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Protection and Emergency Medical Services. with all applicable codes, including the 1994 . CFD, project project The proposed project would attract new patrons Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building and approval to the proposed new peripheral retail store, Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, and appl. restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of other retail space increases, increasing the sprinlder systems, water delivery systems, and demand for fire protection and emergency other provisions. Also require applicant medical services. In addition, traffic generated compliance with detailed project design features by the proposed project and other development identified by the Central Fire District (CFD) during in the area may create greater traffic congestion, the City's plan review and permiffing process. In potentially increasing emergency response addition, during the approval process for any times. The Central Fire District may require particular portion of the project described in the additional staffing and/or equipment to provide Redevelopment Plan, the Applicant should an adequate level of service to the project, negotiate with the CFD to identify mitigations that will enable the District to maintain adequate fire protection levels of service to the portion of the project for which the approval is being sought. Such mitigation may entail additional properly tax pass-throughs from the Redevelopment Agency to the CFD beyond those that will already be included with Plan approval. Alternatively, they may entail applicant assistance to the CFD in procuring additional tirefighting equipment. Impact PS-2: Increase in Demand for Police Mitigation PS~2: Prior to approval of final City, Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Services. The proposed project would attract development plans for the mall modifications, appl. project project new patrons to the proposed peripheral retail require the applicant to coordinate with the City ar, d approval store, restaurant, two hotels, two department and the County Sheriffs Department to address CSD store(s) and other retail space, increasing the associated additional police service needs and demand for police services. In addition, traffic develop an appropriate public/privata security generated by the proposed project and other strategy (i.e., adequate security lighting, a development in the downtown area may create coordinated security program involving the private greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing onsite security force and City police, etc.). emergency response times. Condition final development plan acceptance on Page s WP51t5961FEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring end (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action~ Requirementa~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date City approval of the applicant proposed security strategy and implementation program. Impact PS-3: Potential for Delays in Mitigation PS-3: The mall operator should Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Emergency Response. The numerous access assign alphanumeric designations to the different project project points to the project site may create confusion to access points to the Va[Ico Fashion Mall and approval emergency responders, possibly adding to should provide the Sheriff's Department and response times. Central Fire District with site plans showing these access point designations. Impact PS-4: Project Sanitary Sewer System Mitigation PS-4: As a condition of future onsite Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Impacts. Table 3.1 indicates that the proposed development approvals, the Applicant's civil project project redevelopment plan could facilitate expansion of engineer shall compare the wastewater generation approval the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center retail increment associated with the redevelopment space by 346,870 square feet, as well as the program with the design capacity of the existing addition of a 10,000-square-foot restaurant and sewer main(s), and based on the standard two new hotels (318 rooms). The Cupertino specifications of the Cupertino Sanitary District, Sanitary District has indicated that the increase shall either: (1) verify to the satisfaction of the in sewer collection demands associated with this City that existing collection capacity is sufficient to expansion could exceed the capacity of the serve the project; or (2) design and implement, or existing sewer main under 1-280 currently parlicipate in on a fair share basis, to City serving the project site. satisfaction, the collection capacity improvements necessary to serve project buildout. AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-I: Construction Emissions. Mitigation AQ-1. Dust emissions from demolition Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Project construction activities such as building and construction activities can be greatly reduced project project demolition, excavation and grading operations, by implementing fugitive dust control measures, approval construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing The significance of construction impacts is, over exposed earth would generate exhaust according to BAAQMD guidance, determined by emissions and fugitive particulate matter whether or not appropriate dust control measures emissions that would affect local air quality, are Implemented. Page s WP511596~FEIFIIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementati~' Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action~ Requirements~ Verification Entity4 I Signature Date Impact AQ-2: Regional Emissions. Additional Mitigation AQ-2: The shopping center Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD traffic generated by Shopping center expansion redevelopment plan should implement .the project project would generate regional emissions exceeding following strategies to reduce vehicle usage: approval the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. · Include physical Improvements, such as BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that sidewalk improvements, landscaping and the would Individually have a significant air quality installation of bus shelters and bicycle impact would also be considered to have a parking that would act as incentives for significant cumulative air quality impact. The pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of proposed project therefore would also have a travel. significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. ·. Develop a transit use incentive program for employees and patrons, such as on-sita distribution ot passes and/or subsidized ' transit passes for local transit system. · Provide transit information kiosks. · Locate new building entrances near transit stops. These measures would assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a lessothan- significant level. Since no other feasible measures are available, the project and cumulative effect on regional air quality would therefore represent a significant unavoidable impac[ I ! GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact GS-I: Expansive Soils and Soil Mitigation GS-1. In accordance with standard Appl. Incorporate into the Pdor to DCD Settlement. New development on the project City procedures, require the Applicant to submit a project , project site may be subject to foundation and soils report for City review. The soils report shall approval infrastructure (i.e., utility pipe) damage from be based on a sufficient analysis of soils expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist, it is likely that any such soils on the site were and shall to City satisfaction include appropdata WP51 I596iFEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION "' IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type or Implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action= Requirements~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date treated or removed prior to the construction of soils, foundation, and structural engineering to the existing Vallco Fashion Park structures, It is adequately account for any expansive soil possible that some hazards remain or that underlying the site. remediation standards have increased. Impact GS-2: Seismic Shaking Hazards. Mitigation GS-2. Require the Applicant to submit Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Although no known active faults pass through or a detailed site-specific geotechnical investigation project project immediately adjacent to the project site, the for the project and require implementation of its approval project, like all urban development in the region, recommendations to City satisfaction as would be subject to strong to veff strong conditions of project approval. Require the project seismic shaking in the event of a major to conform to the policies of the City of Cupertino earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in and comply with all standard City conditions of turn, result in ground failure from liquefaction or approval regarding geotechnical issues. Require differential settlement. Shaking or resulting that flexible connections be used for all water and ground failure could damage or destroy sewer lines, and as appropriate, underground improperly designed or constructed new power and telecommunications lines. structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concem due to the likely high concentration of occupants. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CR-I: Disturbance of Historic Mitigation CR-I: In the event that subsurface Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Archaeological Resources. Although the cultural resoumes are encountered during project project potential for the project site to contain approved ground-disturbing activities, work in the approval archaeological resources is currently considered immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified Iow, construction of the proposed new store, archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds. The cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources disturb sensitive, as-yet unknown historic shall also be reported to the Califomia Historic archaeological resources. Resources Information System (CHRIS) and, if Native American artifacts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form Page 8 WP51t596tFEIRiMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring end (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Actionz Requirernentsz Verification Entity~ Signature Date DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City of Cupertino should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall halted and the County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If the Coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and if the remains are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted and further actions should be taken in consultation with them. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Impact CR-2: Disturbance of Onslte Mitigation CR-2: Require the Applicant to Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Culturally Significant Trees. Project conduct a sun/ey of existing trees on the project project project construction could disturb culturally significant site, and consult with the City of Cupertino approval trees at the project site, especially those located regarding the City's Heritage Tree list before any near the proposed new department store, change or demolition occurs in the area of parking structure, and peripheral retail store, potentially signiticant onsite trees. For any tree defined as a 'heritage tree' or a 'specimen tree' by Cupertino Municipal Code chapter 14.18, require compliance with City policies and ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance. I I Page S WP511596~FEIRiMMCHT.596 RESOLUTION NO. RA-00-07 RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") which would result in the allocation of taxes from the Project Area to the Agency for the purposes of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2(g) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and the City Council that such use will be of benefit to the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY that the use of taxes allocated from the Project Area for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the Redevelopment Agency ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Chairman, Redevelopment Agency RESOLUTION 00-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Agency transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies which have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Redevelopment Plan, to the affected taxing agencies, and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Dragt EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the Agency's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft Enl., as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received and the responses of the Agency thereto, and is part of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; and Resolution 00-187 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is a Responsible Agency, as defined in Section 21069 of the Public Resources Code, with respect to' the Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has duly reviewed and considered the Final EIR prepared and certified by the Agency prior to adopting this resolution and acting on the Redevelopment Plan. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations relating to the environmental impact of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures therein set forth). Based upon such Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened except the following unavoidable adverse impacts: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center-expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the Redevelopment Plan will have a significant effect upon the environment but that the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts for Resolution 00-187 Page 3 of 3 the reasons set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, in particular, Part V thereof. Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Upon approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council, the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Santa Clara pursuant to the provisions of Section21152 of CEQA and Section 150960) of the State CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this .17th day of July 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") provides, in Section 21081, that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: "(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: "(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. "(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. "(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment oppommities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. "(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." As defined in CEQA, '"significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Public Resources Code Section 21068.) Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 5 of 19 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL For purposes of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") is the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). As more particularly identified in the Final EIR, The Project Area is more particularly identified in the Final EIR. Under the Redevelopment Plan, the Project would be developed in accordance with the land uses designated and permitted by the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. The Redevelopment Plan also specifically recognizes the development rights vested under that certain Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino by Ordinance No. 1540 on July 15, 1991. The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and identifies, where applicable, measures which would mitigate significant effects on the environment to a level of insignificance. Findings regarding the significant effects of the Project are set forth below. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT; FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT This Part Ill identifies the potentially significant and unavoidably significant effects of the Project as determined by the Agency and the City Council, including the findings and facts supporting the findings in connection therewith. A. Land Use and Planning 1. Environmental Impact ao Land Use Incompatibilities Between Proposed Modifications and .Adjacent Areas: The proposed location of the new 168-room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, could result in potentially significant adverse land use compatibility effects on adjacent existing 'residential areas to the west of the project site. These potential adverse effects could include: height and scale incongruities, introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 6 of 19 In conducting the design review process for Hotel #2, particular emphasis will be placed on the need to incorporate building design, setback, lighting controls, and other measures to ensure against adverse impacts on the nearest residential neighborhood to the west. The construction period air quality (dust) mitigation measures identified in Section 9.3 of the Final EIR will be implemented. Visual Factors 1. Environmental Impact Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Tree Removal: The proposed new department store and to a lesser extent, the proposed expansion of the retail bridge across Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street trees, resulting in the loss of visually important mature street trees and the conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe Road visual character at this location. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, file Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) To the extent possible, the layout for the proposed new department store and retail bridge will retain and protect some of the existing street trees and/or a street tree replacement plan will be implemented which, to the satisfaction of the City, will be sufficient to offset project- related losses and restore visual continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Transportation and Parking 1. Environmental Impact ao Project Impact on Westbound Left-Tm Storage at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Intersection: The estimated maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 7 of 19 the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed project, the queue is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the westbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping on the Homestead Road approach to provide two 320-foot left- mm lanes. Environmental Impact ao Proje. ct Impact on Eastbound Left-Tm Storage at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection: With the addition of traffic associated with the proposed project, the maximum queue in the eastbound left-tm pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Rload/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-mm lane. Environmental Impact ao Project Impact on Westbound Left-Tm Storage at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard Intersection: The maximum queue projected in the westbound left-tm pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection is 18 vehicles Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 8 of 19 o under existing conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing mm pocket 'storage is approximately 16 vehicles in two 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under project conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in 'Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, the eastbound left-mm pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two 250-foot-long left-mm lanes. Environmental Impact ao Potential Operational ImPact at the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking Structure Driveways: The design of relocated Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been finalized. If separate left-mm lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the provision of separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway driveways will be required. Environmental Impact Potential Increased Demand for Bicycle Access: The project has the potential to increase demand for bicycle access to the site. There are no existing bicycle facilities serving the site. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 9 of 19 bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) The project design shall incorporate support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle lockers and showers for employees). 6. Environmental Impact ao Potential Parking Impacts: The project has the potential to substantially increase the demands for convenient on-site parking which may result in locational and overall shortages in parking supply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Parking will be required to be constructed at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement (August 15, 1991) and/or at the parking ratios specified in the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, to the extent necessary and feasible, off-site employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season shall be implemented. 7. Environmental Impact a. Cumulative Impacts on the Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection: With thc traffic associated with thc proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Homestead Road and Wolfe Road is projected to deteriorate from LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 10 of 19 Do Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Implementation of the City's planned Homestead Arterial Management Program would improve operations at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with improved signal progression along Homestead Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. 8. Environmental Impact a. Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Road/Pmneridse Avenue Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pnmeridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. bo Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Public Services 1. Environmental Impact Increase in Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Central Fire Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 11 of 19 District may require additional staffing and/or equipment to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, compliance with all applicable codes will be required, including the 1994 Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of sprinkler systems, water delivery systems, and other provisions. (2) As part of the project development, compliance with detailed project design features identified by the Central Fire District will be required during the City's plan review and permitting process. Environmental Impact Increase in Demand for Police Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department may require additional staffing to provide an adequate level of service to the project. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, coordination with the City and the County Sheriff's Department will be required to quantify potential impacts on police services and develop Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 12 of 19 an appropriate mitigation strategy, including adequate site lighting' for security. do Additional Facts: The City of Cupertino has approved an agreement with the County of Santa Clara whereby the City has agreed to pay the cost of one additional sheriff's deputy for a certain period of time. 3. Environmental Impact Potential for Delays in Emergency Response: The numerous access points to the project site may create confusion to emergency responders, possibly adding to response times. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Coordination with the Sheriff's Department and Central Fire District will be required, as necessary and appropriate, to assign specific access point designations. Environmental Impact ao Project Sanitary Sewer System Impacts: The sewer collection demands associated with the proposed project could exceed the capacity of the existing sewer main under 1-280 currently serving the project site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. · Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, wastewater generation increases shall be compared by a civil engineer to determine whether existing capacity is sufficient and, if not, collection capacity improvements shall be required. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 13 of 19 Air Quality 1. Environmental Impact Construction Emissions: Project construction activities such as building demolition, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: O) Fugitive dust control measures will be required to be implemented during project demolition and construction activities. Environmental Impact ao Regional Emissions: Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 14 of 19 F. Geology and Soils 1. Environmental Impact ao Expansive Soils and Soil Settlement: New development on the project site may be subject to foundation and infrastructure (i.e., utility pipe) damage from expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although it is likely that any such soils on the site were treated or removed prior to the construction of the existing structures, it is possible that some hazards remain or that remediation standards have increased. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) In accordance with standard City procedures, a soils report will be required in connection with project development, which shall be based on a sufficient analysis of soils conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist and include appropriate soils, foundation and structural engineering to adequately account for any expansive soil underlying the site. 2. Environmental Impact at Seismic Shaking Hazards: The project would be subject to strong to very strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in turn, result in ground failure from liquefaction or differential settlement. Shaking or resulting ground failure could damage or destroy improperly designed or constructed new structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concern due to the likely high concentration of occupants. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 15 of 19 Go Co Cultural Resources Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Submission of a detailed site-specific geoteclmical investigation for the project, and commitment to compliance with all recommendations, will be required prior to project development. (2) The use of flexible connections for all water and sewer lines and, as appropriate, underground power and telecommunications lines will be required. Environmental Impact Disturbance of Historic Archaeological Resources: Although the potential for the project site to contain archaeological resources is currently considered low, construction of the proposed new store, cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could disturb sensitive,, as-yet unknown historic archaeological resources.. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the.significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources shall also be reported to the California Historic Resources Information System and, if Native American artifacts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City will be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall be halted and the County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If disturbance of a cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section Exhibit A //7 Resolution RA-00-06 Page 16 of 19 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 2. Environmental Impact Disturbance of On-site Culturally Significant Trees: Project construction could disturb culturally significant trees at the project site, especially those located near the proposed new department store, parking structure, and peripheral retail store. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) A survey of existing trees on the project site shall be conducted. In connection with any tree defined as a "heritage tree" or a "specimen tree" by the Cupertino Municipal Code (chapter 14.18), compliance with City policies and ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance shall be required. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or to its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As more particularly set forth in the Final EIR, the Project was compared to the following alternatives: (1) no project; (2) alternative land use mix--2,984-seat cinema in place of 95,000- square-foot retail store; (3) mitigated project alternative; (4) modified redevelopment area boundaries; (5) alternative project location. The analysis in the Final EIR concludes that the Mitigated Project is the environmentally superior alternative. The Mitigated Project is the proposed project incorporating all of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR. Based on the information contained in the Final EIR and the foregoing, the Agency and the City Council find that none of the other alternatives (those alternatives other than the Mitigated Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 Page 17 of 19 Project) are feasible in that none of the other alternatives will accomplish the basic objectives of the Project to eliminate blight in the Project Area. As a result, none of the other alternatives are acceptable when compared to the project as proposed and modified by the mitigation measures adopted by the Agency and City Council, i.e., the Mitigated Project. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. As set forth in Part HI hereof, the Agency and the City Council have determined that the only unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are the following: Ao Transportation and Planning: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue. intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pmneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Air Quality: Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.. The Agency and the City Council find that the above-referenced unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are acceptable when balanced against its benefits. This finding is based on the following facts: The Project will serve a critical need, that being the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan for the City of Cupertino and local codes and ordinances. The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area will prevent the loss of and facilitate the capture of commercial sales activity. Exhibit A Resolution RA-00-06 ' Page 18 of 19 o The Project will allow for the elimination of blight through rehabilitation and reconstruction, new development, and the assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. The Project will result in the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems. New construction within the Project Area will result in an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Project implementation would result in the retention and expansion of businesses by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation acfivites and by encouraging and assisting in the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. Revitalized commercial development will result in the creation and development of local job oppommities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. o Project implementation will strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the City by installing needed site improvements and stimulating commercial development. Project implementation will expand and improve the City's supply of affordable housing. Exhibit A Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan Cupertino Redevelopment Agency July 13, 2000 EXHIBIT B Final EIR . Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Page I MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATE MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS CEQA Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to environmental impact reports or mitigated negative declarations. The mitigation monitoring program must be implemented by the Lead Agency (in this case, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency) subsequent to certification of the EIR. The following mitigation monitoring and reporting checklist has been formulated for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan, May 2000 (the Final EIR incorporates the November 1999 Draft EIR). MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST The following mitigation monitoring and reporting checklist identifies: (1) each significant impact identified in the EIR, (2) each mitigation measure included in the EIR, (3) the party or parties responsible for implementing that mitigation measure, (4) the type of implementation required, (5) the timing of implementation, (6) the party responsible for performing the mitigation monitoring, and (7) the mitigation verification signature and date. These checklist items are discussed in more detail below. Identified Impact. 'This checklist column includes each significant adverse impact identified in the Final EIR (Draft EIR section 2, except as revised in Final EIR section 3~). Identified Mitiqation Measures. This column includes each mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR (Draft EIR section 2, except as revised in Final EIR section 3~). Monitoring. This column describes (1) the "implementation entity" responsible for carrying out each mitigation measure--e.g., future shopping center and/or hotel development applicants ~From the yellow Summary table in section 2 of the Draft EIR (pages 2-4 through 2-15), except as superseded by section 3 of the Final EIR. WP~ I t596tFEIFI~MITMON. 596 5 t Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan Cupertino Redevelopment Agency July 13, 2000 Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Page 2 ("appl.") and/or the City and/or the County Fire Department (CFD);~ (2) the "type of monitoring action" required (e.g., revisions to the overall development plan, or conditions of project approval); (3) specific implementation timing requirements (e.g., implement during design review of prior to project approval); and (4) the "monitoring and verification entity" responsible for performing the monitoring and verification of each mitigation, which for every mitigation is the City/Agency's Department of Community Development (DCD). Verification. The verification column provides a space for the DCD staff signature and date when a monitoring milestone is completed. ~The County Fire Department (CFD) is incorrectly referred to as the Central Fire District in the EIR document. WP511596~FEIRtMITMON.596 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST-CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The environmental mitigation measures listed in column two below have been incorporated into the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with, and that City and state monitoring requirements have been fulfilled with respect to Public Resoumes Code Section 21081.6. MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Imp~. Type of Implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Actiont Requirements~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date I II LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU-I: Land Use Incompatibilities Mitigation LU-I: In conducting the design review City Incorporate into the Implement DCD Between Proposed Modifications and process for Hotel #2, place particular emphasis on and project during design Adjacent Areas. The proposed location of the the need to incorporate building design, setback, appl. review new 168-room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, lighting controls, and other measures to ensure could result in potentially significant adverse against adverse impacts on the nearest residential land use compatibility effects on adjacent neighborhood to the west. Implement the existing residential areas to the west of the construction period air quality (dust) mitigation project site. These potential adverse effects measures identified in section 9.3 of this EIR could include: height and scale incongruities, (Mitigation AQ-1). introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. II VISUAL FACTORS Impact V-l: Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Mitigation V-l: To the extent possible, formulate Appl. Incorporate into the Implement DCD Tree Removal. The proposed new department a layout for the proposed new department store project during design store (Dillards) and to a lesser extent, the and retail bridge that retains and protects some of review proposed expansion of the retail bridge across the existing street trees, and/or incorporate a Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street tree replacement plan into the project street trees, resulting in the loss of visually which, to the satisfaction of the City, is sufficient important mature street trees and the to offset project-related losses and restore visual conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Road visual character at this location. I WP5115961FEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE : Impl. Type of Implementatlo~ Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) : Entity~ Action~ Requirements~ Verification Entity" Signature Date TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING Impact T-l: Project Impact on Westbound Mltlgstlon T-1. Require the applicant to lengthen City Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-turn Storage et the Wolfe Road/ the westbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe and project project Homestead Road Intersection. The estimated Road/Homestead Road intersection by modifying appl. approval maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left- the striping on the Homestead Road approach to tum lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road provide two 320-foot left-turn lanes. intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed Vallco redevelopment plan project, the queue is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Impact T-2: Project Impact on Eastbound Mitigation T-2. Require the applicant to lengthen City Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-turn Storage at tho Wolfe Road/Stevens the eastbound left-tum pocket at the Wolfe and project project Creek Boulevard Intersection. With the Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Road intersection appl. approval addition of traffic associated with the proposed by modifying the striping and median on the project, the maximum queue in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-turn lane. Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. Impact T-3:' Project Impact on Westbound Mitigation T-3. Require the applicant to lengthen City Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Left-turn Storage st Stevens Creek the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens and project project Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard Intereectlon. Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection appl. approval The maximum queue projected in the westbound by modifying the striping and median on the left-tum pocket at the Stevens Creek Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection is 18 250-foot-long left-turn lanes. vehicles under existing conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing turn pocket storage is approximately 16 vehicles in two 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under Project Conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. Page 2 WP51i596[FEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementation Timing I Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Emlty~ Action~ Requirements~ !VerlficaUon Entity4 Signature Date Impact T-4: Potential Operational Impact at Mitigation T-4. Provide separate left-turn lanes Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to 'I::)CD the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway project project Structure Driveways. The design of relocated driveways, approval Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been finalized. If separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. Impact T-5: Potential Increased Demand for Mitigation T-5. Incorporate support facilities for Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Bicycle Access. The project has the potential bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle project project to increase demand for bicycle access to the lockers and showers for employees) into the approval site. There are no existing bicycle facilities proposed project design. serving the site. The project as proposed does not include support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, etc.). Impact T-6: Potential Parking Impacts. The Mitigation T-6. As discussed under subsection Appl. Incorporate into the Pdor to [:)CD project has the potential to substantially increase 7.2.2 above, the 1991 Development Agreement project project the demands for convenient onsite parking requires that new parking for added retail space approval which may result in Iocational and overall be provided at a ratio of one parking space for shortages in parking supply, every 248 square feet of gross leasable area of retail space. The agreement does not address hotel parking. Even with the provision of this retail parking ratio, a parking shortage may occur during the peak holiday shopping season. Additional retail parking can be provided during peak holiday periods by requiring employees to park of/site and to use shuttle buses to free-up onsite spaces for mall patrons dudng peak conditions. Another option is to use valet parking where patrons drop off their vehicle at a valet booth and a parking attendant then parks the vehicles. Under the valet option, vehicles are parked closer together than in a typical lot, by WP5115961FEIRIMMCHT.596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementatior Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action~ Requirements= Verification Entity~ Signature Date disregarding the space delineations and by parking vehicles in the cimulation aisles, thus increasing the effective parking supply. Provide parking at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement, implement offsite employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season, and provide hotel parking ratios as specified in the City's zoning ordinance. Impact T-7: Cumulstlve Impacts on the Mitlgstlon T-7. Implementation of the City of City Implement the City imple- DCD Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection. Cupertino's planned Homestead Arterial Blayney Avenue to mentation With the traffic associated with the proposed Management Program would Improve operations Tantau Avenue expected to project, approved developments in the area, and at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with synchronized signal be complete other reasonably foreseeable development, improved signal progression along Homestead component of the by Fall 2001 operation of the intersection of Homestead Road Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. Homestead Arterial (DEIR page and Wolfe Road is projected to deteriorate from Management 7-18). LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Program Implement 3rior to buildout of cumulative development (e.g., Compaq campus, etc.) Impact T-8: Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Mitigation T-8. There are no feasible physical ..... Road/Prunerldge Avenue Intersection. With improvements that could be constructed at this the traffic associated with the proposed project, intersection; i.e., this is a significant unavoidable approved developments in the area, and other cumulative impact. reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pmneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. Page 4 WP51 i5961FEIRiMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementatlo~ Timing Monitoring end (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action~ Requirements= Verification Entity* Signature Date PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS-1: Increase In Demand for Rre Mitigation PS-l: Require the applicant to comply City, Incorporate into the Prior to DOD Protection and Emergency Medical Servlcea. with all applicable codes, including the 1994 CFD, project project The proposed project would attract new patrons Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building and approval to the proposed new peripheral retail store, Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, and appl. restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of other retail space increases, increasing the sprinkler systems, water delivery systems, and demand for fire protection and emergency other provisions. Also require applicant medical services. In addition, traffic generated compliance with detailed project design features by the proposed project and other development identified by the Central Fire District (CFD) during in the area may create greater traffic congestion, the City's plan review and permitting process. In potentially increasing emergency response addition, during the approval process for any times. The Central Fire District may require particular portion of the project described in the additional staffing and/or equipment to provide Redevelopment Plan, the Applicant should an adequate level of service to the project, negotiate with the CFI) to identify mitigations that will enable the District to maintain adequate fire protection levels of service to the portion of the project for which the approval is being sought. Such mitigation may entail additional property tax pass-throughs from the Redevelopment Agency to the CFD beyond those that will already be included with Plan approval. Alternatively, they may entail applicant assistance to the CFD in procuring additional firefighting equipment. Impact PS-2: Increase in Demand for Police Mitigation PS-2: Prior to approval of final i City, Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Services. The proposed project would attract development plans for the mall modifications, I appl. project project new patrons to the proposed peripheral retail require the applicant to coordinate with the City anal approval store, restaurant, two hotels, two department and the County Sheriffs Department to address CSD store(s) and other retail space, increasing the associated additional police service needs and demand for police sewices. In addition, traffic develop an appropriate public/private security generated by the proposed project and other strategy (i.e., adequate 'security lighting, a development in the downtown area may create coordinated security program involving the private greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing onsite security force and City police, etc.). emergency response times. Condition final development plan acceptance on I WP51t596iFEIRiMMCHT. 596 I MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of implementation Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Actiont Requirements= Verification Entity4 Signature Date City approval of the applicant proposed security strategy and implementation program. Impact PS-3: Potential for Delays In Mitigation PS-3: The mall operator should Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Emergency Response. The numerous access assign alphanumeric designations to the different project project points to the project site may create confusion to access points to the Vallco Fashion Mall and approval emergency responders, possibly adding to should provide the Sheriff's Department and response times. Central Fire District with site plans showing these access point designations. Impact PS-I: Project Sanitary Sewer System Mitigation PS-4: As a condition of future onsite Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Impacts. Table 3.1 indicates that the proposed development approvals, the Applicant's civil project ~roject redevelopment plan could facilitate expansion of engineer shall compare the wastewater generation approval the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center retail increment associated with the redevelopment space by 346,870 square feet, as well as the program with the design capacity of the existing addition of a 10,000-square-foot restaurant and sewer main(s), and based on the standard two new hotels (318 rooms). The Cupertino specifications of the Cupertino Sanita;y District, Sanitary District has indicated that the increase shall either: (1) verify to the satisfaction of the in sewer collection demands associated with this City that existing collection capacity is sufficient to expansion could exceed the capacity of the serve the project; or (2) design and implement, or existing sewer main under 1-280 currently participate in on a fair share basis, to City serving the project site. satisfaction, the collection capacity improvements necessary to serve project buildout. AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-I: Construction Emissions. Mitigation AQ-1. Dust emissions from demolition Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Project construction activities such as building and construction activities can be greatly reduced project project demolition, excavation and grading operations, by implementing fugitive dust control measures, approval construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing The significance of construction impacts is, over exposed earth would generate exhaust according to BAAOMD guidance, determined by emissions and fugitive particulate matter whether or not appropriate dust control measures emissions that would affect local air quality, are implemented. Page 6 WP5115961FEIRIMMCHT. 596 I MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE ' Impl. Type of Irnp~ementaflor Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) ' Entity~ Action= , Requirements~ Verification Entity4 Signature Date Impact AQ-2: Regional Emissions. Additional Mitigation AQ-2: The shopping center Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD traffic genera/ed by Shopping center expansion redevelopment plan should implement the project project would generate regional emissions exceeding following strategies to reduce vehicle usage: ' approval the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. · Include physical improvements, such as BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that sidewalk improvements, landscaping and the would individually have a significant air quality installation of bus shelters and bicycle impact would also be considered to have a parking that would act as incentives for significant cumulative air quality impact. The pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes of proposed project therefore would also have a travel. significant cumulative Impact on regional air quality. · . Develop a transit use incentive program for employees and patrons, such as on-site distribution of passes and/or subsidized , transit passes for local transit system. · Provide transit informaUon kiosks. · Locate new building entrances near transit stops. These measures would assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than- significant level. Since no other feasible measures are available, the project and cumulative effect on regional air quality would therefore represent a significant unavoidable impact. I GEOLOGY AND SOILS I Impact GS-I: Expansive 8o115 and Soil Mitlgatiofl GS-1. In accordance with standard . App!. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Settlement. New development on the project City procedures, require the Applicant to submit a project project site may be subject to foundation and . soils report for City review. The soils report shall approval infrastructure (i.e., utility pipe) damage from be based on a sufficient analysis of soils expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist, it is likely that any such soils on the site were and shall to City satisfaction include appropriate I I Page 7 WP511596iFEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Implementatior Timing Monitoring and (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) EntibJ~ Action~ Requirements~ Verification Entity~ Signature Date treated or removed pdor to the construction of soils, fOundation, and structural engineering to the existing Vallco Fashion Park structures, it is adequately account for any expansive soil possible that some hazards remain or that underlying the site. remediafion standards have increased. Impact GS-2: Seismic Shaking Hazards. Mltigatton GS-2. Require the Applicant to submit Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Although no known active faults pass through or a detailed site-specific geotechnical investigation project project immediately adjacent to the project site, the for the project and require implementation of its approval project, like all urban development in the region, recommendations to City satisfaction as would be subject to strong to very strong conditions of project approval. Require the project seismic shaking in the event of a major to conform to the policies of the City of Cupertino earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in and comply with all standard City conditions of turn, result in ground failure from liquefaction or approval regarding geotechnical issues. Require differential settlement. Shaking or resulting that flexible connections be used for all water and ground failure could damage or destroy sewer lines, and as appropriate, underground impropady designed or constructed new power and telecommunications lines. structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concern due to the likely high concentration of occupants. CULTURAL RESOURCES Irnpact CR-I: Disturbance of Historic Mitigation CR-I: In the event that subsurface Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Archaeological Resources. Although the cultural resoumes are encountered during project project potential for the project site to contain approved ground-disturbing activities, work in the approval archaeological resources is currently considered immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified Iow, construction of the proposed new store, archaeologist retained to evaluate 'the finds. The cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources disturb sensitive, as-yet unknown histodc shall also be reported to the California Historic archaeological resources. Resources Information System (CHRIS) and, if Native American a~facts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form Page 8 WP51 ~596iFEIRIMMCHT. 596 MONITORING VERIFICATION IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type or' Implemenlatior Timing Monitoring end (CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity~ Action~ Requirements= Verification Entity~ I Signature Date DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City of Cupertino should be undertaken pdor to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall halted and the County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If the Coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and if the remains am of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted and further actions should be taken in consultation with them. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Impact CR-2: Disturbance of Onsite Mitigation CR-2: Require the Applicant to : Appl. Incorporate into the Prior to DCD Culturally Significant Trees. Project conduct a survey of existing trees on the project project i project co~struction could disturb culturally significant site, and consult with the City of Cupertino I approval trees at the project site, especially those located regarding the City's Heritage Tree list before any near the proposed new department store, change or demolition occurs in the area of parking structure, and peripheral retail store, potentially significant onsite trees. For any tree defined as a 'heritage tree" or a 'specimen tree' by Cupertino Municipal Code chapter 14.18, require compliance with City policies and. ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance. WP51[5961FEIRIMMCHT.596 RESOLUTION 00-197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ON ADOPTION OF THER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety' Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of Cupertino (the "City Council") a proposed Redevelopment Plan 9the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco redevelopment Project (the "Project"): and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2000, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing to consider adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that, before adopting the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council shall make written findings in response to each written objection received from an affected taxing entity or property owner received before or at the noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council and Agency received three (3) written objections to the Redevelopment Plan and, although none of the written objections were from an affected taxing entity ,~r property owner, the City Council elected to adopt written findings in response to the written objections prior to acting on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the "Written Findings in Response to Written Objections received," as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A RAMON ARIAS PRE..glDENT/F_~YECUTIVE DIRECTOR LAW OFFICES BAY AREA LEGAL AID Santa Clara County Office P. O. Box 1840 2 West Santa Clara Street, 8'~ Floor San Jose, CA 95109-1840 'PH: (408) 283-3700 FAX: (408) 283-3750 pIo~ June 19,2000 John Statton, Mayor City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Re: Objections to Adoption of the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Agenda item G. at June 19, 2000 Joint City Council & Redevelopment Agency Hearing. Dear Mayor Statton: Bay Area Legal Aid provides legal assistance to very low-income individuals in Cupertino and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. On behalf of our clients, very low-income residents of Cupertino, we submit the following objections to the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Redevelopment Agency's adoption of the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. We also are submitting a videotape of the proposed Project Area. Please include this letter and the videotape as part of the record of the public hearing(s) on the adoption of the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 33363, please provide us with written findings in response to this letter and the videotape of the proposed Project Area. The proposed Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (''Project Area") is coextensive with the existing Vallco Fashion Park shopping center. The purpose of redevelopment law is to revitalize urban centers that have deteriorated into slums. Vallco Fashion Park is a modem, attractive, and completely viable shopping mall. Like the golf course National City attempted to redevelop in Sweetwater Valley Civic Association v. City of National City,~ the proposed Project Area is not "blighted." To the extent that Vallco Fashion Park lags behind nearby shopping centers in terms of sales revenue and vacancy rate, these discrepancies can be corrected through.private sector development. There is no need to bring the vast powers of redevelopment to bear, and no need to deprive Santa Clara County and local schools of much needed property tax revenues. In the words of the California · ~t.. ~ t Supreme Court, redevelopment law cannot be tnvoked just because the public a~ency considers tha it can make a better use or planning of an area than its present use or plan.'a A recent Court of Appeal 18 Cal. 3d 270 (1976). Id. at 278. Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara 2 case addressing the definition of blight asserted, "the concededly desirable goal of improving an area is 'insufficient by itself to justify use of the extraordinary powers of community redevelopment. If it were, tax increment financing at public expense would become commonplace as a subsidy to private enterprise.'''3 The attempt to declare Vallco Fashion Park a "blighted" project area suitable for redevelopment is a thinly disguised attempt to subsidize private shopping center developers in their desire to upgrade a perfectly adequate mall. It is the position of Bay Area Legal Aid and our clients that the Vallco Redevelopment Project should not be adopted. We contend that the Vallco Project is contrary to California law for the following reasons: 1) a) The Project Area is not physically blighted. The Cupertino Redevelopment Agency ("the Agency") contends that factors are present that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings or lots. The Agency cites such things as mall design that is "functionally obsolete," as well as the lack of"a theme" and "connection to other retailing in the community." (Preliminary Report at 14 [all subsequent page references are to the Preliminary Report]). While conceding that Vallco is attractively landscaped, the Agency mentions factors such as the "fortress-like image," and "confusing circulation system" with "no visual connection with its surroundings." According to the Agency, Vallco's "generic building envelope is uninspiring." (15) Contrary to the statutory requirement of Health & Safety Code § 33031 that the blighting factors "prevent or substantially hinder" economically viable use, the factors asserted by the Agency largely are esoteric and subjective. The Agency employs precisely the type of"jargon" -- such as "functional obsolescence" (1, 14) -- denigrated by the Courts of Appeal in 8each-Courchesne v.. City of Diamond Bar and County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta.4 The Agency also cites "small and obscured 'signs" and "ingress and egress points" that "axe difficult to find." (16) No doubt these are tangible problems, but they hardly necessitate redeveloping the entire mall. In short, the record is devoid of factual support for the conclusory findings of blight asserted by the Agency. b) The Agency asserts as its second category of physical blight, lots "of irregular form, shape and size under multiple ownership." (16) However, all of the lots comprising Vallco Fashion Park are owned by one of three large, corporate entities: Sears Roebuck, The Jacobs Group, or J.C. Penney. According to the Agency, "[a]dequate parcel size and dimension are necessary if land is to be effectively utilized... · The additional land and reconfigured parcels must be large enough to accommodate the new retail/entertainment anchors, setback areas, and parking and circulation space." (I 6- 17) The Agency further asserts that "[t]he diversity of ownership complicates land assembly efforts and the ability to expand the shopping center without agreement by all parties." (I 7) The existing parcels are more than adequate for use as a shopping center. They simply do not conform to the Agency and The Jacobs Group's conception of the ideal shopping center. The intent of the Agency to subsidize The Jacobs Group's upgrade of ~ Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar, 80 Cal. App. 4~ 986 (2000) (quoting Regus v. City of Baldwin Park, 70 Cal. App. 3d 968, 979 (1977)). 4 65 Cal. App. 4~h 616 (1998). Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara 2) 3) 3 Vallco becomes even more evident when one considers that the "diversity of ownership" refers to just three corporate owners; the difficulty for the Agency and The Jacobs Group arises because they want to concentrate ownership in the hands of one party. According to the preliminary report, in order to attract a fourth anchor store, it is "critical" that J.C. Penney be willing to sell its land. (9) The desire to attract a fourth anchor store does not constitute physical blight. , As a whole, these considerations do not rise to the level of physical blight as contemplated by California law. The properties within the Project Area are included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue, without other substantial justification. The Project Area is not economically blighied. The Agency cites factors such as a decline in retail sales, high vacancy levels, a decline in assessed Value of the mall, a lack of strong national and regional retailers, and an inability, of the malt shop space to "attract a significant fashion or higher image retail component to be competitive with Stanford and Valley Fair Shopping Centers." (I7-18) However, the market analysis upon which the Preliminary Report is based is flawed by conflict of interest. The Agency and its consultants rely on data supplied by The Jacobs Group. However, The Jacobs Group is a major landowner in the Project Area and would be the entity that actually develops the proposed shopping center. The Jacobs Group therefore stands-to benefit economically if the City Council votes to redevelop Vallco Fashion Park. In the Preliminary Report, the Agency frequently contrasts Vallco Fashion Park with the 'successes enjoyed by Valley Fair Malt and Stanford Shopping Center. However, the Agency neglects to mention that neither Valley Fair nor Stanford Shopping Center was aided by redevelopment. In fact, the City of Palo Alto - where Stanford Shopping Center is located - does not eveh have a redevelopment agency. They also fai. led to conduct meaningful comparisons of Vallco with other shopping malls on the Peninsula. This underscores the bias of the market analysis performed by the Agency, its consultants, and The Jacobs Group. They failed to evaluate why Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping Center are successful. Instead, they jumped directly to the conclusion that Vallco Fashion Park's salvation lies in redevelopment. The refrain of the Agency is that Vallco lacks "high-end" retail establishments and national chains. (20-21) However, considering the proximity of the "high-end" Valley Fair Mall and the "very-high-end" Stanford Shopping Center, it is quite plausible that the South Bay "high-end" shopping mall market already is saturated. Perhaps Vallco's niche should be as a shopping center featuring less exclusive stores and attracting the entire economic spectrum of shoppers. The Vallco Redevelopment Project has as its main purpose the capturing of tax increment revenues for encouraging commercial development and subsidizing the upgrade by private parties of a viable shopping center in an area in which blight does not predominate. Health & Safety Code § 33321 states: "~:~'(~ A project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara ~ 5 4) 5) 4 predominate and ~,juriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Each such area included under this section shall be necessary for effecti,/e redevelopment and shall not be included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue from such area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion. The proposed Project therefbre violates Health & Safety Code § 33321. The Project Area does not constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the City of Cupertino that cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed Or alleviated by private enterprise, governmental action, or both. a) The California Legislature has declared that, "a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing? The Agency's selection of the Vallco Project Area undermines this fundamental purpose. The Preliminary Report is silent about housing. The Agency acknowledges its legal obligation to set aside 20% of the gross tax increment in a low- and moderate-income housing fund, but the Report does not contain any specific proposals concerning creation of affordable housing. Considering the extreme shortage of Iow- and moderate-income housing in Santa Clara County and the central role the creation of affordable housing plays in redevelopment, the failure to include adequate affordable housing in a project area can provide the basis for the re-designation of the very same project area as "blighted" at the end of the original redevelopment plan. Moreover, the proposed Vallco Project likely will worsen the affordable housing shortage in Cupertino and increase traffic congestion. Many jobs created within the Vallco Project Area will be Iow wage, service industry positions. Employers may be reluctant to locate businesses in the Project Area if the supply of affordable housing is inadequate to house their workers. Creating affordable housing in the Project Area addresses this issue, while at the same time creating a larger customer base for businesses locating in the Project Area and reducing the amount of commuter traffic on the streets of Cupertino. b) Health & Safety Code § 33352 requires that the redevelopment plan contain detailed findings concerning the reasons for selecting the project area in question. The Agency must consider all possible project areas before selecting the area they wish to redevelop. Other areas within Cupertino suffer from "blight" to a greater degree than the proposed Vallco Project Area (assuming, for the sake of argument, that any blight exists within the proposed Project Area). The Agency likewise ignored the opportunity to create more affordable housing by establishing a project area encompassing existing residentially zoned property. Compounding this problem is a strong argument based on the State Constitution that tax increment money may not be used outside a project area, even for the creation of Iow- and moderate-income housing. The Agency apparently failed to consider the possibility of establishing a "mixed use" project area in which housing and commercial enterprises occupy the same buildings. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 33071. Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara 6) 7) 8) 9) lO) c) Health & Sa[cry Code § 33385 requires that redevelopment agencies form project area committees consisting of residents and community groups if either a substantial ~0/i4/Wg/~ 7' number of low- or moderate-income people reside in the proposed project area, or a "~:lO substantial number of low- or moderate-income people will be displaced by a public project within the project area. By designating a project area in a commercially zoned area with no housing and no prospects for future residential use, the Agency is excluding Iow-income residents of Cupertino from the decision-making process and limiting Cupertino's ability to develop affordable housing in the future. The deprivation of the right to vote on issues involving the Project Area may implicate constitutional rights as well. The Preliminary Report is silent as to whether the Agency formed a Project Area Committee or consulted with residents and community organizations, as required .by Health & Safety Code § 33385(f) for project areas that do not contain a substantial number of low- or moderate-income residents. The project area is not "predominantly urbanized," as defined in Health & Safety Code § 33320.1. Eighty percent of the land in the proposed project area has not been "developed for urban uses," does not contain "subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership," and is not "an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses." A shopping mall is not an "urban use." It is merely a privately owned conglomeration of stores, restaurants, and parking facilities; furthermore, it stretches the definition of"urban use" to apply the phr~e to an area which, by definition, has no permanent residents. The Vallco Redevelopment Project will cause a significant financial burden or detriment to other taxing agencies deriving revenues from the Project Area, including Santa Clara County, by decreasing its tax revenues for the next 30 to 44 years (depending upon ':~l~ whether tax increment will be diverted during the final fifteen years of the plan to repay bonded indebtedness of the agency). This diversion of tax increment will impair the ability of Santa Clara County to provide public and social services, particularly to very low-income individuals and families. The Vallco Redevelopment Plan authorizes the issuance of bonds to be repaid by tax increment funds and sets an indebtedness limit of $43.04 million, pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 33334.1. However, the Plan does not adequately explain the basis for the limit on bonded debt and why this amount is necessary. For instance, the Plan states that, at the Agency's discretion, "other funding sources.., may also represent viable funding alternatives." (32) The Agency concedes that its economic feasibility analysis "was created to represent one scenario of economic feasibility." (32) The Agency's projections about indebtedness are speculative, contingent, and not based on substantial evidence. Adoption of an ordinance approving the Vallco Redevelopment Plan would violate Health & Safety Code § 33367 because substantial evidence does not support the Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara 6 requisite findings an~. aeterminations of the legislative body. but are not limited to, findings that: '1 he deficiencies include, a. the project area is blighted; b. redevelopment of the area would be in conformity with the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; . c. the redevelopment plan is economically sound and feasible; d. the condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan; e. any area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining tax increment revenues without other substantial justification; f. the elimination of (alleged) blight and redevelopment of the project area could not be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone; and g. the project area is predominantly urbanized. The Vallco Redevelopment Plan is not consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan and Housing Element, in violation of Health & Safety Code § 33367(d)(4). Cupertino does not have a valid Housing Element because the amount of affordable housing in Cupertino is inadequate and the City has not taken appropriate action to alleviate the shortage, such as zoning a sufficient amount of land high density residential to accommodate the construction of affordable housing. Because the Vallco Redevelopment Plan does not increase the supply of affordable housing or the quantity of land zoned to accommodate affordable housing - and, in fact, excludes Iow- and moderate-income housing from the Project Area - the Plan is inconsistent with Cupertino's General Plan. and contrary to state law. Si~l,. (//Staff Attorney For the above reasons, the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project is legally defective cc: City Clerk City Council / Redevelopment Agency City Attorney City Manager Serving the Counties of Alameda Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Clara BRYANT, CLOHAN, ELLER, 1M. AINES & BARUH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 303ALMADEN BOULEVARD, 5TH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2721 TELEPHONE (408) 299-0180 FACSIMILE (408) 271-0751 jelleresq~aol.com PALO ALTO OFFICE: 550 HAMILTON AVENUE, #220 PALO ALTO, C.~LIFORNIA 9430.1 TEL (6~0) 324-1606 June 19, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project ("Plan") Dear Members of the City Council:. This office has been asked to advise you of the objections of our client with regard to the Plan. The Plan should not be approved this evening and should be modified for the following reasons: 1. The Plan is currently inadequate due to its vagueness. While the Project Area is identified, the Plan contains no discussion as to how or why the redevelopment of the Project Area would accomplish the goals and purposes set forth in Section 100 of the Plan or the elimination of blight as described in Section 300 of the Plan. 2. As described i ' ~ - ' v' ~' n the ,: 1-,,n, *,he Development Abn'eement '~+-'~ Au~,as, ~ ~ 1991 ("DA") is currently in existence. The DA was entered into by the City of Cupertino to accomplish the purposes and goals currently set forth in the Plan. The DA specifically impacts a significant portion of the Project Area. A redevelopment plan is not to provide a taxpayer based funding mechanism for a preexisting City Ordinance. We believe the DA conflicts with provisions of the Plan and the DA must be rescinded prior to the adoption of the Plan. 3. Because the Plan provides no specific details such as how its goals might be accomplished or what specific conditions of the Project Area constitute blight, there is no basis for any rational connection between the mount set forth in Section 502, $42,610,000.00, and the actual amount needed to accomplish the goals of the Plan. It is a violation of the fiduciary duties of each council member to allow for the possibility of Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency June 19, 2000 Page 2 expenditure of funds far in excess of funds a~tually needed to achieve even appropriate goals. Greater specificity and some finding of a reasonable relationship between the expenditures and the anticipated benefit of the Plan should be included in the Plan. The Plan should be modified to address the issues set forth herein before it should be approved by the Council. DSO:cb 10906 BRYANT, CLOHAN, ELLER, 1V[AIN~ & BARUH, ATTORNEYS AT LA~7 303 ALMADEN BOULEVARD, 5TH FLOOR SAN lOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2721 TELEPHONE (408) 299-0180 FACSIMILE (408) 271-0754 ielleresq~aol.com PALO ALTO OFFICE: 550 I-~VlILTON AVENUE, ~220 PALO ALTO, CALIFOI~IIA 94301 TEL (650) 324-1606 June 19, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Objections to the Environmental Impact Report for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Plan (SCH No. 99082086) Dear Members of the City Cohncil and Redevelopment Agency: We have been authorized and directed to submit to you for consideration and review at tonight's Joint Meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency the following objections to the above-referenced Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): 1. The requirements for the approval of an environmental impact report under Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. have not been met; 2. The EIR does not adequately identify all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed redevelopment of Vallco Fashion Park (the "Project"); 3. The EIR does not adequately identify ways to minimize or avoid all of the significant environmental effects of the Project; 4. The scope of the Project described in the EIR is too vague and speculative to allow proper consideration and approval of the EIR. Project; The EIR does not adequately address the potential traffic effects of the Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency June 19, 2000 Page 2 the Project. The EIR does not adequately mitigate the effects of the potenial density of Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency withhold their approval of the EIR until such time that all of the above considerations have been adequately addressed. y yours, lYaniel S DSG:cb 10904 EXHIBIT A WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) imposes upon a legislative body contemplating the adoption of a redevelopment plan the obligation to consider and respond in writing to any written objections received from an affected taxing entity or property owner before or at the noticed public hearing on said plan and to adopt written findings in response to each such written objection. At the noticed joint public hearing held on June 19, 2000, the City Council and Agency received three letters objecting to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. While none of the letters were from an affected taxing entity or property owner within the Project Area, the City Council elected to respond to the letters of objection prior to acting on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The following provides a summary of each of those written objections, together with the findings of the City Council in response thereto. A. Written Objections from Bay Area Legal Aid: Letter dated June 19, 2000, from VVilliam Lift, Staff Attorney, Bay Area Legal Aid, representing very Iow-income residents of Cupertino, objecting to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (the letter is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1). The following "comment" numbers are marked on Attachment No. 1 to show the correlation between the summary of objections set forth below and the specific paragraphs of the letter. Summary of Comment #1. The proposed Project Area is not blighted. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #1: The commentor attempts to narrowly define the purpose of redevelopment by stating that "the purpose of redevelopment law is to revitalize urban centers that have deteriorated into slums." The Community Redevelopment Law, however, does not contain such a narrow definition. The Legislature has determined what conditions affecting an area justify redevelopment, and they are set forth in Sections 33030 and 33031 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The proposed Project Area is blighted under the criteria of Sections 33030 and 33031, as documented in the Agency's CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 3 of 15 7113/00 Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency's Report"). Contrary to the claim by the commentor, the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center is not a modern, attractive and completely viable shopping mall. The Agency's Report documents in detail the blighting conditions that exist in the proposed Project Area, both physical and economic. These conditions include: (1) substandard design (Report, pp. 20-21); (2) buildings of inadequate size (Report, pp. 21-22); (3) inadequate circulation and access (Report, p. 22); (4) lots of irregular form, shape and size under multiple ownership (Report, pp. 22-23); (5) decline in retail sales (Report, pp. 24-25); (6) decline in assessed value (Report, p. 26); (7) high vacancy levels and lack of strong national and regional retailers (Report, pp. 26-27); and (8) Iow lease rates and monthly rents (Report, p. 28). The Vallco Fashion Park shopping center is not like the golf course that was the subject of dispute in Sweetwater Valley Civic Association v. City of National City (1976) 18 Cal.3d 270. In that case, National City proposed a Redevelopment Plan to replace an existing golf course with a 70-building shopping center, a completely alternative use. The only evidence of blight affecting the golf course was sporadic drainage problems, sporadic soil problems and the fact that the golf course had a lower assessed value than the average for other National City properties (which the court noted was typical for an open space, recreational use). Summary of Comment #2. The private sector can remedy the problems at Vallco Fashion Park without the need for redevelopment, and declaring Vallco Fashion Park a blighted project area suitable for redevelopment is an attempt to subsidize private shopping center developers in their desire to upgrade a perfectly adequate mall. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #2: The commentor states "to the extent that Vallco Fashion Park lags behind nearby shopping centers in terms of sales revenue and vacancy rate, these discrepancies can be corrected through private sector development." However, the Agency's Report contains substantial evidence to the contrary. Over the 24 years since its opening in 1976, the only capital improvements to the mall (improvements other than tenant improvements) have been limited to the'expansion of the lower mall in 1998 and the addition of a food court. The lower mall space is now being considered for removal as part of the renovation proposal because there is more small retail mall space than can be supported. AIso,.the food court was closed by Sears in 1998 due to a lack of rent payment. Contrary to the commentor's assertion that the private Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 4 of 15 7113/00 sector can correct the decline of the mall, which began over ten years ago, there have been several unsuccessful attempts at renovation and two sales due to foreclosure or threat of foreclosure: December 1991 m City approves plans to expand the shopping center but plans were put on hold after a change in ownership (Heitman/JMB Advisory of Chicago). September 1993 -- City approves a movie theater and parking garage. The plans were thereafter abandoned. Winter 1995 m Vallco is sold to an investment group. December 1997 m Teacher's Insurance and Annuity Association forecloses debts on Vallco, assumes ownership of the mall and hires The Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "The Jacobs Group") to operate the mall. October 1998 -- The Jacobs Group purchases the shopping center improvements in an atypical sale/financing transaction. As described in the Response to Comment #1, Vallco Fashion Park is not "a perfectly adequate mall," as claim~.d by the commentor, but suffers from the numerous blighting conditions detailed in the Agency's Report. For at least the past 10 years, the private sector has been unable or unwilling (due to the high costs and risks involved) to remedy Vallco's problems, and without redevelopment, it is reasonable to expect that Vallco will continue to decline. Summary of Comment #3. The factors identified as preventing or substantially hindering the economically viable use of buildings or lots are esoteric and subjective, the findings of blight asserted by the Agency are conclusory, and conclusory findings have been denigrated by the courts in Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar (2000) 80 CaI.App.4th 986, and County of Riverside v. Murrieta (1998) 65 CaI.App.4th 616. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #3: Health and Safety Code Section 33031(a)(2) provides that factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots "can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The Agency's Report documents the existence of such blighting factors as they particularly affect the Project Area, e.g.: CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 5 of 15 7113100 a. Substandard Design "The design of the Vallco center is dated, with three anchors, a limited number of eating establishments, and an arcade and ice rink as its primary entertaining offerings." (Report, p. 20.) "The design of the Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center lacks two components that are key to most successful contemporary centers: (1) a theme, and (2) a connection to other retailing in the community." (Report, p. 20.) The Agency's Report then compares Vallco to two successful competing centers. "The mall's confusing circulation system of tunnels and ramps reinforces the fortress' image, which provides no visual connection with its surroundings." (Report, p. 20.) b. Buildings of Inadequate Size "Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center's existing structure cannot accommodate these plans [for another retail anchor or major entertainment component]. The existing building envelope is dominated by small retail spaces that average approximately 25' x 100' in dimension." (Report, p. 21.) The Agency's Report then refers to photos of the small retail spaces. "The retail bridge which crosses Wolfe Road and connects the east and west sections of the center is too narrow in terms of leasable space for most retailers." (Report, p. 21.) c. Inadequate Circulation and Access "Store locations, their parking and access are not clearly identified and confuse users." (Report, p. 22.) The Agency's Report then refers to a map showing vehicular circulation at the mall and photos of the mall showing these problems. "Ingress and egress points are difficult to find." (Report, p. 22.) Even the commentor acknowledged that these were "no doubt tangible problems." "Entry points into the mall have deep setbacks, are not clearly marked and are obscured by buildings or parking structures." (Report, p. 22.) The Agency's Report then refers to a map showing pedestrian circulation at the mall and photos of the mall showing these problems. CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 6 of 15 7/13100 Contrary to the commentor's claim, these conditions are not esoteric and subjective. The conditions pertain-to defects in substantial structural elements of the Vallco shopping center and can most certainly be objectively viewed and evaluated. Unlike the evidence of blight relied on in the Diamond Bar and Murrieta cases cited by the commentor, the Agency's Report factually documents the incidences of blight as they exist in the Vallco Project Area. The project areas in Diamond Bar and Murrieta were, respectively, 1300 acres and 3588.19 acres, each containing numerous and varied properties. In the Murrieta case, the court stated as follows: "An example of the kind of jargon used in the report is the following: 'Functional obsolescence is a condition resulting from changes in modern building practices and the manner in which buildings are utilized. As the building stock ages, its structural components and configurations become unable to meet the expectatiOn and needs of users. This suppresses value and rental income which in turn produces a lower level of physical maintenance at a time when the structures are literally wearing out.' In other words, buildings age and become less valuable. But the foregoing does not show the existence of blight in the City of Murrieta." (Murdeta, 65 CaI.App.4th at p. R27.). With respect to the Vallco Project Area, the blighting conditions identified in the Agency's Report are not definitions of blight or blighting conditions, but concrete factors showing conditions existing at the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center. Summary of Comment #-4. The blight identified as lots of irregular form, shape and size under multiple ownership is not physical blight as contemplated by California law because the existing parcels are more than adequate for use as a shopping center; the desire to attract a fourth anchor store does not constitute physical blight; and the properties within the Project Area are included for the purpose of obtaining tax increment revenue, without other substantial justification. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #4: The logic of the commentor's assertions is flawed' because it is based upon the assertion that the mall is a "modern, attractive, and completely viable shopping center." This assertion dismisses all the evidence to the contrary. The Jacobs Group, a national retailer, has extensive knowledge and experience in what is required to make a shopping center competitive, including determining what is an appropriate mix of mall and anchor space. Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 7 of 15 7/43/oo Additionally, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA"), the Agency's redevelopment consultant, has 25 years of experience in building and repositioning regional shopping centers throughout the State. KMA's analysis of the inadequacy of the existing parcelization and ownership is based on information supplied by The Jacobs Group, comparison of other successful shopping centers and KMA's extensive experience. The existing parcels controlled by The Jacobs Group alone are inadequate to expand the mall and reconfigure the tenant space to achieve a viable shopping center. Cooperation between all owners in the expansion and revitalization of the shopping center is necessary. Summary of Comment #5. The Project Area is not economically blighted. Findings of the City Council Response to Comment #5: Contrary to the commentor's claim, the Agency's Report amply documents the existence of economic blight in the Project Area, including: decline in retail sales of 23% (Report, p. 24); Annual sales per square foot that average less than 40% of the national average (according to the International Council of Shopping Centers Monthly Retail Index, December 1998) (Report, p. 25); Vallco sales per square foot fall considerably short of the competing malls, attaining only 24% of Stanford and 21% of Valley Fair sales per square foot (Report, p. 25); The assessed value of the shopping center has declined by 30% (Report, p. 26); The vacancy rate is at 26% (as of November 1998) (Report, p. 26); of the tenants that have left, 57% were national tenants (Report, p. 27); Approximately 22% of the mall space is leased to national tenants (Report, p. 27); 60% is typically required by lenders to undenNrite a loan (Report, p. 27); 29% of the space is leased on a month-to-month basis or to tenants paying on a percentage rent basis only (Report, p. 28). The commentor contends that the economic blight analysis is flawed because The Jacobs Group supplied the data. However, The Jacobs Group was not the sole source for the conditions of economic blight identified in the Agency's Report. Other sources included published reports by the International Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 8 of 15 7/13/oo Council of Shopping Centers, City of Cupertino retail sales tax data and the California State Board of Equalization. The analysis of economic blighting conditions by KMA is based upon 25 years of the firm's experience in building and repositioning regional shopping centers throughout the State. The performance information for the mall shops provided by The Jacobs Group, including retail sales, the vacancy rate and tenant composition is not subjective or conclusory, but is factual information. The data reported by The Jacobs Group is consistent with site inspections made by KMA, historical information on declining retail sales tax reported by the City and the history of failed attempts at expanding the shopping center, the foreclosure in 1997 and multiple changes in ownership. The Vallco shopping center is clearly in a state of decline. The commentor further states that the Agency failed to mention that the Stanford Shopping Center and Valley Fair have not been assisted by redevelopment, that the Agency failed to compare Vallco to other shopping centers in the Peninsula, and that the Agency failed to evaluate why the Valley Fair and Stanford Shopping Centers are successful. The Agency's Report does not suggest that every successful shopping center is assisted by redevelopment, quite the contrary. Redevelopment is needed because of the unique circumstances of Vallco (blighting conditions) and the inability of the private sector on its own to revitali;'e the mall. The Agency's Report notes that competing shopping centers have expanded while Vallco has remained stagnant in its ability to attract new retailers. (Report, p. 14.) Valley Fair and Stanford are used for more specific comparison because they are the closest shopping centers to Vallco and represent Vallco's closest competing market. As appropriate to an evaluation of blight affecting Vallco, the Agency's Report does describe reasons why Valley Fair and Stanford are thought to be successful, including modern design, high-end anchors, cafes and themes (Report, p. 20). Lastly, the commentor suggests that "Vallco's niche should be as a shopping center featuring less exclusive stores and attracting the entire economic spectrum of shoppers." It is anticipated with the renovation of Vallco that it will recapture only a portion of the retail sales lost to Valley Fair and Stanford. The Agency is not anticipating the creation of another high-end shopping center. Vallco is already "featuring less exclusive stores," yet is not attracting the patronage necessary to maintain the center's viability. Physical changes and a more diverse composition of tenants, including more national tenants and entertainment uses, are needed to make the shopping center viable. A different mix of tenants is not going to be attracted to the center as currently CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 9 of 15 7113~00 configured. This is evidenced by the departure of and inability to attract national retail tenants. Summary of Comment #6. The Project has as its main purpose the capturing of tax increment revenue in an area in which blight does not predominate and therefore violates Health and Safety Code Section 33321. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #6: Health and Safety Code Section 33321 authorizes the inclusion in a project area of buildings, improvements or lands that may not individually be blighted, so long as they are necessary for effective redevelopment and not included solely for the purpose of obtaining tax increments. The Cupertino Vallco Project Area is a relatively small project area, consisting exclusively of the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center, and the purpose of the Project is the redevelopment and revitalization of that center. Again, contrary to the commentor's claim, Vallco is not a viable shopping center. As described and amply documented in the Agency's Report, the Project Area is affected by both physical and economic conditions and these conditions predominate, affecting the entire shopping center, not just a portion of it. Redevelopment is proposed for Vallco because it is blighted under the criteria of the Community Redevelopmen? Law, and the Project Area includes only those buildings, improvements and lands that are blighted and necessary for effective redevelopment. Summary of Comment #7. The Project Area does not constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the City of Cupertino that cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise, governmental action, or both. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #7: The Agency's Report documents the burden on the City (Report, pp. 12-14) and the need for redevelopment assistance (Report, pp. 14'17). In sum, the decline in sales tax from Vallco significantly impacts the fiscal resources of the City, and the center does not adequately serve the shopping needs of the City's residents. Further, because Vallco is in a state of decline and the costs and risks associated with renovation, including a new retail parking garage, are so high, the private sector cannot reasonably be expected to make the investment required -- the return on that investment would be inadequate to justify the investment. That fact is compounded by the multiple ownerships in the Project Area, mutual contractual easements and the need for approval from all the owners before major renovation and new improvements could occur. Based on the history of the center, the investment that would be Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 1 0 of 1 5 7/13/00 required to make it financially successful and the anticipated return, the more reasonable expectation is that the shopping center will continue as currently configured and Vallco will continue in its decline. Summary of Comment #8. The Vallco Project Area undermines the fundamental purpose of redevelopment to expand the supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing because the Preliminary Report does not contain any specific proposals concerning the creation of affordable housing in the Project Area and the proposed Project will worsen the affordable housing shortage in Cupertino and thereby increase traffic congestion. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #8: As the commentor acknowledges, the Agency has an obligation to use 20% of its tax increment revenues to increase, improve and preserve the supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing. The Agency's Report documents this obligation in the financial feasibility section and describes the programs contemplated by the Agency for the use of these funds in the Implementation Plan (Report, Section VII, pp. 45-47). It is anticipated that $19.5 million will be available for affordable housing programs in the City of Cupertino over the life of the Redevelopment Plan (Report, p. 37). The PreliminarY Report is not silent about housing --it contains a reference to the Agency's affordable housing obligation on page 29; ~.he Preliminary Report (which preceded preparation of the Agency's Report) is a report prepared exclusively for affected taxing entities for use in evaluating the fiscal impacts of the Project on those entities and contained information adequate for that purpose. Further, the Redevelopment Plan for the Project provides for land uses in accordance with the City of Cupertino General Plan, and the General Plan authorizes residential use in the Project Area, although none currently exists. As the Agency implements the Redevelopment Plan, it is entirely possible that a future use could include affordable housing. In any event, affordable housing will be created or preserved in the City of Cupertino through the use of 20% of the Agency's tax increment revenues. Summary of Comment #9. The Agency failed to consider all possible project areas, ignored the opportunity to create more affordable housing by establishing a project area encompassing existing residentially zoned property, and failed to consider the possibility of establishing a mixed-use project area in which housing and commercial enterprises occupy the same buildings. CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 11 of 15 7/13~00 Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #9: Nothing in the Community Redevelopment Law requires the Agency to consider all possible project areas before selecting an area for redevelopment. Further, the Community Redevelopment Law does not require that every project area include land for residential use. In fact, the law recognizes that not every project area will include residential land. Consequently, Section 33334.2(g) of the Health and Safety Code authorizes redevelopment agencies to use tax increments both inside and outside a project area, and that provision has existed in the law since 1977 without Constitutional challenge. The Agency did not ignore the opportunity to create more affordable housing by establishing a project area encompassing existing residentially zoned property. The Agency cannot simply add property to the Project Area because it is residentially zoned; as previously stated by the commentor, an area proposed for redevelopment must be blighted. In any event, as described in the Response to Comment #8, residential use in the Project Area is currently permitted, and as the Agency implements the Redevelopment Plan, it .is entirely possible that a future use could include housing. Summary of Comment #10. The Agency excluded Iow-income residents of Cupertino from the decision-making process and is limiting Cupertino's ability to develop affordable housing by designating a Project Area with no housing and no prospects for future residential use; the deprivation of the right to vote on issues involving the Project Area may implicate constitutional rights. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #10: The Agency did not exclude Iow-income residents of Cupertino from the decision-making process. Those residents, like any other resident of Cupertino, were entitled to appear and be heard at the joint public hearing of the Agency and City Council held on June 19, 2000. In fact, the commentor did appear at the hearing and spoke on behalf of those Iow-income residents he claims to represent (the objecting residents have not been identified). Further, the Agency has not limited the City's ability to develop affordable housing in the future. The City does not currently have any ability to develop affordable housing; it can only encourage the private sector to do so. With the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, however, the Agency and City can act affirmatively to cause the construction or improvement of affordable housing because it provides a dedicated source of funds for that purpose, a CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 12 of 15 7/13/00 source of funds that would not otherwise exist. Additionally, as described in the Response to Comments #8 and #9, the Agency may use tax increment monies anywhere in the City for the purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the City's supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing, and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan could possibly include housing. Summary of Comment #11. The Preliminary Report is silent as to whether the Agency formed a Project Area Committee or consulted with residents and community organizations. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #11: The contents of the Preliminary Report are not required to include this information. As described in the Response to Comment #8, it is a report that is prepared for use by the affected taxing entities in evaluating the proposed Project and its fiscal impacts on those entities. The Agency's Report does contain such information in Section X, on page 52. Summary of Comment #12. The Project Area is not predominantly urbanized. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #12: The commentor is incorrect that ~ shopping mall such as Yallco is not an urban use. For purposes of redevelopment and the predominantly urbanized requirement, the courts have looked at whether an area is typically characteristic of a city (the common definition of urban) or whether it is rural. (County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) 65 CaI.App.4th 616.) In the Murrieta case, for example, the court found that of the land in the Project Area, including 457.05 acres in commercial use, the "rural-residential" and "equestrian-residential" properties (land on which horses, livestock and other agricultural uses were allowed) were not urban uses. The urban nature of the commercial uses was not questioned. A shopping center like Vallco most certainly is characteristic of a city and an urban use. Summary of Comment #13. The Project will cause a significant financial burden or detriment to other taxing agencies deriving revenues from the Project Area. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #13: The Vallco Project will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to other taxing agencies. The Community Redevelopment Law contains a mechanism to alleviate any financial burden or detriment to other taxing agencies in Health and Safety Code Sections 33607.5 and 33676. These statutory pass-through payments have been determined by the Legislature to remedy any perceived financial burden or detriment to the other taxing Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 13 of 15 7/13/00 agencies and will be paid by the Agency. The Agency's Report documents these payments in the section pertaining to financial feasibility. In any event, the taxing agencies can speak and have spoken for themselves. The Agency's Report describes the consultations held by the Agency and the affected taxing agencies in Section XlI. No affected taxing agency has objected to the adoption of the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Summary of Comment #14. The Plan does not adequately explain the basis for the $43.04 million limit on bonded debt and why this amount is necessary. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #14: The $43.04 million limit on bonded debt referred to by the commentor was the amount determined from the analysis in the February 2000 Preliminary Report. The analysis in the Agency's Report (May 2000) included a bonded debt limit of $38.87 million. The bonded debt limit actually contained in Section 502 of the Redevelopment Plan is $42.61 million. The bonded debt limit is based on a projection of the tax increment to be generated by the project and the amount of debt that the tax increment will support given current underwriting criteria. The actual amount of debt that could be supported by the tax increment might be either more or less than the projection, depending upon the actual tax increment flow and actual applicable underwriting criteria. The Agency's Report contains a proposed program of redevelopment activities and an analysis of the estimated costs of those activities in Section V and VI. Section VI further includes a projection of the tax increments to be generated in the Project Area, as modified by the Supplement to the Agency's Report. The bonded debt limit of $42.61 million is a reasonable limit for the Project Area as it is within 10% of the magnitude that is currently being projected for the Project Area given program/administration costs, valuation estimates and underwriting criteria. The 10% cushion allows for uncertainties related to the determination of the actual base year value, actual tax increment cash flow, and changes in future underwriting conditions. In any event, the bonded debt limit represents a maximum which may not be exceeded without amendment of the Redevelopment Plan. It does not commit the Agency to expending or incurring debt in that amount, and if tax increment revenues are less than projected, the actual amount of bonded debt will be less. Similarly, the specific redevelopment activities to be undertaken and their estimated costs may change. The fact that one scenario of economic feasibility was presented in the Agency's Report is not unusual or uncommon. A redevelopment plan is a long-term planning document. As CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 14 of 15 7/13/00 stated by the court in County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville (1985) 177 CaI.App.3d 831,841: "By exercising certain of its powers to implement redevelopment, a redevelopment agency may induce private investment in an area. The success of any redevelopment project is dependent upon whether private lenders, developers, owners, and tenants can be Persuaded to participate in the process. Thus, a redevelopment agency is unique among public entities since in order to achieve its objective of eliminating blight it must rely upon cooperation with the private sector. Redevelopment is also a process which occurs over a period of years. These realities dictate that a redevelopment plan be written in terms that enhance a redevelopment agency's ability to respond to market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and abilities of owners and tenants. Such a plan then cannot always outline in detail each project that a redevelopment agency will undertake during the life of the plan." Again, the bonded debt limitation is a maximum only and does not commit the Agency to incurring that precise amount of bonded debt or any debt; it is properly based on estimates of what may reasonably be needed by the Agency to carry out its redevelopment activities. Summary of Comment #15. SubstanTial evidence does not support the findings required to be made by the legislative body. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #15: The factual evidence to support the requisite findings of the City Council have been adequately documented in the Agency's Report as described in the Responses to Comments #1-14. Summary of Comment #16. The Redevelopment Plan is not consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan and Housing Element because the Housing Element is inadequate and because the Redevelopment Plan does not increase the supply of affordable housing. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #16: The City of Cupertino General Plan and its Housing Element are adequate. The Housing Element is in compliance with State housing element law, as determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on September 28, 1994. The Housing Element provided adequate sites for 1,484 higher density housing units at the time of its adoption in 1993. Since then, 1,073 of these units have either been built or CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 15 of 15 7/13/O0 are approved to be built. There are 97 housing units remaining in the Heart of the City planning district, which includes the Vallco Redevelopment Area. Any property owner in that planning district may apply for a use permit to utilize those remaining units. The General Plan also requires that 10% of all residential developments be affordable (developments with nine or less units may pay an in-lieu fee). Since adoption of the General Plan, 161 affordable units have been constructed. In addition to residential mitigation, office/industrial developers are required to pay a $1.00/square foot affordable housing mitigation fee. The Redevelopment Plan will increase the supply of affordable housing because it creates an obligation on the part of the Agency to spend 20% of its tax increment revenues for that purpose. Further, the law contains specific provisions to ensure the fulfillment of that obligation. B. Written Objections from Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines & Baruh, LLP: Letter dated June 19, 2000, from Daniel S. Gonzales, Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines & Baruh, LLP, representing an unidentified client or clients, objecting to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (the letter is attached hereto as Attachment No. 2). The following "comment" numbers refer to the paragraphs of the same number in Attachment No. 2. Summary of Comment #1. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is inadequate due to its vagueness.- Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #1: The Redevelopment Plan is not required to explain how or why the redevelopment of the Project Area would accomplish the goals and purposes set forth in Section 100 or the elimination of blight. The Agency's Report contains the evidence in support of the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, including the facts establishing that the Project Area is blighted, that redevelopment is necessary to eliminate the blighting conditions, and that the actions proposed to be undertaken by the Agency will aid in the elimination of the blighting conditions. Summary of Comment #2. The Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, conflicts with the Redevelopment Plan and must be rescinded prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #2: The commentor does not indicate how he Agreement conflicts with the Redevelopment Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 16 of 15 believes the Development Plan. The Development 7/13/00 Agreement provides essentially an entitlement for a certain level of development in the Vallco area that cannot be affected by conflicting future action of the City. The Redevelopment Plan acknowledges the existence of the Development Agreement, and its vested entitlements, but does not depend on it and does not conflict with it. Both the Development Agreement and the Redevelopment Plan can be implemented in harmony. Summary of Comment #3. There is no rational connection between the amount set forth in Section 502 of the Plan and the actual amount needed to accomplish the goals of the Plan. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #3: The Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #14 of Attachment No. 1, contained above, are incorporated herein by reference as the Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #3 of Attachment No. 2. C. Written Objections from Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines & Baruh, LLP: Letter dated June 19, 2000, from Daniel S. Gonzales, Bryant, Clohan, Eller, Maines & Baruh, LLP, representing an unidentified client or clients, objecting to the certification of the .Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan (the letter is attached hereto as Attachment No. 3). The following "comment" numbers refer to the paragraphs of the same number in Attachment No. 3. Summary of Comment #1: The requirements for approval of the EIR have not been met. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #1: The commentor has not indicated which requirements he claims have not been met and, therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that all of the requirements for approval of the EIR have been met. Summary .of Comment #2: The EIR does not adequately identify all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed redevelopment of Vallco. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #2: The commentor has not indicated what potentially significant environmental effects he claims have not been identified and evaluated. Therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that the EIR Exhibit A CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Page 17 of 15 7/13/00 does identify and evaluate all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Summary of Comment #3: The EIR does not adequately identify ways to minimize or avoid all of the significant environmental effects of the Project. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #3: The commentor has not. indicated what mitigation measures should have been, but were not, included in the EIR and, therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that the EIR includes all mitigation measures that would minimize or avoid the significant environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. Summary of Comment #4: The scope of the Project described in the EIR is too vague and speculative to allow proper consideration of the EIR. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #4: The commentor has not indicated in what manner the Project description is too vague and speculative and, therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that the Project description is adequate for purposes of the review of the environmental effects of adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. The project description in the EIR is comprehensive, containing a detailed list of anticipated redevelopment actions, including the private renovation and improvements proposed for Vallco, the public improvements proposed to serve Vallco and related programs and activities (Draft EIR, pp. 3-1 to 3-15). Summary of Comment #5: The EIR does not adequately address the potential traffic effects of the Project. Findings of the City Council in Response to Comment #5: The commentor 'has not indicated how the traffic analysis contained in the EIR is inadequate and, therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that the EIR adequately addresses the potential traffic effects of the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. Summary of Comment #6: The EIR does not adequately mitigate the effects of the potential density of the Project. CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 18 of 15 7/13100 Findings of the.City Council in Response to Comment #6: The commentor has not indicated what environmental effects arise from the potential density of the Project that are not adequately mitigated. Therefore, the City Council is unable to provide a more specific response than that the EIR adequately evaluates and, as appropriate, mitigates the environmental effects caused by the potential density of the Project. CUP/CCResoFndgsObjec Exhibit A Page 19 of 15 7113/{:)0 I~SOLUTION 00-188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") which would result in the allocation of taxes from the Project Area to the Agency for the purposes of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2(g) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and thc City Council that such use will be of benefit to thc Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO that the use of taxes allocated from the Project Area for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ORDINANCE NO. 1850 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino (the "City Council") has received from the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), a copy of which is on file at the office of the Agency at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and at the office of the City Clerk at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, together with the Report of the Agency to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, including: (1) the reasons for selection of the Project Area; (2) a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area; (3) a description of specific projects proposed by the Agency in the Project Area and an explanation of how the proposed projects will alleviate the conditions existing in the Project Area; (4) the proposed method of financing redevelopment of the Project. Area, including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the Project and an explanation of why the elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the City Council's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing; (5) an analysis of the Preliminary Plan for the Project; (6) the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (the "Planning Commission"); (7) the Final Environmental Impact Report; (8) a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies; and (9) an Implementation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reported that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Cupertino and has recommended approval of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency prepared and circulated a Draf~ Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and environmental procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, and the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and responses thereto, and, as so revised and supplemented, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") was prepared and certified by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have reviewed and considered the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan and have determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures and a monitoring program therefore have been required in or incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and Ordinance No. 1850 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have each adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant effects identified by the Final EIR which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, on June 19, 2000, to consider adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, a notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in The Cupertino Courier, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cupertino, once a week for five successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing and a statement concerning acquisition of property by the Agency were mailed by first-class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the proposed Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Santa Clara; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all business owners or operators within the proposed Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing b,-dy of each taxing entity which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Report of the Agency, the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Plan, and the Final EIR; has provided an oppommity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan; WHEREAS, written objections to the Redevelopment Plan were received at the noticed public hearing and, although none of the written objections were from an affected taxing entity or property owner in the Project Area, the City Council elected to adopt written findings in response to the written objections received; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate public bodies; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area is to accomplish the following: (a) the establishment, by effective use of the redevelopment process, of a planning and implementation l~amework that will ensure the proper, long-term development of the Project Area; (b) the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration, and the conservation and rehabilitation of the Project Area in accordance with the Ordinance No. 1850 Page 3 City's General Plan, specific plans, and local codes and ordinances; (c) the replanning, redesign, and redevelopment of underdeveloped 'or poorly developed areas that are underutilized or improperly utilized; (d) the strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area by the redevelopment and rehabilitation of structures and the installation of needed site improvements; (e) the promotion of new private sector investment within the Project Area to facilitate the revitalization of an important commercial center; (f) the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, such as insufficient off- and on-street parking, and other public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area; (g) the creation and development of local job oppommities and the preservation of the existing employment base; and (h) the provision, by rehabilitation or new construction, of improved housing for individuals and/or families of low or moderate income within the City limits. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that: · (a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). This finding is based upon the following facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council: (1) The Project Area is predominantly urbardzed; (2) The Project Area is characterized bY and suffers from a combination of blighting physical and economic conditions, i~eluding, among others: buildings which are substandard in design and are functionally obsolescent; buildings of inadequate size; buildings with inadequate access and circulation; lots of irregular form and shape and of inadequate size for proper usefulness which are under multiple ownership; depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments, evidenced by a decline in retail sales, decline in assessed property values, high vacancy levels, and an inability to attract significant retail tenants; and (3) The combination of the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) above is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight; providing for planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement; improving, increasing, and preserving the supply of Iow- and moderate-income housing within the community; providing additional employment oppommities; and providing for higher economic utilization of potentially useful land. Ordinance No. 1850 Page 4 (c) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council, that under the Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increments generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. (d) The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, including, but not limited to, the housing element, which substantially complies with state housing law. This finding is based upon the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. (e) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Cupertino and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment, as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the physical and economic conditions of the Project Area. (f) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequa;e provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redeyelopment Plan will be carded out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, and the fact that no property will be acquired unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue for the acquisition. (g) The Redevelopment Plan will not result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area and, therefore, will not result in the need to relocate occupants of housing facilities or to ensure the availability of comparable replacement dwellings. This finding is based on the fact that there are no housing facilities currently located in the Project Area. (h) There are no noncontiguous areas of the Project Area. (i) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements in the Project Area which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part; and any area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues fi:om such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the Project Area were chosen as a unified and consistent whole to include all properties contributing to or affected by the blighting conditions characterizing the Project Area. Ordinance No. 1850 Page 5 (j) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This fmding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council, that because of the higher costs and more significant risks associated with development of blighted areas, individual developers are unable and unwilling to invest in blighted areas without substantial public assistance and that funds of other public sources and programs are insufficient to eliminate the blighting conditions. (k) The Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1. This finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council, that all of the properties within the Project Area have been or are developed for urban uses and are an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. (1) The time limitations in the Redevelopment Plan, which are the maximum time limitations authorized under the. Community Redevelopment Law, are reasonably related to the proposed projects .to be implemented in the Project Area and the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the facts that redevelopment depends, in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency and shorter time limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain development standards and controls over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabilization. In addition, shorter time limitations would limit the revenue soarces and financing capacity necessary to carry out proposed projects in the Project Area. Section 3. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan, certain official actions must be taken by the City Council; accordingly, the City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; (b) directs the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City of Cupertino having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the Redevelopment Plan; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action on proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 4. The City Council is satisfied that written findings have been adopted in response to the written objections received at the noticed public hearing. Having considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any aspect of the Redevelopment Plan, the Council hereby overrules all written and oral objections to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 5. The mitigation measures, as identified in Council Resolution No. 00-187, adopted on July 17, 2000, and Agency Resolution No. RA-00-06, adopted on July 17, 2000] making findings based upon consideration of the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan, are incorporated and made part of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Ordinance No. 1850 Page Section 6. That certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and attached hereto, is hereby incorporated by reference herein and designated as the official "Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project." Section 7. The City of Cupertino Building Department is hereby directed for a period of at least two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, and the Agency is hereby vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Santa Clara County a notice of the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to this Ordinance, containing a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the auditor and assessor of the County of Santa Clara, to the governing body of each of the taxing entities which receives taxes from property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of Equalization within thirty (30) days following adoption of this Ordinance. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published once in The Cupertino Courier, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Cupertino. Section 12. If any part of this Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 13. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Ordinance No. 1850 Page 7 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City CoUncil of the City of Cupertino the 17th day of July, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI TINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 FAX: (408) 777-3333 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Agenda No. Agenda Date: June 19, 2000 Application Summary: Joint Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project RECOMMENDATION: Cupertino · Cupertino · Redevelopment Agency: Certifying and making findings based upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. RA-O0-06. · Finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low- and moderate- income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. Resolution No. RA-00-07. City Council: Certifying and making findings based upon consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. 00-187. · Finding that the use of taxes allocated from the Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community's supply of low- and moderate- income housing outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. Resolution No. 00-188. · Approval and adoption of Redevelopment Plan (first reading). Ordinance No. 1850. BACKGROUND: The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is the final action of the City Council in the approval of the Vallco Redevelopment Project. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the Redevelopment Plan were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on March 27, 2000 and were forwarded to the Agency and City Council on May 15. The Agency received the Redevelopment Plan and submitted it to the City Council on that date, and the public hearing was set for June 19. On March 27% the Planning Commission also transmitted a Minute Order regarding conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan, recommending that the City Council evaluate Printed on Recvcled Paper traffic, air quality, height and setbacks pertaining to conformity (#6019). A response to the minute order is found in the FEIR, pages 2-36 to 2-39. Representatives of the City's economic consultants for the Redevelopment Agency, Keyser Marston Associates, and the City's legal consultant, Nicole Murphy, will attend the meeting to direct the actions required and answer questions. DISCUSSION: The outline for the meeting is: General Background Comments Reasons for and benefits of the redevelopment process. Entering four documents into the public record: Exhibits 1-4 Summary of the Redevelopment Plan Enter the proposed Redevelopment Plan as part of the record: Exhibit 5. Summary of the Agency's Report to the City Council Summary of contents of the report, blight, proposed redevelopment activities, financial feasibility, and implementation plan; description of the supplement to the report: Exhibits 6 and 7. Final Environmental Impact Report Review of Final EIR, summary of comments received and responses: Exhibit 8 (Draft EIR previously received by the City Council, not enclosed) Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and the Extension of Reasonable Preferences to Business occupants in the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. These rules were previously adopted by the Agency. Will be made a part of the record: Exhibit 9 Written Comments Placed into the record: Exhibit 10 Oral Testimony Closing of Hearing Consider and Act on Redevelopment Plan See recommendation on page 1. Adjourn Enclosures: Cupertino Redevelopment Agency: Resolution No. RA-00~06. Resolution No. RA-00-07. Cupertino City Council: Resolution No. 00-187. Resolution No. 00-188. Ordinance No. 1850. Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Affadavit of Publication Certificate of Mailing (to each assessee of land and business owner or operator) Certificate of Mailing (each taxing entity) Certification of Certain Official Actions Redevelopment Plan Report of the Agency to the City Council Supplement to the Report of the Agency to the City Council Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR previously received by City Council, not enclosed) Owner Participation Rules Written Comments on Redevelopment Plan Planning Commission Minute Order Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Submitted by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:planning/pdrepor~ce/redev¢i61900 Approved by: City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RA-00-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines") and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Agency transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies that have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Redevelopment Plan, to the affected taxing agencies, and to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the Agency's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received and the responses of the Agency thereto, and is part of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; CUP/AgResoCertEIR 6/15/00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AS FOLLOWS: BY THE CUPERTINO Section 1. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project is adequate and has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto and that the Agency has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to adopting this resolution. The Agency hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Agency. Section 2. The Agency hereby adopts the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations relating to the environmental impact of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures set forth therein). Based upon such Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened except the following unavoidable adverse impacts: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based upon the foregoing, the Agency finds and determines that the Redevelopment Plan will have a significant effect upon the environment but that the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, in particular, Part V thereof. IOoL' Section 3. Upon approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council, the Agency Secretary is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Santa Clara pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of CEQA and Section 15094 of the State CEQA Guidelines, along with two copies of the Certificate of Fee Exemption as required pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(c). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency this day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Redevelopment Agency AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Chairman, Redevelopment Agency EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") provides, in Section 21081, that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: "(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: "(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. "(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. "(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. "(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." As defined in CEQA, "'significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Public Resources Code Section 21068.) Exhibit A Page t of ]6 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL For purposes of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") is the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). As more particularly identified in the Final EIR, The Project Area is more particularly identified in the Final EIR. Under the Redevelopment Plan, the Project would be developed in accordance with the land uses designated and permitted by the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. The Redevelopment Plan also specifically recognizes the development rights vested under that certain Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino by Ordinance No. 1540 on July 15, 1991. The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and identifies, where applicable, measures which would mitigate significant effects on the environment to a level of insignificance. Findings regarding the significant effects of the Project are set forth below. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT; FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT This Part III identifies the potentially significant and unavoidably significant effects of the Project as determined by the Agency and the City Council, including the findings and facts supporting the findings in connection therewith. A. Land Use and Planning 1. Environmental Impact ao Land Use Incompatibilities Between Proposed Modifications and Adiacent Areas: The proposed location of the new 168- room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, could result in potentially significant adverse land use compatibility effects on adjacent existing residential areas to the west of the project site. These potential adverse effects could include: height and scale incongruities, introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit A Page 2 of 16 Bo Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In conducting the design review process for Hotel #2, particular emphasis will be placed on the need to incorporate building design, setback, lighting controls, and other measures to ensure against adverse impacts on the nearest residential neighborhood to the west. The construction period air quality (dust) mitigation measures identified in Section 9.3 of the Final EIR will be implemented. Visual Factors 1. Environmental Impact Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Tree Removal: The proposed new department store and to a lesser extent, the proposed expansion of the retail bridge across Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street trees, resulting in the loss of visually important mature street trees and the conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe Road visual character at this location. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) To the extent possible, the layout for the proposed new department store and retail bridge will retain and protect some of the existing street trees and/or a street tree replacement plan will be implemented which, to the satisfaction of the City, will be sufficient to offset project-related losses and restore visual continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Exhibit A Page 3 of t6 C. Transportation and Parking Environmental Impact Project Impact on Westbound Left-Turn Storage at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Intersection: The estimated maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed project, the queue is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the westbound left-turn po~;ket at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping on the Homestead Road approach to provide two 320-foot left-turn lanes. Environmental Impact ao Project Impact on Eastbound Left-Turn S..torage at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection: With the addition of traffic associated with the proposed project, the maximum queue in the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Exhibit A Page 4 of 16 As part of the project development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Rload/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-turn lane. Environmental Impact ao Project Impact on Westbound Left-Turn Storage at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard Intersection: The maximum queue projected in the westbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection is 18 vehicles under existing conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing turn pocket storage is approximately 16 vehicles in two 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under project conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significc,'~t effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two 250-foot- long left-turn lanes. Environmental Impact a. Potential Operational Impact at the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking Structure Driveways: The design of relocated Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been finalized. If separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. Exhibit A Page 5 of ]6 b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, the provision of separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway driveways will be required. 5. Environmental Impact Potential Increased Demand for Bicycle Access: The project has the potential to increase demand for bicycle access to the site. There are no existing bicycle facilities serving the site. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) The project design shall incorporate support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle lockers and showers for employees). 6. Environmental Impact ao Potential Parking Impacts: The project has the potential to substantially increase the demands for convenient on-site parking which may result in Iocational and overall shortages in parking supply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Parking will be required to be constructed at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement (August 15, 1991) Exhibit A Page 6 of 16 and/or at the parking ratios o specified in the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, to the extent necessary and feasible, off-site employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season shall be implemented. Environmental Impact Cumulative Impacts on the Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Homestead Road and Wolfe Road is projected to deteriorate from LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Implement=tion of the City's planned Homestead Arterial Management Program would improve operations at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with improved signal progression along Homestead Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. Environmental Impact ao Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project Exhibit A Page ? or ]6 are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Public Services 1. Environmental Impact a. Increase in Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Central Fire District may require additional staffing and/or equipment to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significeqt effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, compliance with all applicable codes will be required, including the 1994 Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of sprinkler systems, water delivery systems, and other provisions. (2) As part of the project development, compliance with detailed project design features identified by the Central Fire District will be required during the City's plan review and permitting process. 2. Environmental Impact ao Increase in Demand for Police Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department Exhibit A Page s of 16 do store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department may require additional staffing to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, coordination with . the City and the County Sheriff's Department will be required to quantify potential impacts on police services and develop an appropriate mitigation strategy, including adequate site lighting for security. Additional Facts: The City of Cupertino has approved an agreement with the County of Santa Clara whereby the City has agreed to pay the cost of one additional sheriff's deputy for a certain period of time. Environmental Impact Potential for Delays in .Emergency Response: The numerous access points to the project site may create confusion to emergency responders, possibly adding to response times. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Coordination with the Sheriff's Department and Central Fire District will be required, as necessary and appropriate, to assign specific access point designations. Exhibit A Page 9 of 16 4. Environmental Impae~ Air Quality ao Project Sanitary Sewer System Impacts: The sewer collection demands associated with the proposed project could exceed the capacity of the existing sewer main under 1-280 currently serving the project site. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, wastewater generation increases shall be compared by a civil engineer to determine whether existing capacity is sufficient and, if not, collection capacity improvements shall be required. Environmental Impact ao Construction Emissions: Project construction activities such as building demolition, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Fugitive dust control measures will be required to be implemented during project demolition and construction activities. Exhibit Page ]0 of 2. Environmental Impact a= Regional Emissions: Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Geology and Soils 1. Environmental Impact Expansive Soils and Soil Settlement: New development on the project site may be subject to foundation and infrastructure (i.e., utility pipe) damage from expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although it is likely that any such soils on the site were treated or removed prior to the construction of the existing structures, it is possible that some hazards remain or that remediation standards have increased. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) In accordance with standard City procedures, a soils report will be required in connection with project development, which shall be based on a sufficient Exhibit A Page ]] ot'16 analysis of soils conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist and include appropriate soils, foundation and structural engineering to adequately account for any expansive soil underlying the site. 2. Environmental Impact Seismic Shaking Hazards: The project would be subject to strong to very strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in turn, result in ground failure from liquefaction or differential settlement. Shaking or resulting ground failure could damage or destroy improperly designed or constructed new structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concern due to the likely high concentration of occupants. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Submission of a detailed site-specific geotechnical investigation for the project, and commitment to compliance with all recommendations, will be required prior to project development. (2) The use of flexible connections for all water and sewer lines and, as appropriate, underground power and telecommunications lines will be required. Cultural Resources 1. Environmental Impact ao Disturbance of Historic Archaeological Resources: Although the potential for the project site to contain archaeological resources is currently considered Iow, construction of the proposed new store, cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could disturb sensitive,, as-yet unknown historic archaeological resources.. Exhibit A Page ]2 of 16 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-diSturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources shall also be reported to the California Historic Resources Information System and, if Native American artifacts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City will be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall be halted and the County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If disturbance of a cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Environmental Impact ao Disturbance of On-site Culturally Significant Trees: Project construction could disturb culturally significant trees at the project site, especially those located near the proposed new department store, parking structure, and peripheral retail store. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: A survey of existing trees on the project site shall be conducted. In connection with any tree defined as a Exhibit A Page ]3 of 16 "heritage tree" or a "specimen tree" by the Cupertino Municipal Code (chapter 14.18), compliance with City policies and ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance shall be required. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or to its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As more particularly set forth in the Final EIR, the Project was compared to the following alternatives: (1) no project; (2) alternative land use mixm2,984-seat cinema in place of 95,000-square-foot retail store; (3) mitigated project alternative; (4) modified redevelopment area boundaries; (5) alternative project location. The analysis in the Final EIR concludes that the Mitigated Project is the environmentally superior alternative. The Mitigated Project is the proposed project incorporating all of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR. Based on the information contained in the Final EIR and the foregoing, the Agency and the City Council find that none of the other alternatives (those alternatives other than the Mitigated Project) are feasible in that none of the other alternatives will accomplish the basic objectives of the Project to eliminate blight in the Project Area. As a result, none of the other alternatives are acceptable when compared to the project as proposed and modified by the mitigation measures adopted by the Agency and City Council, i.e., the Mitigated Project. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. As set forth in Part III hereof, the Agency and the City Council have determined that the only unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are the following: Ao Transportation and Planning: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS Exhibit A Page 14 of 16 D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Air Quality: Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than- significant level. The Agency and the City Council find that the above-referenced unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are acceptable when balanced against its benefits. This finding is based on the following facts: The Project will serve a critical need, that being the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration in the' Project Area and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan for the City of Cupertino and local codes and ordinances. The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area will prevent the loss of and facilitate the capture of commercial sales activity. The Project will allow for the elimination of blight through rehabilitation and reconstruction, new development, and the assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. ° The Project will result in the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems. New construction within the Project Area will result in an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibit A Page 15 of 16 o ° Project implementation would result in the retention and expansion of businesses by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting in the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. Revitalized commercial development will result in the creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. Project implementation will strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the City by installing needed site improvements and stimulating commercial development. Project implementation will expand and improve the City's supply of affordable housing. Exhibit A Page ]6 of ]6 RESOLUTION NO. RA-00-07 RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Valleo Redevelopment Project (the "Project") which would result in the allocation of taxes from the Project Area to the Agency for the purposes of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2(g) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and the City Council that such use will be of benefit to the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY that the use of taxes allocated from the Project Area for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency this 19~ day of June, 2000, by the following vote: Resolution No. RA-00-07 Page 2 Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the Redevelopment Agency APPROVED: Secretary Chairman, Redevelopment Agency RESOLUTION NO. 00-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CONSIDERING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), and procedures adopted by the Agency relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the Agency transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies which have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Redevelopment Plan, to the affected taxing agencies, and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the Agency's CUP/CCResoEIRFndgs I 6/15/00 ROLL CALL DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting Monday, June 19, 2000 At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Statton called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California. City Council members present: Mayor John Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Redevelopment Agency members present: Chairman John Statton, Vice-Chair Sandra James, and Agency members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Redevelopment Agency members absent: None. Staff present: Carol Atwood, Acting City Manager, City Administrative Services Director and Finance Director of the Agency; Charles Kilian, City Attorney and General Counsel to the Agency, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, City Planner Ciddy Wordell, Public Information Officer Donna Krey, Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, and Kimberly Smith, City Clerk and Secretary to the Agency. Redevelopment Attorney for the City and Agency: Nicole Murphy. Representatives of Keyser Marston: Debbie Kern and Paul Andersen. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Ae Joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed redevelopment plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. Statton opened the public hearing. Atwood reviewed the history of the Vallco Shopping Center and discussed the intent of the redevelopment project. Nicole Murphy, Redevelopment Attorney, entered into the record the following: Exhibit 1, affidavit of publication; Exhibit 2, certificate of mailing to property owners and business owners and operators; Exhibit 3, certificate of mailing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency; and Exhibit 4, certification of legal actions taken by th~ City Council, Planning Commission, and Agency. Murphy summarized the proposed redevelopment plan, and it was entered into the record as Exhibit 5. She reviewed the major evidentiary findings, which are as follows: A finding that the project area is a blighted area, meeting the legal qualifications responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received and the responses of the Agency thereto, and is part of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is a Responsible Agency, as defined in Section 21069 of the Public Resources Code, with respect to the Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has duly reviewed and considered the Final EIR prepared and certified by the Agency prior to adopting this resolution and acting on the Redevelopment Plan. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations relating to the environmental impact of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (including, without limitation, the mitigation measures therein set forth). Based upon such Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, the Agency hereby finds that all significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened except the following unavoidable adverse impacts: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. CUP/CCResoEIRFndgs 2 6/15/00 Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance proyides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the Redevelopment Plan will have a significant effect upon the environment but that the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations, in particular, Part V thereof. Section 3. Upon approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council, the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Santa Clara pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of CEQA and Section 15096(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of , 2000, following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A'I-I'EST: APPROVED: by the City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUP/CCResoEIRFndgs 3 6/15/00 EXHIBIT A STATEMENT Of FINDINGS, FACTS, AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") provides, in Section 21081, that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: "(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: "(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. "(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. "(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. "(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." As defined in CEQA, "'significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." (Public Resources Code Section 21068.) Exhibit A Page t of 16 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL For purposes of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") is the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"). As more particularly identified in the Final EIR, The Project Area is more particularly identified in the Final EIR. Under the Redevelopment Plan, the Project would be developed in accordance with the land uses designated and permitted by the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. The Redevelopment Plan also specifically recognizes the development rights vested under that certain Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino by Ordinance No. 1540 on July 15, 1991. The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the adoption and phased implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and identifies, where applicable, measures which would mitigate significant effects on the environment to a level of insignificance. Findings regarding the significant effects of the Project are set forth below. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT; FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT This Part III identifies the potentially significant and unavoidably significant effects of the Project as determined by the Agency and the City Council, including the findings and facts supporting the findings in connection therewith. A. Land Use and Planning 1. Environmental Impact ao Land Use Incompatibilities Between Proposed Modifications and Adjacent Areas: The proposed location of the new 168- room Hotel #2, west of Wolfe Road, could result in potentially significant adverse land use compatibility effects on adjacent existing residential areas to the west of the project site. These potential adverse effects could include: height and Scale incongruities, introduction of night-time light impacts from the hotel and hotel parking area lighting features, construction period emissions (air), and increased noise associated with mechanical equipment and project construction. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit Page 2 of Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are. incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In conducting the design review process for Hotel #2, particular emphasis will be placed on the need to incorporate building design, setback, lighting controls, and other measures to ensure against adverse impacts on the nearest residential neighborhood to the west. The construction period air quality (dust) mitigation measures identified in Section 9.3 of the Final EIR will be implemented. Visual Factors 1. Environmental Impact ao Visual Impacts of Wolfe Road Tree Removal: The proposed new department store and to a lesser extent, the proposed expansion of the retail bridge acroSs Wolfe Road, could displace existing Wolfe Road street trees, resulting in the loss of visually important mature street trees and the conspicuous disruption of the existing Wolfe Road visual character at this location. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: To the extent possible, the layout for the proposed new department store and retail bridge will retain and protect some of the existing street trees and/or a street tree replacement plan will be implemented which, to the satisfaction of the City, will be sufficient to offset project-related losses and restore visual continuity on the affected segment of Wolfe Road. Exhibit A Page 3 of ]6 C. Transportation and Parking o Environmental Impact Project Impact on Westbound Left-Turn Storage at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Intersection: The estimated maximum vehicular queue in the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection is estimated to exceed the available storage under existing conditions by six vehicles. With the addition of traffic associated with other approved developments and the proposed project, the queue is estimated to exceed the available storage by 10 vehicles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, the westbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping on the Homestead Road approach to provide two 320-foot left-turn lanes. Environmental Impact Project Impact on Eastbound Left-Turn Storage at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection: VVith the addition of traffic associated with the proposed project, the maximum queue in the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is projected to exceed the available storage length by one vehicle during the ,AM peak hour. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effeCts on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Exhibit A Page 4 of' 16 As part of the project development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Rload/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide one 170-foot and one 430-foot-long left-turn lane. Environmental Impact Project Impact on Westbound Left-Turn Storage at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De ^nza Boulevard Intersection: The maximum queue projected in the westbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection' is 18 vehicles under existing conditions and 20 vehicles under project conditions. The existing turn pocket storage is approximately 16 vehicles in two 190-foot-long lanes. The estimated maximum queue under project conditions would exceed the available storage length by four. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project' development, the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection will be lengthened by modifying the striping and median on the Stevens Creek Boulevard approach to provide two 250-foot- long left-turn lanes. Environmental Impact ao Potential Operational Impact at the Vallco Parkway (Realigned) Parking Structure Driveways: The design of relocated Vallco Parkway and the associated new adjacent parking structure driveways has not been finalized. If separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the parking structure driveways on Vallco Parkway are not provided, a potentially significant impact would occur at these locations. 'Exhibit A Page 5 of ]6 b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. FactS in Support of the Findin,q: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment .Plan: (1) As part of the project development, the provision of separate left-turn lanes for inbound traffic at the Vallco Parkway driveways will be required. Environmental Impact ao co Potential Increased Demand for Bicycle Access: The project has the potential to increase demand for bicycle access to the site. There are no existing bicycle facilities serving the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1} The project design shall incorporate support facilities for bicycles (e.g., bike racks for patrons and bicycle lockers and showers for employees). Environmental Impact Potential Parking Impacts: The project has the potential to substantially increase the demands for convenient on-site parking which may result in Iocational and overall shortages in parking supply. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) Parking will be required to be constructed at the retail parking ratio specified in the Development Agreement (August 15, 1991) and/or at the parking ratios Exhibit A Page 6 o£ t6 specified in the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, to the extent necessary and feasible, off-site employee parking and/or a valet program during the peak holiday season shall be implemented. Environmental Impact a. Cumulative Impacts on the Homestead Road/Wolfe Road Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Homestead Road and Wolfe Road is projected to deteriorate from LOS D- to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Implementation of the City's planned Homestead Arterial Management Program would improve operations at this intersection. PM peak-hour operations with improved signal progression along Homestead Road are estimated to be at LOS D-. Environmental Impact Cumulative Impacts to the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue Intersection: With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project Exhibit A Page ? of 16 are more particularly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Part V of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Public Services 1. Environmental Impact a. Increase in Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Central Fire District may require additional staffing and/or equipment to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the. environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the.Redeveiopment Plan: As part of the project development, compliance with all applicable codes will be required, including the 1994 Uniform Fire Code, current Uniform Building Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code and Municipal Code, to ensure adequate installation of sprinkler systems, water delivery systems, and other provisions. (2) As part of the project development, compliance with detailed project design features identified by the Central Fire District will be required during the City's plan review and permitting process. 2. Environmental Impact a. Increase in Demand for Police Services: The proposed project would attract new patrons to the proposed new peripheral retail store, restaurant, two hotels, department Exhibit A Page s of ]6 store(s), and other retail space increases, increasing the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project and other development in the area may create greater traffic congestion, potentially increasing emergency response times. The Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department may require additional staffing to provide an adequate level of service to the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: As part of the project development, coordination with the City and the County Sheriffs Department will be required to quantify potential impacts on police services and develop an appropriate mitigation strategy, including adequate site lighting for security. do Additional Facts: The City of Cupertino has approved an agreement with the County of Santa Clara whereby the City has agreed to pay the cost of one additional sheriff's deputy for a certain period of time. Environmental Impact ao Potential for Delays in Emergency...Response: The numerous access points to the project site may create confusion to emergency responders, possibly adding to response times. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Coordination with the Sheriffs Department and Central Fire District will be required, as necessary and appropriate, to assign specific access point designations. Exhibit A Page 9 of 16 /35 4. Environmental Impact Eo Air Quality project Sanitary Sewer System Impacts: The sewer collection demands associated with the proposed project could exceed the capacity of the existing sewer main under 1-280 currently serving the project site. b° Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) As part of the project development, wastewater generation increases shall be compared by a civil engineer to determine whether existing capacity is sufficient and, if not, collection capacity improvements shall be required. Environmental Impact ao Construction Emissions: Project construction activities such as building demolition, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Fugitive dust control measures will be required to be implemented during project demolition and construction activities. Exhibit Page ]0 of 2. Environmental Impact ao Regional Emissions: Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Finding: This is an unavoidable significant effect. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project make the alternatives infeasible and outweigh this significant effect. Facts in Support of the Finding: The specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project are more particularly described in the Statement. of Overriding Considerations contained in Part ¥ of this Statement of Findings, Facts and Overriding Considerations. Geology and Soils 1. Environmental Impact Expansive Soils and Soil Settlement: New development on the project site may be subject to foundation and infrastructure (i.e,, utility pipe) damage from expansive soils or settlement of soils. Although it is likely that any such soils on the site were treated or removed prior to the construction of the existing structures, it is possible that some hazards remain or that remediation standards have increased. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In accordance with standard City procedures, a soils report will be required in connection with project development, which shall be based on a sufficient Exhibit ^ Page 1] of 16 Go analysis of soils conducted by a qualified engineer or geologist and include appropriate soils, foundation and structural engineering to adequately account for any expansive soil underlying the site. 2. Environmental Impact ao Seismic Shaking Hazards: The project would be subject to strong to very strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, San Andreas, or Calaveras fault systems. This shaking could, in turn, result in ground failure from liquefaction or differential settlement. Shaking or resulting ground failure could damage or destroy improperly designed or constructed new structures and infrastructure and result in hazards of injury or death to new building occupants. Potential damage to the proposed cinema would be of particular concern due to the likely high concentration of occupants. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: Submission of a detailed site-specific geotechnical investigation for the project, and commitment to compliance with all recommendations, will be required prior to .project development. (2) The use of flexible connections for all water and sewer lines and, as appropriate, underground power and telecommunications lines will be required. Cultural Resources 1. Environmental Impact Disturbance of Historic ArchaeolOgical Resources: Although the potential for the project site to 'contain archaeological resources is currently considered Iow, construction of the proposed new store, cinema, restaurant, and parking facilities could disturb sensitive,, as-yet unknown historic archaeological resources.. Exhibit A Page ]:z of ]6 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the finds. The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources shall also be reported to the California Historic Resources Information System and, if Native American artifacts are found, to the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources should be recorded on form DPR 523 (historic properties). Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the City will be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. If human remains are found during project grading, work shall be halted and tl'~e County Coroner shall be informed immediately. If disturbance of a cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Environmental Impact ao Disturbance of On-site Culturally Significant Trees: Project construction could disturb culturally significant trees at the project site, especially those located near the proposed new department store, parking structure, and peripheral retail store. bo Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Redevelopment Plan which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Co Facts in Support of the Finding: The following mitigation measure is incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan: (1) A survey of existing trees on the project site shall be conducted. In connection with any tree defined as a Exhibit ^ Page ]3 of 16 "heritage tree" or a "specimen tree" by the Cupertino Municipal Code (chapter 14.18), compliance with City policies and ordinance requirements for tree protection and maintenance shall be required. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or to its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As more particularly set forth in the Final EIR, the Project was compared to the following alternatives: (1) no project; (2) alternative land use mix--2,984-seat cinema in place of 95,000-square-foot retail store; (3) mitigated project alternative; (4) modified redevelopment area boundaries; (5) alternative project location. The analysis in the Final EIR concludes that the Mitigated Project is the environmentally superior alternative. The Mitigated Project is the proposed project incorporating all of the mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR. Based on the information contained in the Final EIR and the foregoing, the Agency and the City Council find that none of the other alternatives (those alternatives other than the Mitigated Project) are feasible in that none of the other alternatives will accomplish the basic objectives of the Project to eliminate blight in the Project Area. As a result, none of the other alternatives are acceptable when compared to the project as proposed and modified by the mitigation measures adopted by the Agency and City Council, i.e., the Mitigated Project. V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. As set forth in Part III hereof, the Agency and the City Council have determined that the only unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are the following: Transportation and Planning: Cumulative impacts on the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. With the traffic associated with the proposed project, approved developments in the area, and other reasonably foreseeable development, the operation of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue is projected to deteriorate from LOS Exhibit A Page ]4 of 16 D to LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. There are no feasible physical improvements that could be constructed at this intersection that would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Bo Air Quality: Regional emissions. Additional traffic generated by shopping center expansion would generate regional emissions exceeding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") thresholds of significance. BAAQMD guidance provides that projects that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project therefore would also have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation measures are set forth in the Statement of Findings, Facts, and Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). Those mitigation measures will assist in reducing project and cumulative impacts on regional air quality, but would not reduce the impacts to a less-than- significant level. The Agency and the City Council find that the above-referenced unavoidable environmental consequences of the Project are acceptable when balanced against its benefits. This finding is based on the following facts: The Project will serve a critical need, that being the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the proposed Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan for the City of Cupertino and local codes and ordinances. The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area will prevent the loss of and facilitate the capture of commercial sales activity. The Project will allow for the elimination of blight through rehabilitation and reconstruction, new development, and the assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. The Project will result in the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems. New construction within the Project Area will result in an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibit A Page ],5 of 16 o o Project implementation would result in the retention and expansion of businesses by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting in the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. Revitalized commercial development will result in the creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. Project implementation will strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the City by installing needed site improvements and stimulating commercial development. Project implementation will expand and improve the City's supply of affordable housing. Exhibit A Page ]6 of 16 RESOLUTION NO. 00-188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE TI-IF~ PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") which would result in the allocation of taxes from the Project Area to the Agency for the purposes of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.2(g) of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Proj eot Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and the City Council that such use will be of benefit to the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO that the use of taxes allocated from the Project Area for the purpose of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Project. CUP/CCResoUseTaxes 6/14/00 Resolution No. 00-188 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19"~ day of June, 2000, by the following vote:' Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ORDINANCE NO. 1850 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino (the "City Council") has received from the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") the proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), a copy of which is on file at the office of the Agency at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and at the office of the City Clerk at 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, together with the Report of the Agency to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, including: (1) the reasons for selection of the Project Area; (2) a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area; (3) a description of specific projects proposed by the Agency in the Project Area and an explanation of how the proposed projects will alleviate the conditions existing in the Project Area; (4) the proposed method of financing redevelopment of the Project Area, including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the Project and an explanation of why the elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the City Council's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing; (5) an analysis of the Preliminary Plan for the Project; (6) the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (the "Planning Commission"); (7) the Final Environmental Impact Report; (8) a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies; and (9) an Implementation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reported that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Cupertino and has recommended approval of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR'') on the Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.), and environmental procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, and the Draf~ EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and responses thereto, and, as so revised and supplemented, a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") was prepared and certified by the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have reviewed and considered the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan and have determined that, for certain significant effects identified by the Final EIR, mitigation measures and a monitoring program therefor have been required in or incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan which avoid or substantially lessen such effects; and Ordinance No. 1850 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council have each adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant effects identified by the Final EIR which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, the City ' Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, on June 19, 2000, to consider adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, a notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in The Cupertino Courier, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cupertino, once a week for five successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing and a statement concerning acquisition of property by the Agency were mailed by first-class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the proposed Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Santa Clara; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first-class mail to all business owners or operators within the proposed Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with remm receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing entity which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Report of the Agency, the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Plan, and the Final EIR; has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan; WHEREAS, no written objections to the Redevelopment Plan were received, either before or at the noticed public hearing, from an affected taxing entity or property owner; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate public bodies; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area is to accomplish the following: (a) the establishment, by effective use of the redevelopment process, of a planning and implementation framework that will ensure the proper, long-term development of the Project Area; (b) the elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration, and the conservation and rehabilitation of the Project Area in accordance with the City's General Plan, specific plans, and local codes and ordinances; (c) the replanning, redesign, and redevelopment of underdeveloped or poorly developed areas that are underutilized or Ordinance No. 1850 Page 3 improperly utilized; (d) the strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area by the redevelopment and rehabilitation of structures and the installation of needed site improvements; (e) the promotion of new private sector inVestment within the Project Area to facilitate the revitalization of an important commercial center; (f) the elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, such as insufficient off- and on-street parking, and other public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area; (g) the creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the existing employment base; and (h) the provision, by rehabilitation or new construction, of improved housing for individuals and/or families of low or moderate income within the City limits. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that: (a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). This finding is based upon the following facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council: (1) The Project Area is predominantly urbanized; (2) The Project Area is characterized by and suffers from a combination of blighting physical and economic conditions, including, among others: buildings which are substandard in design and are functionally obsolescent; buildings of inadequate size; buildings with inadequate access and circulation; lots of irregular form and shape and of inadequate size for proper usefulness which are under multiple ownership; depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments, evidenced by a decline in retail sales, decline in assessed property values, high vacancy levels, and an inability to attract significant retail tenants; and (3) The combination of the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) above is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight; providing for planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement; improving, increasing, and preserving the supply of low- and moderate-income housing within the community; providing additional employment oppommities; and providing for higher economic utilization of potentially useful land. (c) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Ordinance No. 1850 Page 4 Agency to the City Council, that under the Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increments generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. (d) The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, including, but not limited to, the housing element, which substantially complies with state housing law. This finding is based upon the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. (e) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Cupertino and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment, as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the physical and economic conditions of the Project Area. (f) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, and the fact that no property will be acquired unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue for the acquisition. (g) The Redevelopment Plan will not result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area and, therefore, will not result in the need to relocate occupants of housing facilities or to ensure the availability of comparable replacement dwellings. This finding is based on the fact that there are no housing facilities currently located in the Project Area. (h) There are no noncontiguous areas of the Project Area. (i) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements in the Project Area which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part; and any area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the Project Area were chosen as a unified and consistent whole to include all properties contributing to or affected by the blighting conditions characterizing the Project Area. Ordinance No. 1850 Page 5 (j) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council, that because of the higher costs and more significant risks associated with development of blighted areas, individual developers are unable and unwilling to invest in blighted areas without substantial public assistance and that funds of other public sources and programs are insufficient to eliminate the blighting conditions. (k) The Project Area is a predOminantly urbanized area as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1. This finding is based upon the facts, as more particularly set forth in the Report of the Agency to the City Council, that all of the properties within the Project Area have been or are developed for urban uses and are an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. (1) The time limitations in the Redevelopment Plan, which are the maximum time limitations authorized under the Community Redevelopment Law, are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. This finding is based upon the facts that redevelopment depends, in large part, upon private market forces beyond the control of the Agency and shorter time limitations would impair the Agency's ability to be flexible and respond to market conditions as and when appropriate and would impair the Agency's ability to maintain development standards and controls over a period of time sufficient to assure area stabilization. In addition, shorter time limitations would limit the revenue sources and financing capacity necessary to carry out proposed projects in the Project Area. Section 3. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan, certain official actions must be taken by the City Council; accordingly, the City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; (b) directs the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City of Cupertino having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the Redevelopment Plan; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action on proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 4. Having received no written objections from an affected taxing entity or property owner either before or at the noticed public hearing, and having considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any aspect of the Redevelopment Plan, the Council hereby overrules all written and oral objections to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 5. The mitigation measures, as identified in Council Resolution No. 00-187., adopted on June 19, 2000, and Agency Resolution No. RA-00-06, adopted on June 19, 2000, making findings based upon consideration of the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan, are incorporated and made part of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. /*/7 Ordinance No. 1850 Page 6 Section 6. That certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project," a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and attached hereto, is hereby incorporated by reference herein and designated as the official "Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project." Section 7. The City of Cupertino Building Department is hereby directed for a period of at least two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, and the Agency is hereby vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Santa Clara County a notice of the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to this Ordinance, containing a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the auditor and assessor of the County of Santa Clara, to the governing body of each of the taxing entities which receives taxes from property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of Equalization within thirty (30) days following adoption of this Ordinance. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published once in The Cupertino Courier, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Cupertino. Section 12. If any part of this Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 13. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 19'h day of June, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the day of ., 2000, by the following vote: VOte Members of the City Council Ordinance No. 1850 Page 7 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino PROOF OF PUBLICATION Flling 5tamp (=o:5.5 State of California County of Santa Clara I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of t8 years, and not party to or interested in the aDove entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the: The Cupertino Courier, 20465 Sitverado Ave., Cupertino California, 95ot~. a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the City of San Jose, State of California, County of Santa Clara, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Oara, State of California, Case Number L--Vtoo637 that the notice ol= which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareiD, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said Newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: May ~_7. 2,~. ~_t and lune 7, all in the year of 2000 i certil'y (or declare) under penalty of periur~ that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: at San jose, California Stephanle Thompson P. 02 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Exhibit 1 TOTRL P.02 ~lOflMJ(T P~dd R)it THr bflhmbflfuheJ~a/ 'A. IheesUddtmm, bfdec.: ~ · '. ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ Cmpe~tJmm~Vmllce ~0~ THE CUPERTINO COURIER JUNE 14, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (Notice to Property Owners and Business Owners/Operators with Statement Regarding Acquisition of Property) Exhibit 2 '. ~950~l~~::Sec;~:in~: address is 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, t' ' y 'fy I mailed a copy of the attached Notice of Joint Public Hearing (the "Notice") and letter containing a statement regarding acquisition of property by the Agency (the "Statement") to each assessee of land in the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to each known business owner/operator in the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area, according to the lists of such assessees and business owners/operators and their addresses attached to this Certificate, and that I personally mailed such Notice and Statement by depositing a copy of same, addressed to each such listed last known assessee, first-class mail, postage prepaid, in the United States mail at Cupertino, California, on ~4~ /.~ ,2000. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: Cupertino, California -(Title) ATTACHMENTS (1) Notice of Joint Public Hearing (2) Statement Regarding Acquisition of Property (3) List of Assessees and Addresses (4) List of Business Owners/Operators and Addresses CUP/CertMailNotJPHOwners 5/8/00 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (Notice to Affected Taxing Entities) Exhibit 3 I, C-../C)D~ blx'o,~-.o~u;-., whose business address is 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, do hereby certify that I mailed a copy of the attached Notice of Joint Public Hearing (the "Notice") to the governing body of each taxing entity which receives taxes from property within the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area, according to the list of taxing entities attached to this Certificate, and that I personally mailed such Notice by depositing a copy of same, addressed to each such taxing entity, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, in the United States mail at Cupertino, California, on ~/tA.,~/' ? G ,2000. Copies of all returned receipts are on file in the office of the City Clerk. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: 2000 Cupertino, California (Title) (2) ATTACHMENTS Notice of Joint Public Hearing List of Affected Taxing Entities and Addresses CU P/CertMailNotJPHTaxAgs 518/00 Exhibit 4 CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN OFFICIAL ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I, Donald D. Brown, Executive Director of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that pursuant to the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the following official actions have been taken by the City Council of the City Cupertino (the Council), the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (the Planning Commission) and the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) in connection with the preparation of the Redevelopment Plan for Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project: 1. Council Resolution No. 99-212, adopted on July 19, 1999: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Designating a Redevelopment Survey Area. 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5054, adopted on July 19, 1999: Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino Selecting the Boundaries of the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Within the Redevelopment Survey Area and Approving a Preliminary Plan for-the Redevelopment of the Project Area. 3. Agency Resolution No. RA-99-09, adopted on July 19, 1999: Resolution of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Accepting the Preliminary Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. 4. Agency Resolution No. RA-00-01, adopted on February 22, 2000: Resolution of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Approving and Adopting Rules Governing Participation by property Owners and the Extension of Reasonable Reentry Preferences to Business Occupants in Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. 5. Agency Resolution No. RA-00-02, adopted on February 22, 2000: Resolution of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Approving and Authorizing Transmittal of the Preliminary Report to Affected Taxing Entities on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. CUP/CertOffActs 6/12/00 6. Agency Resolution No. RA-00-03, adopted on February 22, 2000: Resolution Of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Referring the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project to the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino for Report and Recommendation. 7. Agency Resolution No. RA-00-04, adopted on February 22, 2000: Resolution of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Accepting and Authorizing Circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. 8. A Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on February 28, 2000, and a notice inviting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in The Cupertino Courier on February 16, 2000. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6011, adopted on March 27, 2000: Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino Making its Report and Recommendation on Adoption of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. 10. Agency Resolution No. RA-00-05, adopted on May 15, 2000: Resolution of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Approving and Adopting the Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Submitting Said Report and Proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, and Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing on Said Redevelopment Plan. 11. Council Resolution No. 00-143, adopted on May 15, 2000: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Consenting to and Calling a Joint Public Hearing on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project. The documents reflecting the official actions referred to herein are contained in the official records of the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Agency, and are incorporated herein by reference with the same effect as though set forth in full in this Certification. 2 Donald 1~.. Bro'wnf'Executive Director of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency G:planning/misc/cupcert Exhibit 5 [PROPOSED] REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE · CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Prepared by the CUPER~NO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TABLE OF CONTENTS [§100] 00] A. B. C. D. Eo INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS [~301] General [~302] Participation Opportunities; Extension of Preferences for.Reentry Within Redeveloped Project Area 1. ~303] Opportunities for Owners and Business Occupants 2. [~304] Rules for Participation Opportunities,. Priorities, and Preferences 3. [~35] Participation Agreements 4. [~q06] Conforming Owners [~307]Coope. ration with Public Bodies [~308]Property Acquisition 1. [~309] Real Property 2. [~310] Personal Property [~311]Property Management [,~312] Payments to Taxing Agendes [~313]Relocation of Persons, Business Concerns, and Others Displaced by the Project 1. [~314] Assistance in Finding Other Locations 2. [~315] Relocation Payments IV. r ~9] 1. I. [~3261 K. Lg329] [g400] USES A. B. Lg4O21 1. Demolition, Clearance, and Building and Site Preparation [~317] Demolition and Clearance [~318] Preparation of Building Sites Property Disposition and Dedvelopment [~320] Real Property Disposition and Development a. [~321] General b. [~322] Disposition and Development Documents c. [~323] Development by the Agency d. [~324]. Development Plans [~325]Personal Property Disposition Rehabilitation, Conservation, and Moving of Structures [~327] Rehabilitation and Conservation [~328] Moving of Structures Low- and Moderat6-Income Housing PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA Redevelopment Land Use Map Other Land Uses L~.o4] Public Rights-of-Way Other Public, Semi-Public, Institutional, and Nonprofit Uses Interim Uses 4. [~X)6] Nonconforming Uses C. [~.07] General Controls and Limitations 1. [~)8] Construction 2. [~3] Rehabilitation and Retention of Properties 3. [~410] Limitation on the Number of Buildings. 4. [~411] Number-of Dwelling Units 5. [~412] Limitation on Type, Size, and Height of Buildings 6. [~413] Open Spaces, Landscaping, Light, Air, and Privacy 7. [~414] Signs 8. [~415] Utilities 9. [~416] Incompatible Uses 10. [~417] Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation 11. [~418] Subdivision of Parcels 12. [~419] Minor Variations D. [~20] Design for Development F~ [~421] Building Permits [g~] METHODS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT A. [~01] General Description of the Proposed Financing Method B. [~502] Tax Increment Funds C_ [~803] Other Loans and Grants VI. VII. VIII. IX. [~600] ACTIONS BY THE CITY L~7001 ENFORCEMENT [~800] DURATION OF THIS PLAN [~900] PROCEDURE FOR AMZNDMENT At-~achment No. 1 Attachment No. :2 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 4 Attachments Legal Description of the Project Area Boundaries Project Area Map Redevelopment Land Use Map Proposed Public Improvements 11/29/99 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPI~_..NT PROJECT ' [~100] INTRODUCTION This is. the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in the City of Cupertino (the "City"), County of Santa Clara, State of California; it consists of the text, the Legnl Description of the Project Area Boundaries (Attachment No. 1), the Project Area Map (Attachment No. 2), the Redevelopment Land Use Map (Attachment No. 3), and the Proposed Public Improvements (Attachment. No..4).. This Plan was prepared by. the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the California Constitution, and all applicable local laws and ordinances. The proposed redevelopment of the area within the boundaries of the .Project (the "Project Area") as described in this Plan is consistent with the General Plan for the City of Cupertino (the "General Plan"). This Plan also acknowledges the existence'of that certain Development Agreement dated August 15, 1991, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino by Ordinance No. 1540 on July 15, 1991. Nothing in this Plan shah be construed to impair or alter any of the rights or obligations of the parties under said Development Agreement nor prevent the Agency from assisting in the implementation of said Development Agreement. This Plan is based upon a Preliminary Plan formulated and adopted by the · Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino (the "Planning Commission") by Resolution No. 5054, on July 19, 1999. This Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in this .P1an for the redevelopment, r~ehabilitation, and revitalization of the area .within the Project Area. Because of the long-term nature of this Plan and the need to retain in the Agency flexibility to respond to market and economic conditions, property owner and developer interests, and opportunities from ~e to time presented for redevelopment, this Plan does not present a precise plan or establish specific projects for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a .basic framework within which specific plans will be presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and pr. oceed with such specific plans, projects, and solutions. The purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law will be attained through, and the major goals of this Plan are: mo The establishment, by effective use of the redevelopment process, of a planning and implementation framework that will ensure the proper, long-term redevelopment of the Project Area. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration, and the conservation and rehabilitation of the Project Area in accordance with the City's General Plan, specific plans, and local codes and ordinances. Ce The replanning, redesign, and redevelopment of underdeveloped or .poorly' developed areas that are underutilized or improperly utilized. The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area by the redevelopment and rehabilitation of structures and the installation of needed site improvements. The promotion of new private sector investment within the Project Area to facilitate the revitalization of an important commercial center. The elimination, or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, such as insufficient off- and on-street, parking, and other public improvements, fa~lities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. Go The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the existing employment base. The provisiOn, by rehabilitation or new construction; of improved housing for individuals and/or families of low or moderate income within the City limits. The provision of assistance financing renovations needed current codes and standards. to existing building owners in to bring their buildings up to Il. [~.00] DESCRIFI'ION OF PROJECT AREA The boundaries of the Project Area are descn~bed in the "Legal Description of the Project Area Boundaries," 'attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein by reference, and are shown on the "Project Area Map," attached hereto as Attachment No. 2 and incorporated herein by reference. III. [§300] PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS A. ~,.,~01] General The Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area by: Pertaining participation in the redevelopment process by owners of properties located in the Project Area consistent with this Plan and rules adopted by the Agency; 2. The acq/tisition of real pro. perry; The management of property under the ownership and control of the Agency; Providing relocation assistance to displaced persons and business concerns; The demolition or removal of certain buildings and imp.rovements; Providing for participation by owners presently located the project Area and the extension of preferences to business occupants desiring to remain or reenter into business within the redeveloped Project Area; The installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, and other public improvements; The disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Plan; The redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan; 10. The rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, and the Agency; and 11. Providing for the retention of controls and the establishment of restrictions or covenants running with the land so that property will continue to be used in accordance with this Plan. In the accomplishment of these purposes and activities and in the implementation and furtherance of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to use all the powers provided in this Plan and all the powers now or hereafter permitted by law. Be [~302] Participation Opportunities: Extension of Preference.~ for Reentry. Within Redeveloped Pro!ect Area 1. [~3] Opportunities for Owners and Business Occupartt~ In accordance with this Plan and the rules for participation adopted by the Agency pursuant to this Plan and the Community Redevelopment Law, persons who are owners of real property in the Project Area shall be given a 'reasonable opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the Project Area consistent with the objectives of this Plan. The Agency shall extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the Project Area to remain or reenter into business within the redeveloped Project Area if they otherwise, meet the requirements prescribed in this Plan and the rules adopted by the Agency. [~304] Rules for Partidvation Opportunities. Priorities. and Preferences In order to provide opportunities to owners to participate in the redevelopment of the Project Area and to extend reasonable preferences to businesses to reenter into business within the redeveloped Project Area, the Agency shall promulgate rules for participation by owners and the extension of preferences to business tenants for reentry within the redeveloped Project Area. [~205] Participation A~eements The Agency may require that, as a condition to participation in redevelopment, each participant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Agency by which the participant agrees to rehabilitate, develop, and use and maintain the property in conformance with this Plan and to be subject to the provisions hereof. In such agreements, participants may be required to join in the recordation of such documents as may be necessary to ensure the property will be developed and used in accordance with this Plan and the participation agreement. Whether or not a participant enters into a participation agreement with the Agency, the provisions of this Plan are applicable to all public and private property in the Project Area. In the event a participant fails or refuses to rehabilitate, develop, and use and. maintain its real property pursuant to this Plan and a participation /kY agreement, the real property or any interest therein may be acquired by the Agency and sold or leased for rehabilitation or development in accordance with this Plan. .4. [~306] Conforming Owners The Agency may, at its sole and absolute discretion, determine that certain real property within the Project Area presently meets the requirements of this Plan, and the owner of such property will be permitted to remain as a conforming owner without a participation agreement with the Agency provided such owner continues to operate, use, and maintain the re'al property within the requirements of this Plan. However., a conforming owner shall be required by the Agency to enter into a pai°dcipation agreement with the Agency in the event that such owner desires to construct any additional improvements or substantially alter or modify existing structures on any of the real property described above as conforming. C. [§307] Cooperation with Public Bodies Certain public bodies are authorized by state law to aid and cooperate, with or without consideration, in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation of this Project. The Agency shah seek the md and cooperation of such public bodies and shah attempt to coordinate this Plan with the activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes of redevelopment and the highest public go. od. The Agency, by law, is not authorized to acquire real property owned by public bodies without the consent of such public bodies. The Agency, however, will seek the cooperation of aH public bodies which own or intend to acquire property in the Project Area. Any public body which owns or leases property in the Project Area will be afforded aH the' privileges of owner and tenant participation if such public body is willing to enter into a participation agreement with the Agency. All plans for development of property in the Project Area by a public body shah be subject to Agency approval.. The Agency may impose on all public bodies the planning and design controls contained in this Plan to insure that present uses and any future development by public bodies win conform to the requirements of this Plan. To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency is authorized to financially (and otherwise) assist any public entity in the cost of public land, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements (within or without the Project Area), which land, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are or would be of benefit to the Project. D. ~308] Property. Acquisition 1. [~309] Real Property. Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any real property located in the Project Area by any means authorized by law. It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to eliminate the conditions requiring redevelopment and in order to execute this Plan for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real property in the Project Area which cannot be acquired by gift, devise, exchange, purchase, or any other lawful method. Eminent domain proceedings, if used, must be commenced within twelve (12) years from the date 'of adoption, of this Plan. The Agency shah not acquire real property to be retained by an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement. The Agency is authorized to acquire st-ructures without acquiri~.g the land .upon which those stTuctures are located. The Agency is authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property less than a fee. The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its. present site and in its present form and use without the consent 'of the owner unless: (a) such building-requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation; fo) the site, or lot on which the building is situated, requires modification in size, shape, or use; or (c) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of this Plan and the owner fails or refuses to execute a participation agreement in .acCOrdance with the provisions of this Plan. The Agency is not authorized to acquire real property oWned by public bodies which do not consent to such acquisition. The Agency is authorized, however, to acquire public property transferred to private ownership before redevelopment of the Project Area is completed, unless the Agency and the private owner enter into a participation agreement and the owner completes his responsibilities under the participation agreement. 2. [~310] Personal Property Generally, personal property shah not be acquired. However, where necessary in the execution of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the Project Area by any lawful means, including eminent domain. E. [§311] Property. Management During such time as property, ff any, in the Project Area is owned by the Agency, such property shall be under the management and control of the Agency. Such property may be rented or leased by the Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment, and such rental or lease shall be pursuant to such policies as the Agency may adopt. F. [§312] Payments to Taxing Agencies Pursuant to Section 33607.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency is required tO and shall' make payments to affected taxing entities to alleviate the financial burden and detriment that the affected taxing entities may incur as a result of the adoption of this Plan. The payments made by the Agency shall be calculated and paid in accordance with the requirements of Section 33607.5. In any year during which it 'owns property in the Project Area, the Agency is authorized, but not required, to pay directly to any a.'ty, county, city and county, district, including, but not limited to, a school district, or other public corporation for whose benefit a 'tax would have been levied upon such property had it not been exempt, an amount of money in lieu of taxes. [~313] Relocation of Persons. Business Concerns. and Others Displaced by the Project 1. [~314] Assistance in Fi~dinE Other Locations The Agency shall-assist all persons, business-concerns, and others displaced by the Project in finding other locations and facilities. In order to carry out the Project with a minimum of hardship to persons, business concerns, and others, if any, displaied by the Project, the Agency shall assist such persons, business concerns and others in finding new locations that are within their respective financial means, in reasonably convenient locations, and otherwise suitable to their respective needs. 2. [,~315] Relocation Pa.vrnent.~ The Agency shall make relocation payments to persons, business concerns, and others displaced by the Project for moving expenses and direct losses of personal property and additional relocation payments as may be required by law. Such relocation payments shall be made pursuant to the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code Section 7260 et seq.) and Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. The Agency may make such other payments as may be appropriate and for which funds are available. He ~316] Demolition. Clearance. and Buildin~e and Site Preparation. 1. [~317] Demolition and Clearance The Agency is authorized to demolish and clear buildings, structures, and other improvements from any real property in the Project Area as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. 2. [~318] Preparation Of Building Sites The Agency is.authorized to prepare, or cause to be prepared, as building sites any real property in the Project Area owned by the Agency. In connection therewith, the Agency may cause, provide for, or undertake the installation or construction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other Public improvements necessary to carry out this Plan. The Agency is also authorized to construct foundations, platforms, and other structural forms necessary for the provision or utilization of air rights sites for buildings to be used for residential, commercial, industrial, public, and other uses provided for in this Plan. Prior consent of the. City Council is required for the Agency to develop sites for commercial or indus..*rial use by providing streets, sidewalks, utilities, or other improvements which an owner or operator of the site would otherwise be obliged to provide. [~319] property. Disposition and Development [~320] Real Property. Disposition and Development a. [~321] General For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to sell, lease, exchange, subdivide, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber by mortgage or deed of trust, or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property. To the extent permitted by law, the Agency is authorized to dispose of real property by negotiated lease, sale, or transfer without public bidding. Property acquired by the Agency for rehabilitation and resale, shall be offered for resale within one'(l) year after completion of rehabilitation or an annual report concerning such property shall be published by the Agency as required by law. Real property acquired by the Agency may be conveyed 'by the Agency without charge to the City and, where beneficial to the Project Area, without charge to any public body. All real property acquired by the Agency in the Project Area shall be sold or leased to public or private persons or entities for development for the uses permitted in this Plan. All. purchasers or lessees of property acquired from the Agency shall be obligated to use the property for the purposes designated in this Plan, to begin and complete development of the property within a period of time which the Agency fixes as reasonable, and to comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. b. [~322] Disposition and Development Documents To provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the provisions of this Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, all real property sold, leased, or conveyed by the AgenCy, as well as all property subject to participation agreements/is subject to the provisions of this Plan. The Agency shall reserve such powers and controls in the disposition and development documents as .may be necessary to prevent transfer, retention, or use of property for speculative purposes and to ensure that development is carried out pursuant to this Plan. Leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, and declarations of restrictions of the Agency may contain restrictions, covenants, covenants, running with the land, rights of reverter, condition,s subsequent, equitable servitudes, or.any other provisions necessary to carry out this Plan. Where appropriate, as determined by the Agency, such documents, or portions thereof, shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County. · All property in the Project Area is hereby subject to the restriction that there shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, · color, creed, 'religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or anCestry in the saie, lease, .sublease, transfer, use, occupan0], tenure, or enjoyment of property in the Project Area. All property sold, leased, conveyed, or subject to'a participation agreement shah be expressly subject by appropriate doctunents to the restriction that all deeds, leases, or contracts for the sale, lease, sublease, or other transfer of land in the Project Area shall contain such nondiscrimination and nonsegregation clauses as required by law. c [~323] Development by the A~ency To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency is authorized to pay for, develop, or construct any publicly-owned building, facility, structure, or other improvement either within or without the Project Area, for itself or for any public body or entity, which buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are or would be of benefit to the Project Area. Specifically, the Agency may pay for, install, or construct the buildings, facilities, structures, and other improvements identified in Attachment No. 4, attached hereto and 170 incorporated herein by reference, and may acquire or pay for the land required therefor. In addition'to the public improvements authorized under Section 318 and the specific publicly-owned improvements identified in Attachment No. 4 of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to install and construct, or to cause to be installed and constructed, within or without the Project Area, for itself or for any public body or entity for the benefit of the Project Area, public improvements and public utilities, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) over- and underpasses; (2) sewers; (3) natural gas distribution systems; (4) water distribution systems; (5) parks, plazas, and pedestrian paths; (6) playgrounds; (7) parking facilities;' (8) landscaped areas; and (9) street improvements. The. Agency may enter into contracts, leases, and agreements with the City or other public body or entity pursuant to this Section 323, and the obligation of the Agency under such contract, lease, or agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency which may be made payable out o~ the taxes levied in the Project Area and allocated to the Agency under subdivision Co) of Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 502 of this Plan or out of any other available funds. ' ' d. [~324] Development Plans All development plans (whether public or private) shall be submitted to the Agency for approval. All development in the Project Area must conform to City design review standards. 2. [~325] Personal Property. Disvosition For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to lease, sell, exchange, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, or otherwise dispose of personal property which is acquired by the Agency. j. [~326] Rehabilitation. Conservation. and Moving of Structures 1. [~327] Rehabilitation and Cortservation The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate and conserve, or to cause to be rehabilitated and conserved, any building or structure in the Project Area owned by the Agency. The Agency is also authorized and directed to advise, encourage, and assist in the rehabilitation and conservation of property in the Project Area not owned by the Agency. The Agency is also authorized to acquire, restore, rehabilitate, move, and conserve buildings of historic or architectural significance. 2. [~328] Moving of Structures As necessary in carrying out this Plan, the Agency is authorized to move, or to cause to be moved, any standard structure or building or any structure or building which can be rehabilitated to a location within or outside the Project Area. [§329] Low- and Moderate-Income I-Iousin~ Pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law, not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670' of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 502 of this Plan shall be used by the Agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the City's supply of housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income unless certain findings are made as required by that section to lessen or exempt such reqUirement. In carrying out this purpose, the Agency may exercise any or all of its powers. The funds for this purpose shall be held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund until used. Any interest earned by such Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund shall accrue to the Funci. IV. [~t00] USES PERMITTED IN THE PROJECT AREA A. [~2)1] Redevelopmen~ Land Use Map The "Redevelopment Land Use Map," attached hereto as Attachment No. 3 and incorporated herein by reference, illustrates the location of the Project 'Area boundaries, major streets within the Project Area, and 'the land uses authorized within the Project by the City's current General Plan. The City will from time to time update and revise the General Plan. It is the intention of this Redevelopment Plan that the land uses to be permitted within the Project Area shall be as provided within the City's General Plan, as it currently exists or as it may from time to time be amended, and as implemented and applied by City ordinances, resolutions and other laws. Be ~02] Other Land Uses 1. [~03] Public Rights-of-Way As illustrated on the Redevelopment Land 'Use Map (Attachment No. 3), the major public streets within the Project Area include Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. Additional public streets, alleys, and easements may be created in the Project Area'as needed for proper development. Existing streets, alleys, and easements may be abandoned, dosed, or modified as necessary for proper development of the Project. Any changes in the existing interior or exterior street layout shall be in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of this Plan, and the City's deliign standards, shall be effectuated in the manner prescribed by state and local law, and shall be guided by the following criteria: The requirements imposed by such factors as topography, traffic safety and aesthetics; and The potential need to serve not only the Project Area and new or existing developments but to also serve areas outside the Project by providing convenient and efficient vehicular access and. movement. The public rights-of-way may be used for vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic, as well as for public improvements, public and private utilities, and activities typically found in .public rights-of-way. [~104] Other Public. Semi-Public. Institutional. and Nonprofit Uses In kny area shown on the Redevelopment Land Use Map (Attachment No. 3), the Agency is authorized to tSermit the maintenance, establishment, or enlargement of public, semi-public, institutional, or nonprofit uses, including park and recreational facilities, libraries, educational, fraternal, employee, philanthropic, religious and charitable institutions, utilities, railroad rights-of-way, and facilities of other similar associations or organizations. All such uses shall, to the extent possible, conform to the provisions of this Plan applicable to the uses in the specific area involved. The Agency may impose such other reasonable requirements and/or restrictions as may be necessary to protect the development and use of the Project Area. 'Pending the ultimate development of land by developers and participants, the Agency is authorized to use or p~rmit the use of any land in the Project Area for interim uses that are not in conformity with the uses permitted in this Plan. 4. [~106] Nondonforming Uses The Agency may permit an existing use to remain in an existing building in good condition which use does not conform to the provisions of this Plan, provided that such use is generally compatible with existing and proposed developments and uses in the'Project Area. The owner of such a property must be willing to enter into a participation agreement and agree to the imposition of such reasonable restrictions as may be necessary to protect the development and use of the Project Area. The Agency may authorize additions, akerations, repairs, or other improvements in the Project Area for uses which do not conform to the provisions of this Plan where such improvements are within a portion of the Project where, in the determination of the Agency, such improvements would be. compatible with surrounding Project uses and development. Ce [~107] General Controls and Limitations All real property in the Project Area is made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. No real property shah be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan, except in conformance with the provisions of this Plan. 1. [~408] Construction All construction in the Project Area shall comply with all applicable state and local laws and codes in effect from ti_rue to time. In addition to applicable codes, ordinances, or other requirements governing development in the Project Area, additional specific performance and development standards may be adopted by the Agency to control and direct redevelopment activities in the Project Area. 2. [,~409] Rehabilitation and Retention of Properties Any existing structure within the Project Area approved by the Agency for retention and rehabilitation shall be repaired, altered, reconstructed, or rehabilitated in such a manner that it will be'safe and sound in all physical respects 'and be attractive in appearance and not detrimental to the surrounding uses. [~410] Limitation on the Number of Buildings The number of buildings in the' Project Area shall not exceed the number of buildings permitted under the General Plan. [~11] Number of Dwellln~ Units At the time of adoption of this Plan, there are no dwelling units within the Project Area. The number of dwelling units permitted in the Project Area shall not exceed the number of dwelling units permitted under the General Plan. 5. . [~412] Limitation on Type, Size, and Height of Buildings Except as set forth in other sections of this Plan, the .type, size, and height of buildings shall be as limited by applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations. 6. [~413] Open Spaces. Landscaping. Light. Air. and Privacy The .approximate' mount of open space to be provided in the Project Area is the total of all areas which will be in the public rights-of, way, the public ground, the space around buildings, and all' other outdoor areas not permitted to be covered by buildings. Landscaping shall be provided to enhance open spaces in the Project Area and create a high-quality aesthetic environment. Landscaping may include, in addition to trees, shrubs and other living plant materials, such materials as paving, landscape containers, plaza furniture, and landscape and pedestrian lighting. Sufficient space shall be maintained between buildings in all. areas to provide adequate light, air, and privacy. 7. [~414] ~ All signs shall conform to City sign 'ordinances and other requirements as they now exist or are hereafter amended. Design of all proposed new signs shall be submitted to the Agency and/or the City prior to installation for · review and approval pursuant to the procedures of this Plan. 8. [~15] Utilities The Agency shall require that all utilities be placed underground whenever physicaily and economically feasible. 9. [~416] Incompatible Uses No use or structure which by reason of'appearance, traffic, smoke, glare, noise, odor, or similar factors, as determined by the Agency, would be incompatible with the surrounding areas or structures shall be permitted in any part of the Project Area. 10. [~417] Nondiscrimination and Nonse~egation There shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry permitted in the 11/29/99 sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of property in the Project Area. 11. [~418] Subdivision of parcels No parcel in the Project Area, including any parcel retained by a participant, shall be subdivided without the approval of the Agency. 12. [~419] Minor Variations Under. exception.al circumstances, the Agency is authorized to permit a variation from the limits, restrictions, and controls established by this Plan. In order to permit such variation, the Agency must determine that: The application of certain provisions of this Plan would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this Plan; There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to ',.he property or to-the intended development of the property which do not apply generally to other properties having the same standards, restrictions, and controls; Permitting a variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area; and de 'Permitting ii variation will not be contrary to the objectives of this Plan or of the General Plan. . No variation shall be granted which changes a basic land use or which permits other than a minor departure from the provisions of this Plan. In permitting any such variation, the Agency shall impose such 'conditions as are necessary' to protect the public peace, health, safety, or welfare and to assure compliance with the purposes of this Plan. Any variation permitted by the Agency hereunder shall not supersede any other approval required under applicable City codes and ordinances. [~420] Desi?t for Development Within the limits, restrictions, and controls established in this P1an, the Agency is authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage, setback requirements, design criteria, traffic circulation, traffic access, and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both private and public areas within the Proiect Area. No new improvement shall be constructed, and no existing improvement shall be substantially modified, altered, repaired, or rehabilitated, except in accordance with this Plan and any such controls and, in the case of property which is the subject of a disposition .and development or participation agreement with the Agency and any other property, in the discretion of the Agency, in accordance with architectural, landscape, and site plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Agency. One of the objectives of this Plan is to create an attractive and pleasant environment in the Project .Area. Therefore, such plans shall give consideration to g6od design, open space, and other amenities to enhance the aesthetic quality of the Project .Area. The Agency shall not approve any plans that do not' comply with this Plan. E. .[~.21] Buildin_e Permits No permit shall be issued for the construction of any new building or for any construction on an existing building in the Project Area from the date of adoption of this Plan until the application for such permit has been approved by the Agency as consistent with this Plan and processed in a manner consistent with all City requirements. An application shall be deemed consistent with this Plan if it is consistent with the General Plan, applicable zoning ordinances and any adopted design for development. The Agency .is authorized to establish permit procedures and approvals in addition to those set forth above where required for the purposes of this Plan. Where such additional procedures, and approvals are established, a building permit shall be issued only after the applicant for same has been granted all approvals required by the City and the Agency at the time of application. V. [,~500] METHODS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT [§501] General Description of the Proposed Financing Method The Agency is authorized to finance this 'Project with financial assistance from the City, the State of California, the federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds, donations, loans from private financial institutions, the 'lease or sale of Agency-owned property, or any other available source, public or private. The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, and create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan. The principal and interest on such advances, funds, and indebtedness may be paid from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency. Advances and loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for nominal administration of this Project may be provided by /7 7 the City until adequate tax increment or other /unds are available, or sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to permit borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The City, as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through City loans and grants for various public facilities. The City or any 'other public agency may expend money to assist the Agency in carrying out this Proiect. As available, gas tax funds from the state and county may be used for street improvements and public transit facilities. B. [~502] Tax Increment Funds All taxes lev}e'd upon taxable property within the Project Area each year, by or for the benefit of the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, the City, any district, or any other public corporation (hereinafter sometimes called "taxing agencies"), after the effective date of the ordinance approving this Plan shall be divided as follows: That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of said taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the P','oject as shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the. taxation of such property by such taxing agency, last equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance, shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into the funds of the respective, taxing agencies as taxes by or for said taxing agencies on all other property are paid (for the purpose of allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing agency or agencies which did not include the territory of the Project on the effective date of such ordinance but to which such territory is annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the assessment roll of the County of Santa Clara, last equalized on the effective date of said ordinance, shall be used in determining the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project on said effective date). 4 Except as provided in subdivision 3, below, that portion of said levied taxes each year in excess of such amount shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay the principal of and interest on .loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, this Project. Unless and until the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in the Project as shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in subdivision 1 hereof, all of the taxes' levied and collected upon the taxable property in the Project shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies. When said loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, and interest thereon, have been paid, all moneys thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in the Project shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid. That portion oi the taxes in excess of th~ amoUnt identified in subdivision 1, above, which are attributable to a tax rate levied by a taxing agency which was approved by the voters of the taxing agency on or after January 1, 1989, for the purpose of producing revenues in an amount sufficient to make annual repayments of the principal of, and the interest on, any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property shall be allocated to, and when collected shall be paid into, the fund of that taxing agency. -The portion of taxes mentioned'in subdivision 2, above, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the advance of moneys, or making of loans or the incurring of any indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherWise) by the Agency to finance or refinance the Project, in whole or in part. The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific advances, loans, and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying out the Project. The Agency is authorized to issue bonds from time to time, if it deems appropriate to do so, in order to finance all or any par~. of the Project. Neither the members of the Agency nor any persons executing the bonds' axe liable personally on the bonds by reason of their issuance. The bonds and other obligations of the Agency are not a debt of the City or the state, nor are any of its political subdivisions liable for them, nor in any event shah the bonds or obligations be payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the Agency, and such bonds and other obligations shah so state on their face. The bonds do not ~onstitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional 'or statutory debt limitation or restriction. The amount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from the allocation of taxes described in subdivision 2 above which can be outstanding at any one time shah not exceed FORTY-TWO MILLION SIX HLD~RED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($42,610,000.00). /29/99 The Agency shall not establish or incur loans, advances, or indebtedness to finance in whole or in part the Project beyond twenty (20) years from the date of adoption of this Plan. Loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time beyond said time limit. This time limit shall not prevent the Agency from incurring debt to be paid from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. Further, this time limit shall not prevent the Agency from refinancing, refunding, or restructuring indebtedness after the time limit if the indebtedness is not increased and the time during which the indebtedness is to be repaid is not extended beyond the time limit for 'repaying indebtedness set forth immediately below in this Section 502. The Agency ~hall not receive, and shall not' repay loam, advances, or other indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes .from the Project Area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law and this Section 502 beyond forty-five (45) years from the date of adoption of this Plan. C. [§503] Other Loans and Grants Any other loans, grants, guarantees, or financial ~ssistance from the United States, the State of California, or any other public or private source will be utilized if available. VI. [§600] ACTIONS BY.THE CITY The City shall aid and cooperate with the Agency in carrying out this Plan and shall take all actions necessary to ensure the continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the recurrence or spread in the area of conditions causing · blight. Actions by the City shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Ao Institution and completion of proceedings for opening, cl. osing, vacating, widening, or changing the grades of streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way and for other necessary modifications of the streets, the street layout, and other public rights-of-way in the Project Area. Such action by the City shall include the requirement of abandonment, removal, and relocation by the public utility companies of their operations of public rights-of- way as appropriate to carry out this Plan provided that nothing in this Plan shall be construed to require the cost of such abandonment, removal, and relocation to be borne by others than those legally required to bear such cost. Provision of advances, loans, or grants to the Agency or the expenditure of funds for projects implementing this Plan as deemed appropriate by the City and to the extent funds are available therefor. /fo C Institution and completion of proceedings necessary' for changes. and improvements in private and publicly owned public utilities within or affecting the Proiect Area. Revision of zoning (if necessary) within the Project Area to permit the land uses and development authorized by this Plan. Imposition wherever necessary (by conditional use permits or other means) o£ appropriate controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development and use. Provision for administrative enforcement of this Plan'by the City after development. The City and the Agency shall develop and provide for enforcement of a program for continued maintenance by owners of all real property, both public and private, within the Project Area throughout the duration of this Plan. G. Preservation of historical sites. Performance of the above actions and of all other functions and services relating to public peace, health, safety, and physical development normally rendered in accordance with a schedule which will permit the redevelopment of the Project Area to be commenced and carried to completion without unnecessary delays. I. The undertaking and completing of any other proceedings necessary to carry out the Project. The foregoing actions to be taken by the City do not involve or constitute any commitment for .financial outlays by the City unless spedfically agreed to and authorized by the City. VII. [.q7001 ENFORCEMENT The administration and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation and execution of any documents implementing this Plan, shall be performed by the Agency and/or the City. The provisions of this Plan or other documents entered into pursuant to this Plan may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by either the Agency or the City. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, specific performance, damages, reentry, injunctions, or any other remedies appropriate to the purposes of this Plan. In addition, any recorded provisions which are expressly for the benefit of owners of property in the Project Area may be enforced by such owners. VIII. [§800] DURATION OF THIS PLAN Except for the nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be effective, and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made effective, for thirty (30) years from the date of adoption of this Plan by the City Council; provided, however, that subject to the limitations set forth in Section 502 of this Plan,. the A§ency may issue bonds and incur obligations pursuant to this Plan which extend beyond the termination date, and in such event, this Plan shall continue in effect to the extent necessary to permit the full repayment of such bonds or other obligations. After the termination of this Plan, the. Agency shall have no authority to act pursuant to this Plan except to pay previously incurred indebtedness and to enforce existing'covenants or contracts. IX. [~900] PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT This Plan may be amended by means of 'the procedure established in Sections 33354.6 and/or 33450 et seq. of the Comutunity Redevelopment Law or by any other procedure hereafter established by law. 11/29/99 ATTACHMENT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Cuperd. no/Vallco Redevelopment Project Legal Description ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED A,~ FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTEI~SECTION OF THE IV~_ONUI~IENT LINE OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, WITH THE MONUMENT UNE OF' WOLFE ROAD AS ,SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 325 OF MAPS AT PAGE 12, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORD.S: THENCE ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD NORTH 89'36'00" EAST, 53.96' FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF WOLFE ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION SOUTH 01°05'14" EAST, 75.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (120 FEET WIDE) AND THE TRUE POINT'OF BEGINNING. (1) THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVAP. D SOUTH 80 °36;0.0" WEST, 961.68 FEET; (2) THENCE NORTH 00'42'30" WEST, 1384.97 FEET 'ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 2086 AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AS SAID EASTERLY' LINE IS SHOWN IN BOOK 112 OF MAPS AT PAGE 40, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; .. (3) THENCE NORTH 89°13'29" EAST, 298.99 FEET; (4) THENCE ALONG THE EAST1ERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 2086, NORTH 00"04'30" WEST, 1207.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF TRACT' NO. 2860 RECORDED ~N BOOK 138 OF MAPS AT PAGES 22 AND 23, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; (5) (6) THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY UNE NORTH 83'47'30" WEST; 42.44 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ~Y UNE OF TRACT NO. 2880 NORTH 00' 17'20" WEST, 463.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF JUNIPERO SERRA FREEWAY, INTER~A~ 280; (7) (8) THENCE SOUTH 43°49'16" EAST, 267.07 FEET;, THENCE SOUTH 57'03'27" EAST, 731.74 FEET; (9) (10) THENCE SOUTH 60°14'49" EAST, 699.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 325 OF MAPS OF PAGE 12, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; " THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 01 °05'14" EAST, 1 049.61 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY ENE OF VAI I.CO PARKWAY (110 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID NQRTH~y LINE NORTH 88'54'46" EAST, 79.99 FEET; (12) (13) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 685.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03"50'53" FOR A DISTANCE OF 46.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 01 °05'14" EA'$T, 414.46 FEET; (14) THENCE SOUTH 88"54'46" WEST, 835.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF WOLFE ROAD; (15) THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 01 °05'14" EAST, 112.12 FEET; (16) THENCE SOUTH 89"36'00" WEST, 11.00 FEET; (17) THENCE SOUTH 01 "05'14" EAST, {~_29~04 'FEET TO THETRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF 80.14 ACRES MORE QR LESS. THE BASIS'.OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE MONUMENT LINE OF WOLFE ROAD SHOWN AS NORTH 01 '05'14" WEST ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 325 O# MAPS AT PAGE 12, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS. ,If .. % ATTACHMENT 3 22222.2.2.2.2.2,22222 .'.-.'.'...'.'.~ ,....i:i:ii'i!i:i!!.i::'::: . ' · -2.~.~ .......... i:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i :!:i:i:i:i:!:i:i 121-, 2222222222.222.212.2-: ................-. ' mm BOULEVARD '""'"'":' ~ The City ~f Cupertino '"""' Land Use Map Legend m mmmI Residential: ~ .¥e~ Low r-~~ ~ Very ~w so~ ~ t,ow: 1-5 D.UJGr. Ac. Commercial I Residential Office I InduslYal/ ' ' Commercial I Residential Commercial I Office I Residential Inclus~al / fie,~lential ~'. ~ MedJt. ow: 5-10 D.U,/Gr. AZ. · '~'"' ': · ' · , .. ~ .... .:~.';.:?,- ,,., · ~ ~ed,/High~ 10-20 D.UJGr. Ac.: -.- .... ,--J=b'.~.~mvice'Area'Beundary .-- ~.i~.On~m ~oun~..~ · - ~ Hioh'. ~O-~S '~.U/Gr. Ac. .., Private Open Space ~ Public Open 8pace r-~'l Quasi, Public I Institutional Private Recreational ~ Public Facllit{es O Fire Station Special Planning Area ATTAC~ik~r NO. 4 PROPOSED PUBLIC IIVIP._ RO .VEMENTS The following public improvements are anticipated to be provided in the Project Area: 1. Streets and Roadway~ The construction, reconstruction, widening improvement of streets and roadways within or Project Area; or other serving the bo The installation or modernization of traffic signals on streets and roadways within or serving the Project Area; and The construction, reconstruction or other improvement of curbs, gutters and sidewalks within or serving the Project Area. 2. Water. Sewer and Flood Comtrol ao The installation of new, or repair or replacement of existing, water, sewer and storm drainage systems and lines within or serving the Project Area. Parkin¢ Facilities The constructiOn; reconstructiOn'or other improvement parking facilities within or serving the Project Area. Streetscape and Street LightinE of ao · The installation of new, or repair or replacement of existing, landscaping and irrigation, street lighting, gateways and other signage, street furniture, trash receptacles, planters, murals and other amenities within or serving the Project Area. 11/29/99 Exhibit 7 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. SUPPLEMENT TO THE REPORT TO COUNCIL on the PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PREPARED FOR: THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PREPARED BY: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2000 SUPPLEMENT TO THE REPORT TO COUNCIL on the PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PREPARED FOR: THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 2000 PREPARED BY: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, California 90017 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego, California 92108 Golden Gateway Commons 55 Pacific Avenue Mall San Francisco, California 94111 179 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction A. Reasons for the Preparation of a Supplement to the Report to Council B. Content and Organization of the Supplement II. Effects of Change of Base Year from 1999/2000 to 2000/2001 A. Effects on Physical and Economic Conditions B. Effects on the Financial Feasibility of the Project and Method of Financing C. Effects on the County FiScal Officer's Report, Analysis of the County Fiscal Officer's Report, and Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies Page 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 Table 1 - Tax Increment Revenue Projection Table 2 - Feasibility Cash Flow - Project Fund Table 3 - Estimate of Fiscal Officer's Report (Base Year 2000/2001) September 20, 1999 Fiscal Officer's Report Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 0005060,CUP:CK:gbd 11413.0(34.001/6/02/00 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page I I. INTRODUCTION A. Reasons for the Preparation of a Supplement to the Report to Council As required by Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL"), the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") prepared a Report to the Cupertino City Council ("Report") for.the proposed Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project ("Project" or the "Project Area"). The Agency on May 15, 2000 approved the Report and authorized transmittal of the Report to the Cupertino City Council ("City Council"). The City Council received the Report on May 15th, and will consider the information within the Report at the time it considers adoption of the proposed Project. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Project on June 19, 2000. The Fiscal Officer's Report prepared by the Santa Clara County Auditor-Controller in accordance with CRL Section 33328 and received by the Agency on September 20, 1999, contained a total Project Area assessed valuation of $141,483,540. However, the Fiscal Officer's Report did not reflect adjustments made in connection with successful assessment appeals, which decreased the total Project Area assessed valuation to approximately $116,135,000. The adjustments were reported by the County in letters of "Notification of Corrected Assessment" to the property owner (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America) dated October 22nd. The Agency requested and was expecting to receive a revised Fiscal Officer's Report prior to the adoption of the proposed Project, which would reflect the revised total Project Area assessed valuation of $116,135,000. However, the Agency has not yet received the revised Fiscal Officer's Report. Because the Agency was aware of the decreased assessed valuation, all of the economic and tax increment analysis within the Report to Council is based upon the total Project Area assessed valuation of $116,135,000. To ensure that the corrected value is reflected in the base year value for the Project, the Agency is proposing a change in base year from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001. The Agency is proposing to proceed as scheduled with the public hearing on the Plan on June 19th. However, adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting the Plan will be delayed until sometime after August 19, 2000, which is the date the base year changes from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001. CRL Section 33328.5 (c) requires that .... "At least 14 days prior to the public headng on the redevelopment plan for which the redevelopment agency proposes to use a different equalized assessment roll, the redevelopment agency shall prepare and deliver to each taxing agency a supplementary report analyzing the effect of the use of the different equalized assessment roll which shall include those subjects required by subdivisions (b), (e), and (n) of Section 33352." In lieu of a supplementary report, a redevelopment agency may include in the report required to be prepared, pursuant to Section 33352, the information required to be included in the Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates. Inc. Page 1 O0~-O0~.doc 11413.004.1X)1/6/02/00 supplementary report. Sections (b), (e) and (n) of 33352 include the "blight analysis", the proposed method of financing the Project and analysis of the Report of the County Fiscal Officer including a summary of consultations with taxing agencies and responses to any written objections submitted by the taxing agencies. This supplement to the Report on the proposed Project ("Supplement") addresses the effects of changing the base year for tax increment allocation purposes from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001. As indicated above, the original report to the City Council (Section 33352) included information based on the corrected assessed value for 1999/2000. To ensure full compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 33328.5, the Agency has prepared this Supplement. In addition to the requirement that the Agency prepare a Supplement, CRL Section 33328.5(a) also requires that the Agency notify the taxing agencies, County officials and the State Board of Equalization of the change in base year. Upon receipt of the notice of the change in base year the County Fiscal Officer must prepare a new base year report. Alternatively, the Agency may prepare a report containing the same information as contained in the County Fiscal Officer's Report. The Agency has chosen the latter alternative and has prepared a new estimated base year report for fiscal year 2000-2001. The new estimated base year report is included in this Supplement. The following section discusses the contents of this Supplement. B. Content and Organization of the Supplement As identified above, the Supplement must analyze the effects of the change in base year on the physical and economic conditions (blight conditions), and financial feasibility of the Project. Also, the Supplement must analyze the effects of the change in base year on the analysis of the Report of the County Fiscal Officer and summary of consultations with taxing agencies including responses to written objections. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupe~no Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2 001-001.doc 11413,004,001/6/07./00 / ? c~..~ II. EFFECTS OF CHANGE OF BASE YEAR FROM 1999/2000 TO 2000/2001 A. Effects on Physical and Economic Conditions The change in the base year will have no effect on the physical and economic blight findings. The blight analysis in the Report to Council that addresses "depreciated or stagnant property values" was based on the revised assessed value as stated in the notification of the corrected assessment from the County Auditor dated October 22, 1999. B. Effects on Financial Feasibility of the Project and the Method of Financing The Project Area's assessed value for the year 2000/2001 has been estimated based on the revised assessment issued on October 22, 1999, adjusted for allowable Proposition 13 escalations, and building permit valuations that were not reflected in the revised 1999/2000 assessment. The revised assessed value for the Project Area as stated in the October 22, 1999 statement from the County is $116.14 million. To estimate the Project Area's assessed value for 2000/2001, the Project Area's real property value has been increased by a 1% Proposition 13 adjustment and $6.5 million of improvements made to Sears and Macy's. With these adjustments, the Project Area's assessed value for 2000/2001 is estimated to be $123.6 million. A revised tax increment projection for the Project Area is presented in Table 1. As shown, the Project Area is projected to generate a total of $51.0 million of gross tax increment over the 30- year life of the Plan. Over the 30-year period, statutory pass-throughs to taxing agencies are estimated to total $17.1 million, housing set-aside funds are estimated to total $10.2 million, and net increment to the Agency is estimated at $23.7 million. These amounts are approximately 3% less than the totals projected in the Report to City Council, which evaluated a base year of 1999/2000. A revised Feasibility Cash Flow is presented in Table 2. As shown it is estimated that the Agency's cash flow (exclusive of the housing set-aside) will be sufficient to fund approximately $11.2 million of public improvements to be funded in the years 2003 to 2005. The public improvements contemplated for the Project Area are as stated in the Report to City Council and include a parking structure and the construction of a new "ring" road around the perimeter of the shopping center. In the Report to Council, it was estimated that the tax increment would be sufficient to support approximately $12.2 million of improvements, due to the smaller base year value. Given that the required timing of the improvements precedes the availability of sufficient tax increment, the feasibility projection provides for a third party loan of $5.5 million to advance the funds for the improvements. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3 oo~-oo~.doc /~:.~ ~ ~ 4~ 3.oo4.oo~/s/o2/oo In conclusion, the change in the base year does not have a material impact on the proposed method of financing or the feasibility of the Project Area. It is likely that the Project Area will generate slightly less tax increment and consequently support a smaller magnitude of public improvements. The proposed project and programs will not change. The relatively minor difference in revenues available for project funding ($1 million) will be paid for by the pdvate sector and/or by other public funds that may be available to the City. C. Effects on the County's Fiscal Officer's Report, the Agency's Analysis Thereof, and Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies Pursuant to Section 33352(n) of the CRL, the Report to City Council included an analysis of the Fiscal Officer's Report and must include a summary of the consultations of the Agency, or attempts to consult by the Agency, with each of the affected taxing agencies. This section of the supplement analyzes the effects of the change in base year on the County Fiscal Officer's Report and summary of consultations with the taxing agencies. C. 1. The Report of the County Fiscal Officer and Analysis Thereof Section 33328 of the CRL requires the County officials charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes under Section 33670 and 33670.5 to prepare and deliver a report to the Redevelopment Agency (the "Fiscal Officer's Rep~,rt"). This Report shall include the following: a. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the project area as shown on the Base Value assessment roll. b. The identifications of each taxing agency levying taxes in the project area. The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the Base Value assessment roll from the project area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory, and similar subventions. d. For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or outside the project area. e. The estimated first year taxes available to the redevelopment agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the redevelopment agency, broken down by taxing agencies. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 001-001 .doc 11413.004.001/6/02/00 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4 The assessed valuation of the project area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the redevelopment agency, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll. C. l.a. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The Fiscal Officer's Report was prepared, on September 20, 1999 by the Santa Clara County Auditor-Controller and is attached to this Supplement. However, the Fiscal Officer's Report contained an inaccurate assessed valuation, which did not reflect adjustments made in connection with appeals from one of the property owners within the Project Area. These successful property assessment appeals decreased the Project Area's assessed valuation from $141,483,540 as shown in the September 20, 1999 Fiscal Officer's Report to approximately $116,135,000. The revised assessment of $116,135,000 did not reflect the inclusion of approximately $6.5 million of improvements made to Sears and Macy's. This amount should have been included in the base year value. The Agency requested, but did not receive a revised Fiscal Officer's Report reflecting the lower assessed value. To ensure that the base year for the Project reflects the lower assessed value, the Agency is proposing a change in base year from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001. Thus, adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting the Plan will be delayed until after August 2000 when the base year value changes from 1999- 2000 to 2000-2001. C. 1.b Analysis of Information This section of the Supplement reviews the information provided in the origina! Fiscal Officer's Report (base year 1999-2000), any differences between the original Fiscal Officer's Report and the Agency's approximation of a new Fiscal Officer's Report (base year 2000-2001) as presented in Table 3 and the effect of the differences (if any). This information is presented by the required components of the Fiscal Officer's Report as defined in CRL Section 33328. 1. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the project area as shown on the Base Value assessment roll. The 1999-2000 Fiscal Officer's Report provided the assessed valuation of the Project Area by assessment category for locally assessed secured and unsecured properties. There was no value reported for public utility property by the State Board of Equalization. As previously stated earlier, the total assessed value report by the County Fiscal Officer was $141,483,540 which did not include the recent assessment appeals. The actual value later for 1999/2000 reported by the County and is $116,135,000. This change in value had no effect on the analysis presented in the Report to Council because it was based upon the revised $116,135,000 value. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 001-001 .doc 11413.004.001/6/02/00 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5 As discussed in the Financial Feasibility Section of this Supplement, the Agency has prepared an estimate of the Project Area's 2000/2001 assessed value. As presented, it is estimated to be approximately $123.6 million, reflecting the inclusion of the Sears and Macy's improvements and standard allowable annual escalations. 2. The identifications of each taxing agency levying taxes in the project area. The 1999-2000 Fiscal Officer's Report identified 11 taxing agencies in the Project Area. These same taxing agencies are identified in the new 2000-2001 base year report. A twelfth taxing agency, the "Cupertino Sanitation District", was initially identified by KMA using Metroscan, which is a database program which utilizes County data. KMA asked the County to verify whether or not the Sanitation District is an affected taxing agency in the Project Area. Until this information can be verified it is assumed that the County's Fiscal Officer's Report is correct and that the Cupertino Sanitation District is not an affected taxing agency. The financial feasibility analysis and tax increment projection provided in the Report to Council assumed that the 11 taxing agencies reported in the County Fiscal Officer's Report are the only affected taxing agencies within the Project Area. Therefore, change in base years has no affect on the taxing agencies levying taxes in the Project Area. The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the Base Value assessment roll from the project area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory, and similar subventions. Table 3 presents the amount of tax revenue t° be derived by each taxing agency from the Base Value assessment roll. The allocations are summarized below: Estimated 1999-2000 Base Year, Estimated 2000-2001 Base Year Revenues Revenues County $289,417 $308,110 Library $52,012 $55,371 - Cupertino $27,020 $28,765 Cupertino ESD $298,515 $317,795 Fremont U HSD $201,596 $214,616 Foothill CCD $76,957 $81,927 County Education $37,549 $39,974 County Fire $182,361 $194.139 MPROSD $18,814 $20,029 SCVWD $21,914 $23,330 BAAQMD $2,236 $2,380 Total $1,208,389 $1,286,436 As shown, the change in the base year is estimated to increase each taxing agency's revenues from the Base Value assessment roll by approximately 6%. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6 11413.004.001/6/02/00 4. For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or outside the project area. The total ad valorem tax revenue from all property within the boundaries of the taxing agencies jurisdictions as presented in the original 1999-2000 base year report is $411,855,528. The value for the year 2000/2001 has been estimated at $422,151,916, which reflects an assumed growth of 2.5%. 5. The estimated first year taxes available to the redevelopment agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the redevelopment agency, broken down by taxing agencies. Based upon the 1999-2000 base year report the Agency would receive approximately $60,000 in the first year that tax increment would be available to the Agency (2000-2001). Based upon the revised 2000-2001 base year estimates the Agency would receive approximately $19,000 in the year 2001/2002. The breakdown by taxing entity is provided in Table 3. The assessed valuation of the project area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the redevelopment agency, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll. The 1999-2000 Fiscal Officer's Report did not provide the value for the preceding year. The assessed valuation for 1999-2000 was stated to be $141,483,540, however, as indicated above, that valuation did not reflect adjustments for the assessment appeals and did not include the $6.5 million in improvements by Sears and Macy's. This information can only be provided by the County and therefore, was not included in the 2000-2001 base year report. C. 2 Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the publication of a notice of the joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect to the Project and the allocation of tax increment revenues. The Agency' submitted Statements of Preparation of a Redevelopment Plan to all of the affected taxing agencies on July 23, 1999. These notices included an offer to consult with each of the taxing agencies. Agency staff has received telephoned responses to the Statements of Preparation, and has consulted with the agencies that requested meetings (as described below). The discussions with the taxing agencies were based on the lower assessed value ($116,135,000). With the change in base year revenues to the taxing agencies will be higher and the tax increment to the Agency will be somewhat less. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7 11413,004.001/6/02/00 Date ContactJAgency Topic of Discussion September 15, 1999 Michael Raffeto Discussed the tax increment revenue projections. The Fremont Union High School District's consultant will review information and contact the Distdct City for further consultations. October 7, 1999 County of Santa Clara: Discussed impacts on County's tax revenues. The Richard Wittenberg County Executive expressed the opinion that the County Frank Lockfeld would not support the formation of a redevelopment area, and they would be looking further at the figures provided. Jane Decker Deborah Couble January 26, 2000 County of Santa Clara: The Discussion centered around the County's interest in Richard Wittenberg sharing in the financial success of the shopping center. Frank Lockfeld The County presented options for formulas for receiving financial benefits, and the options were discussed. City Jane Decker representatives agreed to review the options and Deborah Couble prepared a response. January 27, 2000 Fremont Union High School The discussion focused on two issues: 1) potential District: cooperation on using the affordable housing dollars for Mike Raffeto teacher-supported housing; and 2) the processing of the Cupertino Union School tax increments. District: Chuck Corr The school district's consultants presented information on County of Santa Clara: a housing program mndel from Long Beach. Other ideas Wendy Beadle were discussed, and the school districts agreed to return Public Economics, Inc.: with some options for teacher-supported housing, in Dante Gumucio partnership with the City. Carl Goodwin FoothilI-DeAnza Community The school district's consultants had prepared a letter of College: discussion items regarding processing the tax Jim Keller increments, which was discussed. The City's consultant, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., will further review the letter. March 14, 2000 County of Santa Clara: Discussion revolved around the following: 1) estimated Richard Wittenburg costs associated with serving urban pockets identified for Jane Decker possible annexation; 2) 20 year economic benefit Frank Lockfeld analysis; and 3) County share of sales tax revenues. A conceptual agreement was reached on a proposal that the County staff could recommend to the Board of Supervisors and City staff could recommend to the City Council. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 001-001.doc 11413.004.001/6/02J00 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8 C. 3. Responses to Written Objections or Concerns of the Affected Taxing Agencies As of the preparation of this Supplement, only one letter has been received by the Agency from affected taxing entities. A letter from Public Economics, Inc. (consultant to Fremont Union High School. District, Foothill-De Anza Community College District and Cupertino Union School District; collectively, the "Districts") was received by the Agency on January 21, 2000. Although this letter is not considered a written objection to the Project, Public Economics, Inc. raised concerns regarding the allocation of taxes and the overall implementation of the AB 1290 payment process as it affects the Districts. As previously stated in the prior section, the Agency has held consultation meetings with the Districts and their consultant to address the District concerns. Furthermore, the Agency has prepared a written response to Public Economics, Inc.'s January 21, 2000 letter, which addresses the District's concerns regarding the Project. Supplement to the Report to Council Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9 001-001.d~C /?? 11413.004,001/6/02/00 Table 2 Feasibility Cash Flow - Project Fund Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project City of Cupertino (O00's Omitted) I. Beginning Balance II. Revenue: Net Tax Increment (Table 1) Future TA Bond Proceeds/Loan Interest Earnings at 5% Bond Reserve Earnings at 5% Total Revenue III. Expenditures: Existing TA Bond Debt Service Future TA Bond Debt Service Administration (1) Identified Public Projects Total Expenditures IV. Net Available Resoumes Loan Advance Loan Repayment (100% of Net) Available for Discretionary Costs V. Discretionary Costs (0% of Net) Discretionary Improvements 100% VI. Ending Balance 1 2001-02 2 2002-03 13 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 303 0 0 0 0 30 31 0 0 30 31 (17) 273 17 0 0 (18) 0 255 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 2014-15 2015-16 0 0 380 640 677 693 710 727 743 760 769 778 786 795 803 0 6,160 0 0 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 380 6,800 702 719 1,616 755 772 789 797 806 815 823 831 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 512 512 568 568 568 568 568 568 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 37 37 38 0 5,600 5,6C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 5,632 6,144 545 546 602 603 604 605 605 606 349 1,168 (5,442) 174 1,070 153 169 185 193 201 209 0 0 5,442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (174) (1,070) (153) (169) (185) (193) (201) (209) 349 1,168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 568 568 39 40 0 0 607 608 216 223 0 0 {216) (223) 0 0 0 255 349 1,168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) $30,000 annual administrative expenses at 2% inflation. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: TI Projections 6-3-00.xls; Cash_Sum; 6/5/00; 12:13 PM; RTK Table 2 Feasibility Cash Flow - Project Fund Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project City of Cupertino (000's Omitted) I. Beginning Balance II. Revenue: Net Tax Increment (Table 1) Future TA Bond Proceeds/Loan Interest Earnings at 5% Bond Reserve Earnings at 5% Total Revenue III. Expenditures: Existing TA Bond Debt Service Future TA Bond Debt Service Administration (1) Identified Public Projects Total Expenditures IV. Net Available Resources Loan Advance Loan Repayment (100% of Net) Available for Discretionary Costs V. Discretionary Costs (0% of Net) Discretionary Improvements VI. Ending Balance 100% I<-- Debt Incurrence Limit I<- Plan Limit 16 17 18 19 20 ~ 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 ~ 31 32 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2012020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-3012030-31 2031-32 2032-33 0 0 0 0 0 810 818 831 851 871 0 0 0 0 1,760 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 28 28 28 839 846 859 879 2,659 0 0 0 0 0 568 568 568 568 568 40 41 42 43 44 0 0 0 0 0 608 609 610 611 230 237 249 268 0 0 0 0 (230) 1237) (249) (268) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 612 2,048 0 (2,048) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 891 912 934 955 978 1,000 1,023 1,047 1,071 1,095 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 926 947 968 990 1,012 1,035 1,058 1,082 1,106 1,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 697 45 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 741 742 743 744 745 748 747 748 749 750 185 205 225 246 267 289 311 334 357 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (185) (205) (225) (246) (267) (289) (311) (334) (357) (380) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,113 0 0 35 1,147 0 697 0 0 697 451 0 (451) 0 0 0 35 1,165 0 697 0 0 697 468 0 (468) 0 (1) $30,000 annual administrative expenses at 2% inflation. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: TI Projections 6-3-00.xls; Cash_Sum; 6/5/00; 12:13 PM; RTK Table 2 Feasibility Cash Flow - Project Fund Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project City of Cupertino (000's Omitted) I. Beginning Balance I1. Revenue: Net Tax Increment (Table 1) Future TA Bond Proceeds/Loan Interest Earnings at 5% Bond Reserve Eamings at 5% Total Revenue III. Expenditures: Existing TA Bond Debt Service Future TA Bond Debt Service Administration (1) Identified Public Projects Total Expenditures IV. Net Available Resources Loan Advance Loan Repayment (100% of Net) Available for Discretionary Costs V. Discretionary Costs (0% of Net) Discretionary Improvements VI. Ending Balance 100% 33 2033-34 34 2034-35 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ' 2035-36 2035-37 2037-38 2038-39 2039-40 2040-41 2041-42 2042-43 2043-44 44 45 2044-45 2045-46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,148 1,166 1,185 1,204 1,224 1,243 1,264 1,284 1,305 1,327 1,349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1,183 1,176 1,194 1,213 1,230 1,250 1,270 1,291 1,312 1,333 1,355 0 697 0 0 697 0 185 0 0 185 0 185 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 185 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 1,029 1,101 1,121 1,141 1,162 1,183 1,204 1,226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1,029) (1,101) (1,121) (1,141) (1,162) (1,183) (1,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486 991 1,009 0 0 0 (486) (991) (1,009) 0 0 0 1,371 540 O 0 0 0 6 6 1,377 546 0 0 129 129 0 0 0 0 129 129 1,249 417 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) $30,000 annual administrative expenses at 2% inflation. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: TI Projections 6-3-00.xls; Cash_Sum; 615/00; 12:13 PM; RTK TABLE 3 ESTIMATE OF FISCAL OFFICER'S REPORT VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF CUPERTINO FY2000101 Assessed Value for the Project Araa Secured Secured Secured Personal Land Improvements Property $37,593,014 (1) $68,396,423 (1) $2,442,983 (2) Homeowner Total Total Exemptions Unsecured Assessed Value $0 $15,203,884 (2) $123,636,304 II. FY2000101 Base Year Project Area and Total Ad Valorem Tax and FY2000101 Taxes Available to Redevelopment Agency Agency County 23.95% Library 4.30% Cupertino 2.24% Cupertiono ESD 24.70% Fremont UHSD 16.68% Foothill CCD 6.37% County Education 3.11% County Fire 15.09% MPROSD 1.56% SCVWD 1.81% BAAQMD 0.18% Estimated Estimated Share of FY2000/01 Base Net Total Property Tax Year Tax from FY 2000/01 Prop Revenue (3) . Project Area Tax Revenues (4) $308 110 $55 371 $28 765 $317 795 $214 616 $81 927 $39 974 $194 139 $20,029 $23,330 $2,380 $196,919,982 $9,852,816 $2,855,594 $34,652,225 $42,787,025 $33,700,482 $32,473,525 $26,080,545 $9,419,997 $30,525,849 $2,883,876 100.00% $1,286,436 $422,151,916 Estimated Share of Less Estimated FY2001102 Gross FY2001~2 Increment (5) Pass-Through (5) $6,467 $1,293 $1,162 $232.43 $604 $120.74 $6,670 $1,333.99 $4,504 $4,000 $1,720 $343.90 $839 $167.80 $4,075 $814.93 $42O $84.08 $490 $97.93 $50 $9.99 Estimated FY2001/02 Taxes for RDA from Each Agency (6) $5,173 $930 $483 $5,336 $504 $1,376 $671 $3,260 $336 $392 $40 $27,000 $8,499 $18,501 * Property Tax Rate: 1.0405% (Includes pre-1989 property tax override: County Retirement Levy (.0388%) and County Library Retirement (.0017%)). (1) Santa Clara County Assessor Notifications of Corrected Assessment (10/22/99), with land and improvements adjusted by a 1% assumed growth rate and $6.5 million of Macy's and Sears improvements. (2) County Fiscal Officer's Report (9/26/99). (3) Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer (8/6/99) (4) County Fiscal Officer's Report (9/20/99), adjusted by 2.5% assumed growth factor. (5) Estimated by KMA (6) Includes Housing Set-Aside PREPARED BY: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. FILENAME: Fiscal Oft~m's Repo~ Estimate 6-4-00.xls; Sheet1; 6/5/00; 12:11 PM; RTK County of Santa Clara Office of tile' C()unty l-~xecutive September 20, 1999 Donald D. Brown City Manager/Executive Director Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Brown: Re: Proposed Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project The P'Y1999-2000 Assessed Value for the project area is as follows: Secured Secured Secured Personal Home Owner Total Land Improvements ProPerty Exemptions Uns.*cured Total Local Assessed Value $37,560,808 $86,275,865 $2,442,983 0 $15,203,884 $141,483,540 The following agencies levy taxes in the project area: County of Santa Clara County Library City of Cupertino Cupertino Elementary School District Fremont Union High School District Foothill Community College District County Office. of Education County Fire DepaA t~ent (Central Fire District) Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Santa Clara Valley Water District Bay Area A.ir Quality Management District The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the FY2000 base year assessment roll from the project area and the total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries for each taxing agency is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 also reports the estimated first year property taxes available to the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency broken down by the taxing agencies, as required by Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code. Board ¢)f Sulx.~'i.~)r.~: Doni~l(I F. G~t'. BI,hca .%lvara(Io. Pete McHugh. James T. B~all Jr.. 5. Jo~¢l)l~ $imilian County E.xt't'ufivt': R~char¢l Agency Table 1 FY2000 Base Year Project Area Tax and Total FY2000 Ad Valorem Tax and Estimated First Year Taxes Available to Redevelopment Agency by Taxing Agency in Proposed Valleo Fashion Park Redevelopment Project Estimated FY2000 Base Year Tax From Project Area EstimatedNet Tot~l FY2000 Property Tax Revenue Estimated First Year Taxes for RDA From Agency County $33,886 $192.117,056 Library 6.090 9,612.503 Cupertino 3,164 2,785,945 Cupertino ESI3 34.951 33,807.049 Fremont UHSD 23,604 41,743,439 Foothill CCD 9,010 32,878,519 County Education 4,397 31,681,488 County Fire 21~352 MPROSD 2,203 9,190,241 SCVWD 2,567 29,781,316 BA.AQMD 262 2,813,538 $6,040 1,085 564 6.229 4.207 1,606 783 3,806 393 458 47 Total First Year Tax Available to Redevelopment Sincerely, David Elledge Auditor-Controller cc Larry Stone, Assessor Emma Rock, Tax Collector Richard Wittenberg, County Executive Agency $25,217 [PROPOSED] Exhibit 9 RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE EXTENSION OF REASONABLE REENTRY PREFERENCES TO BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CUP/OPRules October 25, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. [§100] PURPOSE AND INTENT [§200] DEFINITIONS [§3001 ELIGIBILITY [~100]TYPES OF PARTICIPATION [§500]CONFORMING OWNERS [~600]OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS [§700]CONTENTS OF OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS [§800]LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE AGENCY [§900]REENTRY PREFERENCE TO BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA [§1000] AMENDMENT OF RULES CUP/OPRuIes i 10/25/99 RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE EXTENSION OF REASONABLE REENTRY PREFERENCES TO BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. [§100] PURPOSE AND INTENT These rules are adopted pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) in order to implement the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project regarding participation by property owners and the extension of reasonable reentry preferences to business occupants within the Project. These rules set forth th.e procedures governing such participation and preferences. It is the intention of the Agency to encourage and permit participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area by property owners and to extend reasonable reentry preferences to business occupants of real property within the boundaries of the Project Area to the maximum extent consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. II. [~200] DEFINITIONS As used herein, the following definitions apply: (1) "Agency" means the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency. (2) "Business Occupant" means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnership, or other entity engaged in business within the Project Area on or after the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council. (3) "City Council" means the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California. (4) "Owner" means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnership, or other entity holding title of record to real property in the Project Area on or after the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council. (5) "Owner Participation Agreement" means an agreement entered into by an Owner with the Agency in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and these rules. CUP/OPRules 10/25/99 (6) "Project Area" means the area described in the "Legal Description of the Project Area Boundaries" (Attachment No. 1 of the Redevelopment Plan) and shown on the "Project Area Map" (Attachment No. 2 of the Redevelopment Plan). (7) "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project as adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. on ,2000. m. [§300] ELIGIBILITY Owners shall be eligible to participate in the redevelopment of property within the Project Area in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, these rules, and the limitations herein described. Participation opportunities are necessarily subject to and limited by factors such as the following: (1) The appropriateness of land uses proposed and consistency with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino and the Redevelopment Plan; (2) The construction, widening, or realignment of streets; (3) The ability of participants to finance redevelopment in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and development criteria adopted by the Agency in implementation of the Redevelopmen~ Plan; (4) The construction or expansion of public facilities; and (5) The fact that, other than public rights-of-way, the Project Area consists of a single retail shopping center that is intended to be redeveloped as a uniform and consistent whole. The Agency presently contemplates that in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan, certain portions of the Project Area may be acquired by the Agency for public improvements, facilities, or utilities. Therefore, owner participation opportunities will not be available for such properties. IV. [fi400] TYPES OF PARTICIPATION Subject to these rules and the limitations in Section 300 and this Section 400, Owners shall be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in redevelopment by' retaining their properties and redeveloping or improving such property for use in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. CUP/OPRules 2 10/25/99 o~/~) Each proposal for participation shall be reviewed by the Agency specifically with respect to the following: (1) Conformity with the land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; (2) Compatibility with the standards, covenants, restrictions, conditions and controls of the Redevelopment Plan; and (3) The participant's ability to finance the redevelopment or improvement in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. V. [§500] CONFORMING OWNERS The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, determine that certain real property within the Project Area presently meets the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Owners of such property will be permitted to remain as conforming Owners without an Owner Participation Agreement with the Agency, provided such Owners continue to operate, use, and maintain the real property within the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan. In the event that any of the conforming Owners desire to construct any additional improvements or substantially alter or modify existing structures on any of the real property described above as conforming, then, in such event, such conforming Owners may be required by the Agency to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the AgenCy. VI. [~30] OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS Owners wishing to participate in redevelopment within the Project Area may be required, as a condition to participation, to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the Agency if the Agency determines it is necessary to impose upon the property any of the. standards, restrictions, and controls of the Redevelopment Plan. The Agreement may require the participant to join in the recordation of such documents as the Agency may require in order to ensure the property will be developed and used in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and the Owner Participation Agreement. VII. [§700] CONTENTS OF OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS An Owner Participation Agreement shall obligate the Owner, his or her heirs, successors and assigns, and tenants to devote the property to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, abide by all provisions and conditions of the Redevelopment Plan for the period of time that the Redevelopment Plan is in force and effect, and CUP/OPRules 3 10/25/99 comply with all the provisions of the Owner Participation Agreement according to their terms, duration, and effect. An Owner Participation Agreement may provide that if the Owner does not comply with the terms of the Agreement, the Agency, in addition to other remedies, may acquire such property or any interest therein by any lawful means, including eminent domain, for its fair market value as of the date of the Owner Participation Agreement, and the Agency may thereafter dispose of the property or interest so acquired in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. An Owner Participation Agreement shall contain such other terms and conditions which, in the discretion of the Agency, may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan. VIII. [§800] LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE AGENCY The Agency shall not acquire real property to be retained and developed by an Owner pursuant to a fully executed Owner Participation Agreement if the Owner fully performs under the Agreement. The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site under the Redevelopment Plan and in its present form and use without the consent of the Owner, unless: (1) Such building requires modernization, or rehabilitation; structural alteration, improvement, (2) The site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or (3) It is necessary to impose upon such property any of the controls, limitations, restrictions, and requirements of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Owner fails or refuses to participate in redevelopment by executing an Owner Participation Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. ix. [§900] REENTRY PREFERENCE TO BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Business Occupants who desire to remain within the Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to remain or reenter in business within the Project CUP/OPRules 4 10/25/99 Area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed in these rules and the Redevelopment Plan. X. [§1000] AMENDMENT OF RULES These rules may be modified or amended from time to time by the Agency at any regular or duly called special meeting, provided, however, that no such amendment shall retroactively impair the rights of Owners who have executed Owner Participation Agreements with the Agency in reliance upon these rules as presently constituted. CUP/OPRules 5 10/25/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 02-SP-00 RESOLUTION NO. 6019 (Minute Order) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EVALUATE ASPECTS OF THE VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ENSURE CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino recommends that the City Council and the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency evaluate traffic, air quality, height and setbacks pertaining to the Vallco Redevelopment Area to ensure that'they conform with the General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of Califomia, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /si Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:planning/pdreportJres/vallcomo PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. Public Finance Urban Economics Development Services Exhibit 10 May 26, 2000 Mr. Don Brown Director, Redevelopment Agency City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Proiect: Consultation and Statutory Payment Issues~ Response to Agency Response to January 21~ 2000 Consultation Meetin~ Letter Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is submitted by Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") on behalf of Fremont Union High School District and Foothill-De Anza Community College District (collectively--"Districts") with respect to the City of Cupertino's proposed Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project. This letter is in reply to the May 9, 2000 letter from the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency which responds to issues raised by the Districts in the January 21, 2000 Consultation Meeting and in various follow-up phone discussions regarding the proposed redevelopment plan and the implementation of statutory payments to the Districts for the proposed Project. It is requested that this letter and attachment be entered into the record of the Joint Public Hearing for adoption of the Project. Please note that this letter is to be considered a part of an ongoing dialogue between the Districts and the Agency regarding processes and procedures relating to the implementation of the Project and the statutory payments. This letter is not to be considered a statement of concern or objection to the proposed Redevelopment Plata The following are responses to the Agency's May 9th point-by-point response to the issues raised in the January 21, 2000 Consultation Meeting and in the letter submitted by the Districts at that meeting regarding the implementation of the statutory payments. 820 W. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 928684712 (714) 647-6242 · FAX (714) 647-6232 World Wide Web: hht~'//www, r~ub-econ.corn /6- May 26, 2000 Mr. Ron Brown Page 2 AB 1290 Payment Issues Not Addressed in Community Redevelopment Law Responsibility for Calculating and Making Payments. While the District's agree that if the County is willing to calculate the AB 1290 payments, it would be better for the County to do so, given their access to the necessary information and their expertise in these matters. The Districts do not know to what degree the Agency is able to release itself from ultimate responsibility for the payments, given the way the relevant portions of the Health and Safety Code are written (HSC Section 33607.5, et seq.). The Districts will await further information from the Agency regarding responsibility for the payments, subsequent to the adoption of the plan. Frequency and Dates of Payments. That the pass-through payments be made at the same time as the Agency receives tax increment installments is acceptable to the Districts. Documentation of Payment Calculations. Irrespective of whether the Agency or the County calculate the payments, the Districts remain interested in receiving documentation of payment calculations in sufficient detail to enable the Districts to determine whether they have been paid according to ongoivg understanding. Interest Payments. The Districts. agree that if payments are made per Item 2 above (when Agency receives tax increment installments), then an interest provision is not a concern over the normal course of payments. The Districts will consider the matter of an interest provision for payments not made due to subordination of the payments to Agency debt, if and when the Agency makes a request for subordination per HSC Section 33607.5(e). B. Issues Needing Further Clarification Years of First and Last AB 1290 Payments. No response required because Agency and Districts are in agreement on the timing of first and last payments. (Please see Item B. 1 in the attached May 9, 2000 letter from the Agency to Districts and the January 21, 2000 letter from the Districts to the Agency for the actual exchange of comments.) Deductions for Low and Moderate Income ("LMI") Housing Set-asides. No response required because Agency and Districts are in agreement on the impact of LMI set-aside deductions on the pass-through payments. (Please see Item B.2 in the attached May 9, 2000 letter from the Agency to Districts and the January 21, 2000 letter from the Districts to the Agency for the actual exchange of comments.) May 26, 2000 Mr. Ron Brown Page 3 Tax Overrides. The Agency letter of May 9th points out that currently only two tax override amounts over the one percent basic levy exist within the project areatone for the County Library and one for County Retirement funding. Therefore, it will only be in the eventuality that the Districts approve and implement future overrides that it will be necessary for the Agency and the County to remain aware that per HSC 33676(a) and 33670(e), the Auditor/Controller is required to allocate to the Districts, not the Agency, all tax override amounts within the Project area for any new bonded indebtedness incurred by the Districts. C. AB 1290 Payment Issues Subject to Misinterpretation e Allocation of AB 1290 Payments after Accounting for Impact of Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF")/"Tax Shift." The Districts also are in discussions with the County regarding this matter and would request that the Agency keep the Districts informed regarding the ongoing status of their discussions. The Districts will do likewise for the Agency. Sponsoring Community Share of St.,tutory Payments in Tiers 2 and 3. The Districts do not believe that the Agency's position on this mattertthat the City-generated portion of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 statutory payment funds revert to the Agency~is correct. The Districts' position is that the funds created by applying the specified payment percentages in each Tier to total tax increment generated by each Tier are to be distributed among the affected taxing entitiesmthe Redevelopment Agency is not an affected taxing entity and is therefore ineligible to receive these pass-through payments. The portion of the payments in Tiers 2 and 3 lei~ over, as a result of the City's express ineligibility to receive these funds, should be distributed among all the affected taxing entities in proportion to each entity's percentage share of property taxes within the Project area. Because this matter will not affect the amount of AB 1290 payments until the start of the second tier of payments, beginning the 11 th year in which the Agency is allocated tax increment, it is probable that this matter will by that time have been clarified by legal precedent or legislation. (With respect to a 1995 amendment to Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5 to clarify this issue, mentioned in the Agency's May 9th letter--if the Agency is referring to AB 1424---this legislation did not, to our understanding, address this issue.) May 26, 2000 Mr. Ron Brown Page 4 D. Other Issues for Agency Consideration AB 1290 Payments as a Debt of the Agency. The District's consultant PEI, who is suggesting consideration of the point of view expressed in the January 21st letter, understands the Agency's opinion on this matter as expressed in the May 9th letter. However, PEI's main point in bringing up this matter is to create additional understanding by the Agency of aspects of the HSC Section 33607.5 payment formulas that impinge on the long run amount (and therefore usefulness) of these payments to the Districts. Further, notwithstanding the Agency's comments in the May 9th letter, PEI believes the at the right time in the future, if redevelopment law in this regard has not changed, the possibility should be explored that an agency could, while at the same time conforming to the requirements of the law, make a facilities financing commitment to a district under HSC Section 33445, which if established as a debt of the agency could make the maximum amount of the statutory payment stream available for use in repayment of this debt by the agency. (The "property tax" portion of the payments would, of course, need to be sent by the agency to the district, per the Code, for the district to apply to its revenue limit.) Subordination. The May 9th letter's response to this issue reflects a misunderstanding of the intent of the subordination "Guidelines" submitted to the Agency with the January 21st letter. The District's are not requesting that the Agency commit in advance to following the procedures set forth in the Guidelines. The purpose of the Guidelines is to make the Agency aware that it is recommended that the Districts keep on file and apply these Guidelines in evaluating whether, in the eventuality of future request for subordination of the Districts' payments by the Agency, the Districts should approve or disapprove the Agency's request based upon "substantial evidence." By requesting that these Guidelines be placed in the public record of the Project adoption and be kept on file by the Agency, the Districts are seeking to encourage the Agency to refer to these Guidelines in the eventuality that the Agency does request subordination of the Districts' payments. If the Agency were to choose to follow the Guidelines in preparing a request for subordination, it would facilitate the Districts' evaluation and increase the chance for approval of the request. (The Guidelines are included with this letter as Attachment 1.) E. Item Not Covered in the Districts' January 21st Letter or the Agency's May 9th Response Letter "Basic Aid" Pass-Through Payments to Fremont Union High School District. Fremont Union High School District is a "basic aid" school district, which means that the District finances essentially all of its operations through local property taxes, and does M :\IgLIP RTINO~JIJ2)A_R.E$ D.$AM May 26, 2000 Mr. Ron Brown Page 5 not receive any general apportionment from the State. For a basic aid district, loss of' property taxes to a redevelopment project represents a direct and irreplaceable loss of revenue to the district. Redevelopment law as amended by AB 1290 provides a mechanism (Health and Safety Code Section 33676(b)) to at least partially offset this loss of revenue to a basic aid school district. HSC Section 33676(b) provides formulas for additional payments to a basic aid district to supplement the standard AB 1290 payments. (The standard AB 1290 payments are not nearly sufficient to mitigate a basic aid district's loss of revenue to a redevelopment project.) The Agency's redevelopment consultant, Keyser Marston, Associates and the Districts' consultant, PEI, have discussed and reviewed implementation of the basic aid formulas. Based on a review of Keyser Marston's basic aid portion of Tax Increment Projections sent to PEI, PEI believes that, to the extent that the calculations remain consistent with what was forwarded to PEI, the consultants are in a~eement on the methodology for calculating these payments. However, the High School District is advised to provide for review of the actual calculations and payments when they begin to occur (at earliest, January 2002), especially since *.he Agency has indicated the County Controller-Treasurer may be contracted to make the payments. Initial payments will be small. That is when any discrepancies in payment methodology should be identified. Please do not hesitate to call Dante Gumucio at (714) 647-6242 or the undersigned at (949) 499-7676 to discuss any matters relating to this letter. The Districts and PEI thank the Agency and its consultant for their time and consideration in the consultation process. Sincerely yours, Public Economics, Inc. By:~~~l~~ Carl Goodwin, Consultant Attachment CC2 Mr. Jim Keller, Vice Chancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District Mr. Michael Raffetto, Associate Superintendent, Fremont Union High School District Ms. Wendy Beadle, Tax Apportionment Manager, Santa Clara Co. Controller-Treasurer Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, City of Cupertino ATTACHMENT 1 Vallco Fashion Park Redevelopment Project Guidelines Regarding Future Requests for Subordination of AB 1290 Payments Fremont Union High School District Foothill-De Anza Community College District The redevelopment agency ("Agency") is authorized pursuant to Health & Safety Code ("HSC") Section 33607.5(e) to request subordination of the Districts' AB 1290 payments to Agency bonds, loans, or other indebtedness. Subordination is good for the Agency, the Districts, and the community because it allows the Agency to issue bonds at lower interest rates and accomplish more with thc available revenues. Subordination is bad for the Districts in the event that the Agency does not have adequate funds to pay the District. When requesting subordination, HSC 33607.5(e) requires the Agency to provide "substantial evidence" that sufficient funds will be available to pay both debt service and AB 1290 payments to the Districts. The Districts consider the following as constituting substantial evidence: When requesting subordination from the Districts, the Agency should provide the following materials (most of which are typically produced as documentation for a tax allocation bond financing), at least 30 days in advance of debt issuance; a. Copy of the Preliminary Official Statement and related documents b. Report explaining how RDA intends to repay indebtedness and still meet its obligations to the Districts c. Annual tax increment projections, including annual assessed valuation growth assumptions d. Annual total debt service requirements of the RDA In sizing its bonds, the Agency should utilize tax increment projections which assume an assessed valuation growth of no more than 2.0 percent in any year, unless clearly justified. The Agency should request subordination only if tax increment projections, net of payments to the Districts and other affected t,xxing entities, are equal to or greater than debt service requirements in each year. 4. The Agency should submit all documents to the Districts via certified mail, followed by phone contact. Unless written consent to the contrary is provided by Districts, the Districts will not accept subordination of its AB 1290 payments unless AB 1290 payments to all other affected taxing entities are also subordinated Any payments missed or deferred by the Agency due to subordination will be considered by the Districts to be a loan to the Agency, which should be repaid to the Districts, with interest, from the first tax increment available to the Agency. M:\CUPRTINOkATrACH_ 1 .SAM CUPERTINO CITY CLERK CITY OF CUPEI TINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Agenda Item No. / i~. Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Date July 17, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 5-U-97, 4-Z-97, 7-TM-99, 14-EA-97 & 32-EA-99 Hossain Khaziri Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road, southwest comer of Homestead Road & Maxine Dr. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Parcel Size: Proposed Density: Proposed Lot Coverage: Proposed F.A.R. Range: Building Height Range: Required Parking: Proposed Parking: Commercial/Residential P(CG) - Planned General Commercial P(R.ES) - Planned Residential 0.96 net acre; 1.216 gross acre 7.29 dwellings/net acre 5.76 dwellings/gross acre 33.22% (entire project, street not included) 44.39% - 53.22%, (average is 49.16%) 22' 6" to 24" 6", 2 stories 4 spaces per dwelling 4 spaces per dwelling Project Consistency with: General Plan: yes Zoning: n/a RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a negative declaration for the project 2. Approve the rezoning, file no. 4-Z-97, in accordance with resolution no. 6037 3. Approve the temative map, file no. 7-TM-99, in accordance with resolution no. 6038 4. Approve the use permit, file no. 5-U-97, in accordance with resolmion no. 6039 Application Summary: REZON1NG from P(CG) to P(RES), TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide the parcel into 7 single- family residemial lots and one lot for the street, and a USE PERMIT to allow the demolition of a vacant gasoline station and the construction of 7 single-family dwellings on a 0.96 acre parcel. Printed on fqecvcled Paper BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project over two meetings held on November 3, 1999 and June 12, 2000. The second meeting was delayed pending the applicant's final clean-up of gasoline contaminated soils on the project site and clearance from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. At the first meeting, the Planning Commission also directed that a number of design- related changes be made to the plans, including shrinking the size of the second story in relation to the first story. All of the changes were incorporated in the revised plans and the conditions of approval of the project. There are two EA file numbers because the applicant did not submit all of his applications at one time, so two separate environmental reviews needed to be done. DISCUSSION: Applicant Issues: The applicant noted his success in getting the site cleaned up of gasoline contaminants to the satisfaction of the oversight agency, the Santa Clara Valley Water District. He expressed his desire to proceed with the residential redevelopment as soon as possible. Public Issues: One resident spoke in opposition to the project at the first meeting. He stated it was too dense and out of character with the neighborhood. No one from the public spoke in support or opposition to the project at the second meeting. Staff Issues: Staff noted that redevelopment of commercial properties in residential areas should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood densities. While densities in the neighborhood are mixed, ranging from single-family homes on 10,000 square foot lots to a 3-story condominium project, staff felt the proposed small lot, single-family residential development was a good compromise given the design direction to use the newer R-1 zoning development standards to guide the project. Ground floor setbacks, parking, second story building area proportions and privacy screen meet R-1 standards. Specimen sized oaks are protected on the property. The floor area ratios (FAILs) are slightly higher than 45%, ranging from 44.39% to 53.22% with an average of 49.16%. This range is consistent with the range of FAR's for small lot, single-family developments built in the City. Planning Commission Issues: Three Commissioners were in attendance: Corr, Kwok and Chair Harris. The Commissioners were pleased overall with the changes. One commissioner wanted the larger 7th lot to accommodate two units instead of one. The applicant's architect pointed out that the single-family type setbacks would prohibit this and only a townhouse style development could provide two units on lot #7. All of the Commissioners felt the design of the houses on lots # 1 and #7 turned their side or rear to the main street, Homestead Road, and wanted these houses to have a visible front facade on Homestead Road and Maxine Drive. The Commission's recommendation of approval includes a use permit condition for the applicant to make the following design changes and have them reviewed by the Design Review Committee: On Lot #1, the house is required to have a front facade on the north elevation and the sideyard fence must be pulled back on the north side just enclosing the rear yard. 2 · On Lot ~7, the house shall have a 12-foot Homestead Road property line setback to match the residence on Lot gl, and the north and east elevations are required to have front facades. Chair Harris voted against the tentative map and use permit because she wanted to see an 8-lot single-family development with two lots at the comer. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ED FOR SUBMITTAL: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development SUBMITTED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6037, 6038 and 6039 Exhibit A: Planning Commission reports dated November 3, 1999 and June 3, 2000 which includes the ERC recommendation and initial studies Planning Commission meeting minutes from November 3, 1999 and June 3, 2000 Plan Set g:planning/pdreport/cc/cc05u97 3 4-Z-97 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6037 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO REZONE A 0.96-ACRE LOT FROM P(CG) TO P(P. ES) LOCATED AT 22020 HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on the subject application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: a) That the rezoning is in conformance with me General Plan of the City of Cupertino, b) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new rezoning designation. c) That the new prezoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. d) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. e) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application No. 4-Z-97 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 1999 and June 12, 2000, are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6037 Page -2- 4-Z-97 June 12, 2000 · SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No: Applicant: Location: 4-Z-97 Hossaia K_haziri 22020 Homestead Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Plat map (Exhibit A-l) and legal description (Exhibit B-l). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roil call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle and Stevens ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g:planning/pdmpo~res/r4z97 /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Planning Commission RI-lO Exhibit A--1 REZONIN$ 'Pl../Ii~I KIRKEBY ENGINEERING 2397 FOREST AVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95128 (408) 984-0331 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION SCAt : / DATE: OC T, ! ~o~ ~o. ~_~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION REZONE P(CG) TO P(RES) Exhibit All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of Califomia, described as follows: All of Parcel 2 as shown on the Parcel Map filed December 28, 1970 in Book 276 of Maps at page 56 in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California and being described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly comer of said Parcel 2, being a point on the southerly line of Homestead Road as shown on said Parcel Map; thence S 88°46'20" E along said southerly line of Homestead Road, 150.72 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 30.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 68o56'20" an arc distance of 36.10 feet to the southwesterly line of Maxine Avenue as shown on said Parcel Map; thence S 19°50'00'' E along said southwesterly line of Maxine Avenue, 193.72 feet to the southeasterly comer of said Parcel 2; thence N 88046'20'' W 248.33 feet to the southwesterly comer of said Parcel 2; thence N 01o13'40" E 200.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land containing 0.962 acres, mere or less. Prepared by: Marvin D. Kirkeby R.C.E. No. 14001 Expires 3/31/2001 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 7-TM-99 RESOLUTION NO. 6038 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.96-ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 4,629 SQUARE FEET TO 6,526 SQUARE FEET AND A SEPARATE LOT FOR A PRIVATELY OWNED STREET AT 22020 HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION I: FINDINGS: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Comhfission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of 1;roof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public, health problems. f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Tentative Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on 2 thereof, and Resolution No. 6038 7-TM-99 June 12, 2000 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 7-TM-99 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 7-TM-99 Hossain E. Khazifi & Michael Aminlan Hossain E. Khaziri & Michael Arninian 22020 Homestead Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits rifled Tentative Map, Cupertino, California, dated July 28, 1999 and Consisting of one sheet, except as' may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. ABANDONED WATER WELLS The property owner shall seal abandoned or unused Water District standards. wells in accordance with Santa Clara Valley 3. PARKING ALONG ROADWAYS Parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width measured face of curb to face of curb. Parking will be allowed along one side of the street for roadways between 28 and 35 feet in width measured face of curb'to face of curb. Applicant shall sign the no parking side of the s~reet for parking prohibition. 4. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to or concurrently with project construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. 5. ROAD MAINTEN~ AGREEMENT A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall be required for all parcels which share a common private drive or private roadway with one or more other parcels within the tract. Said agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map, and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. Resolution No. 6035 Page 3 7-TM-99 June 12, 2000 6. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS All specimen sized trees noted for preservation in the arborist report rifled: "Evaluation & Preservation Specifications for 13' Trees ~ 22020 Homestead Rd., Cupertino, CA" dated 9/14/99 and prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. shall be preserved. A contract shall be entered into with an Internationally Certified Arborist and a copy submitted to staff. The contract will include an agreement to participate in initial site inspection prior to demolition, grading or construction activity to confam installation of protection measures, participation in plan development which requires the arborist to be involved prior to building demolition, grading and road construction plans to confn-m recommended practices are implemented. The contract shall also require the arborist to submit quarterly written reports to staff confirming site inspections have been made and recommended protection measures have been implemented. A bond in the mount of $60,000 shall be submitted for the protection of all specimen sized trees required to be protected during development. The bond may be released following final inspection by the above reference arborist who shall report in writing to. the City the status of the trees and their expectancy of survival. 7. NOTICE OF FEES~ DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 8. INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENTS The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant nmning with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney, for all parcels which share a common private drive or private roadway with one or more other parcels. Said deed restriction shall provide for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easements to and from the affected parcels. Said easements shall be recorded at such time as interest in one or more of the affected parcels is initially sold or transferred to another party. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 10. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. accordance with City CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Resolution No. 6038 7-TM-99 Page 4 June 12, 2000 11. STREET LIGItTING INSTALLATION' Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 12. FIRE ltYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 13. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by thc City. 14. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 15. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer ia accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 16. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 17. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including bdt not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Development Maintenance Deposit: $3,000.00 c. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,623.15 d. Power Cost: $75.00 per street light e. Map Checking Fees: $482.00 f. Park Fees: $15,750.00/unit $ 5% of Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 minimum I1 Resolution No. 6038 7-TM-99 June 12, 2000 Page 5 g. Grading Permit: $ 5% of On-site Improvement Cost or $156.00 minirlluln 19. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a f'mai map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 20. DEDICATION OF WATERLINE The developer 'shall execute a quitclaim deed for underground water fights to California Water Water and shall reach an agreement with California Water for water service to the subject development. 21. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. of this /s/ Bert Viskovich Bert Viskovich, City Engineer Resolution No. 6038 7-TM-99 ]une 12, 2000 Page 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12~ day of June, 2000 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr & Kwok COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONEKS: Doyle & Stevens ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/ Anckea Harris Anclma Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:\planning\p&eport~res~r7tm99 /o*-/5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,. California 95014 5-U-97 · 'RESOLUTION NO. 6039 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH A VACANT SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT 7 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES ON A 0.96 ACRE SITE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of' Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the apPlicant has met the burden of proof required to support said apPlication; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this rifle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. 5-U-97 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 1999 and June 12, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION H: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-U-97 Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road Resolution No. 6039 5-U-97 June 12, 1999 Page -2- SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXItmlTS The recommendation.of approval is based on Exhibits rifled: "PROPOSED SEVEN NEW HOUSES FOR MICHAEL AMINIAN & HOSSAIN KHAZ~, 22020 HOMESTEAD ROAD, CUPERTINO, CALIF." Dated May 1999 and consisting of 6 sheets labeled A-1 through A-6, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. CLOSURE OF MONITORING W-ELLS Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit evidence of Proper closure of monitoring wells in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District standards. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS All specimen sized trees noted for preservation in the arborist report rifled: "Evaluation & Preservation Specifications for 13 Trees ~ 22020 Homestead Rd., Cupertino, CA" dated 9/14/99 and prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. shall be preserved. A contract shall be entered into with an Internationally Certified Arborist and a copy submitted to staff. The contract will include an agreement to participate in initial site inspection prior to demolition, grading or construction activity to confmn installation of protection measures, participation in plan development which requires the arborist to be involved prior to building demolition, grading and mad construction plans to confirm recommended practices are implemented. The contract shall also require the arborist to submit quarterly written reports to staff confnming site inspections have been made and recommended protection measures have been implemented. A bond in the amount of $60,000 shall be submitted for the protection of all specimen sized trees required to be protected during development. The bond may be released following final inspection by the above reference arborist who shall report in writing to the City the status of the trees and their expectancy of survival. 4. 'NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the mount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS Modifications to the approved plans are allowed if in compliance with the single family residential zoning district and the accessory smac~ ordinances. Resolution No. 6039 5-U-97 June 12, I999 Page -3- 6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of' 7 dwelling units from the undesignated pool of the residential development priorities table reference in the City General Plan. 7. DESIGN REVISIONS FOR RESIDENCES ON LOTS #1 AND #7 The applicant shall modify the plans for Lot #7 by moving.the residence closer to Homestead Road to match the Homestead Road setback of the Lot #1 residence, and design a residential front facade for the Homestead Road and Maxine Drive facing elevations. For Lot # 1, the Homestead Road fence shall be pulled back so that it encloses only the rear yard and a residential front fagade shall be required for the Homestead Road elevation. Design changes shall be approved in an Architectural and Site Approval application. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. in accordance with City CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 10. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be insizlled and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 11. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 12. TRAF~C SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 13. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance N°. 125. 14. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 15. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on Resolution No. 6039 5-U-97 June 12, 2000 Page -4- site storm drainage facilities connected to the-City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. 17. 18. 19. · 20. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino prOviding for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, Park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Development Maintenance Deposit: c. Storm Drainage Fee: d. Power Cost: e. Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: g. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 minimum $3,000.00 $1,623.15 $75.00 per street light $482.00 $15,750.00/unit $ 5% of On-site Improvement Cost or $I56.00 minimum -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be mod/fled at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. DEDICATION OF WATERLINE The developer shall execute a quitclaim deed for underground water rights to California Water Water and shall reach an agreement with California Water for water service to the subject development. - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Resolution No. 6039 5-U-97 Page -5- June 12, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle & Stevens ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /si Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Planning Commission G:planning/pdreport/res/r5u97 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Dr. 5-U-97, 4-Z-97, 7-TM-99, 14-EA-97 Agenda Date: June 12, 2000 & 32-EA-99 Hossaln Khaziri Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road, southwest comer of Homestead Road & Maxine Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Parcel Size: PropoSed Density: Proposed Lot Coverage: Proposed F.A.R. Range: Building Height Range: Required Parking: Proposed Parking: Commercial/Residential P(CG) - Planned General Commercial P(KES) - Planned Residential 0.96 net acre; 1.216 gross acre 7.29 dwellings/net acre 5.76 dwellings/gross acre 33.22% (entire project, street not included) 44.39%- 53.22%, (average is 49.16%) 22' 6" to 24" 6", 2 stories 4 spaces per dwelling 4 spaces per dwelling Project Consistency with: General Plan: yes Zoning: n/a Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended APplication Summary: Rezoning from P(CG) to P(RES), Tentative Map to subdivide thc parcel into 7 single-family residential lots and one lot for the street, and a Use Permit to allow the demolition of a vacant gasoline station and the construction of 7 single-family dwellings on a 0.96 acre parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Commission forward recommendations of approval as followed: · Approval of the Negative Declarations: 14-EA-97 & 32-EA-99 (Applicant did not submit all of his applications at one time, so two separate environmental reviews needed to be done.) · Approval of 4-Z-97 (Rezoning) in accordahce with the model resolution. · Approval of 7-TM-99 (Tentative Map) in accordance with the model resolution. · Approval of 5-U-97 (Use Permit) in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to demolish an abandoned gasoline station and redevelop it with 7 two-story, single-family detached residences on smaller lots oriented along an L-shaped private street that connects Homestead Ro~.~, and Maxine I~-;:· . Six of the lots are organized along the rear and interior side property lines and the 7th lot wi .' ~e on the comer of Homestead Road and Maxine Drive. The surrounding land uses are Highway 85 to the east, a vacant private school to the south, three single-family detached residences on 9,000+ square foot lots to the west, and across Homestead Road to the north, a townhouse project in Sunnyvale. Other surrounding land uses on Homestead Road, west of Highway 85 are: a cluster single-family residential development and a higher density condominium project in Cupertino, an apartment project in Sunnyvale and single- family residences in Los Altos. This application was last reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 3, 1999 (Exhibit A). Commissioners Stevens and Corr were absent. Its continued public review was delayed by clean up of gasoline-contaminated soil which has only been recently completed. A majority of the Commission directed the applicant to provide additional information and make certain revisions to the project as followed: 1. Provide noise mitigation as needed; 2. Increase side setback for Lots #1 and #6 from 10 feet to 12 feet; 3. Update drawings to show revisions and show fencing plan £or lots abutting the public streets; 4. Provide current status of contamination and clean-up status; 5. No wall around Lot #7; and 6. Decrease size of 2~ floors; A majority of the Commission also stated it supported a zoning change to residential, the range of FAR's and lot sizes, the number of residential lots (7), and the concept of a small lot single- family subdivision. Commissioner Doyle did not support this direction for development and favored a larger lot development (9,000 -10,000 square feet per lot) with R-1 development standards. DISCUSSION 1. Noise Mitigation: 'The Commission SUpported noise mitigation because of the exposure of the property to vehicle noise sources on Homestead Road and Highway 85. The Commissioners did not favor a masonry sound wall solution because it would have been out of character with the surrounding developments which had no such walls. Staff re-reviewed its analysis and assumptions and discovered it had misinterpreted the General Plan noise standard for this land use. Ambient noise does not exceed the General Plan standard; a wall is not required. Traditional wood fencing is acceptable and compatible with the neighborhood. 2. Street Side Setbacl~ of Corner Lots: The Commission directed the street side building setback for the comer lots be increased from 10 feet to 12 feet, which is the R-1 zoning standard. The site plan reflects that direction.. 3. Plan Set Modifications and Fencing: Staff had previously recommended additions to the conditions of approval to require certain plan.set revisions that did not end up in the Commission copies. Those changes have been made to this set of plans. The Commission requested a fence plan for Lots gl, #6 and #7. The intent was to avoid the appearance of a "wall-off' project. The fence details are shown on the site plan and they conform to the fence ordinance. The fencing on Lot #7 has been limited to the south side of the house so its obscured by the building and the most visible yard areas on Homestead Road and Maxine Drive remain open. 4. Status of Clean-up of Gasoline Contamination of Soil: Fuel leaks have been cleaned-up to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District which has oversight responsibility for this clean-up. The ease closure letter is attached as Exhibit B. The District also indicates in another letter, Exhibit C, that the 8 monitoring wells need to be destroyed to prevent unintentional discharges to the aquifers. A condition has been placed in the model resolution. 5. Appearance of Lot #7: The.fencing plan shows there will be no wall (fence) on the street side of Lot #7. Fencing is limited to the south side of the residence. 6. Decrease Size of 2'~ Floors: The applicant has accommodated Commission direction by deleting one 2nd floor bedroom from each of the seven residences. For 6 of the 7 houses (the exception is the house on Lot #3) the ground floor has been increased somewhat to accommodate this "lost" bedroom. This is in keeping with Commission direction to approach the R-1 standard of 2"d floor area to total building area of 35%. This is met by all houses (30.9% -32.2%), except the house on Lot #3 where the percentage is 36.33%, only 1.33% above the R-1 standard. Corrections to F,A.R. Calculations: On the November.3, 1999 plan submittal, the architect failed to include the garage square footage in the Floor-to-Area Ratio calculations, so these numbers were under-reported, even though the Commission thought the range of the incorrect F.A.R's, 39.4% to 55.4%, average of 44.6%, was acceptable (Column B below). The corrected F.A.R.'s (Column D) are shown in the table below and compared to the previous numbers. 2 3 4 5 6 46.51% I 55.57%· 44.33% I 53.00% Average 55.38% 39.37% 44.83% 64.92% 45.84% 53.60% 50.44% 49.61% 53.22% 44.39% 50.06% 45.40% 40.31% 48.16% 7 41.58% 48.28% 50.97% 44.6% 52.78% 49.16% 3 Based on the Commission's previous direction on F.A.R.'s (Column B), the revised F.A.R.'s (Column D) seem acceptable. Enclosures.' Model Resolutions .ERC Recommendations and Initial Studies Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 11/3/99 Exhibit B: Santa Clara Valley Water District ease closure letter for subject property dated 5/5/00. Exhibit C: Santa Clara Valley Water District letter regarding well closure dated 5/5/00 Plan Set Material Board (presented at meeting) Prepared by: Colin Jung, Associate Planner~J - Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Cornr~i~ Development g:/planning/pdreport/pcJ$ u97b 4 CITY OF CUPERTIlqO Department of Community Development ! 0300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 408-?'/7-3308 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: [Attachments ? Project Location .---.~' .~('~..~-l-c,,-.~,c~'t-,>c-:.;l f~,,a~;~ ... PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) [) ~c~ ~ Building Coverage . . % Exist. BuildinLs.f. Proposed Bldg. s.f.' Zone ~'(,7c."3"' G.~'.DesignationC-.-~,,:i.i/k'~.~L; Assessor'sParcelNn..~')d~- t.~:L- ~'1 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre Total# Rental/Own Bdrms' Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Gheck) ~ Monta Vizta Design. G.u. idelines I--7-3 [--'-I N. De Anza Conceptual r'--'] 1===-3 stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [='='=l S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Area s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shift__ Parking Required Parking Provided '/.-".? ' ~-,,;~e+ q;te {~ Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES '~/, NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cup,~tino General Plan, Land Use Element 2) Cupertino General Plan, Public Safety Element 3) Cupertino General Plan. Housing Element 4) Cupertino General Plan, Transportntton Element 5) Cupertino General Plan, Environmental Resources 63 Cup.tine General Plan, Appendix A- Hillside Development 7) Cupertino General Finn, Land Use Mnp 8) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Ridgcline Policy 10) Cupertino General Plan Constra~.'nt Maps CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11) Trec Preservation ordinance 778 12) City Aerial Photography Maps 13) "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) '14) Geological Report (site specific) 15) Parking Ordinancns 1277 16) Zoning Map 17) Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents lll) City Noise Ordinance · C) CITY AGENCII/:S 19) Cupertino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Recreatinn Department 22) Cupertino Water Utility D) OUTSIDE AGF.~CIES 23) County Planning Department 24) Adjacent City's Planning Department 25) County Departmental of Environmental Health 26) Midpcninsula Regional Open Space Dis~ict 27) County Parks and Recreation Department 28) Cupertino Sanitary Dis~ct 29) Fremont Union High School Dis~ct 30) Cupertino Union School District 31) Pacific Gas and Electric 32) Santa Clara County Fire Depar~nent 33) County Sheriff 34) CALTRAN$ 35) County Transportation ^gcn~ 36) Santa Clara Yal!ey Water District E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 3'/) BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Exccssus 38) FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39) USDA, 'Soils of Santa Clara County" 40) County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resources Inventory 42) Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43) CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List 19 OTHER SOURCES · 44) Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnalssanc~ 46) Experience with Project of similar s scope/characteristics 47) ABA(3 Projections Series 1) Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. I.I~.AVE BLANK SPACES ONLY wmr~N A SPECH~IC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4) When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A throu~ O. You are encouraged to cite. other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. 5) Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. 6) Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. - Project Plan Set of Legislative Document (1) copy - Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) 3) If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest rniti_~ation if needed. WILL TIlE PROJECT... Not Significant Significant Cumulative SOURCE Significant (Mifigadon(No. 1'~0 Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) A) LAND USE GENERAL PLAN 1) Require a change from thc land use 1,7,8 designnJ~ion for thc subject site in the Cmneral Plan? 3) Require a change of'an adopted speci~c .,an or other a~..d .el,c. .~talement? 'l) R.~ult ia substantial change in the ~:.~san, land use ofth~ s,~ o. ~ of !~;~djoin|nlz properties~_..? -===--=- =~ ulsruptbr divide the physical neighborhood? "~ GEOLOGIC/SEIS~[IC HAZARD 1) Be located in an area which ha~ , potential for major geologic hezard? -~ 0 0 0 0 2.14 2) Be Ioca,,.d on or adjacent to a ~ ~e,oc~ted,n.Oeoiogi~d.~ 0 0 O' 0 :Zone? - 2 4) Be located in an ar~a of soil · instability (subsidence, landslide, ' [ shrink/swell, soil creep or severe 2.5,10 erosions)? ~ Cause substantial erosion or .uation ora watercourse? 0 0 0 0 2,5.10 6) Cause substantial disruption. displacement, compantio, or 0 0 0 0 2,14,39 overcovering of soil either on-site or oft'- site 7) Cause substantial change in topography or in a ground surfnc~ i ~ ~eat.,,? 0 [2 0 0 ,0,3, ~) Involve ~onsh-uction elm building ~ad or se, tic ~,ta. on. s,o,e o.0'~ 0 0 0 [2 6.'~ or greater? C) RESOURCES/PARKS 1) Increase the existing removal rate, or ~ O 0 0 0 ~,!0 result in the removal of' a natural resource for commercial purposes (including items · ' ' such as rock, sand, ~ravel, trees, minerals . ,r top-soil)? 2) l~esult in thc substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? :3) Convert prime a~ricultural land 1 ~,, 0 0 0 0 ,,39 (Class I or II soils) to non-agricultural use or impair thc a~ricultural productivity of nearby prime a~'icul~ral land? 4) Invoive lands curmnfl, prote~:ed under the Williamson ^ct or an, Open IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not : Significant $1gnifica~t Cumulative SOURCE NO Proposed) Mitit~on Proposed} 5) Sub~tially aff~ct any ex,ting ~ ~ ' public or pfiv~ ~crc~on f~ili~, p~ wildlife pr~c~c, public ~l ei~r in cxi~cc ~ready or pinned for impNmcn~ion7 D) S~WAG~R QUAL~ 1) ~suR in a septic ficid bcin~ co~c~d on soil wi~scve, d~inftcld~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6.9 pc~o~ce limi~io~? 2) ~ult in ascptic field being Ioca~d ~ 50 feet of a drain~e sw~e ~ 36~9,42 or wi.in 100 feet of ~y well, wa.r ~e or wa~t body? 3) R~uit in cxtc~ion of a sewer m~n tine wi~ capaci~ m s.~c new~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19,20.40 d~ciopmcn~ 4)Subs~[y dogie sure or ~dw~r qu~i~, or ~c public wa~t ~ 20~6,37 ,.pp,,, includin, bu, not limited ~ Wpic~ s~wa~r pollun~ (c.t. sediment ~m h~dmc~bo~ ~d m~s ~om vehicle ~e, nufficn~ ~d p~sticidcs ~m I~caping mainten~cc, mc~s ~d ~idi~ ~om mining ope~tio~)? ~Bc Ioc~d in ~ ~a of wamr supply wa~n ~ouih infliction of reclaimed water or sm~ wa~r mnoff~a h~ con~d pollu~ from urb~, indus~ or agricultur~ ~Rcqui~ a NPDES pe~it ~r ~ 20 ~ or more?IT E) D~AG~ FLOOD~G 1) [n~ff~ subs~ti~ly wi~ ~d ~ 20~6 ~) ~ c~o ~c ~i~c~o~, ~ or flow or qu~ti~ of ~und- wa~., or we,~ eider ~ugh disc' ~ 0 0 0 0 20~6.42 ~diflo~ or widow.s, or mno~ or or ~r wa~r co~e su~ ~ m ~ ~e Ioc~o~ ~utse et flow of i~ ~ Be lo~d in a floodway or ~ ~LO~ ~D 1) ~i~i~c~gy ~ fish, wi]dH~e, .ptilcs or pt~t life by ~ging ~e , 0 ' 0 0 0 5- dlve~i~ or numb~ of ~ting specie, or by in~ducing new species, or by restMctln~ migration or movement? I' IMPACT 'w,.,.,L THE PROJECT... Not Significant Significant 2umulativc SOURCE Significant (Mitigation ('No 1NIO Proposed) Mitigation' Proposed) source or nesting place for a rare or endangered species of plant or animal? 4) Involve cutting, removal of specimen scale trees, whether indigeno~s~ [~] ['--] [~ [-'I 11,12,41 to the site or introduced? G) TRANSPORTATION 1) Cause an increase in t~affic which is substantial in relation to thc existing system? :2) Cause any public or private street .qervice D?intetsectiun to function below Level of ~ [--] [] [~ ~-~ 4,20 .' · ~ Increase traffic hazards to ~',~ 4) Adversely affect acceas to commemial establislunents, public bui,dings, schools, p~ or other pedestrian oriented activity areas? :5) Cause a reduction in public .~/- - Increase demand upon existing p.,ing facilities, or engender demand for 0 ~ [] [=~ 15.16 new perking space? 7) Inhibit use of alternative modes of' [ transportation to private automobile~ [~1 [] [] [~] $. 19.34.3, usage? H) HOUSn~G 1) Rcduce thc supply of affordable ,,.lng ,. th. co..unity, or.~u,t ,n th'~_> · .placement of persons from their ~reScnt homc? 2) Increasc the cost of housing in the .~ or subs~tial,y ~ange the v.,e~ f-'] of housing types found in the community? 3) Creato · substantial demand for ncw ~ ~ O ~ [~] 3. 16.47 I housing? r) HEALTH AND SAFETY ' ) Involve thc application, usc, ~ O O '~ O 32,40.42,43 disposal or manufacture of potentially hazardous materials? ~ [~] ~l O ~'~ 32,43 2) Involve risk of explosion ct other forms of uncontrolled release of hazardous substances? q~ ·. - of any existing, or installation of ncw underground chemical or fuel storagc tank? ~ danger? adversely affect public safety in thc event of a break~gwn7 ..... /A-27 WILL THE PROJECT... sOURCE Not Significant Significant Cumulative Significant (Mitigaion CNa ~N~O Prowsed) ,Mitis~ion Pm~sed) 6) Provid~ b'~eading ~oun~ for ~ " ~ AIR QUAL~Y 2) Violate ~y ~bicnt air q~i~ ~xi~ting or ~roj~d ~r q~i~ or ex.sc scmidvi ~mpm~ m subs~ ~ncen~tio~ of ~ NOISE nois~ cnvimmcnt of~c project vicini~ du~ns cons~ction o f ~c pmjcc~ 2) Result in s~ined incm~c in vicini~ foliowin~ co~ction of ~e ~mjcct 3} ~sult in s~ned noise levels ~d du~on limi~ confined in ~e Ci~'s Noise Ordin~cc? L) AES~ETICS 1) Bc ~ v~i~cc wi~ applicable 2) Cma~ ~ a~ctic~l~ o~c~ivc )) V~u~ly in.dc upon ~ ~ of or public mncw~ic.on~ sour~ 2) ~mov~ vc~cm~on ~mvidin~ ~xb~g or proposed building? l) Bc Ioca~d in m ~a of ~nfi~ ~ I 0, 42 ~ IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not . Si~nificam 5ignificam Cumulative SOURCE Significant (Mitigation No NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) . 2) Affect adversely a proper~ of historic ~ 1, 10,41 except as p~ offa scJen~c ~dy? 1) Produce solid w~ in subs~fi~ · c loc=ion, d~bufion, or dcnsi~ 3) Ce~e subs~fi~ imp~ u~n, or c) Public Schools? ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 29~0 4) Ca~c subs~fi~ Jmpa~ upon cx~fing uffiifies or Jn~cm~ following ~cBorJcs: d) Scwagc ~ent ~d d~s~? ~ 0 0 0 0 20~8 ~ ~ne~m dc~d for ~e of~y to ~h or ex.cd i~ ~p~cl~? . WILL THE PROJECT... Have the potential to substantially deg.rade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or prehistory? Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals? Have environmental iynpacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO ' hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and .~elief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree' to hold harmless the City of Cupertino,j~taff_.and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. . ' Preparer's Signature ~'-/--/ . Print Preparer'sName /~/~/~e~., / ~') IMPACT AREAS: .[X'] Land Use/General Plan [] Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Historical/Archaeological [] Health & Safety [] Public Services/Utilities [-I Energy STAFF EVALUATION [] Geologic/SeismicHazard [] Resources/Parks [] Housing ~ Flora & Fauna [] Transportation [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Aesthetics ~ ~n the basis df this Initial Study, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Finds: That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures are included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an tSeleet One ~'~qVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT be prepared. StaffEvaluator ,. ~. ~"a.~--,.~...-~' ,-..' ~-,.'~-'. ~ g/planning/intstdy4.doc CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION' OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 22, 1999 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 22, 1999, at which time the Committee found that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment and; therefore, is recommending to the decision making body that a Negative Declaration be prepared. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 5-U-97 (14-EA-97, 4-Z-97) Hossaln Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use permit to demolish a vacant service station and construct seven single family residences. To rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (General Commercial) to Development (Residential). Planned FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends'the granting of a Negative Declaration contingent upon mitigation measures for gas clean-up, noise and setback requirements. Robert S. Cowan Director of Community Development g/erc/14ea97 CITY OF CUP£1~,TINO Department of Community Development 10300 Torro Avenue Cupertino, Cn 95014 408-77?-3308 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: [ SmffUs;Only:.--. Case File No~ - - IAttachments ~x~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site _Area (ac.) Zon. C,O Building Coverage G.P. Designation % Exht. Building_s.f. Proposed BId~. Assessor's Parcel No.j~aT.a~_.- 0 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre Total# Rental/Own Bdrn~s Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type Applicable Special A~.a Plans: (Check) [----I Monta Vhta Design. G.u. idelines l"--'] S. De Anza Conceptual F"--] N. De Anz~ Conceptual f----] S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Crk Blvd. Concapt~al ~ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Area s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shifi~ Parking Required --'-'~ Parking Provided !l.~.. Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES 5/. NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cupertino General Plan, Land Use Element 2) Cupertino General Plan, Public Rafcty'Element 3) Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element 4) Cupertino General Plan. Tnutsportatiun Element 5) Cupertino General Plan, Environmental Resources 6) Cupertino General Plan, Appendix A- Hillside Development 7) Cupertino General Plan, Land Use Mnp 8) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Ridsellne PoliCY I0) Cupertino Oeneral Plan Constraint Maps B) CUPERTINO SOURCe: DOCUMENTS 1 I) Tree Preservation ordlnsnc~ 778 12) City Aerial Photography Maps 13) ~Cupcrtino Chronicle" (California 1-Hstory Center, 1976) 14) Geological R~port (site specific) I$) Parkins Ordinances 16) Zonini Map tT) Zonin$ CodeYSpedflc PlanDocuments 18) City Noise Ordinance CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupertino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department 22) Cupertino Water Utility D) OUTSIDe- AGENCIES 23) County Planning Department 24) Adjacent City's Flanning Department 25) County Deper~nental of Envimnmentel Health 26) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27) County Pnzks and Recreation Department 28) Cupettioo Sanitary District 29) Fremont Union High School District 30) Cupertino Union School District 31) Pacific Oas and Electric 32) Santa Clara County Fire Department 33) County Sheriff' 34) CALTRANS 35) County Transportation A~-ney 36) Santa Clara Valley Water District E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOC~S 37) BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses · 38) FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39) USDA, 'Soils of Santa Clara County" 40) County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resources Inventory 42) Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43) CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List OTHER SOURCES 44) Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnaissance 46) Experience with Project of similar s 47) ABAO Projections Series 1) Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHI~.N A SPECII~IC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4) When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "lq - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely; and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You are encouraged to cite. other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" colUmn next to the question to which they relate. 5) Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. 63 Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the Cit~. . - Project Plan Set of Legislative Document (1) copy - Location map with sit~ clearly mark'cd (when appitcable) 3) If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... ~ot Significant Significant...umuialive SOURCE Significant (Mitigation (No NO Proposed) Mitigation l'ro~sed) A) LAND USE GENERAL PLAN 1) l~quim a change from tho [and use designation for tho subject ,i~c in the-~. O O O O 1.7.8 C~cnera] Plan? 2, ,uim achange of zen,or? 3) l~quirc a change of an adopted specific plan or o~her adopted policy statement? · ; 4) Reioit in substantial change in the presort, land use of the site o_r that of O O O O 7.12 · · adjoining properties? -- , ~) Disrupt o~de thc physical configuration of an establlshcd/~ O O O. O 7,12,22,41 neighborhood? ~ GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD 1) Be located in an nrta which has potential for major geologic hazard? 1~ 0 0 0 [2 2.14 2) Be located on or adjacent ~o a known ear&quake fault? O O O O 2,14 i 3) Be loca~d ina C~eologic Study Zone? 2 4) Be located in an ar~a of soil shrink/swell, soil creep or severe 2,~,1 erosions)? 5') Cause s~bstonflai erosion or m~,ion of a wa,rcourse? 0 [2 0 0 2,$,10 ,~. 6) Cause substantial disruption,~ O O O [2 2. i4.39 · displaccmen[, compaction or ovcrcovering of soil either on-site or off- 7) Cause substantial change in feamrc?toP°~'sphY or in a ground surface ~ 0 O' 0 0 10~39 8) Involve construction ofnbuiiding, or gr~al~r? C) RESOURCES/PARKS ') '"¢""' ' ""'in' val ""' or O O E] O ,.10 result in th~ removal of a natural resourc~ for commercial purposes (including items · · ' such as rock, sand, gravel, trees, minerals . top.soil)? any non-renewable naIural resource? 3) Convert primo agricultural land O ' O O O 5.39 (Class I or II soils) to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime agricultural land? 4) Involve lands currently protected 0 0 0 0 ~,~ under the Williamson Act or any Open $~ac~ e~sement? IMPACT' YES WlrLL THE PROJECT... Not Significnnt Significant Cumulative SOURCE $ignifican~ IMitigatton (No NO ~ Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) 5) St~bstantiall¥ affect any existing agricultural uses? O [~] O O 7,23 6~ .e loca. d on* wi.,n or ne. a public or private recreation facility, park, wildlife preserve, public trail either in existence already or planned for future implementation7 D) SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY 1) Result in a septic field being '~ constructed on soil with severe drainfi¢ldL~ 0 0 0 0 6.9 performance limitations7 '~) Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage Swale ~ 36,39,42 o, within ,0o feet of.y well. we., course or water body? 3) Result in extension of a sewer main .ine with r. apaclty to serve newL~ 0 0 0 0 19.20.40 developn~nt~ 4)Substantially degrade surface or ~'oundwater quality, or the public water ~ O O O O 20,36,37 supply, including but not limited to typical stonnwater polluntants (c.g. sediment fi.om construction* hydrocarbons and metals t~-om vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscaping maintenance, metals and acidity fi.om mining operations)? ' ~)Be located in an area of water supply [~ . 22 waters tltrough infil~ation of reclaimed wntet or storm water runoffthat hns contacted pollutants fi.om urban, industriai or agricultural ~fivities? '/}Require a NPDES permit for ~ 20 rares or mo,c?]? ~.) DRAINAGE/tmLOOOING waterl) Interfererecharge?SUbstantially with gmtmd ~ 0 0 O O 20~36 2) ~ change the direction, rate or flow or quantity of ground- waters. Ot wetlands either thro.gh direct ~. O O O O 20.36.42 additions or withdrawals, or excavations? 3)Change the absorption rates, drainage runoff or wetland? 4) Involve a natural dtainn&e channel. or ,trenmbed~, water course s.ch as to=.~-- O O O O 36,42 alter the locations, course or flow of its waters? ~ ~eloc.tedi..~oo~w.yo~ fioodplaln area? . F) I~LORA AND FAUNA 1) $i~ificantly affect fish, wildlife, rept,i, o, p,.nt,i~e by ch~gt., the . diversity or numbers of'existing species, or by introducing new species, or by restricting migrntion or movement? 2) Substantially reduce the habitat .ca L IMPACT ' Y~S TLL TH~ PRO,H~CT... ~o~ Significant Sisn~ca, t :.m.l~iv. SO'CE Signifier (Milig~ion '~o-- ~0 Pm~scd) Mitigation - ~pos~) 3) Ch~ge ~e ~is~ng h~it~ f~ ~n~$~d ~i~ ofpl~t or ~nim~¢ specimen sc.e ~. whg~cr ,ndiscno~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1.12.41 m ~c Sim or in~du~d? G) ~SPORTA~ON 1) C~e ~ incre~c in ~c which i~ subsoil/in relation m ~e ~tsting ~C lo" .d .paci~ of ~e s~et ~ 0 0 0 0 4, 20,3~ ' 2) ~e ~y public or priv~ ScniccD?inm~ecfl°n m ~on below Level of ~ · 0 0 0 0 420 3) facto ~c ~ to ~' 4) Advemely ~ect ~ to ~mmerci~ emblh~en~, public building, schools, p~ or o~cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4,10 ped~ oHenmd ~lvi~ ~? ~ C~ a reduction in public ~ . ~tio. semite, or n~ ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ 35 pmje~ ~ 6) lnc~e dem~d upon ex~tln& :kin8 f~ilities, or ~gendcr domed for ~ ~ ~ ~ 15,16 ~ Inhibit ~e of aitem~ive modes of ~on m pfiv~ automobile ~ HOUS~G 1) ~du~ ~e supply o~ ~le 'ispl~em~t of pe~ ~m ~eir ~,e~cnt home? 2) ~e ~e cost of he.ins in ~e ~ 3, 16 ofho~in~ ~ found ia ~e communi~? 3) Create a su,~,. ~..d ,or new ~ 0 0 0 0 3, 16.4' ~ ~ ~D S~ h~. m~s7 ~ 0 00032.43 2) [nwlw ~k of~plosion or ~ of ~con~llcd mle~e of ~y n~ ~de~und ~emic~ or ~ei d~g~ ~ Employ m~eolo~ which could event o¢ a bmakdo~? ~LL THE PROJECT". " ' SOURCE Not Si~tificant Signiflcnnt Cumulative Signifier ~O Pmpo~d) Mitigation ~scd) 6) ~vidc b~eding ~mun~ for 2) Vio[~e my ~bient ~r q~ii~ ~d~, con~ibu~ s~bs~ti~i~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 37,42 e~t~g or projec~d 8r qu~i~ viol~ion, or expose ~mitive ~ccpm~ to subs~ti~ concenffatio~ of pollu~ 1) [nc~e subs~ti~ly ~e ~bient noise ,nvi~nment of ~e project vicini~ during co~ction of~ projec~ 2) ~suit in s~tained inc~e in vicini~ [oilowins cons~ion of ~c project beyond ~c ~holds of sound ene~ ~d du~tion limiu ~n~ined in ~c Ci~'s Nohc Ordi~cc~ L) AE~TI~S 1) Bc at v~i~ wi~ applicable dcsi~ ~uidciincs? ~ ~ 0 0 0 17 2) C~ an ~s~ctic~ly offc~ivc si~ open m public view? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,17 3) Vis~ly in~dc upon ~ ~a o~ n~ scenic qu~itics?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,9 visible ~om ~e v~ley floo~ dilsidcs ~m ~sidcn~ ~u or public g) Adve~ely ~ect ~o ~himcm~ ~r of. ~ilsh ncish~rhood or~ O '~ O O ,.,7.,9 b~in~ dis~c~ ii~ sources upon adj~cnt proposes I.I 6 or public ~ways~ ~ ENERGY 1 ) Involve ~e use o~~ ~ncw~le enc~ 2) Remov, ve~e~on pmvidin~ summer sh~ or wind-b~ ~ ~ . existing or pm~sed building? 3) Signifl~tly ~duce sol~ ~s sp~ or pgv~c ~ ~O~CA~ ~ch~logic~ or p~eonmlo~ic~ ~sources? IMPACT ~YES WILL TH~ PROJECT... Not ~}8nificant ;isnifican, Cumulative SOURCE Sisnifican~ (Mitigation ~No NO Proposed) Vlltigatlon Proposcd~ 2) Affcc~ adversely a property of historic ~ ~. 10,4l or cultural significance to thc' community,7-- [-'] [-~ [] [~] cxccpt as part of a scientific study? O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND lfFILITIES 1) Produce solid was~ in substantial thc location, distribution, or densit~ of thc human ~opulation of ~n moa? 3) Causc substantial impact u~on, or :,~creasc the need for:. ,) Public S,hool,?]~ [] [] [] [] 29~3o .) Maint~nanc~ of Public Facilities? ~ [] [] [] [] 19,20.21 4) Cause substantial impact upon existing utilitics or infrastructure in thc following categories: d) Sewage ~eatmcnt and disposal? [~ [] [] [] [] 20,28 ¢) Storm water management?~ [] [] [] [] 36,38 S) Generate demand for usc of any public fncilit7 which causes that facilityI ~1~ 1~ O ~ O 19,20.22,28,3 ! to reach or excced its capacity? . J ... WILL THE PROSECT... Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat ora fish or wildlife species; to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or prehistory? 2. Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goaLs to the dhadvantage of long term environmental goals? Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable furore projects) 4. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO ~f~:`~;~;;!;~``~..~;~e.i~i.```}n.~.~;~:~.`..~.~}`.~;~..i~:~:~ L ,~".;'~' "I~" ~'a'~- ':~ :'~'~i'.~:':~'~~ '"' ': '"' ", '~ .... I .hereby certify that the ~nformation provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ~lief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree'to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Prepar~r's Signature Print Preparer's Name . ~ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -I IMPACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] Geologic/Seismic H,~_-rd [] Resources/Parks [] Housing Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding Flora & Fauna [] Transportation [] Historical/Archaeological [] Health & Safety [] Air Quality ~ Noise [] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] Aesthetics STAFF EVALUATION that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures are included in the project ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT be prepared. Staff Evaluator ERC Chairperson Date al'Z,~ I q,a.. ! , , Date g/plan nin~Jintstdy4.d oc Exhibit A Land Use/Communi~ Charaa'~r III I Low Density:. 1-5 units on each gross acre. This category is intended to promote a suburban lifestyle of detached single-family homes. Planned residential communi- ties can be incorporated into this category if the development form is compatible with adjoining residential development. Medium Low Density:. 5-10 units per gross acre. This category accommodates more intensive forms of residential development while still being compatible with the predominant single-family detached residential neighborhood This development can be successfully incorporated into a single-family environment. Medium High Density:. 10-20 units per gross acre. This category provides greater opportunity for multiple-family residential developments in a planned environment. This range usually results in traffic volumes and buildings that are not compah"ole with single-family residential neighborhoods. These developments should be located on the edges of single-family residential communities where utility services and street networks are adequate to serve increased densities. High Density:. 20-35 units per gross acre. This promotes a wide range of hous- ing choices in multiple-family dwellings. The intensity requires that the category be used only at locations with adequate utility services or transit or both. The develop- ment may result in structures with three or four levels and underground parking. This category offers maximum opportunity for housing choice, especially for people who want a city environment. COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL This designation allows primarily commercial uses and s~condarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two. ComW~cial use means retail sales, businesses, pro- fessional offices and service establishments with direct contact with customers. This applies to commercial activities ranging from neighborhood convenience stores to regionally ari- ented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods or harmful to the community identity would be regulat~l by the commercial zoning ordi- nance and use permit procedure. Residential densities are not specified because of the flexib~ty needed to develop resi- dential uses in primarily non-residenHnl areas. Smaller commercial parcels in existing resi- dential areas may be redeveloped at densities compatible with the surroundings. Residential development is subject to the numerical caps and other policies described in the develop- ment priorities tables. OFFICE This designation encompasses all office uses referenced in the City's Administrative and Professional Office Zone including administrative, professional and research and de- veiopment activities. Prototype research and development is permitted if it ia conducted along with the of- rice functions of a business. Prototype R&D is defined as research and development activi- ties that lead to the development of a new product or a new manufacturing and assembly process. Products developed, manufactured or assembled here are not intended to be mass produced for sale at this location~ 2-51 MUNICIPAL COD~ CHAFFER 19.28 Sim MUNICII~AL CODE ~ 19.32 AND 19.44 SEE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.36 COD~ CH~a-l-~ 19.56 Mut, nc AL COOE CHAFrmt 19.76 1/98 THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN /,~_ EXHIBIT CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California' 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: Dr. 5-U-97, 4-Z-97 and 14-EA-97 Agenda Date: November 3, 1999 Hossain Hossain Khazixi 22020 Homestead Road, southwest comer of Homestead Road & Maxine Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Parcel Size: Proposed Density: Proposed Lot Coverage: Proposed F.A.R. Range: Building Height Range: Required Parking: Proposed Parking: Commercial/Residential P(CG) - Planned General Commercial P(RES) - Planned Residential 0.96 net acre; 1.216 gross acre 7.29 dwellings/net acre 5.76 dwellings/gross acre 38.77% (entire project) 39.4% - 55.38%, (average is 44.6%) 22' 6" to 24" 6", 2 stories 4 spaces per dwelling 4 spaces per dwelling Project Consistency with: General Plan: yes · Zoning: n/a Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended Application Summary: Rezoning from P(CG) to P(RES) and a Use Permit to allow the demolition of a vacant gasoline station and the construction of 7 single-family dwellings on a 0.96 acre parcel. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to demolish an abandoned gasoline station and redevelop it with 7 two-story, single-family detached residences on smaller lots oriented along an L-shaped private street that connects Homestead Road and Maxine Drive. Six of the lots are organized along the rear and interior side property lines and the 70" lot will be On the comer of Homestead Koad and Maxine Drive. The surrounding land uses are Highway 85 to the east, a vacant private school to the south, three single-family detached residences on 9,000+ ~qusre foot lots to the west, and across Homestead Road to the north, a townhouse project in Sunnyvale. Other surrounding land uses on Homestead Road, west of Highway 85 axe: a cluster single-family residential development and a higher density condominium project in Cupertino, an apartment project in Sunnyvale and single- family residences in Los Altos. A The applicant had originally planned an attached lO-unit townhouse project t'or this site, which was rejected by staff during in-house review as being too dense and incompatible with tl~c abutting single-family properties. DISCUSSION General Plan Conformance: In 1993, sweeping changes were made to the General Plan Land Use Map to add a residential land use designation to most non-residentially designated properties. Thus, this formerly "Commercial" general plan-planned parcel was amended ti) bc "Commercial/Residential" (see Exhibit A). This designation states that: "Residential densities are not specified because oft. he flexibility needed t° develop residential uses in primarily non- residential areas. Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be redevclopcd at densities compatible with the surroundings." The project density is 5.76 du/gr ac. which is higher than the adjacent, single-family residential density of 3.74 du./gr ac. but lower than other residential projects in the area. Environmental Review: Hazardous Materials. This site was contaminated by leaking underground gasoline tanks. Clean-up of the gasoline is still ongoing and being accomplished under the supervision o1' the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In verbal communications with the environmental engineering firm retained by Exxon Company, USA, the entity responsible for the clean-up, vapor-extraction equipment may need to remain on the site during and after land redevelopment in order to clean- up the leaked fuel. The most contaminated part of the property being where Lot #7 is proposed. This is not an unusual situation. The present clay Taco Bell in Cupertino was a I'ormer gasoline station that had operating vapor-extraction equipment long after the site was redeveloped as a fast-food restaurant. Trees. An arborist report (Exhibit B) identifies 13 specimen trees on the property including numerous native trees: California Pepper, Coast Live Oak and Coastal Redwood. All ol' thc trees are proposed for retention except one dead Catalina Cherry (#774) and a European ()live ('//778) in very poor condition that would be affected by grading changes between the proposed houses on lots #3 and #4. The arborist repoi't details specific recommendations tbr fencing, demolition of improvements and pruning. The proposed conditions of approval incorporate these recommendations. Because of the significance of some of the trees and the nature ol' thc recommendations, staff is also recommending bonding 'and regular onsite inspections by an arborist to monitor activities during demolition and construction. Noise. A noise report for the project identified existing noise levels of 68.3 dBA DNI, at thc noisiest locations near Homestead Road and Highway 85, Which is 8 dB in excess ol' the General Plan exterior noise level goal. Mitigation to bring exterior noise to an acceptable level would be a 7-foot tall sound barrier along Homestead Road to protect rear yard areas on Lots #1 and #7. Precast concrete walls formed with a residential fence design are commercially available and can alleviate the appearance of the sound wall. The report also identifies interior construction techniques that are necessary to bring interior noise levels within the acceptable noise level o1'45 dBA DNL. The report recommendations are referenced in the conditions of approval. Design: General Description. The homes are the typical two-story wood frame structures with cement plaster exteriors and Mission roof tiles. The plaster has been scored at the building comers and- trellis-type features added above the patio and garage doors to give the building additional visual interest. A material/color board will be available at the hearing. The adjacent single-family neighborhood dates to the 1950's and consists of primarily one-story, ranch -style structures with wood or stucco exteriors and composition or wood shingle rool~. Many houses have 1-car garages or carports. City Architect Comments. Larry Cannon, the City's Consulting Architect, reviewed the project. His suggestions involved improving rooflines between the first and second stories, architcctur;d embellishments and breaking up the wall plane between the first and second stories. Thc Architect has endorsed the proposed designs. Comparisons to R-1 Zoning Standards. Si.ncc this is a detached, single-family residential building type, staff has elected to make comparisons with the R-! standards and use them I'or development guidance. It should be noted most of the lots are smaller than typical R-1 zoned lots and it is thus more difficult to meet certain R-1 standards (e.g., setbacks), which were designed for larger lots. BuildingHeight Limit, Setbacks, Floor-to-Area Ratio. Proposed building heights are less than the R-1 maximum of 28 feet and entry features are less than 14 feet. R-1 first story setbacks arc met, except for the streetside side setback, on lots gl and #6 where 10 l"eet is proposed (R-I requires 12 feet). Second-story R-1 setbacks are not met in most cases for all houses. Given thc applicant's goal producing a marketable, single-family residence attractive to families (minimum 3 bedroom/2 bath) on a smaller lot, meeting the City's second-story R-1 setbacks would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Given the tightness in the building envelopes, the architect has chosen to use other devices to break up the taller wall planes. These include score lines and rclicl' lines in the plaster, window and trellis placement and an "cave skirt" to break up wall planes, particularly on the sides. While these techniques are less substantial than those articulated in the R-1 ordinance, such as, limitations on perimeter wall heights of greater than 6 t'ect, the horizontal offset between 1'~ and 2''d stories and 2''a floor wall off'sets every 24 t'eet, they achieve a similar effect in separating first and second story walls without cutting into the building area. Floor-to-Area Ratios (FAR's) range from 39.4% (lot #4) to 55.4% (lot #3) with an arithmetic average of 44.6%. The new R-1 FAR standard is 35% with allowances up to 45% with design review. This range of FAR's is within the scope of FAR's approved tbr other small lot residential developments,' including: Summerhill, Peninsula Avenue in Monta Vista, and thc Kelly-Gordon project on Blaney Avenue. Privacy Protection All second story windows for proposed houses on lots abutting the singl¢-I:amily neighborhood have sill heights of 5 feet or more (See elevations for houses on lots #1,2, 3 & 4). While privacy landscaping is not necessary in this situation, there is a mature butler et' landscaping along thc west property line with onsite oaks screening lots #1 and part o'[' #2 and neighbor's trees (Monterey Pine and Pepper) screening lots #2, 3 and 4. The property to the south is a private school where the privacy interface is not an issue. Privacy screening and window alignment are not addressed between adjacent new houses. The City has been less concern with this situation because potential homebuyers are aware t~f thc situation before they make their buying decisions. Other Comments Staff had asked the project architect to lengthen the lot #7 driveway to 20 t'eet and move the entrance door to the west elevation. These changes are. not reflected in the enclosed set el' plans. Staff will ask the applicant for a revised elevation by the hearing date. RECOMMENDATION Application No. 14-EA-97: Staff recommends a Negative Declaration on the project. Application No. 4-Z-97: Staff recommends approval according to the findings contained in thc model resolution. Application No. 5-U-97: Staff recommends approval according to the findings contained in thc model resolution. Enclosures: Model Resolutions ERC Recommendation and Initial' Study Exhibit A: page 2-51 of the General Plan Exhibit B: arborist report titled: "Evaluation & Preservation Specfications ~'or 13 Trees 22020 Homestead Rd., Cupertino, CA" dated 9/14/99 Exhibit C: noise report rifled: "Noise Report for 22020 Homestead Road" dated 9/2/99 Plan Set Material Board (presented at meeting) Prepared by: Colin Jung, Associate Planner Approved by: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development g:/pdreporl/pc./5 u97 4 Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 3, 1999 /S. Ms. the received that em referred to the site plan and illustrated the location of the Starbucks, and noted that area was 315 feet away from the Starbucks. She noted that comments had been early noise from the location. Ms. Wordell said that it is a Starbucks policy be outside before dawn for safety reasons. The applicant of day, and he the Starbucks policy that employees not be outside thc business until l ighl where the trash containers were located. Chair Doyle opened the for public input. Mr. Jim Lepetich, 20570 Drive, expressed concern about tile increase in noise Ii'om thc shopping center, from the delivery trucks and ground sweeping equipmcut, lie noted that the ground sweeping eqm ent operated in some instances at 4 a.m. on Sundays. I Ic said that he was working with code :ement to resolve the issue of the operating hours of Ibc garbage trucks. Mr. Lepetich ~e arrival of delivery tracks at 5:10 a.m. at other businesses, and expressed concern about arrival if Starbucks was open at 5 a.m. Mrs. Jacqueline Lepetich, 20570 Scofield Drive delivery and garbage trucks. She said that tile often overfilled and trash was piled around the rece expressed concern about thc noise from Ibc e receptacles in the shopping ccnlcr were Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. The applicant said that Starbucks' policy was to go around ev~y I0 minutes externally and internally to empty trash receptacles if needed. He said it was good b~ness practice to focus on a clean environment. . Mr. Cowan noted that the property owner would be notified of the col,,~.s..r~i, vc to thc garbage trucks, delivery trucks and street sweeping equipment. Chair Doy~cated~at an additkmal trash receptacle would be required at the edge of the prOperty. MOTION: Com. Harris moved to approve Application 13~'ord?g tt}Xe model resolution, with an additional condition for an ~~ containbr, Qll the southern end of the property. SECOND: Com. Stevens ABSENT: Com. Corr VOTE: ,, P"_3_~ed a. O 9 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 5-U-97 (14-EP~-97, 4-Z-97) Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road (and Maxine) Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and construct 7 single-family residences. To rezone a .96 acre parcel from Planned Development (general commercial) to Development (residential) Phmncd Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 3, 100t) Tentative City Council meeting December 6, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish an abandoned gas station and redevelop with 7 two-story single family homes, and rezone tile 0.96 acre parcel from P(CG) to P(RES). Staff will address issues such as cleaning up existing hazardous malcrials on the site, removal and retention of trees, noise levels, designs as they apply to Cupertino's R-1 or residential single family standards, and privacy protection. Staff recommends approval of thc project based on the conditions of approval. A recommendation will be forwarded to thc December 6 City Council meeting for a final decision. Mr. Colin Jung, Associate Planner, said that the application dated back to 1997 because of a number of issues involved. In response to Com. Harris' request for more information on the hazardous materials issue, Mr. Jung said that the site had leaking underground tanks, and the cleanup process has taken a number of years, using vapor extraction equipment on the site. He said that they had not yet received a case closure letter from tile Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD); however thc SCVWI) did not generally prohibit redevelopment on the site as long as cleanup could continue while redevelopment was taking place. He cited as an example the Taco Bell Restaurant where cleanup was continued after the facility was open for business. He said that according to the applicant, most of the residual contamination was located below Lot 7. Mr. H. Khaziri, applicant, explained that only soil contamination existed below Lot 7, and that the SCVWD required a sample boring from the area, and a closure letter was expected fi'om SCVWD following receipt of a report at the end of the m,,nth. He reviewed the cleanup efforts thai look place over the past years. Mr. Jung clarified that Exxon was responsible for tile cleanup, not Mr. Khaziri, alllmugh hc was the property owner. He said approva~ would be contingent upon receipt of the closure letter fi'mn SCVWD or a cleanup plan approved by SCVWD be provided. Mr. Jung provided a color board and individual drawings of the elevations. Mr. James Chao, architect, said he felt confident that tile closure letter would be received from SCVWD, and explained that typically conditions are imposed so that the building permit would not be issued until the report is reviewed by staff. He pointed out that the designs o1' the homes took into account visual impacts and privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbors, lie said a great deal of effort went into designing a project that would fulfil the need for affordable housing, yet fit into the community. He expressed his appreciation to staff for their input in helping reach ,'s far superior situation than when it first started. Mr. Chao said that he worked with acoustical engineers to determine what mitigation for possible noise from Highway 85; with an arborist to identify trees, conditions of trees, trees for retention and removal; landscaping will be drought resistant. In response to Com. Harris' questions about the hazardous materials cleanup cquipmcm, Mr. Khaziri explained that gasoline contamination still existed, close to street dedication on I~ot 7 where the leaking tanks existed. He said that the environmental piping was located on Lot 7 near the street dedication. He said that the development on the other 6 lots could continue while II~c cleanup was continuing on Lot 7. He reiterated that a closure letter was expected November 31) when the report is submitted to the SCVWD. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 3, 1900 Mr. Jung reported that the changes suggested by Larry Cannon, city architect, were incorptm~lcd in the plans submitted. Mr. Chao said that the arborist's recommendations for tree retentiot~ aud pruning will be implemented, as noted in the attached staff report. Noise mitigation for Lots 1 and 7 was discussed, as outlined in the staff report. The modified design of Lot 7 was also discussed. Mr. Chao answered questions about tile house designs and privacy impacts. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Ed Bloom, 22150 Wallace Drive, Cupertino, compared the presentation of the proposal Io Iht sale cfa custom automobile to a potential buyer. He said he felt the project was not suited for Ibc particular area. Referring to a map of the area, he illustrated various projects and exceptions made to particular projects. He voiced his objection to building a hot, sing project next to I lomcslcad Road, and pointed out the traffic impacts and noise impacts to the residents. He referred lo thc proposed site plan and expressed concern about the size of the front and rear yards of thc proposed homes. Mr. Bloom concluded by stating that approval' of the project would not help Iht community or protect the residents. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Khaziri said that he could not at this time approximate tile selling price o1: thc proposed homes, but felt it was a more appropriate use for the property than another service station. I-lc said Iht original proposal was for 10 townhouse units, but felt that the 7 S~l~gle fiqmily homes was more appropriate. Mr. Jung answered questions about second story setbacks and floor area ratios of tile proposed project. Chair Doyle summarized the key issues: noise level mitigation; setbacks to Itomestcad and Maxine; should there be FARs in excess of 35% on lots of 4,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. in an area of predominantly 9,000+ sq. ff. lots; hazardous materials; zoning change; number of lots: concept of small lot subdivisions; detail on fencing; and Lot 7. Com. Harris said that she was in favor of the proposal; setbacks on Homestead and Maxine were appropriate; noise mitigation to be accomplished; said that the problem with tile development was that the second floors were too big; the houses could be 3 bedroom homes instead of 4 bedrooms, which would allow the second floor to be smaller and closer to tile 65/35 ratio which was developed for RI and the visual massing. She said that the lot size was appropriate: however, she was concerned with Lot 7, and did not want bu. ilding on Lot 7 to proceed tmtil all th¢toxics were gone. She said that she would also prefer 2 homes to be built on Lot 7, but would address Ihat in the future. Com. Harris said that she wanted to see the.November 30th report aller tile borings were done; and said that although water contamination was unlikely because of the200 foot depth, she was concerned about the soil contamination. She reiterated that final approval was not appropriate until after the report was received. She also stated that she did not like the design of Lot 4, which she felt was too long because of the lot shape. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 3, 1999 Com. Kwok said that relative to noise mitigation, do whatever is necessary st, ch as buikling a barrier or wall to address the noise mitigation.because it is near Homestead and close to I lighway 85. He agreed with Com. Harris on RI ratio' second story, but not with the staff interpretation that it is almost impossible to put a smaller 3 bedroom 2 bath on the small lot up in the second floor. He said there was a need to address second story setbacks, and that a smaller living area tm the second level would be more appropriate. He expressed concern about the hazardous materials especially living in a neighborhood where environmental quality is important. Com. Kwok said that in light of the existing conditions, the community would benefit fi'om thc project; however, the site has not been cleared by the SCVWD and tim Regional Water Quality Control Board, although pending, and he had reservations about moving forward with approval of the pro. itel pending approval. He expressed concern about the hazardous materials and also whether o,' not l,ot 7 would be built on depending on the successful completion of the remediation. He saki that he was not comfortable with moving ahead with the project until the site is 100% approved and all contamination removed from the site. Com. Stevens said that he did not feel the prqject was ready for overall approval at this stage; hc said that a soundwall on Lot I and Lot 7 could mitigate the noise; and said that he I'clt that the setbacks were not even; the drawings were confilsing; and noted comments from the audience relative to Homestead Road being a two lane road, if there were plans to change it to a 4 hmo iu this area; he said he felt it should be reviewed for a stoplight or something si,nilar. I Ic said updated drawings were needed, especially for the fencing. Relative to second story FAR, when the lots get smaller, the RI ratio of 35/65 would be harder to implement and rest, It in any kind of home size which seems to be what people want. He said the compatibility of the lot size was appropriate, other than the egress and access of the people behind. Com. Steve,is said thai a closure letter from SCVWD was needed, and commented that because they had to work with othc,' agencies also, he was doubtful of a resolution by November 30th; the zoning change is positive because of the need for housing in this particular area, taking into conskleration Com. I Ire'tis' comment about Lot 7. He said he concurred with the number of lots; but saki that the way around the back of Lot 7 was not appropriate and would prefer something else, such ;.it turning the house around. He said the concept of small lot subdivisions matched the number el' lots. I-lc commented that the concept would have to be considered in the future because larger lots demanded a higher price and did not resolve the hot, sing problems. Chair Doyle said that relative to noise mitigation, he did not feel a 7 footprecast wall should be added to the site as it was not characteristic of what presently existed'on the street. Rclalive to the setback to the homes on Homestead and Maxine, he acknowledged that a problem exists and a 10 foot setback is being considered on a road that already had some issues. I-lc said he fell setbacks should reflect the same as the properties along that street and not cause a problem in thc future; drawings need to be updated prior to approval; second story does not meet the requirements or the ratio. He said he felt they should try to maintain the ratio with some work pul into that and go forward. Relative to lot sizes, I.~e said they should try to maintain what is presently in the area, and try to maintain the FAR in the neighborhood as it is asingle family neighborhood. Chair Doyle said that he felt a closure letter from SCVWD was needed for the entire site belin'e building could be approved, so not to cause problems if approval cannot be obtained. I% said the zoning change was appropriate; number of lots should be fewer than 7. Relative to Lot 7, lie expressed concern about noise mitigation, which could create a fortress with a wall. i'le said small lot subdivision concept was suitable; but felt the development was a townhouse development, not a small RI development and he felt it should be an RI development. Chair Doyle said ,ha! lie fei! Planning Commission Minutes ? November 3, 19gO more detail was needed on the fencing to see how it is applied, to better understand what would have to come into existence to make this a developable property. Mr. Chao pointed out that the units were all 3 bedrooms, except for Lot 7 and one more unit. lie said that based on an analysis, there would not be a market for 2 bedroom units. Chair Doyle summarized the discussion of the issues. Zoning: consensus that it was approprialc: noise mitigation wall incompatible with surrounding area; street setbacks: 3 Feel Homestead shtmld be more of a setback; 2/2 on Maxine; update drawings for more clarity; RI ratio second Iloo,': consensus was to have more setback; differed on whether it should be the RI; Com. Kwok recommended decreasing 4 bedroom units to 3 bedroom units; Com. Harris said she was willing m be flexible with small lot subdivision, but that it needs to be somewhat smaller than it is now: Com. Stevens said he was flexible, in that it is smaller, and he felt the 35/65 should be reviewed. Com. Doyle said they should try to maintain the RI if at all possible but that is predisposed on having bigger lots. FAR and lot sizes: Com. Stevens said he felt .45 is a maximum, but would agree to Ri FARs, and expand the upst. airs as the overall mass of the building should be thc same; lot sizes: if larger, they would reach the maximum size of the house and in looking to the I'uturc, consider smaller houses. Com. Kwok and Com. Harris said that the lots and FARS were appropriate; Chair Doyle said he was opposed to it because be felt it was not the approprialc place to put small houses, as it was an RI area. There was consensus on the hazardot, s materials that there should be a cleanup; zoning appropriate; number of lots: Com. Harris said she would prcl'cr a total of 8 lots because Lot 7 is larger than the others; Com. Kwok said he pre~'erred smaller and more lots; Com. Stevens said not smaller lots; Chair Doyle said not smaller. All were concerned with the appearance and size of Lot 7; and number of units on the lot. Relative to thc concept o1' small lot subdivisions, Com. Stevens said that although he was not ~nthusiastic about thc concept, smaller lots were in the future; Com. Kwok and Com. Harris concurred. Chair Doyle saki that he was not opposed to §mall lot subdivisions, but felt it was necessary to understand what was voted on, as RI was not voted for, but higher density was, and the concept o1" affordability is quite skewed on this property. He said that relative to fencing, there was consensus I'or the need Io understand the plan. Com. Harris suggested continuing the item until the report was received, with the assurance I'mm staff that the privacy issues would be addressed. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Harris moved to continue Application 5-U-97 (14EA-97, 4-Z-97) Itl Iht December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-0-0 Applica~~~R[ding Group .Location: ..... 7816 yesti~al Drive~ Tentative map to subdivide an approximately ~o-acre parcel .into eight lots. Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 12, 2000 eomXm~nted ~at the model was deceptive as .it shows a building along the whole front parcel and the buildin~be along the front parcel, it is'small with parking. MOTION: ~' Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 4-EXC-00 . SECOND: ~ Com. Corr NOES: ~air Harris ABSENT: Co~. Doyle and Stevens VOTE: Passed~ 2-1-0 C~at her issue to the'~eption was related to the zero lot line on the DeAnza side. She said she was not opposed to the exception tb~the hotel at the site. MOTION: Com...Kwok moved to ap'I~e Application 5-U-00 according to the amended resolution x-,,x SECOND: Com. Corr NOES~ Chair Harris ABSENT: Coms. Doyle and Stevens VOTE: Passed . 2-1-0~ ~. . e ground and 18-1/2 feet tall for the length of the building along DeAnza Boulevard. e included in the resolution as "hotel, restaurant and separate bar." -::c'-'-!d be n...~ aazc,: :c. '&:. ~.':.~'. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 4-Z-97, 7-TM-99, 14-EA-97, 32-EA-99 Hossain Khaziri 22020 Homestead Road Zoning to P(Res) Tentative Map to create 7 lots. Use Permit to demolish a vacant service station and construct ? single family residences. Tentative City Council hearing date of July 17, 2000 Staff presentation: Mr. lung presented a brief overview of the application to demolish a vacant service station and construct 7 single family residences. He referred to the zoning map and illustrated neighboring high density developments for comparison purposes. In response to direction received at the previous meetings, the applicant returned with a status on the site cleanup, including a case closure letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. They were also asked not to create a walled off development and in response provided a fencing plan, which was reviewed by Mr. lung. The applicant also created a smaller proportion of second story, and six of the seven lots meet the R1 standard of having not more than 35% of the second floor being part of the entire floor area, with the exception of one smaller lot. He pointed out that the FAR calculations were corrected in the staff report (Page 4-3) to reflect the true FAR as they were incorrectly reported at the previous meeting. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning subdivision and Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 12, 2000 Com. Corr expressed concern that the back of the house on Lot 7 faced the street, and the back yard was open space to the wall. Chair Harris recalled that the previous discussions suggested Lot 7 have two houses instead of one, and said that she preferred that one house face Homestead and one house face the center court. Mr. Jung reported that it was not approved by the majority of the Planning Commissioners.' She agreed that Lots 1 and 7 should face Homestead Road, and recalled that a consultant's study addressed the issue of building houses to face the street to create a better community feel. Com. Corr said that he was not opposed to having the driveway where it is so that the garage enters from the side of the house, if the house front faced the street. Chair Harris also noted that Lot 1 did not have a lot of private area. Mr. Jung explained that the ambient noise does not exceed the General Plan standard, and therefore a sound wall was not needed, and the traditional wood fencing would be acceptable and compatible with the neighborhood. Chair Harris noted that the significant change in the application was the floor area ratio. She pointed out the majority of the Planning Commission had previously recommended more housing, smaller sized houses, and were in favor of higher FAR. She said she felt Lot 7 should be two houses, not one. Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of splitting Lot 7 into 2 houses. Mr. James Chao, architect, addressed Lot 7, and stated that he would have preferred to have taro houses on the lot; however, the setback requirements prevented it. He said that if the setback requirements were relaxed, the number of lots could be increased, and he was willing to work with staff to create 8 lots. He pointed out the uniqueness of comer houses in that they were different from regular houses with all front yard, and no back yard. Mr. Chao noted that as e safety factor, he chose not to put the front door out onto the street, but said if directed to change the location of the front door, he would do so but against his practice and it would be reflected in the record. Responding to Com. COLT'S question about higher density on the parcel, Mr. Jung explained that originally ten units were proposed for the project, and the Community Development Director at the time concluded that the neighbors would strenuously object to the higher density as it was out of character with the surrounding area. Staff concluded then that it would be more in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood to have housing that met a single family standard but was not overly dense. Com. Kwok recalled that the direction given to the applicant was to put 7 houses on the parcel. Mr. M. Khaziri, applicant, said that the environmental issue was emphasized at the previous meeting, and he worked diligently with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to get the closure letter so that the project could move forward. He said it was his understanding that the majority of the commissioners were satisfied with the elevations presented, which included Lot 7. Discussion followed regarding the lot sizes, house frontage, elevation variations, street width, and parking conditions. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, project civil engineer, clarified that the street width was increased to accommodate parking on one side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 12, 2000 Com. Kwok said he supported the project as proposed. Chair Harris said she would give up on the second house, but recommended that Lot 7 be moved closer to Homestead and fronted on Homestead, and also for Lot 1. She said she felt that at least 2/3 of the house visible from the comer should not be fenced. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 14-EA-97 Com. Kwok Corns. Doyle and Stevens Passed 3 -0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 32-EA-99 Com. Corr Coms. Doyle and Stevens Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: NOES: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 17-TM-99 Com. Kwok Chair Harris Coma. Doyle and Stevens Passed 2-1-0 Chair Harris said that her objection was that the project should be 8 lots, with Lot 7 being divided with one more house. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 5-U-97 with the provision that the dwelling on Lot 7 move farther north, and ~ north and east elevations of the house should present more like the front, and the same for north elevation of Lot 1 to give the appearance of a front, with fence ending at the back of house, subject to review and approval of the Development Review Committee Com. Kwok Coms. Doyle and Stevens Chair Harris Passed 2-1-0 Chair Harris said that she felt there should be 8 houses. ~: 8-SP-00 ' A~licant: ~--~.~ity of Cupertino ..... Location:. . Wireless communication master plan meeting to clef work. St~ regarding the_p~~e !oint mee;~ tth June 26th Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF CUPEP INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 77%3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. I ~ Agenda Date: July 17, 2000 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Project Data: General Plan Designation: 16-U-99, 31-EA-99 Stanley Wang Stanley Wang 10060 South Stelling Road Zoning Designation: Specific Plan Designation: Net Lot Area: Building Area Total: Floor Area Ratio: Density: Parking: Required: Proposed: Project Consistency with: RECOMMENDATION: Med-High Density Residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre. Planned Development Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-35 dwelling units per gross acre. 23,179 square feet (.53 net acres) 13,686 square feet (previously 17, 112) 59% 11 units/acre 25 spaces 27 spaces General Plan: yes Zoning/Specific Plan: Side yard and building separation exception is required. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a negative declaration. 2. Grant a side yard setback and a minimum building separation exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan 3. Approve application 16-U-99 per the conditions of Planning Commission resolution no. 6041 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a use permit to construct eight townhouses on a 0.53-acre site located in the southeast quadrant of Stelling Road and Bianchi Way, 150 feet south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The site consists of three existing parcels. Two of the parcels front on Stelling Road while the th.ird parcel fronts Bianchi Way. The applicant intends to apply for a tentative map, at a later date, to map the nine lots (one lot held in common). The parcel size and shape necessitate an exception to the Heart of the City specific Plan to accommodate for the proposed development. The proposed side yard setbacks are six feet on either side of the development, while the Heart of the City Specific Plan requires twenty-foot side setbacks. P.i,~ted ~o Recvclect Paoer Page 2 The Heart of the City Plan also requires a minimum 30-foot separation between buildings while the proposed site plan allows for a 27 foot separation between buildings A1 and A2. BACKGROUND: This will be the second time the City Council has reviewed this application. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on three separate occasions, January 10, 2000, February 28, 2000, and June 26, 2000. Below is a chronological summary of the public meetings. January 10, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting: The applicant ~;eceived direction from the commission to decrease the density, lower the mass and create a better transition between the adjacent low-density residential development and the more intense proposed development. February 28, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting: . Prior to February 28, 2000, staff met with the applicant on three occasions to discuss ideas for meeting the commission's requests. Staff suggested the applicant reduce the density by at least one unit, incorporate a landscaped open space in the center of the project and enhance the architectural quality of the buildings. After these meetings, the applicant chose to submit another version of the site plan as follows: 1. No reduction in density. 2. Building A was changed building A to a side orientation on Stelling Road, 3. Tandem parking spaces were proposed for all of the units. Staff advised the applicant that the revised plan was undesirable because the site plan relied upon tandem parking spaces for all of the units, circulation was awkward and the architecture remained plain and unappealing. The city's architectural advisor agreed with staff. Therefore, staff recommended the commission deny the use permit application. The commission believed the design, with a few minor modifications, was acceptable. The Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote, recommended the City Council approve application 16-U-99, subject to further articulation of the south elevation of "Plan A" and grant an exception to the Heart of the City setback requirements. March 6, 2000 CiO; Council Meeting: On March 6, 2000, the City Council reviewed the application and, after discussion, referred the application back to the Planning Commission with their comments. The council requested modifications be made to the submitted plan. Their comments follow: 1. Density can be retained as long as the site plan could accommodate it. 2. The units should be designed to front onto Stelling Road, providing a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere. 3. Tandem spaces are acceptable if they resolve a circulation problem. 4. Council prefers pedestrian access from Bianchi Way through the development to Stelling Road. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the applicant agreed to work with staff to address the City Council comments. June 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting: The applicant retained the services of the Dahlin Group and modified the site plan and the building elevations. In the redesigned project, all of the City Council comments, except item #4, have been addressed. The applicant believes that providing the pedestrian access through the development would pose a liability problem. Due to the nan'ow width of the site, it is difficult to accommodate the G :~lanning~PDREPORT\CC\cc 16u992.doc Page 3 pedestrian access without limiting the unit yield and compromising the site plan. Staff believes safe pedestrian access to Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road for Bianchi Way residents can be attained along the west side of Bianchi Way as properties redevelop. DISCUSSION: Staff and the Planning Commission believe the revised plan is well designed, attractive and provides an attractive streetscape along Stelling Road and Bianchi Way. The site plan arranges three "duets" buildings (six total units) around a parking court accessed from Stelling Road and a single duet building (two units) fronting Bianchi Way. The proposal utilizes a "French country" architectural design with extensive use of brick and rock to balance the stucco exterior, incorporates attractive low fencing details and has well defined building entries. Furthermore, the building orientation and design can be replicated on the adjacent properties as they redevelop in the future. The attached Planning Commission report from the June 26, 2000 meeting provides more detailed analysis of the architecture, site plan, drainage and the Heart of the City exception. Prepared by: Vera Gil, Planner II APxPT~__MITTAL: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Enclosures: - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6041 - Plan Set - Cannon Design Group's comments - June 26, 2000 Planning Commission staff report - June 26, 2000 Planning Commission minutes - March 6, 2000 City Council meeting minutes - February 28, 2000 Planning Commission minutes - January 10, 2000 Planning Commission minutes - Negative Declaration - Initial Study SUBMITTED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager G 5Planning~PDREPORT\CC\cc 16u992.doc 16-U-99 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION 6041 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN SIDE SETBACKS AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT TOWNHOMES TOTALING 13,686 SQUARE FEET ON A 0.53-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 10060 S. STELLING ROAD AND 10051 BIANCHI WAY SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described on Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) 3) 4) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this Heart of the City specific plan. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 5) 6) The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. Resolution 6041 Page 2 16-U-99 June 26, 2000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application, file no. 16-U-99, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 26, 2000 and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 16-U-99 (31-EA-99) Stanley Wang Stanley Wang 10060 S. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEV. DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is base on Exhibits dated 6/16/00, sheets 1-10, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. LANDSCAPE REVIEW The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscape planting plan in conformance with Chapter 14. ! 5, Xeriscape Landscaping, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Landscape plan shall include the size and names of all plants, trees and shrubs to be planted. Where possible, the landscape plan shall conform to the privacy landscape requirements of the single-family (R-l) ordinance. Privacy screening along the perimeter shall be rapid growing, 24-inch box evergreen trees. TREE PLANTING A 48" boxed tree shall be planted at the "T" intersection of the auto court. 4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), Resolution 6041 16-U-99 Page 3 June 26, 2000 has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally ban'ed from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. e o e ge STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-I, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Resolution 6041 16-U-99 June 26, 2000 Page 4 e 10. 11. 12. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 minimum b. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.0.0 c. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 926/acre + ($70*8) d. Power Cost: $ 75.00 per streetlight e. Map Checking Fees: $ 468.00 f. Park Fees: $ 9,100.00/unit g. Grading Permit: $ 5% of on-site improvement Cost or $460.00 min. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall execute a quitclaim deed for underground water rights to Cupertino Water and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resource.,5 Control Board, for construction activity that disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. Resolution 6041 16-U-99 Page 5 June 26, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS-.' COMMISSIONERS: C OMMIS S IONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle, Kwok, Stevens Corr, Chairperson Hams ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Jerry Stevens, Vice Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g/planning/pdreport/res/res 16u99a Oun-22-O0 [0:28,A CANNON DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTI)~E PLANNING URBAN DESIGN June 22, 2000 Ms. Vera Gil City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE:. COLLEGE VILLA PROJECT Dear Vera: I reviewed the most recent submittal drawings prepared by the Dahlin Group. This is the third submittal that I have reviewed for the project. I believe that it is by far the best. The buildings have variety and detail, the proportions of the elements are well done, and the design treatment in the auto court seems much better than earlier submittals. I have no further suggestions for design imprOvements, and support project approval. Sincerely, CANNON DES'IGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP President Tm,: 4:5.~3~.3,"9S ~^X: 4153313797 180 HARBOR DRIVE.SUITE 219.SAUSALITO.CA94965 ~q CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 . - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Project Data: 16-U-99, 3 l~EA-99 Stanley Wang Stanley Wang 10060 South Stelling Road General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan Designation: Net Lot Area: Building Area Total: Floor Area Ratio: Density: Parking: Required: Proposed: Agenda Date: June 26, 2000 Med-High Density Residential 10-20 dwelling units per gross acre. Planned Development Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-35 dwelling units per gross acre. 23,179 square feet (.53 net acres) 1~j686 square feet (pre,ciously 17, 112) 59 % 11 units/acre 25 spaces 27 spaces Project Consistency with: General Plan: yes Zoning/Specific Plan: no, exception required Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended Application Summary: Use permit to demolish two single-family homes and construct eight townhomes, totaling 13,686 square feet on a 23,179 square foot lot and an exception to the Heart of the .City Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Environmental determination: Negative declaration recommended. Staff recommends approval of application 16-U-99 per the conditions of the model resolution and the granting of an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan side setbacks. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit to construct eight townhouses on a 0.53-acre site located in the vicinity of Stelling Road and Bianchi Way, 150 feet south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The site consists of three existing parcels. Two of the parcels front on Stelling Road while the other parcel fronts Bianchi Way. The applicant intends to apply for a tentative map at a later date to map the nine lots (one lot held in common). The planning commission on two separate occasions, January 10, 2000 and February 28, 2000, has reviewed the application. January 10, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting: At the January 10, 2000, planning commission meeting, the applicant received direction from the commission to decrease the density, lower the mass and create a better transition between the adjacent Iow-density residential development and the more intense proposed development. Pag~ 2 February 28, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting: Prior to the February 2g, 2000 planning commission meeting, staff met with the applicant on three occasions to discuss ideas for meeting the commission's requests. Staff suggested the applicant reduce the density by at least one unit, incorporate a landscaped open space in the center of the project and enhance the architectural quality of the buildings. After these meetings, the applicant chose to submit another version of the site plan with no reduction in density. The revised submittal changed building A to a side orientation on Stelling Road, incorporated tandem parking spaces for all of the units and eliminated the partial below grade parking. Elimination of the partial below grade parking reduced the building height from 32' 6" to 25' on Stelling Road. Staff advised the applicant that the revised plan was undesirable because the site plan relied upon tandem parking spaces for all of the units, circulation was awkward and the architecture remained plain and unappealing. The city's architectural advisor agreed with staff. Therefore, staff recommended the commission deny the use permit application. The commission believed the design, with a few minor modifications, was acceptable. The planning commission, on a 3-2 vote, recommended the city council approve application 16-U-99, subject to further articulation of the south elevation of "Plan A" and grant an exception to the Heart of the City setback requirements. March 6, 2000 City Council Meeting: On March 6, 2000, the city council reviewed the application and, after discussion, refen'ed the application back to the planning commission with their comments. The council requested modifications be made to the submitted plan. Their comments follow: 1. Density can be retained as long as the site plan could accommodate it. 2. The units should be designed to front onto Stelling Road, providing a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere. 3. Tandem spaces are acceptable if they resolve a circulation problem. 4. Council prefers pedestrian access from Bianchi Way through the development to Stelling Road. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the applicant agreed to work with staff to address the City council comments. DISCUSSION: Project Resubmittal: The applicant retained the services of the Dahlin Group and has modified the site plan and the building elevations. In the redesigned project, all of the city council comments, except item//4, have been addressed. The applicant believes that providing the pedestrian access through the development would pose a liability problem. Due to the narrow width of the site, it is difficult to accommodate the pedestrian access without limiting the unit yield and compromising the site plan. Staff believes safe pedestrian access to Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Koad for Bianchi Way residents can be attained along the west side of Bianchi Way as properties redevelop. Overall, staff believes the new design is attractive and pedestrian friendly. Building "A" now orients to Stelling Road, creating a pedestrian friendly street frontage. Also, to soften the effects of a large percentage of paved area, the applicant is proposing interlocking paving stones in the auto court. Finally, the applicant has eliminated the tandem garages in all but the Bianchi Court (Building "C") units. G:kPlannin~kPDREPORT\vc\oc 16u992.doc /,~ Page 3 Site Plan: The new site plan, see sheet 1, consists of four dUets. Buildings A1 and A2 are oriented toward Stelling Road with the auto court entrance located between the two buildings. Building B is located in the center of the development and, like buildings A1 and A2, is oriented to the west. Building C fronts onto Bianchi Way and contains tandem garages. These narrow tandem driveways will allow for additional street parking in front of the units. Parking for the Al, A2 and B buildings is accessed by an auto court and is partiallY belOw grade. By locating the garage doors of buildings A1 and A2 offthe auto court, the applicant has achieved an aesthetically pleasing elevation on Stelling Road not dominated by garage doors. Nine additional parking spaces (four located in the driveway apron of building B) for the units and guests are located in the interior of the development. Overall 27 parking spaces have been provided, two more than the required 25 spaces. Units located in buildings B and C, contain private side and rear yards that will be landscaped for privacy. Units located in building A1 and A2 will not have private rear yards; instead the units will have semi-private front yards and private side yards. Green space has been accommodated at the terminus of the project driveway. The applicant has proposed a small stonewall landscape feature in this area. Staff believes a large tree should be installed, along with the stone wall, to act as a better focal point for the development. The model resolution therefore contains a condition of approval requiring the planting of a 48" box tree in this area. Grading and Drainage: Approximately four feet of grade difference exists between the elevation of the site at Stelling Road (273.3) and the Bianchi Way elevation (269.7). The applicant has taken advantage of this grade difference and will be partially submerging the auto court and the building A garages. The site will be graded so that the site drainage from both buildings AI,. A2 and B will flow towards the northeast section of the auto court. At this location, a drain connecting to an underground pipe will be provided. The underground drainage will most likely connect to the storm drain located on Bianchi Way. The building C units will rely on surface drainage onto Bianchi Way. Most likely, drainage swales will be provided along the perimeter of building C and out to Bianchi. These swales can either be concrete or grass. The public works department has reviewed the grading and drainage plan and believes that, with refinement, the site drainage will be in compliance. Only the proposed 2'6" retaining wall located between buildings B and C will provide a challenge for the project engineer. The public works department requires that the site drainage be designed to accommodate a 10-year flood event through either surface drainage or a pipe system, as the applicant is proposing. The site must also be able to accommodate an event over the 10-year event through surface drainage. To accommodate an event over 10-years, the applicant will need to provide a pipe through the retaining wall out to Bianchi so that the surface drainage does not flow over the retaining wall and flood the Bianchi Way parcels. Overland release and private storm drain easements will also be required allowing storm run-off from the parcels accommodating buildings Al, A2 and B to flow through the Bianchi Way parcels. At the tentative map stage, the developer will be required to have a more comprehensive drainage and grading plan addressing these issues. G:kPlannin~kPDREPORT\r)c\~)c 16u992.doc /~-/,,Z~ Page 4 Architecture: The new submittal is a "French country" design with small porches and main entrances facing the streets of Stelling Road and Bianchi Way. Wrought iron fencing with stone and brick columns surround the front yards of buildings Al, A2 and C. To create interest and variation, the architect has included gables, wrought iron rails and wood shutters on the windows, and cultured stone on the front elevations. The plans were forwarded to the city's design consultant, Larry Cannon, for comment. Mr. Cannon believes this is the best iteration of the submittal he has reviewed to date. The architect has provided a variety of materials and created interesting elevations. Staff believes the duet pattern can be replicated along Stelling Road as the neighboring properties to the south redevelop. The "French country" design is similar to homes located on Stelling Road near the intersection of Stelling and McClellan Roads. The building heights of the new elevations were initially a concem for staff. Buildings A1 and A2 are 33'6" at the roof ridgeline, building B, the tallest, measures 35'6", and building C is 29'6" at the ridgeline. The reason for building B's height is the difference in -grade from Stelling Road to the building (approximately 4 feet) to accommodate the partially below-grade garages. However, staff agrees with the applicant and the architect that attempting to reduce building height by reducing the roof pitch from a 5/12 (rise/mn) to a 4/12 would compromise the overall design. Landscaping: Staff has reviewed the conceptual landscape plan and, as a result, added some conditions to the model resolution. As a reminder, the f'mal landscape plan can be submitted to planning staff at the building permit application stage. Staff had added a condition to the model resolution requiring, where possible, that the applicant comply with the privacy landscape requirement of the singe-family (RI) ordinance. For the privacy screening, a condition of approval requi~ng the trees to be 24" boxed evergreen trees has been added. As mentioned in the site plan section of the report, staff is also requiring a 48" box tree be planted at the "T" intersection of the auto court. Heart of the City Exception: The proposed development is located in the Heart of the City specific plan area and is subject to the Heart of the City Design Guidelines and setbacks. The proposal does not meet the required 20-foot side setback and the 30-foot separation requirement between buildings. All the buildings have a 30- foot separation, except for building A1 and A2 where the separation is 27 feet. As for the side setbacks, the first floors of all the buildings are setback 6 feet rather than the required 20 feet. However, the Specific Plan provides an exception process where design flexibility is needed for small or unusually shaped lots like the subject site. Staff believes the proposal requires the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of these parcels. Prepared by: Approved by: Enclosures: Vera Gil, Planner II Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~ _ · Plan Set Model Resolution Cannon Design Group's comments January 10, 2000 planning commission minutes February 28, 2000 planning commission minutes March 6, 2000 city council meeting minutes Negative Declaration Initial Study G :kPlannin~kPDREPORT\r~c\nc 16u992.doc f,~ ~/~ ommission Minutes 4 ~ June 26, 2000 MOTION: ~ Com. Doyle moved to approve A~tion~- 9-U-00 with modifications to Item 9 '~ change wording to "revi~w~the design with the Design Review Committee; an'fl- o~change the roo~. eria~ m..ore th_r_ee dimensional product, either c~.9,?e~n~ther materi, als~k with staff on details; remainder as recomme~aff ' SECOND: wok ABSENT:../-"Coms. Corr and Harris Vy Passed 3. Application Nos.: 16-U-99, 31-EA-99 Applicant: Stanley Wang Location: 10600 So. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way Report to City Council: Use Permit to demolish three single family dwellings an construct eight townhouses totaling 17,112 square feet on a 23,170 square foot lot. Tentative City Council hearing date: July 17, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to construct 8 townhouses in the vicinity of Stelling Road and Bianchi Way, following demolition of three single family dwellings. The application includes an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan on side setbacks. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, noted that there was additional square footage for the garages which was not noted on the plans, resulting in a use permit for a total of 13,686 square feet of building area total, changing the FAR to 59%. She reviewed [he application as set forth in the attached staff report, noting that the proposed buildings were now facing Stelling Road, not Stevens Creek. Ms. Gil reviewed the Planning Commission's suggestions for changes from the two previous meetings, including changing the fronting locations to Stelling Road; decrease in density; and lower mass; however, the applicant did not provide the suggested pedestrian access by the City Council because he felt it would impose a liability. She said staff reviewed the site plan and felt that if the pedestrian access requirement was imposed, placing a sidewalk in the area would decrease the size of the units and might require the elimination of two units, which would compromise the. site plan. She said the new site plan was more pedestrian friendly, with front stoops, front yards, garages located in the back and not visible from Stelling Road, inclusion of green space, and the addition of a large tree as a landscape focal point. She said that access could be achieved later as the properties redevelop. Ms. Gil added that staff and the architectural consultant agreed that the variety of materials used created interest and that the plan was an improvement, and recommended approval of the project. Ms. Gil pointed out that the Heart of the City Plan allowed for exceptions for small, difficult to develop parcels, and they felt it met the requirements. Chair Stevens said to ensure that it states on Page 3-1 that the applicant intends to provide a tentative map at a later date, with one lot held in common. He expressed concern that if it is not specified early in the proposal and they are not stated as owned units, (if they are rental or townhouse configurations). Changing them to owned units at a later date is hinged on the occupancy rate of rental units being less than 5%. He said it may prove to be difficult if not alerted at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 26, 2000 Ms. Gil noted that the intention was that they would be ownership units; with the applicant applying for a tentative map at a later date. Mr. Piasecki suggested that it could be handled partially by adding a condition that the applicant shall process a final map prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, architects, referred to the site plan and reviewed the location and design of the proposed project. Responding to the concern about the tentative map, he indicated that the applicant was intending to sell the project as for-sale condominiums. The reference to the held-in-common was the driveway and common open space held by the townhouse homeowners. Mr. Yee and Ms. Gil answered questions relative to the design elements of the project. Chair Stevens opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that the proposal was a vast improvement from the previous submittals. He expressed concern that when following the process, that the exceptions created or precedence setting are well understood to prevent a reoccurrence the next time. He said that he assumed because of the commercial site on one side, the setbacks and visual intrusion were not major issues. He said they had discussed the transition parcels coming into the FARs of .45 to .55, and the project is .59, but the merits of the architecture and detailing offset the excess. He expressed concern for future ones with .60 FAR. Mr. Piasecki commented that the project sets a pattern along Stelling Road of duet units~ which can be replicated on the properties to the south. Driveway access will need to be coordinated because they are independent owners with individual parcels. Ms. Gil pointed out that the Wherehouse building was constructed befOre the Heart of the City Plan was implemented, and the future units next to the proposed project would have to apply for an exception. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 31-EA-99 Com. Kwok Corns. Corr and Harris Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 16-U-99, including the condition that the applicant shall process a final map approval prior to issuance of building permits, and that the pedestrian access not be required SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Corns. Corr and Harris VOTE: Passed 3-0-0 ~ l-U-00, 2TEA-0~ Appli~~obe Inn Hotel) Location: ~ek Boulevard Use Permit to de~/~a restaurant and construct a-"~7,,l~0 square foot, 77 room hotel. Co. June 12, 2000 Planning Commission mee~ /,.q -/,5 March 6, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 3 1'~ Authorizin§ execution of Pro~ram Supplement 006-M, Federal ens Creek Boulevard), Resolution N.q. 00.083. Vote~. Councilmembers_ Ayes: ~ Bumett, Chang, Sames, Lowenthal, and StattOn Noes: Absent: Abstain: aid projects (Rt. 85, ITEMS REMOVED FROM the agenda and was not discussed. 10. Leadership Cut share equally in liability. PUBLIC HEARINGS CALENDAR- Item No. 10 was removed from Today - Agreement between sponsors to 14. Ordering vacation of roadway easement, Lowenthal moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-084. carried 5-0. Resolution 00--084. seconded and the motion PLANNING APPLICATIONS 15. Consider approving or denying a use permit to demolish three single-family dwellings and construct eight townhomes totaling 17,112 square feet on a 23,170 square foot lot. Application 16-U-99 (31-EA-99), Stanley Wang (applicant), at 10060 S. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way. A negative declaration is recommended and' this item is recommended for approval. Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report and explained that staffhad recommended denial of the project. After the first hearing before the eomm/ssion, the applicant had made some revisions to the plan, including reducing the height of the buildings, changing them all to face Stevens Creek Boulevard, and using tandem parking. The density remained the same at 8 units. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 3-2 vote. The applicant, Mr. Stanley Wang, showed a chart that compared the city standards to his original plan and revised plan, as well as a chart that compared the comments of the City's contract architect, Mr. Cannon, with his revised plan. Mr. Wang discussed in detail the issues of density, setbacks, tandem parking, and setbacks. March 6, 2000 Cupertino City Council Pa~e 4 ' Community Development.Director Steve Piasecld said this is a difficult parcel to design, as well as to provide privacy screening with landscaping. Staff' felt the design was very plain, that the tandem parking in all locations will cause circulation problems, and the density should be lowered. The council members commented individually and Piasecki summarized their input as follows: The absolute density, whether it is seven or eight units, is not as material to the council as getting a very high-quality project. The density may impact the amount of open space in the project. At least two of the Councilmembers prefer the front of the units facing Stelling. That would result in parking in the back and the loss of private spaces, but in exchange the units may have decks offthe second floor, or front patios. Council has indicated that tandem spaces will be acceptable if they solve a circulation problem. Staffwill probably encourage the applicant to keep tandem parking along the panhandle. Council prefers through access, and that would work well on the panhandle because it would require the least amount of modification from the Heart of the city standards. Having the units front on Stelling will also meet some of the privacy objectives by moving the windows farther away, and there will only be a side-up relationship with the neighbor to the south. The applicant agreed to work with the staff on additional redesign. Council referred the item back to the Planning Commission with their comments. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Mayor Statton reordered the agenda to hear item No. 17 next. Consider endorsement of TH-County Apartment Association's (TCAA) "Moving in for Less" program and direct staffto send attached letter to Cupertino apartment owners inviting them to attend an informational meeting, scheduled for April 3, 2000, and participate in the program. Council members were given a revised staff'report. Planner Vera Gil explained that this is project was an application from city staff. It is proposed that the Tri-County Apartment Association work with the city 'staff and Chamber of Commerce to introduce the "Moving in for Less" program in Cupertino. This program was originally introduced in San Jose in April 1999 and has worked very well. About 39 teachers have utilized program in that city. Ms. Jeannie Bradford said she chaired the Cupertino Chambers Business-Education Link Committee. She said this committee supports education and educators in Cupertino without duplicating or reinventing any of the existing programs. There are multiple goals within this program, and she highlighted three in particular. The first is the "Moving in for Less" program. The committee is very familiar with this program and they thanked /~ -/7 Planning Commission M~ ..s 3 February 28, 2000 ne! the would I and 4; and they proceeded based on the belief that a reasonable inter ~roval in terms of stucco vs. wood is that a similar condition would apply. He said ns that were approved and the intent they operated under all along is that a si ly. ,, thc ratio Mr. Zales that he felt the neighborhood looked good and it is not an economi. ;idcration: it has been tt' wish to have traditional historic architectural styles, but ~ly arc mom traditional arcttural styles going back to the 20s, 30s in Calif. that are stt proposed colonial homes h staffdid not support; therefore there was a limited p o1' wood homes Itl use and they were ncerned about too much repetition. He said it their goal to have diversity of designs were attractive and if the Planning Corn felt they were not accomplishing that, it an important issue to discuss. The perc are guidelines set two years ago which they .~d to abide by, and he expressed ho~ the guidelines would get stricter. Chair Harris opened the meetin public input; there present who wished to speak. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Doyle said the quality was good they should proceed with the project, altho he felt it was too late to change. with what ~vas proposed. I Ic said hc I'clt recalled a different mix was recommended, but Com. Kwok said he would prefer a mo~ wood in neighborhoods 2 and 4, espe~ wood than stucco. in high )roach, and recommended more balance i~. areas. He said he would prefer more Com. Corr concurred that the he was comfortable confirmi~ )osal and original existing ratios to of elevations were different, and said Com. Stevens said that homes would appear stark with presented. He added the neighborhood would initially appear trees; however, he they should continue with the present plan. .od or StLICCO, but wcrc well rren without landscaping Chair Harris sa was in favor of the Design Review Committee's ~r to approve the applicatk She clarified that the condition of approval was not s ._ and each one would have to be nted for. design review and be supported by staff· She recXa/mmendcd that thc applica~Aueet with staff since staff felt 50%, not 57%, for stucco was appropriatKk / C'orrj?Kwok said that he supported staff's recommendation, but recommended m'a~e Wood for re proposals. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed PUBLIC ltEARING 5. Application No.(s): 5-0-0 · 16-U-99, 13-EA-99 Planning Commission Mir's 4 February 28, 2000 Applicant: Location: Stanley Wang 10060 So. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way Use Permit to demolish three single family dwellings and construct eight townhomes totaling 17,112 square on a 23,170 square foot lot ' ' Continued from January 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Tentative City Council hearing date of March 6. 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application to demolish two single thmily homes and construct eight townhomes. At a previous Planning Commission meeting, thc applicant was directed to decrease the density, lower the mass and create a better t,'ansition between the adjacent low density residential development and the applicant's proposed development. In spite of meeting with staff on three occasions, the applicant submitted another version of his site plan without reducing the density. Changes are noted in the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the proposed application, as they believe the applicant did not comments and directions to comply. A recommendation if reached will be [brwa,'ded to thc City Council on March 6th. Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, reviewed the background of the application and stal'Fs recommendation and concerns as outlined in the staff report. She pointed out that consultant Larry Ca,mon reviewed the elevations and felt strongly that the development was too intense tbr thc parcel size and still had concerns relative to the proposal. The consultant felt that tile architecture did ,lot go far enough in making them look like individual units; and it looks like one large building, and thc side elevations don't have a lot of articulation. She illustrated the elevations oF the proposed phm. Chair Harris noted that a fax was received from the applicant delineating the w~rious chtmgcs made and how they tried to respond to the suggestions made. Mr. Stanley Wang, applicant, reviewed Exhibit I which illustrated a summary of Ills comments ol' the January 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and indicated how he complied wilh directions and suggestions for changes from the Planning Cornmis§ioners at that meeting, lie reviewed Exhibit 2 which illustrated his responses to the consultant's comments relative lo thc roof design, landscape and double car garages. He noted that the height of the building was reduced to 2 story, and from 33 feet high to 25.5 feet high; Building A FAR was reduced; change to a front elevation for the unit facing Stelling Road; all units now have private back yards, more landscape area prov.~l.,ed, from 32% to 40%; paving area cut down with a new design plan: more privacy provided with the 4 foot high precast concrete wall planted with vines, and addilitm entry island. Tandem parking was provided to eliminate consultant's concern about impact o1' two car garages. Mr. Wang answered questions regarding the parking, landscaping, setbacks, reduction df uni! sizes, architectural details and building materials. Mr. Raymond Chang, Traffic Engineer, explained that tile bus stop would have to be relocated subject to the VTA approval and site plan review, because access is being taken where thc present bus stop is located. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished m speak. Planning Commission Mi' ~ 5 February 28, 2000 Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: In favor of the project as presented? Arc specific modifications needed? Willing to grant 20 foot exception or make statement that much less can b6 built on the parcel? neighborhood character; I~ivacy impacts; 4 foot concrete wall; elevations; target density; material board; and tandem parking. C6m. Stevens said he felt a modification was not necessary in ~hat the layout improved traffic wise; there should be no 20 foot side exception; neighborhood character: transition parcel, yes; however, half of the four units are looking into the backyard of the RI next door and there arc plenty of windows. Some mitigation should be iinposed, but a 15 foot backyard size is a very small back yard. Relative to the four foot concrete wall, he said he felt it should be lower than four feet; elevation, the back is too stark, if viewed as transition, the elevation on the back toward the R1 residence is appropriate; density is appropriate, housing is needed. He said the stucco material was appropriate; however, he expressed concern about the possibility of a red roof and pink palaces. He said his major hangup was tandem parking, and felt it would be a proble,n. Com. Corr said he was surprised to see so much change presented since they were expecting modifications to the previous proposal, and received an entire remake of the project, introducing more concerns and questions. He said that in addressing the height and massiveness o1' the project, it could have been adjusted without turning the entire development sideways, which creates the privacy problem and the massive stark wall. There may be a break horizontally on the wall but the vertical lines merely show there is a separation of unit; it is not an architectural piece, but a big solid wall facing the small house next door, He expressed concern about the side setback exception, since it is not known what is occurring with the next unit, and the concept of having the setbacks is that the ability to put something appropriate in the adjacent lots is built in. He said he preferred not to grant an exception since it was unknown what would be next door. He coucurrcd in terms of the character of the units being a transition parcel. The privacy impacts wcrc addressed earlier, and he felt there is not enough mitigation for that. He said he did not feel the need for a concrete wall. Com. Corr said he felt the original elevations were more interesting than those presently proposed; density was appropriate; he supported the need for more housing in the community, but felt it could be accomplished in a more stylish manner.' Relative to thc materials, he said he concurred in terms of the red roof, and expressed concern about everything looking the same, rather than having some character to it. He said he agreed witl~ Com. Stevens that the tandem parking issue was not feasible; however, he said that he agreed with Chair Harris that the applicant's prdposal still met the requirements. Com. Kwok said he was in favor of the project with some minor modifications, since thc applicant modified the plan based on the directions given. The plan is an improved platt in terms o1' tral'fic, parking is improved, mass is reduced and also the elevations. Relative to the 20' tbot setback exception, he questioned if the project would exist if the exception was not granted, and was informed that the project would not exist if the exception was not granted. He said the only way to meet the exceptions is to reduce the density of the house which is already being reduced: therefore under the circumstances, there is no choice but to grant the exception, which hc said Itc was reluctant to do. Com. Kwok said that since it was a transition parcel, and given the situation, thc developer has tried to come up with 3 different proposals, and granting the exception was preferable to accepting fl~e height. Relative to neighborhood character,, the transition parcel is a good start. He said he was optimistic that screening would he'Ip mitigate the privacy impacts on thc back yard; concrete wall not needed; elevation is appropriate; density was reduced; stall' to xvork - Planning Commission Mi, 's 6 February 28.2000 with the architect on materials satisfactory to staff. Com. Kwok said he agreed that tandem parking was inconvenient, but he did not object to it; the remainder of the parkipg lot could bc restricted for visitor parking only. He said he felt the design, particularly in front, could bc improved with some minor architecture. Overall, he said he was in favor oI'the project. Com. Doyle said he was in favor of building something on the vacant lot, but the conllguration needs to be modified; it is a transition parcel; no side setback exceptions. R. clativc to neighborhood character, Com. Doyle said he felt the concept of a row house was not consistent with the surroundings or what was proposed at'this time. He said to address the priwmy impacts and visual intrusion on the adjoining properties, it should be handled tike the typical RI mechanism; the 4 foot concrete wall needs to be softened as it isolates the site fi'om ac[ioining properties or the bus enclosure out in front, and he felt it was not intended to have a stark wall viewed up and down the main thoroughfare, as they are so obvious. The elevations o~' thc back the sites are stark and need to be broken up; density of zoning is a target o~' 8 to 35, with a ,hove lo understanding the specific needs of that location. He recalled that direction was given that transition should be in the .45 to .55 types FARs and those were some of' the ones seen in other proposals and developments thought to be transitional, not from multi story lypc transilkm single family to other uses. He suggested that the guidelines should be looked at. Com. Doyle suggested an improved material board. The warehouse is stucco and it needs to blend with lhc adjoining properties. He said that tandem parking would create an unworkable situation, and he questioned whether it would be setting a precedent with one car garages. He concluded that hc was not in favor of the project as presently configured. Chair Harris said she was in favor of the project and said that the applicant should be permitted to develop the property. She recounted their prior applications for the property and said that they submitted modifications in response to direction from the Planning Commission. She said thc,'c was a General Plan designation of ten to twenty units, with a specific plan designation o1' either commercial, office or 8 to 35 units; this is 11 and is at the lower end of the ,'angc; and she said she felt they did a lot of good work. The property is well articulated and has trellises. She said she felt the wall should be 3 feet high, and it was a transition parcel, which was appropriate Ibr the area. Relative to the comment about a row house, Chair Harris said she would agree il' it {'aced Stelling, but apparently just the end of it is seen from Stelling. therefore it is not row housing. She said she felt there was interest along the wallplain as seen from the side: the articul:~tion in the building could be dealt with by trim; colors are tasteful and appropriate. Relative to the cxceptkm. she said normally they try to meet the setbacks, but she felt in this case that the exception is being used to'keep the applicant fi'om the full and appropriate use of the property and thc c×ccptio,~ should be granted. Chair Harris said that Cupertino needed housing, and townhomcs provide a medium that is lacking, and she was supportive of the project for a variety ol' reasons. Discussion continued about the direction to be given {o the applicant. Com. Corr said that hc was open to a change to the exceptions, but was concerned about tile privacy issue and thc stark back wall. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Corn: Stevens moved to approve Application 3 I-EA-99 Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application 16-EA-99 with the modilications articulation of south wall, Plan A, to be approved by staff or returned at the next Planning Commission M :s 7 February 28, 2000 meeting, and to have mitigation 6f privacy similar to the RI standard accepted by staff; including landscaping requirements, and screening; and incorporating in this approval A[ through 5 of the'exception process for development standards lbr thc Heart of the City. ,. Chair Harris reviewed the findings for the exception and read them into the record: "That thc literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in restrictions and consistent with spirit and intent of this title, and that the granting of the exception will not result in a conditkm which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and that the exception to be 'granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations in the minimum variance that it will accomplish this purpose." The amended motion was accepted by consensus. SECOND: Com. Kwok NOES: Corns. Corr and Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-2-0 Chair H'~is rec%nized Kellyn Yamada of the City Channel for her many years of dedicated service to ht~ City. She thanked Kellyn for her many years of highly professional service wished her su'~ss in her future endeavors. 6. Applicatioh~,,No.(s): Amend Municipal Code regarding re'.,iew of single, t'a~ly _ ~ residential applications Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide ' _ Amend the Municipal shift all family residential review o. f6/residential desi'% review committee and to discuss the lng Commission Subcommittee~' Continued from Planning Tentative City Council hearing date Chair Harris reviewed the summary in the staff report. meeting o f January 31,~_000 20. 2000/ the Design Revie~v Co,nmittec as outlined MOTION: Com. Kwok moved app,;oval to the Municipal Code to shift all single family residegt-ial review to Design Review Committee. :md to make the chagg~'s incorporated SECOND: Com. C0~' In response to Com.~evens'questions, there ~vas a brief ~n relative to the contc,t iff' Sections 2.32.070~d 2.90.40. Ms. Rodrigues clarified that tile ast't,~ lines were deleled since the previous .~rding allowed that subcommittee to have decision auth.t'~y: and they no longer would h,,,a,ve/'decision authority, but would have recommendation a6thoXl'~ to thc Pla,ming Com.,~ion. Chair Harris suggested wording change and said that the langua[ t ~houkt be more .,~r, because the items would still have to go back to the Planning Commission. g Commission Mi' , s 3 January 10, 2000 Planning Request removal decision final unless appealed calendar MOTION: Com. loved to remove Items 3 and 8 from the Com. Stevens and Com. Con' 11-EXC-99. Ms. Wordell said that removal from the calendar. a letter received re no readily 8, Application No. reason for tile applicant requesting AMENDED MOTION: Com. SECOND: VOTE: :ed Item 3 f~rom the calendar 5-0-0 MOTION: .....L;~. Stevens moved to postpone Items 2, 5, 6, 7 / Planning Commission meeting SE.~.C.O~D: Com. Harris -~VOTE: Passed ' 5-0-0 to tile January 24, 2000 PUBLIC Iq'EARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 16-U-99, 13-EA-99 Stanley Wang 10060 S. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way Use Permit to demolish three single family dwellings and construct eight townhomcs totaling 17,112 square feet on a 23,170 square foot lot. Tentative City Council meeting February 7, 2000 Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Planner II, referred to the overhead map, and proposed site plan, and reviewed the application to demolish two single-family homes and construct eight townhouses, as outlined in the attached staff report. She noted that in order to approve the application, the Planning Commission would have to make the findings [br Heart o1' thc City exception process, because the setbacks for the project do not meet the re.quired 20 foot side setbacks in the Heart of the City. Staff does not feel it would meet the exception process since it does not. have a design which would warrant an exception, is too massive and does not relate well to existing units on Bianchi Way or Stelling Road, and recommends denial of the application. Ms. Gil answered Planning Commissioners questions regarding the application. She noted that there was not a specific requirement for open space; however, applicants were encouraged to have private yard space for the townhouse. Mr. John Lowell, consultant, said that consideration ~vas given to a proposed off]cc building m' apartment before submitting the application for the townhouse project. He said it appeared that the staff reviewed an old report, since the new plans submitted by' Pacific Rim Financial conlbrm to all the requirements of the city, and consultant's recommendations. Ms. Gil clarified that'thc updated plans were reviewed by staff in reaching their conclusion. Mr. Lowell answered questions relative to parking spaces, landscaping and pedestrian access. /,3-o23 Planning Commission Mir 's 4 .]anua,'y I0, 2000 ,.~ar. Mike Chen, architect, reviewed the changes made following the recomm~mdatitms o1' the nnon Design Group. He said that the rooflines were changed and flower boxes were added. } lc also answered questions regarding the back Yard spaces, elevations, densky and setbacks. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input;' there was no qpe present who wished to speak. Chair Doyle summarized the issues of concern: density./,use; FAR; mass/design; l lcart ol'thc (.'ity Com. Stevens said that the density conforms to the plan;, however, he said the layout was too ambitious, and he had concern about the traffic. He also expressed concern about Plan A, B and BM, and said he felt the artist's conception still was too busy. He said he felt the traffic pattern on Stelling made it difficult to get to different places, and asked is Public Works had an oppm'tu,fity to review it, since he saw it as a major problem. Relative to density and past design, Corn. Stevens said that the area included a variety of single family homes, two story homes, a warehouse and a school, and would likely change in the future. He said he felt four units across thc I'mnt was too dominant and °verpowering, although it may not appear so in the future, lqe said hc could not offer a detailed comment on the Heart of the City Plan as he had not studied it in detail. Com. Kd, ok said that Plan A appeared to be high density because it is in the t'ront of the main road on Stelling and he suggested that the density be reduced. He said he was not oppt~sed to Plan 1½, or the height, but was concerned with the traffic, turnaround and also parking. Relative to I lcart of'the City, he said he was not certain about the setback guidelines, but felt hey should be meeting the Heart of the City guidelines rather than automatically giving them an exception. Com. Corr said that in general he liked the idea of what they were aiming Ibr; the density is appropriate; but he was concerned with elevations and landscape, aha noted that some things that were discussed had not been incorporated, yet the architect stated they could be. t-lc said that tile Heart of the City Plan should be addressed and the project may be the one that guides whal would occur next door. Com. Harris said she liked townhouses and the pi'oject is a transitional piece with commercial and houses in the area. She said that she felt the FAR was too high, and the mass and density werctoo great. She said she felt a continuance was in order to make the project smaller and more to scale with the surroundings. Chair Doyle agreed that the density was too high; noting that it was a transitional property I'rom Heart of the City in the main corridor to residential several houses back, therctk~re there should bc some transition. He said in the past there have been several successful transitional properties with .45 FAR or .55 FAR. Relative to the design, he said it was too boxy and needed work oil details and articulation to make them more distinctive with more character. Chair Doyle said that relative to the Heart of the City Plan, he felt it should be a transitional property because it is in a I'airly high use c(~rridor; and will set the tone for the future. 'He concurred that a continuance was in re'der to reduce the density and return with a different shaped product, whether single family or townhouse. whatever is appropriate for the area. Com. Harris asked that Public Works comment on the ingress and egress issues when tile project returns. Com. Kwok suggested that when it returns, applicant work with staff to coml:~lete some ol' the changes suggested by the consultm~t Cannon Designs, such an ensuring they are incorp()ratcd into softening up the mass a little and reduce the size and density. Com. l-lan'is suggested that a Planning Commission Mi: ; 5 January I0, 2000 matrix be compiled showing Cannon's comments, what has been done and whether staff' ['eels it is adequate. Ms. Gil clarified that the traffic engineer reviewed the plans beforehand, and he did not have ally con.terns or comments. Com. Harris commented on the need for green space in the back for each unit. Corn (.'orr commented on the density, noting that four units were high FAR., four were not; there wcrc property lines, and it would be more appropriate if the units weren't so massive in the fi'om: and suggested softening the stark appearance with more variety. Com. Kwok said he felt thc p,'ojcct had merit, and it was recognized as a transitional project between the two neighborhoods. suggested the applicant work with the architect and staffto return with a revised plan [bt review. The applicant said they were willing to review the project and revise it for ['urther review by the Planning Commission.. Mr. Piasecki suggested removal from the calendar rather than continuance o1' the item to a particular date because of the time constraints. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to continue Application 16-U-99, 13-EA-99 to February 10, 2000 Com. Kwok Coms. Hah-is and Stevens Passed 3-2-0 Corns. Harris and Stevens clarified their no vote=, stating they felt it was advantageous for the Director to have the option of removing the application from calendar because 0f time constraints. 9. )lication No.(s): l 3-U-97(M) licant: Sunnyview Lutheran Home 22445 Cupertino Road Removal of and re :nt of ten protected trees and to modi['y the rool' colors of an ap[ : Planning Commission decision approved Continued from November 22, 'Commission Chair Doyle excused himself from facility. Vice Chair Harris chaired the meeting as he resides within 200 I'cct o!' ~hc Staff presentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordel{ Planner, gave a brief background of~n and experience. Mr. Scan Booth, P[_a nn,,,~[nt.e_rn revi?w, ed the application to remove ten , outlined in the st_,,af, Ffeport. He noted that the portion of the application relative and paint ~w. ould be discussed on another date since staff needed additilmal it. He/,t'6ted the trees to be removed because ol~ disease and damage and rec~>~mended replacements. can Booth, Planning Intern, and the property as ,o1' materials valuate CITY OF CUPER.T72qO NEGATIVE DBCLARATION March .6, 2000 As provided by the Environmental A~sessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17, 1977, May 1, 1978, and Jul,~ 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by ':::: City Council of the City of Cupertino on March 6, 2000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 31-EA-99 Application No.: Applic.ant: Location: 16-U-99 Stanley Wang. 10060 S. Stelling Road, 10051 Bianchi Way DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to demolish three single family dwellings and construct eight townhomes totaling 10,486 sq. ft. On a 0.53 acre site. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BOI)Y The City Council'granted a negative declaration finding that no environmental impacts will occur. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the office of the City Clerk of Cupertino on ,2000. City Clerk g/planning/eregneg31 ca99 CITY OF CUPERTINO Department of Community Development IO]OOTorreAvenue Cupertino, Ca 9~QI4 408-777-3308 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title ~-~T~ Project Location Project Description '~ cua,-T StaffUse Only EA File No. Ca~e File No. Attachments ? Environmental Setting, ur'loaf) PROJE CT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) o,'~ Building Coverage ~ % Exist. Building_$.f. Proposed Bldg. I'm~ s.f. Zone ~'O G.P. Designation. ~ Assessor's Parcel No. ~ - "1 - '~t. ~', 1 5 If Kesidential, Units/Gross Acre Unit Type #I Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check). [-----1 Monta Vista Design. G. u. idelines S. De Anz~ Conceptual N. De Anza Conceptual ~ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual C--"] S. Sin's-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape IfNon-R. esidential, Building Area s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shift__ Parking R.equired Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES . V' NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cupertino General Plan Land Use Element 2) Cupertino General Plan Public Safety Element 3) Cupertino General Plan Housing Element 4) Cupertino General Plan Transportation Element $) Cupertino General Plan Environmental Resources ii) Cupertino General Plan, Appendix A- Hillside Development 7) Cupertino General Plan Land Use Map 8) Noise !=lement Amendment 9) City Ridgeline Poli~y 10) Cupertino C~neral Plan Constraint Maps B) CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11) Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12) City Aerial PhotolFaphy Maps 13) "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14) Geological l~port (site specific) 15) Parking Ordinances 1277 16) Zoning Map 17) Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18) City Noise Ordinance C) CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupertino Community Development DepL 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department 22) Cupertino Water Utility D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23) County Planning Department 24) Adjacent City's Planning Department 25) County Departmental of Environmental Health 26) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27) County Parks and Recreation Department 28) Cupertino Sanitary District 29) Fremont Union High School District 30) Cupertino Union School District 31) Pacific Gas and Electric 32) Santa Clara County Fire Department 33) County Sheriff 34) CALTRANS 3 ~) County Transportation Agency 36) Santa Clara Val!ey Water District E) OIJ'I~IDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS. 37) BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38) FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39) USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40) County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resources Inventory 42) Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43) CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List OTHER SOURCES 44) Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnaissance 46) Experience with Project of similar s scope/characteristics 47) ABA(} Projections Series 1) Complete al.~l information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEIV[ IS NOT APPLICABLE. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source Li~t; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You are encouraged to cite. other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column ne:t to the question to which they relate. 3) If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. 4) When 'explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. 5) Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. 6) Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the · City. - Project Plan Set of Legislative Document (1) copy - Location map with sit~ clearly marked (when applicable) IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not ,Significant Significant Zumulative SOURCE Significant (Mitigation NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) A) LAND USE GENERAL PLAN 1) Require a change from the land use 1.7.8 deaignation for the subject site in the [--~ [-'] [~] [~] [~] General Plan? 2) Require a change of zoning? [~ [] [--'q 3) Require a change of aa adopted speci~c plan o, othe,,dopted policy [] [-q [--1 ~tatement? 1) Result in substantial change in the ! e~esentland use ofthc site or thatof [~] ['~ ["-1 [--1 [--] 7.12 . adjoining properties? 5) Disrupt or divide the physical con~gu=tio, o,~es,.,lish,d [] [-i [--1 [] nei§hbodaood? · .sq GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD I) Be located in an area which poten,alfo, majo,~eolo~i~,=d: [~ ~ .[--1 2) Be located on o~ adjacent to a 3) Bt located ina Geologic Study []~] [-'q [~ ~] [-"] Zone? 2 4) Be located in an area of'soil shrink/swell, soil creep or severe 2.5,10 i erosion~)? g) Cause substantial erosion or .uationof,~atereou~e: rg-1 © '~ ~ © 2.~.,0 displacement, compaction 6r overcovering of soil either on-site or off- site 7) Cause substantial change in topography or in a,round surface [~] [~ [--1 10,39 :feature? 8) Involve construction ora building, road or sop,i, system on a slope of,0% [~ ['-'] ~I [--] ['--1 6.12.39 or greater? C) RESOURCES/PARKS ~) ,n~,.,ethee~tingre=val.~,or ~ 7q [2 [2 [2 ~.,o result in the removal ora natural resource for commeroi~l purposes (including items ' ' ' I such as rock, sand, gravel, trees, minerals ~ ' or top-soil)? 2) Result in the substantial depletion Of [~ []~ [-'q ["-] []~ 5 any non-renewable natural resource? 3) Convert prime agricultural land [-~ {7"] ~ [--] [2 $,39 (Class I or Il soils) to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime agricultural land? 4) Involve lands currentiy protected ~ ~ ~ [~ [-'q. 5,23 under the Williamson Act or any Open YES WILL THE PROJEC%.. Wot Significant Significant Cumulative SOURCE Significant(Mitigation (No ~N'O Proposed) Mitigl~tion Proposed) 5) Substantially affect any existing F~ [] [-"] F'~ F~ 7,23 agricultural uses? public or private recreation facility, park, wildlife preserve, public trail either in existence already or planned for future implementation? D) SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY 1) Result in a septic field being performance limitations? 2) Result in a septic field being located within $0 feet of a drainage swale ~[~ [~ [~] F-] [] 36,39,42 or within 100 feet of any well, water 'gurse or water body? 3) Result in extension o'f a sewer main .ine with capacity to serve new ~-~ [~ [~ [~ [] 19,20,40 development? 4)Substantially deg~de surface or supply, including but not limited to typical stormwater polluntant~ {e.g. sediment from hydrocarbons and metal~ fi.om vehicle use, nutricn~ and pesticides from land.ping maintenance, metals and acidity from mining operations)? 5)Be located in an area of water supply 22 concern (such as !ow fire flows)? waters through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban, indus~al or a§riculmral activities? 7)Require a NPBE$ permit for 20 onstructlon (Does it disturb five (5) [~ ~] [] [~] [] :r~s or moreT]7 E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING I) interfere substantially with ground 20.36 2) Substantially change the direction, ; rate or flow ot quantity ofground- i waters, or wetlands either through direct [] [~]' ~] [~] [~] 20,36.42 i additions or withdrawals, or excavations? [ 3)Change the absorption rags, drainage runoff or wetland.* or stn:ambed or wa~er course such as to alter the locations, course or flow of its waters? 5) Be located ina floodway or ~ floodplain area? F) FLORA AND FAUNA 1) Significantly affect fish, wildlife, diversity or numbers of existinl species, or by introducint new species, or by r~tricting migration or movement? IMPACT YES ILL THIg PROJECT... Not Significant I signit~c.-t :umulative SOURCE Significant (Mitigation (No NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) ~ource or nesting place for a ~ or end.gered species of pl~t or ~im~? 4) Involve cu~ing, ~mov~ of to ~e si~ or in~duced? G) ~SPORTATION I) Ca~c ~ inc~ in ~c which is subsmti~ in minion to ~e existing sy~em? 2) Ca~c ~y public or private s~et in~ection to ~n~ion below Lewl of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4,20 Se~ice D? 3) [ncre~e ~c h~ to :desffi~, bicyclh~ md vehicles? ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 20~5 4) Advemely ~eet access to commemi~ es~blishmen~, public building, schools, p~ or o~cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4,10 pedesffim orienmd activi~ ~c~? 5) Cause a reduction in public ' ~ponation semite at or ne~ ~e ~ ~ ~ D ~ 35 project site? 6) Incm~e demmd upon existing ~ew p~ing space? ~ Inhibit use ofgtem~ivc modes of ~mspo~tion to private automobile ~ O O ~ O 5, 19, 34,35 mage? ~ HOUS~G l) Reduce ~e supply of afford~le housing in ~e communi~, or ~sult in ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3,16 ~placement ofpemo~ ~om ~eir ~sent home? 2) Incre~e the ~ost of homing in ~e 3, 16 Of housing ~pes found in ~e communiST 3) Create a subs~tial dtm~d for new ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3, 16.47 housing? D HEAL~ ~ SA~ dispos~ or m~ufa~ of pot~nfi~ly h~do~ materi~s? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 32,43 2) Involve risk of explosion or o~er fora of uncon~lled rele~e of 3) lnvolw~mmov~or~nfinued ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 33.42.43 m~ of my existing, or im~l~on of ~y new unde~romd chemic~ or hel clinger? advemely affect public s~e~ in ~ event of a bm~down? WILL THE PROJECT... SOURCE Not Significant Significant Cumulative Significant ~litigation ~o NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) 6) Provide breeding grounds for mosquitos or other disease vectors? [~ .F"q ['"q F'-] [~] 25 J) AIR QUALITY 1) Create objectionable odors'? [~ [-"] F-'q [~ ['-q 40,43 2) Violate any ambient air quality existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants? I0 NOIS~. .1) Increase substantially the ambient noise environment o f the project vicinity ~ ['--] ~'] ~-] ~-] 8. la · ring construction of the project? 2) Result in sustained increase in ambient noise levels in the project [] F~ [] F'"q F-'] 8,18 vicinity following construction of the project 3) Result in sustained noise levels beyond the thresholds of sound energy ~] ['~ ~ ['~ [--q 8,15 and duration limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance? L) AESTHETICS 1) Be at variance with applicable i designguidelines? [~ []~] F'~ F'~ E]~ 17 2) Create an aesthetically offensive 3) Visually intrude upon ~n ma of 4) Obstruct view of a scenic ridgeline [~ F~ [-"] F'-I [~ 5,9 -'isible from the valley floor? hillsides from residential areas or public 6) Adversely affect the a~;chitectural character o f an establish neighborhood or ['~ ~--~ ~] [] ['~ business district? 1,17,19 lighting sources upon adj scent properties 1,I or public roadways? M) ENERGY quantities of fossil fuels or non° rcncwabl¢ energy sources? · t) Remove vegetation providing summershadcorwind-broaks to aa [;~., .[~ [--] F--I F-'I 11.19 existing or proposed building? 3) Significantly reduce solar access to an adjacent building, public recreation ~'~ space or private yard7 N) HISTORICAL/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL I) Be located in an area of potential [~ ['-'] F-'] [] [] 10,42 archaeological or paleontological resources? C IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant Significan, Cumulative SO'[i'll. CE Significant [Mitigation (No NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) 2) Affect adversely a property of historio I, 10.41 or cultural significance to thc community, 1~ ~I F-~ ~ F-'] except as part of a scientific study? O) PUBLIC SERVICES A.ND UTILITIES .quantities? 2) Induce substantial growth, or alter ~] O [--q 1, 46,47 the location, distribution, or densit)/of the human population of an area? 3) Cause substantial impact upon, or .'case thc need for. d) Patios/Recreation Facilities? ~ [] [] [] [] :~, 17, 19, e) Maintenance of Public Facilities? [~ [] [] [] [] 193.0,21 f) OtherOovcmmentalScrvices? [] [] [] ._ [] [] 19 4) Cause substantial impact upon existing utilities or infrastructure in thc~//~ following categories: a) Electricity? c) Water? [] [] 22 d) Sewage treatment a~d disposal? ~'~ [] [] [] 20,28 c) Storm water management?~/ ~ [] [] [] 36,38 S) Generate demand tot use of any public facility which caus~ tha~ facility [~ ['--] ~ [--I [~ 193.0,2:2,28,~ 1 to ~ach or exceed its capacity? /$ MA2VDATORY. FLNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To/Be Completed by City Staff). WILL THE PROJECT... Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat ora fish or wildlife species; to cause a or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or prehistory? 2. Have the potential to achieve short term cnvironmcnta! goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals? Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? (''Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects) 4. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ,elief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's Name ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (TObe Completed by City Staff) IMPACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] [] Sewage/Water Quality [] [] Historical/Archaeological [] [] Public Services/Utilities [] STAFF EVALUATION Geologic/Seismic Hazard [] Drainage/Flooding [] Health & Safety Energy . Resources/Parks Flora & Fauna [] Air Quality Aesthetics [] Housing [] Transportation [] Noise _J.On the basis'of this Initial Study, th Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Finds: $¢1cct One fhat the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends ~-] that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures are included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an ~[ ;NVIRONMENTII~ IMPACT REPORT be prepared. Staff Evaluator [_~ ]¥~ &_Q~ ERC Chairperson Date ~!!//0/qq Date [// /1 ' / g/pla nning/intstdY4.doc CITY OF CUPEI iNO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I~ Agenda Date July 17, 2000 Application: l-U-00, 6-EXC-00, 2-EA-00 Applicant: Pinn Brothers Construction Co. (the Adobe Inn Hotel) Property Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Co. Property Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commereial/Oftice/Residential Zoning Designation: P(Stevens Creek Boulevard) Gross Acres: 0.84 acre Building Area: 44,120 sq. ff. Depressed Parking Garage: 33,865 sq. ff. FAR: 1.2 (not including garage area) Parking Ratio Required: 1/hotel room plus 1/employee, 77+3=80 spaces Parking Provided: 82 spaces Stories/Height: Front: 3 stories, 43 feet Rear: 2stories, 35 feet Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Heart of City Development Exceptions Required for Height, Side Setback and Rear Setback RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Grant a mitigated negative declaration; 2) Grant development exceptions to the Heart of the City Plan for maximum building height, side setback and rear setback, file no. 06-EXC-00, per resolution no. 6043; 3) Approve the use permit, file no. 01-U-00, per resolution no. 6042 Application Summary: USE PERMIT, File no. l-U-00, and Heart of the City Specific Plan DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS, File no. 06-EXC-00, to allow the construction of up to a 45,000 square foot, 77 room hotel at 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Heart of the City Specific Plan development exceptions include: HEIGHT (45 feet in lieu of 41 feet); · SIDE SETBACKS (15' in lieu of 19.5 ' (east side), and 10' in lieu of 19.5' (west side)); · and REAR SETBACK (20 feet in lieu of 39 feet). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project over two meetings held on June 26th and July 10b, 2000. At the first meeting, staff, the City Architect and the Planning Commission directed that a number of design-related changes be made to the plans. The plans were revised and conditions of approval added to cover all of the requested changes. DISCUSSION: Applicant Issues: The applicant believes the proposed 1 O-foot eastern side setback is satisfactory and does not need to be increased to 15 feet. He expressed his wish to work with staff to address the remaining design details and submit them for future Architectural and Site Approval before the Design Review Committee. Public Issues: One resident, George Monk, spoke at the first meeting about traffic (See Exhibit B). Ray Chong, City Traffic Engineer, agreed to work with Mr. Monk to evaluate overall, area traffic. Staff Issues: Staff noted the improvement in the appearance of the third level trellis and wainscoating, but noted the additional design detailing needed for the entries, landscaping and building materials, etc. Staff endorses a minimum 15-foot side setback on the east side because of the large contrast in the sizes of the proposed structure and the existing one-story building. The current trash enclosure is proposed inside the underground garage and is not accessible to the truck. It should be relocated outside in a heavily screened enclosure with adequate onsite truck accessibility. The applicant and staff will work out the design details and have it reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Issues: The Commissioners generally agreed with staff on the issues. They pointed out that the suggested City-required pedestrian easement for the Biltmore Apartment residents carries increased liability for the property owner. The Deputy City Attorney noted that this was not any different from shared parking arrangements and shared access easements required from time to time by the City. Commissioners felt the three spaces for hotel employees were insufficient and required that the space previously devoted to the trash enclosure (which will be relocated outside of the building) be restriped for additional parking, bringing the total count to 82 stalls. A traffic analysis was completed by a private consultant. Staff's Powerpoint traffic presentation is included at Commission's request. In summary, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with the provision of additional from setback (approximately 13 feet) to soften the building mass and accommodate the trash enclosure; and increase the easterly sideyard setback (5 additional feet) to soften the relationship to the adjoining single story office. 2 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Director of Community Development SUBMITTED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6042 and 6043 Exhibit A: Planning Commission reports dated July 10, 2000 and June 26, 2000 Exhibit B: Letter from George Monk dated July 6, 2000 Exhibit C: Traffic Operations Analysis of Adobe Inn by Barton - Aschman Associates Dated July 10, 2000 June 26, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Plan Set g :planning/pdreport/cc/ccO 1 u00 3 /,¢ -3 O1-U-O0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6042 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF A VACANT RESTAURANT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO A 45,000 SQUARE FOOT, 77-ROOM HOTEL AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application 01-U-00 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 26, 2000 and July I0, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. Page 2 01-u-oo July 10, 2000 SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 01-U-00, 02-EA-00 Pinn Brothers Pinn Brothers 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled" Development Plan, Adobe Inn, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California" consisting of 8 sheets numbered 1, 2,2.a, 3, 4, 5, L1 & C1, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution and including the provision of 82 parking stalls. 2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. 3. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install 4 Class II bicYcle parking facilities in accordance with the City's Parking Ordinance. 4. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to or concurrently with project construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances. 5. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of up to 77 hotel rooms from the hotel development allocation pool of the Retail Commercial Development Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan. 6. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with the land, subject to approval of the City Attomey and providing for the benefit of the abutting residential parcel to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Resolution No. 01-U-00 July 10, 2000 Page 3 7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fall to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 8. INCREASED SIDE (EAST) AND FRONT BUILDING SETBACKS The approved plans shall be revised to increase the east side building setback to 15 feet minimum across the entire building length. The front building setback shall be increased a minimum additional 13.5 feet to 58.5 feet away from the face of the curb to address general plan design policy, reduce visual mass and provide adequate garbage service area and circulation. Additional front setback up to another 11.5 feet may be required by the Commission to address driveway ramp design and safety issues. 9. RECYCLING FACILITIES The developer shall make provisions for recycling facilities which shall be in accordance with Chapter 19.81 of the C.M.C. 10. ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT This approval is conditioned on the requirement of Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) of various design details which shall include a final landscape plan, review of building materials, window offsets, cross pedestrian access, driveway ramp details and garbage service area. Other design details may be added to the ASA as needed. 11. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL The project significantly affects surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant shall participate in a flow study to determine feasibility for sanitary service to the site. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 12. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 13. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 14. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as t preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. Resolution No. 01-U-00 July 10, 2000 Page 4 15. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 16. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by thc City. 17. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 18. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 19. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No increase of storm mn-off is allowed. 20. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 21. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Development Maintenance DepOsit: c. Storm Drainage Fee: d. Power Cost: e. Map Checking Fees: f. Park Fees: g. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 minimum $ 3,000.00 $ 926/acre + ($70'No. of hotel rooms) $ 75.00 per street light N/A N/A $ 6% of on-site improvement Cost or $460.00 rain Resolution No. 0 I-U-00 July 10, 2000 Page 5 -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 22. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fehcing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 23. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall execute a quitclaim deed for underground water rights to San Jose Water and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. Bert Viskovich, City Engineer PASSED AND ADOPTED this l0th day of July 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chair Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/planning/res/res01 u00 /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 6-EXC-00 RESOLUTION NO. 6043 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 45 FEET IN LIEU OF 41 FEET, SIDE SETBACK OF 10 FEET IN LIEU OF 19.5 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE, SIDE SETBACK OF 15 FEET IN LIEU OF 19.5 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE, AND A REAR SETBACK OF 20 FEET IN LIEU OF 39 FEET, FOR A PROPOSED 77- ROOM HOTEL AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 06-EXC-00 Pinn Brothers Pinn Brothers 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for Exception from the Heart of the City Specific Plan development standards for height, side setback and rear setback, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and the goals of the specific plan in that this commercial development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and there is adequate development allocation for the project. The project provides Heart of the City landscape improvements and adequate front setback; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety given the setbacks of surrounding buildings and the extra front setback required for adequate driveway ramp design. The extra front setback required for adequate driveway ramp design provides additional sight line clearance of pedestrians on the sidewalk and solves solid waste service problems; Resolution No. 06-EXC-00 July ! 0, 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The development must contribute to any sanitary sewer capacity increase needed to service the project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development requires exceptions which involve the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in the plan necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. The parcel is narrow for a commercial parcel and difficult to develop with large side setbacks. The extra building height is devoted to the sloping roof which is necessary to screen rooftop equipment and for architectural interest. The excepted rear setback is acceptable given the stepped down 2-story height of the hotel rear and the combined 110-foot building separation of the hotel and apartments to the rear. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the specific i plan development exceptions herein described, are hereby recommended for approval and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application 6-EXC-00, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 26th and July 10, 2000, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. Approved Exhibits The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits titled: "Development Plan, Adobe Inn, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California" of various dates and consisting of 8 sheets numbered 1, 2, A2.a, 3, 4, 5, L1 & C1, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in the use permit resolution, file no. l-U-00. Resolution No. 06-EXC-00 July 10, 2000 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10TM day of July 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens & Chair Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:planning/res/res06EXC00 /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: l-U-00, 2-EA-00 Agenda Date: July 10, 2000 Applicant: Pinn Brothers Construction Co. (the Adobe Inn Hotel) Property Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Co. Property Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential Zoning Designation: P(Heart of the City) Gross Acres: 0.84 acre Non-Residential: Building Area: 44,120 sq. ft. Depressed Parking Garage: 33,865 sq. ft. FAR: 1.2 (not including garage area) Parking Ratio Required: 1/hotel room plus 1/employee, 77+3=80 spaces Parking Provided: 80 spaces Stories/Height: Front: 3 stories, 43 feet Rear: 2 stories, 35 feet Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Heart of City Development Exceptions Required Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negat;_ve Declaration Application Summary: USE PERMIT to construct a new 77 room (about 45,000 square foot) hotel on a parcel currently occupied by a 4,000 square foot restaurant/lounge (Adobe Lounge) located on Stevens Creek Boulevard east of the Cupertino City Center. The hotel proposal is 2-3 stories in height with a subsurface parking garage and small meeting rooms. The hotel has no restaurant or bar. SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS are requested as followed: A Height Exception of 43 feet maximum building height when 41 feet is allowed (36 + 5 feet for subsurface parking); · A Side Setback Exception of 10 feet when 19.5 feet is required (half of the height of the building); and · A Rear Setback Exception of 20 feet when 39 feet is required (1.5 times the height of the .building) ' RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of.' · 1) the mitigated negative declaration, file no. 02-EA-00, and 2) the use permit application, file no. 01-U-O0, in accordance with the model resolution. 3) specific plan development exceptions for height, side setback and rear setback, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: At the June 26th Commission hearing (Exhibit A), statTnoted that the project could be reviewed but any final project recommendation must be continued to the next hearing pending the legal noticing of the required specific plan development exceptions. The three Commissioners in attendance (Doyle, Kwok and Stevens), City Architect Larry Cannon and staff had numerous comments: 1) The eastern side setback (to Chicago Title Building) was too close and should be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet. 2) The third level trellis was too stark and visible. 3) The wainscoating band was insufficient in height. 4) The entries from Stevens Creek Boulevard and the west side. are oversized and need to be reduced. 5) The plans need to define where cross pedestrian access will be provided from the Lake Biltmore property to the south and the Podium to the west. 6) The trees on the podium need to be large and provide screening. DISCUSSION: 1) East Side Setback. The applicant elected not to increase the side setback from 10 feet to 15 feet along the front part of the building. Staff feels the increased setback is necessary given the narrow separation between the Chicago Title building and the proposed project and the project's much larger mass. Chicago Title is set back 5 feet from the common side property line and a 15 foot setback on the project site would create a 20-foot building to building separation. The increased setback will not diminish the hotel room count, just make some of the 'larger rooms smaller in size. Staff has added this setback condition to the model resolution. 2) Visibility of Third Levd Trellis. The trellis columns are clad in plaster to blend with the hotel wall and mimic the ground floor columns. The rendering also shows flowering vines on the trellis, which are not depicted on the conceptual landscape plan. A more detailed landscape plan has been required in the conditions of approval. 3) Wainscoating Band. The height of the wainscoating band has been increased to the first stucco "waist band" on the three-story portion of the building. Note that the increased wainscoat height was not carried over tc} the sides or rear (2-story portion) of the building. Staff has no problem with the waincoating as shown. 4) Size of North and West Entrances. The large, arched entries are disproportionate in size to other building features and were not revised on the latest set of plans. Staff recommends that they be reduced in size or augmented with a trellis feature to reduce the perceived size of the entries. A condition has been added to the conditions of approval. 5) Midblock Pedestrian Access, Staff is interested in creating midblock access for pedestrians to Stevens Creek Boulevard. On sheet no. 2 of the plan set, the applicant shows a gate on the west (Podium) side of the building, but staff is more interested in creating Stevens Creek Blvd. access for the Lake Biltmore apartment residents to the rear. A condition has been added to the conditions of approval requiring Design Review Committee approval of pedestrian access features to the plans. 6) Perimgter Landscaping. Selection of the right kind of tree is important since they will be growing in containers on top of the parking garage and must be of large enough size and shape to screen views from the hotel to the apartments and not block the emergency vehicle access on the abutting westerly parcel. A more detailed landscape plan has been required in the conditions of approval which will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. 7) Revision in Front Setback. The architect has corrected errors in his site plan that have reduced the front building setback from the originally proposed 60 feet to 35 feet to the face of curb. While the revised setback still meets the minimum from setback requirement for the Heart of the City Specific Plan, there is also a General Plan design. policy (Figure 2-D, p. 2-27) of maintaining a 1:I ratio of building height to setback from curb along most of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The setback is 35 feet; the building height is 39 feet. Staffis also more concerned about the visual mass of the building when it is set back 25 feet closer to the street than expected. The shorter setback also reduces the driveway run into the underground parking garage. The resulting steep angle of the driveway and motorist visibility of the sidewalk are of concern to staff. Staff is recommending that the front setback be increased an additional, minimum 13.5 feet to address the general plan design policy and visual mass concerns. More front setback, 11.5 feet (25 feet total) may be needed to address driveway ramp steepness. This increase in setback would be achieved by dropping 4 hotel rooms (13.5 feet of setback) or 8 hotel rooms (25 feet of setback) from the rear of the building. The applicant will need to demonstrate to staff that the ramp can be designed properly before the actual increased setback is determined. The rear setback WOuld remain at a minimum of 20 feet. 8) Sanitary Sewer Capacity. Note that this development, as well as other new projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard east of De Anza Boulevard, are subject to conditional approval by the Cupertino Sanitary District. This area is experiencing potential sanitary sewer capacity 'problems and all new development, aside from new single family residences, are liable for funding a capacity study and proportional payment of any new infrastructure. 9) Development Allocation. The General .Plan new hotel development allocation is 361 rooms (Kimpton Hotel already deducted). This 77-room hotel, with a deduction of 4 to 8 hotel rooms for front setback, will leave a remaining balance of 288 to 284 rooms. Vallco Fashion Park may propose more than 288 hotel rooms, so the availability of hotel rooms will be addressed at the time Vallco applies for a use permit. Enclosures: Use Permit Model Resolution Specific Plan Development Exceptions Model Resolution Exhibit A: Report to Planning Commission dated 6/26/00 Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~~_.~. g:planningdpclreportJpcdp¢01 u00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: l-U-00, 2-EA-00 Agenda Date: June 26, 2000 Applicant: Pinn Brothers (the Adobe Inn Hotel) Property Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residental Zoning Designation: P(Heart of the City) " Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Heart of the City Exceptions required Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration Application Summary: Use Permit to construct a new 77 room, (47,000 square foot) hotel on a parcel currently occupied by a 4,000 square foot restaurant/lounge (Adobe Lounge) located on Stevens Creek Boulevard east of the Cupertino City Center. The hotel is proposed to be 2-3 stories (with below grade parking), small meeting rooms and a subsurface parking garage. The hotel has no restaurant or bar. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) Review the application 2) Provide the applicant with design direction, and 3) Continue this item to the July 8, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to consider this use permit with the Heart of the City Exceptions. BACKGROUND: The proposal is located on the South side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (on the former Adobe Lounge property) approximately mid-block between Blaney Avenue and Torre Avenue. This site is planned as a mixed use commercial, office and residential area under the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Adjacent uses are residential to the south and west and commercial to the east and north. StatTbelieves this is an appropriate location for a small hotel because it is adjacent to the City Center and near North De Anza Boulevard. Pinn Brothers (the Ado,,e Inn Hotel) June 26, 2000 Page 2 Net Parcel Size: Building Parking Garage Meeting Rooms: "Great" Room.: Hotel Rooms: Parking: Height: PROJECT DATA AND DESCRIPTION: .84 acres (36,740 square feet) 44,120 Sq. Ft. (excluding parking garage) 30,300 Sq. Ft. 1,350 Sq. Ft (2 rooms) 1,300 Sq. Ft 77 80 spaces 43 ft. to top of the northern building element 35 ft. to top of south guest wing FAR (N.I.C. garage): 1.2 Description: The two-three story hotel is proposed to be placed over a subsurface parking garage. The garage is accessed directly from Stevens Creek Boulevard. The building is arranged with a three-story entry feature with a rear two-story guest wing. The first floor guest rooms are adjacent to the podium level plaza which will contain perimeter plantings to soften the view of the hotel from the adjacent uses. Setback and height exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan are required. The front portion of the building is setbaCk well beyond the minimum, required front setback but does not meet the side setbacks (see setback table). The front setback is larger to accommodate the ramp dimensions and slope access to the garage. Setback Table Building Area Front (curb) West Side East Side R&ar Required Provided Required Provided Required Provided Required Provided Front 3-story 35 60 18 ' 1'0 18 10 'N/A N/A portion Rear 2-Story N/A N/A 13 15 13 15 39 20 guest wing I' Building height in the Heart of the City is limited to 36 feet with an additional 5 feet for the subsurface parking garage for a total allowed height of 41 feet. The proposal has a maximum height of 43 feet, hence a 2 foot exception is required for the front 3-story portion of the building. The Heart of the City allows exceptions up to 45 feet, if the exception criteria can be met. The building equals a height of 35 feet to the top of the rear 2-story guest wing, which is consistent with the Heart of the City plan. The distances of the proposed hotel building from the buildings located on adjacent parcels is as follows: · South to the living units at the Lake Biltmore Apartments: 20 + 90 = 110 feet · East to existing (Chicago Title) commercial office building: 10 = 10 feet · West to the 3-4-story Podium apartments 10 +20 = 35 feet Pinn Brothers (the Adooe Inn Hotel) June 26, 2000 Page 3 Building Form/Mass The hotel is an elongated rectangular shaped building, to fit the shape of the lot. It consists of a three-story front portion and a lower two-story rear guest room wing. The architectural design represents a traditional Spanish Mission style, similar to the recently completed Ernst and Young building. The City's architectural consultant, Larry Cannon, reviewed the plans with staff, and feels the plan needs further detailing and refinement to create a more cohesive architectural presentation. In particular, he felt the entry treatment is out of scale with the building and the building needs to better use mixed materials such as rock or brick elements. Staff will work with the applicant over the next two weeks to address Larry Cannon's comments. Environmental Review: The applicant prepared a traffic report that confirms there will be no significant reduction in service levels resulting from this development (see attached "Site Traffic Analysis... Cupertino Mixed Use Development and Adobe Inn Hotel"). The report was done for this site and a mixed development being planned at the north east comer of Blaney and Stevens Creek Boulevard on the existing P.J. Mulligan's site. Additionally, staff feels there will be no significant potential for neighborhood traffic from the hotel due to the project location. Enclosures: Applicant's Letter dated April 26, 2000 Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Site Traffic Analysis...Cupertino Mixed Use Development and Adobe Inn Hotel Comments from Santa Clara County Fire Department Comments from the Cupertino Sanitary District Plan Set Submitted by: Steve Piasekci, Director of Community Developme~ G:planning/pdreport/p¢/pc i u00 3 Construction Inc. April 26, 2000 Mr. Colin Jung City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Letter of Description for Adobe Inn 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Dear Mr. Jung, The proposed Adobe Inn Hotel is a two-story building with a partial penthouse level on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Totaling 77 rooms, the hotel will also provide two meeting rooms as well as two business centers for hotel guests. Off the hotel lobby is the "Great Room" which will accommodate a breakfast service in the morning and a guest reception area during afternoon and evening hours. The hotel rooms will provide a combination of regular rooms and enlarged suites. Also, provided on the penthouse level is an outdoor deck area covered with a wood trellis adjoining five suites and the exercise/spa facility. Underground parking for 80 vehicles is provided for both guest and employee parking. Surrounding the rooms and guest services areas on the first floor ground level is a continuous formally landscaped courtyard. The courtyard will include six fountain plaza areas of different designs separated by the formal gardens including outdoor seating, lighting, sculpture, tiled fountains, and tiled walkways. The building architecture, as suggested by the project name "Adobe Inn", is Spanish Mission Style. Utilizing two piece clay roof tile, stylized stucco finish walls, stucco "limestone" base, balconies with wrought iron railings, heavy wood trellis, and heavy wrought iron entry gates. 1475 Saratoga Ave., Suite 250' San Jose, CA 95129' 408 252 9131' Fax 408 252 2632 The combination of the building architecture, landscaped courtyards and plaza all culminate to create an "Old World" Spanish Inn of memorable qualities. Please feel free to contact us at our office if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Greg A. Pinn VP, Land Development CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10, 2000 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on May 10, 2000 at which time the Committee found that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment and; therefore, is recommending to the decision making body that a Negative Declaration be prepared. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: l-U-00, 2-EA-00 Pinn Brothers (The Adobe Inn Hotel) 28128 Stevens Creek Blvd. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use permit to demolish a restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot, 77 room hotel. FINDINGS OF TI-IE ENVIRONMlgNTAL REVIEW COM3tlITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. Director of Community Development g/erc/hEC2ea00 D AFT SITE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CUPERTINO MIXED US DEVELOPMENT and Adobe Inn Hotel Prepared for Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc. Prepared by PARSONS TRANSPORTATION Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 2000 GROUP Executive Summary This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the Cupertino Mixed-Use Development and the proposed Adobe Inn Hotel development, both located in Cupertino, California. The mixed-use project site is located in the northeast quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The development as proposed will contain approximately 6,000 square feet of office use, 5,600 square feet of specialty retail use, and 45 condominium/townhome units. The project will replace an existing 19,132 square feet of specialty retail/office use. Access to the site will be provided via one driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard and two driveways on Blaney Avenue. The Adobe Inn project is located just west of Blaney Avenue on Stevens Creek Boulevard. This development, as proposed, will contain 77 hotel rooms and 2 meeting rooms. Access to this site is provided via a primary driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both project site locations are shown on Figure 1. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the guidelines set forth by both the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Seven study intersections were evaluated utilizing the approved guidelines. Two of the seven key study intersections are designated CMP intersections as listed in Table ES-1. AM and PM peak-hour operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments obtained from the City of Cupertino. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project-generated traffic estimated for the proposed development. Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus background and project-generated plus expected future growth in addition to traffic volumes from the Cupertino City Center and Vallco Expansion developments. The traffic generated by the proposed project(s) was estimated by applying the appropriate vehicular trip generation rates to the proposed development size. The trip generation rates used are those PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUi=~ INC. ES-t Executive Summary contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 6th Edition, Trip Generation Rate Manual, for office, retail, residential, and hotel uses. Based on the linear regression equations presented in Trip Generation, a .6,000 s.f. office development, a 5,000 s.f. specialty retail development, and 46 condominium / townhome units are estimated to generate 465 daily trips with 31 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 44 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Using the same source, a 77-room hotel is estimated to generate 634 daily trips, 43 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips. These trips were assigned to the roadway system based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadways and the relative locations of complimentary land uses. Table ES-J Key Project Intersections No. Intersection CMP Intersection? 1 Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard Yes 2 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Torte Avenue No 3 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue No 4 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue No 5 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road No 6 Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road Yes 7 Blaney Avenue and ForeSt Road .... No Level of service calculations were conducted for existing, background, project, and cumulative conditions using information provided by the City of Cupertino (existing counts, approved trip inventory volumes, lane configurations, and signal phasing). Level of service calculations for all study intersections were conducted using the TRAFFIX computer sof~ware package, the method approved by the CMP and by the City of Cupertino staff. The results of these calculations are presented in Table ES-2. Level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B of this report. All intersections, including CMP intersections, are project.ed to operate at acceptable levels based on both CMP and City of Cupertino standards during each peak-hour and under all scenarios. Therefore, the results of the analysis indicate that the project will not have any significant adverse impact on the study intersections. Queuing analysis and field observations also indicate that the project will not have a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network or study intersections. In addition, the project will also have no significant impact on transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities within the project study area. An analysis of the parking requirements reveals:that under the City of Cupertino's shared parking guidelines, the mixed-use development has 13 fewer parking stalls than required. The conditioned cross-access with the adjacent office development will provide sufficient overflow parking capacity. The Adobe Inn Hotel development meets the requirement of providing one space per room but could potentially be short in providing employee parking. Three spaces are allocated for employee parking given 100% occupancy of the hotel. An exception to the ordinance may be required. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP~ INC. ES-2 Table ES-2 Intersection Level of Service Executive Summary Existing Conditions Background Conditions Project Conditions Change Impact Cumulative Conditions Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Deter- Avg. Intersections Avg. Cdt. Avg. Crit. Avg. Crit. Crit. Crit. minstion Avg. Crit. Del. Crlt. Del. Del. Crit. Del. Del. Crit. Del. WC Del. Del. Crit. Del. Peak LOS (sec.) ViC (sec.) LOS (sec.) ViC (sec.) LOS (sec.) V/C (sec.) Change Change Impact? LOS (sec.) V/C (sec.) I De Anz. a Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard AM D+ 27 0.773 27.3 D+ 27 0.773 27.3 D+ 27.3 0.78 27.6 0.007 0.3 no D+ 27.9 0.606 28.4 PM D 31.8 0.791 32.5 D 31.8 0.791 32.5 D 32 0,794 32.6 0.003 0.1 no D 32.8 0.82 33.4 2 Torte Avenue/Stevenson Creek Boulevard AM B+ 6.6 0.289 4.6 B+ 6.6 0,289 4.6 B+ 6.6 0,293 4.5 0.004 -0.1 no B 7.8 0.338 6.8 PM B 8.1 0.268 5.4 B 8.1 0.268. 5.4 B 8.2 0.28 5.8 0,012 0.4 no B 9.5 028 7.7 3 Blaney Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard AM B 10.5 0.41 10.1 B 10.5 0.41 10.1 B 10.7 0,425 10.4 0.015 0.3 no B 10.7 0.433 10.5 PM C 17.3 0.582 19.5 C 17.3 0.582 19.5 C 17.6 0.584 19.4 0.002 -0.1 no C 17.6 0.606 19.4 4 Portal Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard AM B+ 6 0.393 6.2 B+ 6 0.:'~93 6.2 B+ 6 0.396 6.1 0,003 -0.1 no B+ 6 0.401 6.2 PM B 8.9 0.389 6.2 B 8.9 0.389 6.2 B 8.8 0.392 6.2 0,003 0 no B 8.8 0.409 6.2 5 Perimeter RoacFStevens Creek Boulevard AM A 4.7 0.314 4.6 A 4.7 0.314 4.6 A 4.7 0,318 4.6 0,004 0 no A 4.7 0.321 4.7 PM B 9.2 0.413 8.9 B 9.2 0.413 ,8.9 El 9.1 0.417 8.8 0.004 -0.1 no B 9 0.433 8.6 6 Wolf Road-Miller/Stevens Creek Boulevard AM D+ 27.1 0.592 30.1 D+ 27.1 0.592 30.1 D+ 27.1 0.596 30.3 0.004 0.2 no D+ 27.2. 0.602 30.3 PM C- 23.1. 0.641 23.6 C- 23.1 0,641 23.6 C- 23.2 0,643 23.6 0.002 0 no C- 23.7 0.7 29.1 7 Blanoy Avenue/Forest Road AM D 25.6 1.38 44.3 D 25.6 1.38 44.3 D 25.6 1.38 44.3 0 0 no D 25.5 1.38 44.3 PM A 2.8 0.46 1.4 A 2.8 0.46 1.4 A 2.8 0.46 1.5 0 0.1 no A 2.8 0.46 1.7 FIJU::ISOI~iS 'FFIAJ~OFITATION I~I:IOUFI FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone) · '(408) 378-9342 (fax) CONTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMff NUMBER PLAN REVIEW' NUMBER HLENUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS 00-1061 01 -U-O0 CODE~SEC. SHEET UFC 903.3 as amended by C_MC 16.40.230 NO.1 REQUIREMENT Review of a proposed new 47,000 square foot, 77 room hotel. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 4,000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains ar fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM or, .in excess of two stories or 35 feet in height or, in excess of 10,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13. * see additional.underground,, fire service comment. * A copy of the fire department approved' underground fire service drawings shall be provided to the appropriate water company for record purposes, prior to installation. To prevent engineering delays, the underground contractor shall submit to the fire department 3 sets of shop drawings designed per NFPA Std. 24, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval ASAP. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS SECJFLOOR ] ~ NAME OF PROJECT OCCUPANCY LOAD CONST. TYPE PERMITTEE EARTHSTAR DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION Commercial Development IDATE PA Hokanson, Wayne ADOBE INN LOCATION 20128 Stevens Creek B1 A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 (phone), (408) 378-9342 (fax) CDNTROL NUMBER BLDG PERMff NUMBER P,~.sv,~,,.,.EE. 0 0 - I 0 6 1 ., ~.u,,.~ 01-U-O0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/~EC. UFC Section 5 SHEET NO. I REQUIREMENT Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems but, can be no less than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 2,000 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. This flow shall be available from any two fire hydrants on or near the site, so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet. As agreed in a meeting with this department on 3/9/00, the following additional features will be included within the design: 1) A full NFPA 13 (not 13R) sprinkler system shall be installed throughout including attic spaces. 2) Quick response sprinkler heads will be installed in all of the guest rooms. 3)A standpipe system shall be installed in the stairwells. 4) An automatic and manual firc alarm system (room detectors may be stand-alone style) shall be installed throughout. The applicant shall advise this office immediately should there be any deviation of the above items. Landscape proposals shall not allow encroachment of foliage into the 20' emergency vehicle access easement which exists along the Western border of the property. City PLANS SPECS NEW PM[X. AS ~ I-I 1-1 0 12) 0 SECJFLOOR NAME OF PROJECT OGCUPANCY [ CON~T. TYPE LOAD ] DE~GRIPTION PERMIITEE EARTHSTAR DESIGN AND Commercial Development DATE PAGE 5/8/2000 2 oF I"~ Hokanson, Wayne LOCATION ADOBE INN 20128 Stevens Creek B1 A California Fire Protection District serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los C-atos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga DISTRICT MANAGER-ENGINEER MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. DISTRICT COUNSEL ATKINSON · FARASY~ ~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY 20065 8TEVENE CREEK BOULEVARD, BLDG. C CUPERTINO, CA 96014-2350 PHONE (408)253-7071 · FAX (408)283-5t73 BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR, JO6EPH F. ~R{~, P~E$1OENT ~ G. ~I'OKE~, SECRETARY May 5, 2000 File: CuSD - MOP Planning Department-Cupertino Colin Jung Community Development Department - Planning City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Subject: Hotel Name: Pinn Brothers (Adobe Inn Hotel) Address: 28128 Stevens Creek Boulevard APN: 369-03-001 Planning Application No: 01-U-00 Dear Colin: The Cupertino Sanitary District has reviewed the plans for the proposed improvements and has the following comment: The existing building is connected to the sanitary sewer and the proposed improvements do significantly effect District sanitary sewer facilities. Developer will have to participate in a flow study to determine feasibility for service to the site. Storm water from surface or roof drains, other general surface runoff water or condensate from any residential I-IVAC equipment shall not be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Yours very truly, MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. District Manager-Engineer by Cad H. Beckham CriB:Nv cc: EarthStar Design & Development /O'-az CITY OF CUPF~ITNO Dcpsrtmcnt of Community Developmcm 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 408-77?-3308 PROJECT DP. SCRIlVrlON: Project Title Project Location Project Description Environmental Setting of £,'t7 PROIECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) O. ~,~' Building Coverage ~.% Exist. Bu!~din~-S.f. Propos,d Bldg./:,5/~. s.f. Zone ~ {:' G.P. DesignationCo~,,s.: r,--.h~,\ [ Assessor s Pnrcel No..~6~ - o 3 - o_~.~! e.,.~ ,=,,.-1 ~.~,'ch~ If Residential, Units/Gross Acre Total~ Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Che~k) Monta Vista Design Oukl~linm N. De Anza Conceptual r'-'] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [-"-1 S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Storey Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Areai7.o~ s.f. FAR ~. ~.c~ Max. Employees/Shift Parking Required 8o Parking Provided RO Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES ~ NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cupertino General Plan, Land Us~ El~nent 2) Cupcnino C-encrai Plan, Public Sa/'ety Element 3) Cupertino General Plan, HonsinS Element 4) Cupertino General Plan, Transportation Element 5) Cupertino General Plan, £nvironmentai l~anur~s 6) Cupertino General Plan, Appendix A* Hillside Development 7) Cupertino General Plan, Land Use Map 8) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Ridgeline Policy 10) Cupertino General Plan Constraint Maps C~.RTmO SOUSCE uocu~rs 11) T~ ~on o~ 77~ 12) Ci~ ~ ~o~hy M~s 13) ~u~ C~nid~" (~lfomia ~ ~, 1976) 14) ~olosi~ ~ (si~ ~cific). 15) P~K ~inn~ 1277 16) Zoning M~ ! 8) Ci~ Noise ~d~ C) CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupertino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Recreation DeparUnent 22) Cupertino Water Utility D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23) County Planning Department 24) Adjacent City's Planning Department 25) County Depa~nental of EnvimnmcntaJ Health :26) Midpuniusula R~gionai Open Sp~.e Disn'ict 27) County Parks and Rgc~ation Dcparm~nt 28) Cupertino Sanitary Dls~ict :29) Fremont Union High School Disu'ict 30) Cupe~ino Union School District 31) Pacific Gas and Elec~ic 32) Santa Clara County Fire Deparm~cnt 33) County Sheriff 34) CALTRANS 35) County Trausportstion Agent' 36) Santa Clara Valley Wa~r District E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37) BAAQMD Survcy of Contaminant Excesses 38) FEMA Flood Msps/SCVWD Flood Msps 39) USDA, 'Soils of Santa Clara County" 40) County Hazardous Wast~ Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resotm:es Inventory 42) Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel t,cak Site 43) CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List F) OTHER SOURCES 44) Project Plan ~t/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnaissance 46) Expcrienen with Project of similar s 47) ABAG Pmjectious Series 1) Complete all information requested on thc Initial Study Cover page. !,RA,VE BLANK SPACES ONLY WRRN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4) When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the' question to which they relate. 5') Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit 6) Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the C~. - Project Plan Sot of L~islative Do~umunt (1) cop~ . Loaation map with site dendy mar~d (wl~n applicable) 3) If you check any of the 'WES' response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining thc potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. m IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant ;Significant :umulativc SOURCE Significant (Mitigation(No NO Proposal) MRig~ion Pru~sed) .4,) LAND USE GENERAL PLAN 1) Require a change from the land u.~ 1,7,8 d.ig..io.~o, the,~b~e~si, inthe ~ 0 0 F1 General Plan? : ' 3) Rcquir~ t change of an adopted stat-ment? 4) Result in substantial change in the : p~e. land-.eo, thes,.o, th.o, El O O O O · djoining properties? ,) Disrupt or divide the physical ~"] O O O O 7,12.22.41 configuration of an established neighborhood? B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD 1) Be located in an area which has ,-n~"form.jo, geo'o,'="~? E] O O O O 2) Be iocaled on or ~jacent to a Zone? 2 4) Bo located in an arc~ of mil shrink/swell, soil creep or revere 2,5.10 erosions)? ~) Cause substantial erosion or displacement, compaction or ovcrcoverin$ of mil either on-si~c or off- · site '/) Cause substantial change in topography erin a gruund surfn~ ~=='] O O O O feature? 10,39 8) Involve ~ons~ruction ora building. or greater? C) RESOUR~P~ · ': 1) Increase th~ existing r~noval r~, or for commeruizl purpo~ (including i~ such as rock, ~nd, ~ravei. u~e.~, min~r~ or top-mil)? ~y non-renewable natural ') Convert prime agri¢,.Itural land [~] 0 0 0 0 ',.39 (Clms I or II mils) to non-e~ricultoral usc or impair the ~ricultuml producliviiy of nearby prime agricultoml land? under th~ Willi~mson Am or an~ Open Sp~cc casement? WILL THE PROJECT... ~) Substantially affect any existing a~ricultural uses? 6) Bo iocalcd on. within or near a public or private recreation facility, park. wildlife prascrvc, public trail cithcr in existence already or planncd' for future implcmantation? D) SEwAGE/WATER QUALITY 1) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with severe drainfield performance limitations? ' 2) Result in a septic ficld being Iocamd within 50 fcct of a drainage swale or within 100 feet of any well. water course or water body? ... 3) Result m~ o~a sewer mom linc with capacity to serve new development? 4)Substantially dc§ratio surface or groundwa~r quality, or the public water supply, including but not limited to typical smnnweter poilunUmts (e.g. scdimant from consuuction. hydrocarbons and metals from vchiclc usc. nutrients and pesticides from landscaping maintenance, meUds md acidity f~om mining operations)? S)Be located in an area of water supply concern (such as iow fire flows)? 6)Change in thc quality of groand. waters through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban. indusuial or agricultural activities? ?)Require a NPDES permit for consuuction [Docs it disturb fivc (5) acres or more?]? E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING 1) Interfere substantially with ~round water recharge? 2) Substantially change the direction. rate or flow or quantity of ~round- waters, or wetlands either through direct additions or withdrawals, or excavationc? 3)Change thc absorption rates, draln~e patterns or the re, amount of surface runoff or wetland? 4) Involve & natural drainqe channel or sucambcd or water course such as to alter the locations, come or flow of its waters? S) Re located in a floodway or floodplain arc&? F) FLORA AND I?AUNA 1) Significantly effect fish. wildlife. reptiles or plant life by changing the diversity or numbers of existing species. or by introducing new species, or by restricting migration or movement? 2) Substantially reduce thc habitat arc& IMPACT NO ~iSfic~ Significant I Significant (Mitigation ] (No Proposed) ]' Mitigation I Proposed) Cumulative 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 .~ 0 0 0 0 ~1 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 mo SOURCE 7,~ 5, I0, 12,21,26 6,9 36J9.42 19, 20, 40 20,36,37 22 42' 2O 20,36 20,36,42 20,36 36,42 38 $,10 .IMPACT -~'rlLL THE PROJECT... ~Not Sisnifi~ant sisnificam :-mul~ivo SOURCE Si~ificant (Mitisation (No !~10 Proposed). ' Mitisation Proposed) 3~Cban,ethe~istin, h~i~food F~ O' O O ~.,0 source or nesting place for a rare or cndanscr~d species of plant or animal? 4) Involve cuttins, r~moval of G) TRANSPORTATION 1) Cause an increase in tntflic which is substantial in relation m the cxisting traffic load and capacity of thc sa'get [] ' 0 0 O O 4. 20.3~ system? 2) Cause any public or private sa'cci intersection to function below Level of 4,20 ;]) Incrc-,c traffic haz~ to ~es~,~. b,~l,s~ and v.,,c,.? F~ 4) Adversely affect access to commercial establishments, public buildin&s, schools, parks or other [~] O O O O 4,10 pedestrian oriented activity areas? ~) Cause a reduction in public - project site? &) Increase demand upon existing -~ vking facilities, or engender d~nand for ~] O O O O 15,16 ;w parking space? T) Inhibit use of alternative modes of usage? .. ti) HOUSING 1) Reduce thc supply of affordable housin, in the community, or r~sult in the [~ O O O O 3, 16 displacement of Perseus from their p ~.~.cnt home? 2) lnc~se the cost ofhousln8 in thc 3, 16 ofhousin~ ~ found in the 3) Crcat~. substantinl demand for ~ ~ O O Fl Fl 3, 16.4, housin$? l) Iff, ALTtl AN]) SAI~'TY disposal or manufacture of potentially - - 2) Involve ~ of~xplusion or other fonm of unconUollcd ~l~usc of haz-,dous subetanc~? ,~ ~volv. th.~ovalo.~n~.d k--9 O O F9 [3 33.4~43 use of any existing, or installation of ,.any new under, round chemical or fuel :orase tank? dans~ S) Employ technology which could adversely affect public safety in the ~ Fl O FI O 40.43 event of a btealcdown? -WILL THE ~ROJECT... ' ' SOUl'CE Not Signifi~nt Significant Cumulative Significant (Mitigntiun (No NO Proposed) Mitigation . Proposed), 6) Provide breeding'grounds fo~ J) AIR QUALITY 1) Creat~ objectionable odors? F=~ 0 0 0 0 40,43 2) Violat~ any ambient air quaiity standards, contribute substantinlly to an [~ O O O 'O 5,37,42 existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive r~ceptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants? 14) NOI~E 1) Increase substantially the an~bient noise cn¥imnment of the project vicinity during ~ons~'uction of the project? 2) P.~sult in sustained increase in vicinity followi, ng construction of thc project 3) Result in sustained noise levels and duration limits contained in the Cit./'s Noise Ordinance? L) AESTHETICS 1) Be at variance with applicable design guidelines? :~) Cream an ~stheticaily offcnsi~/¢ si. op¢. ,o public view? [] [3 0 0 0 1.,, 3) Visually inl~ude upon an area of na,~ scenic ~i,ies? visible from thc valley floor?. hillsides from residential areas or public lands? 6) Adversely Lffect thc architectut~ business district? ],l 7.1 '/) Produce glare from -,rtificial lighting soumes upon adjacent propcrtius !.1 ti or public roadways? ~ ENERGY 1 ) Involve thc us~ of unusually large ~-~ O O [3 O 5,31 quantities of fossil fnels or non- r~ncwablc energy souroes? 2) ltemove vegetation providing summer shade or wind-breaks to an ~-q O O O O 11,19 existing or proposed building? 3) Significantly ~educc solar access to anad~=.,~ul,d,~g, pub,icre~tion !~1 O O O 0 ' '''~ space or private yard? N) HISTORICAL/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL l) Be located in an a~t of potential archaeological or paleontological ~ O 0 0 C'] 10.42 resources? ~ IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT... ~ot ;i~nifl~ant Significml Cumulative SO'CE Signifi~ [Mitig~on ~o NO ~po~d) Mi~g~ion ~ud) 2) ~ ~v~ly a pm~ of historic !, 10,41 cx~t m p~ of a scientific study? O) PUBLIC SER~CES AND 1) ~duc~ ~iid w~ in sub~fi~ · c lo.on, dh~bution, or dc~i~ of · c h~ ~pul~ion of~ ~? 3) Ca~ subs~fi~ imp~ upo~ or inc~~ ~ need fo~ : following c~gori~: MANDATORY FI~I~G$ OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Completed by City Staff) WILL THE PROJECT... Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish thc habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periodsof_Califomia's.history or prehistory? Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals? .. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of pa. st projects, other current projects, and probable future projects) YES NO 4. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions heroin, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data, hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, fi.om the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature. Print Preparer's Name ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) IMPACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] Geologic/Seismic Hazard [] Resources/Parks [] Housing ~ Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding Flora & Fauna [] Transportation [] Historical/Archaeological [] Health & Safety [] Air Quality ~ Noise [] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] Aesthetics _1~ ~e b~is of ~is ~ifi~ Study, ~e ~v~en~ Review Co~i~ee ~RC) Fin~: ~at ~e proposed project CO~D NOT have a si~ific~t effect oc &e environmmg ~d gcommends ,~at a ~GA~ DEC~ON be ~t~. ~at al~ou~ ~e project could have a si~ifi~t effect on ~e env~om~g no si~ific~t effect will occur ~beca~e mitigation me~es ~e ~cluded ~ &e project. ERC recommen~ ~at a NEGA~VE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOP~T be prepared. ,9 Staff EvaIuator C.'~"~ .. .... ..~,---o _ EKC Chairp~raon~"-~ g/planninlAntstdy4.doc George & Mary Monk 19985 Price Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014-3338 EXHIBIT B July 6, 2000 Mr. Bert Viskovich City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino CA 95014 Dear Bert: I raised the topic of traffic at a recent Planning Commission meeting related to the new Adobe Hotel, and was directed to traffic studies relating to the Adobe and Kimpton hotel projects for my answers. I have reviewed the studies, which seem to indicate that: 1. The traffic will further deteriorate conditions at the De Anza & Stevens Creek junction. This will logically force more traffic onto Rodriguez, Pacifica, Silverado & Blaney. 2. The traffic studies cemered on the major intersections on Stevens Creek and De Anza, and confimaed that these intersections could handle the additional volme withom becoming overly "gridlocked", but gave no thought to traffic calming on any streets. 3. The study clearly assumes increased traffic on side streets through the conclusion on Page v in the Fehr & Peer Associates traffic study "...the circulation system within the Cupertino City Center should adequately serve project-generated traffic volumes" Before these projects get too far along, could we have a traffic study of volumes and speeds on Rodriguez, Pacifica, Silverado, Torte & Blauey to measure against established norms and assess what traffic calming is appropriate, before it gets out of hand. Regards ~George M. Monk Cc: Planning Commissioners (Con', Doyle, Kwok, Stevens, Harris) Traffic Operations Analysis of Adobe Inn By Barton - Aschman Associates July 10, 2000 Trip Generation 1 77 hotel rooms 2 meeting rooms 2 43 A.M. peak hour trips 3 47 P.M. peak hour trips 4 No pass by Traffic Operations · No significant queuing of intersections except on De Anza at Stevens Creek All intersections operating at LOS D or better for existing, background, project and cumulative scenarios · No queue spillbacks at intersections · Adequate site access and circulation · No neighborhood traffic impact · · · Project Scenario Intersection LOS Hour LOS I-bur LOS De Anza at St e~'~s Or~ St e~er~ Creek at Torre St e~~s Creek at B laney Ste~ Creek at Portal Ste~er~ Q'~ at Pedn~ter Sl:e~ Creek ~ Wolfe Bl aney at Forest D+ D B+ B B C B+ B A B D+ C- D A Parking Operations Proposed 80 parking spaces Weekday parking demand 41 parking spaces City Zoning Ordinance requirement one space per room one space per employee StafFs Conclusion · No significant impact on traffic or parking Planning Commission Minutes ~ June 26, 2000 for a tentative map at a later date. Mr. Piasecki suggested that it could be handled by adding a condition that the applicant shall process a final map prior to thc issuance of Mr. Jim design of the lC that thc applicant held-in-common Mr. Yee and Ms. Gil Group, architects, referred to the site plan and reviewed the location and project. Responding to the concern about the tentative map, he indicated intending to sell the project as for-sale condominiums. The reference to the driveway and common open space held by thc townhouse homeowners. uestions relative to the design elements of the project. Chair Stevens opened the for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Doyle said that thc was a vast improvement from the previous submittals. He expressed concern that when the process, that the exceptions created or precedence setting are well understood to reoccurrence the next time. He said that he assumed because of thc commercial site on one ;, the setbacks and visual intrusion were not-major issues. He said they had discussed thc parcels coming into the FARs of .45 to .55, and the project is .59, but the merits of thc arc~ and detailing offset thc excess. He expressed concern for future ones with .60 FAR. Mr. Piasecki commented that the project sets a can be replicated on the properties to the south. because they are independent owners with individual Stelling Road of duet units, which access will need to be coordinated Ms. Gil pointed out that the Wherehouse building was ¢ Plan was implemented, and the future units next to the proposed an exception. the Heart of the City would have to apply for MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 31-EA-99 Com. Kwok Corns. Corr and Harris Passed 3-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: Com. Doyle moved to approve Application 16-U-99, including the the applicant shall process a final map approval prior to issuance of permits, and that the pedestrian access not be required Com. Kwok Coms. Corr and Harris Panned 2 0 0 that ng Application No.: Applicant: Location: l-U-00, 2-EA-60 Pinn Brothers (The Adobe Inn Hotel) 28128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use Permit to demolish a restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot, 77 room hotel. Continued from June 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 26, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a Use Permit to demolish the existing restaurant and construct a 47,000 square foot, 77 room hotel, with a subsurface parking garage. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the application as outlined in the attached staff report. The city's architectural advisor, Larry Cannon, has recommended that the front portion of the building needs additional work to reduce the mass and break up the building with more interesting building materials. Staff recommends .opening the public hearing, hear the applicant's presentation, receive input from the public, and provide the applicant with direction regarding the design issues, and continue the application to the July l0th Planning Commission meeting, which will allow the Heart of the City exceptions to have been advertised and be considered along with the use permit. Mr. Jim Starkevitch, architect, referred to the architectural renderings and reported that additional stonework was added to the bottom base of the building at the suggestion of the architectural consultant. He said there were 80 parking spaces in the underground parking garage, with two stories of hotel rooms, and a penthouse area with 7 additional suites on the Stevens Creek side. He added that the' courtyard included 6 fountain areas, various sculptured pieces, and seating area. Chair Stevens opened the meeting for public input. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, said he supported the two hotel developments, but expressed concerns about the traffic impacts in the residential areas, as a result of the increase in traffic from taxis, delivery vehicles, and rental cars. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, said that she had discussed the traffic issues with Mr. Viskovich, Director of Public Works, and he felt the development, because of the location, would not affect neighboring streets. Mr. Monk reiterated his concern about traffic, and said that benchmark studies on Rodriguez, Blaney, Pacifiea, and Torre were needed relative to present volume and speeds to say definitively whether it will change in the future. Mr. Piasecki said that the traffic engineer could address the traffic impacts further. Com. Doyle asked that a chart be included in the next presentation, showing what the setback requirements .should be vs. the actuals; a traffic study of the adjoining neighborhood; and the effect of the trellis on the massing. He said he felt the project was appealing. Com. Kwok asked that the landscape plan be included in the next presentation, and that the applicant work with the consultant Larry Cannon on further refinement of the architecture. Chair Stevens said he concurred, especially that the adjoining properties and proposed developments, if they are known, be brought to their attention, but specifically the adjacent properties should be notified so that they can contribute to the overall plan of that area. He said he concurred with Com. Doyle's comment on the architecture, in that the trellis has a heavy look. He recalled that he originally stated that the area was set up with steps, with the apartment and hotel going away from that; and this project was yet another one going away, and he questioned what past plans if any, were going to be dismissed. Com. Doyle said he would like to have the real color chips available for the next presentation. Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 26, 2000 Chair Stevens said that as a result of comments, it appeared the Planning Commission looked at the project favorably, in that the proposal was well done, was acceptable to many staff and the architect for the most part; but they were seeking an overall plan Com. Kwok said the two foot height exception was acceptable and suggested that direction be given regarding the setbacks. Chair Stevens said that the setbacks are set up with the idea of knowing what the neighbors' are going to be also. The setbacks will need to be considered and reviewed. Mr. Piasecki addressed the setbacks, pointing out that the reason why they included the relationship to existing, buildings below the setback issue, was to point out that to the west of the property where the podium apartments are, there is a 20 foot emergency access easement, with an additional 20 feet of separation which helps on the west side. On the south side, they are next to the Lake Biltmore Apartments, with their driveway and carports in that placement, which accounts for the 110 feet between buildings. He said on the south side the setback relationship to residential is set up when adjoining single family, and there are homes next door; in this case there are driveways and carports immediately next, and quite a distance before the next apartment unit. He said the applicant has expressed a willingness to provide for public access to this site. Mr. Piasecki noted that the consultant felt the arched glass areas facing onto Stevens Creek were overdone and needed to be studied further. Chair Stevens said that he was not opposed to the height exception; however, the public voiced their opinion height exception approvals, and he expressed caution that a plan existed and it should be met. Mr. Piasecki said that they met the 1-1/2:1 setback ratio. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Doyle moved to continue Applications l-U-00 and 2-EA-00 to the July 10, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Coms. Con' and Harris Passed 3-0-0 RE?ORT O1' TItE ?I~Q~OMMISSION: mmeviewCom : UO rcpo ~i~g ~m~j~ee: ~o meeting held Mayor's Bre~f~t: It w~~ postpon~he next Planning Commission meeting when all commissionem would be present. on thc t the issue was listed on ~e work pro.m, ~d tentatively scheduled for the August 14th Planning -C;,,~,.~cn mzzt~ng. CITY OF City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: (408) 777-3110 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF PARKS AND RECREATION Summary AGENDA ITEM NUMBER /5~ AGENDA DATE July 17, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE: Request from Stephen C. Porter for a permit to use sound amplifying equipment in the amphitheater at Memorial Park on Sunday, July 30, 2000, for a wedding ceremony. BACKGROUND: Mr. Porter, a private non-resident, is requesting an exclusive use permit for amplified sound in Memorial Park pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 13.04.120(I). This code states: "no person in a park shall do any of the following: (I) use any system for amplifying sounds whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured." Our permit information, however, does not currently reflect this prohibition. Mr. Porter has submitted the attached letter explaining his position and requesting Council approval to use amplified sound during his son's marriage ceremony. The code provides the applicant the fight to appeal to the City Council. An exclusive use permit for a park is granted for non-profit organizations presenting community events in a park. These community events are co-sponsored with the City. The City has the responsibility of monitoring the amplified sound levels. Historically, any amplified sound by a private resident or non- resident during use of any park facility has been prohibited. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Council deny request for an exclusive use permit for use of sound amplifying equipment by Stephen G. Porter in the amphitheater in Memorial Park on July 30, 2000. SUBMITTED BY Christine Hanel Recreation Supervisor Distribution: Stephen C. Porter APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper July 5, 2000 Stephen C. Porter 14395 Sycamore Ave. San Martin, CA 95046 (408) 683-2002 email: scporter~mail.com CL!PERTII',.IO CITY CI_ERK Ms. Kim Smith, City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Smith, Please put the following item on the agenda for the next city council meeting: REQUEST FOR PERMIT TO USE SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT AT MEMORIAL PARK Request by Mr. and Mrs. Stephen C. Porter for a permit to use sound amplifying equipment in the amphitheater at Memorial Park on Sunday, July 30, 2000, for a wedding ceremony, as provided by section 13.04.120(I) of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The proposed use is for the purpose of providing soft wedding-appropriate classical music and amplifying the voices of the judge, bride, and groom so that persons seated in the amphitheater may hear them over the ambient noise. The proposed use will be for less than 30 minutes at approximately 3PM and the sound levels will be limited to be in compliance with section 10.48.052 of the code. 'Stephen C. Porter 13.04.020 Exception is made for baby carriages, wheel- chairs, and vehicles in the service of the City parks. I. "Nature and/or rural preserve" means a park so designated by the City Council pursuant to Section 13.04.201. (Ord. 710 (part), 1975; Ord. 531 § 2, 1972) 13.04.030 Compliance required. No person shall enter, be, or remain in any park or building of the City unless he complies with all of the regulations set forth in this chapter applicable to such park or building. (Ord. 531 § 3, 1972) 13.04.040 Park and/or building permit-- Required. T~e-'City's parks and)~r buildings shall be made available for the exclusive use of persons and groups subject to the issuance of a permit by the City ManagerJ[No exclusive use of any park and/or buildings-lbr pre-advertised assemblies or groups may be made without the issuance of a permit therefor. All applications for exclusive use must be signed or cosigned by an adult, which adult shall agree to be responsible for said exclusive use. No exclusive use permit will be granted if, prior to the time the application was filed, the City has scheduled a City-sponsored event at the same time and place as the activity proposed in the application, if the requested time and place has been pre-empted by a previously issued permit, or if cause for denial is found to exist. (Ord. 531 § 4, 1972) 13.04.050 Park and/or building permit-- Application. Any person applying for a permit hereunder shall ftc an application for such permit with the City Manager not less than fourteen days nor more than sixty days prior to the proposed use of said park and/or building. The City Manager, where good cause is shown therefor, shall have the authority to consider any application here- under which is filed less than fourteen days before the date such proposed activity is to be conducted. (Ord. 531 § 5, 1972) 13.04.060 Park and/or building permit-- ConIonts. '~ The application shall contain the following: -^. Name of me applxcant, me sponsoflnl[ organization, and the name of the person in charge of the proposed activity; B. The addresses and telephone numbers of those named in subsection A. above; C. The park and/or building, or room being applied for;, D. The starting time of the proposed activity; E. The finishing time of the proposed activity; E The number of persons expected; G. Additional City facilities requested, such as personnel, l:ables. ~' ii. The nature'-~f the proposed activity or ~ activities including equipment and vehicles to be } brought into the park, nature and duration of the l use of any amplified sound, whether speech or I. The form of application shall be provided or prescribed by the parks and recreation depart- ment. (Ord. 531 § 6, 1972) 348 13.04.070 Park and/or building permit-- Granting or denial. A. The City Manager shall grant or deny such application on or before four days after the filing of the application unless the time for such grant- ing or denial of the permit has been waived by the applicant in writing. The decision granting or denying said application shall be mailed to the applicant. B. The City Manager, in granting the applica- tion, may impose reasonable requirements and conditions concerning the use of the park or building by the applicant. C. The City Manager shall grant the applica- tion when the application contains information showing that the number of persons expected at the activity complies with the occupancy load of the building and upon granting such permit may 13.04.070 impose reasonable requirements and conditions concerning the use of said building with respect to time and duration of use and number of per- sons allowed in the building. D. The City Manager may grant the applica- tion for a building other than that applied for with the consent of the applicant in the event that a permit has already been issued for said building or that the building does not meet the occupancy load requirements. In the event that more than one application is received for one park or build- ing for use at the same time, the City Manager shall first act upon the application first received. E. The City Manager shall deny the applica- tion if he finds: 1. That the proposed activity or use will unreasonably interfere, or detract from the pro- motion of the public health, welfare, safety and recreation; 2. That the proposed activity or use is antici- pated to incite violence, crime or disorderly con- duct; 3. That the proposed activity or use will entail unusual, extraordinary, or burdensome expense or police operation by the City; 4. That the City has scheduled an activity at the same time and place as the activity proposed by the applicant; 5. That the application reveals that the City has no park which will accommodate the activity of the applicant; 6. That the applicant refuses to agree in writ- ing to comply with any and all conditions in the permit; 7. That the applicant fails to file a timely application, unless waived in writing by the City Manager. F. All denials for applications for permits shall specify the grounds therefor. (Ord. 531 § 7, 1972) 13.04.080 Park and/or building permit-- Appeal. The applicant shall have the fight to appeal the denial ora permit by the City Manager to the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be fried with the City Clerk within five days of the City Manager's mailing the notice of denial of the application .for a permit. The City Council shall act upon the appeal at its next meeting following receipt of notice of appeal and its decision shall be final. (Ord. 531 § 8, 1972) 13.04.090 Park and/or building permit--Fees and deposit. Upon the granting of a permit under this chap- ter, any fees or deposits required for the use of City personnel, building, equipment, and facili- ties shall be contained in said permit and said fees or deposits shall be paid by the applicant within ten days of the receipt of said permit. If said fees or deposits are not paid within said ten days, then, in that event, the permit therefor issued shall be null and void: A. Building fees and charges have been estab- lished and are regulated by the type of organiza. tion or individual usage proposed by the application and such fees are subject to change as required by personnel or City costs; B. Building deposit fees are refundable upon approval of the City Manager, providing no damage arises from applicant's usage. (Ord. 531 § 9, 1972) 13.04.100 Park and/or building permit-- Liability. Persons to whom an exclusive use permit has been granted must agree in writing to hold-the City harmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability for injury to persons or property ocurring as a result of the activity sponsored by the permittee and said person shall be liable to the City for any and all damage to parks, facili- ties, and buildings owned by the City, which results from the activity ofpermittee or is caused by any participant in said activity. (Ord. 531 § 10, 1972) 349 13.04.110 13.04.110 Park and/or building permit-- Revocation. ref.she Cit~-Mana-g-e'~-'~h-all-~a~ the'at~thofity to e a permit upon a finding that any use or activity is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any other ordinance of the City, or of any rule promulgated hereunder, or upon good cause shown. (Ord. 531 § 11, 1972) 13.04.120 Use,of park nrnnertv. in a ing: , A. Wilfully mark, deface, disfigure, injure, tamper with or displace or remove any buildings, bridges, tables, benches, fireplaces, railing, pav- ing or paving material, water lines or other public utilities or parts or appurtenances whatsoever, either real or personal; B. Litter, soil or defile restrooms. No person 'over the age of six years shall use restrooms and washrooms designed for the opposite sex; C. Dig or remove any soil, rock, stones, trees, shrubs or plants, down timber or other wood or materials, or make any excavation by tool, equipment, blasting or other means or agency. It is unlawful tO gather firewood or to collect within the park any type of plant material for the pur- pose of building a campfire; D. Construct or erect any building or struc- ture of whatever kind, whether permanent or temporary in character, or run or string any pub- lic service utility into, upon or across such lands, except on special written permit issued under this chapter; E. Go upon any lawn or grass plot, where prohibited by the parks and recreation depart- ment, and where such prohibition is indicated by proper and legible signs; E Damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant, or injure the bark, or pick the flowers or seeds of any tree or plant. Nor shall any person attach any rope, wire, or other contriv- ance to any tree or plant. No person shall dig in, or otherwise disturb any grass area, or in any way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefulness of any areas; G.. Climb any tree or walk, stand or sit upon any monuments, vases, fountains, railing, fences, or upon any other property not desig- nated or customarily used for such purposes; H. Hunt, molest, harm, frighten, kill, trap, chase, tease, shoot or throw missiles at any ani- mal, reptile, or bird; nor shall any person remove or have in his possession the young of any wild animal, or the eggs or nest or young &any reptile or bird. Exception to the foregoing is made in that snakes known to be deadly poisonous, such as rattlesnakes, or other deadly reptiles may be killed 9n sioht; ..... I. Use a-ny system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured. (Ord. 531 L2~ 12, 1972) 13.04.130 Behavior of persons in parks. No person in a park shall do any ofthe follow- ing: A. Bring to a park any alcoholic beverages, and no person may drink alcoholic beverages at any time in a park. Picknickers may bring to a park, and drink, beer or wine with their picnic lunches, so long as they conduct themselves in an orderly manner; B. Enter or remain in a park while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug; C. Have brought, or have in his possession, or set off, or otherwise cause to explode or discharge or burn, any firecrackers, torpedoes, rockets, or other fireworks or explosives of inflammable material, or discharge them or throw them into any such area from land or any highway adjacent thereto. This prohibition includes any substance, compound, mixture or article that, in conjunc- tion with any other substance or compound would be dangerous from any of the foregoing standpoints; D. No person having the control or care of any dog shall suffer or permit such dog to enter or remain in a park, unless posted for such use, and 350 P0~t-lt' Orajel fix transmittal re.mo 7671 'l~d. V I II Il ~lddr Park Rental Contract I Permit ity of Cupertino Parks and Recreatio~ Department 1C185 North Steli',ng Roa'~ Cupertmo, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777.3120 Fax: (408) 777-31 37 P'r~nte~: f2-Jun. O0. fO,'25AM U.~er. CHRISQ Co~ttact#: 7t0 User: CHRiSQ Date: 12-Jun.~ Status: Tentative City of Cupe~ino ~atks mnd ReCreaticr. Oepa~tmer,l here~y grants PORTER, MARTHA (hereinafter callecl the "L,censea') represented by MARTHA PORTER permission to u~,e the Faatitie5 at o~tane~l, sublect to the Terms aa0 Co~ditie,-ts of this Agreement conta~flad herein and a.ffacf~l ~ereto all ef whir. h f~rm paff ef thi~ Ag~llement. I) Purpose of Uae Private Event MARTHA PORTER II) Conditions of Uae RESERVATION SUBJECT TO DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL, V~RIFICATION OF FEES, · DA'rES, AND TIMES, UPON APPROVAL. A FIRM RENTAL CONTRACT / PERMIT WILL BE iii) Date and Tlmel of I Facility . Day M~mori~l Park - Arfl~rtlt~atre Sun iv) Addi~enll F~ v) Payment ~od MAILED TO YOU. # ofl~kmg~: 1 Starting: Sun 30 Jul O0 12:00 pm Ending: Sun 30 Jut 00 04:00 pm Start Date Start Time End Date End"Time Fee 30.Jul.00 1200 PM 30.Jul.00 04t00 PM 580.00 Expected; 120 Tax Total $O.r~ $0.00 ~ Total Applied Balance Current $0.00 $80.00 $0.00 In con$1deretir, n for tl~ ac2:~lDtance of my ~[~flon ~ Da~ic~6~ ~ or presen~ at t~ afcr~nt~one~ ~t~ity. I HEREBY WA;VE. RELEA~ AND DI~H~, t~ C~ge~no ~ anO R~reet~n D~nt. the Cu~e~ti~c ~bl~ Facilities Co[~o~tion, t~ Ci~ of Cu~ en~ t~ ~un~ ~ S~ta Clara. ~e~ ~nls a PQ emp~ye~ FR~ AND AG~ NST ANY AND ~L LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS, PER~L INJURY, INCLUDING D~TH, OR PROPERTY DA~GE THAT k~Y HAVE ARISEN OUT OF, OR tN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH, MY P~TICIPATION OR ORE.NCR AT THE AFORE~IONED E~NT, ~EN THOUGH THAT LIABILITY MAY HAVE ARISEN OUT OF NE~LI~NCE OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE PERSONS OR ENTITIES MENTIONED ABOVE THE HEREIN REL~SEO. BUT OD NOT RE L~SE TH E ~O~ MENTIONED PERSONS OR E NT~iE S FROM T HEi R F~UDULENT OR INTENTI~AL ACTS ~ eOR THEIR NEGLI~NT ~OLATI~SOF STATUTORY ~W. Furthermore, I o~arne ell responalimillty end agt~ IO ino~ni~ t~e Ci~ of CuDeRino for any loss. damage Or ~h may have b~n c~u~ ~ ~gl~e~e. or any a~, of any ~i~ connoted in any ~y ~h t~e a forementto~ event. I un~tmnd that t~ CRV of Cu~di~o d~ not ~arent~ ~l construO~n, ~nditi~. of safety of the [ac~t~ies or the equipemnt an~ ~at lh~s Relea~ Agr~ i& tO ~ Oi~l~ ~ ~, my ~i~ eno a~lgns. X: MAR~ PORTER, MARTHA 1439.5 SYCAMOI:~ AVE SAN MARTIN ~ ~0~ HOme e: 6~3-2002 Bu.~nes$ ~t' 97"2.~635~ Fax #: X: JULIA A, LAMY RECREATION SUPERVISOR City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department Date Approved: Page: t of 2 ' Ne ak~hollo beramSu exEx~pt ~r beer or ~ and cl~ it'~ wirlx a lllcaL I~G3 ~'e ~ allowed. Alcohol is ~ 1M~mi~ on or lrmmd the ~ field, b,,ni*_ courts, or p~ are~ (13.0~. 130.,6.) · Dtivtus of i~Ly~ cK3 cn pa,~d ~ ~ for unio~lh~ purposes is not pcrmimed. (l:5,0,i.li0) lmSh~ ~ bnnd ovtr any ~ &Na :~sRN~d for patcstrin ust B~ nn~ be pL~c~ pmptrly ia a bi~-~cle rack. 'I'a~ ~td ~ ~e I~. l:lin{ ou~h~ ~ound. ~ s~-_., u-mm u~ ia an~ poP, ion ,.~ ~,my be ~,~.-~I~ m ur. hem. ifkdby a kuI~ of suimble ~'ez{,.{l ~t ~ th,. 6 ii. ia Mar, h. The owu~r ami any ~ ~ausexl. hi any ~ Iry su~F. dog. ~,,m if oG a l~asl~ (13.04.130D) * N~ laadia& ~ kmepi~g or Ictmia[ Ioo~ af my ,,,i,~L repale or ~owl d any kind wiflu~ a pt, trait :u du so fn~u tl~ Dkecimr ofPafla t P,a:r~io~ (L~.04.1~0~ of* Cupertino Quinlan Commu~iW'Center 1Olg5 N. S[elling Rd, Cupertino, Ca. 9501 ~ (408) ';'77-3120 Fa~ (408) 777.3137 PAKI~S AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Dear Park Permitee; Bring this entire packet with you on the day of your event. You may be asked during the course of your event to show the copy of your permit. Encloszd is a copy of your approved permit for use of one of our city parks. Ptease take the time to read it over, to make sure that ali of the information is correct. Remer~ber, if you have reserved either Linda Vista or Memorial Park, electricity is not automatically provided. Electricity is available upon request only, for an additional fee 0f$16.$0 and must be requested at least one week in advance. Also enclosed ate two park reservation signs. The morning of ycur event, please post these signs on both sides of the picnic area that you have reserved. If you have a reservation that is on the weekend and for some reason the bathrooms are not open, or the electrictty that you have requested is not on, please call county communications at 299 - 2507 CnncelhtJon Policy: To cancel a permit and receive a refund, contact the Parks and Recreatior, Department, in writing, at least two working days prior to the date &the permit. No refunds will be issued if less than two working days notice is given. In case of a ramout on the day of your permit, pleas~ contact the recreation department by phone on the first working day following the date ofyour permit. No refunds will be given, if you contact us later than the first working day. (13.04.130A) Driving of private cars on paved park paths even for unloading and loading purpo~e~ is not permitted. If you have any questions, please coy. tact me at (408) 777 - 3120. Recreation Supervisor WELCOME TO CUPgRTINO L PICNIC FACILITY INFORMATION The City of Cupertino Parks and Portal Park Ca~tino Parka ami Rccrealion Recreation Department wolcomes you and 10225 N. Portal Ave. Department , Capacity. g0 people (40g) 777 - 3120 your family and fiieods to oor outdoor 10 ptcnictab]~ I Ig baxbecue pit recreational facilitiez. Wo aro c~rtain that 2 barbecue pits Very shady picnic area o~r v,,~y or p~nic, play~ou.d electricity ficld . Lrg. field suitable for volleyball spo~in~ axcas will enhance your event] ' ]oinda Vista Dr. near Columbus I We hope that this pamphlct will assis~ in ~ Linda Vista Park l} c p i,: OUTDOOR amwcrAg quest/oas you may h~v~~r i?.icnictabi~s FACILITY I regarding reservations of a facqity. In 2 Ig. serving tabir~ i USE addi6on, we hope that you will take4!-- W Patliailyshadypicnicarea INFOR ATION special pride and can: in using our ~ No soflballfldd - Lrg. fickI suitable for volleyball factlstics so that future visitors can I MemorialPark appreciate our beautiful p~rks. Maq~ Ave. at Stcvcn's Crock "Capacity: 113 people ! i r~tangular picni~ tables 5 round pk, nic tabka 2 stol. ba.'becue pits I Electricity available ( additional fee) ..~ Oaz~o available (pmnit tequ~d) AmphithzaLr~ available (permit available) . ~ Lt8. field suitable for v~lleyball Stephen C. Porter 14395 Sycamore Ave. San Martin, CA 95046 (408) 683-2002 email: scporter~mail.com CUPERTINO CITY CLERK July 11, 2000 Mr. Dave Knapp,.City Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Knapp, On June 12 my wife went to the Cupertino parks and recreation office to reserve the amphitheater at Memorial park on Sunday, July 30, for a marriage ceremony for my son. She verbally gave the personnel at the office the details and her check for $80. She was not given any application form. She was told that no electricity was available, although she had not requested such. A few days later she received a packet in the mail containing a permit signed by Ms. Julia Lamy and a list of park regulations. Those regulations make no mention of the use ox0 amplified sound. A copy of that document is attached to this letter. (attachment A) Having obtained our permit we proceeded to mall out the wedding invitations listing the amphitheater as the location of the wedding ceremony. (The reception is at another location.) Some days later I made a visit to Memorial park determine what logistical arrangements would be needed. In the course of that visit I noted that the noise level in the area of the amphitheater was quite high and the distance from the area where the ceremony would take place was some distance from the seating area. It was clear to me that for anyone seated there to hear the judge and the wedding vows that these voices would have to be amplified somewhat. Also, to keep the cost of the wedding down, we planned to use recorded music for the processional and recessional. I also noted that although the parks office had said that there was no electricity available, there was a live electrical outlet at the amphitheater. I decided to go over to the parks office and inquire further about the electricity. When I told them why I was asking about the electricity they immediately told me that no sound equipment of any kind was permitted, and handed me a brochure stating that this was prohibited by municipal code section 13.04.120. A copy of that document is also enclosed. (attachment B) After reading the municipal code and having discussions with the code enforcement office and the assistant city attorney, I have determined the following: /~-// 1. The parks department brochure incorrectly states code section 13.04.120 in that it omits reference to amplified sound use under an exclusive use permit. 2. The authority of issue exclusive use permits for city parks lies with the city manager. (code section 13.04.040). 3. The code specifies an application form including, among other items, whether amplified sound is to be used. (section 13.04.060) 4. The code specifies under what conditions the city manager may deny a permit. (section 13.04.070(E)) In light of the above, and Ms. Lamy's refusal on July 3 to revise our permit to allow any form of amplified sound, no matter how minimal, and her refusal to even discuss the matter with us in person, I am applying to you for a properly issued permit which will allow our guests to enjoy the wedding ceremony. I can assure you that the ceremony will be brief, at a time (3PM) when it will not be a nuisance, and the sound will not be loud. I have done sound design work as a volunteer for local high school musical theater for many years, and I know how to control sound. I have read and understand the Community Noise Control code, and I am willing work with the Noise Control Officer to ensure full compliance with all applicable provisions of section 10.48 of the municipal code. I am in a difficult situation in that the wedding invitations were mailed before I became aware of the difficulties I have outlined. Had the parks department people followed proper procedure, perhaps we would have chosen a different location. (We chose memorial park because our son played there as a child when we lived in Cupertino.) Thank you for your patience in rea~ough all this. I hope you can help Stephen C. Porter US. * The pubhe is allowed to bring their own barbecues into the park. * Volleyball standards are allowed in the park. Stakes, however, mus: ~;~' ~'. ;ize of small tent stakes. * Inflatable jumping apparatus' are not permitt::d i a the park, * Canopies are permitted, but must be free stun, lira, or anchored by s~ '~ stakes. * Electric power boats are allowed in the pond. Gasoline or diesel boat~ a., c ,~ot allowed. It is also unlawful to ~.':., .,'2~.;~.: chase or harm the fowl or other mldlffe mhabJ mg the park. ','. ~. . ,,~..,~:7~'~ *. No alcoholic beverages except for beer or wine, and only ffconsumed' :'~ .. ~ .2~:,~¢ii~: ~s not permitted on or around the softball field, tennis courts, or playgrorm , ::g'i., Any form of weapon ( including firearms, air rifles, spring guns, :{::' ,. ~'~i-,~';' permitted. (13.04.130J) 'r}i~ ~? * Bicycle riding on other than a paved road or path designed for that t'uri" is not permitted. Bikes shall be ~i}iL ~}~:' nushed bv hand over anv'erassv area reserved for ~ede.m/an use. Bicycles '~,:Z.: :.'~:,'~;:*::' They should not be left lying on the ground, set against trees or m any ~ ' .~.'&..i'-(13.04.1501-1,I) 7,' .. .* ':" *Dogsar~permittedonlyffledbyaleashofsuitablestrengthnotmorcth:':~ 6fl. inlength. The owner and ;'/" ' ii:;. attendant shall be responsible for any damage caused, in any event, by s,:::! .... )g, even if on a leash. (13.04.130D) meal. Kegs are not allowed. Alcohol teas. (13.04.130A) . ..' -ows and slings) is not ' ' .- .... * No leading, riding, keeping or letting loose of any animal, reptile or fowl :~,/any kind without a permit to do $o fi.om the Director of Parks & Recreation. (13.04.130E) * Loud, boisterous, threatening, abusive, insultb~g or indecent langua.t? o;:. ~a,~or tending to upset the public shall not be permitted. (13.04.130N') * Fires are permitted only in Places suitable for such use. (13.04.130K) * No one shall have in Ms/her possession or set offany type of fireworks or ,~xplosives. (13.04.130C) ... * Gambling or betting is not permitted. No solicitation of money or contrib~:r!ons. (13.04.13014) . * Playing or practicing golf is not permitted. (13.04.1301V0 Power model airplanes are not permitted. (13.04.130L) · * No swimming, bathing, wading, or polluting of fountain, pond, lake, or s~.. :tm, except where wading and : swimming are specifically provided for and so posled. (13.04.160) * Permittee is responsible for disposing of any and all garbage produced d, g the course of the event. (13.04.140B) CITY OF CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-3366 davek~cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER" July 13, 2000 Stephen C. Porter 14395 Sycamore Avenue San Martin, California 95046 Dear Mr. Porter: Congratulations on your son's upcoming marriage. I am sorry for the misunderstanding on the use of amplified sound at Memorial Park. I have asked that our information include a notation reflecting the prohibition on amplified sound. While I do not feel that I can approve your request, I have included the attached report which city council will consider next Monday evening. The council meeting begins at 6:45 P.M. I am certain that the city council will give your request due consideration. Sincerely yours, David W. Knapp City Manager DWK:lml Printed on Flecvcled Paper CITY OF CUPEI INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org Agenda Item No. 16 SUBJECT AND ISSUE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Meeting Date: July 17, 2000 Selection of application deadlines and interview dates for an unscheduled vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission. BACKGROUND Commissioner Terri Cook was in a fatal accident on June 23, 2000. The term of this unscheduled vacancy expires on January 15, 2003. As required by law, the City Clerk's office posted a Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy within 20 days of the occurrence of the vacancy. The Notice announced that applications are now being accepted to fill the partial term. The local news media will be advised and the vacancy notice placed in the Cupertino Scene and posted on the City Channel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following dates for the filing deadline and interviews: Deadline for applications: Council interview of applicants: Submitted by: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:00 p.m., conference room A Approved for Submission to the City Council: David W. Knapp, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paoer Better Cities-A Better Life June 2000 Le lue of California 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916.658.8200 FAX 916.658.8240 www. cacities.org TO; From: Re: The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Ferraro, League President, Council President, Los Angeles Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for Thursday, September 7 through Saturday, September 9, 2000 in Anaheim, CA. One very important aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting when the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California. It is important that al._] cities be represented at the annual business meeting on Saturday, September 9, 2000, at 9 a.m. at the Anaheim Convention Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the annual business meeting. League bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the city council on the enclosed '¥oting Delegate Form." If the mayor or a member of the city council is in attendance at the conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the city council will not have a registered delegate at the conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please complete and return the enclosed '¥oting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, August 18, 2000), so that proper records may be established for the conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the designated Voting Card desk located in the League registration area. The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this memo. Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658-8236. League of California Cities Annual Conference Votinq Procedures Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. To cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. Prior to the annual conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the annual conference registration area. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted. If neither the vOting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the annual business meeting, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the annual business meeting, exchanges may be made at the annual conference registration area. At the annual business meeting, exchanges may be made at the voting card table located in the front of the meeting room. Exchanges may not be made while a roll call vote is in progress because the Credentials Committee will be conducting the roll call. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials, who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use the city's voting card and who have left a sample of their signature on the Credentials Committee register will be approved. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the annual business meeting. G:\policy\acres\voteprox.doc CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. !~ SUBJECT AND ISSUE Meeting Date: July 17, 2000 Cupertino Community Services (CCS) Affordable Housing Loan. 1. Receive report on Council Action of February 1, 1999, or 2. Consider making a $1.6 million grant to CCS for affordable housing BACKGROUND In February 1999, the City Council approved $1.6 million in funding towards the CCS affordable housing project on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The minutes from that meeting document this as a loan (attachment 1). The intent, as staff understood, was for an interest free loan to be paid back once the project makes money, but not longer than the life of the property lease (57 years). We did not anticipate any payback of funds for 20-30 years. This type of arrangement is typical for affordable housing funds to provide a recycling of the monies which can then be utilized on multiple projects. There is some disagreement on Council as to whether this approval was for a loan or a grant. We have brought this back to the Council to clarify your intent. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the $1.6 million earmarked for CCS be provided as a loan to recycle monies for future projects. If Council prefers to provide the $1.6 million to CCS as a grant, action may be taken to do so. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: D~vid W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper February 1, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 10 to reflect the architectural modifications, streetscaping, and privacy modifications that would be required if these ordinances are passed. James moved and Chang seconded to continue this item to February 16. Chang asked that staff prepare a simulation of how some of the house designs would be affected by the proposed changes. The motion carded 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Request by Cupertino Community Service (CCS) for $1.6 million from city's Affordable Housing Fund to be used for site identification, acquisition and construction of affordable rental units. Planner II Vera Gil highlighted the staff report and said that the request is to encumber funds to assist them in the negotiation process and acquisition of funding. They will approach the city later with a contract that specifies the terms of the predevelopment funds. She explained that CDBG funds that have not been used in previous years were set aside in the affordable housing fund. The city is required use those funds within five years or else the county will ask that the money to be reprogrammed. That is one reason that staff recommends CDBG funds for this purpose. The other reason is that it allows them to reserve some of the BMR in-lieu fees, which have more flexibility. Ms. Mary Ellen Cheil, Executive Director of Cupertino Community Services (CCS), highlighted the services which CCS provides. The housing that they propose to build would be for very-low and low-income families, and would help to meet the acute need for permanent affordable housing. They also propose to build a 6,000 square foot facility for CCS. They have contracted with Bridge Housing Corporation to develop the property and are in the process of identifying and acquiring a site. Bumett said he's very supportive of this project. He asked about funding for the 6,000 square foot building for CCS. Ms. Cheil said CCS will not look to the city for funding for this facility. They are developing a capital campaign strategy and will be working with some local grant writers to approach foundations with which they already have a relationship. Statton said it was important to target affordable housing programs for people working in the community. Mary Ellen Chell agreed and said that their policy should be fine- tuned to target Cupertino residents and employees as well as seniors. Bumett discussed the possibility of reducing housing costs for people who do not need parking spaces. This may create an option of more units or more landscaping. /$- :Z.. February 1, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 11 Ms. Lydia Tan with Bridge Housing Corporation said they expect the project to cost around $4 million. They will apply to the county CDBG program and the county home program. The city will provide $1.6 million, and there is a shortfall of about $1.3 million, of which some can be hard debt. The gap would probably be $1.3 million at the highest or $200,000 dollars at the lowest, depending on land cost and how much CCS can borrow. James said that the city really wants to do something with affordable housing, and there is very little risk because they are merely setting aside money to help CCS market the project. James moved to adopt the Cupertino Housing Committee recommendation that the city council loan Cupertino Community Services and Bridge Housing Corporation $1.6 million fi.om the city's Affordable Housing Fund. These funds shall be used for site identification, development, and construction. However, only $500,000 shall be used for predevelopment activities during 1999. Furthermore, as much CDBG funds as possible shall be utilized for the loan with the remainder coming from the BMR in-lieu portion of the Affordable Housing Fund. Statton seconded and the motion carried 5-0. ORDINANCES 20. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1806, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 11.24.150 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to the Establishment of Parking Prohibition Along Certain Streets, East Side of De Anza Boulevard From the Northerly City Limits to Bollinger Road." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burnett moved and Statton seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Bumett moved and Statton seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1806 Motion carried 5-0. 21. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1807, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 2.08.096 to the City's Ordinance Code Adopting a Process for Reconsideration." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burner moved and Statton seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Bumett moved and Statton seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1807 Motion carried 5-0. CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM 1 ~ AGENDA DATE July 17, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes-The request is to continue the existing assessment for Nonpoint Source without increasing the fees. BACKGROUND Currently, the Nonpoint Source Program, mandated by the federal and state governments, receives funding by attaching a fee to the property tax bill, billed by the Santa Clara County Tax Collector. These funds are being used to implement illegal dumping and illicit connection programs, operations and maintenance of storm drain facilities, water quality monitoring, public information and education, and regulatory revisions and administrative tasks. Each year, Council must adopt the assessment rate for the ensuing year. ASSESSMENT RATE 2000-2001 The estimated program costs for fiscal year 2000-2001 are $366,000. Projected revenue to be generated for fiscal year 2000-2001 is $338,000 (See Engineer's Report, Exhibit A). The difference will be made up from reserves. Current annual fees for each category are as follows: Single Family Townhomes, Condominiums Commercial/Industrial/Apartments Unimproved/Recreation Per Year $12.00/premise $144.00/acre $ 36.00/acre STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00-__ and that the City continue collecting the assessment of fees for storm drain purposes at the existing rate on the property tax bill for FY 2000-2001. Submitted by: Approved for submission to the City Council: Bert J. Viskovich Director of Public Works David Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBIT A ENGINEER'S REPORT ASSESSMENT OF FEES FOR STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSES NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM A. Program Description and Purpose The purpose of this assessment is to collect fees for funding the City of Cupertino's Nonpoint Source Pollution Program mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Regulations by the EPA and the State of California require cities to take specific actions to eliminate or control pollutants. The term ',nonpoint source pollution" represents a process whereby pollutants, debris and chemicals which accumulate on streets, in neighborhoods, construction sites, parking lots and other exposed surfaces are washed off by rainfall and carried away by stormwater runoff into the San Francisco Bay. Sources of these pollutants may include automobile exhaust and oil, pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals, eroded soil, detergents, paints and other discarded material carried through the storm drain system, without treatment, directly to the Bay. These pollutants are hazardous to aquatic and human life. The City of Cupertino has implemented several programs to mitigate this problem that include elimination of waste disposal into storm drains, monitoring pollutants, public education and public awareness, and operation and maintenance of storm drain facilities. B. Estimated Expenditures The total estimated budget to implement the required programs described above for fiscal year 2000- 2001 is $366,000. The breakdown of costs is outlined as follows: Countywide Program Regional Monitoring Permit Fees Public Education & Public Awareness BMP Manuals Program Management $ 56,000 Operations and Maintenance Street Sweeping and Catch Basin Cleaning $ 207,000 City Public Education Awareness Public Outreach Printed Materials 32,000 Local Programs Administration Fee Collection Illicit Connection and Illegal Dumping Program Industrial Discharging Program $ 71,000 Ce TOTAL $ 366,000 Revenue And Assessment Revenues generated to fund this program are based on a factor calculated from the City's Master Storm Drain Study runoff coefficients and average area of impervious surface per acre based on type of development. The factor for each category is based on a comparison to an average residential parcel assigned a factor of one. The following table represents the revenue stream for different categories of development. No. Parcels Annual Revenue Factor or Acre Cost/Unit Generated 1 14,122 Pcl $12.00 $ 169,464 Deveopment Category Residential Commercial/Industrial/ Apartments Unimproved/Recreational 12 937.07 Ac 144.00 134,938 3 924.39 Ac 36.00 33,278 TOTALS 337,680 ASSESSMENT REPORT.Each parcel has been identified and a fee es~ed l~rt 7d PARCEL ~ert J' V~l~vic[l ~irector of l~lic Works 5/1/00 Iq-3 RESOLUTION 00-209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CONDUCTING AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE STORM DRAINAGE SERVICE CHARGE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has previously enacted Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 for the purpose of meeting the City's federally mandated Nonpoint Source Control and Stormwater Management Program and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a storm drainage service charge; and WHEREAS, a report concerning the method of assessing an environmental fee to fund the City's nonpoint source program was prepared by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section 3.36.080(B) of the City's Municipal Code and filed with the City Clerk on May 24, 2000. The report, entitled "Engineer's Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program", was prepared by the Director of Public Works and is dated May 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds and determines as follows: 1. After considering the report entitled "Engineer's Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program" and the testimony received at this public heating, the City Council hereby approves the report and herein incorporates it in the resolution. 2. There is a need in the City for the continuation of a storm drainage service charge to cover the costs of the federally mandated program as heretofore described, in that properties within the city will not otherwise contribute their fair share towards this program and without the availability of such storm drainage service charge, the City's general fund will be depleted. 3. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for this fee and the impacts for which this fee shall be used, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the properties which are to be charged this fee. These relationships or nexuses are described in more detail in the above referenced report. 4. The amounts of the fee for each category of property, as set forth below, are reasonable amounts as such fees are based on runoff coefficients established in the Master Storm Drain Study, which the City Council hereby approves and herein incorporates such study. Resolution 00-209 Page 2 5. It is further determined that each and every parcel of land contained in said report will, and has received a benefit of the storm drainage system and that the charges imposed herein on each such parcel are in conformity with the benefits that such parcel has received as further described in the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, that: 1. Charge. The storm drainage service charge shall continue to be charged to each parcel within the city to cover the costs of the City's Nonpoint Source Control and Stormwater Management Program. 2. Use of Revenue. The revenue derived from said charge shall be used solely in connection with implementing and enforcing Chapter 3.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code entitled "Storm Drainage Service Charge." 3. Schedule of Charges. (a) Annual fees for each category of property will be assessed and collected as follows: Residential premises Apartment premises Commercial/Industrial premises Unimproved/Recreational $ 12.00/parcel $144.00/acre $144.00/acre $ 36.00/acre (b) The following public properties are exempt from, and shall not be assessed the environmental fee: Cupertino Sanitary District Santa Clara County Santa Clara Valley Water District Southern Pacific Transportation Company State of California The Santa Clara County Fire Department The City of Cupertino The Cupertino Union School District The Foothill-De Anza Community College District The Fremont Union High School District The Midpeninsula Regional Park District United States of America Resolution 00-209 Page 3 4. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to challenge, review, set aside, void, or annul this iesolution shall be brought within 120 days from the date of its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17~ day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE July 17, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE City Council determination of adjourned meeting date to award Stevens Canyon Road Widening Project BACKGROUND The bid opening for this project is Tuesday, July 25, at 2:00 p.m. In order to award the contract, begin construction, and complete the project before the rainy season, it will be necessary that the City Council select one of the following dates to hold an adjourned meeting to award this project: any time July 26 or 27. There will be an oral presentation of the summary bids at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council select a meeting date to in order to review bids and award a contract for Stevens Canyon Road Widening project. ert J. Vi., irector c 'Public Works Approved for submission: City Manager Pdnted on Recycled Pa/~er ORDINANCE NO. 1851 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 11.24.150 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING PROHIBITION ALONG CERTAIN STREETS, NORTH SIDE OF BOLLINGER ROAD FROM DE ANZA BOULEVARD, WEST + 546 FEET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.150 be amended to include the following: Section 11.24.150, parking prohibited along certain streets. Street Sides of Street Limits Exceptions Bollinger Road North Between De Anza None Boulevard, west + 546 feet INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19t~ day of June, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI INO Community Development Department 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (408) 777-3333 AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2000 SUMMARY: Status report regarding construction at the Biltmore Apartments Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council note and file this report and direct staff to continue to monitor the construction and respond to any complaints related to building code or code enforcement issues. Background: Prometheus Real Estate Group is renovating and expanding the number of units at the Biltmore Apartments located at the North West comer of Blaney Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue. The expansion includes adding 24 apartment units, re-paving the north parking lot and constructing new garages. The renovation of the existing units includes replacing the vertical siding with horizontal siding, installing new windows, decks and portions of the staircase railings, and upgrading the landscaping (see attached landscape plan, labeled exhibit gl). Prometheus indicated their intent to replace damaged siding during the review of their plan to add the 24 apartment units (see the attached exhibit # 9, excerpted minutes of the City Council meeting of January 4, 1999). The existing units were originally constructed using some building materials that may contain asbestos. Any disruption of building components involving asbestos requires a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). See attached exhibit #8 relating to fees for asbestos demolition and renovation contractors. The Biltmore owners have obtained a permit and are being monitored by the BAAQMD. Residents of the Biltmore Apartments have been living in the units throughout the construction. Beginning in mid-June the City received numerous e-mails through the City Web site and several phone calls complaining about construction conditions at the Biltmore Apartments and how residents are being treated during the ongoing renovation efforts. The property owner claimed that many of these complaints were directed to the City prior to their knowledge and they did not have the opportunity to address the concerns. Status report regarding construction at the Biltmore Apartments July 17, 2000 Page 2 Resident's e-malls and later correspondence (see attached exhibit # 10) raises numerous concerns and complaints that fall into the following two categories: 1) Site Conditions: including dust, noise, construction debris, loss of parking, unsafe pedestrian paths and the draining of most of the ponds. 2) Apartment Unit Conditions: including asbestos, dust, unsafe openings, decks, windows, difficulty accessing units and the disruptive impact of numerous workers in the units. Discussion: The renovation is complicated by the additional units being constructed, loss of parking, and the multiple agencies and number of construction companies involved in various aspects of the project. The City issues building permits for the construction activity and inspects the construction to ensure it meets requirements of the Uniform Building Code. BAAQMD reviews any removal or disturbance of building materials containing asbestos. The property owner is responsible for managing the overall construction, tenant relations and ensuring compliance with the rental or lease agreements and State laws relating to tenants' rights. City Response The Code Enforcement Division received and investigated several complaints related to on-site conditions and illegal parking (see attached exhibit g4, Code Enforcement case reports). The Building Official responded to the resident e-malls that provided return addresses. His e- mall response (see exhibit # 5) provided information on how and to whom residents could turn to resolve issues. The E-mall included information on Project Sentinel to resolve tenant/landlord issues and a 68-page State of California Tenants booklet explaining tenants' and landlords' rights and responsibilities. Exhibit #5 includes the 2 page Project Sentinel document and the fh'st 4 pages of the California Tenants booklet. The Building Division increased the number of site visits by the building inspectors to ensure the site conditions are safe and in compliance with the building code. In one incident, building staff temporarily "red-tagged" the project while dust issues were addressed and proper construction fencing and construction warning tape was installed. Attached are e-malls dated June 19, 2000 and July 13, 2000 (exhibits #6 and #7), from Building Official Joe Antonucci, providing a status report on recent inspections at the Biltmore Apartments. Property Owner Response Prometheus representatives met with residents prior to commencement of construction. Following receipt of the complaints, Prometheus scheduled resident meetings on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, and July 12, 2000. Prometheus representatives promised to reply in writing to ,issues and questions raised by residents (see attached letter dated July 7, 2000, exhibit #3). Additionally, Prometheus prepared a letter to the City Council explaining their commitment to resolving these issues (see the attached letter, exhibit #2, also dated July 7, 2000). Status report regarding construction at the Biltmore Apartments July 17, 2000 Page 3 Staff will continue to monitor the cOnstruction for building code related issues and respond to any code complaints. The first page of each of the attached exhibits is numbered according to the following list. Enclosures: 1. Preliminary Landscape Renovation Plan, reduced copy 2. Letter from Prometheus to the City Council dated July 7, 2000 3. Letter from Prometheus addressed "Dear Biltmore Resident" dated July 7, 2000 4. Code Enforcement case repons 5. E-mail message from Building Official Joe Antonucci responding to Biltmore residents, dated June 26, 2000, with attachments as follows: · Project Sentinel brochure 2 pages · "California Tenants, a Guide to Residential Tenants' Rights and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities", 4 of 68 pages provided for reference purposes 6. E-mail from Building Official Joe Antonucci to Steve Piasecki, dated June 19, 2000, regarding recent inspection at the Biltmore Apartments 7. E-mail from Building Official Joe Antonucci to Steve Piasecki, dated July 13, 2000, regarding recent inspections at the Biltmore Apartments 8. BAAQMD C&E Advisory (Compliance and Enforcement), dated June 14, 2000 9. Excerpt (page 9) of City Council minutes dated January 4, 1999 10. Packet of information and petitions delivered to the City Council that expresses concerns about construction activity. SteveX~;ias~cki - Director of Community Development David Knapp City Manager [ OM US Exhibit 2 July 7, 2000 City Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: The Biltmore Apartments Dear City Council Members: As you are aware, some of our residents have expressed concerns about the construction activity at The Biltmore Apartments. We want to assure you that our property management division is proactively monitoring the project and taking appropriate steps to ensure that our residents' concerns are addressed and resolved. Following is a brief summary of our communication with our residents in an effort to address their concerns: · We met with our residents on April 27, 2000 to review our final improvement plans. The actual construction commenced on May 30, 2000. We have continually notified our residents through newsletters and postings. We have also notified all residents in advance of working on their respective apartment buildings. We held a follow-up resident meeting on June 27, 2000 to review the progress and address any questions or concerns. As a result of this past meeting, we have sent all of our residents a written response to our residents' questions which we have attached to this letter for your information. We have scheduled another resident meeting on July 12, 2000 to monitor the progress and ensure that we are effectively addressing any resident concerns. We will continue to communicate to our residents throughout the construction period to ensure that their concerns are being promptly and effectively addressed. We understand that improvements of this type can be disruptive and inconvenient. We are however, doing everything reasonably possible to minimize the disruption and inconvenience for those residents who have chosen to stay in the project. We take our residents' comfort very seriously and will continue to manage the activity very closely. We have engaged numerous professionals to advise us on the project. Our environmental consultants have assured us that our contractor's construction scope and procedure are proper and the health and safety of our residents is not being compromised. Our general contractor is 350 Bridge Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065-1517 Telephone: 650.596.5300 Facsimile: 650.596.5374 wwv. prometheusreg.com City Council Members July 7, 2000 Page 2 of 2 also responsible for taking all necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the site. We want the City of Cupertino to know that we are doing everything reasonably possible to ensure that this project is successfully completed while minimizing the inconvenience to our residents. The improvements at The Biltmore are necessary to ensure that our residents have a quality place to live over the long term. We are confident that we can provide these improvements while ensuring that all resident questions or concerns are promptly and reasonably addressed. Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please feel free to contact us. We are available to assist in any way. We look forward to a successful completion of these improvements. Sincerely, Daniel J. Safier Principal CC: Steve Piasecki Carol Atwood loss 'tor of Development Enclosures \\SQLDOCSRVl\SHARED\Dev\Documents\Rehabs\LAKE BILTMORE\LBA Residing\Zoning\City Correspondence\7.7.00 City Council Members.doc Exhibit 3 I OM US Building the futtlre today July 7, 2000 Dear Biltmore Resident: We're ALL looking forward to the completion of the current siding repairs and window replacement improvements underway on your building Coy mid October, barring unforeseen delays). I wanted to update you on that progress, as well as respond to some of the questions raised in our most recent resident meeting (last week), especially for those unable to attend. First, let mc reiterate that our management team, and our contractors and subcontractors are committed to minimizing the disruption caused by the work program. We've acted on everything brought to our attention, but we realize that some residents may have directed inquiries to the wrong people - it is best to direct your questions to our Resident Relations Manager who is responsible for handling these issues: Marilyn Fischel, your on-site Resident Relations Manager, Telephone: 408-255-8787 Some of the questions raised in our resident meeting indicated that not everyone understands the background to the repairs and improvements, so I've first summarized the history: Why was the repair/improvement program begun, and what's the overall plan? Prometheus has managed The Biltmore since its acquisition in May 1983. As the property management company, we have guided the property under a variety of economic and market conditions and have consistently positioned the property to be one of the best values in the Cupertino market. In early 1999, Prometheus saw the need to undertake renovation of the existing buildings' exterior elements inclusive of the siding and exterior decks because our consultants had discovered termite damage and dry rot in the exterior siding and decking. When left uncorrected, these conditions can cause serious damage to the buildings. Just like any homeowner would do with their own home, proper renovation is necessary to maintain the integrity and useful life of the buildings. Since The Biltmore was constructed in the early 1970s, we also took the prudent step - like any owner of an older property - to look at making improvements at the same time. As a complement to the renovation, new dual pane windows were added as a desirable feature to improve energy efficiency and soundproofing. Also, in conjunction with these renovation efforts, upgrades to the interior of the units are planned as interior finishes come to the end of their useful life. These substantial interior improvements are planned only on unoccupied apartments. The lack of housing is an issue throughout the Peninsula, so Prometheus sought and received city approval to add 24 new units to the property. To minimize the impact of the renovation to residents, and the community as a whole, the projects were undertaken simultaneously. In planning for the renovation we have hired firms we believe are premier architects, contractors and consultants with extensive experience in these types of projects. These firms were hired for their specific expertise in their fields, all duly licensed by the state of California in their respective disciplines. With these experts, we addressed old construction materials that would have to be disposed of and abated, following the strict safety precautions prescribed by government and industry standards, and carried out by our contractors. 350 Bridge ~kway, Redwood City, CA 94065-1517 Telephone: 650.596.5300 Facsimile: 650.596.5377 ~ ~rnm~tk~I~ren ~on~ Biltmore Resident July 7, 2000 Page 2 of 5 To date, Prometheus has been open and forthright with residents, the city and the public about our plans and schedules. Our goal is to revitalize the property in conjunction with completing unavoidable maintenance to the building components. The end result will be a renewed aparlxnent project that residents and the community will be proud of. Our intent is now, and will continue to be throughout the completion, to communicate openly with all concerned about the renovation process. Has Prometheus been keeping residents informed? In addition to individual notices sent to residents, Prometheus has held four open forum resident meetings, two in the fall of '98 regarding new units and two subsequent meetings on April 27~u and June 28t~ of 2000 to address the start of the siding work and construction progress and schedule. In an effort to address the apartment community needs, we will continue to put company executives and the management team in front of residents throughout the renovation. A third meeting is scheduled for July 12'~. This letter is in direct response to the meeting held on June 28t~. · Ttat's happening with theparking spaces? The Biltmore is now renting a vacant parking lot adjacent to the prope .r~. necessary permits before opening it, which should be around July 15~. walkway to the lot. We have been working on the We are also building a lighted How about laundry facilities? In response to resident requests, we have placed two additional washing machines in the main laundry room located in the recreation area. ~hat's the construction schedule? How long will it take? The schedule is divided into two areas: the abatement process and "everything else." During the abatement process, after providing appropriate notice (as outlined in this letter), Sterling Environmental will enter your apartment to make cuts in the drywall as needed around the windows, then dispose of the material. ACC Environmental will then perform air quality tests to ensure your apartment receives a clear air reading and is deemed by ACC to be safe for occupancy. ACC performs this test as a precautionary measure. During the abatement, as an additional precaution, the contractor requires you to be out of your apartment for approximately 8 hours during the daytime. If you have pets, please contact Marilyn Fischel, your Resident Relations Manager, for further information or assistance. The remainder of the renovation process for your building will take approximately 4 - 6 weeks. This includes removing the old siding and decks, removing the old windows and replacing them with new windows, fastening the new siding and decks, repairing overhead trellises, caulking and drywall patching in the interior areas around your windows, replacing the front doors and exterior painting. l~/hy are portable toilets located near the apartments? We asked our contractor to relocate them, which occurred on June 30th. Biltmore Resident July 7, 2000 Page 3 of 5 What about the conduct of construction workers-? We have a no tolerance policy regarding disrespectful behavior by any of our contractors, construction workers and employees. Please notify us immediately if there are any concerns. ~hat's the story on the notification of PG&E interruption? The last PG&E interruption of service was re-scheduled and we were unable to give you much advance notice because the utility provider, PG&E, did not follow their schedule. Unfortunately, we were unable to predict this or notify you sooner. The next scheduled electricity interruption will not occur until we begin Phase 2 of the new development, which will be in approximately 3 months. We will, of course, let you know with as much advance warning as possible, and have expressed to PG&E our deep concern, and yours. Is there a Pest control servlce? The Biltmore has continuously been under contract with a licensed pest control company. If you are experiencing any pest problems, please contact the property management office promptly to schedule service in your apartment. How much advance notice can I receive prior to construction work? We want to inform you about work being performed as soon as possible. Over the past month, as we started the renovation process, there have been some schedule changes as our contractor worked on improving the construction process. We now have the process refined and hope to experience fewer schedule changes. Because of this, we posted a tentative schedule at the Wednesday meeting, a copy of which is also attached. Keep in mind that this is a tentative schedule, and that changes may occur. You can also receive an updated schedule if you stop by the office of Marilyn Fischel, the Resident Relations Manager or call her at 408-255-8787. In addition to the published schedule, our program includes providing an additional notice to you, when feasible, 2 - 4 days in advance of entering your apartment, and one week prior to working on your building. Occasionally it may be necessary to enter your apartment with only a 24-hour notice. We will always make reasonable attempts to provide as much notice as possible. What about the construction area house keeping? Although our contractors are continually cleaning up after themselves, we are supplementing the site staff with two additional groundskeepers. If you have any areas that you feel need further cleaning, please contact Marilyn Fischel at 408~255-8787 so that we can clean these areas too. What consideration has been given to lead based paint? Our consultants' tests have not detected any lead in the interiors of the units. Why was there asbestos used in The Biltmore's original construction? At the time The Biltmore was constructed, asbestos materials were commonly used in construction, including acoustic ceiling materials and drywall texture and joint compound. When you first moved into your apartment you were notified that Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) were used in the original construction of The Biltmore. A specific report was prepared for The Biltmore and is available for review. Biltmore Resident July 7, 2000 Page 4 of 5 What information is available on asbestos? We consider the best resources for this question to be answered in publications by Federal and Local Governments who regulate these materials, and other third party experts in the field of this material. You may also choose to research this topic at the public library, through the Internet or other resources. Because we are not environmental experts and we rely on professionals and specialists, we cannot give advice. There is also the National Institute of Health web site, which-is a general health and safety information resource from thc Federal Government, http://www.nih.gov. What work is being done with regard to asbestos? Our environmental consultants determined that abatement needed to take place in the vacant units being renovated. This was due to the scope of renovation work performed on the interiors of the vacant units. During renovation of the first set of buildings, our environmental consultants continued to monitor air quality. Due to the testing, we were advised by our consultants to environmentally clean and test all of thc interior apartments currently under renovation as a precautionary measure. This work was performed by our environmental consultants. Our consultants also advised us to change the future construction protocol to include abatement and air testing prior to replacing windows. Our consultants continue to perform tests to monitor air particulates and will take all appropriate actions. Can I have a copy of the air test? There are many testing processes used 'in the industry. Our consultant~ are using the TCM and TEM methods to assure thc accuracy of thc readings. These methods are considered by our consultants to be thc most accurate ways to measure air particulates. Our consultants determine the type and f~quency of testing based on field conditions. Where monitored work is performed in an occupied apartment, clearance testing is done prior to reoccupancy. You may pick up a copy of the test results for your apartment when you stop by the management office. Fl~dl property management make accommodations for residents wishing to be relocated? Prior to renovation, Prometheus considered the option to either vacate the apartment buildings or renovate while the buildings were occupied. Vacating the buildings would have been a fast, efficient way to renovate the property. However, vacating the apartments would have displaced many families. Many of you choose to live in Cupertino for the school district or your proximity to work. Accordingly, we planned the construction so that our residents had the choice to continue their occupancy or relocate. We gave the idea of relocating residents much consideration, since it was an important issue for many of you. We cannot relocate all of the residents during renovation, but wish to make the process as easy as possible. If you choose to move-out during construction, your 30-day notice requirement in the rental agreement will be waived. However, if you choose to continue to live at The Bill~ore during construction, we will continue to provide the following: Four fully furnished guest suites and we are arranging for two additional suites for resident use. These suites may be used during the day and even overnight for those of you who work from home, or are at home during the day with your family and need somewhere to relax or work while construction occurs on your building. These apartments have furniture, house- wares, linens and telephone service. Biltmore Resident July 7, 2000 Page 5 of 5 · Provide meals in the recreation room when they are replacing your windows. · Provide movie tickets'for your family, as an alternative while construction is underway, although you can use the tickets whenever you wish. · We are also willing to meet with each of you to address specific concerns you may have. Please s~e Marilyn Fischel, your Resident Relations Manager, on any of the above issues. What if I decide to leave The Bilttnore? Beginning in May, we accommodated residents by allowing a 30-day notice or rental agreements stating a longer term. At our recent meeting, some of you expressed that you would also like to be released from the 30-day notice requirement as well. Thus, beginning now, any resident may move-out during siding re- construction without a 30-day notice. In closing, I want to thank residents who have been patient, and ask for your continued cooperation and patience as we get closer to the end goal, a better Biltmore Apartments. Senior Vice President The Biltmore Apartments Residing Construction Schedule Paragon Services, Inc. Building No. Abatement Construction 2 completed 5/30 - 7/29 3 completed 5/30 - 7/29 4 completed 6/29 - 7/29 5 completed 5/30 - 7/29 6 completed 5/30 - 7/29 7 6/29 - 7/6 7/6 - 8/2 8 7/6 - 7/10 7/19 - 8/19 9 7/10 - 7/12 7/19 - 8/19 10 7/12 - 7/14 7/19 - 8/19 11 7/14 - 7/18 8/2 - 8/31 Rec/Lsg 8/2 - 8/31 12 7/18 - 7/20 8/16 - 9/19 13 7/20 8/16 - 9/19 14 7/21 - 7/24 8/16 - 9/19 15 7/25 - 7/26 8/30 - 10/7 16 7/27 - 7/31 8/30 - 10/7 17 8/1 - 8/2 8/30- 10/7 1 8/3 - 8/4 8/30 - 10/14 PLEASE NOTE, THIS SCHEDULE IS AN ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION TIME-FRAMES AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES. Exhibit 4 Cupertino City Code Enforcement Case Report CaselD: 9084 CEO: Alex Wykoff Date Opened: 5/9/00 Date Closed: 5/9/00 Complaint: Parking Enforcement Description: VEHICLES ILLEGALLY PARKED Pemon: DayTelephone: (408) 000-0000 EveTelephone: (408) 000-0000 Address: c!ty: Subject Location: Business Name or Residence or Publ Address: Number RODRIGUES/BLANEY City: Cupertino CA 95014 Action: Citation Issued RPAdvised: Yes Reporting Pemon: ALEX Address: Cupertino Wykoff Day: (408) 000-0000 Eve: (408) 000-0000 Notes: CEO Reporting: I Alex Wykoff Date: Hre: Notes: 15, 1 oo I Total Hours: 0.5 Printed: 05-Jul-O0 Page CaselD: 9263 Cupertino City Code Enforcement Case Report CEO: Alex Wykoff Date Opened: 6/6/00 Date Closed: 6/6/00 Complaint; Parking Enfomement Description: ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLE8 Person: DayTelephone: (408) 000-0000 EveTelephone: (408) 000-0000 Address: City: Subject Location: Business Name or Residence or Publ Address: Number BLANEY/PRICE City: Cupertino CA 95014 Action: Citation Issued RPAdvised: Yes Reporting Pemon: ALEX Address: Cupertino Wykoff Day: (408) 000-0000 Eve: (408) 000-0000 Notes: CEO Reporting: I Alex Wykoff Date: Hm: Notes: [ 6~007:~4:46AM ~ l Total Houm: 0.5 Printed: 05-Jul-O0 Page CaselD: 9415 Cupertino City Code Enforcement Case Report CEO: Alex Wykoff Date Opened: 6/21/00 Date Closed: 6/21/00 Complaint: Parking Enforcement Description: VEHICLES IN NO PARKING ZONE Person: DayTelephone: (408) 000-0000 EveTelephone: (408) 000-0000 Address: City: Subject Location: Business Name or Residence or Publ Address: Number BLANEY/LINDA ANN City: Cupertino CA 95014 Action: Citation Issued RPAdvised: Yes Reporting Pemon: ALEX Address: Cupertino VVykoff Day: (408) 000-0000 Eve: (408) 000-0000 Notes: CEO Reporting: l Alex Wykoff Date: Hrs: Notes: [ 6/21/00 4:23:48 PM ~ I Total Hours: 0.25 Printed: 05-Jul-O0 · CaselD: 9442 Cupertino City Code Enforcement Case Report CEO: Jeff Trybus Date Opened: 7/1/00 Date Closed: 7/1/00 Complaint: Admin. Assignment Description: Site inspection Person: DayTelephone: (408) 000-0000 EveTelephone: (408) 000-0000 Address: city: Subject Location: Lake Biltmore Apartments Address: Number Street Name City: Cupertino CA 95014 Action: Referred to Other City Depart RPAdvised: Yes Reporting Person: Address: Cupertino Building Day: (408) 000-0000 Eve: (408) 000-0000 Notes: CEO Reporting: [ Jeff Trybus Date: 7/2/00 9:27:19 AM I Total Hours: Notes: Performed a site inspection of Lake Biitmore Apartments per a memo from the Building Department to make sure the construction site is isolated from residents land all the walkways are clear from any materials. Photographs were taken of the [construction area dudng the inspection. Printed: 05-Jul-O0 Page Exhibit 5 From: Joseph Antonucci Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:42 PM To: 'lakebiltmorei~hotmail.com'; 'shuhua_vu@yahoo.com'; 'miller(~profiles-threat.com'; 'mmp@psdc.com'; 'alan_tz_tan<~yahoo.com' Cc: Steve Piasecki; Carol Atwood Subject: Lake Biltmore Thank you for your e-mail regarding concerns about the construction activity at the Lake Biltmore Apartments. While some inconvenience is unavoidable with any construction project, I am sorry to hear there has been so much disruption associated with this project. We referred your e-mall to the property owners to ensure they are aware of your concerns and to expedite their responses to these issues. We understand the pr6perty management is scheduling a meeting this week, with affected residents, to better understand the concerns and identify possible solutions. Please contact the on-site property manager, Mr. Michael Ducote, to ensure he is aware of your specific issues and to expedite their resolution. The City building inspector is frequently called to the site to inspect various stages of the construction for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. The building inspector has been alerted to look for any on-site safety issues. Most of these would be external to the apartments units unless he is specifically called to investigate a safety concern within a unit. If you feel you have an immediate hazard in or around your apartment please call me directly at 777-3205, leave your address and phone number and the Building Division will call you to arrange for an inspection. We can ask that safety related items in conflict with the Building Code be immediately addressed. Recently, the city inspector instructed the construction manager to ensure that all accessible walkways remain clean and free of any obstructions to residents accessing their apartments and that dust be minimized. The issue of asbestos abatement is a specialized field that is handled directly by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD issued the permit to remove asbestos and ensures it is removed safely. Their offices advised us to refer any complaints about asbestos removal to Mr. Dennis Baker, at (415) 749-4762. The City contracts with Project Sentinel to mediate tenant/landlord disputes. Attached is an information sheet that advises you of their services and how to contact them. Additionally, the State Department of Consumer Affairs publishes a tenant/landlord handbook that outlines responsibilities of landlords and tenants. Attached is a copy of the handbook for your information. These documents can be opened with Acrobat Reader. If you are unable to open these documents please call me and I will send copies to you. We hope this information will help you to resolve the issues associated with the on-site construction activity. The property management assures us they will work with you.to resolve the issues you have raised and we will continue to work with the property owner to look for means to minimize the construction impacts on residents. Joe Antonucci, Cupertino Building Official (408) 777-3205 Project_SentineI. PDF CA Tenants bookleLpdf /_80i~6 VO 'ele^~uuns ~:# 'P~I e§oieJeS-ele~uuns gg0~ 'i:;NI~N;I$ o EE ~ I ~c m ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - m~8 ~'-~ · ~ ~ m~ ~ o o c l~'~c E~ c · ~ ~ O~0 .. > m ~ ~ ~ ~, ~o ~ ~ .- · - ~ .~-o ~ ~ 0 o c ~ .~ ~'c o ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ _._ ~ ~='- ~ e · _ ~ o~ ~ mo ~ ~ o.~.E ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ oo~= ~~o >~ _~== 8 ~8.~ A Guide to Residential Tenants' and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities Pete Wilson Governor Joanne Corday Kozberg Secretary, State and Consumer Services Agency Ron Joseph Acting Director, Department of Consumer Affairs NOTICE .The opinions expressed in this booklet are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any agency of the State of California. While this publication is designed to provide accurate and current information about the law, readers should contact an attorney or other expert for advice in particular cases, and should also consult the relevant statutes and court decisions when relying on cited material. PUBLISHING INFORMATION California Tenants-A Guide to Residential Tenants' and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities was written by the Department of Consumer Affairs' Legal Services Unit and was edited by the Department's Communications and Education Division. The first printing of this booklet was funded by a grant from the California Consumer Protection Foundation. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing contributed to the text on state and federal fair housing laws. ORDERING INFORMATION This publication is available on the Internet (beginning March, 1998). See the Department of Consumer Affairs' homepage at www. dca.ca.gov. This booklet may be copied, if (1) the meaning of copied text is not changed or misrepresented, (2) credit is given to the Department of Consumer Affairs, and (3) all copies are distributed free of charge. For information on ordering copies of this booklet, see page 65. Department of Consumer Affairs, 1998 INTRODUCTION What should a tenant do if his or her apart- ment needs repairs? Can a landlord force a tenant to move? How many days' notice does a tenant have to give a landlord before the tenant moves? Can a landlord raise a tenant's rent? California Tenants--A Guide to Residential Tenants' and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities answers these questions and others. Whet~er the tenant is renting a room, an apartment, a house, or a duplex, the landlord- tenant relationship is governed by federal, state, and local laws. This booklet focuses on California laws that govern the landlord-tenant relationship, and suggests things that both the landlord and tenant can do to make the relation- ship a good one. Although the booklet is written from the tenant's point of view, landlords can also benefit from its information. Tenants and landlords should discuss their expectations and responsibilities before they enter into a rental agreement. If a problem occurs, the tenant and landlord should try to resolve the problem by open communication and discussion. Honest discussion of the problem may show each party that he or she is not completely in the right, and that a fair compro- mise is in order. If the problem is one for which the landlord is responsible (see pages 21-23), the landlord may be willing to correct the problem or to work out a solution without further action by the tenant. If the problem is one for which the tenant is responsible (see page 21), the tenant may agree to correct the problem once the tenant under- stands the landlord's concerns. If the parties cannot reach a solution on their own, they may be able to resolve the problem through media- tion or arbitration (see page 44). In some situa- tions, a court action may provide the only solution (see pages 27-28, 38-43). The Depa~-huent of Consumer Affairs hopes that tenants and landlords will use this booklet's information to avoid problems in the first place, and to resolve those problems that do occur HOW TO UgE THIng BOOKLET You can probably find the information you need by using this booklet's Table of Contents, Index, and Glossary of Terms. TABLE OF CONTENTS' The Table of Contents (pages iii-iv) shows that the booklet is divided into nine main sections. Each main section is divided into smaller sections. For example, if you want information about the rental agreement, look under "Rental Agreements and Leases" in the "BEFORE YOU AGREE TO RENT" section. INDEX Most of the topics are mentioned in the Table of Contents. If you don't find a topic there, look in the Index (page 56). It's more specific than the Table of Contents. For example, under "Clean- ing" in the Index, you'll find the topics "deposits or fees," "tenant's responsibility," etc. GLOSSARY If you just want to know the meaning of a term, such as "eviction" or "holding deposit," look in the Glossary (page 45). The glossary gives the meaning of 61 terms. Each of these terms also is printed in boldface type the first time that it appears in each section of the booklet. The Department of Consumer Affairs hopes that you will find the information you're looking for in this booklet. If you don't, call or write one of the resources listed in "Getting Help From a Third Party" (see page 43) or "Tenant Informa- tion and Assistance Resources" (see page 51). 1 WHO IS A "LANDLORD" AND WHO IS A "TENANT?" GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT LANDLORDS AND TENANTS A landlord is a person or a company that owns a rental unit. The landlord rents or leases the rental unit to another person, called a tenant, for the tenant to live in. The tenant obtains the right to the exclusive use and possession of the rental unit during the lease or rental period. Sometimes, the landlord is called the "owner," and the tenant is called a "resident." A rental unit is an apartment, house, duplex, condominium, or room that a landlord rents to a tenant to live in. In this booklet, the term rental unit means any one of these. Because the tenant uses the rental unit to live in, it is called a "residential rental unit." Often, a landlord will have a rental agent or a property manager who manages the rental property.. The agent or manager is employed by the landlord and represents the landlord. In most instances, the tenant can deal with the rental agent or property manager as if this person were the landlord. For example, a tenant can work directly with the agent or manager to resolve problems. When a tenant needs to give the landlord one of the tenant notices described in this booklet (for example, see pages 27, 29), the tenant can give the notice to the landlord's rental agent or property manager. The name and address of the manager and an owner of the building (or other person who is autho- rized to receive legal notices for the owner) must be written in the rental agreement or lease, or posted conspicuously in the rental unit or building.~ SPECIAL SITUATIONS The tenant rights and responsibilities discussed in this booklet apply only to people whom the law defines as tenants. Generally, under California law, lodgers and residents of hotels and motels have the same rights as tenants.2 Situations in which lodgers and residents of hotels and motels do and do not have the rights of tenants, and other special situations, are discussed in the sidebar. SPECIAL SITUATIONS Hotels and motels If you are a resident in a hotel or motel you do not have the rights of a tenant in any of the following situations: 1; Youlivein a hotel, motel, residence clUb, or other lodging fadlity for 30 days or less, and your occupancy is subject .to the state's hotel occupancy tax. 2. You'live in a hotel, motel, residence club; or other lodging facility for more than 30 days, but have not paid for all room and related charges owing by the thirtieth day. 3,..: You liVe in a hotel or motel to which the:manager has a right of access and control, and all of the following is true: · The hotel or motel allows occu- pancy for periods of fewer than seven days. · All. Of the following services are provided for all residents: - a fireproof safe for residents' use; - a central telephone service; maid, mail, and room service; and food service provided by a food establishment that is on or next to the hotel or motel grounds and that is operated in conjunction with the hotel or motel. If'You live ina unit described by either 1, 2 or 3 above, you are not a tenant; you are a guest. Therefore, you don't have the same rights as a tenant,s For example, the proprietor:of a hotel can "lock out" a guest who doesn't pay his or her room charges (Cosm~rO£D O~ PACE 3) Civil Code Sections 1961, 1962, 1962.5. See Moskovitz et al., California Landlord-Tenant Practice, Section 1.29 (Cal. Cont Ed. Bar, 1997). Civil Code Section 1940(a). Civil Code Section 1940. "LANDLORD" AND '~TENANT" Steve Piasecki From: Sent: To: Subject: Joseph Antonucci Monday, June 19, 2000 4:26 PM Steve Piasecki Lake Biltmore Exhibit 6 Steve, today Jerry and went out to the Lake Biltmore project, and checked following: 1. All walkways were clean 2. Construction area was blocked off with fences or caution tape. 3. Balconies that are being replaced. I talked with the engineer of record and he told me that when the balconies are not under supervision, the door to the balcony will have plywood over it for safety. 4. They have some areas that need dust control, we advised the contractor to keep the area wet down and to bring in some rock on the new dirt drive way. 5. I talked with the asbestos contractor, they have the required state permits and to the best of my knowledge they are removing the asbestos using the proper methods. 6. As for the water habitats. All the water is out of the lakes. I only saw two ducks on site. It is my understanding that every effort was made to remove all the ducks before the construction started. As for the two ducks that remain they have placed a large pan of water, I think that they need to do more but that is not an area that I know much about. 7. The gap around the windows will be sealed when the installation is complete. Not much we can do about that. 8. The replacing of the siding is under way, I don't know what we can do to help the people who are occupying the buildings. 9. I did not notice any outstanding noise problem other then normal construction noise. I have had an inspector out to the project at least two times every working day and some days we have been out to the project even more times. I will continue to monitor the project and do the best we can to provide safe place for everyone. Page 1 Steve Piasecki Exhibit 7 From: Sent: To: Subject: Joseph Antonucci Thursday, July 13, 2000 8:46 AM Steve Piasecki FVV: Lake Biltmore From: Steve Piasecki Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:24 AM To: Joseph Antonucci Subject: RE: Lake Biltmore From: Joseph Antonucci Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:26 PM To: Steve Piasecki Subject: Lake Biltmore Steve, today Jerry and went out to the Lake Biltmore project, and checked following: 1. All walkways were clean 2. Construction area was blocked off with fences or caution tape. 3. Balconies that are being replaced. I talked with the engineer of record and he told me that when the balconies are not under supervision, the door to the balcony will have plywood over it for safety. 4. They have some areas that need dust control, we advised the contractor to keep the area wet down and to bring in some rock on the new dirt drive way. 5. I talked with the asbestos contractor, they have the required state permits and to the best of my knowledge they are removing the asbestos using t,~e proper methods. 6. As for the water habitats. All the water is out of the lakes. I only saw two ducks on site. It is my understanding that every effort was made to remove all the ducks before the construction started. As for the two ducks that remain they have placed a large pan of water, I think that they need to do more but that is not an area that I know much about. 7. The gap around the windows will be sealed when the installation is complete. Not much we can do about that. 8. The replacing of the siding is under way, I don't know what we can do to help the people who are occupying the buildings. 9. I did not notice any outstanding noise problem other then normal construction noise. I have had an inspector out to the project at least two times every working day and some days we have been out to the project even more times. I will continue to monitor the project and do the best we can to provide safe place for everyone. June 26, I received a call from Mr. Sreehari Narsimhaiah stating that on Saturdays when we are not at work the construction people are not keepingthe walkways clean. I asked the Code Enforcement Department to check the project on Saturdays for us. They are now going out and checking for safety problems each Saturday. June 26, 8:30 AM, back out to check for safety problems, everything looked OK. June 26, 3:30 PM. Had call about doors with plywood over them. I found that they had blocked off doors that had the balconies removed. July 5, 2000, I received arue-mail from Mr. Sreehari Narsimhaiah, that was sent on June 26. The e-mail advised that work would be going on for the staircase and landing for his unit. I called Mr. Sreehari and asked him how the work went, he said that it was some problem for him to get in and out of his unit when the work was in progress, but everything was fine now and he has no problems at this time. July 5, 2000, 8:15 AM. I was out to the project today and talked with Marilyn Fishel, resident relations manager. I told her that I was advised that when they were working on the new landings that people were Page 1 allowed to remain in the units. I told her that if the people could or would not get out of the unit that they need to move to another unit to do the landing work, a unit that did not have people in it, she said OK. The site looked OK, the walk ways were clean and the construction area was blocked off from the residents area. July 6, 2000, 7:55 AM. Checked the project for safety problems. Everything looked OK. Except I saw an electric cable on the walkway at one location and romex cable being used for temporary power at another location. The remex cable can not be used for temporary wiring, is not the correct type of wire. Also they did not have the required ground fault protection for equipment. Both problems have been corrected. July 7, 2000, 1:00 PM. Checked job for safety, everything looked OK. July 12, 2000, 8:00 AM. Checked project for safety, found the following items: 1. Electrical cords and equipment on walkways. 2. They had a ladder on the ground next to the walkway. 3. Broken window next to walkway. 4. Ail hand rails, for all stairways, on every unit needs to be changed, They do not meet code. Page 2 Exhibit 8 C, tEAdr 'sory BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Compliance & Enforcement Division June 14, 2000 This Advisory is provided to inform you about activities of the District which may affect your operation. It is hoped that it will assist you in your effort to achieve and maintain compliance with applicable air pollution rules and regulations. ATTENTION: ASBESTOS DEMOLITION & RENOVATION CONTRACTORS ASBESTOS OPERATION FEES MUST BE PREPAID Effective July 1, 2000, .full payment of fees for asbestos operations (demolitions and renovations) that are subject to Regulation 3, Schedule L will be required at the time the notification is subntkted. Fees are payable by cheek, money order, cash Or credit card. FAX notifications will only be accepted if the notification form is accompanied by credit card authorization. Asbestos operations are subject to the fees set forth ia the following tables: FEES FOR ALL ASBESTOS OPERATIONS (EXCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)* Square Feet Linear Feet Fee Renovation Renovation 100-159 100-259 $210 1';0-500 260-500 $305 501-1000 501-1OO0 : " $445 1001 '2500 1001-2500 $555 2501-5000 ,2501-5000 ,. $935 ....5OOI-10000 5OOl-loo00 $12~5 loo01+ loo0I+ $1635 Demolition Only D~olition Only, $150 · FEES FOR ASBESTOS OPERATIONS AT SINGLE FAbHLY DWELLINGS* Square Feet Linear Feet Fee Renovation Renovation lOO-~OO ~oo-~oo $75 ~o1-1ooo $Ol-]OOO ~27~ too]-2ooo loo]-2ooo S4o0 2001 + 2001 + $5:50 '" Demolition Only,, Demolition Only $35 A portion of the fee, $35 for single family dwellings and $100 for othex types, will be nonrefundable if the job is cancelled. If you have any questions, please call the Asbestos Te~. at (415) 749-4762. ~ce and Enforcement 939 Ellis Street · San Francisco, California 94109 · (415) 771-6000 · FAX (415) 928-0338 Exhibit 9 January 4, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 9 '18. Deblin I - Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding tentative map to subdivide a .73 acre parcel into three parcels, 10840 Bubb Road, Application 3-TM-98, 3-TM-98. Appellant Rebecca Casciani requests continuance. Co.uncil unanimously agreed to continue Item No. 18: Deblin I, to January 19, as agreed by the appellant and applicant. 19. Lake Biltmore Apartments, 10159 South Blaney Avenue (APN 369-03-008), Applications 11-Z-98, 14-U-98, and 31-EA-98. Request to rezone an existing apartment complex from R3 (Residential, multiple family) zone to P(R-3) Planned development multiple family) zone; and use permit to re-landscape and construct new garages and 24 new apartments. A Negative Declaration is recommended and the item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1805, "An ordinance of the City Council of the · City of Cupertino Rezoning 10159 S. Blaney Avenue (APN 369-03-008 from R-3 to p(R-3) (Application 11-Z-98)." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report, and showed which lakes may be eliminated. At least one lake would be retained, and some water features would be installed to create th,~ sound of nmning water. Some trees would be removed, and others replaced. Parking will be slightly reduced to two spaces per unit, and existing Carports will be converted into garages at the western and northern edge. IMr. John Moss, Pegasus Development, said their plans include redesigning the existing~ clubhouse and replacing the furnishings; replacing damaged siding; replacing carportsJ with private garages; adding landscaping and trellises in some areas; adding 24 new/ one-bedroom apartments in the existing parking areas; and replacing the lakes with] landscaping and water features. He said the reasons for replacing the lakes include the risk to toddlers in the complex, water conservation and water treatment issues, and addressing complaints about rodents. Mr. Moss said they will be creating more useable open space and retaining the vast majority of significant landscaping. He discussed the neighbor and resident meetings which had been held and said the vast majority of input on this project has been favorable or neutral. He reviewed four issues which had been discussed the Planning Commission meeting, including limiting construction hours' on the weekend; opening access on the northwest comer to Blaney; .encouraging the residents to use garages for parking and not storage; and revising the plan to replace the lakes with water features. Mr. Andy Raymundos, architect, said that of the 24 new units, only two of those will be in places where there is currently landscaping. He distributed some photographs of the structures which are currently in the island areas and the motor courts. He also showed some elevations of the other proposed buildings and described the changes in siding style and color. June 25, 2000 Exhibit 10 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S: Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at-Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a henlth hnznrd,' breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded approprintely, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereof, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake Biltmore/Biltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location (? IA. June 22, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The B iltmore Apamnents 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr.. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse agaiust you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereof, to the fullest extent of the taw. Additional residents of Lake Biltmore/Biltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location June 25, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Corapany 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for you~ immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse ngaio~t you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereof, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake BiltmorefBiltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed, Name Location June 22,, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Bikrnore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for you~. immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereof, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake Biltmorc/Biltmorc ar~ standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. June 22, 2,000 '- Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property ManaBcment Company 650 Brid~e Parkway Kedwood City, CA. 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Safien We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereo?~ to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake Biltmom/Biltmom arc standing by, and their next course of action Will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location I0 d June 22, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino~ CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereor, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake Bilmaore/Biltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location June 22, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino~ CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination' thereo~, to the fullest extent of the law. ........ .~dditional residentS of Lake BiltmorefBiltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location - June 22, 2000 - Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Bil~aore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company · 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood CiVj, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Ducote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration.. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and~or any combination thereoi, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake BiltmoredBiltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determlncd by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location 14- June 22, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Dan Sailer Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Dear Mr. Dueote and Mr. Sailer: We, the undersigned, present the following for your immediate consideration. Individual complaints and demands include, but are not limited to, the items listed on the attached. The conditions at Lake Biltmore are violating our right to quiet enjoyment, generating a health hazard, breaking the implied warranty of habitability, and forcing wrongful constructive eviction. You have 48 hours in which to respond. If, at the end of 48 hours, you have either not responded or not responded appropriately, we will begin legal recourse against you, Maxim, Prometheus and/or any combination thereof, to the fullest extent of the law. Additional residents of Lake Biltmore/Biltmore are standing by, and their next course of action will be determined by your responses to the enclosed. Name Location F Maxim/Promethens "Lake" Bikmore ~19/2000 Maxim/Prome~eus has 48 hours in which to respond to the following demands. Maxim/Prometheus will respond in order to resolve, and begin to compensate for the following, which is not limited to issues listed, to our satisfaction: · Compensation for Loss by virtue of our residence being' rendered uninhabitable and a substandard dwelhng by legal description the majority of the time since May 30 2000 - that includes the loss of our bathroom (construction workers chmbing in and out and walking through our residence, no window and no privacy, no access to our shower, no access to our commode, no water), our kitchen (workers climbing in and out, no water, interrupted electricity, no access to our stove, cabinets or our refrigerator), our bedroom (workers climbing in and out, no windows, no privacy), our living room (workers in and out, the entire back wall gone at one point, dirt, dust and debris being tracked throughout, no privacy even to make a telephone call or he down and rest, no ventilation by virtue of being boarded up) and the dressing room area (either no water or flooding, couldn't even wash our hands) - all on multiple and/or diffe~nt occasions. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, California Health and Safety Code Section 46000, California Health and Safety Code Section 44507.) · Compensation for Loss of proper ventilation to the residence - three windows have been reduced in Size, one window reduced by nearly 50%, one window eliminated completely, the patio door opening reduced by 50%. All this as temperatures are averaging into the 80 degree range and climbing up to 100+ degrees. Complicating this is the amount of debris and noise being generated daily outside our building, which requires windows and doors to be closed for health reasons - without benefit of AJC such as the office has had for years (and has been denied to the residents). You may also note that, in spite of pre-construction warnings regarding respiratory ailments, including a recent bout with pneumonia, "shop" was set up directly outside our bedroom & kitchen windows and remained that way throughout more than two weeks at our building. Deliberate? (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3.) · Compensation for Loss of full use and appearance of our residence exterior:. Visitors - associates, family members, friends, deliveries, etc couldn't approach our home due to the dangers from forklifts, power saws, power drills, electrical cords, power compressors, major construction movement, and construction workers (etc) all over our building, entrance and front lawn. Further, it has been dangerous to us to enter or exit our home without risking injury from flying boards, glass, shards, trucks, wires, power tools etc over our heads and all around us. We've been repeatedly "trapped" inside our home - including boarded and ma/led inside, and blocked out of our home without the ability to gain access. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1) · Compensation for Maxim/Prometheus Knowingly, Willingly, Negligently' and Maliciously endangering our health and well-being, as well as that of the entire resident population and adjacent neighborhood, by Repeated and Continual Exposure to airborne particulate matter including.asbestos, fiberglass, sheet rock, plaster, wood dusts, cement siding dusts (and the other composite materials contained), dusts, molds, fungus and other as yet unidentified materials and debris released as the old siding, lumber, floors, ceilings, walls insulation, etc as it is being removed from in and around our residence and adjacent residence buildings - from the initial ACM/PACM disturbances and disruptions, as well as improper conta/nment and abatement procedures following incidents of asbestos contamination and the improper (and illegal) removal and disposal procedures of ACM/PACM materials. (California Health and Safety Code Section 44507, OSHA Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Issues and Regulations, Dept of Industrial Relations Sub Chapter 4 - Construction Safety Orders, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11, ACC Environmental Consultants) · Compensation for the Loss and inability to safely have our personal possessions on our shelves, bookshelves, counters, tables and walls due to the excessive impacts and resultant vibrations and shaking to our building by construction work 10 hours a day for more than 10 days since May 30 2000. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 44507.) · Compensation for complete Loss of privacy in our residence for at least ten days since May 30 2000, and continued daily loss of privacy to varying degrees since that date, as a result of being forced to live in the very middle of a massive construction project. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1) · Compensation for Disruption of our sleeping, eating as well as our business patterns daily since May 5,~ 2000 - which are all developed around our requirements to be available and capable of doing business with contacts in Europe, on the east coast as well as the west coast - by chronic and excessive noise, power outages, loss of ability to take showers or clean our clothes faster than the construction project can dirty them, and the constant interruptions of our privacy due to your on-going construction project. Our ability to conduct business "off hours" away from our office, telephonically from our residence, has been compromised and we have suffered monetarily as a result of your actions. (California Health and Safety Code Section 44507, California Health and Safety Code Section 46000.) · Compensation for Maxim/t~x~metheus Knowingly, Willingly, Negligently and Maliciously enclangefing our health and well-being, as well as that of the entire resident population and adjacent neighborhood, by Repeated and Continual Exposure to disagreeable, malodorous and most probably toxic odors, vapors and contaminants coming from the degrading bottom residue of the former lakes and waterways for at least a month so far- which knowingly consists of duck, swan and other bird fecal materials, decaying organic matter such as leaves and wood, decaying crayfish, dead animals and birds observed over the years, unknown chemical residue from previous chemical "treatments," plus whate~/er other unknown items have been thrown or deposited in the ponds - all of which have not been cleaned or removed for at least a period of the past 10 years. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 179'203, California Health and Safety Code Section 44507.) · Compensation for Loss of appropriate, sanitary, and safe garbage disposal - we do not consider 2 large plastic garbage cans 10 feet outside our bedroom window, complete with flies, as "sanitary, safe or appropriate." (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 179203.) · Compensation for Loss of appropriate .landscaping - we do not consider open, drying cesspool r' surrounding all these residential buildings as "lands.aping," anymore than cut down shrubs and bush trampled lawns, etc. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1) · Compensation for complete Loss of off-street parking for almost two months so far for our personal vehicles. Our contract included two parking lot spaces - you later refused to honor one of them, and now you've withdrawn all our parking facilities without compensation. · Compensation for Loss of reasonable laundry room access for a month so far to date - your company having removed 1/3 of the laundry room facilities, leaving us and other residents "standing in line" or doing our laundry in the middle of the night · Compensation for Loss by being totally boarded and nailed in and/or out of our residence at times - with no air flow, no water, minimal light, power outages, etc during 80+ to 100+ degree weather. Sometimes the work crew broke for lunch and left us in the above described condition. (California Civil Code Section 1941.1, California Health and Safety Code Section 179'203.) · Compensation for Loss of Peace and Tranquility and the ability between 7:30 am and 5:30 pm since May 30 2000, to have enough quiet to have normal conversations anywhere inside our residence, or hold a telephone conversation, because of the exlxemely excessive construction noise levels. (California Health and Safety Code Section 46000) · Compensation for repeated exposure to gasoline fumes from running generators f'flling our residence- including occasions when we were without even windows to dose and protect ourselves at least to some degree. (California Health and Safety Code Section 179203, California Health and Safety Code Section 445O7.) · Compensation for Loss of our personal time since May 30 2000, as we're obliged to take approx one to t,, o hours each day to try to m-clean our residence, removing construction debris, nails, screws, wood, plaster, dirt, asbestos, fiberglass, dusts, sawdust, cement dust, etc. · Compensation for Loss of appemance of the residence - ie dumpsters, forklifts, garbage cans, broken glass and nails, Wash on the ground everywhere - a full-blown construction site directly outside, inside, and all around our home since May 30 2/x)o. (California Civil Code Section_1941.1) · Compensation for Loss of our "secure storage" off our patio, as it was compromised by your um~vu~ed construction and wiring project. The unauthorized removal of our private possessions from our "secure storage" left our possessions on the patio and out in the dirt - and it remains un.securable to this date. Some items still c~nnot be accounted for, others we know who took them. · Compensation for Loss of our outside "security fighting" at the front door, inoperable for a period of 8 days, leaving us in darkness at our front yard and front entry. Considering that these are boxed-in areas with no visibility from the street, ample places for perpetrators to hide, and no street light illumination, there is a heightened risk and threat to tenants as a result of this error. This has also left us in total darkness with power saws, broken glass, ladders, sawhorses, nails, wires and other "construction hazards" for us to try to get through in the darkness. · Compensation for the Loss of our ability to respond to f'u~ was compromised. You removed the fire extinguishers, located outside the residences according to fire code, for the f'u'st eight days of construction. Additionally, your employees and construction personnel have constantly blocked the fire hydrant - including with large construction equipment- further endangering us during a period where wiring was being exposed, water pipes were being disturbed, excessive amounts of (flammable) dust was being generated, electrical equipment was in constant use, volatile and flammable fluids were being used and stored at or near the buildings, etc., etc., etc. · Compensation for'Loss of the ability to leave our residence unattended since May 30 2000, what with dozens of unauthorized coustmction workers climbing in and out of our residence via the windows and doors, and unknown numbers of others having access to our home and all of our possessions. Yes, you supplied what (only you) refer to as ``security," but '.hat person was stopped once, and observed a second time, attempting'to make an unlawful (ie: unauthorized by us, and unannounced) entry by use of keys into our residence. (California Civil Code Section 19:54) · Compensation for Loss in that your construction project has already caused medical conditions to arise which were not an issue prior to the commencement of this project. These include, but are not limited to, skin irritation and rashes, sore throat and hoarseness, irritated eyes, lung congestion, severe headaches and increased allergic reactions to ah'borne particulate, increased asthma-type respiratory conditions. This has resulted in an increasingly stressful environment, medical advice, doctor visits and increased medication intake. (I will take a moment to advise you: ! ~t year, after the fumigation project in which you also endangered a great many lives,' harmed numerous people and temporarily evicted the entire resident population, Mrs. 1vrfller was accused by your staff of "just setting things up for a lawsuit" when she went to them - as notified in writing to do - for help, and in medical distress. Then she was then ignored completely and not assisted in any way. You will note thatno lawsuit has yetto be instigated. NOTICE The first person to make such a slanderous statement this time around, about either of us, or anyone else for that matter, and all bets are off. I will come after you with everything I can muster for the rest of my life. You will become a career with me. I promise you this, I swear it on my life. I still owe Maxim/Prometheus/Biltmore big-time for that TenvJnix attack of last year.) · Compensation for the cost of moving from the premises and relocation to another residence of our choosing. · Compensation for public embarrassment mused Mrs. lVfdler by on-site property management Michael Ducote yelling loudly from an upstairs landing and accusing Mrs. Miller of criminal conduct (trespass - entering a premises belonging to another) and accusing her of being a liar when she denied such claims and · was explaining the actual circumstances of her being in that immediate spot at that precise moment. (California Civil Code Section 43, 44, 46) · Compensation for an assault on Mrs. 1VFfller at the hands of a Maxim/Pwmetheus employee, who had to be warned repeatedly of her impending arrest and subsequent jailing if any further unwarranted and Unwanted physical contact (including but not' limited to pushing and shoving) were initiated by the Maxim/Prometheus employee - identified as Real Estate Manager "Chris" (by any spelling) (California Penal Code 240, 242) · Compensation for Loss of Peaceful and Tranquil living arrangemenxs, when Mrs. lVfiIler was placed in fear of her well-being if unaccompanied, resulting from the above instances, and required a Sheriff's Deputy to act on "civil standby" while she (Mm. Miller) delivered paperwork to the on-site property management office.. · Compensation for Loss and Peaceful and Tranquil living arrangement when on 6/9/2000 Michael Ducote, in front of the Santa Clara Sheriff's Deputy, disputed the written notice presented him to not enter our premises and threatened to enter by use of his own key - expressing physical and verbal intimidation, contempt, disdain and disregard for the legal notification just presented him. (L~e Biltmore rental agreement paragraph 16, California Civil Code Section 1954, California Civil Code Section 52.1.) · Compensation for Loss of Peaceful and Tranquil living arrangements, by virtue of constant, excessive, startling destruction/construction noises 10+ hours a day, six days a week. This onslaught of overpowering noises and other disruptions have caused physical discomfort, nervous tensions, anxiety, stress, physical and emotional exhaustion, and other such symptoms not unlenown to persons constantly found to be under duress. There are many more documented (day, date, time, names, locations, witnesses, photographs, video, audio recordings) deprivations, inconveniences, violations, infractions, misrepresentations, illegal activities, hazards, etc., as well as the documentation to back up that which has just been stated. I'll save that part for the press and/or court as/ff needed. IN ADDITION, This letter serves as an immediate demand for copies of the following: · Any dated and signed document presented to, and accepted by, the City Council of Cupertino which would indicate to any reasonable person that your intent for the residential dwellings was anymore thsn to "repai damaged siding" as reported in the January 1999 city council minutes where this project was approved · Any copy of any official.report which would support or indicate an incident invclving a waterways or pond bn7~rd relevant to "toddlers" as presented as a matter of concern to the City of Cupertino city council - aside from the sauna and swimming pool which still remain as apparently an undated water amenity - from any time period during the existence of"Lake Biltmore". · A dated copy of your "Prop 65" notice advising residents that there is asbestos in the walls, floors and ceilings of the residential units in this complex · A copy of your pre-construction asbestos abatement plan and permits, signed off by all contractors which may be required by law to do so oA copy of your most current pre-construction asbestos test results for the residential units and the parking lot surface materials oA copy of your pre-construction certification showing your asbestos abatement plan (including removal,. transport and storage) in compliance with city or municipal code, and/or county, state and federal law · A copy of your dated notice to contractors and residents advising them of (potential or actual) exposure to asbestos contamination resulting from your consU-uction in and on buildings g2, #3, #5 and/6 · A copy of your pre-construction test results and report indicating the anticipated extent of the construction process disruption or disturbance to asbestos-containing materials inside the residential units was not likely to cause any exposure or contamination to workers, residents or people in the neighborhood · A copy of your pre-construction notification and evacuation plan for residents in the event of an asbestos contamination becoming airborne 4of 40 · A copy of your pre-construction project inquiries among tenants to determine which medical conditions would be adversely effected by any of your consu'uction processes · A copy of your pre-construction plan which would address and/or-accommodate the health needs of those persons identified during your pre-construction inquiry · A copy of your inspection report on inhabited residential units during construction which indicates the degree of monitoring for the health, status, exposure to toxins or carcinogens, or lack thereof, for the inhabita=ts of buildings #1, g2, #3, #5 and #6 oA copy of yohr pm-construction test results of the materials removed from the parking lot, and the ground itserf, ensuring no known airbome contaminants would be released during the construction project °A copy of your dated pre-construction tests results for lead-based toxins in or on the buildings oA copy of your pre-construction test results for molds, spores, fungus, mildew or any other type of potentially harmful organisms which might be disturbed or become airborne as a result of the renovation pwcess of the old walls of the residence units · A copy of your dated tests results for contaminants or diseases in the waterways pre-drying out process · A copy of your dated test results of the dried fecal n~.~r and other decaying debris now in the former waterways · A copy of your dated test results for noise levels inside and outside occupied dwellings during construction · Any copy of the laws or regulations which would allow you to attempt removing, intimidating, pushing, shoving, touching, threatening or coercing a tenant ;u good standing from any portion of the property not appropriately and legally marked off, fenced off, closed off, barricaded, or posted in such a fashion as to indicate to any reasonable person that access is restricted in any way. · Any copy of any document or law which states that Maxim/Prometheus has the right to temporarily evict tenants in good standing for hours or days against their will for the purpose of construction, renovation, abatement (without benefit of testing first), fumigation or any other elective non-emergency process desired by the landlord °Any document which would "require" (as you have written) a tenant in good standing to leave their place of residence for any period of time, not of their own volition, for any reasons other than an emergency · Any copy of any law or civil code which states that Maxlm/Pmmetheus has the right to arbitrarily interrupt utility services (water and electrical) to any tenant in good standing without benefit of that tenant's approval and/or without a planin place which would accommodate any personal, health, medical, safety or other needs arising during such a period of being deprived. °Any document which contains law, civil code, or any other city/county/state/federal verbiage which would allow MaximfPrometheus et al to leave sharp pieces of metal, nails, screws, wood shards and splinters, fiberglass, saw blades or other dangerous pieces of construction debris laying all around the residential units as a hazard after construction activity has ceased for an extended period of time. As of this date, pounds of said items can be found strewn ali over the exterior of our building and beyond. I want to know what, or who, allows you to continue to maintain such a hazardous environment without regard or concern to legal obligations · Any document which would allow Maxim/Prometheus to leave dangerous, hazardous and/or uncompleted construction conditions (large nails protruding from the walls, unin~ulated sections of walls, unsealed sections of walls, umemished sections of sheetrock exposed, holes in the ceiling, etc., etc., etc.) inside a "renovated" - occupied - residential dwelling · The location(s) and date(s) of posting for all product MSDS involved in the construction project · A copy of Maxim/Prometheus Operations & Maintenance Program _at ~ Biltmom relevant to asbestos lead-based paints. Mr. Michael Miller 2B 1-408-865-0951 Mailing address: 19672 Stevens Creek Blvd g215 Cupertino CA 95014 References: (Note: I am including OSHA, Cai-Osha, em workplace references, due to the fact that the nature and scope of the work performed here has effectively turned all residential units into "workplace environments" and those laws and regulations which govern - and protect - workers, also apply to the residents even if against our will we have been forced into the situation. Bold and italics added for emphasis.) -California Civil Code Section 43. Besides the personal fights mentioned or recognized in thc Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from pe~onal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. -California Civil Code Section 44. Defamation is effected by either of the following: (a) l_~el. Co) Slander. · California Civil Code Section 46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means Which: 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; · California Civil Code Section $2.1. (a) Whenever a person or persons, whether or not acling under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, With the exercise or enjoyment by any individtml or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secm~ by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney C-eneml, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil act/on for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in ~lerto protect the peaceable exerdse or enjoyment of the right or rights secure~ *California Civil Code Section 1941.1. A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative (a) Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior wails, including unbroken windows and doors. (b) Plumbing or gas facilities which conformed to applicable law in effect at thc time of installation, maintained in good working (c) A water supply approved under applicable law, which is under the control of the tenant, capable of producing hot and cold running water, or a system which is under the cenu~l of the landlord, which produces hot and cold running water, furnished to appropriate fixtures, and connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable law. (d) Heating facilities which conformed with applicable law at the time of installation, maintained in good working order. (e) Electrical lighting, with wiring and electrical equ/pment which conformed'with applicable law at the time of installa mainta/ned in good woridng order. (f) Building, grounds and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the lease or rental agreement in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin, and all areas under control of the landlord kept in every part clean, sanitary, and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, gafl~age, rodents, and vermin. 6of 11 2,~ 4~...~ (g) An _~len_ ~ua~ number of appropriate receptacles for ~e and rubbish, in clean condition and good repair at the time of the commencement of the lense or rental agreement, with the landlord providing appropriate servic~dfle receptacl~ thereafter, arti being responsible for the clean condition and good t~air of such receptacles under his conn'ol. (h) Floors, stairways, and tailings maintained in 8ood repair. (NOTE: I've included this section 1942.5 to save you and your on-site management team the trouble of looking it tip. I understand they are still trying to pull the "Shut up or I'll evict you" routine even just last week -just aa was doneto the tenants in good standing last year during the Terminix/Maxim/Biltmore fiasco. "Strongly encouraging" could be construed as "causing to quit involuntarily", so could creating 'living conditions so advet~ that they become unbearable. Think about it. Hard.) *California Civil Code Section 1~42.$. (a) If the lessor retaiiat~ aga/ust the lessee because of the exerdse by the lessee of his fights under this chapter or because of his complaint to an apptopr/at~ agency as to tenantability of a dwelling, and if the lessee of a dwelling is not in default as to the payment of his rent, the lessor may not recover posseasion of a dwelling in any action or proceeding, cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any service~ within 180 days: (1) After the cl=t._ upon which the lessee, in good faith, has given notice pursuant to Sect/on 1942, or has made an oral complaint to the lessor regarding tenantability; or (2) After thc ,t~te_ upon which thc lessee, in good faith, has filed a written complaint, or an omi complaint which is registered or otherwise mt:o~l~ in writing, with an appropriate agency, of which the lessor has notice, for'the p~ of obtaining correction of a condition relating to tenantability; or (3) After thc date of an inspact/on tx issuance of a citation, resulting from a complaint described in paragraph (2) of which thc lessor did not have notice; or (4) After the filing of al~ropdate documents commencing a judicial or arbitration proceeding involving the issue of tenantability; (5) After entr~ of judgment or the signing of an arbitration award, if any, when in 'the judicial proceeding or arbitration the issue of tenantability is determined adversely to the lessor. In each instance, the 180-day period shall mn from the latest applicable referred to in paragraphs (1) to (b'), inclusive. (b) A lessee may not invoke the provisions of subdivision (a) more than once in any .~2-month period. (c) It shall be unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease .servic_~_. cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of such acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee be~__~t~e he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees' association or an organization advocating lessees' rights or has lawfully and peaceably exe~ised any rights under the law. In an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to this subdivision, the lessee Shall bear the burden of pwducing evi&mce that the lessors conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. (cO Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting in any way the exercise by the lessor of his tights undo' any lease or agreement or any law pertaining to the hiring of property or his right to do anyof the acts described in subdivision (a) or (c) for any lawful cause. Any waiver by a lessee of his rights under this section shall be void as contrary to public policy. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, alessor may recover posses.sion of a dwelling anddo any of the other acts described in subdivision (a) within the period or periods la, scribed therein, or within subdivision (c), if the notice of termination, rent increase, or other act, and any pi_~6ing or statement of issues in an arbitration, if any, states the ground upon which the lessor, in good faith, seeks to recover possession, iuctease rent, or do any of the other acts described in subdivision (a) or (c). If such statement be controverted, the lessor shall establish its troth at the trial or other hearing. (f) Any lessor or agent of a lessor who violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a civil action for all of the following: (1) The actual damages sustained by the lessee.. (2) Punitive damages in an amount of not less than one htmdred dollars ($I00) nor more than one thousand dolla~ ($1,000) for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to such act. (g) In any action brought for damages for retaliatory eviction, the court shall award reasonable attom~:y's fees to the prevailing party if either party requests attorney's fees upon the initiation of the action. (h) The remedies provided by this sect/on shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law. oC,,iifornla Civil Code Section 1~$4. A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:. (a) In case of emergency. (b) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or aglt, ed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors. (c) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises. id) Pursuant to court order. · California Penal Code 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. , _ *California Penal Code 242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. -California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or thc premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions, to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or weffare of the public or the occupaats thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building'.. (a ) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling uric (3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink. (5) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit. (6) Lack of adeq~mr~ heating. (7) Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. (8) Lack of minimum mounts of natural light and ventilation reqmred by this code. (10) Lack of required electrical lightin~ (11) Dampness of habitable ro0m~. (12) Infestation Of insects, vermin; or rodents as determined by the health officer. (13) General dilapidation or improper maintenance. (14) l~ck of connection to required sewage disposal system. (15) Lack of adequate garbage and rubb/sh storage and removal facilities as determined by the health officer. (b) Structural haz. ar~ shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Deterioramt or inadequate foundations. (2) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. (3) Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical support~ that split, lean, li~t, or buckle due to ddective matefi~'i or dem/omtio~ (5) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings and roof supports, or other horizontal membe~ which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (7) Members of ceiling, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (c) Any nuisance. (d) All wiring, except that which conformed With all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. · (e) All plumbing, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and which has'been maintained in good condition, or which may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly, and which is free of cross connections and siphonage between fixtures. (f) All mechanical equipment, including vents, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and which has been maintained in good and :~fe condition, or which may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose piaster. (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors. (3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective coveting. (4) Broken, rotted, split, or buckled exterior wail coverings or roof coverings. (i) All materials of construction, except those which are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and which have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition. (j) Those premises on which an accumulation of weed~ vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offak rodent harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions constitute fire, health, or safety h~'zrds. (k) Any building or portion ~herecf which is demmined to be an Unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. · California Health and Safety Code Section 44507. 'Pollution' m~ans m altemion of ~ quali~y of ~hc env./rov, me-t of the s~ate ~t sl~ll be detained by thc various standards prescribed from time to time by this state, the f _~le~i_ government, or any agency, deparlment, or political subdivision of this sta~ or the fecl~ral government, andmay iaclude, but is not limited to, earth, ~ir, or wa~ pollution, pollution csused by solid or l~zmdan waste disposal, thermal pollution, radiation contamination, the rdease of hazardous materials, or noise pollutibn. Pollution also means the contamination of soil or grmmdwater resulting from the release of hazardous materials, es defined in Section 25260, at sites with a reasonable potential for economically beneficial reuse. · California Health and Safety Code Section 25141. (a) The clelmmnent shall develop and adopt by regula~on criteria and guidelines for the identification of bazantous wastes and extremely hazardous wastes. (b) The criteria and guidelines adopted by the clepanment pursuant to subdivision (a) shall identify waste or combinations of waste, that may do either of the follow/nE, as hazardous waste because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics: (1) Cause, or significantly conUibutc ~o an increase in mortaliBt or an increase in serious irreve~ble, or incapacitating reversible, illness. (2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to t~actors including, but not limited to, eareinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, uams~rted, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (c) Except es provided in Section 25141.5, any regulations edoped pursuant to this section for thc identification of hezan/ous waste es it read on January l, 1995, which arc in effect on January 1, 1995, shall be deemed to comply with the intent of this section es amended by this act during the 1995 portico of thc 1995-96 Regular Session of thc Legislature. · California Health and Safety Code Section 25316. (a) Any substance designated pux~mnt to Section 1321(b)(2)(A) of Title 33 of the Uni'.ed States Code. (b) Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance ~esignated pursuant to Section 102 of the federal act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9602). (c) Any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pumuant to Section 6921 of Title 42 of the United States Code, but not iaclud/ng any waste the regulation 'of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by act of Congress. (d) Any toxic pollutant listed under Sect/on 1~ 17(a) of Title 33 of the United States Code. (e) Any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code. (0 Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with ~ to which the Adminiswator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has taken action pumuan~ to Section 2606 of Title 15 of the United States Code. (g) Any hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste es defined by Sections 25117 and 25115, respectively, unless expressly · California Health and Safety Code Section 46000. .. The Legislature hereby finds and dechres ~ (a) Excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and wdfare. (b) Exposure to cemin levels of noise can result in physiological, ps~:hological, and economic damage. (c) There is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in thc urban, suburban, and mr-al areas. (d) Government has not token the stel~ necessary to provide for the control, abatement, and prevention of unwanted and hazardous noise. (e) The State of California has a reeqxmsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prcventiun, and abatement of noise. (0 All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or weffare. (g) It is the policy of the state to provide an envittmment for all Californians free fwm noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end it is the purpo~ of this division to establish a means for effective coordination of state activities in noise control and to take such action es will be n~ to achieve the purposes of this section. · California Health and Safety Code Section 46022. "Noise" means and includes exr_~_i_ve undesirable sound, includ/ng that Woducexi by persons, pets and livestock, industrial equ/pment, construction, motor vehicles, boats, aircraft, home appliances, electric motors, combustion engines, and any other 90fll ~2 _~0'- noise-producing objects. *OSHA Record Type: Interpretation _ Suandnrd Number. 1910.1200 Subject: Interpretation on the requirements of the hazard communication standard with regard to fiberglass products. Robert Horowitz, President Victims of Fiberglass Post Office Box 162646 Sacramento, Califorma 95816-2646 Dear Mr. Horowitz: This is in' response to your letters of February 19, ~ldressed to John B. Miles, Jr., Director, Directorate of Compliance Programs and to John Martonik, former Deputy Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs on August 30, 1996, for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regarding OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requirements for labeling an Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation product trade named Miraflex. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your previous letters. Your letters indicate concern ns to whether a cancer warning is required on the label for Miraflex products. The labeling requirements for specific products may vary depending upon end use. Products which are utilized by employees in the workplace rather than consumers are generally requi_~fl to comply with29 CFR 1910.1200. When these products contain fiberglass material, they may be required to include a warning of cancer on the label and disclose lnform.atlon relating to this hazard on the material safety data sheet. However, products which are comi~red to be consumer pwciucts, i.e. sold over the' counter in reta/l establishments, ate subject to labeling requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et. seq.)(CPS Act) and, therefore, specifically exempt from the labeling requirements of the OSHA's Hazardous Communication Standard pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.1200(b)(5)(v). OSHA contacted Owens Coming World H_~_~uarters and was informed that the vast majority of Miraflex is sold as a consumer product, trade named PinkPlus, to retailers for use by home owners in do-it-yourself projec~ For the specific label carcinogen warning requirements under the CPS Act, I suggest you cont~t the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Owens Corning also provided a photocopy of a product safety and health information sheet for Mlraflex PinkPlus which does contain information about cancer. This sheet is available to employers who utilize Pinlcplus in a work'place setting. I hope this clarifies OSHA's position on the requirements of the hazel communication sUandard with regal to fiberglass products. Sincerely, Stephen Mallinger, Acting Director Office of Health Compliance Assistance · OSHA Record Type: Hazard Communication Section: 3 Title: III. Summar7 and Explanation of the Issues and the Pwvisions of thc Final Rule [59 FR 6126, Feb. 9, 1994] The Sheet Metal Worke~ stated in their testimony: 'We, in the Sheet Metals Workem', our contractors, and others in construction unions, know that many more health hazards exist on a construction site than is generally believed." (Tr. 5-100.) The testimony further pointed out that products that were once considered to be fairly safe (e.g., asbestos) were later found to be highly hazardous. "As we attempt to cope with the problems of our members with asbestos disease, we are also watching closely research which is unfolding around man=made mineral fibers. Within the past year, Johns-Manville and Owens=Corning have modified their material safety data sheets to recommend the use of respirators for those working around its fiberglass products." (Tr. 5-101-2.) Other substances of coflcem include those in welding fumes, and propellants in adhesives used in asbestos removal work. (such as methylene chloride)(Tr. 5-1(T'=). "We want to share in the same protections from those and other health I~rcls that OSHA offers to our union sisters and brothers, and those in other walks of life. For many obvious reasons, we can't allow the same, or similar kinds of exposures to happen to yet another generation of sheet metal workers." (Tr. 5-1~) Another employee representative aslced the Coalition panel to comment on the conclusion of the NAS report, which was rend into the moarcl as follows (Tr. 5-87-9): 'The only illness d~t.~ from the BLS annual survey that might be useful for any purpose, may be those on occupational skin diseases, all other illnesses included on the annual survey form are under - reported and can be used only with great caution.' The conclusion of the report was further quoted as reading: "For all of these reasons, ,~t~ on occupational illnesses in the annual survey, other than those for skin diseases, are understated to the point that they are more misleading than useful.' The panel declined to comment on this conclusion. The study was entered into the record (Ex. 4l). lOof 11 *ACC Environmental Consultants - Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Issues and Regulations "Presumed Asbestos Containing Materials" Presumed asbestos conlaining materials are defined as "thermal systems insulation and surfacing material found in buildinge con,mucted no later ~ 1980.~ Floor tile and sheet flooring must also be assumed to contain asbestcs if they were installed prior to 1980. The s~ndard also sates that 'if the employer/building owner has actual knowledge, or should have known through the exercise of due diligence, that other materials are aslx~,as-containing, they too must be Ire~_ L,~ as sucl~' Materials such as ceiling tile, sheetrock mudding and texturized compounds, transite materials, wall and ceiling plaster, exterior stucco and roofing materials a~ some of the materials that may contain asbestos and should be sampled under this due diligence r~quiremenc What this presumption of a material containing asbestos effectively does is enable OSHA to cite building owners and managers If these materials are present and are being disturbed or not properly managed. Owners will no longer be able to say that they didn't know the material contained asbestos. The regulation also requires building owners to determine if asbestos containing materials are present before any work on, or adjacent to, these materials is performed. A person accredited as an asbestos inspector by thc EPA must perform sampling of materials. · California Department of Industrial Relations Code, Sub Chapter 4. Construction Safety Orders Section 1529 Asbestos - Prohibitions. The following work IraCtic~ and engineering controls shall not be used for work ~lated to asbestos or for work which disturbs ACM or PAClvi, regardless of measured levels- of asbesto~ exposure or the results of initial exposure assessments: A) High-speed abrasive disk saws that are not equipped with point of cut ventilator or enclosures with HEPA ~tered exhaust air. C) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debris containing ACM or PAC1VL *Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation (10/7/98) 11, Rule 2, Hazardous Pollutants Section 11 Demolition, Renovation and Removal: To prevent emissio-s from asbestos-co~ltaining material, a person responsible fc scheduled, nonscheduled, or emergency demolition, renovation, or removal of any building elements containing any amounts of RACM shall use the pr~ced~ specified in subsections 3(B.1 through 3(13.13. This shall not apply to maintenance or decontamination procedures where no removal rakes place. 3(13.1 Wetting Method 3(I3.2 Exhaust and Collection Method 303.6 Containment Requirement 303.7 Clean Work Site Requirement 303.8 Surveys *Lake Biltmore Rental Agreement - Section 16 Absent specific written instruction to the contrary, resident(s) hereby grants to management authorization to enter the premises during normal business hour~ subject to the following conditions: a) by having requested maintenance services within the premises b) by receipt of a 24 hour notice from management requiring entry to the premises c) emergency situations where a notice is clearly impossible d) verify continuing occupancy if rent is unpaid and it is believed that the resident(s) has vacated the premises e) to inspect and show the premises for the purposes of re-leasing after a notice to vacate has been given by the resident(s) to management. --plus other codes, laws, contractual obligations and ordinances not yet listed-- June 18, 2000 Testimonial of Marymoore Patterson, Apt. 2E This is a formal complaint to the management of the Lake Biitmore Apartments of what I and my six-year-old daughter, Emma, have undergone through the unreasonable management practices in effect here over the past months. These have made our home and most of the homes on the prop- erty unsafe and uninhabitable. I request the management to compensate us fairly, and to alter your practices both towards me and towards all of the tenants in the property. You have: · Taken away our parking, which was provided to us as pan of our lease. · Taken away our laundry, garbage, and recycling facilities, and blocked passageways to the other facilities. · Placed us in the middle of a construction zone, with dangerous, falling boards, nails, tar paper, insulation, and other debris. · Caused daily noise, shaking, and dust at dangerous levels from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., including on Saturdays. · Caused water and power outages for entire days at a time, and during record heat. · Removed the balcony and left it off for over a week, so that my daughter could open the door and fall ten feet to the concrete below. · ~Filled my home with construction debris, day after day. · Knocked out entire walls. · Taken away our fire extinguishers and blocked the fire hydrants until we were forced to call the fire department to remedy the situation. · Boarded our windows and balcony door closed. · Had construction crews climbing all around our windows and balcony day in and out. · Had workers tramping in and out of my home, through windows and doors. · Made the key to my apartment available to more people than I can imagine. · Left my front door unlocked. · Left me without a lock on my balcony door, at the same time that there was no balcony. · Tom apart my storage closet, with no warning before and no notification afterwards, and left my belongings strewn about and. jumbled together with insulation, nails, and other construc- tion debris. Finally put in a balcony, but left it unfinished, and with a broom on it that does not belong to me, and with nails strewn about, so tha't I do not know if it is safe to go out there. Left rows of nails and jagged, exposed metal edges in places where my daughter (or my cat) could easily injure herself. Marvmoore Patterson, June 18, 2000 1 of 8 ,,~.~ · Created cracks in the walls and ceilings. ' _ · Left unfinished walls and=.~.o-,~i,~,,.,o, bare plaster boards all over the apartment. · Littered the grounds around our home with nails and left them there for three weeks so far, despite my repeated requests that you clean them up. (Yesterday, I finally saw someone attending to this.) · Cut open and shaken apart walls and ceilings that contain asbestos, negligently exposing my daughter and myself, and all of the residents, to dangerous asbestos dust. * Threatened me when I requested to have my place tested for baseline asbestos contamination, at the levels we were exposed to for two weeks before you were forced by our actions and complaints to do something about the contamination. · Allowed the lakes to dry, so that the ducks died and so that any biological and chemical debris in the lake bottoms is now being spread everywhere by wind and on people's shoes, so that mosquitoes have multiplied dramatically, and so that animals have taken refuge in' the swim- ming pool, making it unsafe to use. · Minimized and misrepresented the extent and nature of everything that you have done. · Answered any questions with vague, noncommittal answers, refusing to ever let us know exactly what to be prepared for, and treating us alternately with placating condescension and intimidating arrogance. The rest of this document is a fuller description of what has happened to us here. When my then four-year-old daughter and I, along with our two cats, moved into the Lake Bilt- more apartments in November 1998, it was a haven for us. We loved it for the big, sunny win- dows, the lake below our balcony, the giant willow tree outside the kitchen windows, and the quiet. We hung crystals in the windows and called our home our rainbow tree house. We loved to watch the ducks on the lake, and in the spring when the ducklings were born, it'was a source of endless entertainment for my daughter -- the fussing mothers keeping the ducklings in line, the menacing, protecting males, and the carefree ducklings, wandering away then skittering back to mom. Our willow tree brought squirrels and hummingbirds and once, for two days, a great blue heron, right to our kitchen window. I never wanted to leave. When I moved in, the property managers, Gina and Holly, were kind and helpful, and would always give me a straight answer when I asked them questions. We had access to the clubhouse in the evening, so that it felt like it was ours, too. The maintenance man, Frank, was also kind and welcoming. He made sure everything was taken care of on my first day. Once, when he saw my daughter doing something dangerous close to a window, he knocked on my door to let me know. I was grateful for his warning. ~,,,~,~ ~o onnn 2 of 8 Then suddenly Gina and Holly were gone, and there was a rapid turnover in the office. We ended up with Lonnie and Heathen Lonnie was difficult to talk to and I began avoiding the office, because any encounter with him left me frustrated and anD'y. In early 1999, I heard that they planned to fill in the lakes. My heart sank. They were going to kill the magic. When I asked Heather and Lonnie about it, I never got a clear answer. "Oh well, noth- ing is decided. There may be some restructuring. In any case, the lakes are a dated amenity." Where did they come up with that term? Being consistently snubbed, I stopped asking questions. I heard from another resident that many people had protested, and that city council had turned down their request to fill in the lakes. I took heart again. But the change initiated with the turnover in the office became more marked. The office began issuing edicts, in the form of notes hung on our doorknobs. It was always bad news. Every time I came home and saw a white notice on my door, my stomach lurched. I took some comfort if it was' on other doors; too, because at least I wasn't being singled out for some discomfort or expense. The worst was that they always couched their bad news in the form of good news. They remodelled the office, closing it for a couple months, dui'ing which time the exercise roOm was closed (though they did find another complex that let us use theirs). When they reopened, the new exercise room was much smaller and more crowded, and we could no longer get into the clubhouse after hours. Early this year, Lonnie suddenly disappeared and Michael Ducote, a veteran Maxim employee, was now our property manager. .He introduced himself with a letter on our door Saturday, Febru- ary t9, which mentioned that the walkways to the office, fitness room, pool/spa, and laundry facil- ity would be .closed four to six weeks for "landscape" renovation, a euphemism for complete reconstruction, as it turned out. The construction would begin in two days and would occur Mon- day to Friday. The letterhead still read "Lake Biltmore Apartments." On April 5, we received the next bit of good newsl They would be adding 24 new apartments to the complex, and everyone would have garages. No one asked for garages, and everyone knew that all it would mean was a more crowded complex and higher rents. However, we didn't own the place, so there was nothing we could do. Unfortunately, the construction meant bulldozing our parking spaces and removing our laundry and garbage facilities. The consa'uction would begin on April 17, and any cars still in the parking lot at that time would be towed at the owners' expense. The lakes were drying up. The lake by my balcony was one of the last to go. It was pitiful to see the tiny newborn ducklings swimming around in the bit of muddy scum that was left. They were dying of thirst, because they couldn't fly away like the adults. Their mothers stayed with them. When I asked Heather if the lakes would be filled in, she replied that some changes were being made. What changes? She didn't really know. It was still undecided. The dried up lakes were disgusting. Who knows what sort of biolo~cal and chemical soup was now exposed and being trampled through and spread into the environment and people's homes. Patterson. June 18, 2000 3 of 8 ~ -~.~"~ Suddenly, the management had a new leuerhead that read "The Bittmore" instead of Lake Bilt- more Apartments. Was this our notification that the lakes were gone for good? Now we had to hike all the way around the complex carrying heavy loads of laundry and garbage, since our closest facilities were gone and since so many of the walkways were closed off for con- struction. We had to stand in line for the .laundry. We had to compete for the minimal street park- ing. My car was bumped from behind. I had to wash my car every week. We parked in the surrounding neighborhood, and I wondered how those homeowners felt about the flood of cars on their streets. When we complained about the garbage problem, they took the recycling bins and put them in front of our buildings for garbage. Residents stopped trying to recycle. Still, I didn't own the place. Ail of a sudden, though, I no longer wanted to live here forever. I asked Heather exactly what construction was going on 'and how long it would take. That they were building new apartments and were going to replace some rotting boards on the existing buildings was the closest she would give me to an answer. I didn't even want to know much was my rent going to go up as a result of all these improvements. Now the ~ounds had caution tape and construction zones everywhere we turned. I began to be concerned' about my daughter's safety. I no longer let her play on the complex. New construction began inside existing buildings. When I asked Heather about it (she was the only one there on weekends, which is generally the only time I can go to the office; also, she was the only one there I could stand to talk to), she said that apartments were being remodeled as they emptied. It began to be clear that they were gradually sneaking in, without ever directly telling us, a major reconstruction of the entire complex, and that we would be paying for it in significantly increased rents. Then, on May 23, we in buildings 2 and 3 received a notice written in tiny fonts telling us that on' the following Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, a "re-siding beautification project" was to begin on our buildings. The construction would continue from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., weekdays and Sat- urdays. They would remove our balconies, all the building siding, and replace our windows. The next day we received another notice re!ling us to move things away from the windows and cover everything, as well as to be prepared to see people replacing our windows as early as 7 a.m. The first time I had a chance to call the office to find out what was happening was Saturday. Heather was there, but she wasn't sure exactly what was going to happen. She said I could talk to Marilyn, the residents relations manager, whom I had never heard of, on Tuesday, since they were closed on Monday for Memorial Day. But the construction was to begin on Tuesday. I asked Heather if I needed to empty my balcony storage closet. Her response was that they weren't liable for any of our belongings, but that they were not going to tear down or restructure the closets. I took her at her word. ...... 4of8 Monday, instead of spending my holiday relaxing with my daught_er. I prepared my home for I didn't know what. I pulled everything to the center of the rooms and covered them in sheets, l pulled everything off of the kitchen Counters. At the last minute I remembered to take the crystals out of the windows. At 6 a.m. Tuesday morning, I heard big trucks driving up in front. What was evidently a large group of men was walking around laughing and shouting and whistling. At 6:30 the banging began. It was surreal. Sixty or more men descended on our building, banging, tipping every bit of siding and insulation off the wall. The noise level was unbelievable. I had all the blinds closed, as I was instructed, so we experienced this in semi-darkness. When my daughter and I went out to go to work and school, the workers looked at us in wonder. I don't think they knew theTM were going to be people living in .the homes they were reconstructing. We tiptoed through the chaos, between the flying siding, tar paper, insulation, and nails. My daughter covered her ears and cowered against me. The next two weeks were like a nightmare. The' second day, Emma and I opened the door to find two men on ladders directly in front of it, throwing down boards and tar paper and insulation. I sheltered Emma from the falling debris and tried to get someone's attention. The noise was so loud no one heard. Over the next couple of days they fenced in our building, marking it off as a construction zone. Everyone had hard hats but the residents (though many of the workers didn't wear them)~ On Wednesday, May 31, when I came home from lunch, the bedroom window was gone and two workers were straddling my bedroom windowsill. I needed to change, but I wasn't going to go into my closet with strange men in my bedroom. The bedroom windows were the only ones that kept their original size. The plaster is cracked, open, and peeling around them, though, and that is where my daughter plays and sleeps. That evening when I came home, my door was unlocked. On Thursday, June 1, I came home for lunch, and when I opened my door to leave, the doorway had a board nailed across it and my stair landing was gone. One of the workers found a flimsy board and held it as a bridge between my stairs and door so that I could get across. _They knocked out the bathroom window. It used to be a full-length window. Now it is a half- length one, with a piece of bare plaster tacked in underneath. When I came home the bathroom was littered with plaster dust and debris, and my carpet was tracked all over with white powdery boot prints. The bathroom blinds were gone. The next morning I found them thrown into the bath- tub, soaking wet. I hung them back up myself. They took out the window in the dressing room and replaced it with studs and external siding, exposed to the inside. Long nails were sticking through. I asked someone to knock them out, because my daughter might get up there. They complied, but the next day there were new nails sticking in. I asked Marilyn why that window was boarded up. Sh~ said that the windows hadn't arrived yet, because they were an unusual size. In the newly remodeled units, these windows would be taken out altogether. It seems unbelievable that they are going to replace a perfectly good window with a new one when they are planning to remove it fairly soon anyway. No doubt this window will continue to be "not in yet" until I'm forced to move out and they can remodel. There were people trampling ih and out of my home all day long. We always remove our .shoes in our home, but these days I have completely given up on that requirement. It is as dirty inside as out. On Wednesday, when I came home, my door was unlocked. They hurried to finish the siding and windows on the side of the building that faces the street. In the meantime, on the backside of the building, my balcony doors were boarded shut. They began by replacing a couple oW the kitchen windows, then another day another one. These win- dows are much smaller than the original, and they left a row of exposed siding under the them, with nails sticking into the kitchen where my daughter (not to mention r~y cat) could easily get hurt. Every day there were new nails sticking in and I had to go get someone to knock them out. One contractor who heard my request laughed and replied, "That's not my problem." The man- agement employee also laughed and replied, "Arca't you glad?" The next morning I found some- one to drive the nails out, but by that evening there was an. entire new row of nails around the kitchen wall, at the lev.el of my daughter's shoulder. They have not yet been removed, even though I have repeatedly requested their removal. One day, while they were pounding nails into the kitchen, I was hit by a flying wood chip while I was trying to prepare lunch. There are jagged, exposed metal edges everywhere they have replaced windows. They removed the balcony early on. On Friday, June 2, I discovered when I came home that the contents of my storage closet (two bicycles, my daughter's nativity set, tools, etc.) was dumped onto the skeleton remains of my balcony, tumbled together with insulation and construction debris. They had torn out the shelves on one side of the closet to install a T1 line. I had been given no notice that aTl line was to be installed. And indeed, I will not have access to this TI line, so no wonder they didn't want to tell me about it. It is covered by a plate on the inside wall, waiting for the person who moves in after I move out and management remodels. I couldn't get. to my strewn possessions, though I tried to knock out the board shutting me in so I could do so. I asked a. couple of the construction guys to help me the next morning. That day, Saturday, June 3, they knocked out my living room wall containing the balcony doors, so that they could put in a much smaller b~lcony door, with no screen and no lock. Again, my blinds were thrown onto my furniture gathered into the middle of the room, so I had to put them back up myself. Now my balcony door was no longer boarded ,up, and there was no_balcony, so my daughter could open the door and fall to the concrete 10 feet below. It remained that way for over a week. And since there was no screen, I didn't even dare open the door for air, for fear my daughter might fall out accidentally. Finally, after two weeks, they put in a balcony. However, they left a broom on it, and left it unfinished, so I still don't know if it is safe. Every day or so, I see a man put a ladder up and climb onto my balcony and look around. Sometimes I find that the broom has moved. There are still nails and debris scattered around on it. I still have no screen door, so if I open the door my cat will get out and the insects come in. If I leave it closed we can't breathe it is so hot and stuffy. The construction equipment and vehicles took up much of the available parking on Blaney. They also parked illegally, blocking traffic and forcing bicyclists into traffic. They blocked the fire hydrant all day long. In the meantime, they took away our fire extinguishers and would not return them until we called the fire department, more than a week into the construction. Every day I woke up at 5:00 a.m. to prepare for the next onslaught and to take a shower before there were sixty guys who might at any moment come in and out of my doors and windows, all of whom seemed to have a key to my p. lace. And what did a key matter, anyway, when all they had to do was knock out a window or a wall to'get in? Every night when I came home, I opened my door intrepidly, so see what new violation had occurred. ~[ began to be as jumpy as my skittish cat. I had to spend an hour cleaning up before I could even begin to prepare our dinner. And when I did, the water came out brown, because it had been off all day, and I wonde:'ed what toxins it contained. Foolishly, ! vacuumed, little knowing what hazaraous dust I might be shooting into the air that we breathe. Who was it that first remembered the asbestos? Of course there is asbestos in the ceilings and floors, and possibly the walls. There was a form I was given when I moved in informing me about it. With the incredible pounding and shaking and drilling and sawing, walls and ceilings have shaken loose. Now I was truly scared. We were not only placed, unprotected, into the middle of a major con- struction zone, we were breathing in asbestos dust day after day. Residents immediately went to the management, but the response was that no asbestos could come loose, and that there was no danger. Obviously they had just ignored this issue altogether. We began frantically calling agen- cies to find out what danger we were in and what we could and should do about it. Suddenly the construction slowed down, and only a few workers showed up each day. It seemed that the man- agement was finally having to deal with our complaints. On Saturday, June 10, as I was walking home with my. daughter in the evening, Michael Ducote approached me with two other men. He said that another apartment on the complex had tested positive for "slightly elevated levels of asbestos." He refused to say which apartment this was, and what the actual levels were. ("We can't provide you with that information.") He claimed that "this was not my apartment," implying that my apartment was not contaminated but meaning that my apartment had not been tested. In fact,'there was no way he could know if it was my apartment. He said that they "recommended" that I and my daughter move into an apartment that night. I asked Man/moore Patterson, June 18, 2000 7 of 8 ~ ~-', him to perform a test first, to find out the levels that we had been living in for two weeks already, and he refused, saying that it was not normal practice. This, I have discovered since, is not true. It is normal practice to perform a baseline test. Still, I agreed for safety's sake. When I asked Mr. Ducote what I should with my cat, he said I should sneak her into the hotel, which didn't allow cats. Later that night, I decided that I had to know what we had already been exposed to. I wanted my plaCe tested before it was abated. I called Mr. Ducote and told him that I would not leave. I asked him again if he would test first, and again he refused. He then began yelling at me, threatening to come to my door with a team at 8 a.m. the following morning (sunday) and to come in whether or not I liked it, since he had a key. He shouted that he had the right and that there was nothing I could do about it. I hung up the phone and called the police. After hearing my story, the officer called Mr. Ducote. By then it was midnight, and the officer left a message on Mr. Ducote's answering service saying that there would be a patrol car in the area at 8 a.m. the next morning to make sure nothing violent occurred. When the officer left, I barred my door with a board and spent a sleepless night. I have never had to do anything like this in my life. It proved to be an empty threat, however. Mr. Ducote did not come to my door the following day. I have had to scramble this week to research what I need to test and find a company to d6 the test. The grounds outside have been littered with nails for three weeks. I get my daughter to the car as quickly as I can, crossing through the construction zone and across the busy traffic of Bianey at morning rush hour, to where my car is parked. I don't dare rearrange my furniture in my apartment or take the dust covers off, for fear of stirring up hazardous dust, and also because I don't know when they will come in again to fix the inside of the apartment. I don't know if they are planning to do this at all. Most of the work is clearly in preparation for the planned interior remodels. Will they just leave my apartment as .it is, blaming construction delays, and then spring on me that after all they will be remodeling while we live here? Or are they just hoping that I will get fed up and leave? I am exhausted and sleep deprived and very concerned about my daughter's safety and health. For the first time in two years, I am experiencing debilitating migraines. I have not been able to work for three weeks, and I am falling seriously behind. On Wednesday I stayed home sick. The tem- perature was over 100 degrees that day, and the water was off all day. The electricity is out so often, I have stopped resetting my clocks. My daughter is beginning to withdraw and act quiet. She has not slept in her Own bed since this began. We both have burning eyes and runny noses when we come home. My cat i, stressed, having spent every clay'hiding, terrified, in a comer of the closet. We are no longer living in a rainbow tree house. It is like living in a bomb shelter, with as little privacy and as little warning about when and in what form the next attack will come. ~o,~,,-,.~,n.~. O~tl.r.~r, ,tune 18. 2000 80f 8 20080 Rodrigues Ave. Apt. J Cupertino, CA 95014 June 22, 2000 Mr. Michael Ducote, Property Manager The Biltmore Apartments 10159 S. Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Ducote: Maxim/Prometheus has 48 hours in which to respond to the demands listed in this letter, to our satisfaction, or legal recourse, to the fullest extent of the law, will commence. Maxim/Prometheus will immediately halt, prevent further occurrence, and begin to compensate for the following conditions on occupied buildings. These conditions are all violations of the implied warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment and have created a health hazard. 1. Thc condition of clean and sanitary'buildings, grounds, and appurtenances free from debris~ filth, rubbish and garbage has been violated bemuse off Numerous hazardous airborne particulates, including asbestos, sawdust, drywall ingredients, and fiberglass resulting from the tearing-off and re- construction of interior and exterior walls that are known to contain such materials. The intense vibration of the building resulting from the hammering and power stapling done on the building along with the incidental tears or punctures of the ceiling have resulted in detected, released asbestos fibers. Particulates also resulted from the cutting into the existing wall to create a new opening for air conditioners and new windows. The particulates settle onto all interior surfac .es,' personal belongings and food and have been inhaled and ingested by residents. Improper disclosure, handling and detection of hazardous asbestos conditions. Prometheus failed to alert residents that their "cleaning" of apartments was to remove asbestos. The "cleaning" of these apartments did not remove asbestos from residents' clothing and furnishings. The cleaning was done without first taking fabric samples in units and ascertaining the test results. The "cleaning" was done without sealed doors and windows. The vacuuming machine ventilated straight out the fxont door. Asbestos fibers could easily enter adjoining apartments through nearby windows. No asbestos warning signs were posted nor were residents advised. Prometheus refused to give residents written asbestos Mx. Michael Ducote June 22, 2000 Page 2 test results. Prometheus ~ coincidentally posted, asbestos signs only on two vacant apartments, even though other occupied units have been subjected to the same causal factors of the asbestos release. c. Exposed wood framing, protruding nails, and missing drywall under the newly installed kitchen windows do Exposed wood framing resulting from drywall that had not yet been installed because of the new exterior wall built to replace the bathroom window. Loose nails and airborne particulates from the tom off wood siding in the exterior atmosphere and on the grounds surrounding thc buildings. The sawing for the new exterior plywood and siding and the new wood studs supporting the new decks creates more sawdust in the atmosphere and grounds. 2. The condition of effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls has been violated because: Fiberglass insulation is regularly left exposed in the walls and attic spaces of occupied dwellings. This ce'~dition continued to exist even during rain that occurred through the evening of June 8, 2000. In addition, there ax~ numerous dwellings with boarded sliding glass doors that are blocked in a way that they cannot be opened. This is in violation of the Health and Safety Code §17900-17995, which states that rental units must have natural lighting in every mom through windows. These windows must also have the ability to be open at least halfway for ventilation. These conditions have existed for more than a week. Moreover, because residents must keep their windows and blinds closed in an attempt to lessen the conditi°ns stated in items 1 and'2, to lessen the loud construction noise, and to maintain security and privacy from the contracWrs, other rooms also lack natmal lighting and ventilation. This condition is exacerbated on the days of electricity and water shutdowns, culminating on June 14, 2000 when the temperature reached over 105 degrees and the water was turned off for several hours. Residents are currently left with a choice off Living in an area that is fenced-in with a sign indicating "Keep Out" because it is a dangerous construction area; or Leaving their home and taking the risk that belongings may be stolen or damaged by unknown contractors going through their home. Prometheus does not have a sufficient number of observers to guarantee that their belongings are safe, nor lViich l Ducote l~me 22, 2000 Pa§¢ 3 does Prometheus give any guarantee of security. Proi~etheus represents that they are not liable for our belongings. I have heard the loud hammering and sawing commencing at 7:00 m. I have seen 10-12 contractors swarming around a building. I have seen contractors, on June 10, 2000, hammering in the new wood studs, that support the new deck, into the space between the first and second floor of building six, causing vibrations that could release more asbestos into the occupied interiors. Prometheus has subjected resident children, pregnant women, and others to protruding nails, nails in the grass, extreme noise, a dangerous construction area, and lack of a habitable dwelling. Due to hazardous, unsafe conditions, violations of the Civil Code and Health and. Safety Code, and the breaking of the implied warranty of habitability, we demand that Prometheus:' · Halt any further construction on occupied buildings. · Resume the project only after providing alternate housing for residents at no additional cost to residents. · Compensate residents who have been living in the buildings already subjected to construction. . · Communicate to residents in a honest, up front manner and provide all disclosures stipulated in other attachments. Yours truly, David Woo CC: Mr. Dan Sailer, President Maxim/Prometheus Property Management Company 650 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Management Lake Biltmore Apartments June 25, 2000 This letter is a formal complaint regarding the living conditions in our apartment and the Lake Biltmore complex. We have been paying what we believe is a generous rent and in line with comparable places in the area. I request the management to compensate us fairly, and to alter your practices effective immediately. We had chosen to stay at Lake Bil~more because it seemed quiet, serene and safe. However, the managements' grossly negligent attitude towards us and other tenants have made the whole experience a painful one. Instead of living in an apartment that is a wa~n and inviting place, we (Sanjay, Deeps, Medha and Revs) have been living in an apartment that is unsafe and un-inhabitable. Here is a list of events/conditions that has led us to ~he above conclusions: 1) The management moved us in an apartment that was not inhabitable. A few days after moving into our apartment we noticed insect bites on our feet. It took us several days to realize that our apartment was infested with fleas (We do not have pets); essentially we had been moved into an apartment that was not treated for fleas. The management told us that ours is a rare case. Later, we found that fleas were a norm at Lake Biltmore. The management treated the fleas thrice. All the three times we had to stay out of our apartment. I was working out of my home at that time trying to jump-start my business and had to go through in~nense hardship during that time. 2) The management took away our parking spaces. We were not assigned any alternative space. When I was renting the apartment, the management (Heather, in particular) told me that one of the great things at Biltmore was that parking was abundant and'that a tenant also gets covered parking. We have to struggle every day taking our young children back and forth from their schools. 3) The management took away our nearby laundry, garbage and recycling facilities. This causes significant hardship. 4) The management has left the pool unclean. I swam for 15 minutes and came out with my eyes burning. I had to get antibiotic treatment for my eyes from my doctor. I have been told that ducks regularly swim in the pool. When my wife confronted the management they told her that the health department does not consider ducks droppings to be a health hazard. 5) The management has been reconstructing the apartment above us for the last several weeks. The decibel level of the construction noise (thumping and pounding noises) is unbearable on most days. They do not even spare Saturdays. They have placed us in the middle of a constr~ction zone with dangerous objects such as a hammer and blocks of wood falling from the roof. 6) The management shuts off water and electricity for a full day at a time giving us a day to a. few days notice. It is difficult to live in place with no electkicity and/or wa=er with two young children. 7) There is dust ever~here in our apartment. These include remnants from the roof due to constant pounding upstairs and the construction outside. Due to this dust, I have been suffering from respiratory problems for the last one month. 8) The whole complex is a construction zone. It is not a safe pla~e for my children to play around. It is impossible to invite any of our friends for lunch or dinner or throw a party. 9) Our neighbors have been exposed to asbestos. We are worried that we may also have been exposed to asbestos due to the constant shaking of the building (close to a mild earthquake) everyday. Personnel from the air quality control department had visited our apartment and later told the management that the air in our apartment should be examined. The management has not paid any heed to that so far. 10) My daughter's bike was stolen a month ago. This happened after the cons%ruction started. It could have been a coincidence. However, it is reflective of the general safety deterioration of the complex. The management continually misrepresents the extent and nature of the ~problems. Every question is given vague and blatantly arrogant answers. A~ a last resort, we are told that we (Heather, Marilyn) are just here -~a~elp you; the upper management makes all the decisions. 'fI~-~ues~ you to address these concerns immediately so that we can ~ %~% Zemainder of our stay here in peace and quiet and in livable '&.~.%~%~s. Please give me a call at 408 569 8600 if you have questions ~.Ui~ifications. · $in. cerely, (SANJA% RANKA) (DEEPA RAN~) Raju & Sharmeela Shah 20050 Rodrigues Avenue, Apt. A, '~'~rtino, CA 95014 (408) 861 0924 Management Lake Biltmore Apartments Maxim Properties June 28, 2000 This letter is a formal complaint regarding the living conditions in our apartment and the Lake Biltmore complex. We have been paying what we believe is a generous rent and in line with comparable places in the area. I request the management to compensate us fairly, and to alter your practices.effective immediately. We had chosen to stay at Lake Biltmore because it seemed quiet, serene and safe. A place where we could have friend~ and acquaintances over. The construction project was never mentioned to us when we rented the place in October of 1999. Surely a project of this magnitude takes a lot of planning. I wish you had the courtesy of info~lning us about your plans before we had signed the rental agreement. However, the management's grossly negligent attitude towards us and other tenants have made the whole eXPerience a painful one. Instead of living in an apartment that is a warm and inviting blace, we (Raju, Sharmeela, Kaeya [4 years old] and Jay [1 year old]) have been living in an apart~ent that is unsafe and un-inhabitable. You, Lake Biltmore and Maxim properties, have not lived up to what you prom~.sed us before we signed the' lease agreement. Here are some of the points that we want remedy for: 1) Compensation for the rent since the construction work began in April. We had requested that we be allowed to break our lease and move o~t. This was refused by Michael Ducote. Subsequently, we have now received a letter from him stating that we can now move out with a month's notice. Had we been allowed to move out when we first wanted, we would not have to face these conditions. 2) Compensation for the hardship we have to'endure due to the loss of parking space close by. It is very difficult for us to bring in any kind of shopping from the car to our apartment with 2 very young kids in tow. There have been times when there was no walkway available for us and we have to go across the lawn. 3) Compensation for the loss of peace and quiet since the construction · began. The work on the garages (located outside our bedrooms) starts at 7:00 am and goes on all day. There is no quiet time for our kids to take a nap in the afternoon. 4) Compensation for the damage to our car. The big metal garbage bins are kept in the middle of the driveways making it extremely difficult to pull our cars out. They are also a safety hazard as it is just left in the middle and cars have to go around it. 5) Compensation for the inability to work form home due to loss of electricity. Both my wife and I work from home using our computer and 'the DSL line. I work couple of days a week at home and my wife trades every day from home. 6) Compensation for the unsanitary condition of the 9ool. After swimming in the pool, I came out with my eyes burning a~d a severe throat infection for which I had to get antibiotic treatment. I have been told that ducks regularly swim in the pool. 7) Compensation for the loss of water and electricity for a full day at a time. It is difficult to live in place with no electricity and/or water with two young children. We have had to throw food from our refrigerator and freezer on several occasions. 8) Compensation for the adverse health effect on our 1 year old son due to dust from the construction being everywhere in our apartment. On several occasions, we were prevented from using the walkways due to construction. We and the visitors to our apartment had to use the lawns to go back and forth. The dirt, insects, berries and duck droppings, etc. all get stuck to the shoes and get dragged onto the carpet in our apartment. Most I year olds have the habit of picking things from the carpet and put=lng it into =heir mouth. Our son is no different. He has been constantly sick for the last couple of months, requiring anti-biotic treatment. 9) Compensation for the loss of playing area for our kids. The whole complex is a construction zone. It is not a safe place for my children to play around. 10) compensatio~ for loss of normal, social life. It is impossible to invite any of our friends for lunch or dinner or throw a party..' 11) Compensation for the loss of ~ cordless vacuum cleaner that was stolen from our car. Before the construction began, this used to be a very safe area. However, since the construction began, several tenants have been missing things.' Some bare even seen construction workers wa%king away with their belonging&. The management continuall~misrepresents the extent and nature of the construction. I had w=itten a letter to you on April 18, 2000 (copy included) which I personally handed to Mr. Michael Ducote. I asked him to acknowledge the receipt of the letter which he refused. He had told me that he would send a written response to my questions soon. I am still waiting for a reply. we have had several interactions with Michael and Marilyn and they have blatantly lied to us about what is happening or going to happen. On April 18~, we had a long discussion on what was going to happen. Not once did he mention the window and the siding project. We also want to notify you officially that we do not giwm permission to you, Lake Biltm~re or Maxim. properties or anyone asso=ia~e~with your'company, to enter our apartment for any reason. Please note that if you enter our apar~-~-nt without o~ ex~reaa w~it~en per=mission, we will ~nsi~r this as an act of trespassing. We will take appropriate actions incase we find someone trespassing. Sincerely, (R..a.~u Shah) (Sharmeela Shah) Raju & Sharr eela Shah 20050 Rodrigues Avenue, Apt. A, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 861 0924 Michael Ducote Property Manager Lake Biltmore Apartments 10159 South Blaney Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Ducote: April 18, 2000 Hand delivered to Mr. Michael Ducote. Thanks for taking the time to talk to my wife Sharmeela Shah today. We are deeply concerned with the proposed construction that is about to take place without giving us any kind of prior notice. We are renting a 3 bedroom apartment in unit 14 A. Our family consists of myself and my wife, a 4 year old daughter and a one year old infant son. Our concerns are the following: · No convenient parking space. When we signed up for our apartment, one of the things that was told to us is that 2 reserved parking spaces (one covered and one uncovered) came with it. I understand that these are being taken away without giving us alternate spaces. This will cause a lot of hardship for even things like bringing in the groceries. · While giving us a tour ofthe apartment complex, one of the things that was pointed out to us is the number of Laundromats and how conveniently they were located close to the various buildings. From what I gather, these are being taken away without any adequate replacement. It is going to cause my wife and the infant son extreme hardship as she will have to carry him and drag the laundry to a more distant location. The laundry situation is as it is bad with most machines being full at any given time. The construction is going to aggravate the situation even more. · We have a very grave health concern with the amount of dust and noise that the construction is going to generate. As you know from my wife, we have 2 young children with the youngest being just over a year old. · Was there any kind of study.done on the impact of the construction on the residents? If so, could we have a copy of it? I am hoping that none of us develop any health related problems due to the construction, however, if we do, we will hold Lake Biltmore Apartments and Maxim properties responsible. I also take a strong objection to the fact that you refer to us as a minority. I do not think that being that makes our concerns any less valid. Sincerely, Received for Lake Biltmore Apartments By Michael Ducote on 4/18/2000. ~ Raju Shah Management St~ff Lake.Biltmore A~ts. , · : .... Cupertino, CA .i ·, - · "~'Cupertino, 'CA 9501'4 "" "Home: :4-1-408-336-0352 life for the residents of I~,l~e B.'.dtmo. re ipartm, ents.,...~ ,. '~:.... :: . : ; So far, we have been forced to endure a number of hardships. The construction zones are messy, noisy place~~ that-l~ose some dangers to my young children. Several amenities and services have also been cut or restricted. Incredulously, the management has asked us for a steep increase in rent in spite of the huge decline in th.~ quality of the housing. To date~ the mess and'fioiselare .more~ ~nnoying th~n disturbing. 'However, the grounds are much less picturesque:and homey as they were when I moved here, about 11 months ago. , :~...,... ~ :, .:' I am glad to. see that the parking lot is less crowded. I assume the recent rash ~f vacancies has alleviated the competition over those few parking spots designated for that half of the complex displaced when the lot was torn up to put in new housing units. The parks and walkways are now needed more than they used to for traveling the distance between parking and the apartments. The fences and barriers that block these paths compound the inconvenience suffered by other parts of the construction. I would like to see a greater effort to keep the walkwalrs open. I appreciate the wooden walkways that have be used in some parts of the complex. The Ices of nearby garbage dispoaal and laundry facilities is definitely a chore thougI~ Water and electricity are important utilities that we expect to be readily avail- able. One week, we received three notices announcing interruptions to these services. I can understand there will be necessary and reasonable events that cause primary utilities to fail. However, that rate of trouble surely exceeds, by a great margin, those incidents occurring elsewhere in the city or neighbo~ regions. In future, I would like proper documentation outlining the necessity for these repairs. 21, 2000 Dear Sir or Ma~hrn~ I have been living in your apartment complex for one yea~ I will be moving out July 1~. I am vdry nnhuppy with the treatment that my pets and I have endured this last month, and I would like to settle. First, the consmacfion has been a nighn~.~,e~ I had my "Tinkerbell Collection" for 20 years. It was all broken, all nine pieces during the construction. I was NOT told to keep any of my personal belongings off my bathroom counter! My collection is worth about $525.00 (cash value), not only is there a cash value, but also a sentimental value. I would like to be compensated for the loss of my personal belongings and inconvenience of my living situation. Second, I gave a $500.00 pet deposit. I would also like that returned. One week ago, I was told to stay at a hotel By me going to a hotel, I had no where to leave my cats. Where the feelings? My cats have been through total stres~ When I found a place for them to stay while I was at the hotel, they nm away. I then had to put up a 'qvlissing Cats" poster up and hunt for them. I did find them, but 4 days aftea: I have enclosed one of the fliers. Third, almost everyday I have been whistled at, yelled at, and other bothersome gestures by your. construction workem I have--picmz~s of them and pictures of all my damaged goods in my apartment. Wish the construction could have been done after July 1't. I would also like to be compensated for the 2 weeks of my June rent. I have lost many hours of sleep and had no kind of privacy or quite time in life since rhi.~ construction has started. I forgot to mention my Waterfall that was damaged. That was worth about $160.00. Last, I would like to make it known that I would not like anyone in. my apartment while I'm out taldng care of my personal bmines, One more thing that was upseumg for me, I went 4 days without my shower working. How much rent do I pay again??? I also work 2 jobs, sometimes I work hte hour, and being single women living done, with a huge hole in my living room m~.kes me feel unsafe. The only thing cow-ring the hole is a piece of plastic and duck tape. Anyone can cut it open and crawl right in. Have you ever heard of murders and rapes? This is something I do not want to experience. I would like thi.q to be fixed ASAP! I had no Dishwasher and no Shower from June 13-17. Can you understand why I would be upset? I do hope to hear from someone about my complaints. Stacia L. Scdi-~e 10139 APT. D BLANEY AVE. - CUPERTINO.CA · June 20, 2000. Mr. Michael Ducote, Maxim/Prometheus Lake Biltmore. As a resident at the Biltmore Apartments for the past three years I would like to bring to your notice the deteriorating conditions at Lake Biltmore and the utter disregard by Maxim/Prometheus for the safety, security and sanctity of the homes and the families who live here. The inconveniences we've been forced to undergo include the following: · In the recent months we have lost our parking and laundry facilities. The closest laundry facility requires us to walk through heaps of construction debris several times before we can find an empty washer/dryer. When we do find a washer/dryer, it mai-functions due to excessive use. · Constant exposure to disagreeable, malodorous and most probably · Toxic Odors, vapors and contaminants coming from the degrading bottom residue of the former ponds. · Inability to work from Home due to stoppage of electricity and water. Loud, dangerous power tools all around us. · Wood, cement and other sawdust materials billowing into our homes each day. · Incessant noise at dangerous levels beginning as early as 7 a.m., even on Saturdays. · Exposure to airborne asbestos, sawdust, fiberglass, other airborne and construction dangers. · Dangerous traffic conditions due to illegal parking by contractors. · The only area where Maxim/Prometheus has been ahead is affecting consistent rent hikes despite the deteriorating interiors of our apartment homes. · Employees of the Maxim/Prometheus group when approached have been rude, callous, u~caring and arrogant.. I ask the following: · Refund our rent for June 2000. · . Affect a rent reduction for the period for which Parking and other amenities will be unavailable. · Re-locate us to another Property within the Eaton Elementary School District. If this is not possible, please provide alternative acconm~dation during the re-construction of building #1. Sincerely, Seema Abraham Building #1, Apt A. Dear Mr. Michael Ducote, I've lived at Lake Biltmore APT 6G for 17 months. I have a 4-year-old daughter and a nine months pregnant wife who is expecting a baby anytime and she absolutely needs a rest and comfortable circumstance. But, unfortunately it is so hard for even health people to stay in my APT because of Lake Biltmore construction As of June 6th, my wife and daughter surprised sometimes by hammering and suffered dust. I've also woke up morning by hammering and noise. I'm very worry about it will affect health of unborn baby as I gave doctor's letter to you on June 14th. My daughter and wife have had to spent time in library or park on day times for avoiding this harmful surroundings. Now, I cannot open windows because my home is boarded up for one more weeks. During from June 13th to 15th, owing to unexpected the hottest weather and the closed windows my wife and daughter could not even breathe easily. If you could not provide more safey place for my family, this construction must be stopped right now. Kyae-Young Klm ~~ 20020 Rodrigues Ave. APT 6G Cupertino, CA 95014 Home: 408-996-9621 Work: 650-633-8848 CITY OF CUPi: INO Parks and Recreation Department Summary Agenda Item Number Agenda Date July 17, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Please find attached the summary reports that were submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission on Thursday, July ! 3, 2000 regarding the Skate Park Project and the Interim Teen Center. BACKGROUND Wormhoudt Landscape Architecture, InCorporated has been selected to design the proposed Skate Park. A location has not yet been determined for the Interim Teen Center. Staff continues to investigate the availability of local business space, and facility usage within the city limits, while trying to follow the model of the "Fishbowl" sponsored by the Sunnyvale Parks and Recreation Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Informational item, no action required. Enclosures SUBMITTED BY APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL Christine Hanel David Knapp Recreation Supervisor City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF cuPePxT no City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 (408) 777-3110 Fax: (408) 777-3366 Parks and Recreation Department Summary Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: July 13, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Skate Park Project - Update. BACKGROUND On June 30, 2000 a sub-group of the Skate Park Ad hoc Committee interviewed two landscape architects to oversee the Skate Park project. Womahoudt Landscape Architecture, Incorporated, a company located in Santa Cruz, has been selected to design the proposed Skate Park. The two sites currently being considered are Jollyman Park and Wilson Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Informational item, no action required. Prfnted on Recycled Paper CITY OF CUPEI INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 (408) 777-31 l0 Fax: (408) 777-3366 Parks and Recreation Department Summary Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number 23 Agenda Date: July 13, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Status of Interim Teen Center. BACKGROUND Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the report describing the program history of the "Fishbowl" as submitted by the City of Sunnyvale to the California Parks and Recreation Society. The "Fishbowl" is a Saturday night Teen club that is offered at Le Boulanger Bakery and Caf6' in Sunnyvale. The program is sponsored by the Sunnyvale Parks and Recreation Department and will serve as a model in establishing a Teen Club/Center in Cupertino. Program highlights are listed below: The Fishbowl, as the Teen club is referred to, is a place for high school aged teens to hang out and socialize while showcasing a variety of Teen talents (e.g. teen bands, poetry reading, tap dancing, and theatre numbers) in addition to leadership development and volunteer opportunities. City staff works closely with the Teen Advisory Council that consists of ten members. These teens were critical to the success of the program by initiating an innovative promotional program at the high schools. · A Fishbowl Advisory Council was formed, which is a group of 10-12 teens that are separate from the Teen Advisory Council. The unique partnership with Le Boulanger began as a three-month pilot program. Le Boulanger offered their main restaurant to the city on Saturday evenings. The regular business hours conclude at 6:00 PM so the facility is unused in the evenings. This particular restaurant is located in a large building (approx. 26,000 square feet) and includes the administrative offices and main bakery for the company. The actual restaurant is probably 2-3 times larger than the average Le Boulanger restaurant that most of us have visited. Due to the success of the pilot program, (school year 1998/99) the city has now entered into a long-term lease agreement with Le Boulanger. Printed on Recycled Paper Neighbor impact is minimal. The facility is located on Mathilda Avenue which is a busy street (6 lanes I believe) and is surrounded by industrial type buildings. Apartment complexes are located across the busy street. (Only one neighbor complained about the Teens hanging out) Ample parking is available and there is an adjacent deck to the restaurant so that teens can "hang out "outside as well. · By the end of the pilot program, approximately 150-160 teens were in attendance at the Fishbowl. Average attendance is 125 · Hours of operation are Saturday evenings during the school year, 7:00PM-II:00 PM. Residents of Sunnyvale may enter for free while non-residents pay $3.00. · The current fiscal year budget for the Fishbowl is $54,963.00. Estimated revenue is $8,000. The Fishbowl continues to rely heavily on volunteers and community support. Staffing each week consists of a Recreation Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator (part-time position), and two Recreation Specialist. Le Boulanger provides staff to oversee the concessions. The Assistant Coordinator position handles the scheduling of the entertainment and is inslxumental in attracting local teen bands to perform. · Additional activities may include: local radio stations on site, band souvenirs are sold, and playing cards are available. Initial challenges included: business permit had to be extended with the city, exterior lighting needed to be improved, bike racks needed to be installed, and decibel readings had to be done in accordance with city policy. Originally the Fishbowl was referred to as a Teen CoffeeHouse which created some negative publicity for the city. A city council member felt that the city was promoting the use of a "legal addictive substance" (caffeine), therefore the new name was created. Contact has been initiated with the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, Vallco, and Le Boulanger. At this time, a location has not been determined. Staff will continue to investigate the availability of space at local businesses and on city and school district property, in an effort to provide the most suitable facility to meet the needs of the teen population. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Informational item, no action required. -2/ California Parks and Recreation Society Recreation/Community Service Program Award Application Youth Development Category December 22, 1999 The City of Sunnyvale's Teen Club The Fishbowl Statement of Proqram Objective and Desired Goals The Fishbowl was established as a small pilot program to determine whether there was a demand or market for a Saturday night, coffeehouse type of program for older teens. The basic premise of the new program was to provide a place for older (high school age) teens to "hang out" and socialize in a positive, wholesome and safe environment. The success of the nine-week pilot and financial contributions from businesses and community leaders created a momentum that extended the pilot program for an additional six months. During this extension, other goals were defined to include: a place to showcase a variety of teen talents (e.g. teen bands, poetry reading, tap dancing and musical theatre numbers), and both leadership development and volunteer opportunities for local teens. The Fishbowl is now an ongoing program that is fully funded by the City of Sunnyvale following the completion of a comprehensive Teen Recreation Needs Assessment in October 1998 that documented the need for this type of program in the Sunnyvale community. The Sunnyvale City Council approved ongoing funding beginning Fiscal Year 1999/2000 (July 1 - June 30) Unique Innovative Features of The Fishbowl The Fishbowl was specifically designed by Sunnyvale teens fo._ir Sunnyvale teens. Leisure Services staff worked closely with the Sunnyvale Teen Advisory Council, consisting of 10 high school age teens representing three different private and public high schools serving Sunnyvale. Staff provided guidance to assist Teen Advisory Council members in conceptualizing and shaping the program and these teens soon became a driving force in the implementation of the program. They discussed and advised on every aspect of the program from location to publicity. It was the Teen Advisory Council who developed the successful publicity program that was a series of white on black posters based on the "Got Milk" advertising campaign. Promotions began with a series of flyers starting with "Got Talent (Anything From Music to Stupid Human Tricks)", and progressed to flyers reading "Got Plans" to "Got It". The last set of posters and flyers finally provided details about the new program being announced. ^ combination of the Teen Advisory Council's intuitive sense of how teens would respond to the ads and their involvement in passing out handbills at their schools got the program off to a good start. City staff stepped back and trusted the Teen Advisory Council to teach them what works with teens. Teen support in the implementation of this program was critical to its success and believing in the Teen Advisory Council made it work. A second unique feature of The Fishbowl program is the partnership formed with the business community to facilitate its creation. Le Boulanger Bakery and Caf6 Inc., with their corporate headquarters in Sunnyvale, offered their main restaurant for the pilot program's exclusive use on Saturday nights. Le Boulanger provided the facility at no cost to the City, provided food service staff and discounted their menu prices to make refreshments more affordable for teens. While their initial commitment was for a period of three months, they volunteered to extend this agreement to allow the pilot program to run the entire 1998/1999 school year. Due to the success of the pilot program, the City has now entered into a long- term lease agreement with Le Boulanger Inc., which will allow The Fishbowl to continue on an ongoing basis. The agreement is very generous with 'the City being charged a nominal monthly rent to offset a portion of Le Boulanger's direct costs for housing the program. This partnership has allowed the City to leverage public resources with private contributions for the benefit of local teens. Another unique feature of the program is that it is designed exclusively for teens, by teens. All participants are carded at the door. If they cannot provide a high school activity card, or show an ID which proves they are between the ages of 14 and 18, they are not allowed entrance. Interested parents will be given a quick tour of the facility and their questions are answered outside on the patio. Even City Council members and Parks and Recreation Commissioners must make arrangements with staff to tour The Fishbowl and appointments are kept to a maximum of a half-hour. In this way The Fishbowl maintains its teen-oriented ambiance. There are Leisure Services staff on-site to assure the safety and enjoyment of all the participants and to handle any emergencies that might arise. Use of Volunteer and Community Resources An integral component of this program has been significant contributions of volunteer time. During this pilot program from October 1998 through June 1999, the Teen Advisory Council helped staff The Fishbowl. Four Teen ,Advisory Council members volunteered 5 to 6 hours every Saturday night on a rotating schedule. By the conclusion of the nine-month pilot program, the Teen ,Advisory Council had contributed over 560 hours of volunteer time. Eventually, a core of regular participants evolved into The Fishbowl Advisory Council. Separate from the Sunnyvale Teen Advisory Council, these teens meet to discuss The Fishbowl, recruit new volunteers, and help schedule them. Over 460 hours of volunteer time has been logged in by teens from September through December 1999. Not only are teens taking an active part in evaluating and developing the program, they also provide the entertainment. Over 45 different teen bands have performed at The Fishbowl. Many of the bands have played more than once and some have celebrated the release of their own compact discs with a party and performance at The Fishbowl. In addition, the program showcases the talents of soloists, songwriters, poets, tap dancers and drama presentations. All Fishbow/ entertainers are teens and perform as volunteers. Bud,qet: Expenditures, Revenues and Cost Per Participant The nine-week pilot program began with a budget of $4,700. Half of this amount was allocated toward working with the Teen Advisory Council during the planning phase and the other half covered operational expenses such as supplies, publicity and staffing. At the conclusion of the pilot program, several incidents occurred simultaneously that resulted in The Fishbowl's extension through the end of June 1999. First, the program received a combined donation of $1,200 from a local business, Sunnyvale Lumber, and two private individuals. Next, LeBoulanger agreed to extend the program's free use of their facility through June. This generous community support along with another $6,500 from the City allowed The Fishbowl to continue through the end of the school year. In addition, the program began to generate revenue through participation fees. Non- residents pay $3.00 at the door while Sunnyvale residents may participate free of charge. Revenue was approximately $1,850 from January through June 1999. As the pilot program came to an end, the Teen Advisory Council, along with other interested teens advocated for the continuation of The Fishbowl and actively lobbied the City Council to provide ongoing funding for this program. The result is a new budget of $54,963 for The Fishbowl. This includes full and part-time staff ($33,170); general supplies ($2,250); miscellaneous expenditures ($20,000 which covers rental fees to Le Boulanger, publicity and food for volunteers/entertainers). The estimated revenue is $8,000. (Revenue is still generated from a $3.00 non-resident fee.) Estimated cost per participant hour is $7.39. Because this is the first year the program is completely funded, costs are estimated. Evaluation of Fishbowl's Success The strongest evaluation a program can have is participation. The pilot program began with 62 in attendance and nine weeks later had served more than 850 teens. Participants fill out evaluation forms and The Fishbowl is rated in the 95 percentile for customer satisfaction. Although the majority of program participants are from Sunnyvale, demographics show that the program draws teens from all over the Bay Area and from a wide variety of schools and ethnic backgrounds. Maximum occupancy of Le Boulanger restaurant is 184, and The Fishbowl regularly attracted a full house. Recently, Silicon Valley's Metro News voted The Fishbowl as "The Best Place to Be Under 21 and Hungry on a Saturday Night". The competition was stiff and it was exciting for staff, The Fishbowl Advisory Council and the Sunnyvale Teen Advisory Council to have The Fishbowl win. How the Pro.qram Reflects the Mission Statement: The mission statement for the Sunnyvale Teen Program is incorporated in the City's long range budget plan as an outcome statement. The statement directs teen programs to: "Positively impact the social, physical, and educational development of teens aged 12-19 in order to minimize and deter future high risk behavior through a'reduction in teen's unsupervised time by providing or brokering needed supervised leisure activities." Through the efforts of the Sunnyvale community and teens, a place was created exclusively for high school teens. The Teen Advisory Council's work in conceptualizing, promoting and becoming politically active while advocating this program was an extraordinary and unexpected example for other teens. ' While participants are at The Fishbowl, they are provided with supervised leisure time and positive role models as their peers entertain them. Many of the teen performers have been motivated by their experiences at The Fishbowl and have gone on to other performance venues. In addition, volunteer opportunities meet high school criteria for community service, but also allow teens to participate in the program and see it from a different perspective. Although gangs are a potential concern,-proudly, The Fishbowl has had no gang-related incidents. Documentation for Outcomes The outcome statement for teen services is difficult to scientifically evaluate; however, staff has developed a series of participant surveys and documentation of anecdotal information to verify the program's success. Formal documentation includes surveys, which are collected and 'tallied weekly, and records for screening taken at the door. Average attendance is 125 with approximately 20 teens from outside Sunnyvale. Also, questions like: "Would you consider returning? What events appeal to you? Is this program accessible to you?" help determine if we are meeting their needs. Because each teen must show his/her identification, demographics are easily kept from those records. Though not as formal as surveys, participation is another key indicator. If the teens are not interested in the activities provided, they will not attend the program. Participation levels have remained consistently high throughout the program, with the only exceptions being holidays and certain weekends when local high schools have large special events such as dances. A3- ' 4 Anecdotal evidence and verbal feedback are crucial measuring sticks for The Fishbowl's success. As mentioned earlier, performers at The Fishbowl often go on to perform at other venues. The performance opportunities have helped build their self-esteem and confidence. For example, one teen band begged for an opportunity to play at The Fishbowl, although they were not really ready for a "prime time" performance. They were given the opportunity to perform and became so motivated by the audience's response to their music, the band members became serious about their music. They began to rehearse and perform more and are now a paid band in fairly high demand. They recently released their own C.D. and wrote a song praising the Sunnyvale Teen Coordinator who gave them their "big break". And finally, we have the Sunnyvale Teen Advisory Council and The Fishbowl Advisory Council to make sure we are in sync with what works for teens! CITY OF City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM ~-. ~ AGENDA DATE July 17, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Update on Countywide Proposed Measure A projects BACKGROUND Submitted for your information is the latest project list that is being discussed as the basis for determining whether or not to proceed with an election on November 2000 to extend the County's current half-cent sales tax. The project list was developed through a lengthy VTA process beginning March, 1999. The current half-cent sales tax expires in 2006, and the new tax measure, if approved, would continue thereafter for 20 years. You will notice that most of the projects are in the more congested areas of the County, with the City having two projects on the list that would directly benefit us: Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Interchange Modification and the State Route 85 Northbound to 1-280 Northbound and 1-280 Exit to Foothill Braided Ramp. There are also funds available in general categories that Cupertino will benefit from, such as Local Streets and County Roads, Transportation System Operations & Management, Soundwalls, Bicycle Projects, Livable Community and Pedestrian Projects, and Landscape Restoration & Graffiti Removal. In addition, from a regional perspective, projects that relieve congestion in other areas assist our constituents who use the county roads and transit system. One category listed as Bicycle Projects currently has aVTP 2020 Tiered Bicycle Project list that would be the candidates for funding. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors must approve the ballot measure by 4/5 vote on August 8, 2000. The Board recently approved moving the issue forward on a 3-2 vote. The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, headed by Mr. Carl Guardino, initiated the proposal to proceed with the ballot measure on the basis that these types of measures are more successful at a Presidential election and, therefore, the window of opportunity is now. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no Council action required on this matter. irect~ ,~of Public Works Approved for submission: David Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper V~ 2020 Base Plus Sales Tax Scenario Projects by Funding Source [$ Millions] i 2000 2006 G°vern°r~s i thru thru Federal VTP Cost Trunsp. ! 2004 2026 (STP/ i 20-year ID Project Name (2000 $) Plan I STIP STIP CMAQ) iSales Tax Comments ROADWAY ~ freeways ! SR 85/US 101 northbound direct A HOV connectors ~n Mountain View $25 i $25 Expressway/US 10 l/M~ion i College Boulevard interchange i B ~mprovements $10 Ii $ !0 Tremble Road/De la Cruz I Boulevard/~en~ral I i Expressway/US 101 interchange I i C ~mprovements $25 !i $25 US 101 Auxiliary lane widening: SR 87/US 101 stem ramp ! E connec~on to Tremble interchange $ !4 $7 i $7 Four~l~ St. ff.~nker Road/US 101 ii~ overcrossing and ramp1 i ~ mod~e~or~ $50 I ! i $~0 I i ~ modifications $35 , i $35 US 101 Widening to accommodate ! ! s~ ss/Us !01 l~rect ~ov t i H' Connectors $23 $8 i $15 M from current Measure B US I01 Widening for HOV lanes Ii from Bernal Road to Cochrane~ i ~oad $!~ . I ss i ss Tennant Avenue/US 101 i interchange improvements in i J Morgan I-Ifil $10 $10 Tenth Street (SR 1§2)/U8 101 i interchange h~nprovement~ ini K G~oy $6 i $6 SR25/Santa Teresa Boulevard/US i L 101 interchange construction $75i $75 M construc~on $30 I } $30 1237 opera~onal intersection ] i N i improvements $1} i $ ISR 237 Widening for HOV lanes { t O Ibetween SR 85 and US 101 $40 ! i $40 5R 237 Westbound au~liary lanes] i between Coyote Greek Bridge and P North F~rst Street $15 i $15 5R 237/I-880 flyover ramp; i northbound 1-880 to westbound SR i ! Un_funded [-880 Widening for HOV lanes from SR 237 to Montague [ R ~..m_._..s~v._a~. ........... *4S i~ S45 ........... Mon~ague Expressway/I-880 i --' i ....... interchange reconfigura~on unprovementz (included in See V~P l R' Montague Exwy. Widening) ID R33 V~ 2020 VTlY202OPmject~4BW$2 June 26, 2000 I d 3 Governor's VTP Cost Transp. ! 2004 2026 (STP/ i 20.year ID Project Name (2000 $) Plan i STIP STIP CMAQ) i Sales Tax Comments S ~mprovements $35 ! $35 Coleman Avenue/I-880 T interchange improvements $60 $5i ~ $55 Improvements to 1-880/SR 17/I-280 and 1-880/Stevens Creek IU Boulevard improv..ements ,.. $40 .! $15 ! $25 Lawrence Expressway/1-280 iV interchange modification $25 $25 Downtown Access improvements,.' between 3rd Street and 7th Street W at 1-280 $20i i $20 1-280/1-680 connector to southbound US 101: braided ramp SR 85 Operational Improvements between 1-280 and Fremont Y Avenue $15 i i $15 ' SR 85 Northbound to 1-280 ' Northbound and 1-280 exit to Z Foothill braided ramp $40 i i $40 [ { i Santa Clara share $15M, [-680 HOV lanes: Montague i Alameda County share $15 M, B Expressway to Sunol Grade $85 [ $55 ! $15 $55 M from Governor's Plan ............ SR 25 upgrade to expressway ................. i ............................................ i ............................................................................................ 5R 152 new alignment and conversion to full four-lane SR 152 safety improvements DD' between US 101 and SR 156 $10I,i i $10. US 101 conversion to full four:i~ne highway: SR 25 to Santa Clara/San Freeway Reserve i $30 i $3 lMontague Expressway Widening Montague Expressway/Trimble Road flyover ramp: westbound Montague Expressway to }{ $15 iwestbound Trimble Road $15 Montague Expressway/Commuter Rail/BART grade separation $50 $25 $25 $25 M from STIP Montague Expressway and McCarthy/O'Toole Interchange $100i Unfunded Central Expressway Widening for iHOV lanes from SR 237 to De la Cruz Avenue $40 i~i $40 Other Expressw'a¥ Improvements -- ~ ...... V~ 2020 VTP202OPmjects4BW$2 June 26, 2000 2 of 3 i 2000 2006 Governor's i thru thru Federal v'rP Cost Transp. i 2004 2026 (STP/ ! 20-year ID ...... Project Name (2000 $) Plan i STIP STIP CMAQ) !Sales Tax Comments ... ....... ..~....~.............~.....~.............................. ................... . .................., .......... ~ ........................................... '. ............. .... =========================================================================================================================================================== :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................................................................. TP.m~SXT i Downtown East Valle[ $800 .__ i $11 $289 i $500 i i $850 M Fed New Rail Starts, $546 M from Alameda Co. of which $166 M ITIP is subject to BART to San Jose $3~800 ~ $725 ! ! $1~700 CTCallocation ......... .2.0...~..w...~ .r_~.ghA~_ag...Y..eN ~.c)..eNs_ _$_7.9_ ..... i i $7O i i to Tamien; $102 M from Tamien Caltram: Electrification to Gilroyi to Gilroy; Santa Clara Co. share and Upgrades $2251 $55 i $5 $20 $20 $125 $210M Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center $45i $25 $20 M from other sources Vasona IRT: Downtown Campbell to Winchester $20 $15 i $5 i E1 Camino Real, Stevens Creek Bus ~id Transit Corridors $40 ! $30 i are candida.t, ej~.._rg..,jects Rail $131 $35 ! i $96 M from Measure B Program i Add one trainset; amount to be ACE Upgrade i determined San Jose International Airport ! Funded through passenger Connection $85 , i facility charges (PFCs) Highway 17 Bus Service Improvements $2 i $2 Zero Emission Vehicles $80 i $15 $65 Transit Rehabilitation Pro, iects $90i $90 VTP 2020 V1P202OProj~ct~lBW$2 Jur~ 26, 2000 3 d 3 ID# Rank 133 1 Cupertino 172 2 San Jose 173 3 San Jose 151 4 Mountain View 136 5 Gilmy 108 6 Campbell 183 7 Santa Clara 131 8 Cupertino 195 9 Sunnyvale 148 10 Monjan Hill 142 11 Milpitas 200 12 Sunnyvale 102 13 Campbell 181 14 San Jose, Santa Clara, VTA 110 15 County Roads and Airports 184 16 Santa Clara 135 17 Cupe~no 186 18 Saratoga 156 19 Paio Alto 107 20 Campbell 120 20 County Roads and Airports 124 20 County Roads and Airpo~ 132 20 Cupertino 134 20 Cupertino 137 20 Milpitas 147 20 Morgan Hill 149 20 Morgan Hill 152 20 Mountain View 150 20 Mountain View 153 20 Mountain View 154 20 Palo Alto 170 20 San Jose 206 20 San Jose 194 20 Sunnyvale Total: Report: Map List for Tiers 1 and 2 VTP 2020 Tiered Bicycle Projects Sponsor Recommended Funds $3,700,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $500,000 · $363320 $800,000 $5,000,000 $150,000 $4,700,000 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $200,000 $2,000,0'30 $2,000,000 $3,400,000 $100,000 $1,000~000 $45L000 $500,000 $3,000,000 $23~,000 $3,0C0,000 ~O0,O00 $~0.000 $4~0,000 $600.000 $250,000 $400,000 $1,000,000 $15,000,000 S2,750,000 $1,400,000 $67,559,120 DRAFT Project Tit/e / Desctfption Mao/Avenue Bicycle Foot Bddge over 280. Los Gatos Craek Trail (Lincoln * San Femando) Los Gatos Craek Trail (San Femando-Santa Clara) Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 North (Yuba Drive to El Camino Real Underpass to North ldeadew) Uves Creek Class 1 Trail connection to. Gllmy Spo~ Park (Thomas Rd. Bridge. Gilmy Spo~ Park Phase 1 and 2 area) Extend Los Gat0s Creek Trail on east side south of San Tomas Expressway (Mozart - San Tomas) San Tomas Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail (Hw/237 * city limits) San Tomas Aquins - Saratoga Creek Trail (Tantau - Bamha~t) Bon~ss Ave Bike /ped O/C of Hwy 101 and Rt 237 West Litlle Uages Creek Bioyde and Pedestrian Pathway (Spdng Rd .Watsonvllle Ed) Union Pacific Bikelped overcroseing (Gibraltar- Monta~e) Bemardo Ave Undercrossing at Caltrain tracks Pedestrian I Bike improvements on Hamilton from Saimar to Cmekside River Oaks Bridge Shoulder Improvements Almaden Expressway between Ironwood and Koch (southbound only) Santa Clara Intem~odal Transit Center Pedestrian Overcrossing Union Pacfic Railroad Trail (De Anza Trail} Cox Ave Railraad Project- improve grade crossings and bicycle paths California Ave Caltmtn Pedest~an / Bicycle Unde~cmssing Replacement o'f Los Gatos Creek Bridge noS'of San Tomes Exprassway Shoulder improvements on Cenbal Expressway at Lawrence Expressway Shoulder Improvements McKnan Road (county eecfions) aolilnger Road Bicycle Facility Improvement Stevens Creek Recreational Trail (Phar Lap - Ridgeway) Piedmont Rd. improvements (Aguilar - Yosemite) West Litlle Uages Creek Bicyi:te and Pedestrian Pathway (Ciolina- Spring) West Litlle Llages Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway 0Natsonvilie Rd - Siivera Pan~) Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 Central (Hwy 85 - Dale Neighbouthood) Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 2, Moffet Blvd Grade Separation Stevens Creek Trail, Reach 4 South (Dale Neighbourhood to South Meadow to Highway 85 Overpass II to Mountain View High School) Implementation of the Palo Nlm Bicycle Plan Los Gates Creek Trail (Ba,~com - Guadalupe River) Completion of San Jose Transpodatton Bicycle Network Sunnyvale Train Station Nodh Side Accese