CC 01-16-01 CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING
10300 Torre Avenue, City li~ll Council Chamber
Tuesday, January 16, 2001
6:45 prin.
CITY COUNCU~ MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the mooting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to threo (3) mirmtes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with resp~t 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 itr,~s 1 through 29 be acted on simultaneously.
1. Minutes: December 4, 2000 regular m~ting, and December 18, 2000 special meeting.
2. Accounts payable: December 1, December 8, December 15, December 22, December 29,
and San,nry $, Resolutions 01-001, 01-002, 01-003, 01-004, 01-005, 01-006, and 01-007.
3. Payroll: December 8, December 22, and Jan~nry 5, Resolutions 01-008, 01-009, and 01-
010.
4. Review of application for Alcoholic Beverage Control license for Ikenohana, 20625
Alves Drive.
$. Troasur~'s Budget Report, November 2000.
6. Appointing Carol Atwood as City Treasul~ and Lois Thornton as Deputy Treasurer, ..
Resolution No. 01-011.
CUPE~INO
AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Friday, January 19, 2001
at
Blackberry Farm Retreat Center
2197fi San Fernando Avenue 9:00
(408) 777-3200 ~ Web site: www. eupertino.org
~ CITY COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, starting
at 6:45 p.m.
Cul~Cdno is a Gmeral Law city organized under and
subject to statues of the 8tate of California. It is Urgent business may require an adjourned meeting to
governed by the five-member City Council with the be held. These will be'noticed beforehand.
Mayor as the presiding officer.
Anyone may review copies of agendas as soon as
The City Council receives advice and assistance from they are printed or minutes of the City Council after
eight commissions and cornmlttees, appointed by the they have beam approved. These are available at the
Council for overlapping' t~tms. These are the City Clerk's office. These same materials arc
Planning Commission, Parks and . Recreation available by mail, but for a nominal fcc.
Commission, Library Commission, Public Safety
Commission, Cupertino Telecommunications ORDINANCES
Commission, Fine Arts Commission, arid Cupertino
Housing Committee. Ordinances are the means by which the city enacts its
local laws. Unless an urgent situation exists,
The City Manager is appointed by the Council to ordinances must first be presented at one meeting as
interpret and carry out Council policy. As the chief a "first reading;" then at a subsequent meeting, there
administrative officer, the City Manager is must be a "second reading and adoption." Following
responsible for coordinating the many activities of a waiting period of thirty (30) days, during which
the city. Department heads, professional and ordinances are published in a local newspaper
technical city s~'T are appointed by the City approved for this purpose, ordinances go into effect.
Manager.
RESOLUTIONS
Members of the City Council are elected at large for
four-year t~cms on an overlapping basis. Two are Resolutions and minute orders are the means by
elected at one election end thr~ are elected two years which the City Council formally adopts policy or
later. Officra~ of the City Council are selected by the approves the taking of specific actions. These are
Council, from its membeac~hi.p, for one-year temm. effective when adopted.
The Council 'participates in nuraerous local APPEALS
committees and organizations, which include:
· Association ofBayAreaGovemments Appeals to the City Council from decisions of
· Bay Area Air Quality Management District advisory boards and commissions must be submitted
Board in writing to the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) days
· COunty Committee on Housing & of the action.
Community Block Grant Program
· North Central & Northwest Flood Control CUPERTINO SCENE
Zone Advisory Committee The Cupertino Scene is a newsletter covering various
· Santa Clara County Cities Association aspects of governmental activity. It is mailed to each
· · Santa Clara County Cities Association residence in Cupertino.
Preparedness C~i,sion
Santa Clara County Tramportation ~
· Santa Clara County Water Commission .
· Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board .~
· West Valley Mayors and Managers
ThY. COUNCm MrmT C CUPEP INO
The City Council regularly meets on the first and
third Mondays of each month. These mectin~ are
MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Monday, December 4, 2000
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. 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 m~ubers present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and
Council member- Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and John Statton. Council members absent:
None.
Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki,
Human Resources Officer Bill Woska, Public Information Officer Donna Krey, Public Works
Director Ralph Quails, Planner I Peter Gilli, Code Enfoxcement Officer Alex Wykoff, and City
Clerk KLmberly Smith.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None
POSTPONEMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The City Clerk said there were items received by email which had been included in the Council's
packets. In addition, a letter from Mrs. Barbara Rogers regarding the library had been handed out
at the beginning of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. E. J. Conens, 10480 Pineville Avenue, said December 7 was a black day in American history.
He said this was his third request that council donate money toward the World War II Veterans
Memorial in Washington, D.C. Staffwas directed to place the matter on the agenda for thc next
meeting.
Mayor James reordered the agenda to place item 20 as thc first item under New Business.
CONSENT CALENDAR
.... Bumett removed Item 5 from the Consent Calena~r.
Chang moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, as recommended, with the exception
of Item 5. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
Deceiiiber 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2
1. Minutes: November 7 and Nowiiiber 14 regular adjourned meetings, and November 20
regular meeting.
2. Accounts payable: November 17 and November 22, Resolutions No. 00-288 and 00-289.
3. Payroll: November 22, Resolution No. 00-290.
4. Treastu-ei's Budget Report, October 2000.
6. Contract change order: McCrary Construction, No. 9, for $7,849.00, Cupertino Senior
Center, Project 99-9210, Resolution No. 00-292.
7. Reorganizations:
(a) "Byme Avenue 00-06," making determinations and approving the reorganization
of territory designated "Blame Avenue 00-06,' property located on the west side of
Byme Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Dolores Avenue, approximately 0.200
acre, Gwozdz (APN 357-12-031), Resolution No. 00-293.
(b) "Byme Avenue 99-09," setting date for consideration of reorganization of area
designated "Byrne Avenue 99-09," property located on Byme Avenue between
Alcazar Avenue and Dolores Avenue; approximately 0.445 acre, Cboe (APN 357-
14-032), Resolution No. 00-294.
8. Authorization for the D/rector of Public Works to negotiate and execute contract change
order No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 for the traffic signal installation project
on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way and to accept the completed project when all
conditions have been satisfied, Resolution No. 00295.
9. Acceptance of improvements (documentation not required):
- Barbara Gwozdz, 10351 Byrne Ave., APN 357-12-028
- Liberty Properties, LLC, Rainbows Drive (End), APN 366-03-029
- Arie & Hanna Bash, 10115 Saich Way, APN 326-32-034
10. Authorizing the Director of Public Works to accept completion of a street improvement
project and release appropriate bonds when project conditions are met, Anne and Philippe
Dor, 22525 Balboa Road, APN 342-18-032-035, Resolution No. 00-296.
11. Acceptance of Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regional housing needs
determination.'
12. Report on bicycle destination signs and approval to install signs at appropriate locations.
13. Red light nmning photo enforcement systems: receive report on deployment.
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page
Vote Councihnembers
Ayes: Bumett, Chang, Lowenthal, Statton, and James
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Abstain: None.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Request for appropriation of $40,000 as local share for grant funds for the Safe Routes to
School program for traffic-calming measures for Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle
and Monta Vista High, Resolution No. 00-291.
Bm'neE said this was an important item for the community and an achievement for staff.
He noted that the quickest way to calm traffic around schools would be for students to ride
bicycles. One effective measure has been to change a street design to make it safer for
bicyclists. He thanked the public works staff, in particular Ray Chong.
Burner moved to appwve the appropriation. Chang ~conded and the motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Hazardous vegetation/weed abatement: ordering abat=,-ent of public nuisance (weed
abatement) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 00-267,
Resolution No. 00-297.
The City Clerk reviewed the report. No public testimony was given.
Burnett moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-297. Statton seconded and the motion carded
5-0.
15. Massage regulations: First reading of Ordinance No. 1865: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 9.06 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code Regarding Regulation of Massage."
Code Enforcement Officer Alex Wykoff reviewed the staff report and said Capt. Miles
and Sgt. Eastus and DeC Allman of the Sheriff's Depa~h,~ent were present. The ordinance
was being amended to provide consistency with ordinances adopted by other agencies,
including Saratoga, Los Altos, and Santa Clara County. Cupertino's ordinance was last
amended in 1995.
Joseph Byme represented his wife, Patricia Angelina, who is a massage therapist at Spirit
· -. of Health therapeutic massage located at 21730 Stevens Creek Boulevard. He requested
that they not approve the ordinance tonight, to give staff time to work with members of
the legitimate massage therapy community. He said the ordinance had been written fi.om
law enforcement perspective but some of the requirements will be very difficult for
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 4
businesses to meet. He talked about the issue of safety, and the requirement of keeping
the outside door unlocked. He said his wife's last appointments arc between 9 and 10:00
p.m. He said none of the ordinance's requirements would be a problem to those practicing
prostitution b~ause they would not follow the law anyway.
Janet Huntamer, 1077 November Drive, a member of Association of the American
Massage Therapy Association, said she represented four massage therapists who are
AMTA members and live in Cupertino. She thanked the Council for recognizing them as
professionals and said they believc the proposed ordinancc is premature in coming to the
city council. She said their conc~u~ include the following:
· They would'like to practice from their homes
· The corporate massage definition implies that the therapist is unprofessional and limits
their scope of practice
· Would like to see national certification standard upheld and those holding national
certification exempt from local testing
· Would ask that those that have national certification be placed under the jurisdiction of
the State of California Health and Human Services Agency
She handed out copies of ethics from the National Certification Board, the Code of Ethics
from the ,american Massage Therapy Association, and a model ordinance as presented by
the California chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association.
Burnett commented on the changes and suggested that staff review the ordinance in light
of the materials received at this meeting.
Wykoff responded that he had contacted the National Certification Board, noting that
Cupertino accepts their testing results as part of the educational criteria. He had reviewed
the model ordinance in light of the home occupation issue and said he thought it was very
similar to the proposed ordinance.
Chang said he was in favor of tightening up the ordinance but that it was important that it
be sensitive to the legitimate practitioners of the profession. He suggested that staff
review the ordinance again based on public input and the documents received tonight.
Capt. Miles introduced DeC Allman and Sgt. Eastus.
Det. Allman said they have had meetings regarding the county ordinance with the national
organization and changed their ordinance to include that agency in the testing process. He
explained that the reason for requiring unlocked doors is prostitution. Hc said thc
ordinance goes before the Board of Supervisors on December 12 and they hope it ,will bc
adopted at that time. The changes to the county and city ordinances were fairly similar.
He said the county is working with the national organization on the ordinance.
Statton said he agreed with raising the standards but there needed to be more resources for
enforcement.
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page
Der. Allman said he and his partner had closed ten establishments in their jurisdiction in
the past year, and their goal is to get rid of thc prostitution and keep the massage
professionals.
Lowenthal said he supported im.~mving the orain~uce but was concerned about the city's
ordinance differing from the county's. He agreed that they. should work with the massage
practitioners in the city. He would prefer that the county enact an ordinance that could be
enforced uniformly, then the city could follow that process so as to benefit from the work
the county is doing. He said he thought improving the ordinance would proyide more
legitimacy to the current practitioners.
Burner requested that city staff look into ways of preventing operations that have been
shut down from immediately re-opening.
Kilian said that from a law enforcement standpoint, there is no difference in the
ordinances. He thought it. was very important that the ordinances be as uniform as
possible. He Suggested that because the county is our enforcement agency, the matter be
continued for 90 days to see what happens at the county level, so that the city's ordinance
can be reflective of theirs.
· -' Bumett moved to continue the matter to the Febr~mry 5 meeting. Lowenthal seconded and
the motion carried $-0.
James thanked the two 'officers for the work they had done in the area of cleaning up
prostitution in the city.
Kilian suggested that the local practitioners work with the Sheriff's office as well as city
staff.
16. Orchard Valley Marketplace, 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Evershine, Peter
Ko), applicati.ons: 15-U-00, l l-EXC-00, and 21-EA-00. A negative declaration is
recommended, and this item is recommended for approval.
· Use permit to demolish a 9,464 square foot restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to
the Orchard Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one-story retail building at the
comer of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and a new two story
retail/office building at the comer of Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard
and other minor site and architectural changes.
· Exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to
exceed the maximum height of 36 feet, Resolution No. 00-298.
Planner I Peter C-illi introduced the video roll-in and handed out a November 30 memo
regarding the City Center Neighborhood Traffic issues. He reviewed the staff report and
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 6
answered questions. He said the bus duck-out had been moved so that the trees to be
removed were less mature and the new location would increase the usc of the pedestrian
pathway. He said the en'~ance to the two-story building would, be on the inside of thc site
and pointed out where the outdoor patio area and restaurant would be. He said the height
exception is for the Wwer clement and all tenant entranccs will bc on the intcrior. The
Planning Commission was comfortable with recommendation for approval of the
exception because the intent was to make the outdoor patio an active area. Gilli said the
design is still evolving and would go to the Design Review Committee, after which the
city's consultant would review it again. The Planning Commission would then makc the
final decision.
Gilli said the VTA is requesting installation of a full duck-out but the Council has the
authority to deny that. He said the applicant would transplant the mature trees that were
removed, trees.
Bumett talked about George Monk's suggestion regarding closing an entrance on Portal to
auto ~fic and putting a pedestrian crosswalk in place. Piasecki suggested placing a
condition on this applicant that they will be responsible for retrofitting that driveway after
a study has taken place and staff'has reported on the pros and cons.
Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, talked about noise caused by trucks attempting to back
into the center. He was also concerned regarding parking, elimination of landscaping, and
the possibility of tracks having to unload in residential neighborhoods if the parking lot is
full. He talked about parking on Portal. In response to Mr. Monk's proposal for a raised
pedestrian walkway, he said it was a speed bump which causes noise.
Virginia Tamblyn, 19721 Bixby Drive, expressed concerns about traffic on Portal,
restaurant activity taking place in the alley, and dumping of cleaning water into the storm
drain.
George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, said his interest in the redevelopment is discouraging
the use of Portal and Price as shortcuts to the center. He was disappointed that no action
had been taken to mitigate the impact of traffic. He repeated his suggestion regarding a
pedestrian entrance and said there were traffic calming methods other than the raised
walkway. He referred to the traffic reports for Portal and Price. He said the developer is
asking for a dramatic increase in the size and profile of the development, and felt it was a
small price for him to partially fund some solution toward mitigating the traffic in the '
neighborhood.
Statton said he liked seeing the center revitalized but was reluctant to approve the ~roject
without reviewing it again. Traffic was a concern.
Lowenthal sai~ he felt comfortable with the design issues and was anxious for the
improvement of the center. He said the owners have excellent tenants lined up who are
anxious for the development to be completed. He said the project emphasizes outdoor
seating, an outdoor and space feel, and pedestrian orientation and scale on Stevens Creek
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 7
.... Boulcvard. Hc was in favor of thc bus duck-out. Hc agreed it was timc to dcal with thc
cut through traffic on Portal. ,. ..
Chang basically supported the project and said previous concerns had been addressed. He
agreed that staff should study the traffic on Portal to see if there are feasible solutions.
Burnett agreed with other council members in supporting the project. He also agreed that
traffic should be slowed down on Portal.
James said thc applicant has changed thc plans over two years and thought the current
proposal would address the issues expressed by the coramunity. She asked that the issue
of trucks be looked at closely and that the Portal traffic concern be addressed as well.
Piasecki proposed the following language for condition 31:
31. South Portal Avenue Driveways and Cut-Through Traffic
The applicant shall work with thc staff to evaluate design solutions for thc
driveways on South Portal Avenue focusing on pedestrian access, delivery truck
mm-around and cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. The applicant shall return
to the City Council for final approval of the agreed upon designs addressing these
issues. The applicant shall agree to pay for and install the agreed upon design
solution prior to issuance of building permits.
Lowenthal moved to approve Application 15-U-00 per Planning Commission Res. 6059
with Condition 31 amended as proposed by staff, and to approve Application 11-EXC-00
per Planning Commission Res. 6060. Chang seconded and the motion carried 4-1 (Station
no).
Chang moved to grant a negative declaration. Bumeti seconded and the motion carried 4-
1 (Station no).
Bumctt moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-298. Lowenthal seconded and thc motion
carried 4-1 (station no).
17. Prezoning: Public hearing to consider prezoning of a .26 acre parcel located at 21103
Lavina Court to Pre-RI-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
zone, Dennis Wong, applicant. This item is recommended for approval.
First reading of Ordinance No 1866, "An Ordinance of the City Council of thc l~,ity of
Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code by Pre-Zoning a 0.26
Acre Parcel Located at 21103 Lavina Court to Pre-RI-10 (Single Family Residential
with a Minimum Lot Size of 10,000 Sq-nre Feet) (Application No. 06-Z-00)."
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the staff report.
.December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 8
Burner moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Res. 6062.
Lowenthal seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1866. Burner moved and Lowenthal
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would
constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
20. Amendment to contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) regarding
survivor benefits.
(a) First resdlng of Ordinance No. 1867: "An Ordinance of the City Council of thc
City of Cupertino Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City
Council of the City of Cupertino and the Board of Administration of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System."
Human Resources Manager Woska reviewed the staff report.
The City Clerk read the-title of Ordinance No. 1867. Chang moved and Bumett seconded
to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the
first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
18. Approval of Library Steering Committee's recommendation for the site of the new
Cupertino library in the Civic Center.
Director of Public Works Quails reviewed the staffreport.
Paul Lettieri, Guzzardo Partnership, reviewed the alternatives and explained how they had
been evaluated. He described the proposed development for Town Center.
Qualls summarized the findings of the committee, noting that staff recommended
Alternative B. That alternative was preferred by ten of the fourteen committee members
as well. He also noted that all of the council members had been given copies of a letter
from Mrs. Barbara Rogers dated December 4, 2000. .
Kathy Stakey, a member of the Library Expansion Steering Committee, said the
committee had made a recommendation regarding the location for the new library, and it
was the only meeting she had missed. It would be wise to insure that the community
understands the scope of this $22 million project, which is the largest financial project the
city has embarked upon. As a committee member, she was not comfortable that the public
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 9
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the staff report.
Burnett moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Res. 6062.
Lowenthal seconded and the motion carried 5-0.
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1866. Bumett moved and Lowenthal
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would
constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
20. Amendment to contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) regarding
survivor benefits.
(a) First reading of Ordimmcc No. 1867: "An Ordinancc of thc City Council of thc
City of Cupertino Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City
-. Council of thc City of Cupertino and thc Board of Adminlstration of thc California
Public Employees' Retirement System."
Human Resources Manager Woska reviewed the staff report.
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1867. Chang moved and Burnett seconded
to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the
first reading thercof. Motion carried 5-0.
18. Approval of Library Steering Committee's recommendation for the site of the new
Cupertino library in the Civic Center.
Director of Public Works Quails reviewed the staff report.
Paul Lettieri, G-7.~ordo Partnership, reviewed the alternatives and explained how they had
been evaluated. He described the proposed development for Town Center.
Quails summarized the findings of the committee, noting that staff rccommendcd
Alternative B. That alternative was preferred by ten of the fourteen committee m,embcrs
as well. He also noted that all of the council members had been given copies of a letter
from Mrs. Barbara Rogers dated December 4, 2000.
Kathy Stakey, a member of the Library Expansion Steering Committee, said the
committee had made a recommendation regarding the location for the new library, and it
was the only meeting she had missed. It would be wise to insure that the conununity
I
December 4, 2000 Cupcmino City Council Page 10
understands the scope of this $22 million project, which is the largest financial project the
city has ~mbarked upon. As a committe~ member, she was not comfortable that the public
was well infoiiiied. She was concerned that the library's functional needs may not be met.
She asked that the Council postpone their decision, and place markers on the ground to
show the propo, sed building and parking footprint. She also recommended a meeting with
the county librarian and the cupertino library director to insure their basic day to day
functions are met by the proposed plan.
lean Gallup, 10356 Plum Tree Lane, said she was a member of the Library Expansion
Steering Committee. She said she was an ardent supporter of selecting the field, not the
plaza, for the location of the new library, because it would be easier to make a functionally
efficient library. Instead, the ~tiiphasis seems to be more on making it a civic focal point
and how it will look. This may result in the functions of thc library being forced into a
building that is not as efficient. The Cupertino library has won national awards, and there
are experts on both the county and local staff. She asked that council pay attention to their
needs and recommendation.
Chris Gatley, 11510 Well Spring Court, said he was also a member of the Library
Expansion Steering Col'~mittee and he .had also missed his opportunity to cast his vote.
He did not hear any discussions on the committee about building fi'om the outside in. The
diagrams before council are merely bubbles with no specific form, and he would defer to
the library experts as to what that form it should take, and it should be developed from the
inside out. At the same time the council should create a long term landmark for the city
and they have an opportunity to do so by placing it between thc existing two buildings. He
thought there needed to be a relationship betw~ the new town center, the existing
library, city hall, and the new library. This could bc done by placing the new library
between the two other buildings and toward thc back. He said most important, the green
field represented one of the few open spaces let in the city. He has observed the use of
both areas and from his perspective thc ball field got a lot more usc, so putting the library
in the plaza made more sense.
E. J. Conens said he kept hearing the figure of $22 million and he was under the
impression that it would be $17 million for a library and $$ million to build a garage. He
asked why they were cutting parking spaces one place and adding th¢i~ in another. He
said he did not want to spend the $22 million when they had been told it would be $17
million.
Chang said he served with Mayor lames on the steering committee and they both support
the staff recommendation. He said he felt very strongly shout the new library and has
invested a lot of time working toward it. Throughout the site selection process ]~e was
looking at whether any of the sites would have a serious down side. He said his biggest
concern early on was whether the library would fit in the space between the buildings.
Otherwise he could see no down side to that site. When they get to the design phase he
wanted to make sure that all the recommendations in the report from the previous
committee were fairly heard and incorporated into the design. From a purely library
perspective, the football field provided more possibilities, but he could see no tangible
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Pal~e I l
gains from that site. Site B is a better solution from a community perspective. Being able
to save the open space and having a c. ity ~enter were both things many people wanted, and
they can both be achieved by this proposal ~tli0ut compromising the needs of the library.
Bm'ncR said he agreed with Chang's reasons for choosing that location. Hc noted that thc
town center park was comparable in size to the downtown Los Gatos park where they
have their farmers' market, and could allow that kind of event to take place here. Phasing
the library and integrating it with thc rest of what they arc doing is a great thing to do.
Lowenthal agreed with much of what Chang said about there being no down side to Site
B. Another benefit is that placc,,,cnt there allows better sharing of parking With town
center. Hc said there had been three opportunities for public input and they heard from a
lot of people. He said he thought that they needed to get on with the process; construction
costs continue to go up. He said the new library will be a great addition to the city;
however, there is some continued concei~i about the $22 million being spent on the
library. He sgid the library would be an integral part of the place to gather, which was a
desire expressed at the recent community congress. He was very enthusiastic about thc
plan and was happy that they could keep the green space for thc present.
Statton personally thanked Dorothy Stowe who had worked with many other people on
the project for the past four or five years. He said he wanted to see the new library built
· -' quickly.
James, who co-chaired the committee with Chang, talked to those who were on the
committee as representatives of different segments of the community. She said she was in
favor of Site B because it addresses the needs of the library and puts the library in the
middle of what they hope is going to be the town center. She said partnering with the
developer has already given th~m some money to put into the library because they don't
have to spend it on parking. She said she believed it was her responsibility to save any
open space if there was a suitable alternative, and in this case this was a better site than if
they took away the open space. She believed this building would work with thc other two
buildings, and would allow a walkway between them. It is time to move on. She stressed
that this is not an architectural selection; the architect will work with the librarians and the
rest of the committee to make sure that the inside of the library works.
Lowenthal thanked all thc volunteers who had worked on Measure A and the site
selection. He said the community made this happen.
Chang moved to approve the Library Steering Committee recommendation for Site B.
Bumett seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
19. Approval of recommendation from Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to
__. allocate $200,000 from Mary Avenue bicycle footbridge project to initiate feasibility
study and preliminary environmental review, Resolution No. 00-299.
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 12
Quails highlighted the staff report and introduced thc video roll-in showing the location.
He showed an overhead outlining concc~-ns expressed at the October 26 meeting.
Doug Herrick, chair of the BPAC, made a presentation.
The following speakers spoke in opposition to the feasibility study:
· Chris Wang, 10659 Nathanaon Avenue
AnnaPolman-Blaek, 21118 GardenaDrive
· Bud Kundich, 1776 Laurentian Way, Sunnyvale
· Worth Walters, 10497 Anson, handed out Highway 85 satellite photographs
· Ramesh Hariharan, 21478 Meteor Drive
· Nataraj, 10599 Nathanaon Avenue
· Ronald Singletary (6 min. video Tom Buchanan and Ron Singleton 3 min. each)
· Thomas Buchanan, 10619 Nathanson Avenue
· Bonnie Sevexietti, 10655 Mary Avenue, Cul~£fino Loc-N-Stor
· Jack Funk, 10679 Nathanson Avenue
· Kumar Muthusami, 1752 Laurentian Way
· Allen Snyder
· Monte Turner, 21435 Amulet Drive
· Dan-Wen Tsai
The following speakers spoke support of the feasibility study:
· Paul C. Metz and Mary Poc, 6137 Oneida Drivc, San Jose, Silicon Valley Bike
Coalition
· Jo Ellen Jarvi, 21815 Alcazar Avenue, discussed overhead map
· Ann Ng, 6031 Bollinger, BPAC, SVBC
· Jack Witthaus, P. O. Box 3707, Sunnyvale, Senior Transportation Planner, City of
Sunnyvale
· David Simons, 1514 S. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale
· Jean Stein, 1782 Lamont Court, Sunnyvale
· Robert Skyles, 10301 Stonydale Drive
· Kevin Jackson, 1557 Fraser Drive, Sunnyvale
· David Greenstein, showed video
· Tim Riseh, 330 N. Mathilda Avenue #502, Sunnyvale, member of Sunnyvale City
Council
· Mike Bullock, 21831 Hcamosa Avenue
· Rod Brown, 11124 La Paloma Drive
· Steve Haze, 22681 San Juan Road, handed out policies from 1990 General Plan and
bicycle routes
· Gary Virshup, 753 Stendhal Lane
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 13
· Colin Virshup, 753 Stendhal Lane
· Scott Virshup, 753 Stcndhal Lane
Statton said that, as thc community becomes increasingly dense, ways must be found to
continue to accommodate the increasing need for alternate transportation. He believed
that there are ways of making traditionally incompatible uses more compatible with each
other. He was in support of the feasibility study, and felt that thc issues raised by the
speakers should be addressed and mitigated in that study. After thc study, if thc Council
decides to proceed with the project, there will be a lot more work to do with the
neighborhood about mitigation measures.
Lowenthal asked if the $200,000 could be used to study Stelling Road instead of the Mary
Avenue footbridge. Ralph Quails, Public Works Director, said that the source of the
funding is the VTA bicycle expenditure plan and it is specifically earmarked for the Mary
overcrossing. There will be some peripheral issues associated with Stelling that would
have to be taken into account as a part of tiffs project, but the funding is only for the
overcrossing.
Lowenthal said that it is one of council's goals to make the city more walkable. If the
feasibility study is not done, they will be missing an opportunity to increase walkability
and bicycle access. He felt that might be a pr~u~nent decision, and potentially a mistake.
He said a lot of serious issues were brought up by residents, and it has to be the main
objective of the feasibility study to find a way to enhance thc safety for the
neighborhoods, not make it worse. Solutions must also be found for litter, graffiti, and
privacy. He noted that when the Stevens Creek Trail was put in by the City of Mountain
View, it ended up being something that was more positive for everyone. Lowenthal said
he had been involved in the project, and continues to stay involved. Some of the steps
they have taken include adding an access for the Sheriffs officers, monitoring the trail
several times a day for litter and graffiti, and covering the natural rocks with a graffiti-
resistant coating. Graffiti is removed on the same day, always. These are thc same kinds
of things which should be investigated in the feasibility study, and which must be made a
part of Cupertino's plan if this project is to proceed.
Chang asked for clarification on the content of the feasibility study. Quails said that it
would typically evaluate all issues associated with the project, as well as developing a
basic scope. It would give council a better understanding of thc issues raised by thc
neighborhood, and may even bring up some new ones. Chang said that after hearing the
input from both sides, he felt the right thing to do was to proceed with the feasibility
study. The biggest issue seems to be people's perceptions, whether accurate or not, related
to problems associated with thc high school. Hc felt it was important that all og those
concerns be addressed fully in the study, including the probleo~s with it being a
congregation area for students, smoking and drug use, graffiti, safety and privacy
-- concerns, and potential impacts on property values. The feasibility study should indicate
how these could be mitigated, and at what cost. Chang also felt the committee should
represent all the stakeholders, including residents of Sunnyvale and Cupertino, members
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 14
of the bicycle pedestrian committee, the Sheriffs depathnent, and the high school. There
is a potential for an outcome that the neighbors feel is an improvement over existing
conditions. Although a final decision had not been made, it was important to do the
feasibility study.
Bumett said that the benefits of this project are very large. Previous elections show very
strong support for bicycle projects. In 1996, Measure A and B included $12 million
dollars for bicycle projects, and it passed by 75%. The recent Measure A, an all-transit
issue with a lot of funding for bicycle pedestrian facilities, passed by 70%. He said that
people are looking for alternatives to the automobile, and this is an opportunity tO provide
that. This bridge would make it possible to ride from Willow Glen to Pale Alto with only
one stretch of busy street on Homestead, and it would also be part of the hookup from Los
Gates and Saratol~a to the Baylands. The lack of those facilities is a tremendous deterrent
to people who want to ride their bicycles but am concerned about their safety on busy
streets. Bumett discussed Creekside Park and the neighborhood opposition to the bridge
that was built there. Once it was in, the leader of the opposition told him that it had
actually become an asset to the neighborhood. He noted that the Mary Avenue
overcrossing would also provide easy access to the bus stops on Homestead. As people
get older, not everyone is able to drive, but they can still ride bicycles, ride thc bus, or
walk. Bumett said he lives near a high school and a junior high, and there arc some minor
problems with littering, but that can be dealt with. He felt thc biggest impact on thc
neighborhood would be the drop in automobile traffic for every person who chooses to
ride a bike instead. He felt that the trail could be designed to protect residents' privacy,
and landscaping can be put in to discourage people from congregating in what are now
open spaces. The job of the committee will be to find out how the neighbors want those
changes to be made.
James said she was encouraged to sec a council member and staff person from the city of
Sunnyvale in attendance, because this issue does involve both cities. She said the
Cupertino community talks all the time about being pedestrian friendly and bicycle
friendly, and about giving people a way to go from place to place and to get out of their
cars. The topic is in the general plan, and the council's goals, and they are committed to it.
The council is also committed to protecting thc environment of the local communities and
keeping up the quality of life for the residents. This is a chance to bring people together
who have concerns, energies, and passions that may not be aligned, and staff and thc
council will work to find a solution that will be good for everyone. James said she was
disturbed to hear the stereotypes that people had about teens and youth. Drugs and gangs
are sometimes found in schools, but also in the workforce, in businesses, or on the street.
But not all teens and youth are like that. She felt thc school district should be involved in
this overcrossing project, much as they were in the Monta Vista parking situatiox!. The
same kind of comments were heard from the community then, but their attitude changed
after they worked with the teens and came up with solutions for the students to park in
front of their homes. The Sheriffs deparhnent will also be an integral part of making this
work. The first step is to fund the feasibility study to look at the pros and cons, to bring
all the players together, and to do a prermfinary ~,nvironmontal study.
December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 15
Burnett moved to adopt Resolution 00-299 to allocate $200,000 in VTA Bicycle
Expenditures pro~r~an funds from the Mary' Avenue Bicycle footbridge Pwject to initiate
a feasibility study and preliminary environmental review prior to proceeding with the
proposed project, and to evaluate and address the concerns and issues as raised by
members of the community and others which may arise from the study, and to authorize
the Director of Public Work to acquire the necessary consultant services to support this
effort in an aggregate amount not to exceed $200,000. Lowenthal seconded and the
motion passed 5-0.
ORDINANCES - None
STAFF REPORTS
Administrative Services Director Atwood reminded the council that the city had applied
for a California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) loan as one option to fund the
Cupertino Community Services (CCS) affordable housing project. The city has been
notified that it .was awarded $1.3 million of the $2 million request. On subsequent review
of the CHNA loan requirements, it was discovered that such a loan would be in the name
of the City of Cupertino and thus obligate the city's general fund for any non-payment by
the CCS housing operation. Therefore, staffis not recommending acceptance of this loan.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor James said that because the hour was so latc, thc council reports would be hcld
· over until the next meeting.
CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. The December 18 and January 2 meetings
have been canceled. The next meeting will be Tuesday, January 16.
Kimb~rly Smith, City Clerk
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, December 18, 2000
2:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 2:35 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torrc
Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL
City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and
Council members Don Bumett and Michael Chang. Council members absent: Council member
John Statton.
Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Community Development Director Steve Piasccki,
Public Information Officer Donna Krey, Public Works Director Ralph Q~jalls, and City Clerk
Kimberly Smith.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address thc 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.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorize the city manager to approve the first amendment to the License Agreement
with the Cupertino City Center Owners Association revising the boundaries of a license
for the non-exclusive irrevocable use of the property described as Lot 8 of Tract Map
7983 as a Public Park. The property is located at the southeast comer of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard.
Public Works Director Ralph Quails highlighted the staff recommendations, which were
to (1) Recommended that the City Manager be authorized to approve thc amendment to
the license agreement revising the boundaries of the license for a non-irrevocable use of
the property described as Lot 8 of Tract 7983 as a public park, and to accept cash
securities in the total amount of $256,700.00; and (2) Vacate the public service easements
and public vehicle access easements on a portion of LOt 8 of Tract 7983.
December 18, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2
(A) Resolution No. 00-300, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino ordering vacation of a private access easement and emergency vehicle
access easement within the City of Cupertino, California - Lot 8 of Tract 7983,
Cali Avenue.
Burnett moved to appwve Resolution No. 00-300. Chang seconded and the motion
carried 4-0, with Statton absent.
(B) Resolution No. 00-301, "A Resolution of the City Council of the .City of
Cupertino anthoriz/ng execution of first amendment to license agreement property
and acceptance of securities between the Cupertino City Center Owners
Association and thc City of Cupertino regarding the use of specific; property
located on the southeast comer of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard"
Bumett moved to appwve Resolution No. 00-301. Chang seconded and the motion
carried 4-0, with Statton absent.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Clerk noted that the January 2 meeting of City Council had been cancelled, and that
interviews for city coffunissions would be held on Sanuary 8 and 9.
At 2:43 p.m. the meeting was ad)oumed.
Kimberly Smith, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 01-002
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
December 1, 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 clairns 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:
Direc~or~c f A-~ inis~tra~
PASSED AND ADOPTED 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
12/01/00 CITY OF CUPBtTIN0
,R,~"'Ot~'~ ~I~ZO~ 6/01 ~ ~1~ - DI~ ~
1020 581016 V 11/0~/00 2224 ~A ~ ~ ~ 1101300 ~ 0F ~T DEE 0.00 -370,00
1020 5~1408 ~1/28/00 2209 ~T~0 ~ 1104100 ~1/26-1~/28 P. ~ 0.00
1020 5~1409 11/2~/00 2250 SZ~ ~ A ~ 1108407 P~TS ~ ~PL~ES 0.0O
~020 581410 12/01/00 1695 3H 270~413 24 * 50 ~ ~ 19 * S 0.00 1380.70
~020 5814~1 12/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 110~506 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00
1020 5~14~1 ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108504 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00 1542.05
~020 58~411 ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~$~ ~ 1108505 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00 177.67
L020 5814~1 ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 57085~0 ~ 2000 ~ 0,00 46~.26
1020 58~411 ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 56066~0 ~2000 ~ 0.00
to2o 5814~ ~2/Ol/0O 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108503 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00
1020 5814L1 ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~$~ ~ 1108508 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00 41.94
· 020 5~14~ ~2/01/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108507 ~ 2000 ~ 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 4700.00
~ 58L4~2 ~2/01/00 2110 ~C ~ ~ ~ 1108112 ~ ~ 0.00 50.00
1020 58~4~3 Z2/01/00 13 ~ A 8~ ~XT~X~ C 5606640 · ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 286.86
1020 58Z4Z4 L2/OZ/O0 918 ~ ~ ~ ~ T 5506549 DP~ P~ S~S 2/4-6 0.00 4650.00
~020 58~4Z5 X2/0Z/00 36 ~w.~'S ~S ~XPPX~ 110~300 ~XPPX~ ~/~ 0.00
1020 5814~6 Z2/0Z/00 ST ~K 1X045Z0 ~E ~g 0;00 228.60
1020 5814XB ~2/0~/00 ~00Z ~, BIblE 5500000 ~-L~SE ~ 0.00 46.00
1020 5814Z9 12/01/00 1519 ~ ~Y ~ ZNC 11083~2 ~ ~I~ P~ 0.00 655.93
1020 5814~g ~2/01/00 1519 ~ ~Y ~ X~ 1108~0~ ~ ~X~ PA~ 0.00
1020 S814Lg ~2/01/00 ~S19 ~ ~Y ~ ~C 1108315 ~ ~ PA1~ 0.00 SSS.gl
1020 S814L9 ~2/01/00 1S19 ~~Y ~ ~C 11083~4 ~l~ PA1~ 0.00 GSS.~3
~ ~CK 0.00 2623.70
~020 5B~420 L2/O~/O0 ~g3 ~~ 550654~ ~m~ ~ 0.00 4L.09
~020 S8242~ ~2/0~/00 720 ~-~-~ ~ 6308e40 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 23.3e
~020 58~422 ~2/0~/00 720 ~-~-~b-l-~ 6~0~e40 ~ S~390 40.00
~020 ..58~42m ~2/om/o0 ?20 ~M~ ~-~-~ ~308B40 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 23.38
~020 58~42~ ~2/0~/00 ?2O ~-~-~-~ ~-~ 63088~0 ~ S~3~O 0.00
~020 S8~42~ ~2/0~/00 ?20 ~L~ ~:~ 6~08840 n 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00
12:23:58
12/01/00 C~'Z'X O~ ~u'Z~.'Z"ZNO 9XG~ 2
~E~ ~: C~iiC~,~B~e ~veen "11/27/2000" ~ "12/0~/2000'
1020 ~8~421 12/01/00 ?20 ~'*-~-~ ~b-z-~ 6]08B40 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 292.28
· 020 58~21 12/01/00 ?20 ~-z-~'~Y ~ 6308~40 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 229.2?
1020 581421 12/01/00 ?20 ~*~'t~Y ~5~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 185.05
1020 581422 12/01/00 1348 ~Y~ ~ ~ INC 1108302 TZ~ A ~ 0.00 6GS,00
1020 581423 12/01/00 96 ~'~Z~ 5606620 ~I~5 0.00 51,00
1020 581424 12/01/00 ~001 ~'z-~', ~ 580 ~C ~ 0.O0 102,00
1020 581425 12/01/00 1066 ~-~18 Z~Z 520800~ ~ ~ ~ 2000 0.00 922?0.52
1020 ~81426 12/01/00 ~72 ~Z~8 4249210
1020 581426 12/01/00 E72 9~~5 4249210 ~ ~ ~5 ?/18/2 O.00 141.45
1020 581426 12/01/00 8?2 ~Z~8 4249210
1020 5~1426 12/01/00 872 B~Z~S 4269212 B~ ~ ~ 0.00 25~5.24
1020 581426 12/01/00 ~72 B~Z~S 4349210
~ ~ 0.00
1020 58142~ 12/01/00 130 ~Z~ZX ~[~ ~ 1106200 ~19 ~ 0.00 140.00
1020 581428 12/01/00 ~001 '~ 110840? ~ ~/DZ~ ~ 0.00 '' 00
1020 581429 12/01/00 1460 ~Z ~ZRO 5606620 ~Z~ ~ZBZ~ 0.00 ~.00
1020 ~81429 12/01/00 1460 ~Z ~ZRO 6104800
~T~ ~EC~ O.O0 303V.50
1020 581430 12/01/00 146 ~H 5806349 ~ ~ 0.00 106.36
1020 581410 12/01/00 146 ~ 5806449 ~-~L~ ~ 0.00 32.45
1020 581410 12/01/00 146 ~ 5806649 ~"~'z ~H 0..00 25.67
102~ 561410 12/01/00 146 ~M 5506549 ~z-~'~ ~ 0.00 19.25
1020 5814]0 12/01/00 146 ~ 1106265 v~*-z-z' ~ 0.00 10.81
1~2C 5814]0 12/01/00 146 ~H 1106647 ~ ~ 0.00 53.28
TCT~ ~ECK 0.00 247.82
lo20 581431 12/01/00 ~48 ~H 630~840 P~TS A S~PLZ~ 0.0O 4.?2
~020 S~14]1 12/01/00 148 ~ 110~312 ~Z~ 0.0O 6.81
1020 58~431 12/0~/00 148 ~ 110~314 P~TB 0.00 15.~1
1020 581431 ~2/01/00 148 ~ 110~503 P~ 0.00 10.B1
~020 581431 12/01/00 148 ~ 1108201 ~g 0.00 6.60
1020 S81431 12/01/00 148 ~ 270~405 ~8 O.0O 13.00
~020 58~431 22/0~/00 ~48 ~H ~0~502 P~TS 0.00 3.02
~020 58143~ ~2/01/00 148 ~ 630~840 P~T~ · ~Z~ 0.00 22.95
1020 581431 12/01/00 148 ~ Z108408 ~OP~ 0.00 34.?6
1020 581411 12/01/00 148 ~ 110~14
1020 5814~1 12/01/00 148 ~ 110~408 ~9~ '0.00 ~.75
1020 581411 12/01/00 14~ ~ 1108115
1020 581431 12/01/00 148 ~ 110~501
~ ~ 0.00 186.41
12/01/00 71l~ 12:23:59 - FZIqR,~CZ~,,,RCC:~,,m~ZI~G
12/01/00 CZT~ 0E CU~XBO PAG~ 3
AC~-~..J~-XIqG P~RZOD: 6/01 ~ ~Z~" DX~ ~
'~'~X~ ~Z~: t~mcC.C~m~Cm ~C~ '11/27/2000" ~ "12/01/2000"
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1101000 ~X~ 0.00
-~020 5~1432 12/01/00 149 ~H 1108102 ~S 0.00 36.7~
1020 S81432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1104000 0~ ~X~S 0.00 10.00
1020 581432 i2/01/00 149 ~ 1101200 ~AZ~ ~ 0.00 22.15
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 110~501 ~ ~* ~SE 0.00
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1104100 ~I~ ~ZL 0.00 1.62
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1108001 ~-~ 0.00
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ ~108201 ~XM ~ZCZDB ~ 0.00
1020 5~1432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1108601 ~ E ~R S~Z~ 0.00 31.02
1020 S81432 12/01/00 149 ~H 1108601 ~L~ 0.00 4.6S
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 2204010 ~~ZSS 0.00 48,05
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1103300 ~ ~ 0.00 51.05
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 4239214 T~/~-~-~I~ ~ ~ 0.00 5.40
1020 581432 12/01/00 149 ~ 1103500 ~g SO~ 0.00 29.00
~ ~ 0.00 418.43
1020 581433 12/01/00 152 ~:~Z~ ~ 1101500 ~Y ~ ~Z~ ~. 0.00 80.19
1020 581434 12/01/00 166 ~ ~ZE ~ 5806449 S~ ~' ~ 0.00 300.00
1020 581435 12/01/00 1824 ~'S ~1~ SHOP 6308840 ~X~ 2 R~/~ 0.00 60.00
581436 12/01/00 2251 ~N ~SOCIA~S 6308840 ~P ~ 0.00 157.40
1020 58143~ 12/01/00 173 ~-~ ~Z~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 264.36
1020 581~37 12/01/00 173 ~-~ ~Z~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 217.68
~T~ ~CK 0.00 482.04
1020 S81438 12/01/00 2209 ~TX~ X~ 1104100 12/3-5 P~Z~ ~E~ 0.00 689.70
1020 581439 12/01/00 194 ~TXNO ~Y ZNC 1108502 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0,00 112.55
102c 581439 12/01/00 194 ~T~O ~PLY XNC 5~08510 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 120.34
1C27 S81439 12/01/00 194 ~TX~ ~PLY 1~ 1108504 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 54.81
1c2~ S614~9 12/01/00 194 ~TX~ ~Y ~ 4209206 P~ A S~PLX~S 0.00 1499,~8
T~ ~K 0.00 1787.08
~0~: S8~440 ~2/0~/00 ~964 ~F~TIK ~ ~'A'~ ~ ~0~S00 ~E ~ FOR OF 0.00 3884,00
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 ~SnV~ ZNC ~08S0~ ~~ 20 0,00 42g,~4
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 DE ~ S~VI~ ~ ~208S0~ ~ SR~ ~ 20 0.00 2~39.7~
~020 58~44~ ~2/0~/00 209 DE~S~V~S ~ L~08504 ~ ~ ~ ~A~ 0 0,00
~020 58~44L ~2/0~/00 209 ~n S~VI~ ~NC ~08S09 ~ ~ 2000 0,00 6~0,96
~020 S8144~ ~2/0L/00 20S ~ ~~ ~NC ~08S09 ~ ~ 2000 0,00 636,85
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 ~ ~ S~ IHt ~08S06 ~ ~VC ~ 2000 0,00 309,25
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 DE~SnV~S INC ~08S02 ~Z~~20 0,00 37S4,~S
~020 58~44L ~2/0~/00 209 DE ~ SnV~S ~ ~08407 ~ SR~ 0.00 942.69
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 209 ~ ~ S~VZ~ ~ ~L083~4 ~ ~ 4 0,00 633S,9~
~020 58~44~ ~2/0~/00 209 ~S~VZ~ ~ Z~08503 ~~20 0,00 ~790,88
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 ~ ~ ~V~ Z~ ~08S04 ~ ~ ~ 2000 0.00 SSS~.S~
~020 S8~44~ ~2/0~/00 2O9 ~ ~ ~ ~C L3085~L ~ ~C ~ 2000 0.00
' 58~44~ ~2/0~/00 200 ~ ~ S~VI~ ~ S708SL0 ~ ~ ~ 2000 0,00 22S2~24.
DATE 12/01/00 'X'XI~ 12:24:00
12/01/00 CZI~ O~ (:O/~TZBO PAGs' 4
XC'COU~I'Z~ ~I~.ZOD: 8/01 (:~]~C:Z ~Z~'~ - DZ~ ~
S~l~ ~Z~: cra~acc. C~_~e ~t~ "11/27/2000" ~d "12/01/2000"
~ - 110 - G~ ~
1020 581441 12/01/00 209 DE ~ ~VX~ Z~C 110~507 ~ ~VC ~ 20~0 0.00
1020 5814A2 12/01/00 210 ~EP ~J~ ~ ~ 5806449 8~ ~ ~ 0.00 5396.00
1020 58144] 12/01/00 6?6 ~P~ O~ ~Z~ Z104510 ~ ~6 3 ~ 0.00 96.00
10;0 581444 12/01/00 225 ~ ~ ~S~ A ~ 4209206 ~VZ~ ~ EO~ 0.00 179~0.S0
1020 581444 12/01/00 225 ~ RX~ R~F~ E ~ 4209206 S~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 17930.50
1020 5~1445 12/01/00 139v B~ ~ ~ 580644~ ~vI~ ~ ~ o.oo 41e.00
1020 581446 12/01/00 239 ~1~ DZ~Z~ 11088]0 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ y~C 0.00 62.39
1020 581446 12/01/00 239 ~1~ DZ~IB~ 1108830 ~ 2000-2001 OP~
1~20 581447 12/01/00 240 ~LZ~ ~ ~ 1101070 ~ ~ ~ 11/1& 0.00 850.00
1020 581448 12/01/00 1473 ~l~ ~ ~ 6~08840 ~ ~N ~ ~ '0.00 2614.00
1020 581449 12/01/00 234 ~l~l~ ~TA 8~VZ~ 110 ~ ~Z~ ~l~ ~ 0.00 53~.00
1020 581450 12/01/00 2240 ~ ~ ZNC 5609105 ~X~ ~X~, ~ 0.0O 6 ~0
1020 S81451 12/01/00 1333 ~ SO~ 8~VZ~S 6109859 8~1~ ~A'~ ~b-A'~ Z 0,00 5000.00
1020 581~52 12/01/00 260 ~ ~S ~RF 110 R8621 0.00 17.56
1020 581452 12/01/00 260 ~ ~SS ~9 11010~0 ~Z~ 0.00
1020 581452 12/01/00 260 ~ ~S ~ 110 ~8606 0.00 14.44
1020 S81452 12/01/00 260 r~ ~SS ~9 110 R~605 0;00 14.44
1020 581452 12/01/00 260 r~ ~SS ~ 1101000 ~Z~ 0.00 29.~
1020 5~1452 12/01/00 260 ~ ~;S ~ 1104000 ~Z~ 0,00 16.90
1020 581452 12/01/00 260 r~ ~SS ~ 110 R8613 0.00 19.64
~ ~ 0.00 121.10
1020 581453 12/01/00 268 ~T~ ~OS 8E~Z~ ~S 1108303 P~S & ~XE8 0.00 112.55
1020 581453 12/01/00 268 ~ ~ SE~X~ ~S 110850? P~ & ~Z~S 0.00 110.00
1020 581453 12/01/00 268 ~-~ ~ BE~Z~ SY5 1108503 P~TS E ~ZES 0.00 129.95
~ ~ 0.00 3S2.S0
1020 581454 12/01/00 ~001 ~Z~S OF ~ ~ ~ SS06549 ~ ~ P~ 4 I~ 0.00 65.00
1020 5814S5 12/01/00 1932 ~ TZ~ 1108314 P~S FZT ~'~ ~ 0.00 3236.00
1020 581456 12/01/00 ~001 ~K, MX~ S80 ~c ~ 0,00 30.00
1020 s81457 12/01/00 2237 ~ sp~ ~ 110~303 T~ & ~ 0,00 1710.00
1020 581458 12/01/00 ~001 ~, G~ 1100000 ~ SR~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 90.00
1020 S81458 12/01/00 ~001 ~, ~ 110 ~ ~ ~P ~ 0,00 9Q
RUH DATR 12/01/00 ?~ 12:24:01
~ ~ 0.00 590.00
~020 sez4G0 ~2/0~/00 Z2?G ~ ~S ZZ06248 ~ 4 ~b~ ~ 0.0O 380.60
~020 58~46Z ~2/0~/00 298 ~ ~ Z~08830 P~ A ~U~ZBS 0.00 3~.8S
LO20 58~462 22/0Z/00 298 ~ ~ Z20832S ~ [ZT/~~ 0.00 233.99
~020 58~46Z Z2/Ol/O0 298 ~ ~ 1508830 P~TS A au~LZ~ O.O0 Z48.03
1020 581461 12/01/00 298 ~ ~C 2709413 P~TS & au~v~l~ 0.00 135.29
1020 581461 12/01/00 298 ~ ~ 2709413 P~TS & ~u~I~ 0.00 75.78
1020 581461 12/01/00 298 ~ ~ 1108830 P~TS & 8U~ 0.00 S3.18
1020 581461 12/01/00 298 ~l~ ~C 1108830 P~TS & ~PL~ 0.00 371.72
1020 S81461 12/01/00 298 ~Z~ ~ 1108830 P~TS & ~Z~ 0.00 222.03
1020 S81461 12/01/00 29~ ~ ~C 1108303 P~TS & G~ZgS 0.O0
~ ~ 0.00 2069.68
1020 581462 12/01/00 301 ~ ~C-~-~C ~ ~C 1108501 ~T ~ 14699559~ 0.00 -99.25
1020 581462 12/01/00 301 ~ ~ZC ~ ~ 1108501 P~TS & ~PLZ~ 0.00 264
~T~ ~CK 0.00 164.82
1020 581463 12/01/00 1686 VZ~Z ~ 1108601 ~1~S 0.00 64.90
581464 12/01/00 ~20 ~1 ~SS 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~X 0.00 480.00
1020 581465 12/01/00 ~001 ~Fa'*'G'*-z*~, ~ZG ~80 ~C~ 0.00 500.00
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 HORI~ S606640 S~Z~ 0.00 324.~5
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 ~ZZ~ 5606640 S~Z~ 0.00 587.65
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 ~RZZ~ 110840? ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 259.69
1020 5~1466 12/01/00 1898 ~R/Z~ 110840~ ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.-00 165.36
1020 5~1466 12/01/00 1898 ~RI~ 110~312 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 177.98
1020 5~1466 12/01/00 1898 ~RZ~ 1108321 O~ ~g O~ ~ 0.00 238.88
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 H~Z~N 1108303 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 213.4~
122c 581466 12/01/00 1898 H~Z~ 1108315 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 2~06.25
lC20 581466 12/01/00 1898 HORZ~ 1108315 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 314.46
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 ~ZZ~ 1108314 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 164.23
1020 S81466 12/01/00 1898 HORZZ~ 1108303 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 411.34
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 H~ZZ~ 110840~ ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 165.36
1020 581466 12/01/00 1898 ~l~ 1108314 ~2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 ,389.V0
1020 5~1466 12/01/00 1898 ~IZ~ 110840~ ~ 2000-2001 OP~ e~C O.00 14~.04
~ ~CK 0.00 6266.17
1020 581467 12/ol/0o ~001 ~, ~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 20.00
1020 S81468 12/01/00 33? ~_~ i ~/A~S 1108314 BZ~ ~SHZ~ O.00 430.72
1020 S81469 12/01/00 2096 ~lC ~, ~. 6308840 ~ZC~ZN~ 0.00 555.34
1020 S81470 12/01/00 341 Z~ ~ 5806449 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 3458.00
RU/f DATR 12/01/00 T31'~ 12:24:02
12/01/00 CITY OF COI~RTXNO PA,~.~ 6
k~vuJ~'XNG PERXOD: 6/01 CHKCK REGISTKR - DZSB~LS~NT ~ud~
SmT.~CTIOll CRITERIA: c=onia~C.~rens_~lce becveen '11/27/2000' and "12/01/2000'
F~4D - 110 - C~NBRAL F~q3)
CASH ACCT CH~CK NO ISb~]E DT .............. ~ ............. ~.I~O/DEPT ..... D~SC~I~TXON ...... SAL~S TAX AMO~IT
1020 581471 12/01/00 M2001 ISOBE, REINA 580 ILRC RBPT.~D 0.00 12.00
1020 581472 12/01/00 354 J CKAm'OI~ & ASEOCIATSE 5806449 PLAQUES SOFTBALL L~J~] 0.00 522.08
1020 581473 12/01/00 1657 JOSEPHINE'S pERSOIqHELSE 1106265 RAFAELVILLALOBOS 11/5 0.00 729.60
1020 S81473 12/01/00 1657 JOSEPHINEtB pBRSC~41~L SE 1106500 RAFAEL VILZJ~LOBOS 11/5 0.00 311.60
1020 S81473 12/01/00 1657 JOSBPHIHE)S PERS(~BL SE 1106500 RAFAEL VZLLALOBC~ 11/1 0.00 300.20
1020 S81478 12/01/00 1657 JOSEPHINE'S PERSOI~BL SE 1106265 RAFAEL VILLALOBOS 11/1 0.00 706.80
TOTAL C~BCK 0.00 2046.20
1020 581474 12/01/00 1630 KIDZ LOVE SOCCR~ INC 5806449 $BKVICR A~U~lm~NT FOR 0.00 4000.00
1020 581475 12/01/00 1972 KIIMALL-MIDWEST 63O8840 ~bF~LIRS 0.00 227.84
1020 S81476 12/01/00 3?2 KINXOt$ INC 5706450 COPIES 0.00 43.30
1020 581477 12/01/00 373 KIRK XPEDX 1104310 FY 2000-2001 OFSM FORC 0.00 326.65
1020 581478 12/01/00 377 ¥~.A F. OERLER 5806249 5RRV~C~ A(JREE~NT FOR 0.00 960.00
1.020 561479 12/01/00 2086 L PATRICK SAMSELL LLC 1104100 11/13-11/21 0.00 126.76
1020 581479 12/01/00 2086 L PATRICK SAMSKLL L~C 1104100 11/13-11/21 0.00 3840.00
1020 581479 12/01/00 2086 h PATRICK SM(SELL LLC 1104100 S%'C 10/30-11/8 0.00 3P ~0
1020 581479 12/01/00 2086 L FATRICK SAMSKLL LLC 1104100 10/30-11/8 0.00 6
TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 7933.52
1020 58~480 12/01/00 386 LAB SA~'G~A'~ SUPPLY 6308840 SHOP SUPPLIES 0.00 158.86
1020 581481 12/01/00 386 MICHAEL LA~e~ 6806349 EN~RTII~IT/BP. ICFST#/SAN 0.00 200.00
~2~ ~8~482 12/01/00 390 LAM$(]~ PRODUCTS IMC 2708405 I~,ANER CA.UINET 0.00 85.80
~02~ 58~482 12/01/00 390 ~WS0~ PRODUCTS INC 2709413 NIPHS/HXHTJT/LAMS(~ C/ 0.00 258.88
1:2~ 68:482 12/01/00 390 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 2709405 SW~LLTOOLS 0.00 486.43
1~2~ t81462 ~2/01/00 390 LANSON PRODUC~S INC 2708413 SM PARTS 0.00 70.36
TTTA:. ~CK 0.00 904.56
1~20 581483 12/01/00 M2001 LEE, J(~JN S80 SEC RRF~TD 0.00 20.00
1020 581484 12/01/00 396 PHILLIP M LENZHAN 5806449 SERVICE A~RBI~NT FOR 0.00 238.00
1020 581485 12/01/00 J42001 LEP. N 1106200 LEPJIJO~]3~L%L 0.00 345.00
1020 581486 12/01/00 398 LEXIS P~BLISEING 1101500 (~ DKRR ACS#2 OCT 2000 0.00 66.34
1020 581487 12/01/00 400 LIFETIME TENNIS INC 5?06450 TEHNI$ INSTR~SCI~H~ CON 0.00 26979.14
1020 581488 12/01/00 403 AN(3B~O M F.,(~UJAR~O 1108602 P. EPA~R TRAFFIC SIG~iAL '0.00 180.00
1020 581489 12/01/00 431 MC WHOk-~-GA'S 0FF~CE PP.(30 5706450 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 36.36
1020 581489 12/01/00 431 MC NH0~A'S OFFICE PR00 1101000 OPTION S~PP~IBS 0.00 47.22
1020 581489 12/01/00 431 MC NHOSTRR'S OFFICE PROD 1108201 OFFICE uuvFLIES 0.00 ~4
RON DATR 12/01/00 TINE 12:24:03
12/01/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO p~ 7
CASH ACCT OIECK NO X~u]~ DT .............. vzsa~O~. ............. F~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTZOI( ...... SAT,m~ TAX AMOT~r
1020 581489 12/01/00 431 14~ M~C~X~R'S O??IC~ ~OD 6308840 OFFXC~ UL;X"L~LI'ES 0.00 15.00
1020 5814Bg 12/01/00 431 14~ MIIC~t~'S Ol~Ir~' ~tOD 5506549 OX~3C~ ~X~X~S 0.00 S8.88
1020 S81489 12/0't/00 431 M~ IIHc~Tm~'s OF~Z(~ Z~C~) 1106647 OFFX(~ uu~,~LXI~S 0.0Q XS.T2
2020 S8348g 32/0~/00 43~
~ ~ 0.00
Z030 58~4g~ 32/02/00 X292 ~Z ~ XX03300 ~.m~ S~VZ~ 0.00 0.04
1020 581491 12/01/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1101500 ~.~ S~VI~ 0.00 4.29
1020 581491 12/01/00 1292 EI ~ 1104510 ~.u~ ~VI~ 0.00 12.38
1020 581491 12/01/00 12g2 ~ ~ 6104800 ~.u~ S~VX~ 0.00 17.04
1020 581491 12/01/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1108501 ~.u~ S~ 0.00 9.39
1020 S81491 12/01/00 2292 ~ N~ 1104300 ~.~ ~ 0.00 4.81
1020 S81491 12/01/00 2292 ~2 ~ ~0800~ ~.R~ Sn~ 0.00 8.84
/~' ~81491 12/01/00 2292 ~2 ~ 220~26S ~ ~VI~ 0.00 31.26
S81491 12/01/00 2292 ~2 N~ 1108503 ~ S~VI~ 0.00 13.34
1020 S81491 12/01/00 2292 ~ K~ 2204200 ~ SnV2~ 0.00 2S.42
1020 58~491 12/01/00 2292
2020 582492 12/01/00 437 ~'~ ~SP~ 1104300 ~ 2000-2002 OPn ~C 0.00 47.50
~ ~ 0.00 442.S0
1020 581493 12/01/00 1798 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6104800 ~A-~ ~ 0.00 180.60
2020 S81494 12/01/00 940 ~IT~ ~ I~ 1108312 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 43.30
/ ~ S8~495 12/01/00 44T ~SSI~ ~I~ S~ 1108201 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~ 0.00 74~94
DATE 12/01/00 T3~ 12:24:05 - FX~ZAL AC~i~h'~-/H~
12/01/00 CXT~ OF ~F~s~X-X~O P~ 8
ACC0~XNG P~RZOD: 6/01 ~ ~1~-~ - DXSB~
S~XON ~/~ZA: ~sac~.~_~e ~t~n "~1/27/2000" ~d "12/01/2000"
~ - Z10 * G~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ lS~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/~ ..... D~S~X~X~ ......
~ ~ 0.00 2x7.59
~020 5~49~ x2/o~/oo ~x67 N.C. ~ ~x~ x~ ~0820~ ~ ~-~x~ O~ 0.00 225.X6
~020 59~497 ~2/0~/00 Z5SO ~S L ~S~ X~03SO0 S~VX~ ~ FOR 0.00 2X5.00
X020 SBZ4g8 X2/OX/O0 485 ~ ~XC SX~S 270840S S~P ~/VXP ~ SX~ B 0.00 X204.20
2020 5~X498 X2/OL/O0 485 ~ ~XC SX~S 2708405 P~TS " 0.00 53X.07
~ 0.00 1735.27
X020 58X49g Z2/OX/O0 486 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5606640 ~PLX~ 0.00 S65.83
X020 58~4~9 Z2/OL/O0 486 ~ ~ ~ X~ S606640 ~X~ 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 578.02
X020 59~50~ X2/01/00 493 O~l~ DE~ 1~04530 O~l~ ~P~XBS 0.00 22.39
~020 58150~ ~2/0~/00 493 O~ ~ ~104530 O~ ~ 0.00 126.55
1020 581501 ~2/01/00 493 O~ DK~ 1104000 O~ ~u~IES 0.00 30.05
~020 58~50~ 12/0~/00 493 OFFZ~ DR~ 1107505 OFFI~ ~PLSKS 0.00 87.68
~020 58150~ ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ DR~ 5806249
1020 58150~ ~2/0~/00 493 0~ DE~ 5806240 0~ ~u~$ES 0.00 134.66
1020 58150~ 12/01/00 493 O~Z~ DE~ 1101000 OFFI~ ~XES 0.00 03
~020 58~501 ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ DE~ ~08~01 0~I~ ~IES 0.00 .5
1020 581501 ~2/0~/00 493 OFFI~ DE~ ~03300 OFFZ~ ~IES 0.00 6.88
~020 ~8150~ 12/0~/00 493 OFFI~ ~ ~01000 OFFI~ ~PLI~ 0.00 56.79
~020 581~0~ ~2/0~/00 493 O~ DE~ ~108002 0~I~ ~PLI~ 0.00 38.09
1020 58~50~ ~2/0~/00 493 OFFI~ DR~ ~0~000 OFFI~ ~PhlES 0.00 57.62
1020 581501 ~2/01/00 493 0~I~ ~ ~108601 O~I~ ~PLI~ 0,00 ?0.S0
1020 56150~ ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ DE~ 5806249 OFFI~ ~ZES 0.00 L2.67
~020 581501 12/0~/00 493 0~ D~ ~10810~ 0~I~ ~IES 0.00 4.96
1020 58150~ ~2/01/00 493 OFFI~ DK~ ~101000 OFFI~ ~PLIES 0.00 ?.54
~020 58150~ 12/0~/00 493 0~I~ DE~ ~06265 OFFI~ ~IES 0.00 ~.~4
1020 58150~ ~2/0~/00 493 OFFI~ DE~ 5806249
1020 58150~ 12/01/00 493 OFFZ~ DE~ 5606620 O~I~ ~PLZ~ 0.00 150.08
1~20 581S0~ ~2/01/00 493 0~I~ DE~ L~03300 OFFZ~ ~PLIRS 0.00 45.8~
~020 58150~ 12/0~/00 493 O~l~ ~ 1~08~01 O~l~ ~IES 0.00 60.31
~020 58150~ ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ ~ ~108601 0~I~ ~PLZ~ 0,00 47.63
1020 581501 12/01/00 493 0~I~ DE~ 1101000 OFFI~ ~PLIES 0.00 3~.00
~020 58~501 ~2/01/00 493 OFFI~ DE~ t~08~0~ O~ S~ES 0.00 202.4S
1020 S61501 ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ ~ ~107501 0~I~ ~ 0.00 32.41
1020 S81501 L2/01/00 493 O~l~ DE~ 6104800 OFFI~ ~ZES 0.00 ~8.6~
1020 581501 12/01/00 493 OFFZ~ DE~ ~0626S O~I~ S~Z~ 0.00 -5.65
1020 581501 12/01/00 493 O~l~ ~ 1108001 O~l~ ~PLIES 0.00 -6.3~
1020 SSIS01 ~2/0~/00 493 O~I~ DE~ 5606620 O~I~ ~IES 0.00 187.89
1020 58150~ 12/01/00 493 O~I~ DB~ 5606249 OFFI~ ~I~ 0.00 134.36
1020 ~8150~ 12/01/00 493 O~l~ ~ ~104530 O~l~ ~l~ ' 0.00 63.13
1020 s8~50~ 12/05/00 493 o~z~ DB~ 1107301 O~ ~ZES 0.00 66.03
~020 S81501 12/01/00 493 O~Z~ ~ 5606620
~020 58150~ 12/01/00 493 O~Z~ 5606630 O~Z~ ~ 0.00 ~9.29
1020 58~50~ ~2/0~/00 493 OFgl~ DE~ 5806349 O~X~ ~IES 0.00 32
12/01/00 T/I~ 12z24:06 - F:I:HMJC:IAL ACCi3~HT:LHG
~2/ol/oo c~
AC~G~'I'XNG I~RZOZ): G/0X
'~ ~Z~ ~X~ZA: ~ran~ac~.~r~_~e ~ "11/27/2000" ~ "12/01/2000"
~ - 110 - G~ ~
~020 5~S02 ~2/0~/00 494 O~Z~
~020 58~502 ~2/0~/00 494
~020 58~502 ~2/0~/00 494 0FFZ~
1020 58~503 ~2/0~/00 4~5 0FFZ~
~ 0.00
~020 58~04 ~2/0~/00 S02
1020 581505 12/01/00 1220 ~ ~u~Y ~ 1108501 P~ & ~PLZ~ 0.00 92.51
1020 581505 12/01/00 1220 OR~ ~Y ~ 110850~ P~ A ~Z~ 0.00 36.90
1020 581505 12/01/00 1220 ~ ~u~LY ~ 5~08510 P~TS A ~Z~S 0.00 35.~1
1020 581505 12/01/00 1220 OR~ aunty ~ 5806649 P~ A ~Z~ 0.00 416.18
1020 581505 12/01/00 1220 ~ ~y ~ 5708510 P~TS A ~PLZ~S 0.00 2~.08
~ ~CK 0.00 65?.59
1020 581507 12/01/00 2247 ~ OX~ ~ 2708405 ~u~ ~X~ O.00 358.31
1020 581508 12/01/00 53~ ~PSZ-~ ~P~ 5806249 ~X~ ~ 0.00 473.70
1020 58~509 12/01/00 ~001 ~, LZLZA 580 ~C ~ 0.00 24.00
1020 581510 12/01/00 535 b~-~-~ ~ ~ 6308840 ~ & ~P ~PLZ~ 0.00 136.59
~20 ~81~11 12/01/00 536 ~ ~IE P~*-~ 5806249 S~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 666.60
1:~ 581512 12/01/00 541 R~ZN PIlL 5706450 S~VI~ ~ ~R 0.00 140.00
102G S81513 12/01/00 542 PI~ ~ ~ 5708510 ~D ~RZ~ P~ 0.00 108.70
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 PZ~ ~ ~ 1108312 ~ ~R~ P~ 0.00 345.8V
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 PI~ ~ ~ 1108303 ~ ~l~ P~ 0.00 25.75
1020 581513 12/01/00 S42 PI~ ~ ~ 1108312 ~D ~R~ P~ 0.00 225.32
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 P~ ~ ~ 1108312 ~ ~R~ P~ 0.00 347.26
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 P~ ~ L~ 1108303 ~ ~ P~ 0.00 3~.69
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 PX~ ~ ~ 5708510 ~ ~Z~ P~ 0.00 109.14
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 PI~ ~ L~ 1108303 ~D ~ P~ 0.00 39.53
1020 581513 12/01/00 542 PZ~ ~ L~ S708510 ~ ~ P~K 0.00 70.B2
~ ~ 4 0.00 1312.08
1020 S81514 12/01/00 543 PZ~Z~ 1108830 ~ ~R 530 ~ 0.00 311.35
· ' ~ S81515 12/01/00 545 ~FF PZS~IO 5606640 ~ ~ ~ i 0.00 1790.00
12/01/00 TX~ 12:24:07 - FZ~Z~
I
12/01/00 C'r'l~ O~ C~P~.?ZNO P~G~ ~0
~ ~ZOD: 6/0~ ~ ~Z~ - DZ~ ~
S~Z~ ~Z'~ZA: ~ac~.c~a~_~e ~ "11/27/2000" ~ "12/01/2000"
~ - 110 - G~ ~
-1020 581516 12/01/00 2246 FOR'I"BR'C/~,B~ CO~2. 6308640 All,OR ~ ~K)R ?J~X,E ~ 0,00 19.84
1020 58151? 12/01/00 1988 ~X~ 5806349 4 XS~S OF P~ ~ O.O0 2339.16
1020 58151? 12/01/00 1988 ~ 5806249 4 XS~ O~ P~ ~ 0.00 2339.16
1020 581517 12/01/00 1988 ~ 55065~9 4 2~ O~ ~ ~ 0.00 589.16
1020 581517 12/01/00 1~88 ~Z~ 5606600 4 ZS~5 O~ P~ ~ 0.00 500.00
1020 58151~ 12/05/00 19B8 ~Z~ 58064~9 4 ~8~ O~ ~ ~ 0.00 2~39.16
' 1020 581518 12/01/00 1187 ~ 5806149 ~ ~-OP ~ 12/8 0.00 ~25.00
1020 581518 12/05/00 1187 ~ 11063~3 ~ ~*OgW~ ~2/8 0.00 300,00
~ ~ 0.00 625.00
1020 5815~9 12/01/00 56] ~ A ~ ~S 1NC 5606640 ~ 0.00 285,13
~020 5815~0 $2/01/00 57~ ~ ~Z~ ~ 5?06450 B~ ~ ~ 0.00 1050,0~
1020 581520 12/01/00 574 ~ F~SS ~ 5706450 S~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 1480.00
~ ~ 0.00 2530.00
1020 581521 12/0~/00 57~ ~ ~ ~ 5606640 ~X~ 0.00
1020 581521 X2/OX/O0 577 ~ ~ ~ 5606640 S~Z~ 0.00 12.01
1020 581522 12/01/00 578 ~T3~ 5806249 S~VX~~ ~R O.00 511.88
1020 581522 12/01/00 578 ~ ~ 5506549 B~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 511.e6
1020 581522 12/01/00 578 ~ ~ 5~06349 S~VZ~ ~ ~OR 0.00 511.88
1020 581522 12/01/00 5?8 ~ ~ S806449 S~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 511.88
~ ~C~ 0.00 204?.50
1020 581523 12/01/00 581 ~Z~ 1107501 8~I~ 0~00 90,54
1020 581523 12/01/00 581 ~Z~ 110VS01 ~Z~ 0.00 42.66
1020 58152] 12/01/00 581 ~Z~ 1107301 ~Zg6 0.00 56.06
1020 581523 12/01/00 5~1 ~ 1107101
1020 S81523 12/01/00 S81 ~ 1107501
1020 5~152] 12/01/00 581 ~Z~ 110?501 S~1~ 0.00 29.15
1020 581523 12/01/00 581 ~Z~ 1107~01 ~Z~ 0.00 18.~1
1020 58152~ 12/01/00 S81 ~L~ 1X0?SOl ~PLX~ 0.00 129.76
1020 581523 12/01/00 581 ~LZ~ 110?~01
1020 5~1523 12/01/00 5B1 ~ 1107301
1020 581523 12/01/00 5~1 ~1~ 1107501 ~ 0.00 51.S0
~ ~ 0.00 510.~e
1020 581524 12/01/00 1200 ~ R~ MO~ 570~510
1020 581525 12/01/00 2043 R~B'S ~ ~ 110~504 T~ & ~R~ 0.00 425.00
1020 5~1525 12/01/00 2043 ~B'S ~ ~ 110~314 ~Z~ i ~-*-~ ~ 0.00 600.00
1020 581525 12/01/00 2043 R~E'S ~ ~ 1108503 ~Z~ & ~-~Z~ 0.00 175.00
~ ~ 0.00 1200.00
1020 581526 12/01/00 1164 C~ OF W ~ 6308840
1020 501532 12/01/00 63T ~ B~ 420~206 T~ & ~2~l~ 0.00 1800.00
~ ~ 0.00 6800.00
1020 58153] 12/01/00 1488 ~ 6~0~840 ~P ~ 0.00 6~.16
1020 581533 12/01/00 1488 ~ 1108503 HZ~A~ ~ ~-~*~ 0.00
1020 581533 12/01/00 1488 ~ 5606620 F~T~ & ~Z~ 0.00 4~1.33
1020 581533 12/01/00 1488 S~ 110831~ P~S & ~ 0,00 · 191.52
1020 581534 12/01/00 2129 SZ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108315 ;Z~ ~ ~ 55.96
T~ ~CK 167.89 2202.89
1020 S81~35 12/01/00 651 82~ F~CZ~ZC ~ 8~ 5606640 8~Z~S 0.00 198.04
1020 581535 12/01/00 651 ~Z~ 9~ZE/C ~ au~P 5606640 G~ZE~ 0.00 65.39
1:2~ 581536 12/01/00 652 81~ S~Z~ RA~ ~. 1101500 ~ 9-2~ ~ 10-18 0.00 13.44
1020 581542 12/01/00 1012 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 1108502 TZ~ & ~ 0.00 1680.00
1020 ~81543 12/01/00 ~001 ~Z, ~Z~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 43.00
R~q~ DATB 12/01/00 '~lrl,~ 12:24:09 -
-/..z
12/01/00 CZ'IX OF CU1~9.~7.~O PAGE 12
&CCOT. I~TZNG P~RZOD: 8/01 C~SC'~ I~GIS'I'BR - DZ~ ~
2020 S81544 12/01/00 ~95 ~S~ ~ S~V~S O~ S 1106248 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 104,10
t020 58~S44 12/0~/00 695 ~S~ ~ S~V~ OF S 5806249 ~ ~ 0.00 582.72
1020 581544 12/01/00 695 ~S~ ~ S~B OF S 1106265 ~Z~ ~ ~F~ 0.00 276.83
~ ~ 0.00 963.65
1020 581545 12/01/00 ~001 T~ ~ 580 ~C~ 0.00 25.00
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 T~ ~Y 1108302 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00
1020 561546 12/01/00 696 T~ ~Y 1108~14 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 121.93
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 ~ ~Y 1108312 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 121.93
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 T~ ~Y 1108321 ~ 2000'2001 O~ ~C 0.00 121.90
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 ~ ~Y 1108302 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 ~ ~Y 110e315 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~ 0.00 121.g~
1020 581546 12/01/00 696 ~ ~ 1108303 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 121.93
1020 5815~6 12/01/00 696 ~ ~Y 1108302 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 121.93
~ ~ 0.00
1020 581547 12/01/00 698 T~Y~ ~-~ZBB5 270840~ ~ ~ w~-~'~ ~ ~ 0.00 36~79.49
1020 581548 12/01/00 VOl T~ S~ 5806349 B~Z~ 0.00 24.8~
1020 5B1548 12/01/00 701 T~ ~ 5806349 P~ ~Z~S 0.00 36.86
~ ~ 0.00 61.70
1020 581549 12/01/00 1013 T~ ~T~R 1108001 ~DZ~ ~T~ 2000- 0.00
1020 581550 12/01/00 ~001 ~ l~ ~ 5506549 ~ ~S ~/326 ~R 0,00 326.00
1020 581551 12/01/00 Z876 ~ZX ZNC 1103500 ~AZR ~ 1730 S~X~ 0,00 e~0.O0
1020 5~552 12/01/00 709 ~ ~ 5~06~9 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0,00 1108.00
1020 ~155~ 12/01100 880 ~ SYS~ ~ 5?06450 ~ ~RT ~ ~3 0.00 750.00
1~2~ ~1554 12/01/00 1784 ~P ~ ~l~ 2708404 ~A ~ $13,084 0.00 3000.00
1~2; 5~155~ 12/01/00 712 ~R B~Z~ ~ 5606640 ~ZES 0.00 2~5.64
1020 5~1556 12/01/00 724 ~ & X~ ~ 6)08840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 64.99
1020 581556 12/01/00 724 ~ & Z~X~ E~l~ 6308840 O~ ~g ~ ~ 0.00 -120.76
1020 S81556 12/01/00 724 ~ & Z~Z~ ~Z~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C O.00 527.36
~ ~ 0.00 471.59
1020 S81557 12/01/00 1248 ~ ~ ~VZ~ 1~06100 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 100.00
1020 581558 12/01/00 739 ~ SLaY S~ ~ 2708404 ~L/C~ ~ 0.00 15927.76
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~I~ MZ~ (~ 110~501 ~ ~ S~ ~ 0.00 S0.8~
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~NZP~T.~S (~ 1108201 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 112.29
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ NZ~SS (~ 1107503 ~ ~ S~VX~ 0.00 18.64
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ ~I~T.~$ (~ 110750~ ~.~ ~ B~Z~ 0.00 ~.99
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~X~X~S (~ 1107503 ~T~ ~ 8~VZ~ O.00 83
RT~I~ DAT~ 12/01/00 TX~ 12:24:10
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~l~ ~I~;T';C~ (~ 1107503 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 68.59
T020 58~59 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ MZ~T.~B (P~ 1107503 ~ ~ SERVZ~ 0,OD 136.53
1020 58ZSSg 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ MZ~;T.;qS (FO~ 1108504 ~ ~ S~YZCE 0,00 Z16.27
1020 581559 Z2/OX/OO 3~0 ~ZZ~ MZ~S (~ ~108602 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 24.4~
Z020 SSZSS9 ~2/01/00 310 ~XZ~ MX~S (FO~ 1108706 ~T.T.~ ~ S~VX~ 0.00 12.92
X020 58Z559 ~2/01/00 310 ~ZZ~ WXPFT.;;S (FO~ ~0820Z ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 27.99
Z020 58~559 Z2/OZ/O0 3X0 ~Z~ MXm~-~qS (~ XZ08SOX ~T.T~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 90.80
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~IZ~ W/~S (~ 1108504 ~.v.~ ~ SBRVX~ 0.00 90.19
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~I~ NI~S (~ 1108504 ~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 81.75
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ NI~;T.;~S (~ 1107503 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 54.71
1020 581559 12/01/~0 310 ~I~ WI~S (~ 110~503 ~.T~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 29.85
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~ZZ~ WI~S (~ 1107503 ~.T.~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 56,42
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~ WI~S {~ 1108504 ~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 59.36
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ WI~T,~$S (~ 5208003
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ ~1~S (~ 1108102 ~ ~ S~ 0.00 43.16
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ RX9~.;~S (F~ 1108505 ~ P~ S~VX~ 0.00 29.00
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~ZON RZ~SS (~ 1108101 ~ ~ S~ 0.0O 55.41
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~11~ ~1~S {~ 6104800 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 50.32
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ ~Z~S (F~ 6104800 ~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 50.32
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~11~ ~Z~SS (~ 1108503 ~ ~ S~VI~ 0.00 33.98
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~IZ~ M~S (~ 1108503 ~-~,~ ~0~ S~VZ~ 0.00 101.06
581559 12/01/00 310 ~XZ~ WZ~SS (FO~ 1108602 ~ ~ S~VX~ 0.00 31.22
581559 12/01/00 310 ~ZZ~ NZ~.~S (~ 5806349 ~ ~H~ SERVX~ 0.00 177.65
1020 581559 12/0~/00 310 ~ZZ~ MZ~S (~ 5806349 ~ ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 S3.95
2020 58~559 22/02/00 320 ~IZ~ Ulnas (r0~ ~108002 ~ PH~ USE 0.00 254.77
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ N2~T.~S (~ 5806449 ~ ~ SERVI~ 0.00 53.95
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~ZZ~ ~Z~SS (~ 5806449 ~ ~0~ S~V/~ 0.00 43.07
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~IZ~ ~/~SS (FO~ 1108504 ~ ~0~ S~VZ~ 0.00 90.85
1020 581559 12/01/00 310 ~Z~ HZ~SS (FO~ 1107501 ~ PH~ S~RVZ~ 0.00 2~.99
~T~ ~CK 0.00 2472.86
1020 581560 12/01/0~ 2117 ~ VZ~ 5806449 S~V~ ~ FOR 0.00 548.00
1020 581561 12/01/00 746 V/KZ~ 0~1~ ~S 5506549 ~P~Z~ 0.00 25.96
1020 581561 12/01/00 746 VZKZ~ OFFI~ ~O~ 5506549 ~Z~ 0.00 -21,64
1020 581561 12/01/00 746 VZK~ OFFZ~ ~O~S 5506549 ~PLZES 0.00 25.20
1020 581561 12/01/00 746 VZKZ~ OFFZ~ ~S 5506549
1020 581562 12/01/00 ~65 ~ ~ PA~ ~ 1101500 ~ ~SS ~ 200 0.00 267.06
1020 581563 12/01/00 779 ~-LZ~ ~PLY ~ ZNC 1108501 M/SC ~1'~1~ ~ 0~ 0.00 355.83
1020 581563 12/01/00 ~79 ~T-~Z~ ~Y ~ ~C 1108507 M~SC ~-~'~ ~ Q~ 0.00 355.82
lo20 581563 12/01/00 779 ~-11~ ~Y ~ ZHC 1108503 MZSC ~1'~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 355.8~
1020 581563 12/01/00 779 ~-~Z~ ~Y ~ Z~ 1108504 MISC ~I~ ~ ~ 0.00 355,82
~ ~ ~0.00 1423.29
1020 581564 12/01/00 774 ~-A'~ H/~Y ~ 2709413 ~'&'6 B~S ~ B 0.00 193.77
~0~O 581~64 12/01/00 774 ~'~ HZ~Y ~S 2709413 B~S B~ ~ B 0.00 566.26
L ~CK 0.00 V60~03
12/01/00 TT),~ 12:24:11 -
i,./
12/01/00 CZTY OF COP~TZNO PAGE 14
&CCOU~TXNG pERZOD: 6/01 C]~C~K I~GX&-A'~k * DXSB~NT ~
5*~I~CTZ0~ C~ZTE~Z&: t'rane&c~.crans_cla~'e bec,ween "11/27/2000' and '12/01/2000"
~ - 110 - G~RAL FT/~D
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~iDOR ............. I~I~/DEPT ..... D~SCRIPTION ...... S~-~ TAX AMOUNT
3020 581565 12/01/00 846 N~STNIND IDENTITY PP, ODUC 1101000 OO~GOING G~ 3. STA~ 0.00 200.26
1020 581566 12/01/00 793 ~ ~ 5806249 S~V/~ ~ ~R 0.00 183~.20
1020 581567 12/01/00 962 LI~ ~VZ~ 5506549 ~IE~ 0.00 5.00
1020 581567 12/01/00 962 LZ~ ~VI~ 5506549 6 ~ ~ ~S 0.00 19.50
1020 581567 12/01/00 962 ~Z~ ~VZ~ 5506549 ~*'~K ~ GZ~ '' 0.00 1].05
~ ~ 0.00 3~.55
1020 581568 12/01/00 ~99 ~ ~ ~FI~ 5208003 Y~ E ~TS ~ 0.00 9430.30
1020 581568 12/01/00 799 ~ ~ ~FZ~ 5208003 Y~ A ~TS ~OCS 0.00 1~86~.53
~ ~ 0.00 2~297.83
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~X~kX~ ~ 2q09412 S~Vl~ ~ ~R 0.00 104.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~ ~ 4209529 S~VI~ ~ F~ 0.00 663.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~Z~l~ ~ 2~09413 S~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 52.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~ ~Z~ ~ 2709437 S~RVZ~ ~ ~ 0,00 654.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~ ~ 1108601 S~V~ ~-~ ~ 0.00 487.03
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~R/~ ~OU 2~09418 S~VI~ ~ ~R 0.00 156.00
1020 ~81569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~I~ ~ 1108602 S~VZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 516.97
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~I~ GR~ 2V09440 S~VI~ ~ ~ 0.00 1410.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~ING ~ 2?09443 S~VI~ ~**'
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 Z~T ~I~RI~ ~ 2709532 S~VZ~ ~ SEE FI~ 0.00
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~I~I~ ~ 4209528 ~IC ~R~ ~ O.O0 V2~.15
1020 581569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~1~I~ ~ 4209527 ~LZC ~O~ ~
1020 ~81569 12/01/00 805 ~T ~GI~I~ ~ 2709531 ~ZC WOR~ ~ 0.0O 2149.4~
TOT~ ~CK 0.O0 9995.58
T~ ~H ACCO~ 167.89 46105~.85
TOT~ ~ 16~.89 461057.85
TOT~ RE~RT 16~. 89 461057.85
RUN DATE 12/01/00 TIME 1~:24:11 - FTN~NCIAL ACCO~ITIN~
/5"
RESOLUTION NO. ol-oo2
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
D~ornber 08, 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 d~mands 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 day of ,2000, by the following vote:
Vote Member~ of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
12/07/00 CZ'~ O~ *~]Z~T~X~O PAGE 1
AC~Z~G Pi~.XOD: 6/01 CH~C[I~ZSTBR - DX~ ~
~ - 110 - ~~
1020 S81480 V 12/01/00 ~85 ~ ~ ~BY G~OBB40 ~P au~X~ 0.00 -1S8.8~
~02D S81498 V ~2/01/00 4BS ~ ~ S~S 270B40S P~TS 0.00 -S31.Q~
~020 58~498 V 12/01/00 485 ~ ~C S~S 2708405 ~P ~/VIP ~ S~ B 0.00 -$204.20
1020 581524 V 12/01/00 1200 ~T ~ ~ 5708510 P~ i ~XB~ 0.00 -75.07
1020 581570 $2/05/00 ~00~ ~ ~ 5506549 TX~:-~ 0.00 2900.00
1020 581571 12/05/00 1663 K~Y ~ 1104300 ~/S.DX~ 12/S-1 0.00
~020 585572 $2/08/00 7 ~ M ~TX~ ~104540 ~7461 ~ ~S 0.00 15994.90
~020 S81572 ~2/08/00 ~ ~ M ~T~ 1104540 ~05~420 S~ 0.00 2771.79
X020 58~572 12/08/00 7 ~ ~ ~TX~ 6204550 ~ ~ F~ ~.2000 0,00 827.26
~020 581574 ~2/0B/00 2099 A~B XHC. X~04200 ~X~N/E 11/1~/00 0.00 586.50
~020 581575 ~2/08/00 13 ~ & ~ ~XTATX~ ~ $108303 ~ 10/7-1~/03 0.00 1686.60
2020 581577 ~2/08/00 26 AXR FXL~ ~ XN~ 1108504 P~TS/~1ES 0.00 543.08
2020 581577 ~2/08/00 26 ASR F~L~ ~'zzOL X~ 1~08502 P~TS/~XBS 0;00 664.86
TOT~ ~K 0.0O 1207,94
~020 58~578 12/08/00 ~001 ~TSWS 5506549 HO~X~Y G~ ~T~FX~ 0.00 520.00
~020 581579 ~2/08/00 1884 ~TSWS-~R~ DZV~ 5806349 ~PLX~ 0.00 25.11
~020 581579 ~2/08/00 1884 W~B~S-~R~ DIVX 1~06343 ~ES 0.00 8.98
2020 581579 ~2/08/00 1884 ~S-~ DX~ 5806349 ~XBB 0.00 50.19
~020 S8XST9 ~2/08/00 1884 W~TS~-~ D~V~ 5806349 ~XBS 0.00 44.46
1020 581579 ~2/08/00 1884 W~-~R~ DXVX 5806649 ~XES 0.00 49.84
1020 581579 ~2/08/~0 1884 ~T~S-~ DXVX 5806349 ~ 0.00 48.78
~020 581579 ~2/08/00 1884 ~T~*N~ DXVX 5806349 ~P~XES 0.00 14.14
~020 58~579 ~2/08/00 1884 W~-~ DX~ 5806349 ~X~ 0.00 20.49
$020 58~579 12/08/00 1884 ~S-H~DXVX 5806649 ~ 0.00 4~.20
~020 5B1579 12/08/00 1884 ~T~-~ DXYX 5806649 ~XBS '0.00 23.20
~020 58~579 ~2/08/00 1884 W~-~ DXVX 5806349 ~X~ 0.00 4.47
~ ~CK E 0.00 336.95
~020 58158~ ~2/08/00 ~001 ~ ~TX~ ~. 110 ~ ~ RC~ 100814 0.00
12/07/00 TXY~ 14:59:55 - FX~XAX,
1020 581582 12/08/00 888 ~ L~Ov- HA. xirx'BHMiC~ X 5708510 M~Iz~-A-~)iC~ ~OV.2000 0.00 36~.80
1020 581583 12/08/00 40 ~C X~Z~ Z~ 6308840 ~X~ 0.00 84.~3
10~0 581583 12/08/00 40 ~C Z~Z~ ~ ~308840 aU~ZBS 0.00 ~9.46
1020 S81583 12/08/00 40 ~C X~X~ ~ 6308840 auf~ZES 0.00 104.34
1020 581583 12/09/00 40 ~C IGU':'AX~ XE 6308840 aUy~X~ 0.00 83.64
~ ~ 0.00 342.37
1020 581584 12/08/00 44 ~Z~ ~ ~S 1104400 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 65.00
1020 581584 12/08/00 44 ~Z~ ~ ~ 1104400 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 263.00
1020 581584 12/08/00 44 ~X~ ~ ~S 1104400 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 SS.00
~ ~ 0.00 383.00
1020 58~585 12/08/00 864 ~L A~ 4209217 ~ ~X~ 0.00 495.12
1020 581585 12/08/00 864 ~L A~ 4209217 ~ ~ 0.00 ~X8.S0
~ ~ 0.00 1213.62
1020 581586 12/08/00 1519 ~ ~Y ~ ~C 1108315 ~ L~ P~ ~Z~ 0.00 655.91
1020 581586 12/08/00 1519 ~ ~Y ~ ~C 1108312 ~ ~Ad~ PAZ~ ~X~ 0.00 655.93
1020 581586 12/08/00 1519 A~A~ ~Y ~ ~C 1108314 ~ L~ PAZ~ ~X~ 0.00 655.93
1020 581586 12/08/00 1519 ~ ~Y ~ XNC 1108303 ~ LX~ P~ ~X~ 0.00 655.93
~ ~CK 0.00 2623.~0
1020 581587 12/08/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~E O~ ~ 0.00 32,6~
1020 581587 12/08/00 968 ~ ~ ~ 6308840 O~ ~ O~ ~ 0.00 9.96
1020 581587 12/08/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~E 0~ ~ 0,00 1~0.~4
lo2o 581587 12/08/00 968 ~ A~ P~ 6308840 O~ FUK~E ~R ~ 0.00 20.59
1020 S81S87 12/08/00 968 ~ A~ P~ 6308840 P~ 0.00 -147,~V
1020 ~81~87 12/08/00 968 ~ ~ P~ 6308840 P~TS 0.00 147.97
202e 581587 12/08/00 968 ~ A~ P~TS 6308840 OP~ ~E ~ ~ 0.00 33.33
T~ ~E~ o.oo 273.67
~02~ ~8~88 ~2/08/00 ~06 ~Z~E U~U~qS/~IO ~ 1~08501 ~ 0.00 237.32
1020 ~81589 12/08/00 1367 C A P Z O 1~04400 ~P m. 1/0S/01 0.00 S0.00
:020 SS~SO0 ~2/08/00 ~00~ ~F. ~. OF ~C:P~ :~04000 ~ ~/0~-~2/3~/0~ 0.00 ~00.00
1020 581591 12/08/00 1145 ~I~ ~ & D 1108101 ~IBS 0.00 121.00
~020 S8~592 ~2/08/00 ~32 ~A ~ ~ 1108314 ~ ~V. lO/00 0.00 492.50
~020 SO:S92 ~2/08/00 ~22 ~ ~ ~ 1108314 MA~ ~. 11/00 0.00
~020 SO~S92 ~2/08/00 132 ~Z~ ~ ~ 1108407 ~ ~. 10/00 0.00 89.66
1020 581592 12/08/00 ~32 ~ ~ S~ 1108314 ~ S~V. 11/00 ~ 0.00 328.41
~020 SS~SO2 ~2/08/00 132 ~Z~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~ WV. 10/00 0.00 358.62
~020 SS~S92 ~2/08/00 132 ~Z~ ~ ~VZ~ 1108407 ~ S~V. 10/00 0.00 881.65
~20 S8~592 ~2/08/00 ~32 ~W~ ~ ~ ~08407 ~ SnV. ~/00 0.00 82.~0
0 SS~S92 ~2/08/00 132 ~Z~ ~ ~ 1108508 ~ ~V. 10/00 0.00 123'.13
DATE 12/07/00 ?X~ 14:55:56
12/07/00 c~'rT~ 0~' ~.~,~u~'~Z~O pAGr~ 3
~.~ ~A: c=a~acc.~z~_~e ~c~en "12/04/2000" ~ '~2/08/2000'
~ - 110 - O~ ~
~H ~ ~ NO XS~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/~ ..... ~X~l~ ......
1020 581592 12/08/00 232 ~ ~ S~VX~ 1108407 ~ S~V 11/00 0.00 1505.13
-z~z~ ~ 0.00 3933.16
1020 58XS93 12/08/00 1476 ~ ~l~ ~ 110 ~OF. S~VI~ 0.00 230.00
1020 581593 12/08/00 1476 ~ DESX~ ~ 110 ~F. S~VX~ 0.00 880.00
1020 581593 12/08/00 1476 ~ ~SI~ ~ 110 ~F. 8~S 0.00 440.00
1030 581593 12/08/00 14~6 ~ ~l~ ~ Il0 ~F. ~VZ~ 0.00 440.00
1020 581593 12/08/00 X476 ~ D~Z~ ~ 110 ~F. S~VI~S 0.00 928.30
~ ~ 0.00
1020 581594 12/08/00 141 ~ ~S~ ~C 1108601 ~X~ ~ F 0.00 1309.00
1020 581595 12/08/00 ~001 ~Z~, D~ 1100000 ~ZLZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 163.24
1020 581596 ~2/08/00 1057 ~XDX~ B~FXT8 ~VXC 110 *~.~
1020 581596 12/08/00 ~057 ~XDW B~FXTS S~VXC ~10 *~ DE~ 0.00 S76.93
~ ~ 0.00 649.42
~020 ss~S97 ~2/08/00 1820 ~ ~FXTS ~VXC ~10 ~.~ ~.2000 0.00 24.60
1020 581598 12/08/00 ~00~ ~ ~T~ ~z-~k 1104400 ~F,~T-T-~,A~,~ O.00 100.00
~020 58Z599 12/08/00 1Z56 ~ 110 ~ O.O0 50
~020 58Z600 Z2/08/00 Z824 ~*S ~Z~ SHOP 6308840 ~ 0.00 36,00
1020 58160~ 12/08/00 225Z ~ ~S~ZA~S 6308840 S~P ~ O. O0 ~45.40
1020 ~81602 12/08/00 Z69 ~Y ~N~T~S XNC 4209430 S~ ~ ~R O.00 S000.00
~2C ~81603 12/08/00 173 ~-~ ~Z~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 167.77
::2: ~e~604 z2/08/00 ~78 ~ ~ · ~x~ ~z0 DEC. 2000 0.00
::2: ~82605 ~2/08/00 2026 ~P~T~ ~L SE ~045Z0 ~ P~L SE~ 0.00 -35.00
~:2~ ~81605 12/08/00 2026 ~P~TZ~ P~ SE 1104510 ~S P~ SK~ 0.00 423.50
~ ~ 0.00 388.S0
. 1020 581606 12/08/00 1194 ~Y ~ 630B840 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 S0.00
1020 58~607 12/08/00 ~001 ~K ~ ~X~, 1100000 ~A~ ~ R~.LZC 0.00 4.96
1020 581608 ~2/08/00 140~ ~l~ ~ TX~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 244.43
1020 581609 12/08/00 191 ~TX~ ~ OF ~ 2204011 ~ ~HXP 0.00 66.23
X020 58~6~0 ~2/08/00 2209 ~T~ ~ 1104~00 P.M~,~ 12/Z0-12/12 ~ 0.00 689.70
1020 58161~ 12/08/00 194 C~F~T~ S~Y X~ 1108314 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 34.89
~020 581611 12/08/00 194 ~TX~ ~PLY ZHC 1108314 ~ 2000-200X O~ ~C 0.00 104.73
1020 581611 12/08/00 194 c~TX~ ~Y ~ 1108501 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~ 0.00 00
RT..~' DA. TE 12/07/00 TX~ 14:S9:57 - FXtUtlI~XAL ACCO~HTXNG
12/07/00 C/TY OF L~bsAT~I0 PAGE 4
A.C'~01~HTZ~ pKRTOD: 6/01 ~ ~Z~ - DZ~
'~l~ ~Z~ZA: ~ra~ac~ ~r~ ~e ~een '~3/04/2000' ~ '~2/08/2000"
~B20 5816~1 12/08/00 194 ~Z~ ~u~PLY ~ 5708510 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 117.92
~ ~ 0.00 360.81
1020 S81612 12/08/00 198 ~T~ ~ 8~ DIS 2308004 B~S ~ ~.~.T~ 0.00 750.56
1020 581613 ~2/08/00 201 ~ TZ~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C b.00 324,59
1020 58~614 ~2/08/00 20? DR ~ ~T.T.~ F~IL~TI 2204010 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 S00.00
1020 581615 12/08/00 211 ~TA ~ ~ OF ~ ~10 ~C.2000 ~ ~HS. P 0.00 135~7.12
1020 S8161G 12/08/00 3492 g~ ~ ~ 2708405 ~2~ 0.00 96.60
1020 581617 12/08/00 850 D~ ~Z~ P~ ~ 5806349 ~F~Z~ 0.00 14.05
1020 58161? 12/08/00 850 gI~ ~ P~ ~ 5806349 ~Z~ 0.00 51,06
1020 5816~? 12/08/00 850' g~ ~I~ P~ ~ S806349 ~IES 0.O0 45.64
~020 581618 ~2/08/00 1994 D~S~ A~ ~T 110 ~ ~PEZ ~ 5663981 0.00 ~3.08
1020 581619 ~2/08/00 223 ~ & M1~'8 ~PZ~ I~ 2308004 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 11427.14
~ S8~620 ~2/08/00 22S ~ RZ~ R~FZ~ & ~ 4209206 S~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 17930.50
1020 58162~ 12/08/00 855 ~ZN ~TZSZ~ ~ 1104510 ~/~K,~ZN, ~ ZN O.00 2693.16
1020 581622 12/08/00 2128 E~LI~ ~OL ~ 2~09438 ~ ~ ~Z~ C 0.00 101~S.91
1020 581622 12/08/00 2128 E~LI~ ~OL ~ 4209527 ~ ~ ~Z~R C 0.00 35615.68
TOT~ ~C~ 0,00 45791.59
1020 581623 12/08/00 239 ~Z~ DZ~Z~ 1108315 ~1~ 0.00 474.60
1020 581624 12/08/00 240 ~I~ ~ E~ZS 1101070 ~ S~V. 0.00 4~5.00
1020 581625 12/08/00 24~ ~P~ D~L ~ 110 SIT 0.00 14430.24
1020 581626 12/08/00 243 ~ D~ 110 SDI 0.00 309.34
1020 581627 12/08/00 1333 ~ SO~ ~VZ~S 6109859 S~Z~ ~-~ S~-~-~ I 0.00 3000.00
1020 581628 12/08/00 260 ~ ~ ~ 110730~ D~Z~Y ~ 0.00 17.56
~020 S8~628 32/08/00 260 ~ ~S ~RP 6104800
1020 58~G28 12/08/00 360 ~ ~SS ~RP 1~0 ~I~Y ~ 0.00 14.44
1020 SS~S28 ~2/08/00 260 ~ ~ ~ 1103500 ~LI~Y S~. 0.00 127.83
~ ~ 0.00 229.00
1020 581629 12/08/00 1255 Fl~ ~Z~ DZS~ZB 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 193.75
~20 581630 12/08/00 818 ~ D ~ FZ~ ~D 1108503 ~ ~ 0.00 1S51.36
RF.~ DA~E 12/07/00 TT~ 14:59,.'58
12/07/00 CTT~ OF ~X~lO PJ~ 5
XCC'OT.I~TT~G ~TOD: 6/01
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 581631 12/08/00 36? NX~ ~ ~KX 1107302 ~ZC ~RT ~ ~ 0.00 1169.10
~020 581632 12/08/00 291 ~ 1108~15 ~/~XgS 0.00 -15.04
1020 591632 ~2/08/00 381
1020 58163~ 12/08/00 281 ~ 1109315 ~X~ 0.00 35.~1
1030 5816~2 12/08/00 281 ~ 1108315 9~Tg/~X~ 0.00 69.71
1020 5816~ 12/08/00 1827 G~*S ~XX~R & B~V 6308840 ~X~S 0.00 176.?0
1020 5816~4 12/08/00 1~13 ~X~ ~O~ B~VX~ 1109406 T~/~ 0,00 1?8S.00
1020 581635 22/08/00 ~158 ' ~ ~/~ ~ 110~500 ~Z~ 0.00 1~.95
1020 591636 12/08/00 ~001
1030 58163? 12/08/00 2252
2020 582638 22/08/00 336 ~ ~ZE~ OF ~ 1104530 ~ ~L FX~ S 0.00 3368.00
~020 58~638 ~2/08/00 336 ~ SOCX~ OF ~A 1104530 ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 2616.00
1020 S8~638 Z2/08/00 336 ~ SOCZ~ OF ~ 1104530 ~G~ ~S~SB ;/0 0.00 45.00
~ ~ 0.00 602~. 00
~020 581639 X2/08/00 343 l~ ~Z~ ~-45 110 *l~ 0.00 t 14
1020 ~81640 12/08/00 1242 ZN~I~S 1103~00 ~X~ ~ FO~ 0.00 226.25
1020 581640 12/08/00 1242 IN~-~Z~S 1104510 ~ ~ FO~ 0.00 1~0.80
1020 581640 12/08/00 1242 XNS~-PRZ~S 1104510 ~ ~S ~X~X~ 0.00 296.76
1020 581640 12/08/00 1242 Z~-~Z~S 1104530 ~Z~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 395.69
1~2C 581640 12/08/00 1242 IN~-~I~S 1101000 ~X~I~ ~ ~ 0.00 226.25
1~2C S81640 12/08/00 1242 ZN~-PRX~S 1108001 ~X~I~ ~ FO~ 0.00 226.25
102: S81640 12/08/00 1242 ZN~-~/~S 1103300 ~X~ ~ ~ O.00 226.25
T~T~ ~E~ 0.00 17?8.25
Z:2~' ~8Z6~ X2/08/00 2220 X~X~ XXO240X ~X~, SHXPPX~ ~ 0.00 ~2.46
1 ~2: 5~ 1641 Z2/08/00 2220 X~l~ 1102401 ~ S~SOR XV ~ 0.00 5972.94
102: ~81641 12/08/00 2220 X~X~ 1102401 ~Z~ 0.00 423.35
~ ~CK 0.00 6428.75
1020 S81642 X2/08/00 1969 ~XL ~ 2204011 ~*S ~ ~ 0.00 375.00
1020 581643 12/08/00 20~9 ~Z~, ~ (~C) 1104510 ~ 10/3,18,25/2000 0.00 330.00
1020 581644 12/08/00 372 KX~*S X~ 5208003 ~1~ ~ 0.00 90.93
1020 S81645 12/08/00 ~001 ~ ~P 1104000 ~ ~ ~ ~-z~X~ 0.00 7000.00
1020 S81646 12/08/00 385 ~ ~ ~Y 6308840 ~P ~X~ 0.00 146.?5
1020 581647 12/08/00 390 ~S~ ~ Z~ 2708404 ~X~ 0.00 344.93
RT,~l DAT~ 12/07/00 TXME 14:59:59
:].2/07/00 CITY OF COP~I~IO l:'~,E 6
· "-- "T'rc~ C~T'L~tT.A: t~anBact.tFazlB_d&te between "12/04/2000' ~nd "12/06/2000"
1020 581646 12/08/00 352 .~ OF C~,1~P0~'r-~ CZ? 1104300 ~ ~ ~ ~Z ~ ~ 0.00 60.00
1020 581649 12/08/00 22~2 ~ ~ 110 ~ 0.00 103.84
1020 561649 ~2/08/00 2232 ~ ~ 110 ~ 0.00 306.50
1020 58~650 12/08/00 ~001 ~. ~. ~, G.F 1108201 ~. ~Z~T$~ R.SZL 0.00 45.00
1020 58165~ ~2/08/00 1599 ~ ~ ~ I ~104520 ~V 12/01-12/31/00 0.00 725.20
1020 5B1652 12/08/00 1378 Rl~ ~T~Z 5706450 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 125.00
1020 58Z653 ~2/08/00 1602 ~ ~I~ ~ 1100000 ~r.~= ~ ~ T~ ~ 0.00 4077.22
1020 58Z654 12/08/00 411 ~ ~S O~Z~ ~ Z~08201
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~'~'S 0~ ~ Z108503 ~FZ~ ~Z~ 0.00 19.90
1020 S81654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~'~'~'S 0~I~ ~ 1108201 OFFZ~ ~Z~ 0.00 57.94
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~'~-~'S O~Z~ ~ 5506549 OF~Z~ ~Z~ 0,00 39,83
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~t~'S O~Z~ ~ 1108201 O~Z~ ~P~Z~ 0.00 19.56
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~-~-~tS 0~ ~ 1108601 O~Z~ ~Z~ 0.00 34,63
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~'S O~Z~ ~ 1108407 0~I~ ~I~ 0.00 5.44
1020 581654 12/08/00 431 ~ ~'S O~Z~ ~ 5506549 0~ ~I~ 0.00 3.46
/ , ~ 0.00 200.75
1020 581655 12/08/00 1292 ~l ~ 1104400 ~/2000 S~V. O.OO 7.75
1020 581656 12/08/00 820 MZ~-~ZN~ ~ S 1104510 S~V. 11/01-10/31/2001 0.00 S40,00
~020 581657 12/08/00 444 ~'S ~ 1108314 ~/~ZKS 0.00 343.41
i~2: ~9~GS~ 12/08/00 444 ~'S L~RR 1108314
1;20 S8~657 12/08/00 444 ~'S L~ 5806649 ~ZES 0.00 9.15
1~2; 581657 12/08/00 444 M~'S L~ 1108314 ~uv~lKS 0.00 44.66
!:~ Sq:~SV 12/08/00 444 MI~'S L~ 5806349 ~ 0.00 42.1S
1::: SII&S~ 12/08/00 444 MI~'S L~ 5806349 ~ 0.00 8.64
I~' ~65~ 12/08/00 444 MI~'S ~ 5~06649
1:2~ SI~&S~ 12/08/00 444 MI~'S ~ 1108314 ~Z~ 0.00 61.66
1:2C S81657 12/08/00 444 MZ~'S ~ 1108501 ~Z~/~PLZBS 0.00 14.33
TOT~ ~E~ 0.00 538.35
102: S81658 12/08/00 4~2 ~ TI~ ~PLY ~ 6308940 P~TS/~Z~ 0.00 10.04
1020 S81658 12/08/00 4~1 ~ TZ~ ~Y ~ 6308840 P~TS 0.00 59.64
1020 581658 12/08/00 471 ~ TZ~ ~Y ~ 6308840 P~ 0.00 ~85.B0
1020 S81658 12/08/00 471 ~ TZ~ ~Y ~ 6308840 P~S 0.00 81.88
1020 5816S8 12/08/00 471 ~ TZ~ ~Y ~ 6308840
1020 S81658 12/08/00 471 ~ TZ~ ~Y ~ 6308840 P~S 0.00 81.80
~T~ ~K 0.00 449.01
1020 581659 12/08/00 475 ~TZ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108312 ~ ~ 10/17-11/ 0.00 41.65
~ ~ 0.00 83.30
R~ DATE 12/07/00 T*'rl~ 16:59:59
12/07/00 CZ~/ OP C~]tY~IlO P~ 7
S~ ~IA: ~act.t~l~te ~t~en '12/04/2000" ~ "12/08/2000'
~ - 110 - G~ ~
~020 581660 ~2/08/00 485 ~ ~FXC SX~ 2708405 P~TS 0.00 490.60
~020 5BX6~0 ~2/08/00 485 ~~XC SX~B 2708405 ~P~/~P~ ~X~B 0.00 1204.20
~ ~ 0.00 ' X694.80
~020 58L66~ L2/08/00 4B7 ~ ~p~Y ~ ~108507 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 ~XG.XX
~020 S8~GG~ ~2/08/00 487 ~ ~Y ~ S7085~0 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 L02.56
~020 58~G~2 ~2/08/00 487 G~ ~Y ~ ~L08504 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 237.07
~ ~ 0.00 455.74
~020 582662 ~2/08/00 Z92 ~ ~AT~ L~045~0 ~-~ ~SX~ 0.00 50.00
~020 58~662 12/08/00 ~)2 ~W ~ATX~ X1045X0 ~-~ ~SX~ 0.00 90.00
X020 58i662 12/08/00 ~92 ~ ~TX~ ~ X~045X0 ~-~ ~BX~ 0.00 S0.00
~ ~ 0.00 2~0.00
1020 581663 12/08/00 1970 ~ ~ 2204011 ~'S ~ ~D 0.00 ]75.00
1020 581664 12/08/00 2241 ~ ~ 1107200 D~X~ ~ Z~TXO 0.00 11069.50
Z020 581665 X2/08/00 501 O~X~X~ ~3 XX0 ~ 0.00 484.75
Z020 5BXEEE ~2/08/00 ~4Z4 ~ CZ~ ~ ~ ZZ08507 ~X~ 0.00 ]7.89
1020 58~666 Z2/08/00 X424 ~ CI~ F~R ~ ZZ08507 ~Z~ 0.00 ~
~ ~ 0.00 ,2
~020 58~667 12/08/00 507 ~ ~ ~:OSB0~ ZZ08E02 ~ R~ ~ U 0.00 5000.00
Z020 58~66~ 12/08/00 507 ~ ~ D~:~ Z20850~ ~/~ 0.00 1764.00
1020 581667 12/08/00 507 ~ ~ D~:O~ 270944~ ~ ~ ~RI~ ~ 0.00 1910.04
1020 58~667 12/08/00 507 ~ ~B~ ~:~ 270941Z ~ ~ ~X~ ~ 0,00 444.45
~020 5~166~ 12/08/~0 507 ~ ~ ~:~ 1108602 ~R ~ ~Z~ ~ 0,00 1625.51
~020 58~667 12/08/00 507 ~ ~ ~:~ 5708510 ~ 0~00 225.00
1020 S8~667 Z2/08/00 507 ~ ~B~ ~:~ 1~08506 ~ 0.00 385.00
~ ~CK 0,00 11374.00
1020 s81668 ~2/08/00 833 P E R S XX0 P~ ~LY 0.00 ~96.90
~020 581668 12/08/00 833 P E R S ~0 *P~ B~K 0.00 394.68
1020 S81668 12/08/00 833 P a a s ~xo ~ ~95s o.oo 7B.12
1020 581668 12/08/00 833 P g R S 110 ~ B~K 0.00 67.68
1020 ~81668 ~2/08/00 833 P E R S 110 ~ S~C 0.00 96,34
~020 581668 12/08/00 833 P g R S 110 ~ ~y 0.00 21226.30
1020 581668 12/08/00 833 P g R S 110 *P~ B~K 0.00 305.65
1020 S81669 12/08/00 S08 P E R S - ~ ~04510 ~C ~00 ~ ~ 0.00 30~.08
1020 S81669 12/08/00 S08 · B R S - ~ ~04S~0 ~ '00 ~ ~ 0.00 202~2.3S
1020 581669 12/08/00 508 P K R S - ~ 110 DEC *00 ~ ~ 0.00 40240.84
~ ~ 0.00 60814.'28
1020 5816~0 12/08/00 511 P~IFIC u~ 6104800 ~ ~.2000 0.00 B~.S8
1020 58~6~1 12/08/00 513 P~IFIC ~ & ~IC ( 1108602 ~IC 10/31-11/30 0,00 ~4
R~ ~ 12/07/00 ?IQ 15:00=00
12/07/00
~020 58~67X ~/0B/00 5~3 P~XPZC~ A ~ZC ( 1100407 ~.~XC 9/30-~1/]0 0.00 21.04
~020 58~67~ ~2/08/00 5~3 P~X~C~ A ~XC ( ~08503 m.~XC~. ~ ~2/0 0.00 267.X2
~ ~ 0.00 956.93
~020 58~672 ~2/o~/oo S~S P~IFIC ~ SS~I~ IN ~08504 ~Vl~ ~ 0.00 ~40.00
L020 S82672 ~2/08/00 S~S
~ 0.00
~020 5B~674 12/08/00 520
~020 58~675 ~2/08~00 526 ~uu~l~ ~0 ~ R~8600 0.00 46~.94
· 020 58L675 ~2/08/00 52~
2020 582675 ~2/08/00 526 ~X~ ~ ~0 ~ X~8~90 0.00 87.X2
~20 582675 22/0B/00 526 ~X~ ~ 2208602 F~ ~ LX~Y ~ 0.00 20.72
~ 582675 22/08/00 526 ~XN~ ~x~ 2?09440 B~ ~X~S BX~ ~ 0.00 47.17
2020 58~676 ~2/08/00 533 P~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ L~ 0.00 332.3~
202C 582677 ~2/08/00 2047 ~2C ~V2~ SK2~, X ~204~00 ~ SERVX~ 0:00 400.00
2020 582682 22/0B/00 X0?X ~XC~XC 2709444 ~/~3'uX~ ~ 0.00 476.00
.~20 S82683 ~2/08/00 ~200 ~ W ~ 57085X0 ~ & ~X~ 0.00 69.3S
RLI~ DATE 12/07/00 TX)lB 15:00:02 - FX~M~'XAL AE..3.3JU,~.i]K3
T
12/0'//00 CX'l"t' 01~ CI;~,~t"~X~O pAGE
ACCO~ITXNG P~RXOD: ~/01 ~ ~ - DX~ ~
~Z~ ~: ~acc.~e ~C~ "12/04/2000" ~ "X2/08/2000"
~ - ~10 - G~ ~
1020 581684 1t/06/00 2041 ~ ~ ~ 110~114 TI~/~ 0,00 17~.00
1020 581685 12/08/00 1230 ~ ~ 2104100 ~I~ ~P ~ 0.00 488.18
~020 58~68~ Z2/0B/00 ~00~ ~Y 5506549 ~X~Y GX~ ~Z~Z~ 0.00 50.00
1020 58~687 X2/08/00 2170 ~ ~ ~ 6]08840 ~ 0.00 59.54
X020 58X688 X2/0B/00 621 ~ ~ ~Y ~ZF 5208003 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 33.01
~020 58~689 ~/08/00 625 ~ ~B ~'A'~k ~ ~08407 WA~ B/~0-10/]0 0.00
1020 581689 12/08/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~108407 ~ 8/30-10/30 0.0O
X020 581689 12/08/00 625 ~ ~OS~ ~'~'~ ~ XX0B407 ~'~ e/30-~0/30 0.00
$020 581689 22/08/00 625 W ~g ~'~ ~ 110840? G~ 8/30-10/30 0.0O 206.37
1020 581689 12/08/00 625 ~ ~ G-z'~ ~ 110840? ~ 8/30-10/30 0.00 76.65
~ ~ 0.00 ]656.25
1020 581690 12/08/00 1164 C$~ O~ ~ ~B 6308840 ~/~ 0.00 291.78
~020 581691 12/08/00 628 ~A ~ C~ S~Z 1104300 WZ~I8 D~/~I~ 0.00 37.00
1020 · 581691 12/08/00 628 ~A ~ C~b~ 5~Z 1104000 W~'8 DZ~/A~ 0.00 37.00
~ ~C[ 0. O0 ~4. O0
1020 581692 12/08/00 628 ~A ~ ~ S~1 1102100 ~ 2000-2001 O~
1020 581693 12/08/00 1919 ~A ~ V~T.T.W ~ 1108005 ~ .P~S ~ 0.00 50.01
1020 581694 12/08/00 637 ~ BUZZERS 4209206 ~ ~ ~R 0.00 15000.00
1020 ~81695 12/08/00 644 S~ D~SZ~S 5806449 SOr~ T-~IR~ ~ 0.00 1363.95
1020 581696 12/08/00 1530 S~ ~S 1108201 ~l~ 0.00 584.23
1~2C 5~169~ 12/08/00 1V49 ~ ~IA~ 1104510 ~C. S~ S~VI~S 0.00 7353.53
1020 5~1698 12/06/00 2051 SI~ ~z~Z~, ~C. 630~540 ~VI~ ~ 10/31 0,00 22~.50
1020 S~1699 12/08/00 652 BZ~ S~ NA~ ~. 1101500 8~V 10/18-11/15 0.00
1020 581~00 12/08/00 152~ ~ ~ 1108602 B~ ~
1020 5~1~00 12/08/00 1523 O~ ~O~ 1108601 ~VZ~ ~
1020 581701 12/08/00 19~4 8~Z~ ~TZ~ 110V~01 ~ W/~ 11/0~/00 0.00
1020 581701 12/06/00 1954 S~Z~ ~TZ~ 110~301 ~ N/B 11/19/00 0,00 1080.00
1020 581V01 12/0~/00 1954 8~I~ ~TZ~ 1107301 ~ N/~ 11/26/00 0.00 648.00
1020 581~01 12/08/00 1954 B~Z~ C~TZ~ 1107301 ~ R/~ 11/12/00 ~ 0.00 864.00
1020 581~02 12/08/00 ~001 ~, ~ 1101040 ~ ~Z~ 0.00 60.46
P,.I~/4* DA"I'B 12/07/00 '~Z~ 15:00:03 ~ LeZUZ~C~, A~.~.,~.-r~lG
~X~ ~l~XA: tr~ac~ tr~ ~e ~C~ "12/04/2000' ~ "12/08/2000"
1020 ~81703 ~2/09/00 671 ~ ~SB ~ 1104~30
Z0~0 ~1704 22/09/00 1090 ~ ~ OF ~X~T Xl~300 ~ r~ ~ ~ 0.00 ]00.00
1020 581705 ~3/08/00 677 ~ ~z* ~ ~ ~ iX0
1020 581706 ~2/08/00 GBG ~ ~ 2204010 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 TS0.00
X02O SB~?0? ~2/09/00 529 ~ ~TZ~, ~ 6X04800 ~ L~ ~S 0.00 m?.S3
1020 581707 12/08/00 S39 ~ ~TZ~, ~ 6104800 ~z-~ 8~g 0.00 S1.23
~020 581707 12/08/00 5~9 ~ ~TZ~, ~ 6~04900 ~z-~ ~VZ~E 0.00
· 020 SSX?0B ~2/08/00 690 ~ ~ 6308840
1020 581711 12/08/00 ?00 ~ S~Cl~ ~ 1108315 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 4970.66
.. ', ~ 0.00 5092. ?6
1020 S81712 12/06/00 ~993 ~ OF ~ ~ 110 ~ ~Z ~ 5663981 0.00 161.54
~020 58~?~3 ~2/0e/00 W00~ ~, ~F~ ~045~0 ~X~TS 0.00 X00.67
1020 SBl?14 ~2/08/00 ~00~ U.B. FXL-f~ ~RP. 1100000 ~ B/L PA~ 0.00 ~0.00
~020 SS~?~5 ~2/08/00 830 ~1-~'~ SOXL ~X~X~ 42091~4 ~STI~/ZNS~C. S~VIC 0.'00 347.50
1020 581716 12/08/00 1154 ~l't'~ MXY OF ~X ~ 110 ~ ~Y 0.00 91.75
1020 581~17 12/09/00 ~001 ~l~X~ OF ~ ~S 1104510 ~X~X~-CP~ 0.00 250.00
1020 591718 12/09/00 733 ~T X~ 110~314
1020 581719 12/08/00 7~B ~ OXL ~ 6~08840 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 1786.55
X020 SEX?20 ~2/08/00 ?49 VX~ 5e0664~
~020 58X72~ ~2/08/00 74~ VX~ 5806649 4~e80~0570074703 ~ 0.00 423.00
1020 591722 12/0B/00 ?S0 VXSX~. g~X~ ~ (~) 1~0 ~2/00 VBP
1020 5e172~ Z2/0e/00 3O2 WB~ ~ 1~0 *~ '0.00 16225.4?
1020 58~724 12/08/00 ~001 ~, RY~ 1100000 ~ ~ ~ 5064 0.00 231.90
58~725 ~2/0./00 ?75 ~'~ ~ZC SI~ ~ 2?0943? ~ ~ XX~-~ ~ 0.00 3B~X':~
RL~ DA~E 12/07/00 TYJ~ 15:00:03 - FIHMIClAL Ju.vAerf:TJ~
~-~&
12/07/00 CITY OF CUi~RTI/IO P~G~ 11
ACC~ING L~,'r~: 6/01
S~I~ ~I~IA: ~r~mc~.~r~_~te ~tve~ "12/04/2000" ~ "12/0~/2000"
~ - 110 - G~ ~
1020 581725 12/08/00 775 ~ P~ZF/C SX~ L 4209530 ~S~ ~ XZX-~ ~ 0.00 5731.86
1020 581725 12/08/00 775
1020 581725 12/08/00 775 ~-~-~ P~ZFZC SZ~ L 1108602 ~ ~ ZIZ-~ ~ 0.00 9553.05
1020 581~25 12/08/00 775
1020 581725 12/08/00 775 ~ 9~ZFZC SZ~ L 2709440 ~ ~ ZZI-~ ~ 0.00 1910.61
1020 581725 12/08/00 775 ~b-~-~ P~/FIC SZ~ L 2709412 ~ ~ ~ZZ-~ ~ 0.00 1910.61
~ ~ 0.00 65599.50
1020 581726 12/08/00 2174 ~ ~ S~Z~ 1104000 ~ 0.00 36.70
1020 581727 12/08/00 2225 MZ~ O ~ 1104S10 ~. ~ 11/30/00 0.00 7182.43
1020 581728 12/08/00 ~001 ~, ~ DZ~ 1101040 ~~ ~ ~P. 0.00 173.00
1020 S81729 12/08/00 795 ~ ~TI~ (/794) 1104310 ~ 2000-200~ OPn ~C 0.00 926.04
1020 581730 12/08/00 ~001 ~ 1104510 ~-~ ~ 200 0.00 300.00
~ ~H ~ 0.00 904027.13
~ ~ 0.00 90402~. 13
~ ~T 0.00 90/ 13
RT,1H DATE 12/07/00 TY~ 15:00:04
RESOLUTION NO. Ol-OO3
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 DESCI~mED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
December 15, 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 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
12/14/00 CZTY OF ~rbkT:l~lO
AC~;,~L'ZI~3 PERZOD: 6/01 ~ ~Zaz-~ - DZS~ ~
~ ~Z~: cra~ct.c~e ~c~ "~2/11/2000" ~ "~2/~5/2000'
~ - ~0 - O~ ~
1020 581077 V ~l/0g/O0 1624 ~ ~ ~B ~ 1~01042 FZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 -S00.00
1020 S81455 V 12/01/00 1932 M ~Z~ 1~08314 P~ FZT ~ g 0.00 -3236.00
1020 581731 12/12/00 ~00~ ~ F~Y ~ 1107503 ~ ~ 0.00 540.17
~020 58~732 ~2/~2/00 2250 81~ & ~ 1108407 ~ 0.00 2883.07
1020 581733 ~2/15/00 2221 101 ~ ~T.n= 6309820 1 BZG ~ 30~-8 0.00 1380.18
Z020 581733 12/15/00 222~ ~o~z~T~= 6309820 816 ~ 6 1/2 ' X 8' 0.00 15~6.68
~ ~ 0.00 2976.86
1020 58~734. Z2/ZS/00 1695 3M 2709413 ~ ~000~426 1~/ 0.00 ~07.85
1020 S8~734 12/~S/00 ~695 3M 2709413 ~ gw~'000~426 ~/ 0.00 743.SS
~020 S81734 12/~5/00 1695 3M 27094~3 ~ g~'000~426 ~/ 0.00 495.70
~020 581734 12/~S/00 1695 3M 2709413 ~ ~000~1426 ~/ 0.00 644.4?
1020 581734 ~2/15/00 1695 3M 2?09413 ~ ~00011426 11/ 0,00 53.05
1020 S81734 ~2/15/00 16~S 3M 2709413 ~ ~00011426 1~/ 0.00 322.24
~ ~ 0.00 2366.86
Z020 58~735 ~2/~5/00 4 A T & T ~108501 0S0~78768600~ ~. ~ 0.00 15.03
1020 58~735 12/~5/00 4 A T & T 1108501 0505620784001 ~. S~ 0.00 ~3
1020 58~735 ~2/~5/00 4 A T & T ~108501 0~82101679001 ~.
~ ~CK 0.00 81.74
~020 58~736 ~2/15/00 2259 A-~ r~, l~C. 1108315 ~ ~ST~TI~ 0.00 1500.00
1020 58173~ 12/~5/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5606620 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 344.33
~020 581737 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108509 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 27.69
lO2D 58173? 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~Z~ ~ 1208503 ~ N~. 2000 0.00 337.68
1020 58173? 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108506 ~ N~. 2000 0.00 S7.24
1020 581737 12/~5/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5708510 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 289.91
1020 581737 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108501 ~ ~. 2000 0,00 S86.85
~020 S81737 ~2/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z108S04 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 952.68
1020 58~737 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108505 ~ ~. 2000 0.00
1020 581737 12/15/00 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108508 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 25.91
1020 5817~? 12/Z5/00 9 ~ ~ ~Z~ ~ 2108507 ~ ~. 2000 0.00 ~71.61
~ ~ 0.00 2903.66
1020 581738 12/15/00 2110 ~ ~ ~Z~ ~P 1108321 ~ S~ 0.00 150.00
1020 581739 12/IS/00 2099 ~S ~C. 1104200 ~Z~ M/E 12/03 0.00 442.00
1020 581740 12/15/00 13 ~ & ~S ~TATZ~C S606640 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 168.83
1020 581741 12/15/00 ~680 ~ ~ ~104000 ~ ~T ~Z~ ~0.00 162,91
1020 S81742 12/15/00 28 ~ 1108830 0.00 33.30
1020 S8~;43 12/15/00 20 ~z~= D~ ~'~ 5806449 ~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 '0
12/24/00 ?Z~ 15:22:36
12/14/00 CITY 0F ClA~tTI~0 P~ 2
~ ~I-A-~X~: C~M~C.~B_~e ~t~ "12/11/2000" ~ ~12/15/2000"
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 S81744 12/15/00 1561 /~IUATXC M/kNX(~)~N'2' ~ 5006448 8~BSC~.XPTX(~ 0.00 99.00
1020 581745 12/15/00 61 ~TX~XC ~ ~TZ~ 110850~ ~ ~ DgC.2000 0.00 214.00
1020 SSX?A5 22/15/00 EX ~TX~XC ~ ~TX~ X108504 ~ ~ ~.2000 0.00 81.00
1020 581745 12/15/00 Gl ~TXSTXC ~ ~TX~ 110B503 ~ ~ ~C.2000 0.00 65.00
1020 58~746 ~2/15/00 864 ~ A~ 1106100 ~VZ~ ~ 0.00 133.34
2020 SB~?4? 12/~S/00 ~8 ~ ~ 9~TS 6308840 O~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 102.8~
1020 581747 12/15/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~K ~ ~ 0.00 57.10
1020 581~47 Z2/15/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~B ~ ~ 0.00 21.46
1020 58Z747 Z2/15/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~B ~ ~ 0.00 20.58
1020 581~4~ 12/15/00 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 O~ ~B ~n ~ 0.00 2~4.52
1020 58~747 ~2/15/00 968 ~ ~ P~ 6308840 O~ ~B ~ ~ 0.00 8.96
1020 581747 12/~S/00 968 ~ ~ P~ 6308940 O~ ~B O~ ~ 0.00 9.~4
~ ~ 0.00 495.~S
1020 58Z748 ~2/15/00 720 ~'~-A~Y SY~ 6308840 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 19.49
1020 58Z749 12/15/00 20~2 nY ~ DZ~Z~ ~ 6308840 ~Z~ 0.00 315.96
'. 58Z750 12/15/00 1348 ~YB~ ~ ~ I~ 5606620 ~;~ ~ ~ 47 0.00 17~8.00
Z020 58~75~ ~2/ZS/O0 1066 ~- ~S
1020 581751 12/15/00 1066 ~-~XS X~X 5208003 ~ ~/SE~ 2 0.00 X2O?.4S
TOT~ ~CX 0.00 1?4~.20
1020 581?52 12/15/00 122 ~ ~ 5806449 S~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 279.00
1020 581753 12/15/00 125 ~F ~A~ ~UA~ ~ 6104800 ~ZH ~ ~ 1.~1 ~ 0.00 0.S?
1020 S81753 12/15/00 125 ~XF ~ ~A'~ ~ 6104800 ~ ~X~ SGK ~X FA 0.oo 47.63
TOT~ ~ECK 0.00 48.20
1C2~ 581~54 12/15/00 ~001 ~XF. P~ i ~. S~Z 5606600 ~HZP ~ 0.00 145.00
1020 S81755 12/15/00 127 ~ ~1~ ~ 110~S00 ~C. ~B~ 0.00 ~31.96
1020 581756 12/15/00 1670 ~'A-A'~ ~ 2708403 ~ ~ ~Z~Z~ ~ O.O0 92?1.00
1020 58175~ 12/15/00 135 ~ S~-T- KI~ 6~08840 ~ ~ 0.00 180.00
1020 581758 12/15/00 ~001 ~, ~g. M 1108303 ~~ P~TS/~ 0.00 88.71
1020 581759 12/15/00 143 ~ ~1~ I~ 1103400 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 2966.00
1020 581760 12/15/00 2125 ~Z~-~ OF ~XC~ 1108201 ~XFZ~ ~ 0.00 30.00
1020 581760 12/15/00 2125
1020 581760 12/15/00 2125 ~Z~-~ ~ ~IC~ 1108~01 ~Z~Z~ ~ 0.00 30.00
" ~ 0.00 90:00
~ DATB 12/14/00 TX~ 15:22:37
12/14/00 (~Z~ OF ~'£Z~O
~H ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/~ ..... ~l~l~ ......
1020 581~61 12/15/00 155 ~ ~ ~ XX0840~ ~X~ ~E~ 0.00 ~6~.~
X020 5BX~6X 12/X5/00 X55 ~ ~ ~ XXOB3X5 ~ ~X~ 0.00 145.3~
y~ ~-~ 0. O0 515. O0
X020 5BX?G2 12/xS/O0 ~OOl ~, ~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 85.00
X020 581~63 X2/XS/O0 X60 ~X~'S ~T ~XO 580G~4g 8~X~ ~ ~ 0.00 1523.75
Z020 5BZ764 ~2/z5/00 ~00~ ~X, ~ P~ 5BO ~ ~ 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 145.00
~020 582765 ~2/~S/00 gl~ ~ ~ ~08602 ~ 22/09/00 0.00
~020 58X~GG ~/zs/oo 2258 ~ ~CXSX~ ~ ~ 2~08405 ~X~/~VX~ 0.00 250,00
X020 581767 12/15/00 ~00X ~, ~Y 5B0 ~C ~u 0.00 51,00
~020 5s~769 22/~5/00 ~92 ~wX~ ~ ~ ~ 220402~ -:-~ ~XP 0.00 65.27
~020 S82770 ~2/~5/00 ~94 ~T~ ~Y INC 2~08~4 ~ 2000-200~ 0P~
~020 58~770 ~2/~5/00 ~4 ~TX~ uu~Y ~ ~08407 P~/~X~ 0.00 74.52
1020 58~770 22/~5/00 2~4 ~TX~ uuv~LY X~ ~208407 P~TS/~X~ 0.00 4?4.24
~ ~cx o.oo se9.25
1020 581771 ~2/25/00 ~98 ~TI~ ~ S~ DX~ 5806449 ~ 2000-200~ O~
~O2O 58~72 22/25/00 209 DE ~ S~VX~S XNC 5606640 ~X~RI~ DEC. 2000 0.00 402.80
lC2O 55:7~2 12/15/00 209 DE ~ S~VX~S X~ 2109502 ~. ~X~X~ LX~ 0.00 X25.00
1~2: 581772 12/15/00 209 ~ ~ S~VI~S XNC 5606620 ~X~R~ ~C. 2000 0.00 401.80
~ ~E~X 0.00 928.60
102C S81773 12/15/00 220 DX8~ S~L ~Y 5806349 ~L ~XES 0.00 606.09
~02C S8~?73 ~2/XS/00 220 Dzs~ s~L ~Y 5806349 ~ ~PLZ~ 0.00 SX.2X
~020 581774 ~2/~S/00 2~s ~ RZ~ R~FX~ & w~- 4209306 T~/~-t-~ 0.00 ~047.S0
1020 S81774 12/15/00 225 ~ RX~ R~FZ~ i ~ 1108506 ~ p~ WXMS ~ 0.00 3342.8X
~020 58~77S ~2/~S/00 ~00~ ~H~ ~0 580 ~ ~ 0.00 500.00
~020 58~776 ~2/~S/00 228 ~Y*S T~ S~V~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 007.92
~020 S8~777 ~2/~S/00 ~00~ ~Y~ L~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 S00.00
~020 58~778 ~2/~S/00 ~644 ~C ~ ~08S03 ~/~ 0.00
DATE 12/14/00 TXME 15:22:37 - FXIOdiCIAL XC'C~XMG
~-..~/
&CCOL~TI'NG 9BRTOD: 5/01 C}IBCK
r '-- ~TZON C~T"L'~P./A: .~z'ans&cl:.t. rar,.s_date bet:ween -12/11/2000" and -12/1S/2000-
~ - 110 - ~
.1020 ' 581779 12/15/00 )42001 B(::~FF, U-BAN 5500000 SAN X~15C0 R~ 0.00 745.00
1020 581780 12/15/00 812 ~ V~ZPT.~ SYa'usK 6308840 ~Z~ 0.00 108.06
lO2O 5~1781 12/1S/00 224o ~I~ ~-~ ~ 5609105 ~ nn-,-,x~, W o.0o GOGA.S0
1020 581782 12/15/00 1333 B$~ S~ S~vz~ 6109059 $~OR ~-~ ~ I o.00 3000.00
1020 581783 12/15/00 250 nu~T G~ OF ~T S806349 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 2190.58
1020 581784 12/15/00 194~ ~ $~ 5208003 ~ ~ZT ~ 0.00 11~.g4
1020 S61784 12/15/00 194~ ~ S~ 1108503 ~Z~ ~X~ ~ 0.00 162.30
~ ~ 0.00 282.32
1020 5~1~85 12/15/00 260 ~ ~ ~ 1100000 ~PP~ ~ 0.00 45.00
1020 5~1786 12/15/00 2199 ~Z~
1020 5~1V86 12/15/00 2199 ~X~ ~ - a~-~ 1106647 ;18~ 0,00 17.5]
~ ~ 0.00 35.02
1020 5~1787 12/15/00 818 ~ D ~ ~ ~D 1108501 X~8~X~ & 6~V. 0.00 403.65
1020 5~1787 12/15/00 818 ~ D ~ F~ ~D 5708510 ~ A ~VZ~ 0.00 ~1~.5?
~ 58178? 12/15/00 818 ~ D ~ FX~ ~D 1108504 ~Z~ & ~VX~ 0.00 197.62
1020 581788 12/15/00 1210 ~ ~P 1107~03 P~TS/~PLI~S 0,00 49~.00
1020 581789 12/15/00 268 ~'~'~ ~ SE~I~ ~S 1108502 P~TS/S~IRS 0.00 296.61
1020 S81790 12/15/00 274 ~YtS E~ 1108504 ~IES 0.00 130.00
1020 5~1790 12/15/00 274 ~YtS ~I~ 1108501 ~I~ 0.00 131.79
~ ~ 0,00 261.79
1020 581~91 12/15/00 275 ~ ~A~ 5806449 S~VI~ ~ ~ 0.00 3832.00
1020 581792 12/15/00 2262 ~ ~T~I~ 6104~00 ~TI~ ~S/S~T 0.00 15200.00
1020 581793 12/15/00 ~001 G F O A 1104000 A~I~ ~ 0.00 415.00
1020 591794 12/15/00 1932 M TZ~ 1108315 ~Y ~ 0.00 1146.~9
1020 581795 12/15/00 2027 ~ ~C~ 1104400 ~~ FOR ~ 0.00 32.01
1020 581795 12/15/00 202? ~ ~ 1104400 ~~ ~ 0.00 20.00
~ ~ 0.00 52.01
1020 S81796 12/15/00 281 W 1108408 ~Z~ 0.00 499.13
1020 581797 12/15/00 ~001 ~I~ ~N 580 ~ ~ 0.00 64.00
1020 581798 12/15/00 2257 GZ~ ~ 4209206 ~/~ 0.00 3950,00
12/14/00 ~ 15:22:3B - FZIK3t~_~r_.~,R, CC:O~TZBG
12/14/00 CZ'I~ O~ t.,~.'&ATZ~O P~G~ 5
~ ~: 6/01 ~ ~la*~ * DZ~ ~
~ ~1-~: c=a~a~.c=~e ~ "$2/11/2000" ~d "12/15/2000"
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 5B1~99 12/15/00 ~98 ~I~ ~ 630~B40 ~ 2000-~001 ~ ~c 0.00 137.06
1020 5B1799 12/15/00 ~98 ~ z~ 6308840 ~ ~000-2001 o~ ~C 0.00 6.23
1020 5B1~99 12/25/00 298 ~ Z~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 490.B8
1020 5B1~99 12/15/D0 298 ~ Z~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 5.82
1020 581799 12/15/00 29B ~ Z~ 420~20G P~S/~Z~ 0.00 218.S0
~ ~ 0.00 858.49
1020 581800 12/15/00 315 ~Z~ ~ 5806449 ~I~ ~ ~ 0.00 3~3.~5
1020 581801 12/15/00 ~001 ~, ~ 5BO ~ ~ 0.00 86.00
1020 5B1802 12/15/00 328 ~ ~ 5806449 8~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 149.50
1020 581803 12/15/00 1228 LX~ ~ 5806249 S~V/~ ~ ~ 0.00 3437.00
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~GE~ 1108501 ~ 0.00 40.40
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~ f~ 2~08405 ~IBS 0.00 38.66
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ DR~ f~ 1108407 S~1~ 0.00 344.87
1020 S81804 12/lS/00 334 ~ DE~ ~ 110840~ suF~ZBS 0.00 484.62
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ DB~ f~ ~108407 ~l~ 0.00 S3.2S
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~GE~ 5606620 ~l~ 0.00 421.97
1020 58~804 12/15/00 334 H~ ~ ~GE~ 110840~ auF~ZBS 0.00 -83.83
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~f~ ~108303 ~PLZ~ 0.00 '" 86
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ DE~f~ ~08~01 ~uF~Z~ 0.00 .4
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ DE~ fGE~ 1108407 ~Z~ 0.00 4,.22
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ ~/GE~ ~108314 ~UV~IBS 0.00 32.66
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ DB~ ~GE~ 110840~ ~1ES 0.00 30.48
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ ~ fGE~ 1108315 ~Z~ 0.G0 1V.03
1020 S81804 12/15/00 334 ~ DE~ ;~ 1108407 ~ 0.00 251.88
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~ ~GE~ 6308540 ~PLZ~ 0.00 20.98
1020 ~81804 12/15/00 334 ~ DE~ ;GE~ 1108314 auv~lBS 0.00 164.89
102~ ~81804 12/15/00 334 ~ ~ ~GE~ 1108503 auntiES 0.00 53.81
1C2~ 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ ~'~g~ Z~08S02 ~BS 0.00 350.95
1020 581804 12/15/00 334 H~ DK~ ~GKCF ~108303 ~PLIBS 0. O0 142.08
1~2C ~8~804 12/15/00 334 ~ DE~ ~ S606620 ~PLI~ 0.C0 ~92.~8
TOT~ ~ECK 0.0O 2743.21
1020 581805 12/15/00 ~001 ~, ~-PI~ ~80 ~ ~ 0.00 197.00
1020 581806 12/15/00 337 ~ A ~S~A~ 1108314 P~B FZT ~&-~ ~ 0.00 ]236.00
1020 581807 12/15/00 ~001 Z~ZM, ~A 580 ~C ~ 0.00 100.00
1020 581808 12/15/00 2155 ~ ~ ~ 5609105 ~ ~ ~ DXS~B N 0.00 6980.00
1020 581809 12/15/00 ~001 1~HZ, ~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 120.00
1020 581810 12/15/00 2181 ~°L ~ICIP~ SIG 1108601 ~ ~B/V.~ 0.00 50.00
1020 581810 12/15/00 2181 X~:X~"L ~CXP~ SIG 1108830 ~HXP ~ ~ 0.00 50.00
1020 S81810 12/15/00 2181 I~:~'L ~ZCIP~ SZG 2708405 ~ZP ~ ~ 0.00 S0.00
~ ~CK o.0o ~0
RUH DATE 12/14/00 TX~ 1S:22:38 - FIIL~ICZAL A~,~TT~
~020 58~8L~ ~2/~5/00 ~95 ~V ~ ZL08S0~ ~ ~ D~C.20 0.00 ~59.49
~020 5828~ ~2/~5/00 995
~020 58~8L~ Z2/~5/00 995 ~V ~ Z~08504 ~A~ ~ DEC.20 0.00 ~59.49
~ ~ 0.00 220.42
~020 58~8X3 Z2/~5/00 353
~020 58~8Z4 $2/~5/00 ~9~5 Z~ Z~04Z00 ~ ~ ~. ~ 0.00 ~550.[9
Z020 58ZSZ6 Z2/~5/00 ~657 ~Z~S ~ S~ ~06500 VZ~ N/E ~/26 0.00 ~57.70
~ 581816 12/15/00 1657 ~'S ~ ~ 1106500 ~B~ M/E 12/19 0.00 304.00
~ ~ 0.00 1653.00
1020 581817 12/15/00 ~001 ~, B~ 580 ~C~ 0.00 110.00
~020 58~8~8 ~2/~5/00 22~S ~ ~ ~P 4249210 a-~-~ S~-P~ 0.00 ~0249.48
:020 S8~8~0 ~2/~S/00 ~00Z KlM, ~ 580 ~C~ 0.00 64.00
~020 58t820 ~2/~5/00 ~2 K~-M~ 6308840 ~ZES 0.00 34.9~
1020 581821 12/15/00 2231 ~ ~P 4209217 ~X~E ~ ] 0.00 943.25
1020 ~81822 12/15/00 ~001 ~, P~A 580 ~C ~ 0.00 100,00
1020 581823 12/15/00 2086 ~ PA~X~ ~.T. ~ 1104100 ~l~ S~I~ 0.00 3840.00
1020 581B23 12/15/00 2086 ~ PA~I~ ~q~- ~ 1104100 MZ~ 0.00 126.76
~ ~ 0.00 3966.76
1020 S81824 12/15/00 ~001 ~l, ~ S80 ~ ~ 0.00 85.00
1020 S81825 12/15/00 396 ~Z~XP M ~l~ 5806449 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 140.00
1020 581826 12/15/00 400 LZ~zZ~ ~ZS X~ 5706450 z-~S Z~AU~ ~ 0.00 14557.74
1020 58~827 12/15/00 ~001 L~, ~ 580 ~ ~ 0.00 S1.00
10~0 581828 12/15/00 ~001 L~, M 580 ~ ~ 0.00 100.00
12/14/00 CITY OF ~rEK~iO PAGE 7
1020 5~1829 12/15/00 ~001 ~, ~ 1X0 ~ ~6218 0.00 ?200.00
1020 SBX8~0 12/~5/00 ~001 ~8, MX~ 580 ~C ~ 0.00 100.00
~020 581831 22/15/00 ~001 ~, EPPXE 580 ~C ~ 0.00 25.00
~020 581832 X2/15/00 ~00X ~ B~ ~ 5506549 ~C ~ 0.00 45.00
1020 58~833 12/15/00 ~00~ L~, D~ 580 ~ 0.00 5.00
1020 5818~4 12/15/00 ~001 ~Y, ~E S80 ~C~ 0.00 22.00
1020 5818~5 12/1~/00 ~001 ~, ~ 590 ~C~ 0.00 4?.50
1020 582836 12/15/00 900 ~XTX-~T~.~ ~X~ ~108501 ~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 244~.6~
~020 5818~? 12/~5/00 439 ~ ~1333~ 5806349 &dv~l~ 0.00 52.?8
~020 5~1837 12/~5/00 43~ ~ $1333~ 5806349 ~XES 0.00 51.4B
~020 58183? 12/15/00 439 MX~ ~13333 S80634~ uuv~l~ 0.00 46.0~
~ ~ 0.00 150.35
1020 581838 ~2/15/00 2157 ~~ 5806349 ~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 500.00
1020 5~1839 12/15/00 444 MZ~'S L~ 1106501 ~X~/~I~ 0.00 ~
1020 581839 12/1~/00 444 MI~*S L~ 1108407 au~X~/~l'~ 0.00 34.90
~ ~ 0.00 40.96
1020 5S1840 12/15/00 447 ~SSZ~ ~Z~ S~VZ~ 1108201 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 73.81
1020 581840 12/1~/00 447 ~SSZ~ ~F~ SnVZ~ 1~0820~ ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 72.68
T~ ~CK 0.00 146.49
1020 58~841 12/1~/00 448 MISSZ~V~T~'~ ~ ZNC 6308840 ~Z~ P~TS 0.00 293.02
~020 5"~842 ~2/~5/00 455 ~ ~ 5806249 SERVI~ ~ ~R 0.00 1942.00
~020 58~843 ~2/$S/00 463 VI~ G~S~I 5806449 S~VI~ ~ ~ 0.00 299*00
~020 55~844 ~2/~5/00 ~00~ ~, S~$~ 58O ~C ~ 0.00 ~0.00
~020 56~845 ~2/~5/00 ~003 ~, ~ 58O ~C ~ 0.00 L00.00
L020 59~846 12/~5/00 ~SS0 ~ZS ~ ZI03S00 ~VI~ ~ ~ 0.00 300.00
~020 58~847 ~2/~S/00 485 ~~;C S~ 2708405 ~ 0.00 463.00
1020 581848 12/15/00 489 ~ ~XC S~ 5806349 S~X~ ~ ~R 0.00 3191.58
1020 581848 12/15/00 489 ~ ~XC S~ 5806249 ~Vl~ ~ ~ ~0.00 5445.60
~ ~ 0.o0 8637.18
102o S91849 12/15/00 192 ~ ~yATZ~ 1104510 ~-~ ~Sz~ 0.00 9o.o0
12/14/00 TX~ 15:22:40 - FZHANC/AT, ACCO'~F~
~ZNG P~RZOD: 6/01 C~CK ~8T~9. - DZ~ ~
1020 581850 12/15/00 494 ~x~ DB~ ~ZT ~ 1101500 ~FLZBS ~.00 63.27
1020 58185~ 12/15/00 2094 ~ ~ Z~., ~ 1108314 P~/~Z~ 0.00 198.22
1020 581852 12/15/00 SOO 0~ ~ ~ 1104S20 ~~ ~/S~ 0.00 3Z2S.00
1020 581853 12/1S/00 503 ~ ~Y 5606620 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 22.S2
1020 S818S3 12/~S/00' S03 ~ ~PLY S606S20 ,2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 203.09
~Oi~ 0.00 235.61
:020 ss:es4 ~2/:s/oo ~220 ~ ~y~ 1108407 ~/~BS 0.00 10.11
:020 581854 12/~5/00 z220 ~ ~y ~ 1108314 ~-~-~/~vF~LIBS 0.00 40.43
~020 se28s4 12/~s/00 1220 ~ ~PLY ~ 1108407 ~'A'~/UU~I~ 0.00 50.05
2020 SS~SS4 22/2S/00 2220 ~ ~PLY ~ ~208303 ~/~ o.oo 217.92
~020 S828S4 ~2/ZS/00 ~220 ~ ~y ~ 1108407 ~-~/aU~Z~ 0.00 43.20
sszss4 ~2/~s/oo z220 ~~Y ~ ~08303 ~'A'~/~UF~Z~ 0.00 24.46
~020 SS~8S4 ~2/~S/00 ~220 ~ ~Y ~ ~08322 ~/~ZES 0.00 40.68
~020 SS~SS4 ~2/~S/00 ~220 ~ ~PLY ~ 1108303 ~-~'~/~Z~ 0.00 ~54.77
~020 SSZSS4 ~2/~S/00 ~220 oe~ ~PLY ~ Z~083~2 P~TS/~Z~ 0.00 42.~4
~020 SSZSS4 Z2/ZS/00 Z220 ~ ~PLY ~ 1208S0Z P~TS/~ES 0.00
Z020 Sa~SS4 Z2/~S/00 Z220 ~ auP~bY ~ ~08S07 P~TS/~ZES 0.00 34.6~
Z020 Sa~SS4 z2/~s/oo z22o oR~ ~Y ~ ~08s03 p~/~zEs 0.00 36.6~
~:2: ss~ess ~2/~5/00 16s0 ~*s ~ ~ ~0850L ~ ~s 2000 0.00 2L0.65
~o2o 581850 12/~5/00 511 P~FZC ~.T. 11062&S ~ ~V~ 200 0.00 6S8.64
~020 S81859 12/1S/00 511 P~F~C P~' 1104S30 ~ S~V~ 200 0.00 288.1S
~020 S81SS9 12/~5/00 511 P~F~C ~.T. 1107301 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 82*33
~020 581859 12/lS/00 Sll P~F~ ~UT.T. 110626S ~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 288.15
~020 58~8S0 12/1S/00 S1~ P~F~C B~ S708S~0 ~ ~V~200 0.00 329.32
~020 ss~ess ~2/~S/00 S~ P~F~C ~T.T. S606640 ~ ~V S~ 200 0.00
1020 581859 12/15/00 Sll P~F~C ~ 5606620 ~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 364*32
~020 SS~SSO ~2/~S/O0 S~ P~F~C~ 1106647 ~ ~V~200 ~*00 41.16
~020 SS~SS9 ~2/~S/00 S~1 P~F~C~ 1~08706 ~~200 0.00 81.27
~020 S8~8S9 12/1S/00 S~ P~F~C ~ ~08S09 ~]~ ~V ~ 2OO 0.00 S1.78
/ S818S9 ~2/15/00 511 P~FIC ~ 6104800 ~ ~ ~ 200 0.00 702:13
RLI~ DATE 12/14/00 T/J~ 15:22:40
12/14/00 CITY OF COX~RTXIW PA~ 5
1020 5818S9 12/15/00 Sll ~ZFZC B~ 1104200 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 123.49
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 P;~XFXC ,~.T. 1106529 ~ B~V ~ 200 0.00 41.16
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 P;~ZFXC B~ 1106500 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 P~FZC ,~.T. 1107200 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 123.49
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 ~;~X~XC ~.T. 1107301 ~ $~V ~ 200 0.00
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 ~FZC F~.r. 110~302 ~ S~V ~V 200 0.00 82.33
1020 581859 ~2/15/00 511 P~XFXC 9~.r. 1107501 ~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 535.14
1020 58~859 12/15/00 511 P~XFXC 9~.T. 110~201 ~T~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 442.57
1020 581859 ~2/15/00 511 V~ZFXC 9~.T. 1104510 ~ ~ ~ 200 0.00
1020 58185~ 12/15/00 511 V~XFXC 9~T-T. 1108407 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 15.95
1020 581~59 12/~5/00 ~1~ ~XFXC ~ 110~265 ~ $~ ~ 200 0.00
1020 581859 ~2/15/00 511 P~XFXC ~ 2~08004 ~ S~ ~ 200 0.00 41.16
1020 58~859 12/~5/00 511 ~XFXC ~ 1101102 ~-=~ ~ ~ 200 0.0O 41.16
1020 551859 12/~5/00 511 V~XffXC ~ ~104000 ~.=~ B~V ~ 200 0.00 123.4~
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 PACXFZC ~ 5208003 ~.~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 41.16
~020 5828S9 ~2/~5/00 5~ P~IFIC ~ 110800~ ~.RF~ snv ~ 200 0.00 20s.82
~020 581859 ~2/15/00 Szz PA~IF$C B~ 1~07502 ~.u~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 41.16
~020 SS$SS9 12/15/00 S~1 P~F$C ,~.T. 1108602 ~.U~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 164.66
~020 581859 ~2/~5/00 S~i PACIFIC B~.T, 1107503 ~:~ ~V ~ 200 0.00 164.66
~020 582859 12/~5/00 511 P~F~C ~.T. 1103500 ~---~ ~V ~ 20O 0.00 123.49
~020 58~859 12/~S/00 5~1 P~IFlC B~ 1103300 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 '- 33
~020 58~8S9 ~2/~5/00 Sll P~FI~ pm.T. 1104400 ~ ~V ~ 200 0.00
~020 SS$SS9 ~2/~5/00 51~ P~FIC B~ ~104300 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 3~U.66
~020 581859 ~2/~5/00 511 P~ZFIC pUT.T. 1101500 ~ S~V ~V 200 0.00 452.81
~020 58~859 ~2/~5/00 51~ P~ZFZC BE~ 1102100 ~.u~ S~V ~ 20O 0.00 205.82
~020 582859 12/~5/00 511 P~XFXC BE~ 110S265 ~ S~V NOV 200 0.00 125.48
~02o 581859 22/~5/00 5~2 PACXFXC ~ ~0~000 ~T.u~ ~V N~ 200 0.00 246.99
202o 502e59 ~2/2s/oo 522 PMXFXC BS~ ~20860~ ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00
2020 581859 22/25/00 SX2 PACXF2C B~ 5706450 ~y.u~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 493.~8
~:2: 582859 ~2/~5/00 512 P~XF2C BK~ ~206~00 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 ~23.49
2:2: 582859 ~2/~5/00 52~ P)~XF2C B~.T. ~08508 ~.u~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 57.54
2:2: 58~859 12/25/00 5~2 P~XF2C ~.T. X~06647 ~.~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 370.48
~:~ 581859 22/1S/00 52~ P)~F~C D~.T. X~085~2 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 82.33
1~2~ 581859 12/15/00 511 P~ZFZC BE~ 5606620 ~-~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 421.~5
1020 S81859 12/15/00 511 P~ZF~C 9~.r. 1108507 ~.=~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 1~4.11
1020 S~18S~ ~2/15/00 SiZ P~FIC 9~-~ 1108503 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 1129.26
1020 5e1859 12/15/00 511 P~ZFZC ~=T.r. 1108501 ~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 1022.S~
1020 581859 12/15/00 511 P~XFXC ~ 1101200 ~ S~V ~V 200 0.00 123.49
~ ~cK 0.00 13205.62
1020 581860 12/15/00 515 ~XFXC ~ $B~x~ ~ 1108501 ~ ~-~ 0.00 98.00
1020 581860 12/15/00 515 P~XFXC ~ S~X~ ~ 1108501 ~s ~ 0.00 98.00
1020 581860 12/15/00 535 ~A~XF/C ~ SE~ XN 1108S01 ~S ~-~-~ 0.00 98.00
1020 581861 12/15/00 17~1 ~ 1108501 P~ S~V.DBC.2000 0.00 20.~]
~020 581861 12/15/00 1771 P~ 6104800 P~ ~.~C.2000 0.00 13.76
1020 581861 12/15/00 1771 P~ 5706450 ~ S~V.DBC.2000 0.00 ~7.63
1020 581861 12/15/00 1771 P~ 1~08501 ~ ~.D~.2000 0.00 03
RUi~ D~ 12/14/00 ?T~ 15:22:41
1020 581861 12/15/00 1?~1 P~ 1108102 P~ S~.DEC.2000 0.00 55.16
1020 581861 12/15/00 17~1 P~ 110~501 P~ 8~V,~C.20O0 0.00
1020 581861 12/15/00 1771 P~ 1106265 P~ S~V.DKC.2000 0.00 11.55
1020 581861 $2/15/00 1~72 ~ 1104510 P~V.~.2000 0.00 39.72
~ O.00 225.24
1020 581862 $2/15/00 1952 P~A ~108201 ~ZP ~ 7 ~Y 0.00 189.00
1020 582866 12/~5/00 2242 ~Z~ ~ 6308940 ~P~R ~V$~ 0.00 17~.95
2020 S85867 22/~5/00 509 ~ ~S ~ 5806349 ~ 0.00 22.54
~020 S8~86~ 12/15/00 509 ~ ~S ~ 5806349 ~ 0.00 47,47
1020 585867 ~2/15/00 509 ~ ~S ~ 1106343 ~Z~ 0.00 3.98
~ S8~86~ $2/15/00 509 ~ ~S ~ 110664~ ~Z~ 0.00 20.29
581867 ~2/15/00 509 ~ ~~ ~N~ 5806349 ~PL~ES 0.00 5.40
1020 582870 12/~5/00 599 R~ ~T$~ ~ 1108315 ~ ~ A 0.00 1236.18
1020 581870 12/15/00 599 ~ ~T~ ~ ~108314 ~R~ ~ A O,00 1236.29
1020 58~871 12/15/00 601 ROY~ B~S ~ 2708405 P~T~/~P~ZES 0.00 99.57
1020 581872 12/15/00 ~001 ~1 ~ 5506549 ~ ~ 0.00 200.00
1020 58~876 ~2/15/00 625 ~E MA~ ~ ~108407 ~ ~V~ 10/24-11 0.00 19,73
1020 58~876 ~2/15/00 625 ~ ~E ~ ~ 1108407 ~ S~V~ 10/24-11 0.00 19.73
1020 581676 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E WA~ ~ 1108407 ~ S~Vl~ 10/24-11 0.00 36.28
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E NA~ ~ 110840? ~ S~V~ 10/24-11 0.00
1020 5~187~ 12/15/00 625 W g~ G~ ~ 110840? ~ S~V2~ 10/24-11 0.00 S6.23
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 110~314 ~ S~VX~ 10/24-11 ~.00
1020 5B1876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ G~ ~ ~10~302 ~ ~VX~ 10/24-11 0.00 62.01
1020 581B76 12/15/00 62S ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~ S~ 10/24-11 0.00 GSS.~S
/~' S~1~76 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~ S~VX~ 10/24-11 0.00 1247~32
DATE 12/14/00 ?l~ 15:22:42
12/14/00 CZTY OP CUPB~TZIRO PAGt: 11
ACC~ZNG PBR~OD: 5/01 CHECK RRGZSTRR - DISBOP~ 1~
SET*~CT~Ol~ ~A: cra~acc.cz~_~ce be~en '~2/~/2000' a~
~ - 110 - G~ ~
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 1108509 WA~ ~RYZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 70.68
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~ S~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 57.67
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~E ~ ~ 1108314 G~ S~ 10/24-11 0.00 54.78
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~SE MA~ ~ 1108407 ~2 S~ 10/24-11 0.00 S0.45
102~ 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~SE G~ ~ 1108503 ~ ~Z~ 10/24-11 0.00 67.79
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E G~ ~ 1108303 MA~ ~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 348.51
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~E ~ ~ 1108303 ~S~ 10/24-11 '0.00 79.65
1020 581876 12/15/00 s2s ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108303 ~ snv;~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 1066.63
~020 ss~s~S ~2/~s/oo 62S ~~ ~ sToss~o ~ m~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 336.95
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 1108407 ~ ~v~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.50
~020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E ~ ~ 5606620 MA~ ~V1~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.S0
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~OSB NA~ ~ ~0840~ NA~ S~V~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 67,00
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~B ~~ 1108407 ~S~V/~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 3~.29
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~08407 ~ a~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 ~2.S0
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~08S0S UA~ ~VZ~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 ~2.50
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~B ~ ~ 5606620 ~ ~VI~ 10/24-~1 0.00 8.16
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E NA~ ~ 1108407 ~ S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 ~5~39
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~SB ~ ~ 1108407 ~ S~ 10/24-11 0.00 60.56
1020 591876 12/15/00 625 ~E ~ ~ 1108407 ~S~ 10/24-11 0.00 12.50
1020 581876 12/~S/00 S2S ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108407 ~ snvz~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 ~2.S0
1020 581876 12/15/00 s2s ~E ~T~ ~ 1108407 ~ ~w~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 76,76
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~R NAT~ ~ 1108407 ~ ~V~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 8.SS
1020 581876 12/15/00 62s ~SR ~-~a~ i~08S0S ~ SnvI~ ~0/24-~1 0.00
1020 S81876 ~2/15/00 62S ~B ~ ~ ~08407 ~ ~VI~ 10/24-1~ 0.00
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1108314 MA~ ~VI~ 10/24-~1 0.00 229.71
2020 S8287~ ~2/~S/00 625 ~ ~E M~ ~ ~0832S WA~ S~V2~ 20/24-~ 0.00 96.33
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~SE MA~ ~ 1108407 ~ S~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.50
1020 5818~6 12/15/00 625 ~ :OSE ~R ~ 220832S ~ SnV2~ 20/24-22 0.00 420.00
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E ~SK ~ 1108407 NA~ ~V2~ 20/24-22 0.00 14.60
1020 581876 ~2/15/00 625 ~ ~OSR NA~ ~ ~108321 WA~ S~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 141.77
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ J~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~ SnV]~ 20/24-~2 0.00 203.59
2020 5828~6 22/25/00 625 ~o~g HA~ ~ 1108321 ~ Snv2~ 0.00 30.42
1~2C S818~6 12/15/00 625 ~ ~OSE WA~R ~ ~0832~ ~ S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.42
102D 5818~6 12/15/00 625 ~B ~R~ 1108312 MA~ S~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 590.39
1~20 58~876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~SK ~R ~ 1108312 MA~ S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 1~V,21
1C20 5~18~6 12/15/00 625 ~ ~E ~I*~ ~ 1108312 MA~ S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 114.05
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ OOSE NA'I-~ ~ 1108407 MA~ S~VI~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.50
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~K HAz-~ ~ 1108315 MA~ S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~E HA~*~ ~ 1108315 ~T~ S~ 10/24-11 0.00 414.39
1020 5~1876 12/1~/00 625 ~ ~B ~ ~ 1108315 ~-x~ S~[~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.4~
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~SE ~nK ~ S606620 ~ S~Z~ 10/24-11 0.00 31.95
1020 5818~6 12/15/00 625 ~O~E ~ ~ 110~40~ ~ ~VZ~ 10/24-11 0,00 144.70
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5606620 ~A-x~ ~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 34.84
1020 591876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1109504 W~'~ S~V1~ 10/24-11 0,00 9.00
1020 5818~6 12/15/00 625 ~E MA~ ~ S606640 G~S~ 20/24-~ 0.00
1020 581876 12/15/00 G2S ~ ~B ~ ~ 110840~ 6t-~ S~ 10/24-11 0.00 S0.08
1020 581876 12/1S/00 G2S ~ ~E ~ ~ 1108303 ~-1-~ ~VZ~ 10/24-11 '0.00 43.51
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 1108303 NAT~ ~7I~ 10/24-11 0.00 138.62
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~~ ~ 110~504 ~t~S~VZ~ 10/24-11 0.00 95.26
1020 5B1876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ 110~504 ~T~ ~ 10/24-11 0.00 1~3.55
1020 5~1876 12/15/00 625 ~ ~B MA~ ~ 110B408 ~-~ ~ 10/24-11 0.00
RI~ DATK 12/14/00 TZI~ 15:22:43
12/14/00 CITY OF ~itTlll0 ~ 12
· ~:}T.~TXI~ pErIOD: 6/01
~ - 110 - ~ ~ . ...'.,
1020 581B~6 12/15/00 ~25 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5?08510 ~ ~ 10/24-11 0.00 ~.24
1020 58~8~6 12/15/00 625
1020 5~1876 12/15/00 625
1020 5.~e~6 12/15/00 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ 110840? ~ B~VZ~ 10/24-11 ~.00 10~.11
1020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~WA~ ~ ~108407 ~ ~ 10/24-11 0.00 30.50
~020 581876 12/15/00 625 ~g~~ 1108407 MA~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 ~8.28
1020 581876 12/~5/00 S2S ~ ~R ~ ~ 2108407 ~ ~V:~ ~0/24-~ 0.00 7.20
~020 581876 12/L5/00 625 ~ ~SE ~ ~ ~108407 ~ ~VI~ 10/24-1~ 0.00 18.43
1020 581877 12/15/00 628 ~ ~ ~ S~ 1102100 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 438510.17
1020 s81878 ~2/~s/oo 633 ~~ ~I ~02~00 ~~n 0.00 2225.20
1020 581878 12/~5/00 633 ~A~~ S~I 1~02100 ~M~ 0.00 4032.46
~ 0.00 625~.66
~020 S81879 12/15/00 1919 ~ ~ ~T~,W ~ SS06549 ~ ~1~ DEC.2000 0.00 72.00
1020 581880 12/15/00 63S ~V~ ~TI~ (~PlE 5806449 ~ 2000-200~ OPn ~C 0.00 377.73
1020 58i880 ~2/15/00 639 ~V~N ~TI~ (~PIE 5806349 ~ 2000-200: O~ ~C 0.00 258.34
1020 581880 ~2/15/00 639 ~VIN ~TI~ (~PIE 580S249 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 1375.99
1020 581880 ~2/15/00 639 ~VlN ~TI~ (~PIE 5806449 ~ 2000-200~ OPn ~C 0.00 324.60
581880 ~2/15/00 639 ~VIN ~TI~ (~PIE 5806349 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 222.00
581880 12/15/00 639 ~VIN ~T~ (~PIE 5706450 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 264.29
1020 58~880 ~2/15/00 639 ~VlH ~TI~ (~PIE 5506549 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 ~316.65
1020 581880 ~2/1S/00 639 ~VIN ~TI~ (~PIE S80S249 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 1182.46
1020 58~880 ~2/~5/00 639 ~V~ ~T~ (~PIE 5706450 ~ 2000-200~ OP~ ~C 0.00 307.SS
1020 581880 12/15/00 639 ~VIN ~TI~ (~P~E 550654~ ~ 2000-200L OP~ ~C 0.00 1532.15
~ ~CK 0.00 7161.76
~020 58~88~ ~2/~5/00 896
~020 Se~882 ~2/~5/00 226~ ~E~Y OF ~A~ 365S30~ N~-~OF~ F~L~ ~ 0.00 20.00
3020 5~1883 ' 12/lS/00 647 ~I~ ~ 5806449 sn~ ~ F~ 0.00 437.00
~020 SS~88S ~2/~S/O0 652
~020 58tSSS Z2/15/00 Z837 SILI~'~.~ PAVl~ ~2708404 ~IC~ ~ .0.00 S834.02
1020 S81887 12/15/00 665 S~Y~O~LZT~ 5806449 S~~ ~R 0,00 3353,40
~020 S8~888 22/~S/00 8?? ~ ~n ~ 1~08502 ~-~ 0.00 200.43
1020 58~889 12/15/00 89~ ~ SPZ~ SS06549 ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~0.00 105.63
1020 581890 12/15/00 882 ~ ~mZK 1107301 ~Z~ ~ 0.00 650.00
'~ S8~801 12/~5/00 10~1 ~A~ OF ~T 1~0 ~. ~PA~ 0.00 24~3:00
DATE 12/14/00 T:~3~ 15:22:43
12]14/00 rqT*X'Y OlP C'F,J'~t~ItTXliO PA~E 13
SB~X~ ~1~ cr~acc.cr~_~e ~c~ *X2/XX/2000" ~d "X2115/2000'
1020 58~892 12/15/00 684' ~B ~ S806449 S~VX~ ~ FOR 0.00 488.75
1020 S81893 12/X5/00 700 ~ S~C~ ~ XX083~S ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~ 0.00
1020 58~893 12/15/00 700 ~ B~ ~ 1108321 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 1412.67
~ ~ 0.00 2570.52
1020 59X894 12/15/00 70~ ~' ~S ~806349 ~XBS 0.00 14.29
Z020 S81894 12/15/00 701 T~z' ~ 5806349 ~XBS 0.00 X7.28
1020 59~894 1~/15/00 701 ~ ~ 5806349 ~ZBS 0.00 364.64
1020 59~894 1~/15/00 701 T~ ~ S806349 ~u;~Xn 0.00 302.05
1020 58~894 12/~S/00 ?0Z T~ ~ ~106265 ~uF~X~ 0.00 109.01
1020 S81894 12/15/00 701 ~ ~ S806349 ~bF~X~ 0.00 11,00
~ ~ 0.00 819.17
1020 581895 1~/15/00 22SG ~M ~X~Z~ m 1108501 ~LXC ~ ~ 0.00 114840.00
1020 581896 12/15/00 1763 ~ X~ 5806349 8~V1~ ~ ~ 0.00 1265.00
1020 591897 1~/15/00 ~00~ ~, ~ 580 ~C ~ 0.00 S00,00
1020 581898 12/15/00 708 ~ ~ 5806449 H~ ~ ~R 0.00 299.00
~020 582900 22/25/00 ~10 ~ ~ 5806249 H~ ~ ~R 0.00 6616.10
2020 582902 22/15/00 ?24 ~ i I~AZ~ E~2~ 6308840 O~ ~E O~ ~ 0.00 36.16
1020 561902 12/15/00 ~2~ U S ~S~'~'~t 5806249 ~E ~S 0.00 66.00
1020 581902 12/15/00 727 ~ ~ ~'~'~t 5806449 ~E ~S 0.00 66.00
1020 581902 12/15/00 727 U S ~'~-~ 5806349 ~B ST~S 0.00 66.00
TOT~ ~ 0.00 198.00
~020 581903 12/15/00 1665 ~.S. ~ ~U~ N.A. 3335304 94814650 ~ 74-3 0.00 3832.50
2020 5U2904 ~2/~5/00 830 ~T~ SOXL ~ 42492~0 S~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 797.50
~020 591905 12/15/00 742 ~L-z*= ~ 5806349 S~ ~ ~ 0.00 1066.00
1020 581906 12/15/00 ~329 ~ ~ 1106265 P~O ~ 0.00
~020 581907 12/15/00 ~001 M~, ~ 5500000 ~ ~ DEUX 0.00 250.00
1020 581908 12/15/00 7~4 ~*~-~ HZ~Y ~ 2~09413 P~S/~x~ 0.00 97.80
1020 581908 12/15/00 774 ~ HX~ ~ 2709413 P~TS/~X~ 0.00 601.29
~ ~ ~0.00 699.09
1020 581909 12/15/00 775 ~ P~/FXC S~ L 2709444 ~l~ ~ ~'s 0.00 202S2.66
1020 581909 12/15/00 775 ~'~'~ ~ZFXC SZ~ L 1108602 ~rbX~ ~X~ ~ 0.00 10125.83
1020 581909 12/15/00 775 ~'~ ~XFZC SX~ ~ 2?0941~ ~ ~X~ ~ 0.00 107
R~ DATB 12/14/00 TX~ 15:22:44 - PXI~M~XA~
1:2/14/00 CIT'/ 01~ ~.m'~-~-~ev t~Gg 1~
A~Z~ P~I~: 6/01 ~ ~Z~z~ - DZ~ ~
~ - 110 - G~ ~
1020 581909 12/15/00 ~75 ~ P~ZFZC BZ~ L 2~09438 ~Z~ ~R ~ 0.00 20251.66
1020 S81909 12/15/00 ?TS ~'z'~' P~FZC SZ~ L 27094'47 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 20251.66
~ ~ O. 00 81006.64
1020 S81910 12/15/00 782 ~ ~l'l-l~ 4249210 ~ S~Z~S F 0.00 6297.50
1020 581911 12/1S/00 794 ~ ~TI~ 1104310 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 921.40
1020 581912 12/15/00 962 L~ ~ 5S06549 ~I~ ~I~Y/BZR~ 0.00 S9.40
1020 581912 12/15/00 962 L~ ~VI~ S506S49 ~1~ ~Y/BIR~ 0.00 V.3S
~ ~H AC~ 0.00 900~40.82
RI~qDA/'~ 12/14/00 T]D~ 15:22:48 -
m
RESOLUTION NO. Ol-OO4
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 DESCl~mED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
December 22, 2000
WHEREAS, the Director of Adm'mistrative 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 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
1020 581923 12/~8/00 ~49 ~ ~08501 ~ ~H 11/2T-12/23 0.00 37.44
1020 581913 12/18/00 149 ~ 2204010 r~z ~ 11/27-~2/13 0.00 10.16
1020 581913 ~2/18/00 149 ~ 2204011 ~n*-*z~ 11/2~-12/13 0.00 54.31
1020 S81~13 12/18/00 149 ~ 6504800 ~-*-z-z~ 11/2~-12/13 0.00
1020 581~13 12/18/00 249 ~ 1100000 ~z ~ 11/2~-$2/~3 O.0O -0.10
1020 581913 ~2/18/00 149 ~ 1108601 ~-z ~ 11/27-12/13 O.00 153.34
~ 0.00 550.47
1020 581~14 12/22/00 4 A · A · 1108501 050175~182001 ~.~V 0.00 15.03
~020 5859~S ~2/22/00 10 ~ ~ RT.~ 1108303 ~Z~.2000 ~V 0.00 -140.59
~020 58~955 12/22/00 10 ~ ~ RT~ 1108314 ~Zg~.2000 ~Y O.00 102.~1
S81915 12/22/00 ~0 ~ ~ ~,~Z~ 1~08312 ~Zg ~.2000 ~V 0.00 22.13
~020 58~9~S $~/22/00 10 ~ ~ ~Z~ 5606640 ~Z~.2000
$020 S8~9~5 ~2/22/00 10 ~ ~ B~Z~ 1108503 ~Z~ ~.2000 ~V 0.00 -152.~5
~020 58~9~5 ~2/22/00 10 ~ ~ R~,R~Z~ ~108830 ~ZC ~.2000 S~V 0.O0 7016.g0
1020 5B~925 12/22/00 Z0 ~ ~ ~.~Z~ 1108602 ~ZC ~.2000 ~V 0.00 1073.58
1020 58~915 ~2/22/00 10 ~ ~ ~Z~ ~108511 ~ZC ~.2000 S~V 0.00 1~3.13
1020 581915 12/22/00 10 ~ ~ (g~Z~ 5606620 ~ZC ~.2000 S~V 0.00 ?0.~
1020 581915 12/22/00 10 ~ ~ (B~Z~ 110~504 ~Z~.2000 S~V 0.00 1302.91
1020 5~1915 12/22/00 10 ~ ~ (~T.~Z~ 110B506 ~ZC ~.2000 8~v 0,00 66.71
1020 581915 12/22/00 10 ~ ~ (E~X~ 110850? ~ZC ~.2000 S~V 0.00 362.91
· ~ ~K 0.00 10486.84
1020 581916 12/22/00 2099 A~S ZNC, 1104100 ~ZCK M/E 12/10 0.00 93.50
1020 581916 12/22/00 2099 ~S I~. 110~510 ~Z~ M/E 12/10 0.00 29~,50
~ ~ 0.00 391.00
1020 58191~ 12/22/00 13 ~ & S~S ~ZTATZ~ C 1108303 ~ 11/4-12/1 0.00 1086.60
1020 S81917 12/22/00 13 A~ & ~ ~TZ~ C 1108321 ~ 11/04-12/01 0.00 154,13
~ ~CK 0.00 1240.73
1020 581918 12/~2/00 18 ~OZL ~TZ~ 1108005 ~ DZS~ 12/18/00 0.00 4609.~3
1020 581919 12/22/00 29 ~ D~ ~ 5706450 8~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.O0 92.00
1020 581920 12/22[00 ~001 ~Z~1~ 550654~ ~Z~-B & ~ 0.00 154.00
1020 581921 12/22/00 ~001 ~ SO~ ~. 1100000 ~A~ ~ ~.~1~ 0.00 10.84
R~ DA'I~ 12/20/00 7I!~ 14~24~46 o P~JLMJCIAL ACCG~T/'HG
12/20/00 ~'L'Y 0~ ~U~EK*'~C) PAG~ 2
AC'C~Tb~Z~G P~.~OD: 6/01 ,~ ~Z~ - DZ~ ~
8~Z~ ~: ~=~ic~.~_~e ~c~en '~2/~8/2000" ~ '$2/22/2000'
~ - 11o - G~ ~
1020 581922 12/22/00 5V ~ 1104510 ~ ~ 0.00
1020 581923 12/22/00 904 ~'~ ~3655301 ~ ~CZ~8116223 0.00' 4058.V4
1020 581924 12/22/00 1367 C A P Z 0 1104300 ~P 1/0~ K.~Z~ 0.00 50.00
1020 S81924 12/22/00 136~ C ~ · Z O 1101200 ~P 1/09 ~.~ 0.00 S0.00
~ ~ O.00 100.00
1020 581925 12/22/00 14~6 ~Z~ 110 R~8606 ~ 0.00 3~?.56
1020 581925 12/22/00 1476 ~ ~I~ ~ 110 R~8553 ~ 0.00 982.44
~ ~ 0.00 1320.00
1020 581926 12/22/00 ~001 ~ ~ST & ~ 1100000 ~ ~ B.~Z~ 0.00 635.74
1020 581927 12/22/00 1460 ~Z ~O 6104800 ~ ~Z~ u~5 0.00 3250.00
1020 581928 12/22/00 148 ~ 1108]03 B~V. ~ 11[~V-12/15 O.00 2.V0
1020 581928 12/22/00 14~ ~ 6~08840 ~V. ~. 11/2~-12/1 0.00
1020 581928 12/22/00 148 ~ 1108315 8~V. ~ 11/2~-12/15 0.00 ?.10
1020 581928 12/22/00 14~ ~X 1108406 ~Y. ~ 11/2V-12/15 0.00
1020 581928 12/22/00 14B ~ 110840q 8~Y. ~ 11[27-12/15 0.00 23.54
1020 5~1928 12/22/00 1~ ~ 1108408 ~. ~ 11/27-12/15 0.00 71,01
1020 581928 12/22/00 148 ~ 110850~ 8~V. ~. 11/2~-1~/1 0.00 *'
1020 581928 12/22/00 14~ ~ 1108201 5~. ~ 11/2~-12/15 0.00
1020 5~1928 12/22/00 148 ~X 1108830 8~V. ~. 11[2~-12/1 0.G0 ~.65
1020 581928 12/22/00 14~ ~ 110840V G~Y. ~. 11/2q-12/1 0.DO 35.56
T~ ~CX 0.O0 18~.?5
1020 5~1929 12/22/00 105~ ~ZD~ ~Z~ ~VZC 110 *~ D~P 0.00 576.75
1020 5~1929 12[22/00 105V ~ZDZ~ B~EI~8 ~V~C 110 *~ ~ 0.00 ~1.99
T~ ~ECK 0.00 648.74
1020 ~81930 12/22/00 1156 ~ 110 ~ 0.00 124.50
1C2~ 581931 12/22/00 173 ~-~ B~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2000-20~10~ ~C 0,~0 204.60
1~20 5819~1 12/22/00 173 ~-~ ~Z~ OF ~ 5V06450 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 435.36
TOT~ ~CX 0.00
1020 581932 12/22/00 1194 ~SY~ 6~08840 ~ 2000=2001 O~ ~C 0.00 65.00
1020 581933 12/22/00 194 ~~ ~ 1108502 ~ ~000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 124.~
1020 5819~4 12/22/00 207 Dg~~ P~Z~Z~ 1101201 ~ ~Z~S 12/5 0.00 187.50
1020 5819~5 12/22/00 209 D~ ~ ~V~ ~C 4209118 8~C. 8~. 12/8 C. ~ 0.00 164.96
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 DB ~ ~Y~= I~ 5708510 ;~Z~Z~ 12/2000 0.00
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 ~ S~S ~ 1108501 ~ 12/2000 ~ 0.00 2568.~5
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 ~ ~ ~VI~ Z~ 110850~ ~ 12/2000 0.00 1790.8B
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 ~~ ~ 1108506 Z~ 12/2000 0.00 309.25
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 ~ ~ S~V~ X~ 1108407 ~X~Z~ 12/2000 S~ 0.00 942.68
1020 581935 12/22/00 209 DB ~ ~= Z~C 1108509 ;~Z~ 12/2000 0.00
R~I~ D~T~ 12/20/00 TZHE 14:24:47
].2/20/00 ¢~Y O~ ~T~O ~G~ 3
1020 5B1935 12/22/00 309 D~ ~ ~VZ~ ZffC ~10B504 ~Z~ 12/2000 0.00
1030 5B1936 12/22/00 ~001 D~, ~X~ 5506549 ~V. ~ 09 ~Y
1020 581938 12/22/00 222 D~ ~ 270~440 S~ ~ ~ 0.O0 12259.38
1020 581938 12/22/00 222 D~ ~ 4209524 11301998 0.00 6958.50
1020 581938 12/22/00 222 D~ ~S 4209526 11301998 0.00 1386.11
1020 581938 12/22/00 222 Dg ~8~ 2~09438 ~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 228.~1
~ ~ 0.00 20~32.80
1020 581939 12/22/00 225 ~ RZ~ ~FZ~ & ~ 4209206 ~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 8965.25
1020 581940 12/22/00 1397 ~ ~ ~ 5706450 8~ ~ ~ 0.00 92.00
1020 581941 12/22/00 242 ~ D~ ~ 110 SZT 0,00 14643.62
581942 12/22/00 243 ~'~- D~ 110 ~1 0.00 ~73.65
1020 581943 12/22/00 1949 ~ S~S 4209206 ~ 11/Z5-12/15 0.00 238.15
1020 581943 12/22/00 1949 ~ S~V~S 4209206 ~ 11/13-12/13 0.00 238.15
~ ~CK 0.00 476.30
1020 S81944 12/22/00 818 ~ D ~ FZ~ ~D 1108503 ~ S~V. ~Z~ ~. 0.00 139.10
1020 5R194S 12/22/00 ~00Z ~Z~/DB ~ B~T 1101031 3~ ~ PA~ 0.00 23351.00
IC2~ 501946 12/22/00 268 ~ ~ SE~Z~ ~S 1108303 P~TS/~ZRS 0.00 120.52
~:2: 591946 ~2/~2/oo 268 ~-~-~ ~ SE~Z~ ~ ~108407 ~Z~ 0.00 42.43
T~ ~ECK 0.00
1020 58~94q 12/22/00 ~00~ ~ S~ 5706450 P~ 0.00 92.33
~020 S8~48 ~2/:2/00 281 ~ S606640 P~TS/~ 0.00 493.48
1020 581948 :2/:2/00 281 ~ 6308840 ~ 2000-200~ o~ ~c 0.00 s0.27
1020 s81948 :2/~2/00 281 ~ 1108314 ~/~PLZ~ 0.00
· 0~ ~ 0.00 804.90
1020 581949 ~2/~2/oo ~001 ~ ~Z~ ZT 8~I~ 2708405 P~/~Z~ 0.00 367.67
~020 S81950 12/22/00 ~001 ~ 1108101 ~ ~Z~ ~ ' 0.00 15.00
· 020 S81951 ~2/~2/00 299 ~ ~ 2708405 ~ ~R 0.00 371.40
1020 sezosl 22/~2/00 298 ~ 1NC 1108504 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 200.G2
se~gs~ :2/~2/oo 298 ~ I~ 270840s p~/~z~ 0.00 406..32
DATE 12/20/00 T'r~ 14:24:47
12/20/00 CZTY OF ~3J..,,m~.'l-J. Ma PAGE 4
~ZNG PERZOD: 6/01 ~ P. EGI~,*i-tsA - DZSB~t~BJ~T ~
SELECTT(~ CRZ'I~RZA: r. rana&c:t.t:rans_dat:e between #12/18/2000' and '12/22/2000#
~ = 110 -Gm, t,l~,d~3,, ~
CASH ACCT Cll~C~ NO ZS~ DY .............. ~ ............. IR~/~/D~VT ..... DE~CRZPTZ01~ ...... ~v.~ TAX ~
TOTAL f"'Ul~CK 0.00 978.34
1020 581952 12/22/00 M2001 I~LP SMOG PAR'T# 8308840 PAR'TS/SUPPLZBS 0.00 298.S'/
1020 581953 12/22/00 328 ~ B~*HA,T~ 5*706450 SBRVZI'~ AG~EEII~iT FOR 0.00 284.50
1020 581954 12/22/00 329 ~9~l*~'~G CJHD~RG~/(D ~OPP *1108314 ~I~ZES 0. O0 82.03
1020 581955 12/22/00 1235 H'rG~MUC 'r-Xl~ Z~8OI~,J~CK 64145'/0 'r.'TD DEc.2n00 0.00 4992.15
1020 581955 12/22/00 1235 H'rG~L:~C V.TF~ /'1~0~C~ 110 nTl~ & A,D&D D~C.2000 0.00 "/300.80
~r~,~L (~C]C 0.00 12292.95
1020 581955 12/22/00 1898 ~C~'r~ 1108314 PY 2000-2001 O~ [R~.C~ 0.00 1010o50
1020 581955 12/22/00 1898 HORZ~,(~' 1108314 1~ 2000-2001 OPE~ P~..C 0.00 855.85
1020 581956 12/22/00 1898 ~P. TZ0~ 1108312 FY 2000o2001 OP~' P~tC 0.00 120.94
"I'C~AL C~C~ 0.00 2017.3,~
1020 581957 12/22/00 343 'r~ R~'T'[P..~,~I~ ~-45 110 **rc~ 0.00 8338.87
1020 581958 12/22/00 1242 I*NSTY-PRZHTS 1104100 #ZI~)GW EHVELOPE~ 0.00 3090.92
1020 581958 12/22/00 1242 I'HSTY-PRXNT*~ 1104530 pRTNTXNO ILMI'DB]'?.T~C~ 0.00 568.51
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3080.73
1020 981959 12/22/00 2024 ZHT~I, ~ O~ BLDG 1107503 "I'ltAZNI'NG 'TAPES 0.00 15
1020 581960 12/22/00 2231 DAVB KHAPP 1101200 TRAV'BL Rg'rl,~. 11/16-11 0.00 18'7.94
1020 581961 12/22/00 M2001 ~ A8~:OCZATRc: 110 R#7921 REF'G~D 0.00 500.00
1020 581962 12/22/00 2096 T. PATP-TCK SAMSRI~ LLC 1104100 CCHTI'RAC'T HOURS 0.00 1920.00
1020 581952 12/22/00 2086 I., pA'TRTCK SANSELL LT,,,C 1104100 MILRAGE REZf,~U~S~fl~IqT 0.00 53.38
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1983.35
1020 581963 12/22/00 1226 LA~DS' ~D COP~PO~AT~ SAL 1101000 CXTY L0~O APPAREL O.OO 543.75
1020 581964 12/22/00 392 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT 1101000 ~ D~S FOR '2001' 0.00 8504.00
1020 581965 12/22/00 2250 ' LOCATI(H~ ~pm CORP. 1103500 8UPPLXES 0.00 25.44
1020 581965 12/22/00 2260 LOCATX~ S01~D CORP. 1103500 SUPPLI~ 0.00 25.44
1020 581955 12/22/00 2260 LOCATX(H~ ~ CORP. 1103500 ~D~PLXES 0.00 -25.44
TOTAL C~CK 0.00 25.44
1020 581956 12/22/00 2232 LO~D~S CA~IAGA 110 CS~A~NS~T 0.00 306.50
1020 581966 12/22/00 22~2 LOOP. DES CA~IAC~A 110 ~SGA~q~T 0.00 103.04
TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 410. J4
1020 581967 12/22/00 1378 ~TCAp~O MARTINBZ 5708450 FY 2000-2001 OP~ P~HC '~ 0.00 173.71
1020 581967 12/22/00 1378 p.'r~ NART~Z 5706450 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PU~.~' 0.00 314.44
1020 581967 12/22/00 1378 RXCAB,DO MP, RT/:HBZ S?06450 FY 2000-2001 OPEN P~RC 0.00 125.00
TOTAL C~BCK 0.00 613.15
DATE 12/20/00 71~ 14:24:48 - FINANCIAL ACCO~T~
-'/7
12/20/00 CITY OF COI'~LTI~O PJ~G~ 5
ACCO~HTXMG ~R~OD: 6/01 ~ ~I~'~ - DZ~ ~
1020 58196B 12/22/00 1602 ~1~ ~ 1100000 ~T.~A~IT~T 0.00 1250.00
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 110~500 Y132642~ ~. 5/1-S/3 0.00 0.95
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1104000 ~326426 ~. 5/1-5/] 0.00 9.~5
1020 5~19~0 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 5706450 ~326426 ~. 5/1-5/~ 0.00 1.~
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1101200 ~1326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 ~.00
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~l ~ 1104100 ~326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.0~ 19.66
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1104300 ~26426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 3.93
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1104400 Y1326426 ~. 5/1-5/~ 0.00 2.~
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~l ~ 1106500 Y1126426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 7.82
1020 5819~0 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1108~01 ~326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 12.]3
1020 5B1970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1101500 ~]26426 ~. 5/1-5/] 0.00 6.98
1020 5~1970 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1107~01 ~326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 23.20
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1108001 Y1326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 14.31
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1104530 ~326~26 ~, 5/1-5/3 0.00 10.29
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1104510 ~326426 ~T.U, 5/1-5/3 0.00 11.92
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1101000 Y1326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 5.22
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1107501 ~326426 ~, 5/1-5/3 0.00 11.07
1020 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1103300 ~326426 ~, 5/1-5/3 0.00 0.47
'~' 581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1106265 Y1326426 ~. 5/1-5/3 0.00 24.39
581970 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 5606620 Y1326426 ~m. 5/1-5/3 0.00 5.~3
~ ~CK 0.00 228.86
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1106500 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 1.95
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1108001 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.0O 14.44
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1108503 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 18.55
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1107501 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 9.46
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1103500 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 15.32
1:2~ 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1101000 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 2.34
102C ~81972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1101200 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.0O 5.83
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1101500 ~326426 ~.~. 11/1-11 0.00 13.84
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 5?06450 Y1326~26 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 3.83
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 5606620 Y1326426 ~. 11/1oll 0.00 3.31
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1108602 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 8.10
1020 5819~2 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1103300 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 0.18
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1104100 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 26.53
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1104300 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 6.84
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~Z ~ 1104400 Y1326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 0.~0
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1104510 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 6.33
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~ ~ 1104530 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 *0.00 16.98
1020 581972 12/22/00 1292 ~I ~ 1106265 ~326426 ~. 11/1-11 0.00 18.08
~ ~ 0.00 196.09
,*~ 581973 12/22/00 900 ~ZTI-MZY~-~i~ 1108503 ~~C 0.00 19141421
R~ DATB 12/20/00 TZ~ 14:24:49
12/20/00 CTTY OF ,,.3ar.,~RTTNO PAGR 6
ACCO~HTZ'NG PERIOD: 5/01 r-.,~."K P.,.KGI~,L~. o DTSB~LS~IT 9~JlD
5ELECTZO~ CRI-~'~AZA: ~.rmn~acr..r. ranft_dar, e be~'ween "12/18/2000" and "12/22/2000"
~ - 110 - GB/q~L ~
~ASH ~ ~ ~0 TSSU~ ~ .............. ~ ............. L~IZ)/DZ~T ..... DESC~TpTT0~ ...... ~V.m~ TAX *I~IOF, JH~
1020 581974 12/22/00 437 hi~*L'AO HBJISPAPEP~ 1104300 FY 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 50.00
1020 5819?4 12/22/00 437 ~'~ ~SP~ 1104300 ~ 2000'2001 O~ ~C 0.00 52.50
~ ~ 0.00 102.50
1020 581975 12/22/00 443 ~T-T.~Z~ ~Z~ ZX 1108503 ~ O~ ~1-~ ~ 0.00 2375.00
1020 5819~6 12/22/00 940 ~Z~ ~ Z~ 6308840 ~Z~ 0.00 7.64
1020 581976 12/22/00 940 ~Z~ ~ 1~ 6308840 ~ 0.00 89.46
~ ~ 0.00 9~.10
1020 581977 12/22/00 447 ~881~ ~ ~ 1108201 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 76.57
1020 5819~ 12/22/00 447 ~SSZ~ ~ ~ 1108201 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 81.04
· O~ ~ 0.00 157.61
1020 581978 12/22/00 471 ~ TZ~ auF~Y ~ 6308840 P~/~Z~ 0.00 11.22
1020 581979 12/22/00 302 ~TI~ ~ ~ 110 *~T*L ~F 0.00 15811.30
1020 581980 12/22/00 495 OFFZ~ ~.~ 1104300 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 203.79
1020 581981 12/22/00 501 O~TZ~ ~1~ ~3 110 ~ ~ 0.00 484.75
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ ~ ~ 1108504 T~/~ 0.00 ~0
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ ~ ~:O~ 1108501
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ 0~0~ ~:~ 1108314 ~R/~*~'~ 0.00 2521.S0
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ ~ D~:~ 1108303 ~/~L-~ 0.00 485.00
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ ~ D~:~ 1108303
1020 581982 12/22/00 507 ~ ~ D~:~ 1107503 ~/~*~'~ 0.00 465.00
TOi~ ~ECK 0,00 5554.10
1C2O ~81983 12/22/00 833 P E R S 110 P~ 1959 0.00 79,0S
102C 58198~ 12/22/00 833 P E R S 110 *~ B~K 0.00 394.68
1~2: 581983 ~2/22/00 833 P E R S 110 *~ B~K 0.00 393.98
1:21 581983 12/22/00 833 P E R S 110 ~ ~K 0.00 6V.68
1:2: ~91983 ~2/22/00 833 P B R 8 110 ~ S~C 0.00 108.76
102~ 581983 ~2/22/00 833 P B R B 110 ~ ~Y 0.00 21589.51
~ ~ 0.00 22633.66
1020 S81984 ~2/22/00 833 P B R S 1104511 ~Z ~ ~ 0.00 3980.SS
~020 58~985 ~2/22/oo 510 P.D.M. ~ 1108303 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 139.33
~020 58~985 ~2/22/oo 51o P.D.M. ~ 1108314 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 139.33
~020 58~985 ~2/22/00 510 P.D.M. ~,',~ ~08503 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 139.33
1020 S81985 12/22/00 510 P.D.M. ~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 139.32
~ ~ 0.00 557.31
102~ S81987 ~2/22/00 515 P~IFZC ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108506 ~/FZ~
~020 SO~08~ ~2/22/00 515 P~IFIC ~T SB~I~ ~ 1108504 F~ ~. ~.2001 0.00 199.00
1020 581987 ~2/22/00 S~S P~1FIC ~ ~I~ ~ 1108511 ~/FI~ ~S. ~.2001 0.00 132.00
1020 581987 12/22/00 515 P~IFIC ~ ~I~ IN 110850~ ~. ~s. J~.2001 0.00 00
RUN DATE 12/20/00 TT~ 14:24.'49 - FIi13%NCIAL Aq..~.3.;udTING
· ~"COUH~Z]IG p~9.ZOD: 6/01 ~Z~z'~ - DZ~
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 5819~ 12/22/00 515 D~Z~ZC~8B~Z~ ~1108504 EZ~ ~S. ~.2001 0.00 199.00
1020 5819B~ 12/22/00 S1S ~Z~ZC ~ B~ ~ 1108S06 SBC/~Z~ BY~. ~.~001 0.00 4S.00
1020 5819BV 12/22/00 SiS 9~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ Z~ 110BS03 ~. 1~/06 0.00 100.00
1020 58198~ 13/22/00 SiS 9~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ ZB 110~S0~ ~C. ~Z~ ~S. ~.200 0.00 1SS.00
1020 S81~8~ 12/22/00 SIS ~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ Z~ 1108S0~ SB~. B~S. ~.2001 O.00 3~.00
1020 58198~ 12/22/00 515 9~ZC~8B~Z~ ~ 110850~ ~C. ~Z~ ~S. v~.200 0.00 1SS.00
1020 5B19B~ 12/22/00 51S 9~ZC ~ SB~Z~ ~ 110BS03 ~V. 1~/0S 0.00 VS.00
1020 58198V 12/22/00 515 ~YZC~B~Z~ ~110B504 ~Z~ ~. ~.2001 0.00 19D.00
1020 5B198~ 12/22/00 SiS 9~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ ZR 110~S0~ ~C. SYS. ~.2001 0.O0 3V.00
1020 5819B~ 12/2~/00 SiS 9~Z~ZC ~ Hg~Z~ ~ 110BS06 8BC/~Z~ ~.2001 0.00 45.00
1020 S8198~ 12/22/00 51S ~Z~ZC ~ SB~ Z~ 1108511 S~/~Z~ ~S. ~.3001 0.00 132.00
1020 S~198~ 12/22100 515 9~Z~ZC~g~Z~ Z~ 1Z08S0~ ~. ~Z~ ~. ~.200 0.00 1~5.00
1020 S819B~ 12/22/00 51S ~Z~Z~ ~Z~ ~ 1108Sll ~/~Z~ ~G. ~.2001 0.00 ~6.00
1020 581987 12/22/00 515 P~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ ZN 1108511 ~/PZ~ ~S. ~.2001 O.00 GG.00
1020 58198? 12/22/00 SIS P~Z~ZC ~ ~Z~ IN 1108508 BBC. ~. ~.2001 0.00 35.00
1020 581~87 12/22/00 515 P~Z~ZC ~ SB~Z~ ~ 1108508 BK. ~. ~.2001 0.00 35.00
1020 581987 12/22/00 515 P~Z~ZC~Z~ ~ 1108508 SZC. ~B. ~.2001 0.00 35.00
1020 581987 12/22/00 515 P~Z~ZC~SB~Z~ ~ 1108501 ~Z~ ~S. ~.2001 0.00 118.00
1020 58198~ 12/22/00 515 P~IC ~ SB~I~ ~ 1108511 H~/~Z~ ~S, ~.2001 0.00 132.00
1020 581987 12/22/00 515 P~C ~ JB~Z~ ZN 1108501 ~Z~ ~. ~.2001 0.00 118.00
1020 581987 12/~2/00 515 P~Z~IC ~ BB~Z~ ZX 1108511 8~V. ~ 11/16 0.00 16.24
1020 58198? 12/2~/00 S15 9~C ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108511
~ S81987 12/22/00 515 P~Z~/C~ SS~Z~ ZN 1108501 ~Z~ ~S. ~,2001 0.00 118.00
: ~ ~ 0.00 2552.24
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A 1108201 12199 ~L-~Z ~B 2 0.00 SS.00
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A' 1108201 13813 ~Z~ ~S 2 0.00 55.00
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A 1108201 29334 ~ ~ 2/6 0.00 55,00
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 9~A 1108201 13813 ~Z~Z ~ 1 0.00 55.00
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A 1108201 21410 ~ ~S 2/ 0.00 55.00
1020 S81988 12/22/00 1952 P~ 1108201 21193 O~ ~S 1/24 0.00 SS.GO
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A 1108201 29334 ~ ~S 1/24 0.00 55.00
1020 581988 12/22/00 1952 P~A 1108201 12199 ~a'L-z'Z ~ i 0.00 55.00
T~ ~ O.O0 440.00
1020 581989 12/22/00 533 p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 110
1020 581990 12/22/00 535 ~='~-~-~ ~ Z~ 6~08840 P~/~Z~ 0.00 220.16
1020 581991 12/22/00 S41 ~ PZ~ 5705450 S~ ~ ~ O.00 420.00
1020 S81992 12/22/00 543 ~ 1108201 ~y~g~ 0~B V~ 0.00 ~40.79
1020 581993 1~/2~/00 164~ ~'~'~ 1104310
1020 5~1994 12/22/00 1186 ~ ~'*'~ 5506549 ~ 0.00 111.S0
1020 5~1995 12/22/00 913 ~ZC ~Z~ ~ 1103500 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 4~5.00
1020 581996 12/22/00 2105 ~ ~LZ~Z~ 1108101 ~G~Z~'~ 0.00 149.89
DATE 12/20/00 TI'~ 14:24:50 -
~-SO
12/20/00 CZTY O~ CLTPBRT/)iO
ACCOOHTZNG PER, Z00: 6/01 CHBCKREQZa-~,n,k - DZSB*U~,.SBMBHTLU~]~)
SB~Z~C'~XO~ C~Z'I~Z~: C~acc.c~_~ce ~c~en s12/16/2000" ~ "12/22/2000"
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 58199~ 12/22/00 ~001 ~Z~ O~ ~Z~ T 1104000 ~ ~-1 ~ E~ 0.00 25.00
1020 581998 12/22/00 1071 ~XC~C 11088]0 ~ 0.00
1020 5~1998 12/22/00 1071 ~ZC ~1C 110~830 ~R/~ 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 4727.00
1020 58199~ 12/22/00 600 ~-~ S~ S~C 110~401 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 99.00
1020 582000 Z2/22/00 602 R~ ~ ~ 5506549 ~ ~ 10/1 0.00
1020 S82001 12/22/00 2043 R~S ~ ~ 1108503 TX~/~ 0.00 125.00
1020 582001 12/22/00 204] R~'B ~ ~ 1108504 TX~/~ 0.00
1020 582001 12/22/00 204] R~'B ~T~ 110~506 ~/~ 0.00 4~0.00
~ ~ 0.00 1000.00
1020 582002 12/22/00 606 ~ R~ 5706450 B~VX~~ ~ 0.00 184.00
1020 582003 12/22/00 61q ~ ~ ~ 110 ~7845 ~ 0.00
1020 ~2004 12/22/00 6~] ~ ~ ~ S~ 1102100 V~X~Y ~AZL 0.00 5266.99
1020 552005 12/22/00 639 ~B~ 4209206 S~VX~ ~ ~R 0,00 10000.00
1020 582006 12/22/00 ~001 ~, ~X~ (~) 2150000 R~61~0/6169 ~ 0.00
1020 582006 12/22/00 ~001 a~, ~X~ (~) 110 R~6170/R~6169 ~ 0.00 20~k.00
1020 582006 12/22/00 ~001 ~, ~ (~} 1100000 R~7271 ~ 0.00 ]12.00
~ ~CK 0.00 2797.00
1020 582007 12/22/00 ~001 ~, ~ 110 R~151~ ~ 0.00 2500.00
1020 582008 ~2/22/00 166~ ~ ~ 1104~00 ~ ~I~ 12/5-12/ 0.00 491.18
1c2o 582009 12/22/00 67? ~A~ ~ ~ & ~ 110 *~ ~F 0.00 1553.06
1:2: 582010 12/22[00 529 ~ ~TZ~, ZNC 6104~00 ~TA ~Z~ ~. 2000 0.00 220.73
1020 5~2011 12/22/00 690 S~ F~ 6308840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 12.19
1020 582011 12/22/00 690 ~ ~ 63088~0 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 75.4?
T~ ~CK 0.00 8?.66
~020 S020~2 ~2/22/00 699 T~ ~ I~ 1108504 ~PLIBS 0.00 59.10
~020 S820~3 ~2/22/00 ~001 ~* ~TZ~ 110 R~6970 ~ 0.00 9675~00
1020 5820~4 12/22/00 1993 ~ OF ~ ~ 110 M~ ~Z ~ 5663981 0.00 161.54
1020 582015 12/22[00 717 P~ ~ ~ 23080~ S~ ~ ~ ~0.00 16~.31
1020 582016 ~2/22/00 1836 ~ ~Y ~ ~ S7064S0 ~ 2000-200~ O~ ~C 0.00 307.66
1020 582017 ~2/22/00 1154 ~I~Y OF ~ ~ 110 ~Z~MAY 0.00 ~S
ltt~DA~ 12/20/00 ~ 14:24:50 - FX~ICZALACCO~FfX~3
,~-~'/
1020 582018 12/22/00 749 VISA 1101000 ~ kts~-J.-ZHGS 0.00 131.31
1020 502018 12/22/00 749 VISA 1101200 I~'~B'ZOH CO~'. 0.00 594.00
TOTAT, CHECK 0.00 725.31
1020 582019 12/22/00 749 VZSA 1103300 CHAJ~GRS 11/09-12/10 0.00 29.4~
~020 5820~9 ~2/22/oo v49 VI~ 1101000 ~g; ~/oo-~2/~o 0.00 1304.86
1020 582019 ~2/22/oo 749 VZ~ 1101200 ~; 11/09-12/10 0.00 186.00
~020 5820~9 ~2/22/00 749 ~ 1103500 ~ ~/09-~2/~0 0.00 3~5.00
~020 S820~ ~2/22/00 V49 ~ 1101201 ~= 11/09-12/10 0.00 22.35
1020 S82019 12/22/00 749 VI~ 1104300 ~ ~I/~9-12/10 0.00 12.99
1020 S82019 12/22/00 749 ~ 11O3300 ~ 11/09-12/10 0.00 346.81
~ ~ 0.00 2219.50
~020 882020 12/22/00 ~49 ~ 1104300 ~ ~Z ~ 0.00 56.90
1020 582020 ~2/22/oo 749 VZ~ 1104001
1020 582020 ~2/22/oo 749 ~ 1102100 ~ ~ 0.00 43.90
· 020 88202~ ~2/22/00 7~9 ~-L1~ ~Y ~ ~ ~08804
~020 882022 ~2/22/00 774 ~ HZ~Y ~ 2708403 P~TS/~Z~ 0.00
882023 12/22/00 781 ~ ~ 5706450 ~V~ ~ ~ 0.00 276.00
~020 S82024 ~2/22/00 951 ~ ~Y 1108303 ~ 0.00 21S.84
~020 582028 ~2/22/oo 1131 CZ~ ~ 1107301 ~. ~ ~SOC. ~ 0.00 445.92
~020 582026 ~2/22/00 792 LI~Y ~ 5706450 ~ ~ F~ 0.00 138.00
1020 582027 ~2/22/00 805 ~T ~ ~ ~08602 S~z~ ~ ~ 0.00 2S0S.S1
~02~ 582027 ~2/22/00 805 ~T ~1~ ~ 1108601 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 22~2.49
102G ~8202~ 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~ ~ 2709443 B~ ~ ~ 0.00 202~.00
1C2: 582027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~ ~ 2709438 ~ ~ ~R 0.00 312.00
102~ 58202V 12/22/00 805 ~T ~l~Z~ ~ 4209525 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 308.88
1020 582027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~l~ ~ 2709437 S~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 683.00
1020 582027 12/22/00 80S ~T ~b~ ~ 4209524 11301998 0.00 543.40
1020 ~82027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~ZH~Z~ ~ 4209529 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 492.00
1020 S82027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~X~ ~ 2709413 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 494.00
1020 58202~ 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~Z~ ~ 2709413 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 416.00
1020 582027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~ ~ 2~09531 ~C ~ ~ 0.00 264~.90
1020 582027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~ ~ 2709532 ~ ~ ~ FZ~ 0.00 531,50
~020 582027 12/22/00 805 ~T ~IH~AZ~ ~ 4209527 ~ZC ~ ~ 0.00 1721.26
1020 58202~ 12/22/00 805 ~T ~Z~ ~ 4209528 ~C ~ ~ 0.00 2386.21
· o~ ~ 0.0o 17343. IS
~ ~ ~ 0.00 30743~.T1
~ ~ 0.00 ' 30~43~.71
R~ DATE 12/20/00 TZ~ 14=24t51 - FZilAiiCZ,M, ACC0~ITZ]~}
RT.~ DA~ 12/20/00 TI:J~
RESOLUTION NO. 01-005
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
December 29, 2000
WHEREAS, the Director of Aflmlnistrative 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 d~mands 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 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
13/27/00 CITY O~ COP~TTNO
ACCOUNTING P~I~XOD: 5/01 (~ECK I~IST~]~ - DI~B~iI~NT
~LECTI~ C~XTJ~XA: =r~sac=.~r~_~=e ~c~n "12/25/2000' m~ "12/29/2000'
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 582028 12/29/00 2161 ~:~ OF ~Y ~ G 1104540 D~.2000 M.~. ~.F 0.00 827.26
1020 582029 12/29/00 28 ~ 11088]0 0.00 181.89
1020 582030 12/29/00 29 L~ D~ AZT~ 5806449 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 46.00
~020 5e20]~ 12/29/00 ~884 ~T~S-~ D~VZ 5806349 ~Z~ 0.00 46.4~
1020 5820~1 12/29/00 =8e4 ~T~-~ DIVZ 5806349 ~I~ 0.00 28.92
1020 5820~1 12/29/00 1884 ~-~ D~ 5806~&9 ~I~ 0.00 47.52
1020 5820~1 12/29/00 1884 ~TB~-~R~ D~ 5806349 ~ 0.00 48.64
1020 582031 12/29/00 1884 ~-~ D~I 5806~49 ~ 0.00 22.2~
1030 582031 12/29/00 ~8B4 ~-~ D~ 5B06~49 ~ 0.00 48.02
1020 582031 12/29/00 1884 ~-~ DI~ 5606680 ~ 0.00
1020 582031 12/29/00 1884 ~TS~-~ DIVI 5805349 ~B 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 316.60
1020 582032 12/29/00 720 ~r~ ~Y~ Z~0BS0~ P~T~/~Z~ 0.00 248.98
1020 58203~ 12/29/00 85 ~Y ~ ~ 1108502 ~I~ ~ 1/01-4/01/ 0.00 675.00
1020 582034 12/29/00 ~001 ~I ~wa-~TI~ 6308840 ~I~ 0.00 ~24.~5
1020 S820~5 12/29/00 100 ~I ~I~ SY~ 1104300 ~ 2000-2001 OP~ ~C 0.00 ~'' 90
1020 582036 12/29/00 106 ~Z~ WI~mT.~$/~IO ~ 1108501 8~/S~I~S 0.00 7~A.95
1020 582037 12/29/00 872 B~ ~I~S 4249210 ~DZTI~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 2740.25
1020 S82037 12/29/00 872 B~ ~I~S 4249210 ~B ~ ~5 7/18/2 0.00
1020 582037 12/29/00 872 ~ ~I~S 4249210 ~Z~ ~ 0.00 163.]V
1020 582037 12/29/00 872 ~ ~I~S 4249210 TSF ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 410.30
TOT~ ~CK 0.00 3]92.59
102C SS20~8 12/29/00 ~001 B~, ~ A S~ 1104540 ~ ~/G~. LI~ZL O.00 3881.06
102C 5420~9 12/29/00 122 ~ ~ 5806449 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 641.T0
1020 5~2040 12/29/00 147 ~H 4209216 ~OR ~. ~P~SI~ 0.00 ~6.01
1020 552040 12/29/00 147 ~H 5506549 ~ ~. ~IP 0.00
1020 5~2040 12/29/00 147 ~H 1106500 ~I~ ~. ~ 0.00 33.2~
1020 5~2040 12/29/00 14~ ~H 5506549 ~I~ ~. BI~ 0.0O 4.98
1020 5~2040 12/29/00 14~ ~H 5506549 ~ ~. ~I~ 0.00
1020 582040 12/29/00 147 ~H 5506549 ~ ~. ~I~ 0.00
1020 S82041 12/29/00 150 ~ ~ a ~I~l 4209530 ~I~ OF NI~SS SZG 0.00 289~.50
1020 582042 12/29/00 140q ~I~ ~ TI~ 6~08840 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 40.00 660.35
1020 5~2043 12/29/00 1579 ~&~ ~-N-~ ~ 4249210 ~&~ F-30 ~ DBC.2 0.00 217.00
1020 582044 12/29/00 676 DBP~ OF ~Z~ 1104510 F~Z~ S~VZ~ 0.00 00
12/27/00 TZ~ 14:3S:37 - FZHMIC~,AL ,ACC:O~HT/'NG
1020 562045 12/25/00 233 B(~]~IC~]~I"V~SC~OOL 5006249 S~tVXC~~ ~ 0.00 2640.00
X020 552046 12/29/00 229 ET-~C'A'ItXC~J., DXS'~.XBU'A"O~B XX08830 ~ 2000-2001 O~ ~C 0.00 X~.46
X020 58204? 12/29/00 ~OOX FX~XC, ~X~ 580 ~C. ~ 0.00 4].00
1020 582048 12/29/00 274 ~Y'S ~ 1108201 ~ ~Xm~*~ 0.00 162.~6
1020 582049 12/29/00 281 ~ 5606620 ~X~ 0.00 53.96
1020 582050 12/29/00 1942 ~ ~ 6104~00 ~ ~N.~ 1/18/99 0.00 1790.00
1020 582051 12/29/00 1335 ~I~ ~S 5806249 ~VI~ ~*' ~ 0.00 50.37
1020 582052 12/29/00 1158 ~ ~/~~ 1101500 ~~ 0.00 104.95
1020 58205~ 12/29/00 ~001 ~, ~ 580 ~. ~ 0.00 64.00
1020 582054 12/29/00 328 ~~ 5806449 S~VI~ ~ FOR 0.00 46.00
1020 582055 12/29/00 2126 ~-~C 1104510 ~ 11/1,11/15, 11/29 0.00 330.00
582056 12/29/00 ~001 ~, ~-~ 580 ~C. ~ 0.00 591.60
1020 582057 12/29/00 1242 INS~-~ 110~510 ~F.~TI~ 0.00 489.T1
1020 582057 12/29/00 1242 ~-~ 1101000 B.~ u=~-*'~0 0.00 57.60
~ ~ 0.00 54~.31
1020 582058 12/29/00 1657 ~B~I~'S P~ SB 1106500 VI~BOS ~/~ 12/10 0.00
1020 582058 12/29/00 1657 JOSB~I~'S ~ SE 1106265 VI~ W/E 12/10 0.00 ~66.70
~ ~ 0.00 733.40
1020 582059 12/29/00 363 uVa~ ~Y S~ ~ 5806449 S~VI~ ~ ~R 0.00 2958.50
1020 582060 12/29/00 ~001 ~T, ~ 580 ~C. ~ 0.00 19.00
~020 582061 12/29/00 810 ~Y ~ 1104510 ~ DI~I~ ~ I 0.00 1350.00
1020 582062 12/29/00 165~ LI~ ~-~ P C ~104511 ~Z VS CI~ ~P~ 0.00 25.00
1020 582063 12/29/00 1356 ~'n~ ~ & ~ Z~04510 ~L=~TI~ 0.00 196.45
1020 582064 12/29/00 1780 ~ ~~ ~ 4209114 8~ ~'~/~ 0.00 1T56T.00
1020 582064 12/29/00 1TB0 ~Y ~I~ ~ 4249210 ~IC~ ~ 0.00 2521~2.40
1020 582065 12/29/00 12~8 ~ ~ 6104800 P~S/~ DRI~ 0.00 2~.59
1020 582066 12/29/00 940 Ml~I~ ~ ~ 6309820 2 ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 ~44~.50
-'~ 582066 12/29/00 940 MI~IT~ ~ 110~]12 ~ 3.5 ~ 0.00 1262,20
DATE 12/2T/00 T~ 14:25:38
12/27/00 CITY OF ~:YP~.TXNO PAGE 3
~'COT~ITXNG P~IOD: 6/01 (:I~CI( 1~01~ - DISB~ ~
~ ~ 0.00 9705.70
1020 58206~ 12/2~/00 1550 ~S L ~Z~ 1103500 S~VZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 315.00
2020 582068 ~2/29/00 487 ~R~ ~Y~ Z107405 P~/~[~ O.00 42.76
1020 582069 12/29/00 505 ~Z ~ 6308840 P~S/~Z~S 0.D0 41.14
2020 582070 12/29/00 $Z1 P~Z~ZC Bg~ 1108501 ~C.16 S~A~ 0.00 ~.61
Z020 5820~ 12/29/00 526 ~ZX~ ~ 110 ~ ~8582 0.0O 697.00
Z02O 502072 12/29/00 545 ~ PZS~ZO 5606640 ~ ~ ~ i 0.00 1790.00
1020 582073 12/29/00 61~ ~ ~OSB B~ 110 ~ R~7845 0.00 327.04
1020 582074 12/29/00 2112 ~ 1106400 ~ZP F~ ~R 20 0.00 30.00
1020 582075 12/29/00 1636 ~A ~ ~ ~ZFF 1104510 FZ~ ~VZ~ 0.00 24.00
1020 582076 12/29/00 Z722 S~-Z~ ~S 1104540 M.~.~ ~S~ 0.00 641.27
1020 582077 12/29/00 1749 ~S~ 1104510 ~C.S~ l~.
1020 58207~ 12/29/00 Z749 ~SOCIA~ 1104510 ~C.S~H.R. ~ 0.00 12 3
1020 582077 12/29/00 1749 S~SOCZA~ 1104510 ~C. S~ P~/~C. 0.00 25U~.07
T~ ~CK 0.00 20217.72
1020 582078 12/29/00 2051 SZ~T ~ZSgS, INC. 6308840 ~.~ 11/1-11/30 0.00 117.00
1020 582079 12/29/00 651 SZ~ PACZFZC ~ uu,P 5606640 ~Z~S 0.00 347.~0
1020 5820~9 12/29/00 651 SI~ P~ZFZC ~ ~P 5606640 ~P~ZES 0.00 82.92
1020 5820q9 12/29/00 651 SZB~ PACZFZC ~F ~P 5606640 S~PLZES 0.00 87.31
TOT~ ~C~ 0.00 517.93
1~2: 5~2080 12/29/00 87V S~ L~ER ~ 1108501 ~PLZES/~RI~ 0.00 191.10
1020 ~82081 12/29/00 1954 S~Z~ ~TZ~ 1107301 ~ N/E 12/03 0.00 1080.00
1020 5~2081 12/29/00 1954 S~I~ ~R~TZ~ 1107301 ~ M/B 12/10 0.00
~T~ ~ 0.00 1944.00
1020 582082 12/29/00 678 S~ZD~ ~ A SI~S 1108201 ~ZES 0.00 226.95
1020 582083 12/29/00 684 ~ ~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 115.00
1020 582084 12/29/00 695 ~S~ ~ S~VZ~S OF S 5506549 ~F~ ~ S~ZOR ~. 0.00 442.40
1020 5820~5 12/29/00 709 ~ ~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~ ~0.00 246.50
1020 582086 12/29/00 712 ~ ~Z~ ~ ~606640 ~VZ~ 0.00 25.1~
1020 582086 12/29/00 712 ~ ~ ~ 6]08840 ~Z~/~ 0.00 191~.56
~ ~ 0.00 1'
RU~ D,~TE 12/27/00 Tt'~ 14;35:36 - FZIQ~,NCZJtL &CC. Ctv~ITING
-57
~2/27/00 CTI~ OF CU~TZ~O ~ 4
~CCO't~TI'I~iG PSRZOD: 6/0~ ~ ~Z~ - DZ~ ~
1020 S82087 12/29/00 725 ~Z~ ~Z~ Z~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 19960.00
1020 582088 12/29/00 ~001 ~p~, ~ S~0 ~C. ~ 0.00 42.50
1020 582090 12/29/00 749 VZ~ 5506549 ~ ~l~ 0.00 2S2.07
1020 5820~1 12/29/00 1939 NZ~ A ~.T.y ~TZ 2709443 ~ZC ~ ~ 0.O0 128.30
~ ~H X~ 0.00 361353.82
~ ~ 0.00 ~61353. ~2
~ ~T 0.00 361353. ~2
RT.I~ DA'I"E 12/27/00 TZI,~ 14:35:38 - FZHANCZAL ~TNG
i
RESOLUTION NUMBER Ol-O08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE ~S AS HEREINAFTER DESCRmED FOR SALARIES
AND WAGES PAW) ON
DECEMBER 08, 2000
WHEREAS, the Director of Adwlnlstrafive Services, or their designated representative
has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availabihty off-ands
for payment hereof; and
WHE~S, 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 $361,667.43
Less Employee Deductions $( 11 $,227.76)
NET PAYROLL $246,439.67
Payroll check numbers issued 51070 through 51293
Void check number
'~Z:~IFIED:
Dii'ector of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED 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 Cup~ino
RESOLUTION NUMBER 01-oo9
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 DESCI~rRED FOR SALAR]F.S
AND WAGES pan') ON
DECEMBER 22, 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 mounts and from the funds set forth:
GROSS PAYROLL $356,036.91.
Less Employee Deductions $( 117,491.49)
NET PAYROLL $238,545.42
Payroll check numbe~ issued 51284 through 51482
Void check number
CERTIFIED:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this __ day of ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
RESOLUTION NUMBER 01-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE 1N THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES
AND WAGES pArD ON
JANU~Y 05, 2001
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative
has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds
for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law;
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the
following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth:
GROSS PAYROLL $381,890.22
Less Employee Deductions $(134,249.71)
NET PAYROLL $247,640.51
Payroll cheek numb~sa issued 51483 through 51672
Void cheek number
D~reetor of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this ~ day of ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED: ..
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City I Mil
103{X) Torrc Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
~ (408) 777-3212
CITY OF vax: (40s) 777-3366
CUPERTINO
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM NUIVIBER t~ AGENDA DATE ~> !-/6 - o !
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License.
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Business: Ikenohana
Location: 20625 Alves Drive
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place
_ Reason for Application: Person to Person Transfer
RECOMMENDATION
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use, and staff has
no objection to the isst~__~_nce of the license.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Ciddy Woi'dell, City Planner David Knapp, City Manager
G:planning/misc/nbclkcnohana
State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
ABC 211 (6/99)
TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number. 371928
100 Paseo de San Antonio Receipt Number: 1306399
Room ! 19 Geographical Code: 4.303
San Jose, CA 95113 Copies Mgiled Date: November 15, 2000
(408)277-1200
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: S,~N .IOSF.
First Owner: CUI~RTINO I'K~NOI~tNA LI.,C
Name of Business: IKR-NOIIANA
Location of Business: 2062~ ALVES DR
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
County: SANTA CLARA
Is premise inside city limits? Yes
Mailing Address:
(If different from
premises address)
Type of license(s): 47
Transferor's license/name: 354535 /IKENOHANA JAI~ Dropping Partner: Yes No ~
License Type Transaction Type Fee Type Mn~'ter 12~ Date Fee
47 ON-Sbt.~. GENERAL I PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF P40 Y 0 1 1 / 15 / 0 0 $1,250.00
47 ON-SALE GENERAL I ANNUAL t-t~ P40 Y 0 1 i / 15/00 $695.00
30 TEMPORARY PERMI DUPLXCATE NA N I 1 1 / I 5/0 0 $100.00
47 ON-SALE GENERAL ] STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 3 1 1 / 15/00 $117.00
Total $2,162.00
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No
Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the
Department pertaining to the Act? No
Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on nn attachment which shell bo denmed part of this ul~lication.
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the
qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the
pre, visions of t~e Alcoholi-~ Beverage Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: November 15, 2000
Under penslty of perju~, each person whose sismure nppen~ below, ca~ffior and saya: (I) Hu is an applicant, or onn of the applicants, or an
executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing &pplication. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf: (2) that
he has read the foregoing ned knows the cenmnts thereof and that each of the abow sta2ments the~in made are true: (3) thet no person other
than the applicant or applicants has any ~iract or indict interest in th~ al~iicent or applicant's businesa to bo conducted under the license(s) for
which this application is made: (4) thet the transfer application or t~lm~d Unn~or ia not made to satisfy the I~yment of a loan or to fulfill an
agreement ~"ntored into more than ninety (90) days In~:edins the day on which the mmsfor application is fli~d with the Department or to sein or
establish a prefcrenca to or for any creditor or transfnrer or to defraud or injure any enMitor of uenef~"or; ($} timt the transfor application may
be withdrawn by either the applicnnt or the licnnsen with no rnsultins liability to the Dq~nt.
Applicant Name(s)
-. .
City Hall
10300 Tm're Avenue
.-- Cupertino, CA' 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO (408)777_3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUM_AIARY
Agenda Item No. ~'* Meeting Date: Jan~pry 16, 2001
SUB.CT
Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report- November 2000
BACKGROUND
Attached is the Treasu~-er's and Budget report for the period ended Nowmber 30, 2000.
The report includes all funds in control of the City.
Investments
The market value of our current portfolio totaled $43.1 million at month end with a
maturity value of $43.1 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to
redeem full value of the securities currently with a maturity value below market value.
The decrease in our current investment portfolio is a result of approximately $1.0 million
in' sales tax revenue for November posted by the bank in December.
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/l~xpenditure Trends
General fund revenues are below budget projections at the end of November due to the
timing of major tax payments received by the State and County.
Operating expenditures for the General Fund reii~ain below budget by 14.29%.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff r~commends that the City Council r~view and accq~t the November Treasurer's and
Budget report.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
le '" David W. Knapp
Deputy Treasurer City Manager
City of Cupertino ~
Budget Report Actual Actual % of Budget
i 1/30/00 1.999/00 Budgeti 2000/01 Budgeti 11-30-99 .Y~.._..!.!-37_70-...__O_y_e_r_&l__nder .__Ana~l..v__s_i_s_ o_f_T_re~n._ds- ...................................
[ I .
GENERAL FUND ~ i ~ . ...................
Taxes:
-~i~S'Ya~ ......... i2,497,ooo 1 I,OOO,OOO . _4,~73.,.626' .3_,4.?~7__5_4 .......... 7~25:_587o. ~0yemt~r_.P_mt_recv_~inD_~__e_m_b_e.r ...................
"l~p-~ri~"i;a~' "i ' ' 4,012,000 3,100,000 ..... 4_26-:_13.6 ........ 3..,90_,_`93_2_ ............. _-_6_.9.:7~_% ~ay~._~n_ts..~_.N__o.v_-Jan& AprTl~ne ..........................
.?_t_i!.i~._T._ax ....................... _2_,.3.08,_o_.O__O . 2,~_,97__,00~ ............. .6_6_,9-_88_2 .......... !_,01_4_j89__ 1.55% .................................... ...............
Franchise & License ............... _-2,_3_9_~,0_00 ....3,424,000 4 !9 `9_7.1- ............ _4`9_0~8.73. .... -65.59%_L_~g_e_.p. a_. _~_. _egt~_r~ei_v_~d__in_ l_m!_ ._e ...............................
Other 2,015,000 "~,~82,000 658 582 801,723 -15.68%
~' ~ _ivi~]{~.~-_~_'i~._.- ............ "_i;i_~.b;~ ....... !;ii~i_,~ .... .' i'i ].iii .-'_5'2_-5_;ii~ ........ ~26--~4~i .....-~.32~ .........................................................
Intergovernmental ................ _2,770,?._06- .. _2 , 6- 3. '( , 7_ 7 .7_ ........ ......... .1.,4_!0-:,93_4- ........... .....................
-- C__._~. _g? .f_0[ _s..e_~i_c.~s ............ !_,6_2},_.°~... ..... !,8.6_0,0-__°~.. ..... 725 264 1,078,118 39.11% Annual overlay revenue_ ..............................
Fines & Forfeitures 531,000 500,000 137 195 131,687 -36.79%
Other Revenue 611,000 100,000 319,883 204,654 391.17% Increase in housing mitigation revenue
Tolal Revenue ........... 3._0.:_9_!227_06 ........ 29,!._31,777 ........... 10,149,25_9- ......._9,840,255 ...... -_ 18._9_3. °_~ .......
Operating Expenditures: ...................
Administrative 1,444,287 1,544,']9~ 40~,~}9~ ..... ~/J,~-{6 ...........21-i~j~ ..........................................................
Law Enforcement 5,275,673 5,474,777 1,996,855 1,791,476 -21.47%
Cormnunity Service 803,281 620,647 220,792 295,487 14.26% Hunum Services funding
Administrative Service 2,479,812 2,919,077 1,053,519 1,446,881 18.96% Annual premiums paid in August
Recreation Service 1,536,572 1,802,991 607,199 669,802 -10.84% Fourth of luly
Community Development 2,074,831 2,215,911 700,735 725,985 -21.37%
Public Works 8,206,032 9,274,325 3,064,765 3,062.526 -20.75%
..... _T_o .t~..._E. xp_~.&_'..tu~e~ s_ .................. 21,820,488 ...... _23:8~2_:52_0_ ............ .8_,049,85~8_ ........ 8_~_517,928 -14.29% ........................................................
Operating Transfers In 725,000 2,075,000 302,085 864,585 0.00%
Operating Transfers Out -9,259,5_1_4 -12,317_.78_8- ............ _-.3,~.a.a.,170 -5,442,62_6 __. 6.04% .......................................
Net Income/Loss 557.70~.._ ......-4,963,53 ! ............. ~ _ -3_2._255714 .......... __5.'~._42_% ....................................................
Page 1
Investments By Type
Managed Portfolio
Cash Co~porete Bonds
0%
O%
LAIF
32%
US Treesury Note
45%
Money Market
Rate of Retum Comparlsion
6.60%
6 40% .............. -- .......
6.20%
6.00% .......... -.~- Cupedino ]
5.80%
5.60%
5.40%
City of Cupertino
November 2000
~URCHASE MA'! URfi Y DF, SCRiP ! tON REF COST VALUE VALUI= ] PROFI I/LOSS
SECURITh~S SOLD
iNone
SECURITIES MATURED '
08/04/97 11/30/00 :i lr~asu~ Note 16~ 6.01% 2,500,000 2,500,000 ~ 2,500,000 i 0
i! SECURI'I i~S PUKCHASED
!None
CURREN 1 PORTFOLIO
~ASH
- 11/30/00 ]Cupertino Nalional 0 0 0 i 0
CORPORAl I~ BONDS 0 0 0 i 0
i o oI o! o
LAIF
! 11/30/00 l State Pool ]6f 6.47% 13,995,671 13,995,671 i 13,99S,671 0
MONEY MARKET FUNDS I
"' ~ 11/30/00 i Gr~at~ Bay Trust Company 6j 5.85% 2,755,938 2,755,938 2,755,938 0
-- 11/30/00 i Cupertino Natl-Sw~p account ~ 5.83% 540,620, 540,620 540,620
11/30/00 !Schwab 5.47% 88,167 [ 88,167 88,167 0
--' :~ i 3,384,7z6 3,384,726 3,384,726 0
MOI~,T~-KGE OBLIGA't tONS
07/09/~3 04/15/07 FHLMC(P) 6k 6.11%! 1,018,512 1,000,000 1,006,930 (11,582)
'-0973~}/93 09/I 5/07 !FHLMC(P) ~k 7.42%i 2,495,226 2,400,000 2,432,280 (62,946)
0t9/30/93. 05/15/08 ~FHLMC(P) ,6k 6.62%[ 2,9~2,019II 2.860,000 2,855.653 (86,366)
6,455,757 I 6,294,863 (160,894)
I. IS GOVERNMENT SECLIRi 1 iI:S I
0~70~7'00 02/15/01 :T~u~ Note I~ 6.35%I 1,906,008 2,000,000 1,995,620 {388)
10/08/9~/-- 03/31/01 Tr~ur7 Note !6a 5.75% 2,003,692 2,000,000 2,000,000 (3,692)
-08706/97 05/31/01 :Treasury Note 16a 6.05% 2,504,947 2,500,000 2,503,950 (997)
· 07/07/00 05/31/01 ,Treasury Note !6a 6.40% 1,000,433 .1,000,000 1,001,510 1,076
~0/08/97 09/30/01 !Trea~u~ Note [Ka 5.79% 2,008,630 2,000,000 2,003,760 (4,870)
' ~ Y/'l'ff/-00 12/31/01 iTr~asury Note ]6a 6.31% 2,495,280 2,500,000 2,503,125 7,845
' ' 01/10/00 06/30/02 ',Treasury Note 6a 6.33% 2,497,251 2,500,000 2,516,400 19,149
06/25/99 11/30/02 !T~asury Note Ca 5.90% 2,498,894 2,500,000 2,504,700 1 · 5,806
02/07/00 06/30/03 iTreasury Note !6a 6.62% 2,429,020 2,500,000 2,489,075 60,055
19,434,1~ 19,$~O,0~0 19,$18,140 83,9~5
43,270,309 43,140,397 43,193,400 (76,909~
To~]'-~l~aged Portfolio
Average Yield
Average l~n~th to Maturity 0n y~ar~) 1.161
City of Cupertino
November 2000
'PURCHASi~ { ~ATU~'i Y DBSC~PiiON ~P YI~D COST V~U~ VALU~ { PROFI'I'~S9
{
;T~UST & AGEN~ ~RT~OLIO
CERTIFICATES OF D~SI~':
07~ [ 0~27/01 ICu~noNatl~s~st) {~ 5.~ 3~,701 37,701 37,701 O
] I
Toml Trust &' Agen~ Po.~lio 37,701 37,701 37,701
~ND ~SERVE ~RTFOLI~
Tra~e lmpa~
l
Ci~ Hall ~w A ~e ~nd (~09541 5.65% 233 233 233 0
Me~al~ilson B ~c ~d (~ 5.~% 420 420 420 0
Black~nt 1993 S~es A (~691 3.8~ I I I 0
Memorial~il~n E~wB (~481
~C~h 24 24 24 0
12/16/92 12/16/99 I~oney M~- ~w A (4~95~ 6.1~. 8~,~3 854,463 854,463 { 0
Blaekb6F~/Fremont Older 1~3 E~mw A (~61
,Cash 4~27 4,227 4~27: 0
04/~6/03 ~2/15/01 U.S. Tm~u~S~Int' 6.05%~ 28,620,022 28,910,~ 28,567,127 (52,894)
City of Cupertino
Summary of Budget Transfers
11/30/00
Budget Revenue Expenditure
Description Acct # Adjustment Budget ~ Budget
2000/01 ADOPTI~D BUI)GET 55,422,000 [ 59,936,570
PROa-'ECT CARRYOVERS various
1999/00 CARRYOVER:
Eno~mbrances various 4,122,072 4,122,072
_Depiu tment carryovers 733,815
Project carryovers 7,735,187
Budget carryovers 154,357
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS:
COPS grant 110-0000 ~.~.32 114,776
BJA grant 110-0000-4431 25,001
OTI for Brown house purchase 1424-0000-4910 501,788
OTI for Memorial park restroom
1420-0000-4910 30,000
OTI for Sports Center fimess ]426-0000-4910 435,209
Senior Center donation !424-0000-4758 94,750
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS:
_ Adjust Budget Estimate 110-1040-7018 -60,0001 -60,000
COPS grant ! 110-2401-7014 114,776! 114,776
.... ~J_A grant il 10-2402-7014 25,001 i 25,001
Ap_pie Public Art [ 110-1043-7014 100,0001 100,000
CIP funding change 1420-9315-9300 - 125,000 [ - 125,000
CIP...fu. _n_d!_n_g change 420-9118-9300 -180,0001 - 180,000
CIP funding change 420-9220-9300 - 150,0001 - 150,000
CI? .funding change 420-9222-9300 -500,000[ -500,000
CIP funding change 1270-9435-9300 -115,000 -115,000
. _c_Ip funding change 270-9445-9300 - 125,000 - 125,000
C_.I_P_ funding change 270-9447-9300 180,000 180,000
._.CIP funding change 270-9430-9300 850,000 850,000
.__CIP funding change 270-9448-9300 150,000 150,000
OTO for Brown house purchase 110-0100-8020 501,788 501,788
i-~rown house purchase !420-9217-9400 502,953 502,953
__ Appro. Memorial park restroom !420-9114-9300 30,000 30,000
OTO for Memorial park reslroom I110-0100-8020 30,000 30,000
_ Combine Sport Center fimess~ouilding 570-9212-9300 -435,209 -435,209
Combine Sport Center fimess/building 426-9212-9300 435,209 435,209
OTO for Sports Center fimess 570-0100-8020 435,209 435,209
Senior Center donation 424-9218-9400 94,750 94,750
2000101 ADJUSTED BUDGET 56,623,524 74,441,477
IRevenue Comparison
5,000,000 -
I Sales Tax
2 Property Tax
3 Utility Tax
4.000.000 - 4 Franchise & License
50thc~
6 Money and Properp/
7 Intergovernmental
9 Fines & Forfeitures
10 Other Revenue
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Expenditure Comparison
3,000,000
1 Administration
2 Law Enforcement
2,500,000 - 3 Community Service
4 Admin. Service
5 Recreation Service
6 Community Dev.
2,000,000 - 7 Public Works
0 ; ; ;
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
'- COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY
City of Cupertino
November 30, 2000
Category fitandard 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 i25% up to 15 years Complies (FHLMC at 9.5 yrs)
" iRemaindcr up to 5 years Complies
Per Issuer Max . i10% (except govts) Complies
Bankers Acceptances 1270 days & 40% Complies
Commercial Paper i 15% Complies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit i30% Complies
_R..epurchase Agreements [365 days Complies
Reverse Repurchase agreements [Prohibited Complies
fn:g:~finance~jessef10001audit~proj501.xls 1 of 2 1110101 10:20 AM
Filenam~g:'~flna nce~essef1050 laudit~proj601 .xls 12/31100
Fund Proj# Description CIO enc CIO bud.qet Adopted change Total BudQet Encumbrance Expenditure Current Bal.
· 2'~'{~ '96~2 Minor Storm Drain'lmprov , 71~051.38; .... ~','6~'~.§8 ........... 71,051.38
.' 0.001 1,029.204.32' . ................ ' .' ...... ". ' .......
270 .9_.3_(~.6_ ~te~_ _C__rk _/Tantau t~ E.~!ty Imt. 0.00[ 1,585.42 1,585.42 1,585.42
2_.7._0. 9309 _DeA. nza. Rainlx~w-prospect i 8,815.75 ..' .......... .-'-.i ...... ' ~-,~_15'7_5_~.'~i~' ~' ...~i~:~.i~-'~:~__~.~'~..~ ..... --~.~
270 9401 Barrier Removal 35,152.87 35,152.87 3,309.25 31,843.62
~b ~4~5 ~eAnz~/St~'breektoAIves 5,900.50 227,793.13 .................. 2:~:~i~§§~-~- ......... ~,§(~{~.~ ..........~.~3(~" ~"~,793.~
~f5 "-~i10 i=iiAAvaymast~n- ....... ~2,b~.~ ........................ 3~,o-o~L-~o .... 32,000.55
2~ ""~}~'i~ ~,-.'~t~;~,~bi~e'i~n~ ..........~,028.69 ' ' .i2,~o~ ................................. 22,689.68 10,.~1-~'--~0~5-.5~ ..... 11,112.96
.. _2?0 ...9__412_ $.._s_tel~li.n_g_.!~ik~_la~ ................. 2__8,795~?_5._ ~9~6_9_7.:_65_ ........................ 118,693.40 96,844.85 .... 18,927.02 2,921.53
270 9413 De Anza bike lane ...... ~,.2_72:_00- ..... _5.2_,500..00._._ 53,772.00 0.00 12,608.66 41,163.34
-'2~ 9-4.3.~) St~ev_C.e_ _n¥on Rd widening 250,00~_ ....~50,000 ..._1.~100,000.00 17,400.00 1,082,600.00
270 9431 Stav Crk/Blanay TIS modification 800.00 74,200.00 75,000.00 800.00 74,200.00
270 9432 Hmstd belleville TIS medif. 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00
270 9434 Underground Stev Crk 80,000.00 80,000.00 50,000.00
270 9435. Nei,jhbc, Irood baf calming 22,220.92 9,201.11 150,000 ('115,000) 66;422.03 6,554.15 54,833.13 (4,965.25)
270 9436 Stov Crk Trail Bike facilities 2,133.99 38,550.00' 40,683.99' 143.49' 2,397.00 38,143.50
270 9437 Bike lanes on Tantau ave. 11,580.50 332,500.00 344,080.50 27,410.82 25,697.88 290,971.50
270 94~8 Miller Ave bike facilities 21,502.38 228,000.00 249,502.38 77,681.10 43,136.89 128,784.39
270 ?.~.0 Wolfe bike facilitiy improv 37,642.50 154,500.00 222,142.50 14,811.42 _24,788.38 182,542.22
270 n.~.~. 1 Bike dete~on enhancement ..... 1~,77~.54 6,722.4~' 26,495.00 21,911.15 4,583.85 0.0~
270 9442 Bolllnger Pedestrian walk 222.38 222.38 ~== 38
270 9443 Bolilnger Rd bike facility improv. ' ..... ~,~9~1~ .... 85,050.00 238,000 -'~,05,739.46 7211-~5.73 13,020.9-'-~ 320,602.8~
270 n.~.~.~. Bubb/McClellan I/S mod[ 50,000 50,000.50 0.00 48,681.31 1,318.68
270 9445 Traffic signal hardware upgrade ..... 125,000 (125,000) 0.50 0.00 0.~0 0.00
270 9446 DeAnza/Sfav Crk croeswalk enh. 120,000 120,000.00 120,000.00
270 9447 Mary Avenue gateway 150,000 150,500.00 180,~50.00
270 9448 Foothill bivd bike lanes 150,000 150,000.50 150,000.00
270 9502 $eratoga/Sunnyv'l TIS interconne 1,772.70 0.00 1,772.70 1,772.70 0.50
270 9517 Miller et Phil 23,768.76 50.00 23,848.76 23,798.76 50.00
270 9531 Ramp meter signal 280/85 18,704.85 479,000.00 497,704.85 9,465.75 9,239.10 479,050.00
270 9532 SR65/Sfav Cd( TIS modification 9,227.80 65,000.00 74,227.80 7,672.88 1,554.92 65,000.00
280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv. 211,652.96 211,652.96 211,652.96
420 9108 Park Renovations 143,218.62 100,000 243,218.6~' 243,218.62
420 ~ 9110'StoCtdmelr Property Acquisition 2,0..'.'.'~.45 ' 2,030.45 3,554.92 '(1,524.47)
420 9113 Stav Cd( trail masterplan 62,738.06 0.00 62,738.06 60,383.33 2,374.73 0.00
420 9114 Memorial Pad( bathroom remodel 542.50 157,348.94 50,000 168,191.44 842,50 55,268.00 132,080.94
420 9115 Skate Pad( 350,000 350,500.00 350,000.50
420 9116 San Thomas trail improvements 15,000 15,000.50 15,000.00
420 9117 Stev CrktTrail master plan study 150,000 1 50,500.00 150,500.00
420 9118 Union Pacific RR bail 200,000 (180,000) 20,000.50 5,000.50 154.96 14,835.04
420 9206 ADA 91 19,797.90 558,180.67 577,978.57 14,168.25 119,176.04 444,637.28
420 9216 Sewice nantar expanison 216,655.20 150,000 376,655.20 0.00 17,929.79 358,725.41
420 9217 Hcusing aesistance · · *YE adj. .. 502 953 502,952.50 0.50 518,631.35 (t5,678.85)
4201 92191Anlmal control facility ] [ ] 500,000] [ 500,000.00] I ] 500,000.00
fn:g:\finance~jessefl0001audit\proj601.xls 2or2 1/10/01 ~0:20 AM
F_il~nar~e_:__g.:~fi_n~nce~jes~e~O_O0 laudit~projT01 .xls 12/31/00
Fund .P_.r~_'f~ I De~_criptio~. CIO enc CIO bud.qet Adopted chan.qe . T_o~l.B~.d. qe~_..E___n~_m_b_.re_r~_ce._._E..~_p_e_~li~ur.e_.' ..C_~rr. en-1._Bal_._._.
'"~0 ~_22.0 v_a~-i~n.p~._?k restroum facility 1,50,~.0q_ (_1_~_0_00_) ............ -0.~0_ ...... 0.00
4:~(~ 9315 Tone Avenue median 125,000 (1_2_~0.0_) ........... ~._00 ........................... "':..:::. :_:':.' ........ -.."_~..~
'~ "~' ~-~d--g~ ~k~l~!n~"' 13,781.70 13,781.70 13,781.70
420 9430 Stev Canyon Rd widening 132,686.09' 783,745.~2 .............. ~'~;~,~'.b¥ ";i{~,{~,~.~0 'i~,658.~ .... '~(~,~,~.'i§
'-~,~(~ ' '§,~§ ~:~'~'s-tv:(~'~el~ I~'i; i~e' 5,926.00
......................... ......
._ 42_0 ..9525 Ho_mestead~ _~_?.!a! .M.g_~?mj:'10,~9.:2_-4 ..... 2_,_738_._0(~_ ..................................... 13,737:2_4 ............ 13~,055._71_ ............ _65_I._5_3_ ........... _0?.0~_
420 9526 Stevens Crk ¢~ Saich Signal 2,234.36 29,939.73 32,174.09 848.25 31,226.29 99.55
420 9527 Homesteed/Tanteu T/S upgrade 2,309.64 62,200.00 64,509.64 26,562.10 41,629.97 (3,682.43)
420 9528250ANolfetrafficsafetyimprov. _ ..... _1_6~03_0:2__4 ..... _47._6~9._63_._00- ..................................... 494_,993.2_4__ 118,185.33 11,191.06_ 365,616.85
420 9529 Wolfe Rd.arterial ............. _1._0~2_2_4:-0-0 ......... _2._8~..,.0_O0.__~_ ............................................. _2._9~_,._224__:-0~...._ 293,234.00 1,990.00 0.00
420 9530 Phase III Hmstd arterial _mg_m_[ .......... _18,624_:3_6 ....... 1_0_1,_6-47_.82 .................................. 1__27_,2_7_~2._1_-6 ....... 10,573.65 13,782.36 95,915.96
421 9310 Stev. Creek $pecflc Plan ............ _1_1_,_!.62.00 ........ 1~_.28 .............................. _11,_318.28 .. 11,162.00 156.2§
422 9208 Crsekside Park 0.00 133,102.77 .................................... 1_3~_,102.77 .... 133,102.77
............................................................. 423 9214 Library expansion ?,_6_60:~_4 ..... '[0,9-6~_ ._2_~ ............................ ................. 18,640:49 7,660.24' 48.07 10,932.18
423 9222 Library conatrucflon ................. _2_,50-0..,~0~3-6 (500,000) 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00
- 424 9210 Senior Center Expanaion --- 2,839,730.82 164,175.66 ...... '-~:~-~:---90~.'-4~- 1,034,384.451,936,375.85 53,148.18
424 9218 Senior Center Furnishing 0.00 0.00 94,750 94,750.00 80,063.88 48,936.12 (32,250.00).
425 9313 Four Season Corne~ ....... 24,937:_63 ...... 27_0,1__71_:0_0_ ............................. 295,108.63 24,937.63 ............................ _.2'._Z_0,171_?_0-0
425 9314 Four Season Art Sculpture 94,563.70 94,563.70 94,563.70
426 9212 Sporls Ctr.rdnses expansion ............. 0_._O0 _ 435,209.00 1,300,000 1,735,209.00 0.00 28,000.00 1,707,209.08
560 9105 Blackbeny Farm ........... _12,2..5-0.~0~_243,568.68 175,000 430,818.68 ...... .0..~0__0. __ 38,335.00 392,493.68
560 9112 BBF master plen study 50,065.00 100,000 150,000.00 150,000.00
560 921t Blue Pheseant ADA 15,729.00 15,729.00 15,729.00
570 9209 Sports Center ADA 2,602.32 3,467.00 6,069.32 2,602.32 3,467.00
Total 3,564,227.997,_7.3~_:.1._8_7._2_9._6,765,000 612,703 18,688,117.78.2,289,921.68 3,305,332.0113,090,261.~
ok ok ok ok
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CITY OF F~: (408) 777-3366
CUPE INO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~ Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Appoin~ttent of Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer
BACKGROUND
During 1996, SB 109 was enacted which requires government agencies to appoint a treasurer and
deputy treasurer on an annual basis. The attached resolution extends thc current appointments of
the City's treasurer and deputy treasurer and complies with thc new statc law.
This legislation was intended to provide ongoing review of investment issues by the governing
body.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the resolution.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A. Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
Printed on F~ecvcled Paoer
RESOLUTION NO. c~ t- oil
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. AND APPOINTING TREASURER
AND DEPUTY TREASURER
WHEREAS, the City has available funds to invest in accordance with principles of sound
treasury management; and
WHEREAS, the City invests funds in accordance with provisions of California
Government Code Section 53600; and
WHEREAS, the City annually adopts an investment policy;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby rescinds Resolution No. and appoints Carol Atwood City Treasurer and Lois Eagle
Deputy Treasurer effective January 16, 2001; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer is empowered and specifically
authorized to invest and reinvest City funds in accordance with California Government Code
Section 53600; to buy, sell, trade and deal in authorized securities on margin or otherwise in
connection therewith and to pledge any and all securities for furore delivery thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-- RESOLUTION NO. 01-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING ~ REORGANIZATION OF
TERRITORY DESIGNATED "BYRNE AVENUE 99-09", APPROXIMATELY 0.445
ACRE LOCATED ON BYRNE AVENUE BETWEEN ALCAZAR AVENUE AND
DOLORES AVENUE; CHOE (APN 357-14-032)
WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of
Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0,445+ acre on Byme (APN 35%
14-032) has been flied by property owner William Choe; an~'
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-
294 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Byme Avenue 99-09";
and
WHEREAS, said territory is tminhabited 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 t~tHtory 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:
1. That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 35150.5 of the Government
Code for the annexation of property designated "Byrne Avenue 99-09", more
particularly described in Exhibit "A";
2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino:
That said t~tfitory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.445
Resolution No. 01-012 Page 2
b. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory
with the City's urban service area and is consistent with thc City policy
of annexing when providing City services.
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 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.
f. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adoptcd by thc
Local Agency Fo. mation Commission.
g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions.
h. That the County SurveyOr has det¢~,ined thc boundaries of the proposed
annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the
Co~nnission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse thc
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 bc difficult to provide municipal services.
That the proposed annexation does not aplit line of assesa,~,ent 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 thc City's urban service area.
m. That the ten-k;tory 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 gi~c
notice of said Anrtexation as prescribed by law.
2
Resolution No. 01-012 Page 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVI:-13 that upon completion of these reorganization
proceedings thc territory Annexed will be detached fxom the Santa Clara County Lighting
Service District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 16th day of Jaw_~=ry, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members 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
ENTITLED BYRNE AVE. 99-09
DATE: JUNE, 1999
REVISED: OCTOBER, 2000
All that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California described as
follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of Section 138, as shown on that certain Map
entitled, "Map of Subdivision "A" Monta Vista", which Map was filed for record in the
office of the Recorder of the County of Santa. Clara, State of California on April 11, 1917
in Book "P" of Maps, at page 20; thence along the easterly line of said Section 138 North
90.82 feet to the southerly line of Alcazar Avenue as shown on said Map; thence along
southerly line of Alcazar Avenue East 100.15 feet to the westerly line of that certain
annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Alcazar 89-07"; thence along the said
westerly line of annexation "Alcazar 89-07 North 40.00 feet; thence leaving said line
West 57,16 feet; thence North 5.00 feet; thence West 62.81 feet; thence South 5.00 feet;
thence West 80.44 feet to the easterly line of that certain annexation to the City of
Cupertino entitled, "Bryne 99-10" and the easterly line of Bryne Avenue as shown on
said Map; thence along said easterly line South 5.81 feet to the southeast comer of said
annexation "Bo/ne 99-10"; thence along the southerly line of said annexation "Bryne 99-'
10 West 50.00 feet to the northeasterly corner of that certain annexation to the City of
Cupertino entitled, "Byme 89-02"; thence along the easterly line of said annexation
"Bryne 89-02 and its prolongation South 120.00 feet to the northerly line of that certain
annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Bryne Ave. 97-08"; thence along said
northerly line of annexation "Byrne Ave. 97-08" East 50.00 feet to the easterly line of
Byrne Avenue and the northeasterly corner of annexation "Byme Ave. 97-08; thence
along the last said lines South 5.01 feet to the southerly line of said Section 138; thence
along the southerly line of said Section 138 East 100.15 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said parcel of land containing 23,426 square feet or 0.538 acres, more or less.
Prepared by:
Marvin D. Kirkeby
R.C.E. No. 14001 '
Expires 3/31/2001 ?~~
LEGEND
!%.'~.~'~1 AREA OF ANNEXATION
PROPOSED ANNEXATION BOUNDARY
.... EXISTING ANNEXATION I]OUNDARY ~ ~ DOLORES AVF.
.' McCLELLAN ROAD
·
9 9-'10 *' EAST
SECTION MAP OF
A" MONTA .VISTA ",
.... A~I*XATION
4~6 SQ. .-
EX~STING ANNEXATION ~a~'~ ~r ~ooJ~'
EXHIBIT "B"
'
KIRKEBY ENGINEERING -*- PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION SCALE: I" · 40'
· ' 2397.FOREST AVENUE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY DATE: dUNE 1999
... OF CUPERTEIO /
SAN ,lOSE, CA 95128 (408) 984-0331 'BYRNE: AVE. 99-09' ..~ ~ dob NO. 990~9
City Hall
! 0300 Tone Ave.
Cupe~ino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3262
CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPEItJINO
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM ~'~ DATE: Jan. 16, 2001
Subject: Recommendation from Cupertino Telecommunications Commission to award a
$10,000 educational grant to a Homestead High School video production class.
Background: Through the city's fianchise agreement with AT&T, the
Telecommunications Commission makes educational grants available each year to both
the elementary and high schools in Cupertino. The total budget for educational grants is
$10,000 armnally.
At its meeting Dec. 6, the Telecommunications Commission reviewed proposals
from Meyerholz School in the Cupertino Union School District and from Homestead
High School in the Fremont Union High School District. The Meyerholz application
requested funds to purchase books for a literacy project. After discussing the proposal,
commissioners agreed it did not conform to the guidelines for telecommunication grants
and suggested school officials re-submit the application, including components that were
directly connected to video education. The Meyerholz principal said she would consider
applying for another grant next year.
Upon reviewing the application from the high school, commissioners were
unanimous in agreeing that it met all criteria for the grant funds. The school proposes to
use the money to purchase computers and a software program that will allow students to
edit television programs for the Cupertino educational channel and for Homestead High.
Recommendation: City Council approve the recommendation from the Cupertino
Telecommunications Commission to award a $10,000 educational grant to Homestead
High School in Cupertino.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Donna Krey David Knapp
Public Information Officer City Manager
CupeFfi~O Telecommunications Commission
EDUCATIONAL GRANT APPLICATION FORM
Educational organizations wishing to apply for ~rants that meet the stated goals in the
attached guidelines and procedures must complete the application below and return it to the
Public. Information' Officer, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Ave.,
Cupertino, Ca 95014. Ploase submit one copy of th~ completed application.
ORGANIZATION NAME: Homestead High School
ADDRESS:
Homestead High School
21370 Homestead Road
Cupertino, Ca 95014
TI~.~FHONE: 408-$22-2.~00
Your Name: Robert Peck
Your Telephone: ~867-3639
AMOUNT REQUESTED $10,000.00
Describe your project, along with any problems it may address. Include a timeline and a
budget proposal for the project. Use additional sheets of paper and attach any relevant
background material.
DEADLINE TO SUBMIT APPLICATION FORM IS 4:30 P.M. FRIDAY,
NOV. 10, 2000
Robert Peck
Homestead High School
21370 Homestead Road
Cupertino, Ca 95014
November 10, 2000
Public Information Officer
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Public Information Officer.
Homestead High School hereby applies for a ?~mt of $10,000.00 from the Cupertino
Telecommunications Commission. The funds will allow Homestead High School to
Purchase 6 Apple iMacks ($i450.00 @ + tax) and a software program called Final Cut Pro
($537.64 + tax) to allow a Video Production class to edit Television programs for
Homestead High School.
Homestead High School currently offers a Television Production class which is geared to
teach Television Broadcast techniques. The intent for this class is to develop television
programs that will be produced for, about and by Homestead High School Students and be
broadcast on channel 28, the educational access channels in Sunnyvale and Cupertino. This
class is also taught at Fremont High School and Los Gatos High School by the same
instructor.
The current program provides an instructor and six cameras to teach 34 students how to
produce, direct, film and, with your help, edit a series of projects. The projects include
interviews of influential students, faculty and staff members of Homestead High School. It
will produce marketing tapes promoting the High School and the benefits the students have
found there. It will produce a monthly news magazine by, for and about Homestead High
School.
The program involves a multi discipline method of perforating. It includes organizing
abilities, research techniques, writing and planning skills. It involves single and multiple
camera techniques. The idea is to have students hone writing and thinking skills to discover
the good points of their school and then organize a program to demonstrate those good
points of their school and broadcast them on local cable. These programs should increase
school to home communications, increase communication between Homestead, the feeder
schools for Homestead and promote positive interaction between its sister schools.
Having students tell each other and the community why their school is great is a novel
method of learning which increases the students understanding of how good a school they
have and increasing their community pride.
The instructor is using this approach in Fremont High school and Los Gatos High schools
and has had excellent results at each sight.
,- Goals
Learn Broadcast techniques
Learn editing techniques
Produce informative interviews
Produce marketing tape for Homestead High school
Broadcast their shows to the community
Objectives:
To learn a set of skills which will allow the students to communlcate positively over
television.
Approach:
Classroom instruction
Field exercise
Broadcast
Critique
Risk areas:
None known
Budget:
$ 9,418.00 for 6 iMaccomputers
$ .582.00 for Final Cut Pro
$10,000.00 Total
Big picture:
This is a multi year investment with literally hundreds of students involved. It
promotes pride in their school and community.
Affect long term goals
This eqnipment will allow students to communicate over the next :5 to 8 years.
· Programming - leading to telecommunications access.
This equipment willow the students to edit programs which will be broadcast over
the existing cable access channel.
The equipment will be used for telecommunications projects only.
Thank you for your time and consideration and your efforts to aid our students.
Robert Peck
Instructor
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3110
CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPEI INO Website: www.cupertino.org
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number ~/ Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Set public hearing date for fee increases for group picnic areas and Blackbemj Farm golf course and
picnic grounds.
BACKGROUND
_ . Group Picnic Area Fees were last raised in June, 1996, when they were raised $5.00 for residents, and
$10.00 for non-residents. A survey of neighboring cities was completed to dete.,ine if current picnic
area rates are competitive. See the summary below. Staff discovered that Cupertino was charging non-
residents less for facility rental than they were paying as residents in their own communities.
COMPARABLE COMMUNITY FEES
City of city of city of city of County of
Cupertino Sunnyvale San Jose Saratoga Santa Clara
Resident Fee $30 $70 $75 $55 $55
Does not rent
to non=
Non-Resident $50 residents $90 $85 $55
PROPOSED FEES
The proposed 2001 fee schedule for Group Picnic Areas is as follows:
Cupertino Resident $55.00 I Non-Resident $ 80.00
Cupertino Business $75.00] Non-Resident Business $100.00
printed on Recycled Pa~er f ~ [
Blackben*y Farm Fees: User fees were last increased by one dollar ($1) at Blackberry Farm in 1998.
The 1998 increase resulted in our current fee schedule.
CURRENT BLACKBERRY FARM FEES
Golf Course Picnic Grounds
Weekdays $10 Weekdays: adults $5, youth $4
Weekends $12 Weekends & holidays: adults $7, youth $5
A survey of comparable golf fees revealed that Blackbewy Farm fees are 10 to 20 percent below the
next lowest offering for a similar nine-hole golf course. Given the amount of time that has passed since
the last fee adjustment, and considering rising costs -particularly for part-time help - staff is
recommending a fiat fee increase of one dollar for golf fees and picnic ground fees.
PROPOSED BLACKBERRY FARM FEES
Golf Course Picnic Grounds
Weekdays $11 Weekdays: adult $6, youth $5
Weeke~ls $13 Weekends and holidays: adult $8, youth $6
Cupertino fees will still be on the low end of the scale for similar offerings. Approving these fees now
(as opposed to during the budget cycle) insures consistent pricing for the 2001 season.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the City Council set a public hearing date of Monday, February 5, 2001, to
allow input on the above-stated proposals.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Therese Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
mp
public hearing proposal
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
~- Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777.-32110
CIT~ O[: FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPERTINO Website: www.cupertino.org
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number/'O Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
SUIgllgCT AND ISSUR
Request from community groups for waiver of facility use fees for Quinlan Center.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the City of Ct~pertino's facility use policy, adopted by the City Council, a Cupertino based non-
profit organization raising funds to benefit the community shall receive a waiver of room rental fees relative to
their event. The sponsoring organization pays the cost of staff and janitorial services, meets insurance
requirements, etc. The timing of the fee waiver request is not addressed in the policies and procedures
document.
Staff has received two requests for fee waivers (attached). First is from the chairperson of the Cupertino High
School Football Award Dinner. This organization is requesting the refund so that they might have more funds
available to purchase equipment and supplies for the football team. Waiver of the rental fees would result in a
saving of $155 to the group; the organization is responsible for $65 in staffing costs.
The second request is from the Iranian Federated Women's Club and Payvand Cultural School for waiver of
rental fees for their Iranian New Year "1380" celebration. This organization will use the funds raised at their
New Year event to underwrite a one-day festival that will include a wide variety of community activities, such
as dance, music, poetry, handicrafts, and food. The activity will be open to all. Waiver of these fees will result
in a saving of $975 to the group; the organization will be responsible for $150 in staffing costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Council waive room rental fees discussed in the staffreport consistent with their use policy for the Quinlan
Center.
SUBMITFED BY:
Therese Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
D~m~12,2000
To Cupertino City Council:
The Cupertino High School Football Team held it's Annual Banquet at Quinlan
Center on November 18, 2000.
As you are probably aware, this is an event that has been held annxmlly at this
location for the past 10=12 years. We hold fundraisers throughout the season in an effort
to keep expenses down so that all of the players and their families are able to attend.
Again this year, we respectfully request consideration by the City Council for
reimbursement ofthe $100 deposit given to Qulnlan Center by the football program, to
hold the date for the banquet. This refunded amount will be applied to the football
program enabling the school to purchase needed equipment and supplies for the team.
On behalf of the players, parents and coaches of Cupertino High's Football Team,
I would like to thank you for your consideration in thi.~ matter.
Sincerely,
Cupertino High School Football Awards Dinner
10100 Finch Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
De,'z'_M--h,--~ 1, 2000
10185 ~. 8~1~g ~.
~tA~O, ~ ~501~
Dea~ ~ulia,
The Iranian Federated Woman'~ Club and Pa~and Cultural School are
seeking fundinG and supportin~ to bring our cultural perspective to
this wonderful diverse co.unity by sponsoring the Iranian New year
~1380" Celebrattion, is scheduled at Quinlan Co.unity center in
Cupertino on March 18, 2001.
The funding and supportin~ will underwrite a one-day festival that will
include a wide variety of co--unity activities: dance, music, poetry,
handicrafts, and food.
Need: Young Iranian ~ericans, like many i~igrant children face the
difficulty of integrating their Iranian identities in a new
environment.
They n~ed to be able to be ~e~icans who are proud of their cultural
heritage.
Our Organization and its Mission: Iranian Federated Women's Club and
Payvand cultural school are a non-profit corporation that work to aid
iranian ~ericans to be good ~ericans and maintain their own heritage
through classes in language, dance, music, pain~in~, and other
activities. In addition we ~ontribute to our ~erican environment by
supporting various activities that integrate our young people and
children to become ~ericans in a positive way.
i would appreciate if you wculd be kind enough to wave the fee for
usin~ the co--unity room, Social room, activity room and inside the
building ( like last year) on that day.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (408] 865- 0969, if you have any
questions.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Fariba Nejat, President
,-- .. [._~.~ City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cup~'rtino, CA 95014-3255
Cl~' 0[: Telephone: (408) 777-3213
CUPERTINO Fax: (4011)777-3109
HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. It/ Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adoption of Resolution Amending the Listing of Classifications and Salary Schedule.
The listing of classifications and salary schedule is mended periodically to reflect changes in the
annual budget and/or organizational ~tracture and to be consistent with memoranda of
understanding. The amended salary schedule includes a new classification of Senior Engineer to
improve organizational effectiveness and an amended salary range for Infoxmation Technology
Manager as a result of difficulty in recruiting for this type of job. The maximum salary for the
'-' position bas been increased from $6574 to $7500 monthly. The increase does not require a
budget adjustment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the attached resolution.
Suffmit:e~i ky: Approved by:
Human Resources Manager City Manager
P~nted on ~e~vcled
RESOLUTION NO. o ! -~ o ~- .9'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
CUPERTINO AMENDING THE LISTING OF CLASSIFICATIONS
AND SALARY SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the listing of classiiications and salary schedule is periodically
mended to reflect changes in the anrlual budget, organizational structure, or memoranda
of understanding; and
WHEREAS, the recruitment and hiring of top quality employees is essential to
the efficient operation of the City of Cupertino; and
WHEREAS, the appointment of an Information Technology Manager to a
position in the public sector in the Silicon Valley has been found to be highly competitive
and difficult to accomplish; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adjust the salary range for Information Technology
Manager to appoint a qualified candidate; and
WHEREAS, the salary range for Information Technology Manager is increased
from a maximum salary of $6574 monthly to a maximum salary of $7500 monthly
effective immediately;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Listing of Classifications and
Salary Schedule is amended as shown in Attachment "A" which is incorporated in this
resolution by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of
Cupertino this 16' day of January, 2001 by the following vote:
VOTE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
Attachment "A'
City of Cupertino
2000 - 2001
Salary Schedule
January2001
Salary Step Listings
(Approximate Monthly Salary)
Salary Steps
Salar~
Range No. & ~ C ~ _E
I01 $2993(F)
102 $2543 $2670 $2804 $2944 $3091
103 $2810 $2951 $3099 $3254 $3417
104 $3120 $3276 $3440 $3612 $3793
105 $3142 $3299 $3464 $3637 $3819
106 $3300 $3465 $3638 $3820 $4011
107 $3342 $3509 $3684 $3868 $4061
108 $3391 $3560 $3738 $3925 $4121
109 $3464 $3637 $3819 $4010 $4211
110 $3516 $3692 $3877 $4071 $4275
111 $3623 $3804 $3994 $4194 $4404
112 $3637 $3819 $4010 $4211 $4422
113 $3725 $3911 $4107 $4312 $4528
114 $3812 $4003 $4203 $4413 $4634
115 $4076 $4280 $4494 $4719 $4955
116 $4150 $4358 $4576 $4805 $5045
117 $4266 $4479 $4703' $4938 $5185
118 $4296 $4511 $4737 $4974 $5223
119 $4299 $4514 $4740 $4977 $5226
120 $4375 $4594 $4824 $5065 $5318
121 $4473 $4697 $4931 $5178 $5437
122 $4598 $4828 $5069 $5322 $5588
123 $4715 $4951 $5199 $5459 $5732
124 $4785 $5024 $5275 $5539 $5816
I}~ $4994 $5244 $5506 $5781 $6070
126 $5008 $5258 $5521 $5797 $6087
127 $5057 $5310 $5576 $5855 $6148
128 $5328 $5594 $5874 $6168 $6476
129 $5333 $5600 $5880 $6174 $6483
130 $5409 $5679 $5963 $6261 $6574
130.1 $6170 $6479 $6803 $7143 $7500
131 $6378 $6697 $7032 $7384 $7751
132 $6670 $7004 $7354 $7722 $8108
i'~3 $7802 $8192 $8602 $9032 $9484
134 $8301 $8716 $9152 $9610 $10091
135 $9340 $9807 $10297 $10812 $11353
· '~6 $12224 (F)
137 $13334(F)
Cit~ of Cupe~no
City of Cupertino
Salary Range Approximate Monthly Salary
C!-~,~ffication J. Jnlt.~ ~o. Rfinge
Account Clerk 3 107 S3342 - 4061
Accountant 2 121 4473 - 5437
Accounting Technician 2 116 4150 - 5045
Admlni~'ativo Clerk 3 110 3516 - 4275
Administrative Seci~-~'y 2 113 3725 - 4528
Assistant City Al~orney I 130 5409 - 6574
Assistant Civil Engineer 3 126 5008 - 6087
A~sisUmt Planner 3 120 4375 - 5319
Associate Planner 3 123 4715 - 5732
Building Inspector 3 125 4994 - 6070
Building Official 1 132 6670 - 8108
Case Manager 3 111 3623 - 4404
City Attorney I 136 12224 (F)
City Clerk I 130 5409 - 6574
City Manager 1 137 13334 (F)
City Planner 1 132 6670 - 8108
Code Enforcement Officer 3 111 3623 - 4404
Community Relations Coordinator 2 119 4299 - 5226
Deputy City Attorney 2 I 121 4473 - 5437
Deputy City Clerk 2 I 113 3725 - 4528
'-- Director ofAchnin Sorvicas I 134 8301 - 10091
Director of Comm Development 1 133 7802 - 9484
Director of Parks & Recreation I 133 7802 - 9484
Director of Public Works I 135 9340 - 11353
Engineering Technician 3 117 4266 - 5185
Environmental Programs Assistant 3 ! 118 4296 - 5223
Environmental Programs Manager I ! 128 5328 - 6476
Equipment Mechanic 4 ! 114 3812 - 4634
Facility Attendant 3 I 102 2543 - 3091
GIS Coordinator 2 i 119 4299 - 5266
Analyst 2 [ 121 4473 - 5437
Human
Resources
Human Resources Manager I ! 131 6378 - 7751
Human Resources' T~chnician 2 I 116 4150 - 5045
Information Technology Manager I ' 130.1 6170 - 7500
Maintenance Worker ('r) 4 101 2993 (F)
Maintenance Worker I 4 105 3142 - 3819
Maintenance Worker Il 4 106 3300 - 401 l
Maimgnance Worker III 4 112 3637 - 4422
Network Specialist 2 ] ! 9 4299 - 5226
Office Assistant 3 103 2810 - 3417
Producer 3 113 3725 - 4528
Program/Promotions Director 3 108 3391 - 4121
Public Information Officer 1 130 5409 - 6574
.-- Public Works Inspector 3 125 4994 - 6070
City of Cupefltno
I 12/26/2000
City of Cupertino
Salary Schedule
2000 - 2001
Salary Range Approximate Monthly Salary
Classification Unit No. Range
Public Works Projects Manager 1 130 5409 - 6574
Public Works Supervisor I 125 4994 - 6070
Receptionist/Clerk 3 102 2543 - 3091
Recreation Coordinator 3 108 3:391 - 4121
Recreation Supervisor I 125 4994 - 6070
Secretnry to the City Attorney 2 115 4076 - 4955
SeCretary to the City Manager 2 115 4076 - 4955
Senior Building Inspector 3 129 5333 - 6483
Senior Engineer 1 132 6670 - 8108
Senior Engineering Technician 3 122 4598 - 5588
Senior Off.ice Assistant 3 105 3142 - 3819
Senior Planner 3 127 5057 - 6148
Senior Trnffic Technician 3 ' 122 4598 - 5588
Service Center Manager 1 132 6670 - 8108
Special Programs Coordinntor 3 104 3120 - 3793
Street Lighting Worker 4 109 3464 - 4211
Traffic Engineer I 132 6670 - 8108
Traffic Signal Technician 3 124 4785 - 5816
Traffic Technician 3 117 4266 - 5185
Unit Desiqnation Code
1 Management
2 Confidential
3 City Employees' Association
4 Operating Engineers Local No. 3
City of Cupertino salscdOO.xls
2 12/26/2000
City of Cupertino
Salary Schedule
2000 - 2001
PART-TIME/TEMPORARY CLASSIFICATIONS
Building Attevdnqt $6.50 - 9.00
Crossing Guard 8.50 - 9.00 - 9.50 - 10.00 - 10.50
Intern 8.00- 12.50
Lifeguard 8.25 - 8.75 - 9.25
Ranger 6.00 (flat rate)
Recreation Leader 7.00 - 7.50 - 8.00
Recreation Specialist 5.75 - 22.50 *
Senior Lifeguard 9.50- 10,00- 10.50
Senior Ranger 6.50 (flat rate)
Senior Recreation Leader 8.25 - 8.75 - 9.25
* A $0.25 increment between steps in range. Appointment step is dependent on qualifications of
individual and assignment.
City of Cupertino
Pa~e 3 12/26A)0
- RESOLUTION NO. 01-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS AKVW INVESTMENTS, LLC;
10175 ORANGE AVENUE, APN 357-3216-060
WHEREAS, there has b~n presented to the City Council a proposed improvemen!
agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, AKVW Investments, LLC, for the
installation of certain municipal improvements at 10175 Orange Avenue and said agreement
having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in
the attached Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are
hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreeaient on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16tu day of San,,Ary, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote M~mbers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
Resolution No. 01-013
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A"
· SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS
DEVELOPMENT: AKVW Investments, LLC
LOCATION: 10175 Orange Avenue
A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 70,000.00
SEVENTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS
B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 70,000.00
SEVENTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS
C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 3,$00.00
THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS
D. Indirect City Expenses: N/A
E. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00
ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS
F. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 266.00
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY SIX AND 00/100 DOLLARS
G. One Year Power Cost: $ 75.00
H. Street Trees: By Developer
I. Map Checking Fee: N/A
J. Park Fee: ZONE I N/A
K. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A
L. Maps and/or Impwvement Plans: As specified in
Item//23 of agreement
/,~ -2-
RESOLUTION NO. 01-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM
AKVW INVESTMENTS, LLC, 10175 ORANGE AVENUE, APN 357-16-060
WHEREAS, AKVW Investments, LLC has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway
Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to thc City of Cupertino, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes,
situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B',
attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, located at 10175 Orange Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so
tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
grant and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16'~ day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
GRANT OF EASEMENT
FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES
APN 357-16-060
10175 Orange Avenue
AKVW INVESTMENTS, LLC, grant(s) to the CITY OF CUPERTINO for public roadway
purposes, together with the right to construct, repair, operate, and maintain any and all public
utilities and improvements which shall be or become necessary for preservation of thc public
safety, welfare or convenience, the hereinafter described property which is situated in thc City of
Cupertino, Comity of Santa Clara, State of Califbmia, and as described as fbllows:
(See Exhibit 'A" & "B")
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed thi's/X, day of~d~C.., 2000.
Owner:
(Notary acknowledgment to be attached)
15-.7..
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
County of <~ ,<,4-~
Date Name and '13tle ct Olfk:M' (e.g., 'Jane Doe.WNote~y Public~
Names) of $1~ler(s)
[] personally known to me - OR - I~roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~
whose name(a~), is/,~,e-subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that 4,~e/she/tbey executed the
same in h~/her/tl~ir authorized capacity(ies), and that by
~~'~'~'~--~'~ hi~her/tbeir signature(F) on the instrument the person(g),
~,~~'~--~T ~,COMM. 1222579 ~ or the entity upon behalf of which the person,~) acted,
~,~--~,~ NOTARY PUBI. IC-CALIFORNIA ~ executed the~instrument.
~ "~ MyComm. E~p.sMAY30.;~003 ~
OPIIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent rarnoval and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Document Date: ! ~/! ~-/~' Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: Signer's Name:
[] individual [] Individual
[] Corporate Officer [] Corporate Officer
33fie(s): 'Rtle(s):
[] Partner ~ [] Umited [] General [] Partner -- [] Limited [] General
[] Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact
[] Trustee [] Trustee
[] Guardian or Conservator [] Guardian or Conservator ~ ....
[] Other:. Top of thumb here [] Other:
Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing:
O 19~5 Na~nel Notl~ Aa~cialk3~ · 8236 Remm~ Ave.. P.O, Bo~ 7184 · Canega Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod. NO. 5~07 Reom~': Cai Toll-Frae 1-800-878-~7
[
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF PORTIONS OF LOMITA AND ORANGE AVENUES
Ail that certain real property situated in the tity of Cupertino,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of
Section 78 as shown upon "MAP OF SUBDIVISION'A'-MONTE VISTA",
filed for record on April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Maps at Page
20, in the Office of the Recorder of said County and State, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said Section on the
Northerly line of Lomita AVenue, said point being distant
Northerly 20.00 feet from the centerline of said Avenue; thence
along the Westerly line of said Section_North 5.00 feet; thence
along the Southerly line of said Section, N89°48'20"E 105.15
feet; thence along the Easterly line of said Section, North
98.30 feet to the Northeasterly corner thereof; thence along the
Northerly line thereof S89°48'20"W 10.00 feet;
Thence along a line which is parallel with the centerline of
Orange Avenue, and distant therefrom 25 feet, right angle
measure, South 73.37 feet; thence along a curve.to the right
having a radius of 20 feet through a central angle of 89°48'20''
an arc length of 31.35 feet; thence along a line which is
parallel with the centerline of Lomita Avenue and distant
therefrom 25 feet, right angle measure, S89°48'20"W 75.22 feet to
the Westerly line of said Section; thence along said line, Sodth
5.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 1544 square feet or 0.035 of an acre, more or less.
Refer to EXHIBIT "B", Plat, which is hereby made a part of this
description.
Date: September 15, 2000
Address: 10175 Orange Avenue
APN: 357-16-060
City File: 52,262 ~~%
, LONI I'iA
I0
--~ - , ,
O
O~iTA AV~.
DEDICATION PLAT FOR ROADWAY
AMP UTILITIES 'PURPOSE5
TO THE CITY 0F CUPERTIHO, CA.
DATE:sEP~ts,~oo¢ CITY ~/LE
AP~E55:IOt75 O~HGE A~.
A P~: ~7-~¢ -o~o
RESOLUTION NO. 01-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM AKVW INVESTMENTS, LLC,
10175 ORANGE AVENUE, APN 357-16-060
WHEREAS, AKVW Investments, LLC have executed a "Quitclaim Deed and
Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their rights in and
authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water
from thc 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 169 day of JannAry, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members o_.f the Cit~ .Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION
FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
APN 357-16-060
10175 Orange Avenue
Investments, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTOR", this /~/'/!
AKVW
day of 20 OO., hereby grant, bargain, assign, convey, remise, release and foreve~r '
quitclaim unto the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred
to as the "GRANTEE", its successors and assigns, all the right, title, interest, estate, claim
and demand, both at law and in equity, and as well in possession as in expectancy of the
GRANTOR as owner of that certain real property situate in the County of Santa Clara,
State of Califomia, and specifically described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" & "B"
to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or'any underground
strata in the Santa Clara Valley for beneficial use upon the lands overlying said
underground basin, and GRANTOR hereby irrevocably authorized GRANTEE, its
successors and assigns, on behalf of the GRANTOR and its successors in ownership or
overlying lands in the said lots to take from said underground basin within the said lots
any and all water which the owner or owners of said overlying lands may be entitled to
take for beneficial use on said lands and to supply such water to such owner or owners or
others as a public utility; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument
shall be deemed to authorize GRANTEE to enter upon any of the lots delineated upon the
above described map or to authorize GRANTEE to make any withdrawal of water which
will result in damage to any building or structure erected upon said lots.
/¥-2.
This assignment, conveyance and authorization is made for the benefit of lots within the
above described plat and description and shall bind the owner of said lots within said plat
and description.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this instrument the day and year
first above written.
OWNER:
(Acknowledgment and Notarial Seal Attached)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ,'" '
State of
County of .~ ~ ~ [~/'
il
pemonally appeared ~r~ /~
~ personally known to me - OR -~roved to me on the basis of satisfa~o~ evidence to be the person~
· ' whose name~ i~ sub~dbed to the within instrument
~,~,: and acknowledged to me that ~she~ executed the
'; same in~her~r authorized capacity), and that by
~s//~//s~/~//~'~/~/#~//~/~ ~her/~r signature~) on the instrument the pemon~,
~ ~ ROBERT J. MAY ~ . or the entity upon behal~ich the person~) acted,
~~ COMM. 1222579 ~ ~=" executed the instrum~ /
~I~[~N~ARYPUBUC-GALiFORNIA ~ ':" /
~ ~ ~C~m.~p,m~MAY3O.~3~ ..: WITNESS m~an~d official ~.
tm~ul~t m~val an~Ua~ment of this fo~ to anot~r d~umenL
Description of A~ached Document
Si~n~r{s) Other Than ~am~d ~ov~:
~ Individual D Individual
D Corporate Officer ~ Co.orate Officer
~tle(s): ~tle(s):
~ Pa~ner-- ~ Limited D General D Pa~ner-- ~ Limited ~ General
~ A~omey-in-Fact ~ AEorney-in-Fact
~ Trustee ~ Trustee
D Guardian or Conse~ator ~ ~ Gua~ian or Consq~ator
~ Other: T~ ~ ~umb here ~ Other: Top ~ thumb
Signer Is Representing: '~. Signer Is Representing:
1995 National Neta~y Aaae~alion · 6238 Flemmet Ave., P.O. B~ 7164 · Clnoga ParK, CA 91309-7194 prmL No. 5007 Nao~ec ~ Toa-Fm 1.800-87e-M27
.... /~_~/
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF LAND FOR OUITCLAIM DEED
FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Ail that certain real property situated in the City of
Cupertino, Couhty of Santa Clara, State of California, being all
of Section/Lot 78 as shown upon "MAP OF SUBDIVISION 'A'-MONTE
VISTA" filed on April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Maps at Page 20
in the Office of the Recorder of said County and State.
Refer to EXHIBIT "A", Plat, which is hereby made a part of
this description.
Date: Sept, 15, 2000
Address: 10175 Orange Avenue
APN; 357-16-060
City File: 52,262
L 0 HIT^ A~I~
N / "~
PLAT OF 'QUITCLAII',4 DEED
FOR UI~DER~ROU.kID' WATER.
TO Tl-lE CITy OF. COPE/~Tt/,IO, CA.
ADDP,~55: 1017~ O~..,41,lG E AYE..
A Pti'. 357-/4- oeo
cra/Ha~
10300 Torr~ Avcnu~
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
-~ (408) 7?%3354
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM / $ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval of Contract Change Order No. 1 for the Fuel Tank Replacement, at City Hall
Project in the amount of $22,130.00 deduction for a total contract amount of $132,370.00.
BACKGROUND
On August 21, 2000, the Council approved a contract with Technology Engineering and
Construction Inc. for the Fuel Tank Replacement at City Hall Project in the amount of
$154,500.00.
A few minor changes and additions have become necessary to complete the project. Most are
due to minor unforeseen conditions that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time the
construction drawings were completed.
These items in CCO #1 include such things as installing a transition sump, fees for Santa
Clara Fire Inspections, removal of 16" thick concrete with rebar, core drilling 30" thick
footing at building, and a credit for reducing the area where pavers were to be replaced. All
of the items have a total cost deduction of $22,130.00 that was negotiated with the contractor,
and staffbelieves represents a reasonable price for the work involved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 01- o/L, approving Contract
Change Order No. 1 for the Fuel Tank Replacement at City Hall Project in the amount of a
$22,130.00 deduction, for a total contract amount of $132,370.00
Submitted by: ApEroved for subrmsmon:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
Printec~ on ~ec'vclec~ Pa~er f '~' /
RESOLUTION NO. 01-016
A RESOLUTION OF THB CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR, FUBL TANK
RBPLACBMBNT AT CITY HALL PROJECT NUMBBR 2000-104
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cup~ino, California, that Change Order No. 1
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
FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT AT CITY HALL,
PROJECT NUMBER 2000-104
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds are available and no further appwpriation is
necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTBD at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
this 16th day of San-~,y, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Meinbers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
! 0300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3354
FAX: (408) 777-3333
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
FUEL TANK REPLACEMENT,
CUPERTINO CITY HALL
PROJECT NUMBER 2000-104
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Contractor
Technology, Engineering and Construction, [nc.
35 S. Linden
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tho following changes are hereby approved:
lA. Install Transition Sump $ 1,722.00
lB. Fee for Santa Clara Fifo lnapection 600.00
lC. Extra work removal of 16" Concrete with rcbar 1,888.00
ID. Extra work core drilling 30" thick footing at Bldg. 500.00
1E. Reduce area to replace pavers - CREDIT (26,900.00)
CREDIT Total Change Order No. 1 $(22,130.00)
Total Project:
Original Contract $ 154,500.00
Change Order No. 1 CREDIT (22,130.00)
Revised Contract $ 132,370.00
CONTRACTOR CITY OF CUPERTINO
Ralph A. Quails, Jr.
Director of Public Works
Title
City Council: Jaauary 16, 2001
Date Resolution No. 01-016
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX (408) ???-3333
CUPEILTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM //'~ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval of Contract Change Order No. 10 for the Senior Center Project in the amount of
$42,716.00 for a total contract amount of $3,721,880.00.
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 1999, the Council approved a contract with McCrary Construction for the Senior
Center Project in the amount of $3,357,800. Since that time, nine Contract Change Orders (CCO)
aggregating $321,364.00 have been approved for various additional items of work, including
CCO No. 3 in the amount of $175,674.00 for the replacement restroom to serve Memorial Park.
A number of minor changes and additions continue to become necessary as the building nears
completion. All of these modifications are similar to those recommended in CCO #9 recently
approved by the Council. Most are due to minor unforeseen conditions that would have been
difficult to anticipate at the time the con~irt~ction drawings were completed or are needed to
adequately accommodate the programs in the center.
These items in CCO #10 include such things as changing the brand of exit sign that was
specified, installing stained word casing around 18 windows, increasing the sound rating on the
movable partitions, adding a second light fixture to a room, changing the battery operated clocks
to electric, adding a 2x4 toe rail on the redwood deck railing, adding a concrete retaining wall
along the redwood trees, routing a groove in the bottom of the handrail on the deck for lighting,
adding planting and irrigation due to the reduction of the driveway width, installing locksets on
closet doors, adding power, telephone and a data line to network computer throughout the
building, relocating the building sign and adding a roof and gates to the trash enclosure. All of
the items have a total cost of $42,716.00 that was negotiated with the contractor, and staff
believes represents a reasonable price for the work involved. This change order cost is within
the approved project budget.
The roof is required to be installed on the trash enclosure as a "Best Management Pragrice"
measure in accordance with the City's non-point source program. As such a portion of the cost
for the roof structure ($10,000.00) can be funded from the Non-Point Source Program account
· .~' (230=8004-7014). The net cost to the Senior Center Project for this change order is $32,716.00.
1
Printecl on Recycled Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-oi?, approving Contract
Change Order No. l0 for the Senior Center Project in the amount of $42,716.00 for a total
contract amount of $3,695,370.00
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Direaor of Public Works City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 00-017
A RESOLUT'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 10 FOR CUPERTINO
SENIOR CENTER, PRO/ECT NUMBER 99-9210
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, that Change Order No.
l0 for changes to work which has been appwved by the Director of Public Works and this day
presented to this Council, be, and it hereby appwved in conjunction with the project known as
CUPERTINO SBNIOR CENTER,
PRO/ECT 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 15th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3354
FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO SENIOR CENTER
PROJECT NUMBER 99-9210
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 10
Contractor
McCrary Construction Company
1300 Elmer Street
Belmont, CA 94002-4011
The following changes are hereby approved:
10A. Changed Specified Exit Signs to different brand- CREDIT $ (606.00)
10B. Install Stained Wood Casing around 18 Windows 4,952.00
10C. Increase Sound Rating on Movable Partitions 4,877.00
10D. Add Second Lighting Fixture to Room 104 547.00
10E. Change Battery Operated Clocks to Electric 130.00
10F. Additional 2x4 Toe Rail on Redwood Deck 250.00
10G. Add Concrete Retaining Wall along Radwood Trees 1,581.00
10H. Rout Groove in Bottom of Handrail for Deck Lighting 258.00
10I. Add Planting and Irrigation at Reduced Driveway Width 2,011.00
I 0J. Install Loeksets on Doors to Closets 1,056.00
.10K. Add Power/Telephone/Data line to Network Computers 1,150.00
10L. Relecate Building Sign 1,132.00
10M. Add Roof and Gate t~ Trash Enclosure 25,378.00
Total Change Order No. 10 $ 42,716.00
Total Project:
Original Contract $ 3,357,800.00
Change Order No. I 2,753.92
Change Order No. 2 9,171.00
Change Order No. 3 175,674.00
Change Order No. 4 14,271.00
Change Order No. 5 59,579.00
Change Order No. 6 24,684.08
Change Order No. 7 11,778.00
Change Order No. 8 15,604.00
Change Order No. 9 7,849.00
Change Order No. 10 42,716.00
Revised Contract $ 3,721,880.00
CONTRACTOR CITY OF CUPERTINO
Ralph A. Quails, Jr.
Director of Public Works
Title
City Council: Sanuary 16, 2001
Date Resolution No. 01-017
Ci~ H~II
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF (408) 777-3354
CU PEILTINO (408) 777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM / ~ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval of appointment of Joseph Stem to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND
Joseph Stem has applied for an advisory appoin~mem to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee.
At its December 21, 2000 meeting, the Bicycle and Pede.~i~ien Advisory Committee
considered Mr. Stem. It recommends that the City Council appoint him to the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
With the appoinUuent of Mr. Stern, the Committee will have one vacancy on this seven
member advisory body after Phil Underwood's resignation on December 19, 2000. Staff is
currently recruiting candidates to fill this vacancy.
STAFF RECOMMF~NDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council appoint Joseph Stem to the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(4011) 777-33S4
CiTY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITrb.;E
File No. 74,009.02
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 8, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Doug Herdck, Chair
SUBJECT: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITFEE RECOMMENDATION
FOR ADVISORY APPOINTMENT
At its December 21, 2000 meeting, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee considered the
advisory appointment of Joseph Stem. We discussed the position with Mr. Stem. He met the
qualifications to serve for this position.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee recommends that the City Council approve the
advisory appointment of Joseph Stem to serve on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
Printed on Recycled Paper'
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
FAX (4OS) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEILTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM ~ o AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE:
Resolution No. 01-o I $: Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of
Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for the reconstruction of the
bridge on Bollinger Road over Calabazas Creek
Resolution No. 01-t~?q: Authorizing the Director of Public Works to amend the design
contract with Wjnzler & Kelly in the amount of $146,296.00 for a total contract amount of
$221,246.00.
BACKGROUND
The existing bridge on Bollinger Road over Calabazas Creek does not currently provide
sufficient capacity to allow the 100-year storm to pass through without causing flooding on
adjacent streets and property. As such, the Santa Clara Valley Water District desires to
enlarge the capacity of the existing channel underneath the bridge to enable the one- percent
flood to pass within the channel. In addition, the City desires to widen the bridge to provide
improved traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian conditions.
The City and Santa Clara Valley Water District propose to enter into an agreement that will
provide for the design and construction of a new bridge, which will meet both such needs
upon terms therein specified. The City will contract with consultants to prepare plans,
specifications and estimates CPS&E). Aider the final PS&E has been approved by both
agencies, the District will advertise, award, and administer the con~raction contract. The
Agreement details the responsibilities and anticipated costs to each agency. Staff anticipates
construction in summer, 2001.
Project Funding
The current estimated total project cost is $2,110,000. Using guidelines developed for
previous District joint agency agreements, the City and District cost shares were determined.
Based on these calculations, the City share of cost is $366,000, or 21 percent of the ~,otal
project and the District's share of cost is $1,744,000 or 79 percent of the total project cost.
This project has been budgeted under Account No. 270-9443 in the adopted Capital
._ Improvements Pwgram.
/
Prfnted on Recvcled Pa~er 4~'
The City's total proposed budget for design and con~lxuction is currently $467,774.00
(Account No. 270-9443). It is provided by the following funding sources:
a. Transportation Fund for Clean Air $140,000
b. Transportation Development Act 28,024
c. Oeneral Fund 271,000
d. San Jose (proposed) 28,750
TOTAL $467,774
Consultant Agreement - Winzler & Kelly
The original concept for Bollinger Road Bicycle Facility Improvements was for a minor
bridge widening on Bollinger Road over Calabazas Creek. and for bike lanes on Bollinger
Road between De Ans Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway. The City engaged the
engineering firm of Winzler & Kelly of San Ramon to complete the original design on the
minor bridge widening for a fee of $74,950.00. At a May 30, 2000 meeting, the City and
Disi~ict agreed on an expanded joint project to improve and widen the Bollinger Road Bridge
and roadways approaches. Based on the modified scope of work, Winzler & Kelly proposed a
total fee of $221,246.00. The City and District staffs find their fee to be reasonable and
propose to amend the original contract, adding $146,296.00 for a total contract amount of
$221,246.00.
For Council info,,~-~ation, staff is currently preparing plans, specifications, and estimates to
complete the bike lanes on Bollinger Road. The City of San Jose is reviewing them for an
encroachment permit. We anticipate construction in spring, 2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 01-or,,°, autho6~ng the Mayor to execute the Cooperative Agreement
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the recons~xuction of the bridge on Bollinger
Road over Calabazas Creek
Adopt Resolution No. 01- ol ~, authorizing the Director of Public Works to emend the design
contract with Winzler & Kelly in the amount of $146,296.00 for a total contract amount of
$221,246.00.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City ManA~oer
RESOLUTION NO. 01-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATWE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a Cooperative Agreement
between Santa Clara Valley Water Disirict and the City of Cupertino for the design and
construction of a new bridge on Bollinger Road over Calabazas Creek to provide improved
traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian conditions; and
WHEREAS, the provisions, t~,ms, and conditions of the afo~=,~aentioned agreement have
been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Public Works.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said agreement on behalf of the City
of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
RESOLUTION NO. 01-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO AMEND THE DESIGN
CONTRACT WITH WINZLER & KELLY FOR BOLLINGER ROAD ·
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City has engaged the engineering fi,,,, of Win~.ler & Kelly of San
Ramon to complete the original design on the minor bridge widening for the Bollinger Road
Bicycle Facility Improvements Project for a fee of $74,950.00; and
WHEREAS, the City and Santa Clara Valley Water District have agreed on an expanded
joint bridge vAdening project to improve and widen thc Bollinger Road Bridge and roadways
approaches; and
WHEREAS, Winzler & Kelly have proposed a total fee of $221,246.00 based on the
modified scope of work and the City of Cupertino desires to amend the original contract to
reflect the expanded project.
NOW, THBRBFORB, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works to amend the design contract with Winzlcr &
Kelly for Bollinger Road Bicycle Facility Improv=ments Project on behalf of the City of
Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
.~ . Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CI~Y OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPE INO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM c~/' AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Resolution No. _~.o,.o Authorizing execution, of cooperative agreement with the State of
California Office of Traffic Safety for Speed Reduction Program purchase of radar speed trailer
and laser speed detectors at a cost of $25,000.
BACKGROUND
The State of California Office of Traffic Safety has awarded a grant of $25,000 under the
Highway Safety Plan to the City for implementation of the Speed Reduction Program.
- The Speed Reduction Program will seek the reduction of speed related traffic collisions during
the next two years. Staff and the Sheriff's Department will coordinate the target enforcement at
high exposure locations and deployment of radar speed trailers on streets that are exposed to
excessive speeding.
The grant from the Office of Traffic Safety will fully fund the' City's purchase of one radar speed
trailer and two laser speed detectors. The new radar speed trailers will replace the old one that is
functionally obsolete. The new laser detectors will enable Sheriffs deputies to selectively
enforce speed limits at high-speed locations.
The Office of Traffic Safety has requested the City to execute a grant agreement for the Speed
Reduction Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion to authorize the City Manager to
execute a grant agreement of $25,000 with the State of California Office of Traffic Safety for the
Speed Reduction Program to purchase one radar speed trailer and two laser speed detectors.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
Phn~ed on Recycled Pa~er ~ ~ ~ !
RESOLUTION NO. 01- 020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHOllIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR PURCHASE
OF A RADAR SPEED TRAII.ER AND LASER SPEED DETECTORS '
FOR THE SPEED REDUCTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the State of California Office of Traffic Safety has awarded a grant of
$25,000 under the Highway Safety Plan to the City for implementation of the Speed Reduction
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Speed Reduction Program will seek the reduction of speed related traffic
collisions by coordinating target enforcement at high exposure locations and deploying radar
speed trailers on streets that are exposed to excessive speeding; and
WHEREAS, the/rant from the Office of Traffic Safety will fully fund the City's purchase of
one radar speed trailer and two laser speed detectors to enable Sheriff's deputies to selectively
enforce speed limits at high-speed locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the State of
California Office of Traffic Safety for implementation of a Speed Reduction Program and
purehasc ofonc radar speed trailer and two laser speed detectors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupcrtino this 16~ day of Sanuary, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members o__fth__e City .Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: · APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
..-- Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPEPxTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM ,~,,Z, AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval of installation of three locations for Demonstration Red Light Running Photo
Enforcement Systems.
BACKGROUND
At the September 18, 2000 meeting, City Council authorized an agreement with APAC
Technology to install and operate a demonstration red light running photo enforcement
system.
APAC will annually pay $42,000 to the City for a minimum term of five years. The
minimum fine for a red light running violation is $281. APAC will receive $49.50 for each
paid citation.
Under a. separate agreement with the City, Lockheed Martin IMS is concurrently deploying
the red light running photo enforcement systems. At its December 4, 2000 meeting, City
Council approved the proposed installation at six locations by Lockheed Martin. They have
the exclusive right to process citations for red light running violating by photo enforcement
systems by other contractors. Lockheed Martin also has first right of refusal for any
installation at a particular location.
APAC representatives met with the Public Safety Commission at their December 14, 2000
meeting. They reviewed the three locations proposed by APAC and recommend their
installation, and the City Traffic Engineer concurs. Under the first right of refusal, Lockheed
Martin has reviewed the three locations and has no interest to deploy their systems.
The list of the three locations for the field camera units by APAC are:
1. Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard, south bound left turn.
2. Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road, east bound lef~ turn.
3. Wolfe Road at Homestead Road, north bound turn.
printed on Recycled Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the installation of three locations for
Demonstration Red Light Running Photo Enforcement Systems.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Q~mlls, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
N
LEGEND
· Cupertino Traffic Signal
· Joint Traffic Signal
Potential Traffic Signal
' ~ '~ Demonstration Location
'~emonstration" Red Light Running
Photo Enforcement Systems
By APAC Technologies
Ci~ Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-33:~4
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPEILTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM c~'~, AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Resolution No. 01-,/~__: Ordering vacation of a 40' wide public access easement and emergency
vehicle access easement on a portion of Lot I of Tract No. 7953, as shown on Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
On June 19, 2000, the City Council approved various actions relating to the Cupertino City
Center project which consists of an apartment and retail complex (Prometheus, 6-U-00, Planning
Commission Resolution No. 6029). The new apartment and retail complex will be built over this
existing 40' wide public access easement and emergency vehicle access easement. In order to
proceed with the project, the easement must be abandoned. The easement is shown in
Attachment A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. , vacating the 40' wide public
access easement and emergency vehicle access easement on a portion of Lot 1 of Tract 7953.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paoer
RESOLUTION NO. 01-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ORDERING VACATION OF A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AND EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENTS WITHIN TIlE CITY OF CUPERTINO
CALIFORNIA-LOT 1 OF TRACT 7953; GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND DE ANZA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, that certain 40' wide private access easement and emergency vehicle access easement
more particularly described in description and map attached hereto and made part hereof as Attachment
"1", are deemed unnecessary for present and prospective use; and
WHEREAS, it appears to be in the best interest of the city to vacate the hereinafter described
private access and emergency vehicle access easement; and
WHEREAS, said vacations are in conformation with the city's General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That all or liny protests against the vacation are hereby overruled and denied;
2. That said private access and eihergency vehicle access easement described and shown in
Attachment "1" attached hereto and made part hereof, be and hereby are vacated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the City Clerk is hereby instructed and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution,
attested to and sealed with the official seal of the City, to be recorded with the County Recorder of thc
County of Santa Clara, California, forthwith.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of thc City of Cupertino this
16t~ day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members o._fth.__e City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
CUPERTINO CITY CENTER
EASEMENT TO BE VACATED
All that certain Real Property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara,
State of C~lifornia, more particularly descn'bed as follows:
LOT 1
Begi~nlng at the most northWesterly comer of Lot 1 ns Lot 1 is shown on that certain
Map entitled Tract No. 7953 Cupertino City Center Phase I. II, which Map was filed for
record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of Cnllfomia on
February 27, 1987, in Book 571 of Maps, Pages 36 and 37; thence along the northerly
boun~,-y of said Lot 1, South 89°06'40'' East 40.00 feet to a point in a line parallel with
and 40.00 feet from the Westerly boundary of said Lot 1; thence along said parallel line,
South 00°53'20'' West 230.00 feet {o a point in the southerly boundary of said LOt 1;
thence along the southerly bou~anry of said Lot 1, North 89006'40'' West 40.00 feet to
the southWest corner of said LOt 1; thence along the westerly boundary of said Lot 1,
North 00°53'20" East 230.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 9,200 square feet of land, more or less.
END OF DESCRIPTION
12/12/00 Page 1 of 1 C~.gan + D'Angelo
100002 / 199068
s oo'~'~o' w ~ 1~o
I I I
I I I
~1 ~ I LINE LENGTH BEARING
~ = · Reconfigured CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA
=1 ~1 ~ 40' PAE, ~AE I N89'O6'~'W
I ~, , / = / cz ~.27 ~.~ ~'~'
I ~1 40.00 , I / N ~53'2o' E
: _ ~~~~J//~,.o~' ,
~ / . I
I
~ EVAE =1
-- s o~';o'~ - - ~ ..... ;~.~;~ -~.~
PU;, ;VAE, PAE AS DESCRIBED ON N ~53'20' E
TRACT UAP 17953, BOOK 5~ OF ~APS
PaOES ~6-37, ~TA C~RA COUN~ RECORDS
DE ANZA BOUL~ARD
199068 ~~-1
CREECAN+D'ANGELO PROM HEUS W/
DESIGN: DVB
Engineers · Plon~e~ · Su~eyo~ KIMPTON GROUP CH'KD: DVB
DATE: 12-12-00
1075 N TENTH STREW, SUITE 100 CUPERTINO CI~ CENTER S~LE:~ SHOWN
SAN JOSE,CA 95112-1052 VACATION OF LOT 1 ~SEMENT
City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
.-- Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM ,,o./ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Resolution No~/~o~a,: Authorizing appropriation of $140,000 from the General Fund to procure
and il'Bt_nil green light emitting diode lamps under Pacific Gas & Electric Company LED Traffic
Signal Rebate Program and authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute an agreement
with SYNCHRONEX to procure green LED lamps in an amount not to exceed $91,000.
BACKGROUND
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PO&E) has a Light Emittin~ Diode (LED) Traffic Silputl
Rebate Program effective September 11, 2000. This Program retrofits incandescent traffic signal
lamps with LED lamps to conserve energy. PG&E is offering a maximum incentive of $175.00
per lamp if the LED lamps are installed by June 1, 2001.
Under an energy services agreement with Northeast Energy Services, Inc. (NORESCO) on
October 21, 1998, NORESCO provided and installed Ecolux red LED lamps at the City's traffic
signals. SYNCHRONEX, of San Jose, is the distributor of Ecolux LED lamps in the region.
Through PG&E's LED Traffic Signal Rebate Program, staff wants to install Ecolux green LED
lamps at our traffic signals. PG&E h_n_s reserved funds for a rebate to the City. SYNCHRONEX
has offered a governmental agency price in California. The total cost for the procurement of
green LED lamps is about $91,000. Staff estimates a total cost of about $35,000 to acquire the
services ora contractor to install 815 units of green LED lamps.
PG&E will fully reimburse the City's total cost to procure the green LED lamps in the fom~ of a
rebate. After the PG&E rebate, the net cost to the City for the installation is approximately
$35,000. The simple payback of this amount is about 1.6 years with the anm~o! energy savings
of approximately $22,000.
1
Printed on Recycled Pa~er ~' ~ ~ /
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that thc City Council adopt Resolution No. 01- to appropriate $140,000
to procure and in.~tll green LED lamps ~mder PG&E LED Traffic Signal Rebate Program and
authorize the Director of Public Works to execute an agreement with SYNCHRONEX to procure
green LED lamps in an amount not to exceed $91,000.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
2
RESOLUTION NO. 01 =022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHOI~IT, ING AN APPROPRIATION OF $140,000 FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO PROCURE AND INSTALL GREEN LIGHT EMITtING DIODE
LAMPS AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SYNCHRONEX OF SAN JOSE
TO PROCURE GREEN LED LAMPS
WHEREAS, Pacific Gas & Electric Company has instituted a Light Emitting Diode (LED)
Traffic Signal Rebate Program to retrofit incandescent traffic signal lamps with LED lamps to
conserve energy; and
WHEREAS, SYNCHRONEX of San Jose has estimated the cost of providing the green LED
lamps at appwximately $91,000 and staff estimates an installation cost of $35,000; and
WHEREAS, PG&E will fully reimburse the City's total cost to pwcure the green LED
lamps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves an appropriation in the amount of $140,000 to cover the cost of procuring and
installing green light emittin§ diode lamps to replace the City's traffic signal lamps.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the Director of Public
Works to execute an agreement with SYNCHRONEX for procurement of the green LED lamps
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15'~ day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
city Hnll
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF (408) 777-3354
CU PEP~INO FAx (408)777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM ~9_ ~" AGENDA DATE Jan-~_,'y 16, 2001
SUIMECT AND ISSUE
Resolution No. 01- i23 : Authorizing the Director of Public Works to award a design contract
of $158,889.00 to Zumwalt Engineering Group to prepare plans, specifications and estimates for
the San Tomas Aquino-Saratoga Creek Trail Bicycle Facility Impwvements Project.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been negotiating with Zumwait Engineering Group (ZEG) of San Ramon for a design
contract on the San Tomas Aquino-Saratoga Creek Trail Bicycle Facility Improvements Project.
ZEG has proposed to porfo~a, the design work for an estimated fee of $158,889.00. Staff finds
their fee to be fair and reasonable for the scope of work.
ZEG has proposed a diverse design t~.ara for this project, including a civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, traffic engineer, ~hactural engineer, landscape architect, and an environmental planner.
The team collectively provides ail the necessary technicai and management expertise for this
challenging project. Their team also includes professionals who have been actively involved in
the master planning of the entire Trail pwject for some time as well as the detailed design of
some of the segments in other jurisdictions.
This project will construct Reach 5 of the San Tomas-Saratoga Creek Trail from Pruneridge
Avenue to Tantau Avenue to Barnhart Avenue, that includes bicycle facilities on Tantau Avenue
and Bamhart Avenue. The project work scope includes a paved path and associated landscaping
and irrigation system along Saratoga Creek, a bicycle pedestrian bridge over Saratoga Creek,
traffic stripes, pavement markings, roadside signs, bike loop detectors, island modifications and
associated hardware.
The total project budget (design and construction) is currently $515,000.00 (account numbers
270-9437 and 420-9116). It is provided by the following sources:
a. Transportation Fund for Clean Air $ 280,000
b. Santa Clara County Bicycle Expenditure Program 150,000
- c. Generai Fund 85,000
Total $ 515,000
Additional funding of $125,000.00 from the fiscal year 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program
will also be available for this project and will bring the total available funds to $640,000.00.
Staff is seeking $200,000.00 from the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program to
install the landscaping.
At this time the City plans to design the entire project all at the same time and under one
contract. However, it is possible that the construction contract tony be broken into two phases or
parts in order to expedite completion of se~mentz of the trail that are simpler to design and
subject to less regulatory review. This potential phasing of the project will be developed upon
completion of preliminary design phase of the project. Staff anticipates that construction will
start in Fall 2001.
STAIrF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 01- , authorizing the Director of
Public Works to award the design contract for the San Tomas Aquino-Saratoga Creek Trail
Bicycle Facility Improvements Project to Zumwalt Engineering Croup and execute the contract.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Qu~!~s, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
2
)
':'::':' '!' ,~ ,,' ' ~ ' ROAD
-
:-.',': ~:'" "iL"ll,i~m !Bi d~ ;~ral~..,l-i-,~. i~Bi.~T :, ~r~'~ d,, [, ~
:/. ~.: .... ~ ~..~ ·
- ,.~ .~ '~; . =~. '.. .~:":~:~ :;:.
~,:~ ~ .....
,~. ~ ~ -~::
/
LEGEND
Cupe~in~Tmffic Signal
~ Joint T~ffic Signal
~ · Potential Traffic Signal
Bicycle Lane
Bi.de Path
San Tomas -Saratoga Creek Trail
~ ~. ~ Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. 01-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHOtlIMING THE DnlECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO AWARD AND
EXECUTE A DESIGN CONTRACT TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND
ESTIMATES FOR THE SAN TOMAS AQUINO-SARATOGA CREEK TRAIL
BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City is und~mldng construction of the San Tomas Aquino=Saratoga Creek
Trail Bicycle Facility Improvements Project, which is a portion of the San Tomas Aquino-
Saratoga Creek Trail fi'om Pruncridge Avenue to Tantau Avenue and Bamhart Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this project includes extensive features such as a paved path and associated
landscaping and irrigation system along Saratoga Creek, a bicycle pedestrian bridge over
Saratoga Creek, traffic stripes, pawment markings, roadside signs, hike loop detectors, island
modifications and associated hardware; and
WHEREAS, it necessm~y to award a design contract to prepare plans, specifications and
estimates for this project.
NOW, TI-I~.REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupm~ino
hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works to award and execute said design contract.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16m day of Jan, tory, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
.~ City Hall
10300 Ton'~ Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPE INO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Summary
AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Resolution No.~t~-/,~f Authorizing execution of an agreement with All City Management
Services (ACMS) for crossing guards at eight Cupertino School Sites.
BACKGROUND
For over twenty years, the City of Cupertino has provided Crossing Guard Service to six City
elementary schools. Last year, Council authorized additional placements of crossing guards at
Kennedy Middle School and Garden Gate Elementary School. Since March of this year, staff
-- has been unsuccessful in plaCing permanent crossing guards at these school sites. Currently, the
position at Kennedy Middle School is assigned to a full time city maintenance staff person.
Utilization of full-time City personnel to fill the vacancies is not only costly at an hourly rate of
$23.00 per hour, but it decreases the total of working-hours allocated for other essential City
services.
Staff contacted All City Management Services (ACMS) of Los Angeles, who have provided
complete crossing guard service to local agencies for over 15 years. ACMS will assume
complete responsibility for all crossing guard duties including recruitment, staffing, training,
equipment, payroll, and supervision. They will immediately provide back up for any crossing
g,nrd absent from duty. ACMS maintai~ one million-dollar ($1,000,000) in liability insurance,
with a Certificate of Insurance issued to the City. ACMS has provided a firm quote of $14.79
per hour per guard with a four-hour minimum per school, for an annual cost of $85,190. (The
existing pay rate is $10.50 per hour for all crossing gn~nrds and an administrative fee of $4.29 per
hour.)
ACMS provides Crossing Guard services to seventy-five agencies throughout California.
Currently, they are providing service to eight agencies in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
Staff has received favorable comments and reviewed their current perfoLmance with the cities of
Mountain View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Bruno, Millbra~, Burlingame and the Town of Los
Gatos.
Printed on Recycled Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8/~f~, authorizing execution of an
agreement with All City Managei~ient Services to provide crossing g~Ard services to eight (8)
schools in the City of Cupertino.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Q~_~al~s, Jr. '~ David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 01 °024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHOllIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES (ACMS) FOR CROSSING GUARDS AT EIGHT CUPERTINO SCHOOL SITES
WHEREAS, there has been pr--,~nted to the City Council an al/reemant between All City
Management Services and the City of Cupellino for crossin~ g,~ni services at eight Cupertino
school sites; and
WI-IBRBAS, the provisions, terms, and conditions of the aforementioned a~reement have
been rcviewcd and approved by the City Attorney and thc Director of Public Works.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute sa/d a/l~ment on behalf of the City
of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED al a reEular meet/nE of thc City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16i day of Jan-sty, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
.... Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CITY OF Fax: (408) 777-3366
CUPE INO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SLrMMARY
Agenda Item No. o2 '~ Meeting Date: Jannary 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funding Allocation
BACKGROUND
AB3229 (Brulte) was enacted as part of the state budget package. The bill establishes the COPS
program and appropriates $100 million from the state general fund for the 2000-01 fiscal year.
The COPS pwgram provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of ensuring public safety.
The City of Cupertino has received $114,776 for fiscal year 2000-01.
USE OF FUNDS
Cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services.
This can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs. The funds are to be
appropriated pursuant to a written request fxom the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of
the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. Capt. Jeff Miles has
submitted the attached recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the sheriff's request for the expenditure of
COPS funds.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A. Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Allocation
City of Cupertino
Fiscal Year 2000-01
Grant Award $114,776
Proposed Expenditures:
Public Dialogue Consortium- Community Policing 50,000
School Resource Officer (three way split) 40,993
Vehicle video systeais to replace outdated units 23~783
Total $114,776
RESOLUTION NO: O /~1~ ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING REQUEST FROM SHERIFF FOR USE
OF AB 3229 (BRULTE) CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM FUNDS OF $114,776
WHEREAS, AB 3229 (Brulte) was enacted as part of the state budget program; and
WHEREAS, the bill establishes the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program
and appropriates $100 million from the state general fund for the 2000-01 fiscal year and the City
of Cupertino's per capita share is $114,776 for fiscal year 2000-01; and
WHEREAS, the COPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of
ensuring public safety; and
WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund fxont line
municipal police services which can include anti-gang and COmmunity grirae prevention
programs; and
WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the
Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police
services for that city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves the Sheriff's request for the expenditures of AB 3229 Citizens' Option for
Public Safety (COPS) funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
city Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO (408)777.3109
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. a2 ~ Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) High Tochnology
Grant Allocation.
BACKGROUND
This year, the State of California awarded a one-time funding source for the pwmotion of
technology in the area of Public Safety. This Budget Act item 9210-106-0001 pwvides
Cupertino with $118,286 for fiscal year 2000/01.
USE OF FUNDS
Cities are required to appropriate CLEEP revenues to fund technology for municipal
police services. The funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the
Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that pwvides
police services to the city. Captain Jeff Miles has submitted the attached
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the sheriff's request for the expenditure
of CLEEP funds.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A.Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP)
High Technology Grant
City of Cupertino
Fiscal Year 2000-01
Grant Award $118,286
Propos~ Expenditures:
Hand held radar units 13,500
Laser Pro Radar units for Traffic Deputies 24,000
Laptop Computer for public presentations 3,500
LCD Projector for public presentations 5,500
Portable screen for above equipment 500
Video Eraser for Mobile Video Tapes 625
HP photo quality printer for digital photos 350
I-IP color laser printer for Project reports, crime plotting, etc 4,500
Laptop computers for Traffic Investigation Unit !4,000
Color TV display for public information - scrolrmg 400
Palm pilots for Cupertino Resource Sergeant and SRO's 900
Vehicle video systems (additional costs flora COPS grant) 26,511
Code Enforcement tracking program, mobile computing,
Automated parking citation unit, cellular phones,
Portable radios and computers 24,000
Total $118,286
RESOLUTION NO. oz-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING REQUEST FROM SI-I~RIFF FOR USE OF
CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP~ PROGRAM (CLEEP)
HIGH TECHNOLOGY FUNDS OF $118,286
II~-I~REAS, CLEEP funds were appropriated as part of the state budget program; and
WHEREAS, the bill establishes the CLEEP progrsm and appropriates monies from the
state general fund for the 2000-01 fiscal year and the City of Cupertino's per capita share is
$118,286 for fiscal year 2000-01; and
WHEREAS, the CLEEP program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of
enhancing technology use in the area of public safety; and
WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate CLEEP revenues to fund front line
municipal police services which can include anti-gang and community crime prevention
programs; and
WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request fi~m the
Chief of Police or the Chief Adihinistrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police
services for that city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves the Sheriff's request for the expenditures of the California Law Enforcement
Equipment Program High Technology Grant Allocation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16* day of Janual% 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members o__f the Ciiy Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO F,,x:(408)777-3109
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. _2 ~ Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Staff is requesting Council authorization to take two current part-time positions to full-
time status. The Youth/Teen division of Parks and Recreation is requesting to combine
part-time salary funds with an additional $5,000 from the general fund to bring our 20-
hour Recreation Coordinator to a permanent 40-hour position. The City Attorney is
requesting an additional $15,026 from the general fund to bring the Assistant City
Attorney from a 32-hour to a 40-hour position. Both requests are a result of increased
workload/city programs.
BACKGROUND
Parks and Recreation - the Youth/Teen division is currently authorized for a part-time
recreation coordinator for teen programs and has money budgeted for summer staff
assistant positions. With the authorization of an additional $5,000 from the general fund,
the division could combine these funds and have two full-time Recreation Coordinator
positions. The new staffing configuration will provide a higher level of service and an
opportunity for cross training on our programs for youths and teens in Cupertino.
City Attorney - the Assistant City Attorney is currently employed on a 4/5 schedule. The
department is requesting that this position be increased to full-time status due to increased
activity in the City Attorney's Office. Such activities include additional code
enforcement responsibilities and a greater involvement in City litigation. The cost to the
general fund will be $15,026 since benefits are currently provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize these two positions to move to full-time
status and appropriate $20,026 from the general fund.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol ^.Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
Pnoted on Recycled Paper o~ ~ - .'
Carol Atwood
~- '~m: Christine Hanel
it: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:38 AM
, ~: Carol Atwood
Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith
Subject: Coordinator Position
With the above approval, the Youth/Teen division will have two full-time Recreation Coordinator positions which I firmly
believe are required to provide and maintain the current levels of recreational services for youths and teens in Cupertino.
The program responsibilities will be divided as follows:
Recreation Coordinator--Youth Programs
Summer Staff Recruitment
Summer Staff Training
Summer Science Fun Camp
Nature Camp
Dropoln Playground Program
Friday Adventure Get-Aways
Summer Finale Camp
Elementary Noontime Program
Breakfast with Santa
Winter Camps (2)
Spring Vacation camp
Afferschool Enrichment Program
Co-Sponsored Clubs
Recreation Coordinator--Teen Programs
Crazy for Sports Camp
Daycamp
Club 2001 (Teen Camp)
:Z~en Volunteers
m~er Staff Recruitment
..,mmer Staff Training
Teen Drop-In
Special Recreation and Co-op Dances
Santa Visits
Junior High Dances (9)
Teen Winter Camp
Disneyland Trip
Ski Trips
Department Supplies
Noontime @ High schools/Middle schools
Skatepark
Teen Center
"Additional responsibilities include the department-wide events In which all staff assist: Fourth of July, Ghostwalk, and
Big Bunny Fun Run. In addition, the Youth/Teen division also oversees the Preschool program, Parent-Tot Preschool,
and the Monta Vista Recreation Center. Please contact ms If you have any questions or need some additional
information. Thank you for your supportl
City of CUl~rfino
10300 Torte Av~u~
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF (408) 777-3251
CUPEI INO (408) 777-3333
Community Development Depa~iment
Housing Servieea
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. $ o Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Citizen Participation Plan Schedule for Twenty-Seventh Program Year (2001-2002)
of the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Program
DISCUSSION:
Federal Regulations require the City of Cupertino to adopt a schedule allowing for public
participation in thc Community Development Block Grant program. Attached is the schedule for
fiscal year 2001-2002. · -
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve Reaolution No. establi.~hing the 2001-2002 CDBG
citizen participation schedule.
Prepared by Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Su~ Approved by:
Director of Community Development City Manager
Enclosures:
Reaolution No.
2001-2002 Citizen Participation Sche&,~e
30--!
Printed on Plecvc. le~ Pa~er
RESOLUTION NO. 01=027
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ADOPTING A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
FOR THE TWENTY=SEVENTH YEAR (2001=2002)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Homing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds
be made available for the Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino participates in the Community Development Block
Grant Program in order to provide affordable housing opportunities for very low and low income
persons and families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cup~l'tino is required to follow a Citizen Participation Plan in the
disbursal of CDBG funds;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby adopts the attached Citizen Participation Plan for the Twenty-Seventh Program Year
(2001-2002).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a r~gular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of January, 2001 by the following vote:
VOTE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attest: Approved:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
G :/pl~nnin~/c. db~r~o.do~
80 -~-
City of Cupertino
2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Citizen Participation Plan
Meeting and Application Schedule
January 16, 2001 Adoption of Citizen Participation Schedule
6:45 P.M.
February 23, 2001 Project Proposal Application Deadline
4:30 P.M. Community Development Deparmaent, City Hall, Lower Level
· Project proposals must be submitted to the City no later than
4:30 P.M. on this date.
There will be absolutely no exceptions
Mareh 8, 2001 Affordable Housing Committee Meeting
3:30 P.M. City Hall, Lower Level, Conference Rooms C&D
· Affordable Housing Committee to review project proposals and
hear testimony from applicants
· Affordable Housing Committee makes recommendations on
funding.
Recommendations are forwarded to City Council on April 2, 2001.
April 2, 2001 City Council Meeting (Public Hearing)
6:45 P.M. City Hall, Council Chamber~
· Council to approve 'final recommendations for City CDBG
g:/planning/¢dbg
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3223
CUPERTINO FnX: (408)777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. _~ ! Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Consideration of renewal of bingo permits
BACKGROLrND
The City of Cupertino has two active bingo permits within the city limits at this time.
They have been issued to the Holy Name Society of St. Joseph Church and International
Order of Odd Fellows #70. Both organizations have applied for the annual renewal of
their permits as required by the Municipal Code, and all forms and fees have been
received.
The Sheriff's Deparhiient, Central Fire Protection District, the County Health Officer,
Cupertino's Chief Building Inspector and Director of Planning have approved the
applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing; renew permits.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
·
City Clerk City Manager
Pnnted on Recycled PaPer
10300 Ton~ Avenue
~ · DEC -' 8 2000 ~9-,,~-~o, CA ~so~4-~2ss
-'Te.cphonc: ~408) 777-3223
CI~ OF FAX: (4os)
CUPERTINO
O~q'l'Cl~. OF TIIE CITY CLERK
APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT
1. Name of Org-~i=ntion
Name of O~c~ ~.
Ad~s of O~c~ /o
'2. Daysofop~fion~o~ ~~Ho~of~on ~'~o~
3. Ad,ss ofB~go ~e
4. P~ose of~i~
5. ~p ofB~go ~pm~t
6. N~o ofp~a ~iblc for ~a~oa ofB~ g~o ~c~ c~~.
7. ~ o~ ~ao who ~ ~y ~id ~t~ ~ B~o g~o
'MUST HAVE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS
CHECK
~ A. Consent for sheriff to inspect bank account Containing Bingo profits.
/,/ B. Statement of ownership/lease of premises.
~,/ C. Copies of ex--pt status from Intcmal Revenue end Franchise Tax Board
or tax idenfification number, q'~c ~ ~-- 1[,,9'~- ~.~-
Signature of person responsible for Bingo geme
FEB: $50.00 - General License annual. Ovcr 10 games.
5.00 - Gene~ License esch game. Under 10 gsmes.
THIS PERMIT IS NONTRANSFERABLE EITHER AS TO THE LICBNSB OR.
LOCATION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Sheriffrecommendation YES ~ NO
_ Fire District YES ~ NO
HealthOflicer YES 1~ NO
ChiefBuilding Inspector Y~ X NO~ ;l'c~ &O'r~o,a.e..c.t.
DirectorofPlanning YES ;~ BIO
Time of public hearing
Business License No.
Prinf~d on Recycled PeDer
ST. JOSEF-H of CUPERTINO
10110 bi. DE ANZA BLVD.
(~-~PERTINO,~A= 9S014
Dec. 01,2000
The Santa Clara County SherifFs Department may inspect the Bingo records
ef St. Joseph of (~upertino.
The prembes used for St Jeseph of Cupertino Binso are owned by the
Church/(Die~_ ~_,~e of San Jose)~
DICK ~.nWELL
BINGO
ST. JOSEPH of CUPERTINO
10110 lq. DE ANZA BLVD.
· CUPERTINO, CA. 9~014
BINGO RI~PO~tT DEC. 2000
(12/01/99 TO 11/30/00)
GROSS RECEIFFS FORPERIOD $ 1149607
CASH ON HAND 12701/~ $ 31317
$ 1180924
EXPENSES
PAID INP~I~.$ $ 942498
BAD CI~CK~ 8~0
REaR~ ~1~ ~ ~.~S 6791
~ ~~~S ~217
~~t~ 1~93
~~ ~ ST. ~H ~~ 127~
~~~G 6~1
~.~ ~~ ~~.) 859
$1149189
C~ ON ~ 1~1~ 31735
$11~24
/. :20589..Homeste~4 qRoad~ ~,~. CA
· CUPERTINO CITY CLERK ~.t~P.O:,Bo~6,~(~upertino~:CA~95015
~':.~ (408) 7,3. 6,6~63~(e~e~ings/i'eco~det)
December 7, 2000
()". !'.~/.i .'"' ~,.~,i, ;...,:~( J
Offi~ oftbe Cit~ Cl~rk
.~,.~......, ..... ...~- (~*)..( ~
10300 Torte Avenue 326 Clarence Avenue' "
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 s~e;.;' ~' ''*~ ':'*""CA'94086:5909"'~ "' ' ' ''~
(408) 735-1835
Subject: Renewal of Bingo Permit
City Clerk: ..i~ ::"., · · ) ~.,,!~ ~.. ~ .'~
Please find enclosed the information you requb, st~:in.'.~bur,nnmlnl,~lett~imrsuant.te*' '" ** ' ' ' the
renewal of [.O.O.F., Cupertino #70's bingo permi~ along with the accompanying $50.00 check for
the permit ice.
continue.to 5e'nu~il~d'to~m'e at the- "~ldress ~ ~thi~'tl~e ~nngl~.' Th· p~nn~it Shs~ld' be ~iniled
to the P.O. box on the letterh~ Thank you in advance for yom' attention to this nuttter.
Sincerely,
i.:..;~,ll..12..~.] ~ : ,~.'.!~t:.) I.'-~_ .'-~i ' ! .,"~" 'Jill; /'.: :;ili .' ,'~¢~ - .... .':~'1...; .'~
Jim Kmuse
Cupertino I.O.O.F. Lodge # ?0
Meets 2nd & 4th Monday ~ 8 P.M.
20589 Honmaead Road; Cupertino, CA
P.O. Box 6; Cupertino, CA 95015
(408) 736-6563 (evenings/Fecorder)
Cupertino #70, LO.O.F. Bingo Financial Statement
Fiscal Period November 1, 1999 through October 31, 2000
November 1, 1999 account balance forward ¢~,~a) ............................................... $ 401.62
Bank Deposits ...................................................................................................... $11781.79
Total Receipts: $12183.41
Bank Withdrawals
Bonus Blackout Games ........................................................................................... $ 2829.00
Other Game Expenses ............................................................................................. $ 2080.12
City of Cupertino Bingo Permit ........................................................................... $ 50.00
To Lodge for' Maintenance, Repairs, and Utilities .................................................. $ 2000.00
Total Withdrawals: $ 6959.12
Donations
Community Services .............................................................................................. $ 400.00
Total Withdrawals and Donations $ 7359.12
Closing Balance
October 31, 2000 account balance: ........................................................................ $ 4824.29
BNO
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenu~
Cupetfiao, CA 95014-320.
Telephone: (408) ?7?-3223
ity
~,Ul.~(~,[~_.il,]_O FAX: (4OS) 777-33~
~PLICATION FOR B~GO PE~IT
Days of ~fiun ~: ~-~, .- ~x Ho~of~fio~ .~.~a-/~'aa
O~e~hip of Bingo eq~pm~t ~- - *- ~': - ~ ~ :~-~::~j '
N~e of ~n ~s~mible for o~uon of Bi~o g~e,~- -- 2 7 ..~.~' · ~- - ~-~ 2~ ~
MUST HAVE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS
CHECK
A. Consent for Sheriff to inspect bank account containing Bingo profits.
· 2t, B. Statement of ownership/lease of premises.
~ C. Copies of exempt status from Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board or tax
identification number.
Signatu~f perag~'~ re?ge~sible fdr Bingo ga~'e
FEE $50.00 - General License annuaL Over 10 games
S.00 - General License each game. Under 10 games.
THIS PERMIT IS NONTRANSFERABLE ErFHER AS TO THE LICENSE OR LOCATION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Sheriffrecommendation YES X NO 'L,~,: I'~,~K. ial/OA
Fire District YES ~,~ NO ~ TOH ~AL$CH
Health Officer YES X 'NO' gtt~.~.¥~, K~c~k~.~
ChicfBuildinglnspector YES ~.. NO__ ~'c~e. ~3TI~O~.~.C~
Director of Planning YES ~,~ NO~ ~,Te_vC. ~t~X$~.r_Kt
Time of public hearing
Business Liccnsc No.
~~K~ ~ ~i~.~ ~J,,: .,...~......~.. ·
.--. ~/EO: TS
Intel'nM Ile.v®n~e semite
O~T 17 1978I ~. ~,,.~o o,~ ~
9~%90.16Z.0~4~qi? 2~27145925E 9~505~
[NDE~ENDENT'O~PF~ oF ODD FELLOW5 70
. .. CUPERTINO 7~
~O BOX ~
CUPERTZNO, CA 950[4 78
Form NmaI.~. 990
~ IMiW. :Deoembe~ 31, 1976
We are pleased to tell you that as a result of our examination for
the above periods we will continue to recognize your or~ani~ation as
tax-exempt ·
ge have indicated below whether there is a change in your liability
fOr the unrelated business income tax as prov'-ded by sec+.£ons 511
through 515 of the Internal Revenue Code.
]~ T~ere ia no chan~e.
[] You will receive an examination report explain£n[ the proposed
adJ ust-.ents ·
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours.
Die trice D~cecCor
Letter 988 (DO) (7-7:
~/-~'
Cupertino Lodge ~ 70
Odd Yellows of California
P.O. Box 6
Cupertino, CA 95015
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCRRN:
l, Hex M. Hollovay, duly elecCed, qualified and
arcing Crand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of the
Independent Order of Odd Fellows of the Stare of
California hereby certify Cupertino Lodge No. 70,
Independent Order of Odd Fellows, located aC Cupertino,
California, is a regular consci~uted Lodge
Independent Order of Odd Fellows operatin$ under
Charte~ from the Grand Lodge of the Independent
Order of Odd Fellows for the Stare of Calfiornia.
I, also further state thac Che principle activities
of Lodses chartered under the Grand Lodge are as
a Fraternal Beneficiary Society for the relief
o£ members and for operating Homes for the aged
and the orphan, and for community acCiviCies and
charities, and for tax purposes have qualified
£or exemption as follows:
STATE 23701B FEDERAL 501 (c) (8) 0028
Blanket Exemption Federal Exemption Letter
March 19, 1957 August 19, 19&O
IN WITNESS WHRREOF: I have hereunto sec my hand
and affixed the Seal of said Grand Lodge, Independent
Order of Odd Fellows this Thirtieth day of September
at Saratoga, California, 1986.
ax M. Hollovay, Grand~crecary
Crand Lodge of Californ~a
Independent Order of Odd Fellows
of California
~ 10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF (408) 777-3308
CUPE INO ,AXC408) 777-3333
Commmfity Developraeat Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 3~/'~ Agendn Dnte January 16, 2001
Application No.: O1-MCA-O0, 19-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Vnrlous
Location:. Citywide
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Grant a negative declaration for the Ordinance amendment.
2. Approve an amendment to the R-1 Ordinance bnsed on the attached ordinance, ns
modified herein.
;.
Application Summary:
MUNICIPAL CODE AMEND~ to revise Chapter 19.28 (R-1 ordinance) to decrease
building mass and improve the integration of new construction into existing neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND:
This amendment to the R-1 Ordinance is the product of the one year v~iew of the effectiveness
of the mass and bulk ordinance update that took effect in June of 1999. Staff highlighted the
strengths and weaknesses ofhhe ordinance amendment at the City Council hearing on August 21,
2000, and recommended modifications to address the weaknesses. The City Council directed
staff to prepare an amendment to the R-1 Ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed this
item at the November 27, 2000 hearing and recommended approval of the model ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The Municipal Code Amendment addresses the following issues:
· Two-story development with overly massive architectural elements with a floor area
ratio (FAR) under 35%. All two-story development will be reviewed for reasonable
compatibility with the neighborhood and other adopted guidelines.
· Two-story development with tall single-story walb. The single-story building envelope
will apply to single-story sections of two-story homes.
· Additional options for privacy protection. Obscure, unopenable windows will be
considered privacy protection in lieu of tree plantings.
Printed on t~ecycled Paper
· Public'noticing radius for design review and exception applications. Three-hundred £oot
noticing for all design approvals and exceptions.
Expiration of design approvals and exceptions. Expiration will be tied to the application
for building p=,u,its in.~',eed of the start of con~h.,ction. The expiration will remain as one
year after approval. StaffhA.~ found that many projects do not start con, traction within one
year of the design approval since architects do not prepare the cor~haction drawings until
after design approval is at~Jned. This change would ~ive homeowners more lime to
complete their pwjects. If the builalng permit expires, then the design approval becomes nuil
and void.
Public Input
Steve Blanton, representing the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors requested that Section
19.28.060 Cla be amended to read:
'~rhe mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern..."
Staff is supportive of Mr. Blanton's suggestion, and recommends it be included in the attached
ordinance.
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner
APPROX ED FOR SUBMITTAL: SUBMITTED BY:
David W. Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
Enclosures:
Model Ordinance
Exhibit A1: Planning Commission report dated November 27, 2000
Exhibit B 1: Negntivc Dcclaration and Environmental Documentation from the
Environmental Review Committee
Exhibit C1: Plalanlng Commission minutes October 23, 2000 and November 27, 2000
2
Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through.
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTEK 19.28, SINGLE FAMII.y RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R-l) OF
THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows:
SINGLE-FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONES
Sections:
19.28.010 Purposes.
19.28.020 Applicability of regnlation.
19.28.030 Permitted uses.
19.28.040 Conditional uses.
19.28.050 Site development regulations.
19.28.060 Lot coverage, building setbacks, basements, height restrictions and
privacy mitigation measures for nonaccessory buildings and structures.
19.28.070 Permitted yard encroachments.
19.28.080 Exceptions for prescriptive design regulations.
19.28.090 Residential design approval
19.28.100 Development Regulations - Eichler (R-lc)
19.28.110 Procedure for exceptions and residential design approvals.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas
suitable for detached dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identify of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision of light,_ ami air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual
residential parcels;
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of ~i~actures within residential
.neighborhoods;
D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the commuulty.
1938.060 Lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and privacy mitigation
measures for nonnccessory buildings and structures.
A. Lot Coverage: for Firrt ~tory Development.
The maximum lot coverage shall be A building or building may cover no more +Lo,,
forty-five percent of the net lot area.
B. Floor Area Ratio.
1. Any new single-story house, or single-story addition to an existing house shall have
a maximum floor area ratio of forty-five percent of the net lot area.
2. Any new two-story house, or second -~;:c story addition to an existing house, may
not cause the floor area ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed thirty-five percent
of the net lot o-e% unless discretionary design approval is first obtained from the
P, esidenti~ Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 19.28.090. In no event,
shall such floor area ratio exceed forty-five percent of the net lot area.
3. The floor area of a second story shall not exceed thirty=five percent of the existin~
or proposed first story or six hundred square feet, whichever is greater.
C. Design Ouidelines
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, sbal! be
generally consistent with the adopted Single Family Residential Guidelines. The
Director of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine
that the following items are met prior to issuance of building permits:
a. Thc design shall be reasonably compatible with the predomirumt neighborhood
pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than or out of
scale with the neighborhood pattern in terms of bui]cllng fo,'ais, roof pitches,
eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve
higher volume interior spaces;
c. For projects with three car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall
plane of the third space shall be setback a minimum of two feet from the wall
plane of the other two spaces, or shall use incorporate a tandem space. There
shall not be a three-car wide driveway cUrb cut.
2. If the Director does not find that the proposal is generally consistent with this
section, then an application must be made for design approval from the Design
Review Cowmittee pursuant to Section 19.28.090.
D. Setback--First Story (Nonacccssory Structures).
1. Front Yard. The minirlllam frollt yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a
curved driveway, the setback shall be fifteen feet as long as there are no more tium
two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side.
2. Side Yard. At least one of two side yard setbacks must be no less than ten feet. Thc
other side yard setback must be no less than five feet. Notwithstanding the above, a
lot less than sixty feet in width and less than six thousand square feet shall have a
minimum side yard setback of five feet on each side yard. In instances where an
addition is proposed to an existing building having both side yard setbacks less than
ten feet, thc wider setback shall be retained and the narrower setback must be at
least five feet. Notxvit~°to~ding the abov~ a fide yo-d £ettmck xx~aich is exi~Ang and
legony nonco~_fo~i,,ing moy be.extended -~ons i'e exi~tin$ £etback to no lesE t~'~''
three feet from the property line if the applico,,t o~o;,,o ~wittan co~oent from the
· djoining propirty ovmer thereby ~'ected ~nd receive£ ~pprov.°1 from tl~ E~irector
of Comm,,-;ty Development. In the case ora comer lot, a minimum side yard
setback of twelve feet on the street side of the lot is required.
3. Rear Yard. The mlnlmnm rear yard setback is twenty feet. The rear setback may
be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the ,'_nless the 1,,sable rear yard area is
not less than eqvolc, or exceea% twenty times the lot width as measured from the
front setback line. In that case, the minim~'_m rear y~-d £ethack i£ ten feet.
E. Setback--Second Floor (Nonaccessory Structures).
1. The mir~imum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
2. The rrgnlmum side setbacks are ten feet, provided that in the case of a flag lot, the
minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line, and in the case of a comer
lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side l~rooerty line and twenty feet from
any rear property line of an existing, developed single-family dwelling.
3. Setback Surcharge. A setback distance eq~sl to fifteen feet shall be added in whole
or in any combination to the front or side-yard setback requirements specified in
Section 19,2g,060 subsection E2. A minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet shall be
applied to the side yard(s).
4. Accessory Buildings/Structures[ Chapter 19.80 governs setbacks, coverage and
other standards for accessory structures.
~. The height ofseeond story walls are regulated as follows:
a. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have
exposed wall heights oggreater than six feet, sad shall have a minimum two-
foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second floor wall.
The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from
the first story exterior wall plane.
b. All second story vail heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second
story finished floor, are required to have building wall offsets at least every
twenty-four feet, with a minimum two-foot depth and six-foot width. The
offsets shall comprise the full height of the wall plane.
c. All second story roofs shall have a minimum of one-foot eaves.
F. Basements
1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors shall
be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation.
2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be located within a required setback area
except as follows:
a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retal~ing wall shall be five feet.
b. The l~inirxlunl rear setback for a lightwell retaining vadl shall be ten feet.
3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be
located immediately adjacent to the lightwell.
5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated.
and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as dete~lned by
the Director of Conlrnunity Development.
- G. Additional Site Requirements.
1. Height.
a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R-1
zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys,
antennae or other appurteos~ces.
b. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on sir~le-story
structures and single story sections of two-story structures must fit into a
building envelope clefned by:
i. A twelve feet high vertical line measured from natural grade and located
five feet from property lines.
ii. A twenty-five-degree roofli.n, e angle projected inward at the twelve foot
high line referenced in subsection F1 bi of this section.
Notwithstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may
have a maxim,,m wall height of twenty feet to.the peak of the roof as measured
from natural grade.
2. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in
subsection E of this section.
3. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings
within a desi~o~sted area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen
feet) by s~xing to the R-1 zo, i,~g district, the designation "i"; provided, however,
that the limitation may be removed through use permit approval, as provided in
Section 19.28.040 B by the Plav,~ing Commission.
-- 4. The maximum entry feature height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the
wall plate, shall be fourteen feet.
5. No blank single-story side walls longer than sixteen feet shall face a public right-
of-way without at least one of the following: (a) at least one offset with a mlr~iru~]m
two-foot depth and six-foot width; the offset shall comprise the full height of thc
wall plane, (b) window of at least thirty inches by thirty inches, (c) entry feature
leading to a door, (d) trellis with landscape screening.
6. Exceptions for Hillside Areas. Notwithstanding any provisions of subsection F1 to
the contrary, the plsnnlng Commission may make an exception for heights to
excccd twenty-cight feet under certain circumstances:
a. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes often percent or
greater;
b. Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the
standard height restrictions necessary or desirable;
c. In no case, shall the maximum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling
or twenty feet for an accessory building or dwelling;
d. In no case, shall the maximum height of a .,i~acture located on prominent
ridgelines, on or above thc four-hundred-fifty-foot contour exceed twenty feet
in height.
H. Privacy Protection Requirements.
1. Required Landscape Planting.
· -- a. Requirement. In order to address privacy protection and the reduction in visible
building mass of new two-story homes and additions, ~ree and/or shrub planting
is required. Applic'"t~ f~r nsw two slory homs£ o"d ~d~tie''o m~a~t p ~lant ~ tree
in ~cnt cf new secend ~toriez in the front yo-d Eetback
co~i~ ~ ~e ~ee c~opie~ of~e public ~e~ ~ee (Appe~x A~
b. PI~E PI~. A b~ld~ pe~it app~cafion for a new ~o-sW~ ho~e or a
second ~o~ ~fion ~l be accomp~ by a pl~E p~ ~ch idengfies
· e loca~on, sp~ies ~d c~opy ~et~ of e~E ~ees or s~bs, su~ect to
st~ approval. New ~es or s~bs s~ ~ r~ed s~c~m on ~e applic~t's
prope~ ~tMn a cone of vision de~ed by a ~ dele ~e ~m ~e side
~dow j~bs of ~l second ~ ~dows ~bit 1). New ~cs or ~bs ~c
not ~q~d to ~place e~s~E ~ees or s~bs ff ~ htema~o~y Ce~fied
~bo~ or Lice~ed L~ca~ ~M~ verifies that ~e e~g ~eMs~bs
~e comis~nt ~ ~e intent ofAppen~ A. Applic~ for n~ ~o-sto~
homes ~d ~difiom m~ pl~t a ~e ~ ~nt of new se~nd aofies ~ ~e ~nt
ymd setback ~a ~ess ~em is a co~i~ ~& ~e ~e ~o~ies of~e public
~eet ~e (Appendix A, page 2). In ~ddit~n, ~ ~e ~0~
~ont y~d ~et~ck. ~e plm~g is req~d on &e applic~t's prope~, -nless
opfiom listed ~ subsec~on Fid offs se~on is applied. ~s option does not
apply to ~e ~nt y~d ~e-pl~ng ~q~ement.
c. Pl~g Req~rements. ~e ~nlmm si~ of~e proposed ~ees ~l be ~enW-
fo~ ~h box ~d ei~t-foot wlnlm~m plm~g heist. ~e minimum si~ of&e
~bs sh~l be fifteen g~Mn ~d s~-foot piing heist.
able to ~Mcve a p~d s~c~g ~thln ~e y~ ~m plm~g. ~e s~cies
~d plm~g ~ce b~een ~es s~ be governed by Appen~ A. ~e flees
or s~bs ~l be pl~t~ pHor to is~ce of a ~d occup~ ~adt.
~da~t of pl~g is ~q~d ~ order to ob~ ~e ~ occup~cy pe~t
(Appen~x C).
'd. Opfiom. ~em pl~fi~ is mq~ed, ~e ~plic~t ~y pl~t on ~e ~ected
prop~ o~ers lot ~ lieu of~e~ o~ lot or ~e ~ected prope~ o~er ~y
mo~ ~e n~bers of s~bs or ~ees, ~eff ~es ~d locafiom by sub~n~ a
w~ver to ~e Co~mi~ Development Dep~h~ent ~ong ~ ~e b~l~g
pe~t (Appendix B). ~s option does not apply to ~e req~ed
~ont y~s.
e. Applicabili~. ~s req~rement s~l a~ly to second sto~ ~ndows ~d
wi~ ~ews into nefghbo~g ~sidenfi~ y~ds. not lpply ~o S~li~, ~ndows
~ sills more ~ ~ five feet ~om ~e ~shed second floor, ~d obsc~ed,
non-openable ~ndo~ ~e not ~q~ed to pro~& p~vacy protec~on plying.
no~ign~d ~id~ ~tb~k x~ndox~ b~n ~vo ~gl~ f~fly r~id~ntiil hom~s
· It h~z~ ten f~et or le~s b~il~ng ~tbie~ to ~ prope~ 1~, m~ the
~ted pmp~, o~x~er ~et~ to pl~ng. In ~h ~s, ~ndo~ ~i~t b~
eb~e or h~v~ · ~ill height 2bow fiw f~et ~om ~e floor, xx4ndm~ fl~fng
fight o~ way, ~d ~ndo~x~ f~einff i no~id~n~l zo~ff
fi M~nten~ce. ~e req~ed pl~ts sh~l be msint~ed. L~dscape pl~tin~
m~nte~ce ~cludes ~gafion, fe~m~on ~d p~in~ ~ necess~ to yield a
~o~ rote expired for a p~c~ species. ~em req~red piing dies
m~t ~ replaced ~in ~ ~ys ~ ~e si~ ~d species
Appe~ A of ~s c~pter ~d ~ up&ted plying pl~ s~l be
Co~ Development Dep~ent. ~e ~ected p~pe~ o~er ~ p~vacy
protection pl~t~g on ~s or h~ o~ lot is not mq~ed
l~ds~ping.
19.28.070 Permitted yard encroachments.
A. In P,. 1 zones, Where a building legally conalx~ted according to existing yard and
setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards,
one encroaching side of the existing smact-,-s m~y b* extended ~ong exit~d.v.g b,~lding
line sv~n when the ~xisting first floor ~etbick: do net meet tha r~o/,;-~ment£ of this
c, hat~. yard setback may be extended along its existing building lines to no less than
three feet from the property line if the applicant obtains written consent from the
adjoining property owner thereby affected and receives al~l~roval from the Director of
Community Develol~ment. Only one such extension shall be peiudtted for the life of
such building. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to
allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of
the granting ora variance, either before or after such property become part of the City.
B. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback; e.g., a
single story may be extended along an existing five-foot side-yard setback even though
the side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane of a
first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line.
C. Architectural features (not including patio covets) may extend ihto a required yard a
distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination
thereof, whether a portion ora principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than
three feet to any property line.
;
19.28.080 Exceptions for Prescriptive Design Regulations
Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict
application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to Section 19.28.060 and 19.28.100 may
be granted as provided in this section.
A. Issued by the Director of Community Development. With respect to a request for two
story development which does not meet the development requirements contained in
Section 19.28.060 H Ii (Privacy Protection Requirements) and Section 19.28.100 C the
Community Development Director may grant an exception to allow two-story
development if the subject development, based upon substantial evidence, meets all of
the following criteria:
B. Issued by the Design Review Committee (Other Prescriptive Design Regulations). The
Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design
regulations described in Section 19.28.060 and Section 19.28.100 exclusive of Section
19.28.060 G4 ~&).iHillside Building Heights) -"d lsction 19,21t,060 F (Privacy
Protection) upon making all of the following findings:
C. Issued by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Notwithstanding any
provision of Section 19.28.060 G1 E(!} to the contrary, the Planning Commission may
grant an exception for heights to exceed 28 feet upon making all oftha following
findings:
19~8.090 Residential design approval.
In the event that a proposed development of two stories exceeds a thirty-five percent floor
area ratio as prescribed in Section 19.28.060 B, or in the event that the Director of
Conununity Development finds that the proposed two-story development does not conform
to Section 19.28.060 C, the applicant shall apply to the Design Review Con~mittee for
design approval a spsc~~ permit to allow for the development ......
19.28.100 Development Regulations - Eichler (R-le)
R-lc single-family residence .Eichler di--i~icts" protect a consistent architectural form
through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in
the other sections of this ordinance shall apply to properties zoned R-le. In the event of a
conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section .~h~ll prevail.
Nothing in thcsc regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or
second story-addition.
A. Setback- First Story.
1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
B. Building Design Requirements.
1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house.
2. The maximum roof slope shall be 3:12 (rise over nm).
3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including
the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart.
4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved
·lines.
5. Second story building wall offsets described in Section 19.28.060 ~_ESb are not
required for homes in the R-lc zone.
6. The first floor shall be no more than 12 inches above the existing grade.
7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall not exceed nine feet in height
· measured from the top of the floor to the top of the wall plate.
C. Privacy Protection Requirements.
1. Side & Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows
In addition to other privacy protection requirements in ~ Section 19.28.060 _H
(F), the following is required for all second story windows:
a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second
floor, or
b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor:, or
c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor.
19.28.110 Procedure for exceptions and residential design approvals.
A. Public Hearing--Notice. Upon receipt of an application for approval, the Director of
Community Development shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the
relevant decision-maker and order the public notice thereof. A notice of the hearing
shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the
last tax assessment roll) within three hundi~l feet of the subject ~roperty. ~x~hich ~but
the £ubject propsrty (incl~;'~fl propertie£ to the lsfl~ right o'"d '~;-ectly oppo£its the
subject propsrV] ~-d propmisz loca~d ~Cror~ a £tr~t~ xvay, highx~y or ~lsy, ?'"d zb°~
include owr~rz ofprol~rty who£s only eonti~':ty to tl~ £ubjsct property is a £in$1s
B. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval
which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall
become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be
prescribed by the conditions of the exception. An approval shall be deemed to have
been "used" in the event of the ~r¢¢tion of a ~tr~ctx'-s xxi~n~2_fficiem b,~lJ:-~g actix4ty
has occurred ~"~ continues to occur in a a_ili~nt r"-"'~r, when a complete building
permit application is submitted to the Chief Building Official, and continues to
progress in a diligent manner. In the event that the building permit application expires,
the Residential Design Approval shall become null and void. The Director of
Community Development.may grant one additional one-year extension if an
application is filed before the expiration date without further notice and heating.
3.!
19.28.150 Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit.
Purpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting
has been installed accordl.g to the planting plan.
Validation. An Interl~tionally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall
certify the
design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. A reduced 1 lx17 copy of the
approved planting plan shall be attached. Submittal of this form shall be required prior to
final inspection of the residence.
Planting Certification
I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is in.~alled at:
address
and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscape planting and irrigation
plans drawn by
dated (attached).
L~v~lseap~ Arehite~t
Name
Title
Professional License #
Profe££ional
Stamp Here
Date
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTlVrF~NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 01-MCA-00, 19-EA-00 Agenda Date: November 27, 2000
Applicant: City of Cul~'rtino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location:City-wide
Application Summary: M-nlcipal Code Amendment revising Chapter 19.28 (R-1
ordinance) to decrease building mass and improve the inte~tion of new const~ction
into existing neighborhoods.
RECOMME~NDATION:
Staffrecommcnds that the Planning Commission take thc following a~tions:
· Approve the Negative Declaration.
* Recommend that the City Council approve the model ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission requested modifications to the model ordinanc~ at the October
23, 2000 meeting. Since that time, staffhas withdrawn the recommendation to reduce the
vertical wall height regulations in the ordinance. The model ordinance now includes
language for consistency with the design guidelines for all two-story development and
minor changes as described in the previous report.
ANALYSIS
Conformance to standard Design Guidelines for all' two-story development
Staff originally recommended a regulation flint would have required the Director of
Community Development to make a d~e~,,,iuation of general consistency of two-story
development to the Single Family Residential Design Cmidelines prior to the iss,,~nce of
building permits. If the Director did not fred that the design was consistent with the
guidelines, then the applicant would have to apply for Design Approval from the Design
Review Committee. The purpose of this regulation was to catch the handful of projects
that are substantially inconsistent with the guidelines. The Cowmlssion was concerned
that the ambiguous regulation could be used in a discriminatory fashion, and requested
more detailed language.
Section 19.28.060 C of the model ordinance now provides more deUdled language, based
on the major sections of the design guidelines (attached). Some of the Design Guidelines
are already represented by ordinance regulations, including privacy protection for decks
and second story offsets. The following items are developed fxom the remaining
guidelines for incorporation into the ordinance. (underlined sections are excerpis from the
model ordinance)
1
a. The design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood
pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than or out of scale
with the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, cave heights,
ridge heights, and entry feature heights;
This regulation is the combination of several of design guidelines. The "reasonably
compatible" language allows some discretion, and is present in Section 19.28.010 C as
one of the purposes of the R-1 district. The intent of the regulation is to prevent the
exceptional project that is not sensitive to the neighborhood from being built without the
neighborhood notification and without oppommity for neighborhood input. Staff is
sensitive to the concern of the Commission that this di.~cretion could be misused, and
points out that projects that the Director can not find consistent with the proposed
regulations could request design approval from the Design Review Committee.
For example, if a project proposed a flat roof, ~to-story residence in a neighborhood with
gable roofs, then the design would not be.reasonably compatible with the neighborhood.
If the project proposed a hip roof in a neighborhood with gabl~ roofs, then the design
would be reasonably compatible.
The front elevation ora proposed two-story residence with a 35% floor area ratio is
shown in Exhibit B. 'riffs house meets the current R-1 Ordinance and is in the process of
getting building permits. Staff considers the design in Exhibit B to be massive and
inconsistent with a number of design guidelines. If the project required design review,
then staff would request a number of design modifications to reduce the mass.
Under the proposed model ordinance, if the house shown in Exhibit B is in a
neighborhood with only single-story homes with low eave lines, star, would consider the
design to be incompatible and the applicant would have to apply for design approval from
the Design Review Committee. I£the house shown in Exhibit B is in a neighborhood
with mostly modem two-story homes, then stafTmay consider the design to be
compatible and the project would not require design approval from the Design Review
Committee.
Staff would rely on applicant-provided photographs to detemiine compatibility. In some
cases, staff would conduct site visits. Staffwould continue to consider the
"neighborhood" as being three houses on both sides of the subject site and three houses
on both sides of the property across the street from the subject site.
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher
volume interior spaces;
High volume living areas are popular for many new residences. The provision of high
volume areas can be done without substantially affecting the mass and bulk of the
building, by using vaulted ceilings and exterior walls with typical ten-twelve foot heights..
Unfortunately, most designs that have been reviewed in the past year have not
incorporated vaulted ceilings, instead using high exterior walls with fiat ceilings. The
result is a high volume area with a significant mass and bulk. The City regulated high
volume areas by requiring that any interior areas with a floor to ceiling height over fi~teen
feet be counted as floor area twice, with the intent of reducing mass and bulk. Exhibit A
is an example of a two-story residence that precisely meets the ordinance regulation, but
does not meet the intent of the regulation. The high ceiling regulation did not have any
impact on reducing the mass and bulk of this design. Staff helieves that requixing all
two-story development to 'be reviewed for consistency with thc guideline above would
adequately address this issue.
c. For projects with three car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, thc wall plane
of the third space shall be setback a mlnlrnunl of two feet from the wall plane of the
other two spaces, or shall use incorporate a tandem space. There shall not be a three-
car wide driveway curb cut.
Three car garages arc also popular for two-story residences since the larger garage
increases thc square footage of the first story, which effectively increases thc allowable
size ofthe second story. Staffbelieves thstthe enforcement ofthethree-car garage
guidelines will have a positive impact on the streetscape of the City's neighborhoods.
Furthe~,,,ore, when these design changes arc requested for projects going through the
design review process~ applicants have not had objections to them because they can be
easily met without affecting their overall design. Staffprefers the use of a tandem space
in three car garages because it results in the appearance of a two-car garage from the
street. However, providing an offset for the third garage door will break up facade. Thc
City's Architectural Consultant has recommended these concepts in the pasL
Regulations Covered in Prior Staff Report
The following items were discussed in the attached staff report for the p]annin~
Commission hearing of October 23, 2000.
Apply single-story buildipg envelope to single-story sections of two-story homes.
· Obscure, non-opcnablc windows are exempt from privacy protection.
· Three hundred foot noticing.
· Modified expiration date.
Regulations Removed from Prior Model Ordinance
Staff withdrew the recommendation to reduce the vertical wall height regulations for
exterior walls and entry features by two feet. Staffis confident that the regulations
requiring consistency with the design guidelines for two-story development will result in
designs with compatible eave and entry heights, making numerical reductions in height
limitations unnecessary. Single-story eave and entry heights would not be reviewed for
consistency with thc design guidelines. Since the focus of the mass and bulk regulations
was on two-story development, staff is prioritizing regulations for two-story development
until there is public concern for the mass of single-story developments.
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~
3
Attachments:
Model Ordinance
Exhibit A: Section showing Interior High Volume Area
Exhibit B: Front Elevation exhibit
Exhibit C: Single Family Design Guidelines
ExhibR D: Initial Study and Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee
Exhibit E: Staff Report dated October 23, 2000
Exhibit C
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
June ?, 19c~
Architect · AIA
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Goals and Guiding Principles of Design Guidelines
B. General Plan Policies
IL Neighborhood Compau'oility Issues
IH. Mass & Bulk
IV. Streetsca~ Issues
city
L Introduction
A. Goals end Ouidin~ Principles of Design Ouidelines
· Crea~ harmonious homes in scale and desi?
· Allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock.
· Provide a speedy development process for th~ applicant.
· · Provid~ neighbors with inpu~ to the devcloPment process.
B. (~encral Plan Policies
All projects must be consistent with the City of Cupertino Ocneral Plan
policies.
· See Policy 2-13: Scale of Residential Development
Ensure that the scale and density of new residential development and
rcmodelin$ is reaso~,,hly compe~lc with thc City's predominan~ single
family residential pattern, except in areas designated for higher density
housing.
· .See Policy 2-18: Privacy in Site Design'
Ensure that the site design for a residenlial project has private indoor and
outdoor spaces for each unit and common outdoor recreation space.
· See Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection
Protect residenlial neighborhoods from noise, traffic~ light and visually
inlrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffmi_'_n_g
setbacks, landscaping, walls, activity lim~t,~ons, site design and other
appropriate m~ur~.
· Policy 2-20: M~,~,~,~,~ Privacy Inu'usion
Keep the si~s and sounds of the neighbon from in~,a~,~2 on residents.
Techniques can include ~ buildin~ setb~ks, wins walls, window
shut~s and non-tree-parent
1
Cup~i~o, caur~i~'
¢. Ob.j~'tive
New homes and remodel and addition projects offer a great opportunity to
create a design that is harmonious with and enhances the neighborhood.
However, for ~ to happen one must observe the exisling neighborhood
characteristics and incorporate those paItcrns that are appropriate into their
design.
A special sensitivity must be shown in the design of two story homes, as they
have a greater visual ira.met on the neighborhood. To reduce the impact of
new homes on the neighborhood incorporate the scale, form, and materials
found in the neighborhood into the desi~
2
l~siSn Ouidelin~s
Cupertino, C, alit'omia ..~ -~ - ..2 !
ii. Neighborhood Compatibility
Obi~ctive
· To soften the trn.~fion ~oetween existing
single story neighborhoods and new
two-story development.
Problem _~-
hom~ n~y not ~onnt for ~,'..ale,
and bn~k of ~xi~fing hom~ in
& drainage properties to a min~nlum,
· - · Set the first floor elevation as close to [-PLOO& t. ll4t~l~.
inclode split-level portions of house. ~ ~ i ~._~'53[ I~Tr--1.r
Hou~ CLo$1~
· Balance the appaarance of new two story
development with those of the existing
neighborhood by keeping similar
architectural form, roof pitch, cave and
ridge heights.
· In new home developments, use one
See General story elements at edges of development
Plan Policy abutting existing one slxxy homes to
2-15 soften the trnnsition.
Sin~ F~'nily ~ 3 6/7~9
See Genael · Whero new two story dements or homes
Plan ~i~ ~ pm~s~ adjac~t m ~n~e s~
2-~ hom~, ~sifion new ~o ~ windows
~ng ~ of e~s~g single ~o~
hom~. ~ ~ ~ ~ev~ by ~e ~
~ ~li~ cle~ w~dows,
~du~ng ~e size ~ w~ws, ~g ~e
~1 heist of w~dows or ~l~g
louv on wadows.
· Privaoy prote~ti.on between new two ~'~ .~.~ ~
~ ~ sto~ ~d e~s~n~ one sto~ h~ ~
~ ~i~ ~so ~ ~d ~u~ ~e piing
2-,9 f~t ~ng, non~iduo~ ~ ~d
~bs.
· Second story decks should be plac.ed or
See General designed so ns not to offer direct views
Plan Policy
2-18 into adjacent property hying"' or backynni
areas. Use solid railings instead of open
See Chapter railings, lattice nnd landscape screening
19.so on sides of deck toward sideyards.
Accessory
Buildings/
Structures
Municipal
~U. Mass & Bulk
· To reduce the appearance of mass and
bulk of new structures.
Problem
see Chapter * New two story homes or additions
19.2s baying two story vertical walls appear
Municipal more manive and bulky, due m lack of
regard for building indentation, distanee
to adjac~t buildings or ~m~'t to light/
air tO adjoining pro .pe..rti. 'es.
See Cbaptet
19.28
~mi~i~ · How to maintain the building squere
Code footage tl,=t the public wants but
reducing the vis,lc bulk ora building.
Solutions
See Chapter "
19.:28 * Keep visible second stories wan heights ~,_~.~l. Ar~ i~os~ ~'o
Municipal reduced to a minimunl by blh'ying them 8st-uc~ toas e u,~-~
Code under the roof of thc first story. O/~I~,LL SG~L~K-~- \ ~_
See Chapmr * Add articulations to'second story walls
tg.~s where 6' high walls a~ used over a
Municipal l~ll~h of 24'.
Code
I~krrltlc t, ol~[. .
See Chapter I~l~z~. ~ ~ e, ut.l< "~
~9.~ · 'P~duce the height of cnu-y features to
Code match the cave heights of homes in a
neighborhood.
· Use vaulted ceiling rather than high exterior
walls to achieve higher vol-me spaces.
I)o -
· Use simplc building forms instead of overly
bays, etc. can create a busy appearance. .
· Setback second story from first floor and
shape to relate to existing house. Avoid a boxy
looking second story.
· If hipped roofs fit your archi~-tural design,
visual mass of the roof.
· ~h, us, of~ ~ ~fsho-~d b,. A ./' ~o~
· Use lighter looking materials on second
sto~y such as wood or stucco and avoid
using heavy look~n$ building materials
such as stone or b~ick.
Single Family Reskiealial
IV. 5treetscapes
Objective
· To promote good site planning
t~hnicl~ that will inlp~ove ~nd
· neighbo ood.
· A neighborhood has a palIem as it
relates to building setback f~om street,
orientation of prates/driveways,
sidewalk pattern and public strut tree
type. This pattera should b~ mslntslned
when new homes are built in a
neighborhood.
· New two-story homes are construcmd
without instsllation of front yard
landscaping and lrees to soften the mass
of'new two-story elements.
Solutions
· Plant a minimum of two non-deciduous
see Chapter trees (1-24 "box, 1-15 gallon) in the
m.2s front yard, in a location to soften the
Mumcipal
Code appearanee of the two story elements of
a home.
· The city requires the owner to plant
street tree(s) whcre none exist when the
See City
Street Tree owner either subdivides the property, NEW
Policy builds a new home or improves the $~'Ib~:3r,
per~-nt of the value of the existing
· Design the new home to m**h the~xisti., neighborhood building setbacks .~'_ T,ceic,t.
8
Sinale Fmaily Reside~lhd 6tT/g9
city or cupm~
~2-2 7
· V&nen tha garage doors are turned away
--~ ¢~ from the street, use hna~ape planting,
Muni¢i~lg'~ ~ellises, or the installation of a
Code window(s) facing the slreet to soften the
appearance of what would otherwise bc
a blank wall. Also, the garage doors
mould have a,~ini-,-,~ ofcontrsstins
color to blend in the doors appearance.
· Three car 8arases could have one space
setback from the other two spaces. Three
single width doors instead of a single
and a double width door could be used to
· reduce the scale of thc garage There
should not be a three-car wido driveway.
· Three car garages can be softened by the
use of one t~ndcm parking space behind
one of the two patens spaces.
PLAt4 l>eM PARKINq
Single Family Reaide~sl
Design Ouidelines
Cupm'tino,
EXHIBIT B ~ '"
10't00 Ton~ Avenue
t Cup~ino, Ca 95014
40ft.777.3308
StaffUse Only
Fne No. Vt -
Case File No. 0
PROJECT DESC1UI~ION: Attachments ?
Project Title ~i¢il:~! q~'
EnvirOnmental S~'tting , .
PRO~ECTDESCRIPTION:
Site Arce~(ac.) Building Coverase .~ Exist. BuildinLs.f. Proposed Bldg. s.f.
Zone t~.- ~ G.P. Designation ~-~- ~/~;R P~ Assessor's Parcel No. __ __ __
If Residential, Units/Gross A~e
.... TotabV Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.£ Price
Unit
Type . .o
Type ~
UnR
Unit ~
Type
[~l Monta Vista Design Guidelines [==-=[ S. De ~n~ Conceptual
I'---] N. De Anza Conceptual ~ S. Sere-Sunny Conceptual
['---'] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [~'"] Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape
If Non-Residential, Building Area .s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shift__
Parkin8 Required Parking Prov~ied
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES.~.~NO
WILL THE PROJECT... sot s~s~m~m sisnmmt =m-b~. SOURCE
-~i~nific~t ~i~
NO
A) ~D USE G~E~
I) ~qui~ a ~ ~m ~ I~ ~ 1,7,8
2) ~q~ a ~m~ ~ing? ~ 16,
3) ~qu~ u ~n~
s~iflc pin or o~ ~ ~li~ ~ 17,
~n~
~!~ ~ of~ si~'~of ~ D ~ ~ ~ 7,12
~joh~ ~
S) ~pt or div~
~ ofn ~bl~d 7.12~4l
B) GEOLOGIOSEISMIC HAZARD
!) Be I~_~_~_d in tm area which hm
2) Be Ioca~d on or adjacent to a
-~ ') B. lO~..d ina Oeoiogi= Smcly. [] [] [] [] []
Zone? 2
4) B~ I~?~ in an mu oFsoil
s~n~cll, Mil ~ ~ s~ ~S.]O
~ Ca~ sub~ c~sion or
6) C~ sub~U~ d~
o~m~ of~il ~ ~i~ ~ *~-
'~i~
~m~ 1039
8) hvolvc ~on of s ~Jldhg
or~
C) RESOURCF, S/PAB~
1) Inc~Jse the exhfing rcmov~] r~, oF S,10
result In thc r~movai of a natural m som~ ~' [] [] [] []
for commcrcid purposes (ind-ah_-
such ts rod~ smd, griwl, u~es. minerals
or top~oil)?
· -- my non-renewuble
(CIm I or Il mils)
hereby prim qficultmd lind?
4) Involve Imds
Space easemem7
IMPAq. F
YES
WILL THE PROJECT... ~o~ sis~m=.t sisemcm cm~ve SOURCE
Si~niflcan~ (MifiptJoe (No
NO Pnspns~d) Mififmtion
Proposed)
S) Subetenficily Lf~0C2 any exis~ F-~
public o~ privtte rec~eafio~ f~i]l~7, park.
D) SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY
1) IC-.sult in · septic field being
perfot~
2) Result In · septic field beJns
Iocalcd wM~Jn S0 feet ora dmianse swnle F~ 36~9,42.
~ within lO0 feet of any well. water [] [] [] []
cowse or wan' body?
3) Result in ex~mi~ ofasewer m~in -.
,llSubsm~ally dcsrm~ sudm~ or
sroundwate~ qmdi~, or the public w,~er E [] [] [] [] 20,36J7
supply, ineludJnf but not limited to
typical smflnws~r pofianmms
hydrocarbons and mcl3ds from vehicle
use, nulrianEs and pesticides from
iandscipins mimanance, meUds md
ecJdity from mhin~ opermions)?
S)Be ioca~d in ~n area ofwn~r supply 22
warm through Jnfillrafion of reclaimed
wo~ oF s~orm w~cF runoff~mt has
contacted pollutants from urban,
iedusuJ-t or ~'iculmra] activities?
7)Require a NPDES pcflnlt for 20
E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING
I) ln*,*dcrc subsunfially wilh pound 20,36
2) Substantially chngc the direction,
Fate or flow or quantity of ground-
mtditi~e or withdrmvMs, or
3)ChmSe the -__b~_~fion ~r~'~_. druinqe
patmms or fltc mm/amount of surfane ~ [] [] [] [] 20,36
mnoffoF wetland?
4) involve it namrfd drainage channel
ci~r tbe Ioc~iem. couz~e or fiow of
writers?
fioodphJn mu? ~ [] [] [] [] 38
F) FLOli~ AND FAUNA
divm~ o~ numbers ot'e~i,*M8 species.
~b~ imrodu~inE new species, ~r ~
restficfin~ ml~'~ion or movanant?
2) Substamiaily redline ~he habitat area j~] [] [] [] [] $,10
- for fish. enimds or plants?
WILL THE PROJECT... No~ si~m~t si~ia~ '.m,~i~ SO.CE
Si~ifi~t ~i~ ~o
NO ~)
~n~p~ ~l~or J, lO
~ s~u of pint ~
~ ~ si~ ~
G) 33tANSPORTATION
1) C.-~_ m increue in traffic whid]
is mbctanfial in rel-*ion to the cxistin~
traffic load and capacit~ of the sl~ect [~] 0 [] [] [] 4.20,35
2) Cram any public or M'ivnte s~eet
in~-,Jfio~ to fin~fion I~inw I~'~1 of 4,20
3) Innus~ trnfl~ hazards to / ..
4) Advmely aff~'t -_e_~_;s lo
comm~cial est~lishn~nls, public
buJldinp, schooh, pm4cs or othor E [] [] [] [] 4.10
pedenrbn oriented m:tivity are~?
S) C'~'_'~ a tuductinn in public -
U..~,Udion s~vicc, or ne. the [~' [] [] [] []
project site?
6) In.ease demand ~pon existin8
parking f~lities, or ~n~mder d~nand fro. [] [] [] [] [] 15.'6
~ n~v Im~in.-
'/) Inhibit use of a]te~stJve modes of
tmupofla~m to private automobile [-~ [] [] [] 0 ; ,, 19. 34,3S
..~ usage? -.
It) HOUSING
I) Reduce the supply of affordable
housing in the community, or msult in the [] [] [] [] [] 3,16
displacement of pm3ons from their
present home?
2) Incrcsse the cost of housing in the 3, 16
area, or minlanfially change tho vnri~-ty 1~ [] [] [] []
of housing types found in the
3) Crento a substantial dcn~nd for new 3, 16.47
WILL THE PROJECT... $O0, E
Not Siptificant Sisnific~nt Ctmmlative ~
Sisnificant (Mitismion (No
NO Proposal) Mifi~tio~
Pmpos=d)
~) Provi~ ~,~lin~ ~rounds for
mosquitos o~ oth~ disem~ w~tors? [~ [] [] [] [] 2~
L) ~ F~qTi~i-tCS
1) Be at vmimc~ with ~li~le
d.i~ ~i.l~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 17
~ 2) C~-~ m ~ly offemi~
3) Vbu~ly
visible ~m ~ vMley fl~
hillsi~s ~m ~i~nd~ ~ or p~l~ 10, 21, ~, 41
In~?
ch~ of
b~ine~ d~? i,17, f9 ~'
7) ~u~ gl..
li~fin~ ~ u~ ~j~t p~ 1,1~
or public
M) ENERGY
quantifies of fossil fllcls or non-
ren~wnbl~ enerB~ sou~.s?
2) Rcrnovc vcaetation providi~
existins or prol~---d- buildin8?
an adjacent bulldins, public ~c~catimi
spsce or pfiv,*,' yard?
lq) HISTORICAL/
ARCHAEOLOGICAL :
[] [] [] []
archaeolosical or palco~tolojicai
~somccs?
_L. I1v[I'ACT
YF,,s
Not Significant Significant Cumulative SOL!-I~CE
WILL THE PROJECT... Signiflcmt (MJtifmion (No
NO Proposed) Midptiofl
Proposed)
2) Atrm ~dvme,,, prol)my oZhisuxic [~[~] [] [] [] i. 10.41
or cultural significance to the commLmity,
~xccM ns pm of · scientific study?
O) PUBMC SERvicEs AND
2) Imiuce substantial grow~ or al. [~ [] [] [] [] l, 46,47
thc Iocalton. dimibutim, or densi~ of
the humm population of on
3) ~-M subsumtial impm up~. or
increme the need fo~
b) Police Smvices? ~ ?~ ~l.~.] ~l~_.j I~J~ 33
c) Public Schools? ~ 29,30
· ~ 4) Cause subsumtial impm upon:
existing utilities or jnfrssuucmrc Jn thc
following c~gorics:
c) Water?. 22
d) Sewageuram~'ntanddJsp°sal? ~,~ ~l~1 ~l~ ~i..~_] ~l.~ 20'28
e) Stonn water monqenm~. 36,38
S) C, eneratedcmmdforuscofmy [~ [] [] [] [] 19,20~2,2t,3l
public facility which cauls that facility
to roach or exceed its cap~tcity?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To Be Completed by City Staff)
WILL THE PRO3ECT...
YES NO
1. Have the potential to substantially d~grade the quality of the environme~,t, to ~'~ ~--~
substantially diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to c%se a fish
or wildlife population to drop i~iow 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 ~ndanger~d plant or animal; to eliminate
important examples of the major periods of. California's history or
2. Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long term enviromnental goals?
3. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the [ [
inc~m~ntal effects of an individual proj~'t are substantive whan viewed in
conjunction with the effects of past projects, other corr~t projects, and
probable future projects)
4. Have environmental effe~s which will caus~ substantial adv~e impacts
on human beings, either direly or indlr~ctiy?
PREPARER'S AFFIDA~
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 nil questions herein, and have consulted
appropriate source references when necossnty to onsure 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 Cupe~no, its staff and authorized
agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance.
Preparer's Signature /-
ENVIRONME~ EYALUATION
(To be Completed by CiU Staff)
IlVIPACT A.I~AS:
[] Land Use/General Plan [] Geologic/S~ismic N-?~,d [] Resources/Parks [] Housing
[] Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Flora & Fauna [] Transportation
[] Historical/Archaeological [] Hea!th & Safety [] Air Quality. [] Noise
[] Public Services/Utilities [] N~er~ [] Aesthetics
STAFF EVALUATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, the Environmental ]tAview Committee (F.,RC) Finds: Sdeet Oae
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 si~tmificant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur r-']
because mitigation measures are included in the project. NRC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
be granted.
That the proposed MAY have a si~i6cant effect on the envimnment nnd ----.ds that an ~.~
B/planninS/~Gy4,.doc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As provided by the Env/ronmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City, Council of the
City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1,
1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by
the City Council of the city of Cupertino on January 16, 2001.
PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
19-EA-00
Application No.(s): 01-MCA-00, 19-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Municipal Code Amendment to revise Chapter 19.28 (R-1 ordinance) to decrease building
mass and improve the integration of new construction into existing neighborhoods.
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The City ,~ouncil ~afl~d a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the
Gen~,e~/~Ian and~h/~e~are no significant enviromental impacts.
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 the City of Cupertino on ,. 2001.
City Clerk
g:/plnnning/e~/neg I ~eaO0
3.~ -37
EXHIBIT Ct s October 2~, 2000
~.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6. Application No.(s): 01-MCA-00, 19-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Municipal Code amendment revising Chapter 19.28(R-1 ordinance) to decrease buitding mass and
improve the integration of new construction into existing neighborhoods.
Tentative CiO~ Council Date: November 20, 2000
Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reported that the purpose of the Municipal
Code Amendment was to decrease building mass and improve the integration of new construction
into neighborhoods. In gune 1999, the updated R-1 Ordinance to address mass and bulk of new
single family construction in the city went into effect. In July 2000, staff reviewed the R-I
Ordinance changes and found that the ordinance update adequately addressed floor ar~a ratio and
setbacks for two story developments, but a number of projects that have filed for building permits
that did not require planning approval, which appeared to push the limits of wall height and eave
height, therefore staff feels that those particular two sections require the most attention in
improving the ordinance. The basic premise is that houses have been designed with high FAR but
smaller wa!l planes and lower eave heigh~ that end up being less massive than a smaller area with
taller wall planes and higher eaves.
Staff recommends applying the single family design guidelines to ail second story projects, not
just projects that go through design review; if there is a 35% FAR two story house that only needs
a building permit, it would be reviewed by staff at the counter, to make sure it generally conforms
with the guidelines. Staffalso recommends applying single story building envelope to single story
sections of two story homes. Other staff recommendations relative to height and mass, result in
lowering the maximum heights in the ordinance by about 2. fect4 and second story setbacks would
be applied at 15 feet instead of 20 feet. Staffdo~s not recommend reducing the overall maximum
height since it mostly occurs at the peak oftbe roof dnd is far from the property lines and impacts
neighboring property owners less than high walls near their property lines. For privacy protection,
staff recommends an amendment to the purpose ~ction for the R-I ordinance, to ensure provision
of light, air and privacy to individual residential parcels. It also recommends that obscure, non-
openable windows On tho second floor bo exempt from privacy protection. A letter was received
by the Planning Commission requesting that staff look at applying the same type of restrictions on
second story windows in Eichlor districts to all of R.-l; that would tm a substantial change and staff
has not had a chance to look at it in detail. If the Planning Commission wished to pursue that,
staffwould request that it not be included in said amendment and to request the council start a new
ordinance amendment to address applying the Eichler privacy protection to the rest of RI.
Relative to noticing, staff is recommending it be 300 feet; last significant change would be that tho
expiration of an approval will occur one year after tho action unless a building permit is filed,
Presently it states that the expiration will be one year after tho approval unless construction work
is beginning, which is not feasible as it takes architects and homeowners more time to go through
the structural drawings and plan check process to the start of construction.
Mr. Gilli clarified that the Director has the authority to provide acne. year extension for the older
applications, if the ordinance is amended to change the wording as discussed, since it would only
affect projects that file after the ordinance is adopted.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 23, 2000
Chair Harris commented that a pipeline was done before. Mr. Gilli said that it would provide a
one year extension when construction cannot begin within a year. The provision considered by
Mr. Gilli is less restrictive; and the more restrictive elements may be considered for pipelining.
Staffrecommends approval of the negative declaration and model ordinance I, amended to change
the purpose and address 300 foot noticing; and include a 90 day pipeline provision to be crafted
and sent to the City Council.
Mr. Gilli answered questions about the contents of the model ordinance.
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to continue Application 01-MCA-00 and 19-EA-00 to the
November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Com. Kwok
Com. Stevens said that he felt staffdid an excellent job on thc cleaning up of the ordinance. He
expressed concern about the privacy issue and said it was an important issue and should be spread
out to the other disciplines rather than just limiting it to the R-I.
VOTE: Passed $-0-0
BUSINIiSS: None
None
REPORT OF COMMUNITY . Chair Harris suggested
covering the at the November 1st special meet Staff suggested the December
meeting.
There was a to the exception on the air conditioning units on
the church property.
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER ~ None
ADJoUR.NM~NT: The was adjo~ed at. 10:30 p.m. to the special Planning
meeting at 6~m. on Wednesday, November I. in the
community park buil~lh~ ·
_Eiizab.e.th Ellis ~
Recording Secretary ~
Approved as presented: November 13, 2000
Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 27, 2000
~dition of the traffic direction m~e'd; and the 11-1/2
'-' foot clearan~ enclo~a~e~-
SECOND: Com.. Kwok ~ .
ABS~-~IT: Com. Doyl~~
Ch ' - I/2 feet
8. Application No.: 0 I-MCA-00, 19-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Municipal Code Amendment revision Chapter 19.28 (R-I ordinance) to decrease building mass
and improve the integration of new conahaction into existing neighborhoods.
Pos~oned from Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000
Tentative City Council date: January 16, 2000
Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, said the first item modified was the
regulation that dealt with the design guidelines and how they would apply to the new ordinance.
There are three major sect;ons in the design guidelines section of the ordinance covering a
compatible building form, roof pitches, eave heights and ridge heights and entry feature heights
compatible with the neighborhood. He reviewed the design that uses vaulted ceilings instead of
high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces, and some regulations on three car
garages, one that the third space be set back a minimum of 2 .feet from the wallplain of the other
two spaces, or use of a tandem space, or that the curb cut shall not be a three car wide driveway
curb cut, requiring a curb cut two car widths and would open up, so that it would reduce the
amount of paving in the front yard and reduce the amount of paving in the park strip· There is also
an example in the design guidelines that shows the difference between a vaulted ceiling and a high
exterior'wall with a horizontal ceiling.
Mr. Gilli noted that the two substantial changes included the guidelines being more detailed and
the removal of the two foot reduction. He said there is the addition of the pipelinematerial which
should be included in the model Ordinance. Relative to the sloped lot in the R-I ordinance, if the
slope is more than 30%, it would be reviewed in accordance with the hillside ordinance or the R-
whichever is more restrictive. He said it is possible that it could be an R-I if building on a slope
greater than 30%, and it may need to meet the hillside ordinance, possibly requiring an exception,
which would go to the Planning Commission. He said that it had not happened yet, and where it
would occur is at R-I transitions into RHS near the hillside.
Chair Harris summarized that the main change was that applying the 2 feet to the single story
would no longer pertain, and they would have to wait for community standards to deal with it. She
said it was the amendment to the two story ordinance.
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 19- F.41-00
SECOND: Com. Kwok
.... ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 27, 2000
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 0 I-MCA-00
SECOND: Com. Kwok
ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
Chair Harris moved the agenda to Item 10.
Report on the Community Congress
Mr. reported on the Community Congress, and noted that it was an
people had the opportunity to not only express opinions but also to about the
communil different perceptions. He said he found it valuable and sai, was a good
foundation for the General Plan update. He said there were di groups on
housing expressed their ideas about the problem in particular
having a difficult housing in this area, and personal were expressed on
paying available housing options I level teachers.
Chair Harris moved the back to Item 9.
NEW BUSINESS
9. Acceptance of Association the Bay Regional Housing Needs
Determination.
Ms. Vera Oil, Senior Planner, re was established and worked with
ABAG to put together a simpler that whi.ch previously existed. It takes the
housing growth as well as the job growth in i communi~ based upon 2006 ABACi projections
and also based upon the 1990 DOF noted that the numbers were modified in
November to take into account that the numbers were included in the 2006
projections but not the DOF numbers, mbers of 2,720.
Referring to the Allocation c 9-5, the total ' ected need for Cupertino of 2,720, Ms.
Oil said that the and 198 Iow. She said the housing committee
was presently looking gs, and requests to look at the
BMR requirement again, are embarking on looking at manual and making changes and
they may choose to to the Planning Commission City Council that the 10% be
increased to ,, along those lines, for the city is to concentrate
on trying to bring in a 100% affordable housing and try to bring those and
disperse those Ms. Gil said that if Villa Serra hove moderate
rates according to developer, and the moderate allocation is thc city will have to
provide some uni that area. She said she was not certain that la Serra was considered
moderate, but market rate/above moderate. Chair Harris that they were market
rate for the year old two story iow rise older units they were. s. Wordcll noted that
they would included in any ABAG numbers, and might be ! as more moderate
wherein staff answered questions relative to the al Mr. Piasecki
Ms. Oil was preparing the RFP to go to consultants to assist with the sing element
u and said that a lot of the strategy to be directed at these numbers will ~._ out of that
The update of the housing element is due about this time next year, th~efore the
City of Cupcllino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF (408) 77%3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
CU PEK!INO com~;,~i~ Development Department
Homing Services
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~.3 Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Use permit to conslruet 24 ,,~its of affordable residential and
5,225 square feet of offico space on a 1.17 a~re parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends:
1.) Adoption of a Negative Declaration 18~EA-00
2.) Approval of 14-U-00 according to the conditions in Planning Commission Resolution No.
6070.
SUBJECT:
Application: 14-U-00, 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services- CCS)
Property Owner: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Property Location: Vista Drive, northeast of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designation: Planned Development
Specific Plan Designation: Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-
35 dwelling units per gross acre.
Net Lot Area: 51,270 square feet (1.17 acres)
Building Area Total: 21,833 square feet
Floor Area Ratio: 43% "
Density: Approximately 25 units/gross acre (based on residential
area + ½ of street)
Height: Apartments: 24 fl. CCS Building: 29' 4"
Parking: Required: 66 spaces
Proposed: 52 spaces, applicant has submittcd a shared parking plan to
address 14 space deficit.
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Specific Plan: No. Exception to 30'
building separation
requirement needed.
Page. 2, ,.:> .
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaratiot~ recommended for office; affordable
residential is a statutory exemption (California En~ ~nmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article
18, Section 15280).
BACKGROUND: .,
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use develop~eni with 24 affordable (low and very low-
income) units and 5,225 square feet of office space, including a comm-nity room for the
residential units. The project is consistent with P01icy3-13 of the General Plan: Cooperate with
the county, private and non-profit developers to id.en,.'.t~ sites for very low~'low income housing;
and Policy 3-18: Use City funds for prescans that help supply affordable rental housing to low
and very low income households ....
The development is surrounded by the new fire..=~tion to the south, townhomes to the north,
residential to the west and offi .ce to the east. (See-...P~.. j~ct Description, Exhibit A.)
DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission Meetings: . .: ~ ~ ' '
The application was discussed at the September 11, 2000, October 23, 2000 and December 11,
2000 Planning Commission meetings. At the meetings, the parking and architecture for the
proposed development were the greatest concerns to the commission. At the October 23, 2000
meeting, the commission also discussed architecture of the CCS office building and the size of
the building as it related to the parking requirement. '~
Community Meetings:
The project architect, Van Meter, Williams and pOllaCk, and the applicant held four community
meetings to receive community input on site design, shared parking and traffic impacts. The
meetings were well attended by the neighborhood, and the commnnity input significantly
influenced the overall site design.
Site Plan:
The parcel's main orientation is on Vista Drive. · The CCS offices, in combination with the
residential community building, are adjacent to Vista .Drive with a setback of 30 feet from the
curb. The CCS office building will face Stevens Creek Boulevard to allow the building to be
visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and to approacb4ng traffic on Vista Drive.
The residential units are in three sections. Twelve units east of the CCS building are fiats, and
12 units adjacent to the north property line are a combination of town houses (8 units) and flats
(4 units). The apa, t,,~ent units are oriented around an interior courtyard. Since the townhome
units will be marketed toward families, they will have semi-private backyards. The smaller one-
bedroom fiats will surround the courtyard, which ..will act as common space. For private space,
each fiat has an enclosed patio or deck. A small courtyard connects the CCS building with the
residential units. Located in the CCS office building is'the residential community space that can
be used by CCS as well.
Parking stalls, including carports for 24 stalls, are located south of the CCS building and
apa~t,t,ents and on a panhandle that extends east to Randy Lane. Access is taken from both Vista
G:kPlanning~PDREPORTxCC~cc 14u00.doc
P~ge 3
Drive and Randy Lane. AR r the first community meeting, the applicant . elected a vewny
configuration to minimize cut through traffic between Randy Lane and Vista Drive. Allowing
site access from either Randy Lane or Vista Drive has thc additional benefit of reducing traffic
impacts on Vista Drive, the primary access street. As a result of community input, the applicant
has also agreed to post the exit from the development onto Randy Lane as '~ight mm only" thus
elimlnsting cut through traffic on Randy Lane.
,4~,chitecture:
The overall architectural style is a "Nantucket Victorian" with gables, porches, balconies, and
trellises providing architectural interest. Thc style 'is subtle and simple and reminiscent of east-
coast architecture, as described by the architect. Al! buildings are two stories, with the exception
of a one-story element for the residential community building. All the residential units have
direct outside access. Concrete siding with the appearance of wood is used on both the
apartments and the CCS building.
Cupertino's architectural consultant, ..LaiTy Cannon, reviewed the plans several times and has
given the development a favorable review. Staff and the Planning Commission rernnlned
concerned about the shed roofs over entries and balconies (their appearance is most visible on
sheet A3.2), and the color and design of the metal railings. The applicant has not provided the
detailing for these items at this stage and therefore, staff and the Plimning Commission
recommend the detailing be approved by the Design Review Committee, with referral to the
Planning Commission, prior to issuance of building permits.
Tra~c:
The traffic analysis (Exhibit E) concludes that the project would generate an additional 21 A.M.
peak hour vehicle trips and 22 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. The intersection of Tone Avenue-
Vista Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard would opiate at Level of Service B.
The traff~c report discusses circulation and access to the project. Eastbound motorists can only
access Vista Drive and Randy Lane by making a U-turn at Blaney Avenue, or they can access
Vista Drive from Lazanco Drive, creating potential cut-through traffic. Both the traffic
consultants and staff consider this potential to be negligible.
Shared Parking Plan:
The project will share parking between the residential and office uses. Shared parking is allowed
in the General Plan (Policy 3-9) and the parking ordinance, if a shared parking study is provided.
The number of stalls ordinarily required on such projects is 66 stalls. The applicant's shared
parking plan proposes 52 stalls. At its October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the
commission nwiewed the proposed shared parking plan and directed the applicant to reduce the
office space by 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. Since thc office building was reduced 1,266 square
feet, the parking demand for the office portion was reduced by five spaces.
Since the traffic consultant's previous surveys (see the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission
staff report) of affordable developments show parking requirements below the city's standard of
two spaces per ~mit, a parking management plan will be required to address evening use of the
office space. To address future parking problems, a condition has been added to the Planning
G:~Plauning~PDREPORT~CCk:cl 4u00.doc
Page 4
Commission Resolution No. 6070. The condition states that, at the city's discretion, thc applicant
may be required to curtail activities or revise the final parking management plan if use of the
office space proves to be too intense and has an impact on the neighborhood.
Heart of the City Exception:
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was developed to. guide future development along Stevens
Creek Boulevard by providing development standards and design guidelines for various land
uses including: commercial, multi-unit residential and mixed use residential and retail Thc
Specific Plan provides an exception process if desig~i flexibility is needed for unusually shaped
lots like the subject site.
The project requires an exception to the Heart of the. City standard requiring a 30-foot buildin§
separation between on-site residential buildings. Because of the lot configuration, the applicant is
unable to .meet the requirement without reducing the number of units and parking spaces.
Distances between buildings are: 18 feet between the office building and Building 3 apartments;
15 feet between the CCS building and Building l; '18 feet between Building 3 and Buildings 1/2
and l0 feet between Buildings 1 and 2. However,' the Specific Plan provides an exception
process if design flexibility is needed for unus.ually.shaped lots like the subject site. Staff
believes that the well-designed development is deserving of the exception because of the unusual
configuration of the lot.
Prepared by Vera C-il, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki David W. Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
Enclosures:
Pla~nlng Commission Resolution No. ~070
December 11, 2000 Planning Commission staffreport and minutes
October 23. 2000 Pl,,~ing Co~mi~sion staff report and .minutes
September 11, 2000 Pla~nlng Co,~,t~ission siaff report and minutes
Exlu'bit A - Project Description
Exhfoit B - Cannon Design Crroup's commetus
Exhibit C - Architect's responses
Exh~it D - Examples of similar developmems
Exln'oit E - Traffic Operations Analysis
Exhibit F - Shared Parting Plan
Exhibit G- Parking Survey of Similar Sites
Exln'bit H- Correspondence from interested parties
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Plan Set
Material Board available at me=tlug
G:~Planning~PDREPORT~CC~cc 14u00.doc
14-U-00 & IO-EXC-O0
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6070
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
THE GRANIINO OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN AND
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 24-UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
APARTMENT BUILDING AND A 5,225 SQUARE FOOT CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERVICES
/RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BUILDING ON A 1.18 ACRE VACANT LOT
SECTION h FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the plsnnlng Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appli .cation for a Use
Permit, as described on Section II. ofthi-~ 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, geueml
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.
3) The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of
this Heart of the City specific plan.
4) The proposed development will not create a bsTsrdous condition for pedestrian or vehicular
traffic.
5) The proposed development has legal aex, ess to public streets and public services are available
to serve the development.
6) 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
F:~Planning~DREPORT~RES~r~s 14-U-00.doc
55-5
Resolution No. 6070 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 December 11, 2000
Page -2-
That after careful consideration of raaps, 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
con*~ined in the public hearing record concerning Application Nos. 14-U-00 and 10-EXC-00 as set forth in the
Minutes of the Planning Commission of December 11, 2000 and are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 and 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Service)
Location: Vista Drive 'and Stevens Creek Boulevard (north of the new fire station)
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXI-IIP~ITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Sheets Al.l, Al.2, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.1, A.3.2, L-l,
Cl.1, Cl.2 cxccpt as may be amended by conditions contained in this resolution.
2. APPROVED OFFICE USES
Approval is granted to construct a 5,225 square foot office building. Six hundred and sixty one
sq,,are feet of the office building is devoted to residential community mom. Thc office and
community room may be used for general office uses and associated uses including food and
clothing distribution. The property owner shall manage the office activities to ensure there is.
sufficicnt on-site parking to accommodate thc activities in the office building and the residential
parking needs. The management strategy shall be detailed in the parking management plan required
in condition number six.
In the event that the City receives complaints about project parking extending beyond the on-site
parking and the street parking immediately in front of the site, and the complaints are reasonably
verified, then the City may request that the owners/operators of the office component curtail their
activities to accommodate the available parking spaces. The owners/operators may request a public
hearing before the Planning Commission to resolve how much or what types of activities may be
allowed. Alternatively, the City staff, Planning Commission or City Council reserve the right to
hold a noticed public hearing and amend this condition to .further restrict activities to ensure there is
sufficient parking available to accommodate all project traffic.
3. FLOWERING PEAR TREES
Flowering pear trees shall be used in the landscape area between the curb on Vista Drive and the
proposed buildings.
4. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to
Resolution No. 6070 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 December i 1, 2000
P~c -~-
issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 100 feet of
thc northerly property line.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
The balcony and stair railings shall be painted metal. The Design Review Committee shall review
the color and details of the balcony and stair railings; and the roof overhang and shed details. The
DRC recommendations shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
6. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
A parking management plan shall be prepared by thc applicant and approved by staff prior to final
occupancy that describes the parking system used by residents, guests, office clients and office
employees. The purpose of'the parking management plan is to ensure that residents, guests,
neighbors and employees will not have parking problcras or undue parking costs because of an on-
site parking deficit. Should staff detc, uLr~e, at any time during the life of the development, that an
on-site parking problem exists, the applicant may be required to amend the parking management
plan or curtail office activities at thc direction of the Planning Commission.
7. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install secured bicycle-lockers as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code,
Chapter 19.100.
8. SANITARY DISTRICT
Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, thc applicant shall provide written confirmation from the
Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available for the project.
9. RECYCLING FACILITIES
The developer shall make provisions for recycling facilities which shall be in accordance with
Chapter 19.81 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The recycling and garbage project shall be
reviewed and approved in writing by thc Los Altos Garbage Company prior to issuance of building
10. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
Thc Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may includc 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 thc 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, pursnzr~t to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of thc requirements of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
Resolution No. 6070 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 December 11, 2000
Page -4-
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
11. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards
and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
12. CURB AND GUTFER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related ~ttuctures shall be installed in accordance with grades and
stand_~_rds as specified by the City Engineer.
13. 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 j)re~lude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining
properties, and shall be no Mgber than the maxim~m height p~,uitted by the zone in which the site is
located.
14. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
15. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
16. 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.
17. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 pe,'i~its maybe required. Please contact
,auiiiy Corp. of Engineers and/or Regional Water Q~_~_nlity Control Board as appropriate.
18. 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 sto,, drain facilities are deemed
necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning di~klcts shall be served by on site
storm drainage facilities connected to the City stosm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide
overland release drainage to Randy Lane.
Integrate on-site permanent solutions to reduce storm water runoff by maximizing permeability to
provide storm water quality protection.
19. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Thc developer shall comply with the requiretnents of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331
and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with
Resolution No. 6070 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 December 11, 2000
Page
affected utility providers for installation of underlp'ound utility devices. Thc developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said pl,~n.~ shall be subject to prior approval
of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
20. IMPROVEMENT AOREEMBNT
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 agrccIncnt shall be executed prior to
iss~mnce of construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $1,975.00
b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,290/ACRE
e. Power Cost: $ 75.00 per street light
f. Map Checking Fees: $ N/A
g. Park Fees: $ N/A
Bonds:
.~. a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
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 cfa building peL~dt in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at
that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
21. 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.
22. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards
and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Works for water service to the subject
development.
23. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Mmaagement 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. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
Resolution No. 6070 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 December 11, 2000
Page -6-
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11" day of December 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following mil call vote:
AYES: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piaseeki /s/Andrea Harris
Steve Piasec, ki Andrea Harris, Chairperson
Director of Comnl~mity Development Cupertino Planning Commission
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 14-U-00, 18-EA-00 Agenda Date: December 11, 2000
Applicant: Mary Ellan Chcll (Cupertino Community Services- CCS)
Property Owner: Santa Clara County Cantr~l Fire Protection District
Property Loealion: Vista Drive, northeast of Stevens Creek Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reanr, mends the Planning Commission approve the subject use p~,.it according to thc
conditions in the attached model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residantial
Zoning Designation: plnnned Devalopmant
Specific Plan Designation: Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-
35 dwelling units per gross acre.
Net Lot Area: $1,270 square feet (1.17 acres)
Building Area Total: 21,833 square feet
Floor Area Ratio: 43%
Density: Approximately 25 unit~/gross acre (based on residential
' area + ½ of s~eet)
Height: Apartmants.: 24 f~. CC$ Building: 29' 4"
Parking: Required: 66 spaces
Proposed: 52 spaces, applicant has submitted a shared paring plan to
address 14 space deficit.
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Specific Plan: No. Exception to 30'
building separation
requiremeht needed.
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended for office; affordable
residential is a statutory exemption (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article
18, Section 15280).
Application Summary: Use pet~-,~it to construct 24 units of affordable residential and 5,225
square feet of office space on a 1.17 acre parcel.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with 24 affordable (Iow and very low-
income) units and 5,225 sq~,_n_~e feet of office space, including the community rooms £or the
residential units. The project is consistent with Policy 3-13 of the General Plan: Cooperate with
the county, private and non-profit developers to identify sites for very low, low and moderate
P~e2
income housing; and Policy 3-18: Use City funds for programs that help supply affordable rental
housing to low and very low income households ....
The development is surrounded by the new fire station to the south, townhomes to the north,
residential to the west and office to the east. (See Project Description, Exhibit A.)
DISCUSSION:
The application was discussed at the September 11, 2000 and October 23, 2000 Planning
Commission meetings. At the meetings, the shared parking plan for the proposed development
was the greatest concern to the commission. At the October 23, 2000 meeting, the commission
also discussed architecture of the CCS office building and the size of the building as it related to
the parking requirement.
Architecture:
At the October 23, 2000 meeting, the commission asked for additional architectural relief on the
CCS office building. By reducing the sq-~re footage of the office space by 1,266'sqnare feet, the
building offsets on the second story have increased. Although the commission did not request a
change in materials, the applicant's architect has changed the materials on the office building to
match the residential.
Staff has included a condition of approval requiring staff re'view of the certain architectural
details that initially concerned the city's design consultant, Larry Cannon. These. areas of concern
are the shed roofs over entries and §alconies (their appearance is most visible on sheet A3.2), and
the color and design of the metal railings. The applicant has not provided the detailing for these
items at this stage; staff recommends that detailing be approved by the Design Review
Committee prior to issuance of building pel'a~its.
Preliminary drawings detailing the changes to the office elevations were faxed to Larry Cannon
for his review. Mr. Cannon reviewed the drawings and supports the current proposal. He stated
that the change of materials, the brackets and the eaves added sufficient relief to the elevation.
Shared Parking Plan:
The project will share parking between the residential and office uses. Shared parking is allowed
in the General Plan (Policy 3-9) and the parking ordinance, if a shared parking study is provided.
The number of stalls ordinarily required on such projects is 66 stalls. The applicant's shared
parking plan proposes 52 stalls. The Commission reviewed the proposed shared parking plan and
directed the applicant to reduce the office space by 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. Since the off~ce
building was reduced 1,266 square feet, the parking demand for the office portion was reduced
by five spaces.
Since.the traffic engineer's previous surveys (see the October 23, 2000 staffr~ort) of affordable
developments show parking requirements below the city's stan,t~,-d of two spaces per unit, staff
believes the parking situation will be best addressed by requiring a parking management plan to
address evening use of the office space. To address future parking problems, a condition has
been added to the Model Resolution. The conditi°n states that, at the city's discretion, the
G:~Planning~PDREPORT~pc\pc 14u00rev2.doc
Page
applicant may be required to curtail activities or revise the final parking management plan if use
of the office space proves to be too intense and h~s an impact on the neighborhood.
Heart of the City Exception:
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was d~veloped to guide future development along Stevens
Creek Boulevard by providing development standards and design guidelines for various land
uses including: commercial, multi-.nlt residential and mixed use residential and retail. The
Specific Plan provides an exception process if design flexibility is needed for unusoa!ly shaped
lots like the subject si~e. :
The project requires an exception to the Heart 'of the City stavd~rd requiring a 30-foot side
setback between on-site residential buildings. Because of the lot configuration, the applicant is
unable to meet the requizcau.ent without reducing the number of units and parking spaces.
Distances between buildings are: 18 feet between the office building and Building 3 apa~iments;
15 feet between the CCS building and Building l; 18 feet between Building 3 and Buildings 1/2
and l0 feet between Buildings 1 and 2.. However, the Specific Plan provides an exception
process if design flexibility is needed for unusually shaped lots like the subject site. Staff
believes that the Well-designed development is deserving of the exception because of the unusual
configuration of the lot.
Prepared by: VeraGil, Senior Planner
-- Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Devclopmen~
Enclosures:
- Model Resolution
- October 23, 2000 Plannin~ Commission slaffreport
September I 1, 2000 Plsnning Commission smffFeport
Exlu'oit A - Project Description
Exhibit B - Cannon Design Group's
Exhibit C - Architect's responses ..
Exhibit D - Examples of Slmilnr developumn~s
Extu'oit E - Traffic Operations Analysis
Extu'oit F - Shared Parking Plan
Exhibit G - Parking Survey of Similar Sites '
Exhibit H - Correspondence from interested parties
Negative Declaration
- Initial Study
Plan Set
Material Board available at meeting
G:~Planning~PDREPORT~pc\pcl4u00rev2.doc
'::
.d'
· Planning Commission Minutes 6 December I I, 2000
Com. said he also supported staff's recommendation, but Com.
to an overall landscaping plan for the area. He that
have a very shallow but wide root bail, they will tear slabs and
~to redwood trees. He noted that the State have gone to
raised to protect tree's root system. He said he prefer an overall
',would support staff's recommendation.
Chair Harris said felt the trees add the community. The trees on
McClellan Road in' very everyone in the community,
and have more of an ' on removal; staff i that two remain, Nos. 2
and 3, and two be removed, 4 and 8. she agreed with Com. Kwok that the
first step should not ba to ~ healthy the ones that are sparse, I and 4 could be
removed, and thc health ones removed until another tactic has been tried
first, and only removed it if does She said as pointed out earlier, people tend to
prune the tops of trees because the tops of.trees, but redwoods have a spreading
root and the cost of Pruning is probably similar to the cost of pruning the
canopy; therefore it needs part maintenance instead of 'thwwing the
baby out with and character of the community. Chair Harris
4, 7, 8 that time.
MOTION: 1, 4, 7, and 8; and retain the others.
SECOND: Stevens
VOTE: Sassed 5-0-0
Mr. noted that the decision was final, unless to the City Council within
1,
4. Application Nos.: 10-EXC-00, 14-U-00m 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Gommunity Services)
Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire
station)
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between
onsite buildings.
Use peLmit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building and a 6,089
square foot Cupertino Community services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot.
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 2000
Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001
Staff presentation: Ms. Vera Gil, Senior Planner, reviewed that the application had been
heard twice before, the most recent in October when the Planning Commission gave
direction to the applicant to make changes relative to concerns they had. The first concern
was that the office space was too large and the applicant was requested to reduce it by
Planning Commission Minutes 7 December I I, 2000
approxinuttely 1,000 to 1,500 sq. ft. to accommodate additional parking. By reducing the
squ~re footage of the office they were able to reduce the parking demand, and would meet
the shared parking requirement the Planning Commission had requested they meet.
Responding to concerns about the architecture of the CCS office building; the architect
trimmed some office space and made architectural changes to the building. She noted that
the applicant changed the building materials on the CCS building to match the proposed
materials for the residential, instead of stucco; changed to siding. She reviewed the
changes to the carports and the office building, and noted the second story space was
reduced. Five additional parking spaces were added by making some site changes. Ms.
Gil showed the various elevafibns from different viewing angles, reviewed briefly the
matrix of concerns from the previous meeting; and discussed derails such as the trellis
work and some other minor architectural details that the Planning Commission agreed by
consensus would go to the Design Review Committee (DRC). The model resolution
needs to be amended to reflect the reference to the DRC with final review to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Tom Early, Bridge Housing Corp., said that they followed thc Planning Commission
direction and reduced the overall square footage of the project and spent considerable time
with CCS and the architect to review the removal of program space as well as examine
some new efficiencies in the overall design of the floor plan. Those changes yielded in a
reduction of overall square footage of the project of 1266 square feet in thc services
building alone which yields a net reduction in the parking demand of 5 parking spaces. In
addition they reviewed and took direction of the Planning Commission with regard to the
massing of the building and the impact of the front and the additional elevations in
conjunction with the changes in the volume of the building of the building. He said they
also adjusted the building materials to be more cohesive with the overall residential
project and the reductions in the volume and the square footage space allowed them to
reduce the impact of the building and the overall massing.
Mr. Rick Williams, Architect, Van Meter Williams Pollack, empb_n_sized that they worked
closely with staff and took into consideration all the Planning Commission comments and
consideration throughout modifying some of the design pieces. He referred to the site
plan, and reviewed changes to site plan, including relocation of the car~rt; reduction in
size of the overall footprint of the CCS building; and by stepping back in a few small
areas, we were able to provide the landscaped area in the front to set it back thr enough to
add some trees in the front of that building. Also discussed at the last meeting was duc to
the size of the footprint there was approximately 18-1/2 feet from the.property line to the
face of the building and there is now 20 feet, gaining an additional 1.5 feet separation on
the other side between the residential, with an overall modified footprint. The reduction
in squ_~_re footage of the building allowed an additional equivalent of 5 parking spaces
discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Referring to the model of the facility,
Mr. Williams indicated the changes in building height, building style, treatment of
overhangs, building materials, brackets and details.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Planning Commission Minutes S December I I, 2000
Com. Stevens noted at the last meeting that the public mode several comments about an
island or divider against Stevens Creek for a one way turn only, and questioned if staff had
addressed the issue.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, responded that staff b~s looked at the possibility
of removing the median island off of Randy Lane. Although the pwcess has not been
finalized, staff will ask City Council to endorse the removal of the island.
Com. Kwok said that the report indicated that at the discretion of the city, if the office
space pwves to be too intense or has an impact on the neighborhood, the applicant may be
required to curtail activities or submit a revised final parking management plan. He
questioned what the elements of the revised management plan would be if there was a
need to curtail activities.'
Ms. Gil explained that if evening board meetings or events at the location created an
adverse impact for the residents relative to parking, the evening activities would have to be
curtailed al~er a certain hour. She said they could specify that after 5 p.m. they 'are not
allowed to have meetings in the office, or they could discuss the number of employees that
would be allowed to be onsite in the office space. Mr. Piasecki said it would also apply to
daytime activities, although they did not expect to have problems in the daytime. He said
if they found that there was an overuse of the parking facilities during the day, CCS would
be asked to curtail or schedule things in such a way that that the neighborhood would not
be affected in a negative manner. Mr. Piasecki said that potentially there is are a lot of
things occurring that need to be managed, and if well managed, there will not be a
problem with parking. For any reason it gets beyond the available onsite or immediately
in front of the building on the street, it is felt the neighborhood has an expectation that
staffwill review it and curtail the activities if necessary.
Chair Harris referred to the letter received from R. Meyer, relative to the delivery of
pallets of food. She questioned if the design accommodated a place to park trucks
delivering pallets. Also, the residents are concerned about people coming out of Quinlan
Center with shopping carts, and leaving the carts in the neighborhood.
Ms. Oil said that she was not aware that there were large trucks making deliveries, only
smaller trucks making food deliveries.
Ms. Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director, Cupertino Community Services, said that the food
was delivered in small vans, not large trucks, and were mostly in boxes because women
are unloading the food from the vans. She said that shopping carts were not provided to
the clients for picking up their food, and were likely brought onto the premises by the
clients. It is the client's responsibility to remove the carts. She said that the only carts
were cafeteria-type racks that were used to move the food, and thc CCS had only two of
those.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 December I I, 2000
Mr. Dan Sailer, 350 Bridge Pkwy., Redwood City, Promethius Real Estate Group, said he
was fortunate to be involved during the latter stages of the design alterations and minor
modifications that took place, to sit work with thc architect who has done a lot of design
work in Cupertino. He said he was pleased with the direction of the project, and said that
it would be an excellent addition to the city. He said they were happy with the changes
that took place in thc CCS facility and said it now speaks with one architectural
vocabulary for the entire site, and will now be a much more inviting building fbr the
community members and clients who are utili~irtg that facility.
Ms. Shehnaz Khan, Vista Drive, asked for clarification on the parking changes. Chair
Harris explained that five spaces were previously added and the Planning Commission felt
there was a need for ten if they kept the office building the same size. The applicant
reduced the office building by 1250 scl~_~_nre feet, which removed the need for five parking
spaces from the previous requirement. Ms. Khan said if the activity in the building is not
affected by the building becoming smaller, then it does not address thc problem that there
would be as many ntunber of clients corning in and as much parking being required and as
many people being catered to, but in fact there would not be any additional parking, and
they would probably be parking on Vista Drive.
Chair Harris clarified that when the Planning Commission approves an office building, a
city standard is used for space, when there is an assumption of a certain number of people
and a certain number of scln~re feet because thc building is approved for all time, not just
approved for the particular application. She said they were good standards that have
worked throughout the city for all kinds of office use. Mr. Piasecki said they also added
another condition that said should there be a pwblem they can revisit the uses and
activities both during the day and in the evening; therefore there is a safety mechanism
built into the conditions as well as the parking. Ms. Khan expressed concern about the
excessive parking on Vista Drive recently as a result of recent development in downtown.
She said that her neighbors are also concerned about the parking issue, however, were
unable to attend .the meeting. Chair Harris said that staff seriously considered the issue
and that is why there is a specific condition about a restriction on activities problems come
up. She said that the apartment was 24 feet tall, and CCS building was 29 feet tall.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application lg-EA-00
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris clarified that in the staff report it discusses bringing the details back to the
DRC, but in the condition it discusses bringing it back to staff. The recommendation at
the last meeting was to go to .DRC and then have final approval with the Planning
Commission, which would require a change in condition No. 5. The change would be to
_ remove the word "staff." The sentence should be just as written without thc word 'staW
Planning Commission Minutes i0 December ! ], 2000
and ~he heading without 'staff and it should say ... "be approved by thc Planning
Commission subsequent to review by the DRC".
Com. Doyle clarified the parking requirements. There were four actions taken in an
attempt to reduce the impacts: Increased 5 parking spaces in a previous meeting; reduced
the size of the building which resulted in 5 less required parking spaces; there is a shared
parking requirement that will handle the overflow so that there is additional information
and staff has come back with a history of other similar developments that are currently 2
parking spaces per unit, which has shown to be somewhat excessive. If the parking is not
successful, there is a fallback mechanism,'with some assurances from the people there to
be able to do that.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition No. 5
as modified
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris noted that the resolution should include Application No. 10-EXC-00 in the
heading
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 10-EXC-00
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
AMENDED
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition
No. 5 as modified, and 10-EXC-00 ·
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
The application will be forwarded to City Council on January 16, 2001.
Application Nos.: 02-TM-00, 22-EA-00
Kelly
7825 & 7851 Orion Lane
Tentative map to parcels (3.01 8 single family parcels with an
average lot of 7,800 1-6 district.
Continued from 3, 2000
Tentative City Council Date:
Staff presentation:presentation the application for a tentative map to
subdivide two into 8 single family parcels Lane. The application was
p~ November 13, 2000 meeting concerns over thc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 14-U-00, 18-EA-00 Agenda Date: October 23, 2000
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services- CCS)
Property Owner: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection Di~hlct
Property Location: Vista Drive, northeast of Stevens Creek Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends the Pla~nlng Commission approve the subject use permit according to the conditions in
the attached model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:' Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designation: Planned Development
Specific Plan Designation: Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-35
dwelling units per gross acre.
Net Lot Area: SI~170 square feet (1.17 acres)
Building Area Total: 23,114 square feet
Floor Area Ratio: 4S %
Density: Approximately 25 units/gross acre (based on residential area + ½
of slreet)
Height: Apartments: 24 R. CCS Building: 29' 4"
Parking: Required: 71 spaces
Proposed: $2 spaces, applicant has submitted a shared parking plan
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Specific Pisa: No. Exception to 30' building
separation requirement
needed.
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended for office; affordable residential is a
statutory exemption (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article 18, Section 1~280).
Application Summary: Use p~,,,it to consiruct 24 units of affordable residential and 6,S06 sq,,sre feet of
office space on a 1.17 acre parcel.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with 24 affordable (low and very low-income) units
and 6,S06 square feet of office space, including the community moms for the residential units. The project
is consistent with Policy 3-13 of the General Plan: Cooperate with the county, private and non-profit
developers to identify sites for very low, low and moderate income homing; and Policy 3-18: Use City
funds for programs that help supply affordable rental housing to low and very low income households ....
The development is surrounded by the new fire station to the south, townhomes to the north, residential to
the west and office to the east. (See Project Description, Exhibit A.)
DISCUSSION:
Pago 2
The application was discussed at the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting,
the shared parking plan for the pwposed development was the greatest concern to the commission. Other
areas of concern were the elevations of buildings 1 and 2 and the choice of street trees on Vista Drive.
Architecture:
At the Sept~ihber 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, more articulation to the west elevation of
Building 2 and to the north elevations of both Building 1 and 2 was requested. The revised plan set shows
additional details that will add interest to the wall planes. The architect added trellis and canopies over
windows and extended the roof overhangs over the second story windows on the north elevation..
Staff has included a condition of approval requiring staff review of the certain architectural details that
concerned the city's design consultant, Law] Cannon. These areas of concern are the shed roofs over
entries and balconies (their appearance is most visible on sheet A3.2), and the color of the metal railings.
The applicant has not provided the detailing for these items at this stage; staff recommends that detailing
be approved at stafflevel prior to isinsn_ce of buildlng
Landscaping:
A double row of trees is proposed along the Vista Drive frontage. While the Heart of the City landscape
requirements do not apply to Vista Drive, nor did they for the fire station, staff suggested that flowering
pear trees be used in this area, rather than the tree types shown on Sheet L-1. At the September 11, 2000
Planning Commission meeting, the commission directed the architect to explore using an evergreen
specics rather than the deciduous trees.being proposed. The project architect and the landscape architect
reviewed evergreen choices and continue to believe that a deciduous tree is more' attractive choice for
Vista Drive.
Shared Parking Plan:
The project will share parking between the residential and office uses, as provided for in the General Plan
(Policy 3-9) and the parking ordinance ifa shared parking study is provided. The number of stalls required
without taking shared parking into account would be 71 stalls. The project proposes 52 stalls.
The traffic report analyzes the shared parking rates of case studies in the region. Table 4b on page 10 of
the traffic report shows the breakdown of hourly parking demand ratios for office and residential uses.
Thc table shows that during the daytime work hours, thc residential parking demand is nearly 50% of the
evening parking d~mand. FuRhermore, the traffic report analysis shows that parking demand will not
exceed the supply at any time. Thc maximum residential demand is shown as 47 spaces, the same number
as spaces provided (numbers have been rounded). The applicant states that the assumption of nearly two
spaces per unit is very conservative, and that that number of spaces will not actually be needed.
The Commission reviewed the proposed shared parking plan and directed the applicant to increase the
parking on-site by at least ten spaces. The applicant was also directed to survey additional affo~=hle
development sites and provide infom~ation on the .parking ratios. At the last hearing, the applicant
proposed that the Cupertino National Bsnk parking lot be used for overflow parking. While staff did not
believe that was a viable solution, use of the parking lot was included as a condition of approval.
Subsequently, the applicant has determined that the owner of the Cul~dno National Bank proper~ is
unwilling to record an agreement against the property. Since the applicant is unable to secure a recordshle
agreement, the condition requiring the agreement has been removed from the model resolution.
G:~lanning~DREPORT~c¥cl 4u00rev.doc
Page ]
In order to accommodate extra parking spaces, the applicant has decreased the size of the office space by
· 339 sq,,~e feet, thereby reducing the parking req~ent for the o/~ce port/on by one space. The
_. decreased office space, along with reducing the size of the building 2 apartments, allows the developer to
shift buildings two feet to the west and add five park/ng stalls to eastern edge of the pwperty. Although
this is not the full ten spaces requested by the Planning Commission, it appears housing ~mlts would have
to be lost or office space would need to be si~m~ificantly reduced in order to accor~modate two to three
more parking spaces.
The traffic consultant has provided additional i~fo~,~ation regarding the parkinE ratio at affordable
housing development in the bay area (see Exhibit G). Although none of the developments are as small as
the subject development, the consultant believes the info~'uation provided shows that the acW~! parking
demand for affordable units is less than the city standard of two spaces per unit. The table shows actual
parking counts taken during three time periods - morning, daytime and evening. Not surprisingly, the
greatest demand for parking was either early morning or late night when the residents were most likely to
be at home. Of the four affordable developments, Los Gates' Open Doors development had the highest
parking demand of 1.70 cars per unit. Fifty percent of the Open Doors development is comprised of two
and three bedroom units.
Since the traffic engineer's surveys of affordable developments show parking requirements below the
city's standard of two spaces per unit, staff believes the parl~ng situation will be best addressed by
requiting a parking management plan to address evening use of the office space.
Heart of the City Exception:
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was developed to guide future development along Stevens Creek
Boulevard by providing development standards and design guidelines for various land uses including:
commercial, multi-unit residential and mixed use residential and retail. The Specific Plan provides an
exception process if desigu flexibility is needed for unusually shaped lots like the subject site. In addition
to the exception to the Heart of the City standard requiring a 30-foot side setback between on site
residential buildings, which is discussed in the September 1 l, 2000 staff report, the project requires an
exception to encroach two feet into the required 20-foot front setback.on Vista Drive. Staff believes th/s
encroachment is necessary to allow for the additional parking and is acceptable. It also creates greater
articulation of the CCS office building's wall plane.
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Pl-nner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
September 11' Plannin~ Commission staff report
Exhibit A - Project Description
Exhibit B - Cannon Design Group's comments
Exhibit C - Architect's responses
Exhibit D - E~,m~. les of s/mi]ar developments
Exhibit E - Traffic Operations A~.lysis
Extu~it F - Shared Parking Plan
Extu~oit G -Parking Survey of Slmil~r Sites
Exhibit H - Correspondence from interested panics
. Negative Declaration
hfitial Study
Plan Set
Material Board available at meeting
G:~Planning~PDREPORT~pc\pcl4u00rev.doc
Planning Comrnlasion M~nutes 2 O~tobcr 23, 2000
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
5. ~- Application No.: 06-U-99 (M)
Call-Land Associates
200:30 Stevens Creek Boulevard
an approved use permit for one year for automobile vehicle storage. /
~ decision final unless appealed /
meeting of hlovember 27, 2000
MOTION: Com. moved to postpone Items 3, 4 and S to the 27, 2000
Plannin
SECOND: Com.
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Harris moved the agenda to
REPORT OF PLANNING
that the committee reviewed a
proposal from the'Evershine Group; Lane; and reviewed the Municipal Code
Amendment, revising Chapter 19.28.
Housing Committee: No report
Mayor's Breakfast: the October l0th Mayor's breakfast
discussion items, including the center; facility; Telecom's proposal to add
cable to some neighborhoods: items and Fine Arts projects.
Chair Harris that a report on recent attended be given at the next
meeting.
Other:/N~s. Vent Gil, Senior Planner, i questions on the
silent second/~tiortgage program. She reported that the Housing was addressing the
teacher ~qng issue; redevelopment of existing apartment complexes; BMR rental rate.
~ COI~,IIJI~CATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Application Nos.: 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00, 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services)
Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire station)
Use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable 'housing apartment building and a ~,089 square foot
Cupertino Community services building on a 1.18 a~re vacant lot.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 23, 2000
Exception to the Heart of thc City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between onsite
buildings.
Continued from meeting of October 9, 2000
Tentative Cio/Council Date: November 20, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to construct a
24 unit affordable apartment building and a 6,500 square foot CCS building, as outlined in the
attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application, which is scheduled to be
forwarded to the City Council on November 20, 2000.
Referring to the site plan, Ms. Gil reviewed the proposed development She reviewed the
Planning Commission concerns discussed at the September 11 Planning Commission meeting:
Applicant was directed to add parking spaces to the site plan as the Planning Commission did not
feel the shared parking plan. was adequate. The applicant was also directed to conduct parking
studies at similar affordable housing developments. Shared parking studies have been completed
and DKS, the traffic consultant, visited sites and counted parking stalls, and the results are shown
in the staff report on Page 2-75. The applicant was also directed to add architectural relief to
certain residential elevations. Ms. Gill illustrated the layout shown at the September I ! Planning
Commission and the revised layout, and also reviewed the courtyard perspective. She noted the
modifications to the building elevations including extension of eaves, addition of shadowing and
canopies, and changes to the windows to add greater interest on the wall plane.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, addressed the issue of the traffic on Randy Lane, and said
that he had met with some residents to discuss their concerns about the traffic from the new
development on Stevens Creek Blvd. He said there was an office building with an existing right
mm only and based on this type of development, he felt it was justifiable to recommend to the
Planning Commission to add the same condition for a right turn only sign limiting potantial
neighborhood cut through traffic through Randy Lane. He noted that on Vista Drive there was
concern about additional driveways that might be potential conflicts with other nearby driveways.
He said it was his opinion that the traffic from the development would be minimal and create.
minimal conflict. However, he said there was concern about the fire station restricting parking,
but he did not see it as an issue. Mr. Chong said that relative to shared parking, the applicant
proposes offsite parking in the event of a meeting where they would park at a bank or different
location and would walk to the office building for a meeting. There would be no deed parking and
there would not be a parking an'angement or eontract recording it against the property. Ms. Gil
said that in the old Monta Vista area, there was some mixed development that had some office and
retail as well as residential and shared parking; and in those cases, they also allowed for some
onstreet parking in front oftbe developments. Mt. Piaseoki said that the P. J. Mulligan site had a
shared parking arrangement between the residential and the non residential onsite.
Ms. Gil addressed the architectural consultant's concerns about materials and overhangs on certain
buildings, and said that in order to address the concerns a condition of approval was added stating
that those items will return for further review with the Design Review Committee, and at that time
the architect would provide details illustrating the overhangs. She said the applicant did address
some of those concerns; recessing some windows in the CCS building, and the architectural
consultant recommended that the approvals be at the staff level. She also added that the
architectural consultant was concerned that the siding material be high quality.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 23, 2000
There was a brief discussion about the green roof color on the fire station, specifically that the
darker green color was what was agreed to, not the lighter teal color.
Mr. Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack, Architect, said that they attempted to respond to a
numbg, r of the concerns, and reviewed the changes made and reviewed by Ms. Oil. He discussed
the board siding and distributed large colored perspectives of the buildings, illustrating design and
colors, lie said they toned the colors down in response to the concern about thc stronger colors.
He provided details of the siding, noting that .it was traditional board siding made ofcementious
materials that does not expand and contract, weathers very well; and takes paint very well. He
said they were attempting to use colors to break up the building to create a rhythm in articulation
in thc elevations particularly in the elevations of the back townhouse building. He reviewed the
modifications to the elevations and the landscape plan. In response to Chair Harris' inquiry, Mr.
Williams illustrated the location of the food function area where the food was checked out and
loaded into recipient/'s cars. He answered questions about thc parking plan, landscape plan and
setbacks.
Com. Corr asked for clarification on tho income levels of qualified residents and whether or not
the.facility had the capability of being a soup kitchen. Ms. Gil showed the area where the Heart of
the City Plan was included. Ms. Gil said that tho qualified applicants would be of median income,
and that a use permit would be needed for the facility to be used as a soup kitchen. Mr. Williams
clarified that no cooking would be done on site.
Ms. Mary Ellen Cheil, applicant, said that the residents would be charged no more than 50% for
those in the 50% of median income, and median income for a family of 4 is $87,000; one half
being $42,500 for a family of 4 a?d in the $30s for a family of I of 2.
Ms. Ann Silverberg, Bridge Housing Corp., said that different funding institutions define the
criteria in different ways, but in general it is commonly accepted that 50% of the median as very
low income;
Ms. Cheil clarified that thc rotating shelter was offsite at various hosting congregations, and said
that people would not be living in the CCS building. Mr. Williams discussed the address sign
which was a requirement of the fire department. He said thc security lighting had not been
specifically addressed yet; as they wanted to have approval of the site plan first. He
acknowledged that the area needed to be well lit, but said they would also be respectful of adjacent
neighbors. He said they were considering precast lighting ballards for thc front area and ,Iow
lighting in the walking area.
In response to Com. Doyle's question about recreational space allocated, Mr. Williams said they
met the city requirements with balconies, private open space or patio, and the larger units had
semi-private yards in the back as well as front entry por~hes. Mr. Williams said that the bank
across the street agreed to a shared parking use for visitors to the CCS, however, he said that no
title can be placed on the property for the option; Chair Harris clarified that it COuld not really be
counted on as a gentlemen's agreement as the owner of the building is not bound to the agreement,
and if the ownership should change or the bank building enlarged or moved, it is not a written
· agreement.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Plnrmin5 Commission Minutes ~ October 2:3, 2000
Mr. Carl Co~'ell, said that he owned a unit in the Vista Gardens complex across the street from the
proposed project. Fie said the video presentation did not truly depict the neighborhood: and that
Vista Drive is n quite tree lined street, mostly residential. The complex across the street of Vista
Gardens are mostly retired people; Vista Drive has a moderate amount of traffic, with a few
pedes~ians made up of retired people, and children on their way to school. He said if the project
is approved, a very high density and somewhat commercial project is dropped well into one end of
a residential area. He expressed concern along with 6 other owners about the density on the site.
He said he was not conrerned about the low cost housing, as it was needed in the¢ommunity, but
putting CC$ and housing together on the site would create a nightmare of density, a lack of
recreational areas for children and adults, and very inadequate parking. Mr. Cotrell said the
residents of Vista Drive are concerned about noise, security and parking on Vista Drive; and that
shared parking is not a proven concept particularly with the density. He said the community
center building is a commercial building and he felt it should be treated like any other commercial
building; with the required proper setbacks, spacing between buildings and the proper amount of
offsite parking. He said he felt the community renter should be located elsewhere on commercial
property where there would be more parking for the business; however if it must be on the
property, it could be reoriented; with the plan reversed so that the community center is on the back
side of the site; with entrance.from.the street or VistaDrve. Mr. Cotrell said he felt'the mass of
the building was too high. He asked that his comments be considered in the decision making.
Ms. Karin Meyer, 20271 Reinell Place, said she concurred with Mr. Cottrell's remarks and
addressed addressed the numerous proposed exits and expressed concern about the increase in
traffic and potential parking problems. She said she felt the CC$ building would draw a lot of
people to the neighborhood, and it was not a workable.
Mr. Rolf Meyer, 20271 Re~mell lilace, said that he was disappointed with the proposed complex,
specifically with the CCS building, and questioned the need for a 6,000 square foot building with
only 5 people working. He said he felt it would become a soup kitchen and people would then
congregate in the neighborhood with shopping carts. He also expressed concern about the
community room; with loud music when the neighbors would be sleeping. He said he was
opposed to the CCS building.
Ms. Shehnaz Khan, 20252 Cartwright Way, said that they moved to Cupertino about 2 years ago,
and were aware at that time there may be some housing available for teachers, firemen, etc. She
said she attended the community meetings with the architect relative to the proposed project and
said she felt her concerns were not adequately responded to at the meetings. She expressed
concern about the security in the neighborhood if the CC$ project is built. She noted that she
researched the salaries of public employees such as teacher, firemen, and police, and was
informed that some starting salaries were $49,000, much higher than the salaries that Ms. Chell
previously discussed. She questioned who would be residing in the complex, and how transient
they would be; and said she felt that she did not feel it was a safe area for her child to be around.
Ms. Khan said she had written a letter expressing her concern about the construction, design and
appearance of the project; but said she was more concerned about the environment for her child
and family. She said she was concerned about security, and also addressed the issue of salaries of
qualified residents.
Mr. Jim Nappo, Randy Lane, said he supported the proposed right turn only lane for Randy Lane.
He said there was heavy traffic on Randy Lane because oftbe trucks servicing the furniture on the
corner of Randy Lane and Stevens Creek Boulevard.. He discusad an unsafe situation on Randy
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 23, 2000
Lane with the island in the street opposite the exit frem the office building on the corner. Because
of the trucks parking on the street, when driving up Randy Lane, motorists are forced to drive on
the wrong side of the island and drive into opposing oncoming tra~c. He said the combination of
effects is creating an unsafe circumstance, and any more traffic on Randy Lane through the
residential neighborhood will add to the already unsafe and congested condition.
Mr. Chong said he was reviewing the situation, and there was a prior conditional approval for the
office complex at 20195 Stevens Creek to put in the 4 foot median. He said he would consult with
the Director of Community Development on whether or not it is an appropriate approach to amend
or modify that condition. Mr. Chong said that the median wu to prohibit the left turn out of the
complex. Mr. Piasecki said that the alternatives would be addressed.
Relative to an earlier concern about the potential noise, Chair Harris noted that there was a city
ordinance addressing the noise level at different times of the day and explained how to address the
issues.
Ms..Cheil clarified the need for the 6,000 square foot CCS building. She said they had outgrown
- the Quinlan Community Center space and the new facility was designed to address the needs of
the community. The proposed CCS facility will have private space for clients to meet with
community workers, private meeting rooms, and moms to clean food and prepare food, a food
cio.set, and a clothing distribution area. Presently there is no room for food storage or area to
provide food to the clients; the clothing is stored in 55 gallon drums and the clients have to pick
from the drums which is not a dignified way to select clothing. The second story oftbe building
will consist of staff offices, meeting room and lounge area for staffand volunteers.
Com. Cort explained thc qualifi'cations for Iow income housing in all vocations. Ms. Quell
explained the qualifications process for the residents and how often they moved. Ms. Silverberg
said that thc turnover was fairly Iow, with residents staying a long period of time.
In response to Chair Harris' question about parking allocations, Mr. Williams illustrated the areas
for bike parking, and also stated that they anticipated that there would be fewer cars than what was
allocated for. In order to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility in the shared parking, they
are not designated as one or the other. It is anticipated that the majority of the residents will be
working families.
Com. Stevens questioned the possibility of changing the location of the CCS building to provide
more open space and remove it from the street. Mr. Williams said that relative to locating it
adjacent to the street, it should be visible to the street so that people could find the building, as
they provide valuable services to the entire community; and if hidden from view, a larger sign
would be required, and by placing the building in the rear of the property people would be
meandering around the neighborhood trying to locate the building. He said they previously
presented other possible cireuladons to the community and the consensus was that the proposed
placement was the most ideal; they did break up the buildings and broke up the scale of the
development to a smaller scale overall in keeping with the community. Mr. Williams said the
zoning on the property allows for 36 units, not the 24 residential units provided; and if it were a
larger housing development, the scale of the CCS building would have been larger also.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 23, 2000
A discussion ensued regarding density, wherein staff answered Planning Commissioners'
.-- questions.
The issues were summarized and comments submitted:
Issue Doyle Kwok Corr Stevens Harris
24 units residential Ok; Prefer more Prefer more units Good: would Like project:
units like to see want 24 units
more
units
6506 sf office ok Excessive; Needs that much Too much; Too large;
w/community 4x as big space needs to be not enough
smaller parking:
reduce o/bldg
Location of CCS Ok - Ok Ok Ok Ok
bldg
Arch of Apa~hncnts Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
Arch of CCS Soften eaves Ok Facia could use Concerned; 2 Front of CCS
Buildings breaking up story too Bldg
much
Parking Still an issue; Concerned; Review at.fa An issue; Still an issue;
use of CCS - need more year concerned; not enoush
high use/keep parking in should be parking
some uses at complex agreement
temporarily
Heart of City Ok Fine Ok Ok Ok
Exception
30 ft exception Acceptable; Ok Ok Ok Ok
improve lighting
Right turn only on Ok Ok Ok Good idea; ok
Randy concerned
about trucks
Planning Staff with PC DRC DRC PC; DRC
Commission, DRC review
or staff
A discussion followed relative to the issues of parking and size of the CCS building. Chair Harris
said she felt the building should be reduced by 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet. Com.
Stevens felt that the square footage of the CCS building should be reduced to about 5,000 square
feet. Com. Kwok said he would be receptive to reducing the office space to a maximum of 5,000
square feet and increasing the parking spaces.
MOTION: Com. Doyle moved to continue Application 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00 and
18-EA-00 to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Com. Kwok'
._. VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Pln~nln~ Commission Minutes S October 23, 2000
Chair Has'is declared a recess from 9:10 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
Application No.(s): 01-MCA-00, 19-gA-00
.Applicant: City of Cupertino
Citywide /
Code amendment revising Chapter 19.28(R-1 ordinance) to decrease building m~s and
of new construction into existing neighborhoods...~'"
Council Date: November 20, 2000 /
/
Staff Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reported that the purpose oftthe Municipal
Code building mass and improve the ~ntegrat~on of new construction
into June 1999, the updated R-I Ordinance to address mass'and bulk of new
single family in the city went into effect. In July 2000, st~ 'reviewed the R-I
Ordinance changes and t the ordinance update adequately add~,~ floor area ratio and
setbacks for two but a number of pro.~ects that have filed for building permits
that did not require I which appeared to push the' limits of Wall height and cave
height, therefore staff feels those particular two sections r~'uire the most attention in
improving the ordinance. The ' is that houses have b~'n designed with high FAR but
smaller wall less massive than a smaller area with
taller wall planes and higbet eaves.
Staff recommends applying the design to all second story projects, not
just projects that go through if there i: , FAR two story house that only needs
a building permit, it would be reviewed counter to make sure it generally conforms
with the guidelines. Staffalso recommends story
sections of ~vo story homes. Other relative to height and mass, result in
lowering the maximum heights in the ordi~ ' about 2 fee~, and second story setbacks would
be applied at 18 feet instead of 20 feet. tg the overall maximum
height since it mostly occurs at the is far from the property lines and impacts
neighboring property owners less t lines. For privacy protection,
staff recommends an ' the K-I ordinance, to ensure provision
of light, air and privacy to i residential parcels, also recommends that obscure, non-
openable windows o.n the floor be exempt from protection. A letter was received
by the Planning Corem: that staff look at s the same type of restrictions on
second story all of R-l; ;a substantial change and staff
has not had a look at it in detail. If the Planning wished to pursue that,
staffwould included in said amendment and to start a new
ordinance to address applying the Eichler privacy .to the rest of RI.
Relative to/___ staff is recommending it be 300 feet; last si .- would be that the
expirati~fof an approval will occur one year after the action unless a Iding permit is filed,
Presently it states that the expiration will be one year after the ~pprow I ~ s construction work
i.s ~innin~ which is not feasible as it takes architects and ho~ ~eowne · n.~ime to go through
? stmcturel drawings and plan check process to the start of constrection. ~.
//Mr...Gill. i clarified that the Director has the authority to provide none yea~ :t :nsion t'or the older
· applications, if the ordinance is amended to change the wording as discussed, since it would only
affeet projects that file after the ordinance is adopted.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 14-U-00, 18-EA-00 Agenda Date: September 11, 2000
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services- CCS)
Property Owner: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Property Location: Vista Drive, northe.~st of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/O~cc/Residential
Zoning Designation: Planned Development
Specific Plan Designation: Commercial, office & medium/high density residential 8-35
dwelling units per gross acre.
Net Lot Area: 51,270 square feet (1.17 acres)
Building Area Total: 23,697 square feet
Floor Area Ratio: 46 %
Density: Approximately 25 units/gross acre (based on residential area + ½
of street)
Height: Apartments: 24 fa CCS Building: 29' 4"
Parking: Required: 72 spaces
Proposed: 47 spaces, applicant h~ submitted a shared parking plan
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Specific Plan: No. Exception to 30' bui)ding
separation requirement
needed.
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recomv~ended for office; affordable residential is a
statutory exemption (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Article 18, Section 15280).
Application Summary: Use permit to construct 24 units of affordable residential and 6,845 square
feet of office space on a 1.17 acre parcel.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the use permit be discussed, but that no action be taken at this meeting due to
the need to advertise the exception. After discussion, this item should be continued to the special
meeting of September 27, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
Thc applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with 24 affordable (low and very low income)
units and 6,854 square feet of office space, including the community rooms for the residential units.
The project is consistent with Policy 3-13 of the General Plan: Cooperate with the county, private and
non-profit developers to identify sites for very low, low and moderate income housing; and Policy 3-
18: Use City funds for pwgrams that help supply affordable rental housing to low and very low income
households ....
'- Thc development is surrounded by the new fire station to the south, townhomes to the north, residential
to the west and office to the east. (See Project Description, Exhibit A.)
Pag~ ~
DISCUSSION:
City Involvement:
The City Council negotiated with the County to lease the land for the project, and has pledged housing
funds to assist CCS in development of the project.
Community Meetings:
The project architect, Van Meter, Williams and Pollack, and the applicant held four community
meetings to receive gonarnRnity input on site design, shared parking and traffic impacts. The meetings
were well attended by the neighborhood, and the community input si..onificantly influenced the overall
site design.
Site Plan:
The parcel's main orientation is on Vista Drive. The CCS offices, in combination with the residential
community building, are adjacent'to Vista Drive. The setback is 30 feet from the curb. The CCS office
building will face Stevens Creek Boulevard to allow the building to be visible from Stevens Creek
Boulevard and to approaching traffic on Vista Drive.
The residential units are in three sections. Twelve units east of the CCS building are fiats, and 12 units
adjacent to the north property line are a combination of town houses (8 units) and fiats (4 units). The
apartment units are oriented around an interior courtyard. The townhome units are marketed toward
families and will have semi-private backyards. The smaller one-bedroom fiats will surround the
courtyard, which will act as common space. For private space, each fiat bsa an enclosed patio or deck.
A small courtyard connects the CCS building with the residential units; thc courtyard leads into the
community room of the residential community building.
Parking stalls, including carports for 24 stalls, are located south of the CCS building and apartments
and on a panhandle that extends east to Randy Lane. Access is taken from both Vista Drive and Randy
Lane. After the first community meeting, the applicant selected a "z" driveway configuration to
minimize cut through traffic between Randy Lane and Vista Drive. Allowing site access from either
Randy Lane or Vista Drive has the additional benefit of reducing traffic impacts on Vista Drive, the
primary access street.
Architecture:
The overall architectural style is a "Nantucket Victorian" with gables, porches, balconies, and trellises
providing architectural interest. The style is subtle and simple and reminiscent of east-coast
architecture, as described by the architect. All buildings are two stories, with the exception of a one-
story el~ent for the residential community building. Ail the residential units have direct outside
access. Concrete siding with the appearance of wood is used on the apartments; stucco siding is used
on the CCS building.
Cupertino's architectural consultant, Larry C~mnnon~ reviewed the plans several times. Initial comments
related to: cement board siding on the apartments, wainscoting materials and heavy composition
roofing on the CCS building, roof overhangs, scale of the CCS building relative to the residential
units, treaU~ent of shed roofs over entries and balconies, low wall in front setback, height of existing
fire station wall, and tree plantings along the north property llne. (See Exhibit B.)
F:~Planning~PDREPORT~pe\pel 4u00.doc
4-o
Pn~e 3
Staff feels that most of the issues raised were subsequently addressed by the applicant. (See Exhibit C.)
The cement board siding hn_~ been used in other Cupertino projects and is an acceptable substitute for
wood siding. The wnin.~otlng materials on the CCS building indicate a color change, not a material
chnnge. The CCS building will have heavier composition meting than the residential units (as called
out on sheet A2.3). Staff does not consider the low wall in the front setback to be a problem. The fire
station wall was approved as part of that project, as requested by adjacent residents. The applicant
states that the trees proposed along north property line meet the needs of the neighbors, who prefer not
to be overshadowed with large trees.
The larger issues raised, the roof overhangs, the scale of the CCS building and the treatment of shed
roofs over entries and balconies, require more discussion.
Staff, the applicant and the architectural consultant discussed the root' overhang issue at length. Tight
eave ow~iumgs are proposed, and Larry Cnnnon believes that larger overhangs would provide a more
quality appearance. The applicant points out that the eaves are part' of the Nantucket style, and are
similar to other existing residential projects (See Exhibit D). He also points out that other aspects of
the design, porches, balconies, railings and trellises, provide architectural detail. Staff has observed
numerous residential developments in thc area with similar caves, including the Hamptons apa~tutcnts
on Wolfe Road, and believes that the proposed eaves are adequate. However, staff recommends that
the details of the roof overhnngs be reviewed by staff prior to issnnnce of a building pe,..it. The
applicant will discuss this issue further at the meeting.
The scale of the CCS building has been addressed by breaking up the west elevation with a trellis and
porch railings. Mr. Cannon was still concerned about the size of the support brackets under the second
story eave, and the applicant will present an alte~l~ate design at the meeting for the Pla~nlng
Commission's consideration.
Regarding the shed roofs over entries and balconies (their appearance is most visible on sheet A3.2).
The applicant has not provided the detailing for these roofs at this stage; staff recommends that
detailing be approved at staff level prior to issuance of building permits.
Landscal~ing :
The 10 foot landscape strip and sidewalk along the Vista Drive frontnge matches that of the fire station.
An additional 20 feet of landscaping (ground cover and hedge) is proposed between the sidewalk and
the CCS building and apartments (the buildings are set back 30 feet from the curb). A double row of
trees is proposed along the frontage. While the Heart of the City landscape requirements do not apply
to Vista Drive, nor did they for the fire station, staff prefers that flowering pear trees be used in this
area, rather than the tree types shown on Sheet L-1. New trees are shown along the north property line.
Some existing trees along the northeast property line will be removed to accommodate the carports.
The applicant states that the affected property owner is aware of this tree removal. Landscaping is
shown in the courtyard areas and in small strips around the parking lot perimeter.
Tra~c:
The traffic analysis (Exhibit E) concludes that the project would generate an additional 21 A.M. peak
hour vehicle trips 'and 22 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. The intersection of Tone Avenue-Vista
Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard would operate at Level of Service B.
\LNTMAINSER~R\~Uns~Plannimz~PD .REPORT~Ue\ool4u00.doc ~ -4 l
I
Page 4
The lraffic report discusses circulation and access to the project. Eastbound motorists can only access
· Vista Drive and Randy Lane by making n U-turn at Blaney Avenue, or they can access Vista Drive
from Lazaneo Drive, creating potential cut-through traffic. Both the traffic consultants and staff
consider this potential to be negligible.
Shared Parking Plan:
The project will share parking between the residential and office uses, as provided for in the General
Plan (Policy 3-9) and the paricing ordinance if a shared parking study is provided. The number of stalls
required without taking shs_red parking into account would be 72 stalls. The project proposes 47 stalls.
The traffic report analyzes the shared parking rotes of case studies in the region. Table 4b on page l0
of the traffic report shows the breakdown of hourly parking demand ratios for office and residential
uses. The table shows that during the daytime work hours, the residential parking demand is nearly
50% of the evening parl~ing demand. Furthe,~,ore, the traffic report analysis shows that parking
demand will not exceed the supply at any time. The maximum residential demand is shown as 47
spaces, the same number as spaces provided (numbers have been rounded). The applicant states that
the assumption of nearly two spaces per unit is very conservative, and that that number of spaces will
not acV~nlly be needed.
On street parking is available on both Vista Drive and l~nndy Lane. Residents have raised concerns
about parking demand not being met on site and creating overflow parking onto the streets. Staff
believes this is a possibility on weeknights, since only one space is projected to be available for the
office use. Staff.recognizes that street parking is available and visitors should not be prevented from
using it; nevertheless, on-site parking needs to meet the project's projected needs. The applicant
submitted a shared parking plan and additional information on parking demands at Similar projects.
(Exhibit F). The applicant proposes an agreement with a nearby office property (Cupertino National
Bank) for overflow day and night time visitors, such as CCS board meetings. Although staff supports
requiring this agreement, staff believes that overflow parking at this distance is not a realistic solution.
However, there is n possibility that resident parking, particularly at night, will be less than projected,
and the overflow CCS visitors can share on-site parirlng. At this time, staff does not recommend a
daytime overflow agreement, since the availability of excess spaces at the bank has not been
demonstrated. Staff recomroends that a condition of approval require an off-site parking agreement for
night time parking, and that parking be reviewed by the Planning Commission should parking
problems arise.
Heart of the City Exception:
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was developed to guide future development along Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines for various land
uses including: commercial, multi-unit residential and mixed use residential and retail. The design
incorporates the design stana_~_rds and guidelines.
The project requires an exception to the Heart of the City _smo~ requiring a 30-foot side setback
between on site residential buildings. Because of the lot configuration, the applicant is unable to meet
the requirement without reducing the number of units and parking spaces. Distances between
buildings are: 18 feet between the office building and Building 3 apartments; 15 feet between the CCS
building and Building l; 18 feet between Building 3 and Buildings 1/2 and l0 feet between Buildings
1 and 2. However, the Specific Plan pwvides an exception process.if design flexibility is needed for
unus~mlly shaped lots like the subject site. 'The exception will be considered on September 27.
\~NTMAINSERVER\~ouns~Plannina~PD .RE. PORT, Dc\Dc 14u00.doc ~. f~.
P~e$
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, Cit~ Planner and Vent G-il, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A - Project Description
Exhibit B - Cannon Design Group's comments
Exhibit C - Architect's r~sponses
Exhibit D - Examples of similar architecture (provided by applicant)
Exhibit E- Traffic Operations Analysis
Exhibit F - Shared Parking Plan
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Plan Set
Material Board available at meeting
A model may be viewed in the planning department, and wm be available at the
meeting
\h'CrlVlAINSERVER\nrout)s~Plannin~,~PD .REPORTxDc\~c 14u00.doc ~,~_ ~ ~
Ptznning Commission Minutes 14 ~~..~J~mber 11, 2000
MOTION: Com. Stevens 1 l-U-00 and 9-EXC-00
SECOND: Com. Co~,,,~
VOTe:
$. Application No.(s): 14-U-00, 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cbel] (Cupertino Community Services)
Property Owner: Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
F 8:3-~ Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of new fire
station)
Use permit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apartment building an'd a 6,089 square foot
Cupertino Community Sarvices building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot.
Tentative City Council Date: October 16, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to con~uct a
24 unit affordable housing aparh~ent building and a 6,000 square foot Cupertino Community
Services (CCS) building on Vista Drive. The background of the CCS program was briefly
reviewed, as outlined in the attached staff report. The item is tentative scheduled to be presented
to City Council on October 16th; staff recommends that following discussion at the present
meeting, to continue the item to the special September 27th Plannin~ Commission meeting. '
Com. Con' stated that he was currently President of CCS, which is a voluntary position. The City
Attorney clarified that because the position has no financial interest and no financial gain, a
conflict of interest did not exist for Com. Corr.
Ms.' Wordell referred to the site plan and provided an outline of the proposed application, as
outlined in the staff report. She noted that the architectural consultant Larry Cannon, had
concerns about the roof overhangs,, scale of the CCS building, and the treatment of shed roofs over
the entries and balconies. A minor landscaping change is also l~ing recommended.
Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis; DKS
Associates; Summarized Trip (}eneration; Traffic Operations; reviewed Table 1, Signalized
Intersections LOSD Thresholds; Table 2, Intersection LOS Summary; Critical Traffic
Movements Summary; Table 7, Projected Design Queues Under Each Condition; Parking
Operations; and Tables 4a and 4b, Weekend and Weekday Shared Parking Analyses. He
summarized that the proposed project.would generate 21 peak hour trips during the a.m. hour, and
22 peak hour trips during the p.m. hours. The LOS during a.m. peak hour will be B+ and LOS B
during the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Chong stated that the main concern was the significant impact on
parking, as the proposed parking spaces number 47, and the city ordinance requires 72, resulting
in a deficit of 25 parking spaces. He noted that a possible r~medy could be a shared parking
agreement with an adjacent neighbor.
Ms. Wordell discussed the shared parking concept, pointing out that the night time shared parking
onsite might present a problem, as it indicated one person using the office at night; therefore there
would have to be a shared parking agreement for offsite parking for night time meetings to work.
She said that staff was supportive of the shared parking agreement, using thc offsite agreement as
a backup and the possibility of availability of onsite parking as a backup. The Planning
Commission could also review the parking in the future if there is a problem.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 11, 2000
Ms. Wordell explained the need for an exception existed because the Heart of thc City Plan
requires a 30 foot separation for buildings onsite and the purpose of that was to reduce mass, but
given that the site is small and there are other objectivas to provide affordable housing, and the
distances will be perceived internally and not externally. She pointed out the need for a
continuance existed since the e~. ception was not originally noticed with the use permit.
Com. Kwok expressed concern about the inconsistencies in applying the same criteria for the two
pwjects presented to the Planning Commission relative to shared parking. Ms. Wordell explained
the differences in the two projects. She noted that one application was for affordable housing
project, and some analysis of similar projects was done and it was found the automobile use was
downl and also there is a smaller percentage of 2 bedroom units.
Ms. Mary Ellen Cheil, Cupertino Community Services, said that CCS provides services critical to
the Cupertino community since 1973, in the areas of providing food, utility assistance, clothing,
and housing services to needy residents of Cupertino. She said that CCS, has been housed in many
locations and had outgrown its present site at the Quinlan Community Center facili{ies. She
explained that the proposed project of 24 units was the next step in the continuum of care to
provide affordable, permanent housing to low income families.
In response to a concern from a neighbor about parking spaces, Ms. Cheil said that. CCS employed
5 persons from g a.m. until $ p.m., volunteers dropping off food from the community from $ a.m.
until 9:30 a.m., one or two volunteers in the food closet at any given time putting food away and
distributing it to clients. She also explained that the residents had a community room available for
their use, and the ail purpose room was used for CCS Board meetings. Ms. Cheil said thai the
homeless shelters were pwvided by 12 various churches throughout the community that offered
food and shelter on their sites. She explained the makeup of the persons using 'the services of the
shelters in the community.
Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meeter Williams Pollack, explained the proposed buildings model and
answered questions relative to building design, parking, and building activities. He pointed out
that meetings were held in the community and design modifications were made at various' stages
in response to community input on the design of the project. There was a brief discussion about
the use of pear trees in the landscape design.
Chair Harris expressed concern about the lack of overhang un the buildings, and asked what
mitigation could be used to prevent starkness. Mr. Williams said that overhangs were not
provided because of the design of the complex, and since the buildings are close together it was
felt that the detail be provided in the porches and balconies and the building design was kept
simple from a form standpoint without the overhangs. They were not a cost saving measure, but a
design consideration. He said that the overhangs could be increased. Chair Harris aisc expressed
concern about certain areas of the building that appeared stark, and s~ggasted that mitigation be
considered to improve the starkness. Mr. Williams said that consideration could be given to
extending out the gable fagede and maintaining the roof overhang in certain locations to mitigate
the starkness.
Mr. Williams said. that he felt parking was adequate for the complex. He said that part of the
efficiency layout was predicated on considering the shared parking, which was located a
reasonable distance from the complex at the bank and was a safe environment. Ms. Chell said that
Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 11, 2000
meeting attendees would be notified of the location of the shared parking. She noted that many
CCS clients carpooled or used public transportation, therefore parking would not be an issue.
Aisc, many clients were return clients and would be aware of the parking location aider their first
visit.
Ms. Wordell explained how the 72 parking space requirements was arrived at. She said that the
CCS building wa~ parked at one space per 285, and the apartments two per unit, 41/ for the
apa~huents and remainder for office.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Ronald Jacoby, 20152 ~loseph Circle, and president of Joseph Park HOA bordering on the
north of the proposed 'project, said that they recognized the need for affordable housing in the
Cupertino community, and respected the wishes of CCS to build the pwject at the selected
location. He said he and many community members had been involved with the project and
attended the community meetings and recognized that some of their input was taken into
consideration. He expressed concern about the density ofthe project, which he said was themost
dense building constructed on the street, lacks open spaae, and will have a negative impact on
parking. He said he was also concerned about early morning construction hours and asked the
Planning Commission to address those issues.
Com. Kwok said he liked the project and it would provide affordable housing for the community.
He said he was also concerned about parking, and requested the architect work to provide more
parking spaces. He said it was ~ worthwhile project and was supportive of the project.
Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the project; and said the density issue could be handled. The
apa~h~lents are suitable; the CCS building having their parking requirements added to the parking
of the apartments is presenting a complication, and the CCS building group can use offsite parking
and may even be directed to do so, and that should change the numbers to be more favorable. As
presented, the deficiency in parking is of concern. Com. Stevens said he was in favor of the
overall project.
Com. Corr did not comment on the application.
Chair Harrris said they needed to look at the parking on this particular project more closely than
others, as the approval was for all future uses of the building, not justCCS's present use. She said
since it would not happen immediately, she considered the 13 people who are typically there vs.
the 20 people that were counted because if using 6,089 there will be a need for 20 parking spaces
for that office building. She said she was not counting any spaces for the 756 for two reasons.
First, if there is a community room, it is already counted in with the people and should not be
counted twice. Secondly, she said she felt they should give up the 756 feet of community space
to use for parking. She said that it was not common practice to provide community space for a24
unit building. Chair Harris said she felt there should be one car per one bedwom unit and two cars
for 2 bedroom un/ts, which is 12 and 12, making 36; 25% of that for guest parking it 34, which
results in 44 and 12 (5'/). If4? is proposed, it is underparked by 10 spaces. She said that she did
not feel that it was practical to park acwss the street and down the block, although it was feasible
for the board members to park there. Employees could also be instructed to park there which
would still leave $ spaces short. Chair Harris said that she did not want it to appear that the CCS
Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 11, 2000
building was receiving special attention because I provided affordable housing. She said the
parking needed to be dealt with in a rational way.
Mr. Williams clarified that the ama for the community room was not solely a room for the
residents' use, but included shared laundry facilities, a resident manager's office and a small
storage facility for the office. Chair Harris noted that a 24 unit apartment complex would not
normally have a 24 hour manager. She reiterated that it was a useful projec% but noted that it
needed to be a good neighbor and needs to not cause parking issues and traffic issues in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Wordell asked that if the shared parking analysis shows that residents are not using the
parking lot during the day, was it taken into account. Chair Harris said she would like to s.ee what
is going on at the Swensen project down the street. Mr. Piasecki said that the concern was noted,
and will work it out with arehitect.
Ms. Ann Silverberg, Bridge Housing Corporation, provided information on similar projects
relative to the parking issue.
Chair Harris said that factual data was needed relative to the parking issue.
Com. Stevens noi~i that comments on the overhangs and wall mitigations should be included in
the direction to the applicant.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 14-U-00 and 18-EA-00 to the
September 27th PJanning Commission meeting
SECOND: ' Com. Stevens
AB SE1N-T: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
None
None
REPORT OF
Mayor's Breakfast: Harris the Mayor's breakfast was scheduled for
September 12.
Environmental Com. Corr reported that the committee scheduled
to meet this week; last was
Harris that it should be ~ that follow up test results be given to
Chair
the P s on antennae ~
commented on problems experiencedwi~~ophones during the
VAN METER
WILLIAMS ^
POLLACK
Cupertino Community Services and Family Housing
Vista Drive, Cupertino
For
Cupertino Community 8ervlcea and Bridge Housing Corporation
By
Project Description
7126/00
The Cupertino community Services Family Housing and Services development is a twenty four unit
affordable housing development with an approximately 7,000 s.f services building as a mixed use
development which t[ansitions between the new fire station and commemial uses fronting along Stevens
Creek Boulevard and townhomas and residences along Vista Drive. The existing site has seen past
commemial use as a Used car lot with a small structure. Most recently the site has had storage of
agricultural equipment, along the rear flag lot portion of the site, and has been cleared and used for
construction staging for the new County Fire Station facility. This proposed housing and services
complex will provide 24 units of much needed affordable housing and a long term home for Cupertino
Community Services, the primar~ service provider for counseling, food, clothing and housing for the
needy families in CuPertino.
Assisting Cupertino Community Services as the development consultant is Bridge Housing Corporation,
the pm-eminent affordable housing development organization in the Bay Area. They are responsible for
over 10,000 units of affordable and mixed income housing developments throughout Northem and
Southern Califomia. This teaming has provided the development expertise in affordable housing in
conjunction with local community services needs to create a quality mixed use development which is
designed to be a good neighbor and an asset to the neighborhood and the City of Cupertino.
Community Process
The project sponsor,' Cupertino Community Services and With Van Meter Williams Pollack, Architects,
have held four meetings with the surrounding residents including the neighbors across Vista Drive and
within Joseph Park, adjacent to the proposed development. The meetings have been well attended and
the design has been significantly influenced to address the community's concems. The most important
issues and how these were addressed included:
· Site Circulation: to minimize short cut from block to block and minimize traffic impacts on Vista Drive; The
*z" driveway configuration was the unanimously preferred solution.
· Parking: to insure sufficient parking for the residences and the CCS services building needs, and to
minimize the need for on-street parking. The CCS building's needs have been closely evaluated and the
team believes that shared parking with the well parked residential development is the appropriate strategy.
Location of parking and the minimizing of the entries along Vista Drive were each responses to
neighborhood comments and concems.
Sm~ I~mn~les~,
~LIG? USA
418.S74.~&2
FAX.I?4~
· Building Design to insure compatibility with the adjacent residential developments, particularly height
and privacy issues. Again, the orientation of the CCS building and the substantial front yard landscaping
pmpossd along Vista Drive, creates Iow building eave elevations along Vista and maximizes privacy for
adjacent residents.
· CCS Services Building'Activities: There is concom that. the CCS building will create an 'attractive
nuisance" within the neighborhood, bringing 'undesirable persons" into the neighborhood. Of specific
concern is the fear that a 'soup kitchen" would be incorporated into the facility in the future and that as a
'warehouse / distribution facility" extremely large trucks will be venturing onto Vista Drive. The actual
portion of the CCS facility which provides the grocery type foods program does not have a large scale
loading facility and does not anticipate, nor desire large scale trucks.
Design Description
The Site area is approximately 1.18 acres, generally rectangular site with a 40' wide 'flag Icl' access onto
Randy Lane. The site is zoned bythe Heart of the City Specific Plan as medium to high density housing.
This zone allows for a mix of commercial and residential development as either a horizontal (side by side) or
vertical (housing over commemial) mixed uss development. The primary use of the property is residential
where up to 35 dwelling units per acre or 41 residential units is allowed. Twenty four residential units
(12-one bedroom and 12 - two bedroom apartments) and an 800 s.f. residential community building which
Includes a single manager's office and laundry room is adjacent to the 6,200 s.f. CCS Services and
Administration building. There are 47 parking spaces provided on site with half being covered by carports.
The site gently slopes approximately 4-5' from Vista Ddve to Randy Lane. The adjacent residential
development (Joseph. Park) and the fire stat on are each at a slightly higher elevation than the proposed
development, minimiz, ing' the overall complexes building heights.
Site Circulation
The site plan addresses · number of the neighbor's concerns and represents the consensus circulation
desired by the neighborhood. The 'z'" drive and perking allows for access from Randy Lane as well as
Vista Drive, minimizing the traffic on each street and minimizing the traffic adjacent to the existing
townhomes to the north. The 'z' configuration prevents the visual connection between streets,
discouraging short cut circulation. The Vista Drive access at the southern end of the parcel minimizes the
auto traffic past the residents across the street and aligns the drive with the commercial and residential
drives across the street, .preventing auto head lights from disturbing the neighbors across the street. The
parking, adjacent to the fire station, office parking and along the panhandle. This creates a courtyard
oriented complex, balancing the desire to provide street presence with the desire to minimize the
developments impact on the adjacent neighbors.
Parking
The forty ssven parking spaces provided on-site are to be shared by the residents and the CCS facilities.
This is consistent with the City of Cupertino's shared parking policy and makes effective uss of the site
during the week days, .weekends and evenings. The CCS facility anticipates between 4-6 full time staff
with 4 to 6 daily volunteers. At peak periods 6 volunteers may be at the facility for a short period of time
during mid day hours. :CCS maintains logs on their visitors and have generally had a maximum of 24
visitors on any given day. This count is over an 8-hr. period and in a peak would be approximately 4-
6persons or families. Not all of these individuals ddve as a few do not have automobiles. Thus, the peak
period of auto parking requirement would be for a two to three hour period, typically between 12 and 3 pm
Thus the parking demand anticipated is between 12 and 18 spaces for a short period of time each day,
typically an approximately two hour pedod between 11:00am and 3:00 pm.
The one and two bedroom apartments will be home to small working families who's employment will
generally require daytime auto use. Bridge Housing has reviewed many of their affordable housing
developments within a similar neighborhood and believe that two spaces per unit is a vary large parking
ratio, providing more than ample perking. Cupertino Community Services who's hours of operation are
during regular daytime business hours, minimizes parking conflicts with residential parking, which is at its
· --. greatest dudng evening and week end periods. One short of two spaces per apartment allows for
daytime residential parking as well as the maximum 24 spaces required for a 6,000 s.f. commercial
The design of the townhomas and flats is simple and undemtated, yet provides quality housing and a
variety of living opportunities. The apartments have strong connections to their exterior spaces, both
private and common, extending the size of the living spaces. The simple two story townhomes ara
brought gently to the ground with single story pomh elements. The large entry pomhas on the
townhomes and covered walks on the flats provide additional semi-private space at each residents' entry
door. The apartment's~living spaces each have large windows looking out onto the common courtyards.
The combination of gabled facades and the articulations of bays ara emphasized by varied board siding
and color.
CCS Services Building Activities
Cupertino Community Services offers a variety of services to the residents of Cupertino Including
housing assistance, administering of a homeless shelter (off-site) and general assistance through
counseling. A primary'service is also administering the CCS food pantry program whera families may
obtain a variety of groceries at minimal cost to bridge the gap in their food supply. Similarly CCS provides a
small clothing closet allowing needy individuals to select from donated clothes for employment and
general wear. These activities, including the storage and organizing (preparation) make up approximately
1/5 of the overall CCS facility. The facility in no way praparas meals and its efforts ara still smell in scale,
and do not rely on large scale distribution, which would raquira extensive use of large trucks.
Of primary concern' ha.'s been the impact the facility would have on the neighborhood. The site and facility
were designed to minimize the impact by locating the food and clothing facilities internal to the site. Each
client is required to enter the building, sign in and then proceed intemally to the 'food/grocery' area. The
food and clothing p[ograms have limited hours of operation, between approximately 10:00 am and 3:00
pm. This provides minimal conflicts with the working rasidents and also allows for ample shared parking
facilities. The closaly.-m.anaged food, clothing and counseling programs provide much needed services
for Cupertino rasidents...The facility allows for efficient use of space and much needed administration area
for each program which the CCS provides.
This Project Description provides a detail description of the development's overall strategy of meeting the
spirit and fundame!3~al goals of the neighborhood and the Heart of the City guidelines, providing a quality
living environment.and a center for the City's primary service provider. If you have any questions regarding
this summary please contact me directly art 415-974-5352. Thank you for this consideration.
Sincerely, ..
Rick W. Williams
Architect
building. As the CCS facility and the residential development will be managed by CCS, parking can be
coordinated between the CCS facility and the residents. The CCS facility is also providing 5 bike perking
spaces on top of the 10 being provided for residential use.
I~uilding Design
The design of this mixed use complex balances the integration of the residential complex with the CCS
facility, while maintaining each others' identity. The CCS facility is designed to present its semi-public /
community sen~ice role while integrating into the existing neighborhood. The building's orientation to
Stevens Creek Boulevard represents Its role as a semi-public facility while presenting a visual entrance as
one walks or drives along Vista Drive. This side yard orientation was made possible by the large setback of
the fire station and parking apron and reflects the neighbors desire to de-emphasize on-street parking by
its visitors. The building entry orients to the street, with a wide walk, light and trellis and covered
'pomh/arcade" and its front door location is oriented to the most convenient site perking.
The CCS building's primary elevations also reflect this orientation. The main gabled 'front" facade
presents the public entrance to Stevens Creek Boulevard and is viewed from Vista Drive, while the Vista
Drive elevation from viewed from the homes across the street has a Iow eve height, consistent with the
residential building height and a large shadowed overhang. Both of these primary elevations have
recessed windows. The entrance arcade, single story "pomh / covered walk" and the large overhang
provides articulation and the visual interest called for In the "Heart of the City' Specific Plan guidelines.
The stucco fa[=ade, desired for commercial buildings, building base, window recesses and the roof
orientation to Vista Drive are also consistent by the guidelines. The architectural grade composition roof
provides a more residential appearance and is consistent with the transitional nature of this site. The
Community Room also provides a single story element along Vista Drive and a transition between the CCS
facility and the Residential complex. The separate entry porch provides visual interest and also reflects.
the desire to emphasize an openness between management and the neighboring community.
The front yard landscaping balances the desire to buffer the adjacent residence form the development
with the desire to provide a strong landscape statement. The development improves the un-improved
street frontage and provides new curb gutter and sidewalk. This site Is also the transition between a
separated sidewalk and one which is integral with the curb as with the Joseph Park Development. The
landscape design includes a strong double row of street trees and also a hedge along the buildings
providing a landscape base to the buildings and iow landscaping wall which encloses the entryways which
are punctuated by light bollards at the entries. Other groundcover within the front yard area creates a
variety of color and tenure while providing for maintenance and drainage requirements.
The residential complex is centered around a residential courtyard. The neighbors had a substantial
amount of input into the layout of these buildings. Eight- two bedroom townhomes and four- two
bedroom flats line the adjacent Joseph Park townhomes. The break in the building's originally presented
were discouraged by the neighbors as the wind and sound were considered negatives. Thus, the
townhomas and flats present a building wall between the developments. This building is composed of
the two bedroom units are anticipated to have the greater number of children and will have large semi
private rear yards. The smaller one bedroom flats are located in two two story buildings which enclose the
courtyard space, which all of the flats look onto and more directly share providing common open space.
Each of the flats has a semi-enclosed patio or balcony as well as their entry porch or deck.
A smaller second courtyard integrates the CCS facility with the residential community. The courtyard has
the CCS volunteer lunch room, the residential recreation room and a number of residences looking onto
it. This courtyard is anticipated to more greatly intermingle the CCS staff and volunteers with the
residential community, while the larger residential court provides a separate outdoor space for the
residents. There was discussion regarding the location and activity level of the residential community
building. This location allows for sharing of some facilities with the CCS complex, for the occasional use by
CCS during particular events such es special sorting. The floor plan orients the community facilities, to the
courtyard, and orienting away from the surrounding neighbors in the event of some unanticipated noise.
Typically the community facilities are the quietest areas of a development. The intemal building layout
locates the manager's office and laundry facility toward Vista Drive, further shielding neighbors from any
unanticipated noise. ~
· EXHIBIT B
ARCI-II*r~CruRE PLANNING URBAN DF, SIGN
July 19, 2000
Ms. Vera Oil
Planning Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
RE: Cupertino Community Services and Family Housing
Dear Vera:
I have reviewed the drawings which the architect forwarded at your request. In general, I feel that
the project is well designed and represents a sensitive solution to a project with this mix of uses.
There are a few items that I would bring to your attention for further thought. They are as follows:
Materials
1. The drawings call for "cement board siding". I do not have experience with this material, and
my brief research only turned up one manufacturer who advertised the material as a sheathing
material rather than a finish material. You should request some photographs of buildings in
which this material has been used, and, of course, request a material sample of sufficient size
to determine the color and finish. It is not uncommon today for residential projects of this type
to utilize materials that are a bit more industrial in character than what we think of as
traditional residential neighborhood materials. You should be sure that you will be comfortable
with this material selection.
2. A wainscoting material is used along tae bottom of the CSS building, but i couldn't find an
indication of what that material was intended to be. A material and color sample for this
element should be requested.
3. The CSS building calls for a "heavy composition roofing" while the residential units call for
"composition roofing". I am not sure what the difference in appearance of these two shingles
might be. However, if you are concerned about the appearance of the CSS building being of
a larger scale than the residential units, some discussion with the architect about intent and
appearance might be useful.
TEL: 415.3~1.~'P)5 FAX: 415.~1.~797 180 HARBORDP, IV~.SUITE 219. SAUSALrro. CA94965
Cupertino Community Services and Family Housing
July 19, 2000
Page 2
Buildings
1. While the buildings are all generally well designed, the one area that people might not be
pleased with when the complex is complete is the amount of roof overhang. When I write
residential design guidelines, I generally encourage significant roof overhangs as a means to
reinforce the residential scale and ch:~ragter of projects and to provide some more positive tops
to buildings and walls. Most of the roof overhangs proposed for the project appear to be around
6 inches, which is rather small for most residential products. While small overhangs are
sometimes used quite successfully in certain building styles and with certain materials, there
are many very low cost projects which appear cheap and uninviting at least partially because
of inadequate roof overhangs at both side eaves and gable overhangs. You should take a look
at surrounding residential development to see if the city would be comfortable with this small
roof overhang approach.
2. The CSS building is probably of the most concern given its relatively larger scale and
dominance of the Vista Street frontage. I do not have a landscape plan for the project so some
of my comments might be mitigated by landscaping in the setback. The following are some
steps that might be taken to relate the scale of the CSS building more to the residential units.
Using them all is probably not, appropriate. After you evaluate them, the architect might look
at some of them and perhaps some others of his own that might accomplish the goal.
· Recessing the widows, especially the taller tn'st floor windows facing Vista Street and
the second story windows over the main entry, to provide more of a punched opening.
· Introducing trellis elements over some of the first floor windows similar to what is being
proposed for the residential units.
· Introducing railings to match the residential units along the arcade leading to the multi-
purpose room.
· Modification of the roof support brackets to be less than one story tall.
3. Most elements of the design appear to be well worked'out. The exception to my eye is the
treatment of shed roofs over entries and balconies as shown on the sketches on the architect's
drawing A3.2. This may just be an early concept drawing simplified by the computer generated
drawings, but the detailing seems less sophisticated from a design standpoint than the
remainder of the project (i.e., the elements appear as slabs held up at the outer ends by
utilitarian-looking brackets). The degree to which elements like this can be refined and appear
more consistent with normal quality residential detailing, the more compatible this special
project will appear in the context of the adjacent residential neighborhood.
CANNON DI~GN GROUP 180 ~R DI~v~. SUITE 219. S~.USALffO. CA94965
Cupertino Community Services and Family Housing
guly 19, 2000
Page 3
Lnndsenping
1. As noted above, ! have not seen a landscaping plan. However, there are a couple of areas where
I might anticipate some concern. The first is the low wall shielding the transfoimer and the
parking at the south edge of the property near the Vista Street frontage. This element extends
into the front setback. Although I have not visited the site and do not know what occurs in the
other setbacks along the street, generally it would be more desirable to keep the wall out of the
front setback. Moving the wail back, however, would requke finding another location for the
transformer, if it is not possible to relocate the transformer and move this fence back,
consideration could be given to lightening it up in appearance with openings, and count on the
landscaping to play more of'~ roll in screening the transformer.
Also, with respect to this general wail area, it appears that there is an existing wall along the
south property line adjacent to the ftre station. If possible, it might be worth considering
lowering the height of that existing wall back to or near the face of the f~re station since it is
so prominently visible from the street.
2. The tree areas between parking stalls along the south property line are probably adequate for
that property edge. However, the lack of potential for tree plantings along the north side of the
parking drive aisle misses an opportunity to soften up the parking area and this edge of the
complex.
Vera, I hope these comment~ are of assistance. If you have questions or would like any other issues
addressed, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP
President
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE.SUit,< 219. SAUSAIiTO.CA94965
Exhibit C
VAN METER
WILLIAMS
POLLACK
MEMORANDUM
JULY 24, 2000
T o: Ms. Vere Gill
City of Cupertino
Planning Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Fax: 408-777-3333
Project: Cupertino Community Servlcee and family Houaing
Re: Response to Cannon. Design Group Review
To VerB,
Thank you for the expeditious review of the preliminary design for the above referenced project.
This letter should provide clarification and response to a number of questions which the Cannon Design
Group had regarding the design.
Materials
1.. 'Cement Board Siding" is the ~eneric term for'Hardi Plank' Board side. This is the roost typical
siding material.for residential development today. It has the appearance and is applied as wood '
siding with wood trims being shown. The material has either a wood grain or smooth application.
For this design we are intending on a smooth painted finish.
2. The wainscot'"msterial of the CCS building is stucco, es is the field. The graphic representation is
to illustrate a change in color from the wainscot to the upper body of-the building. See color bal.
3. The CCS building's 'Heavy Composition roofing' vs. a composition roofing on the residential
reflects the variation between a forty year and a thirty year roofing material. It will have somewhat
more texture to the roof than the 30 year roof. The color and material is the same.
Buildinqs
1. The development has been designed with tight eaves rather than deep overhangs, similar to a
Nantucket Victorian style building: simple and subtle in its detail. The gable-end facades provide
the building form with porches, balconies, railings and trellises providing the detail. VMWP will
provide photos of other buildings with this similar eave treatment.
The CCS building also does not have traditional overhangs. The front elevation facing the
parking and Steven Creek Boulevard as a vertical gabled fagade and colonnade at the front
entrance. The one story 'porch' element provides a deep shadow and the Vista Street faceade is
highlighted by a deep overhang with a deep bracket can provide a climbing surface for three
vines. This, along with a strong landscape statement in the front yard will soften the CCS
building.
FAX .S74.82~8
2. . The CCS Building has also filled the substantial portion of our design time. Our goal for the CCS
building has been to give the building its public Importance, facing Stevens Creek Boulevard,
while downplaying its presence on Vista Drive. Address the points in the lette~.
· The main elevations of Vista Drive and the entry tagade (each being two stories) will have
recessed windows in thickened walls. The wainscot bases have also been accentuated.
· A secondary trellis over the ground floor windows at the two story element could be incorporated
Into the tagade design. We would like to maintain the larger brackets, possibly with an added trellis
over the first floor windows.
· Railing could be added along the covered walkway "porch" element. A landscape hedge along
this area will also provide a base to the building, which would render the railing unnecessary.
3. The sketches they were referring to ars preliminary computer Images, more to show the quality of
the courtyard spaces than the detailing. The detailing will be more traditional residential details for
overhangs and brackets. -These will be refined during design development and construction
documents.
Landscaping
1. The landscape plan will be included in the submittal package. We have emphasized the Vista
Drive landscaping in the design. The Iow wall will be 3' high and consistent with the rest of the
development..' G. roundcover, hedges and trees will further buffer the view of the parking. The Iow
fence just provides immediacy to the screen. This area will be further screened by the fire station
wall and double row of poplars.
The fire station complex has come under much scrutiny by the neighbors and the City. The
station does have a screen wall between the two properties. I believe this was desired by the
neighbors. I am not sure of th~ precise height of the wall which extends beyond its building's wall.
Behind the building the wall is 10' high.
2. The fire station wall and the landscaping which is part of this proposed development will
substantially screen both the transformer and the parking area in front of the CCS building. Our
concern has been losing the view of the CCS building from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista
Drive due to our substantial effort to buffer the adjacent residential from this development.
· We believe the double row of trees within the front yard more than buffers the building size from
adjacent homes, providing a strong landscape statement.
I hope that this response to the preliminary deign comments clears up some of the misunderstandings
and I appreciate the C~y's efforts maintain a high level of design quality throughout the community. We
believe this development will be a strong addition to the City.
Sincerely,
Rick W. Williams
Architect
Final Traffic Operations Analysis
for the Proposed
Cupertino Community Services Project
at
Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA
Prepared for
City of Cupertino
By
DKS Associates
84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 360
San Jose, CA 951f3
(408) 292-9411
August 14, 2000
DKS Associates
84 Wesr Santa C/ara Street, S~,zm 360
San Jose: CA 95? :$
Phone: .408) 25£-2-'.~ ~
Fax: i408~ 292-95: !
August 14, 2000
Mr. Ray Chong
Traffic Engineer
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Final Traffic Operations Analysis, Cupertino Community Services ProjectPoo251
Dear Mr. Chong:
DKS is pleased to present this Final Traffic Operations Analysis for the proposed Cupertino
Community Services project on Vista Drive. The analysis includes an evaluation of trip generation,
intersection and parking impacts, circulation issues, and a site plan review.
This final report incorporates comments received from City staff'on the DraR Report. Please do not
hesitate to call me with any questions regarding this report. DKS has enjoy~ being of service to the
City of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
DKS ASSOCIATES
A California Co.rporation
,
Mark Spencer, P.E..
Project Manager
DKS ASSO(... TES
Executive Summary
The ,proposed Cupertino Community Services project would generate an
additional 21 A.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 22 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips.
The nearby intersection of Torte Ave-Vista Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard
would operate at an acceptable level of service 'B' even with the addition of
cumulative traffic. As a result, no mitigation measures are required at this
location.
The project access is designed to minimize the use of residential streets, and
therefore minimize the potential for neighborhood intrusion. Because of the
relatively Iow number of additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed
project, the project would not substantially increase queue lengths along Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
The parking needs of the project would be accommodated on-site with the
provision of 4'/parking spaces, except under the most conservative assumptions.
Because the shared parking analysis was based on conservative factors, no
additional parking spaces or mitigation measures are recommended at this time.
Under each of the studied scenarios, the worst critical traffic movements would
not exceed a volume to saturation flow of 0.30, or LOS A. The volumes and
vehicle delays for all study conditions are provided in the appendix.
I. INTRODUCTION
The proposed Cupertino Community Services Project consists of 24 multi-family
residential units and 6,089 square feet of office space to serve as the Cupertino
Community Service building. The project would also provide a total of 47 on-site
parking spaces. Access to the on-site parking serving the development would be
provided by driveways on Vista Drive and Randy Lane. The proposed project site
is located on the east side of Vista Drive, north of Stevens Creek Boulevard in the
City of Cupertino, California.
Quar,2? ire analyses were performed for the weekday A.M. a~.~ -- M. peak hour
for the existing condition, background condition (existing + approved projects),
project condition (background condition + proposed project) and the cumulative
condition (project condition + pending projects + annual traffic growth). As
recommended by the City of Cupertino, the analysis includes the evaluation of
traffic operational conditions at the iniersection of Torte Avenue-Vista
Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard, under the four aforementioned traffic conditions
--- scenarios.
Cupertino Community Services Project - D'a.[ftc Ol~ralion.v Analysi. v I
DKS ASSOCIATES
In addition, the layout of the pro~sed project, the proposed parking supply and
expected demand, and potential changes to traffic circulation on neighboring
roadways were analyzed.
II. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
Intersection Analysis
The. existing traffic operational conditions were evaluated based on the field
observations and by conducting level of service (LOS) analysis using recently
conducted A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movement (intersection) counts. Per
the City of Cupertino traffic impact analysis guidelines, the LOS analysis was
performed using the TRAFFIX 7. ! soRware and the methodology of the Highway
Capacity Manual. The analysis methodology relates traffic movement level of
service to the average delay per vehicle, as defined in TABLE 1. FIGURE 1
illustrates the existing lane configuration and traffic control. FIGURE 2
illustrates the existing turning movement volumes used for the analysis.
Currently, the intersection of Torte Ave-Vista Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard is
operating at an acceptable level of service of"A", with an average delay of 4.9
seconds during the A.M. peak hour. During the P.M. peak hour, the intersection
operates at level of service "B", with an average delay'of 7.5 seconds (see
TABLE 2). It should be noted that the .acceptable level of service for this
intersection is "D" as defined in the City of Cupertino General Plan. The detailed
calculations of the traffic operations analysis are included in the appendix of this
report.
Cupertino Community Services Project -
DKS ASSOC._. TES
~vel Of Se~iee Average Stopped Belay {seconds/vehicle)
A Delay < 5.0
B+ 5.0 < Delay < 7.0
B 7.0 < Delay _< 13.0
B- 13.0 < Delay < 15.0
C+ 15.0 < Delay _< 17.0
C 17.0 < Delay < 23.0
C- 23.0 < Delay < 25.0
D+ 25.0 < Delay < 28.0
D 28.0 < Delay < 37.0
D- 37.0 < Delay < 40.0
E+ 40.0 < Delay < 44.0
E 44.0 < Delay S 56.0
E- 56.0 < Delay < 60.0
F Delay > 60.0
Sou rc~: Valley Transportation Aqlhorily, Congc.-~lirm Mmmgemu'nt Program, Transportation
Impact Analysis (iuidclincs, M,,.., .. 98
Cupertino Community Services Project - 7)-a~c Operatio.s.dttaly. s'is 3
I
DKS ASSO,...ATES
Stevm~s Crgk Blvd.
Signal
Stop
FIGURE I.
Existing Lanc Configuration and Tmll'Jc Control
~.~ ~. ~ 1074(!192)
-~ 103(93)
slevens Cr~k Blvd.
xx(xx) - AM(PM)
FIGURE 2.
Exisling Turning Movcmcnl Volum~
Cupertino Community Services Project - Trctf/'tc Operatio.s,~.alysis 4
Existing Background Project Cumulative
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK
No. Inter~cction
LOS Avg. LOS Avg. LOS Avg. LOS Avg. LOS Avg., LO5 Avg. LOS Avg. LOS Avg.
Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sa:s) (sa:s) (sees) (secs) (sees) (sees) (sees) (sees)
I Torte Aye-Vista A 4.9 B 7.5 B+ 6.0 B 8.3 B+ 6.0 B 8.3 B 8.5 B ! !.3
Dr/Stevens
Creek Blvd.
DKS ASSOCIATES
On-Street Parking
The existing site vicinity contains on-street parking along Vista Drive and Randy
Lane. The utilization of on-street parking spaces was observed during weekday
peak periods.
Vista Drive. Along the west side of Vista Drive, there are approximately 16 on-
street parking spaces between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Court. Along
the east side of Vista Drive, there are approximately 8 on-street parking spaces
between the noah edge of the proposed site and Vista Court. Parking was not
estimated for the section between the south edge of the proposed site and Stevens
Creek Boulevard because of the existence ora newly constructed fire station.
Randy Lane. Along the west side of Randy Lane, there are approximately 15 on-
street parking spaces between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Hogue Court. Along
the east side of Randy Lane, there are also 15 on-street parking spaces between
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Hogue Court. The proposed site entrance is located
on the west side between these two streets..
Throughout the day almost all on-street parking is typically available on both
Vista Drive and Randy Lane.
IlL FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
Background Condition
Based on consultation with City staff, the approved project trips were added to the
existing turning movement volumes at the intersection of Torte Avenue-Vista
Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard. Approved projects would generate an additional
612 A.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 1307 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. The
proportion of these trips that would travel through the study intersection was used
for the intersection LOS analysis under the Background Condition. The level of
service during the A.M. and P.M. t,~ 'i hours under the Background Condition
were calculated and compared to the Existing Condition in TABLE 2. The
addition of approved project trips would result in a change in service level during
the A.M. peak hour from level of service A to B+. During the P.M. peak hour,
there would be no changes in the service level at the study intersection.
The following five projects were cnnsidered as approved projects for this
analysis:
Cupertino Community Services Project - Trqff~c' Opera//o~t.v A~K~/y. vis 6
DKS ASSOCIATES
- Andronico's Market
- Vallco Fashion Park Expansion
- City Center Hotel and Apartments
- Hewlett Packard site
- Adobe Inn site
I1~ is not anticipated that any vehicle trips would travel through the study
intersection by the Andronico's Market project because of its distance relative to
the study intersection. TABLE 3 provides the trip generation for approved and
pending projects.
Project Condition
Circulation/Access. Vehicular access to the Vista Drive entrance of the proposed
project is provided off Stevens Creek Boulevard and also off Lazaneo Drive.
Vista Drive and Randy Lane can only be accessed by westbound traffic on
Stevens Creek Boulevard. In order for eastbound traffic to access either Vista
Drive or Randy Lane, it would be necessary to make a U=turn at Bianey Avenue.
Eastbound motorists may consider accessing Vista Drive from Lazaneo Drive,
which can be accessed from DeAnza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek.
Vista Drive can also be accessed from Lazaneo Drive and as such, there is a
theoretical possibility of cut-through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood as a
result of the proposed project. However, because of the distance between Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Lazaneo Drive, and the Iow number of project-generated
trips, the amount of cut-through traffic is anticipated to be zero.
Parking. The proposed project would provide a total of 47 on-site parking
spaces. A shared parking analysis was conducted to evaluate the total parking
demand versus the on-site supply. This is presented in TABLE 4a.
The minimum parking demand for the o~ce land use would be 22 spaces, based
on a parking ratio of I space for every 25,, square feet. For the residential land
use, the minimum number of parking spaces would be 48, or 2 spaces for every
dwelling unit. Under a shared parking arrangement, however, these two project
components could share parking spaces throughout the day. The office tenants
would use the parking during the day while .the residents were largely away, and
the residents would be able to use the parking at night and on weekends, when the
demand from office tenants is reduced.
Cupertino Community Services_::Project- Tr.af/ic Ol~eratiot~.v,4t~aly. s'is 7 ,ff~_[~ ~
Trip Generation'~ Appm,~.ed and Pending p~l~i i~ i~:;~ij.il;iiiiii:ii:::;:.[:.i::ii!' i':/.':jiii":.:/:iiiil..~.:i~ili::':
.':.' : .' ::~" .. Daily A.M..:PE'AK:::i::~::::~.:..U::i:.i~::::~MiI~EA~::i:::.',:;;:.:.
'La.al'U* ' ' ' ' ":":' ..... ........ "-;*****************************
~ Single T~nt Office 6,~ *.[ I 1.57 69 I.~8 I0 I 1.7~
Sub-wml 6~ ~ !
B Cm~d~Foa~omes
- I lousin~mil (-I 3~) 46 ~its 5.86 269 0.44 3 17 0.54 17 8
- I iousin~mploym~tt (-3%) -26 0 0 -i -I
-2 0 0 0 0
~n6-~/ 241 NA 3 I~ 16
~ S~inl ~lty' 5,6~ s.K 40.67 203 NA NA NA 2.~9 6 8
- Ilousin~emil (-13%) -26 -I -I
- I'uss-~' (-10%) -20 -I -I
Snb4~al 157 5 6
Cuper0~o Ci~' Cemer Ho~el & Apa~men~s~
~ A~.,menls ~05 units 6.65 1,363 0.51 17 88
~ali~tion (3~) (~1) (I) (3) (3) (I)
B R~ 7,~ ~.~ 176.1 1333 4.68 20 13 15.51 52 56
~temali~tion (13%) (I ~) (3) (2) ¢)' (7)
Pas~ny 30~ (370) (6) (4)
B Full-S~'i~ Hotel 217 un~ 6.01 1,305 0.46 16 ~ 0.57 83 41
~mnli~tion (3%) (39) (0) (3) (3) (I)
TOTAL 3,291 43 173 193 114
~U~E: PJ. hl~l~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~- ~-~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~.
~C~'C~&~Ils:. F~&P~Ile C~'~H~~A. ~1~.
VALLCO FASHION PARK E~ANSION:
0.34 56 63 1.72
U R~il
0 0 0 10.~ 66
~ R~m~nt
0.67 122 88 0.71 I I0 113
TOTAL 465 !~=~ ...'lSl::.:
TOWN GREEN EXPANSION~
Existing
~ O~ce 94 k.s.f 13.46 12~ 1.89 156 21 1.96 31 153
~ Medical O~cc 53.7 k.s.f 36.89 1981 2.43 104 26 3.19 46 125
~ R~t~nt 0.9 k.~l' 130.34 117 9.27 4 4 10.~ 6 4
P~posed
U O~ 275 k.s.f 10.~ 2886 1.52 368 50 1.41 66 322
Tt~p ~ducti~ -. I~zi.g - I - I -2 - I
~X~t u~p.v 367 49 ~ 321
~ M~qical Office 60 k.~f 37.31 2239 2.43 117 29 3.17 51 139
~ Sl~.;,-d R~ail 10k.s.~ 40.67 407 1.22 7 5 2.59 I I 15
Net T~ps 1.06 6 4 2.25 10 13
U Mid-fi~ A~nm~a 230 d.u. 5.68 1306 0.30 21 48 0.39 53 37
Tt~p t~twfl~r - ~mpl~t~tt -I -1 -2 -I
Net o~ps 0.28 19 46 0.36 50 34
TABLE
ADOBE iN~
~ nns 8.23 634 0.56 26 17 0.62 25 22
:' ~ Office
1~,900 s.f. 10.76 1129 1.5 20 4 1.41 3 19
· : ...- TOTAL 1129 ::'. '"! !'~:: :-!i:,::ii!iii:.;~: i~!ii:i:.: '... " ' '
· .'... · ....: ..... · :: ...'= .~'~=':!.i:F! i :!~: ~!:: !::...L:: . · :....:"!:. . :.:. -i.: .:::i~:".':i
!',~'~'.b,so ":'": ':':;~=" ~:=:~=~i.~!~ ::'.:::=~ ~i::.' ' · "'=' ..
TOTAL
.. ':. '.'. :. ~:788:::! :ii!470.. 875 ':
~OIIItC~'..ADOBE INN~'parmm'fmlq~mm6onGtoup, INC. Cupmino Mi~M.LI~e D~'dopmmlmdA4o~hln. F~bnm~' 2000.
IIEWLETT. FACK..t. RD CfdI'ERTINO CA.%I Fl.~. C~- of Cu~ '.Appt~'-.d I~.'dopmmt TmlTsc'. Ju]}' 1999.
DKS ASSOCIATES
Using the City of Cupertino's recommended parking demand distribution and
minimum parking requirements (Zoning Code Tables 19.100.040-A and C), there
would be a projected deficit of parking of up to 10 parking spaces, which would
occur at 9:00 AM on weekdays. The factors used in the City's shared parking
analysis guidelines are conservative, and therefore may not actually materialize in
practice. Also, since the City's shared parking guidelines do not include
residential land uses, the residential parking distribution was derived from the
Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking manual, which is based on national
standards.
There are several reasons for the projected figures shown on TABLE 4a. The
office parking demand is shown to be 100-percent throughout the day, even
though the peak office parking demand for the Cupertino Community Services
building would occur only in the middle of the day (10:30 AM - 2;30 PM), when
visitors would come to the building. Therefore, a 100-percent parking demand for
the office is theoretical and is not actually projected to occur. The office parking
demand of S-percent (between 12-midnight and 6:00 AM), and 10-percent
(between 6:00 PM and 12-midnight), is very conservative and is more typical of
traditional large office buildings that have cleaning staff and deliveries during off-
peak hours. The proposed Cupertino Community Services office is 6,089 square
feet and is unlikely to generate much, if any, traffic or parking outside of normal
weekday business hours. The last reason for the projected 'parking deficit is that
the apartment parking demand distribution (from ULI) does not reflect the two-
income working family very well. The more likely scenario is that at least two
adult members of the household would go to work each day and take their
vehicles with them, thus freeing more parking spaces for office tenants during the
day.
· Given thc conservative nature of the shared parking analysis presented in TABLE
4a, a parking deficit is not actually anticipated. TABLE 4b presents a shared
parking analysis with adjusted parking demand distributions. The adjustments,
based on data provided by Bridge Housing Corporation (see appendix) include
less office parking during off-peak hours, and less apartment parking demand
during the day. Bridge Housing has surveyed several of their properties with
respect to pa .... g demand. TABLE 4b, although differing fi.om the C,j ~ Code
requirements for shared parking, is a more realistic projection of parking demand
for the proposed project.
Cupertino Community services.project - 7'~z~.[fic ol~eratiom' Analy. vis 8
-'- 3-bq
I
TABLE 4a
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
Weekday
,,.'.~.~ ................. r-:' ""' ................... j,' ........ ~ "~! ......... !.'-'~i ......... ~,ii~:i i:i~ii~i~'"~i ............. ~ ............. ~.~
... ..... ........ ........ ................
Z~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ 47 -2
· ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ 49 47 -2
· ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ 47 -2
3:OO AM 1OO~ 22 73% 35 57 47 -10
10:.00 AM 1 {X)'A 22 68'4, 33 55 47 .3
11:00 AM · 1 OO'/, 22 59~ 28 50 47 .3
1Z. OO PM IOO~ 22 ~0~ 29 51 47 -4
1:00 PM IOO~ 22 ~ 28 ,50 47 -3
ZOO PM 100~ 22 OO~ 29 5t 47' -4
3:OO PM 1OO~ 22 61% 29 51 47 -4
4:00 PM 1OO~ 22
3:OO PM 10~ 2 8S~ 41 43 47 4
7'OO PM 10~ 2 ~ 45 47 47 0
8:OO PM 10~ 2
9:OO PM 10~ 2 OO~ 47 49 47
10:.OO PM 10'4. 2 ~ 48 S0 47 -3
t1:OO PM t0~ 2 I(XW, 48
Weekend
12:OO AM
1:OO AM 5% 1OO% 48 49 47 -2
2:OO AM 5% 10016 48 49 47 -2
3:00 AM 5% 1OO~ 48 49 47 -2
4:OO AM 5% 100~ 48 49 47 -2
5'00 AM 5% 1OO~ 48 49 47 -2
6:OO AM 5% 1OO~ 48 49 47 -2
9'OO Aid 10~ 2 81% 39 41 47 6
10.{30 AM 10% 2 74% 36 38 47 9
11 OOAM 10% 2 71% 34 36 47 II
12'OO PM 10% 2 71% 34 36 47 11
1 00 PM 10% 2 70% 34 36 47 11
2.00 PM 10~ 2 71% 34 36 47 11
3 0CI PM 11~ 2 73% 35 37 47 10
dOOPM 10°/, 2 75/0 36 38 47 9
6 OO PM 5% 85% 41 42 47 5
?'00 PM 5% 5'~ 42 43 47 4
8:OO PM 5% g2~ 44 45 47 2
B.OO PM 5% BS~ 46 47 4;' 0
10:OO PM 5% 96~ 46 47 47 0
11:00 PM 5% 96% 47 48 47 -1
Office analysis conducted for 8.089 sf
6.089 sf ~ 11285 sq. ~. = 22 parking spaces it maximum darnind
Aoartmonts
24 units x 2 pa~king apac, as~unit - 48 packing spaces at maximum d~mand
Parking Den~nd R~tes are fTom City of Cul3eKino Zoning Code (Table 19.100,040-A)
Parking Distribution Percentages are from City of Cupertino Zoning Cede (Table 19.100.040-C) for Office land use.
and Urban I~nd Institute, Shared Pa~ing, Exhibit 28, for residential land use.
C)K8 AS~C~IS
Cupe~no Community Sconces pro,ct 1 ~14/OO
TABLE 4b
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
with adjusted parking demand distribution
W~kday
Weekend
:~ ............... :~ ............~:~:.x~::.. ' ..... ::.-...:.::- .." ~ ~:~:~: ......... ... :-. *, ': ............. ::. " . '." -,.-'.":::
~:~...-.'-~:.......~~: ~::.::~ .~.~?r~ ................. ~:~ ~.~ :~.~:~ ......
~ ~ ~ O ~ 47 47 47 0
9~ ~ 81~ ~ ~ 47 7
11:~ ~ 71~ ~ ~ 47
I~PM ~ 71~ ~ ~ 47 12
~ PM ~ 71~ ~ ~ 47
Of~e analysis oor~._~_.~.~J_ fo~ 6,089 ~'
6.069 ~f O 1~ ~. ~. = 22 ~ng ~ K ~m~ ~
24 un~ x 2 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Pa~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e 19.1~.~)
Pa~ing ~ ~ ~e ~ ~r ~ ~ am ~,~ =m ~.
~ ~ t~ ~n ~ I~s ~ P~.
F~ ~ ~. ~ ~k d~ ~ ~)~ ~ r~ t~ t~ ~ M~ ~ ~ 2 ~
a~ t~ a ~ ~e ~ t~ts ~ go to ~ d~ t~ dW ~d ~ st~ ~.
DKS ASSOCIATES
To summarize, the parking needs of the project would be accommodated on-site
with the provision of 47 parking spaces, except under the most conservative
conditions (as noted in TABLE 4a). Because the shared parking analysis was
based on conservative factors, no additional parking spaces or mitigation
measures are recommended at this time.
The on-site parking was also evaluated with respect to aisle widths and parking
· stall dimensions. Per the City of Cupertino Parking Code (Chapter 19.100), the
recommended aisle widths for uni-size type parking stalls are 18 feet for angled
parking and 22 feet for 90-degree parking. Parking stall dimensions should be 8
feet wide by lJ.$ feet long for compact spaces. The site plan dated 6/14/2000 by
Van Meter Williams Pollack Architecture and Urban Design satisfies these
requirements~
Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment. The standard Institute of
Transportation .Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for residential
condominium/townhouse and general office building land uses, as published in
Trip G¢,erat/o,, 6th Edition, 1997 were used. The project's trip generation is
summarized in TABLE 5. The proposed Cupertino Community Services project
would generate an ,additional 21 A.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 22 P.M. peak
hour vehicle trips.
The distribution of project generated traffic during the analyzed A.M. and P.M.
peak hour was based upon the existing traffic patterns, observed at the study
intersection and in the immediate project vicinity. Trips were assigned to the
roadway network using the most logical paths for motorists to access and egress
the site. (See Figures 3, 4 and 5).
Traffic Operations. Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were added
to the background volumes at the study intersection to estimate the projected
project condition. The level of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under
the project condition were calculated and compared to the Background Condition
in TABLE 2.
Cupertino Community Services Project - ?'rqffic Operatio.s A.alysis I I
.7-
DKS ASSOCIATES
2(3)
Stevens Creek Blvd.
(5) I ~ ~
xx(xx) - AM(PM)
FIGURE 3
Pmjcc! Trips
~ ~ 1{}96 (13{17)
4~ C116 (1'.9)
· ts Creek Blvd.
(1366) 697
xx(xx) -
FIGURE 4
Pmjec{ Condilion
Cupertino Community Services...Project - 7'rq07c O/~ralions Ana/y.v/.v 12..~ ~ _ '73
DKS ASSO~...*~TES
Cupertino Community Services Project - 7)z~?c Operations Amdysis 14
DKS ASSOC,.,TES
The project's impacts to the study intersection and local roadways would be
minimal. An evaluation of level of service changes resulting fi.om the addition of
project-generated vehicle trips is presented in TABLE 2. No servie~ level
changes are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The .project access is designed to minimize the use of residential streets, and
therefore minimize the potential for neighborhood intrusion. It is anticipated that
there would not be any trips that would go through the neighborhood becaus~ of
the location of the proposed site relative to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Also,
because of the relatively Iow number of additional vehicle trips generated by the
proposed project, the project would not substantially increase queue lengths along
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
For each of the studied scenarios, the worst critical traffic movements are shown
in TABLE 6, based on the volume to saturation flow ratio. However, under each
scenario studied, the critical volume to saturation flow ratio would not exceed
0.30, which is equivalent to LOS A. The volumes and vehicle delays for all study
conditions are provided in the appendix.
Existing A.M. WB through 0.22
P.M. EB through 0.26
Background A.M. WB through 0.22
P.M. EB left 0.28
Project A.M. WB through 0.23
P.M. EB left 0.28
Cumulative A.M. WB through 0.23
P.M. EB left 0.30
TABLE 6 - Critical Traffic Movements Summary
T~.,- maximum queues for each approach at the study intersect:',n are presented in
TABLE ?. The proposed project would not add any vehicles to any of the
projected background condition design queues. The available storage capacity
would accommodate the addition of project generated vehicles, and the queues are
not anticipated to adversely impact traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Vista
Drive, or Torte Avenue. Cumulative traffio would also not adversely affect the
queues at the study intersection.
Cupertino Community Services Project - Trqfftc Operatio. s A.alysis 15
DKS ASSOL.^TES
TABLE 7 - Projected Design Queues Under Each Condition
2 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0 ..m. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I n... 3 5 3 $ 3 5 4 8
· 0 ..a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ".~. 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0
I ..a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i 8 3 5 5. 7 5 7 6 8
3-s ..a. 12 32 13 35 13 35 24 44
I =S n... I I I 2 I 2 2 2
I 8 $ 5 6 $ 6 $ 6 6
3-s ..a. 22 32 28 38 28 · 38 30 45
~ i-s "-~- I I I I 2 I 2 1
Notes:
1. -s denotes i lane is a shared through-right lane.
2. Southbound approach on Vista Drive is a right turn only, with minimal traffic
volumes.
3. n.a. = not applicable
Cupertino Community Services Project - ?)z!ff?c ()l~Ztzttitms,4nalysLv 16
DKS ASSOCIATES
Cumulative Condition
Vehicular traffic that would be generated by pending projects in the neighboring
area, along with a growth rate of 1.2 percent per year for 2 years, was added to the
Project Condition turning movement volumes at the study intersection in order to
evaluate the overall Cumulative Condition. Based on the City's input, three
projects were considered as pending projects in the cumulative analysis scenario
were:
- P.S. Mulligan Site
- Town Green Project
- Villa Serra Project
Of the three projects listed above, only two wo,.'!d generate additional cumulative
traffic. It is not anticipated that any trips would be generated through the study
intersection by the Villa Serra Project because of its distance relative to the study
intersection. The trip generation and distribution of the remaining two cumulative
'projects was included in the Cumulative Condition analysis. The level of service
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under the Cumulative Condition was
calculated and compared to the Background and Project conditions in TABLE 2.
TABLE 3 provides the trip generation of the approved and-pending projects. In
total, cumulative projects would add a total of 667 A.M. peak hour vehicle trips
and 727 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. No significant level of service (LOS)
changes are anticipated at the study intersection with the addition of cumulative
traffic, with the intersection projected to operate at LOS B.
IV. SUMMARY
The nearby intersection of Torte Ave-Vista Drive/Stevens Creek Boulevard
would operate at an acceptable level of service 'B' even with the addition of
cumulative traffic. As a result, no mitigation measures are required at this
location. Parking is anticipated to be accommodated on site, as the City's
requirements are ~,~ servative. Queue lengths would not substantially inc ..... ,e
along the approaches to the study intersection. Under each of the studied
scenarios, the worst critical traffic movements would not exceed a volume to
saturation flow ratio of 0.30, or LOS A.
Cupertino Community Services Project - Trq07c ()peralion. v,4naly, vi.v 17~_ 7o~
APPENDIX
.:.
I
MITIGS.- EXISTING AM PEAK Mon Aug 14, 2000 11:56:46 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative}
Intersection %1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.283
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R
Control: Pe~aitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 20001 00001 10210 10210
............ I .............. rll ............... II ............... II ............... I
Volume Module: EXISTING AM PEAK
Base Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 .0 0 53 633 55 103 1074 54
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 0 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 0 53 633 55 103 1074 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 53 0 57 0 0 0 53 696 61 103 1181 59
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 f900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.99 0.99 0.30 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.00 2.86 0.14
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 381 5188 455 562 5375 268
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.68 0.68
volume/Cap: 0.14 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.32 0.32
Uniform Del: 30.6 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.9 3.9 2.5 5.0 5.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 26.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 3.3 2.2 4.3 4.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 26.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 3.3 2.2 4.3 4.3
DesignQueue: 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 12 I 5 22 i
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND,CA
MITIG8 - EXISTING PM PEAK Mon Aug 14, 2000 11:58:41 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations MethOd (~as% VOlume Alternative)
Intersection %1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.356
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/yah): 7.5
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R
Control: Pezmitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Pezmi~
Rights: Include Ignore Include 'Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 20001 00001 10210 10210
Volume Module: EXISTING PM PEA~
Base Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Growth A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bsa: 52 0 98 0 0 0 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
User A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1200 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 98 0 O. 0 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 0 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 54 0 98 0 0 0 107 1407 64 93 1311 35
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.99 0.99 0.25 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.92 0.08
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 490 5397 246 467 5552 148
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.62 0.62 0.71 0.59 0.59
Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.40 0.40
Uniform Del: 28.3 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 7.6 7.6 4.0 8.4 8.4
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 24.1 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.5 6.5 3.6 7.2 7.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 24.1 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.5 6.5 3.6 7.2 . 7.2
DesignQueue: 3 0 5 0 0 0 5 32 i 5 32 1
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - BACKGROUND AM PEAK,on Aug 14, 2000 13:37:21 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.328
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.0
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T R L T R L T - R L - T - R
Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 .0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 1 i 0 2 1 0 i 0 2 1 0
Volume Module: BACKGROUND AM PEAK
Base Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 46 117 696 55 116 1094 54
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 0 0 117 696 55 116 1094 54
User A~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0~ 1~00 .0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PMF Adj: 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 0 117 696 55 116 1094 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 0 117 696 55 116 1094 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 53 0 57 0 0 0 117 766 61 116 1203 59
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.99 0.99 0.28 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2,86 0.14
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 534 5227 416 528 5379 264
Capacity A~alysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.22
Crlt Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.60 0.60
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.33 0.37 0.37
Uniform Del: 31.3 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 3.7 4.3 7.6 7.6
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 26.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.2 3.2 3.9 6.5 6.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ad] Del/Veh: 26.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.2 3.2 3.9 6.5 6.5
DesignQueue: 3 0 3 0 0 0 5 13 1 6 28 1
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - BACKGROUND PM PEA~Mon Aug 14, 2000 13:39:39 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM OperaCions Method (BaSe Volume ;tlterna=ive)
Intersection #1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X}: 0.392
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay {sec/veh): 8.3
optimal cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound So~h Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L - T - R L - T R L - T R
............ I ............... II ............... II ............... II ............... I
Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Perm/t Prot+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 20001 00001 10210 10210
............ I ............. =-II ............... II ............... II ............... I
Volume Module: BACKGROUND PM PEAK
Base Vol: 52 0 101 0 0 44 157 1361 58 109 1304 32
Growth ~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 1361 58 109 1304 32
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 1361 58 109 1304 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 1361 58 109 1304 32
PC~ Adj: 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 54 0 10! 0 0 0 157 1497 64 109 1434 35
..-- Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 kg00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.99 0.99 0.26 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.88 0.12 1.D0 2.93 0.07
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 559 5412 231 496 5564 136
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.26 0.26
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.55 0.55
Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.46 0.46
Uniform Del: 28.7 0.0 30.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 8.0 8.0 5.0 10.1 10.1
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 -0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 24.4 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 6.9 6.9 4.4 8.7 8.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 24.4 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 6.9 6.9 4.4 8.7 8.7
DesignQueue: 3 0 5 0 0 0 7 35 2 5 38
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c} 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS'ASsOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - PROJECT AM PEAK Mon Aug 14, 2000 13:41:38 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Repor~
1994 HCM Opera~ions Me=hod (Base Volume Alterna=ive)
InCersec=ion #1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X}: 0.331
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R - 4 sec} Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.0
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound Sou=h Bound Eas= Bound Wes~ Bound
Movemen=: L T R L T - R L T - R · L - T - R
Control: permitted Permitted Prot+Permi~ Pro~+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 2 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 1. I 0 2 i 0 1 0 2 i 0
Volume Module: PROJECT AM PEAK
Base vol: 51 0 57 0 0 54 117 697 55 116 1096 61
Growth A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 0 0 ' 117 697 55 116 1096 61
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 0 117 697 55 116 1096 61
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 0 117 697 55 116 1096 61
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol..: 53 0 57 0 0 0 117 767 61 116 1206 67
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.99 0.99 0.28 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.00 2.84 0.16
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 531 5227 416 527 5346 297
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.00 0.i0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.71 0.71 0.68 0.61 0.61
Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.33 0.37 0.37
Uniform Del: 31.3 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.7 3.7 4.3 7.6 7.6
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Delay Ad~: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 26.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.8 6.5 6.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00
Adj Del/Veh: 26.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.8 6.5 6.5
DesignQueue: 3 0 3 0 0 0 5 13 I 6 28 2
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - PROJECT PM pEAK Mon Aug 14, 2000 13:43:31 Page 1-1
Level Of Service ~omputation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume ~tlternative)
Intersection #1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.393
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R ~ 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.3
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Wes= Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
............ I ............... II ............... II ............... II ............... I
Control: Permitted Perm/~ted Prot+Permit Pro~+Perlait
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 20001 00001 10210 10210
............ I ............ ~--II ............... II ............... II ............... I
Volume Module: PROJECT PM PEAK
Base Vol: 52 0 101 0 0 52 157 1366 58 109 1307 37
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 136~ 58 109 1307 37
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 1366 58 109 1307 37
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 101 0 0 0 157 1366 58 109 1307 37
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
~LF A~j: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 54 0 101 0 0 0 157 1503 64 109 1438 41
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 '1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.99 0.99 0.26 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.88 0.12 l.~0 2.92 0.08
Final Sa~.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 557 5413 230 494 5542 158
............ I ............... II ............... I1 ............... 11 ............... I
Capacity Analysis Module:
vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.26 0.26
Crlt Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.56 0.56
Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.00 0.46 0.O0 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.47 0.47
UnLform Del: 28.7 0.0 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 8.0 8.0 4.9 10.1 10.1
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 24.4 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 6.9 6.9 4.4 8.7 8.7
U~er DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ad]Del/Veh: 24.4 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 6.9 6.9 4.4 8.7 8.7
DesignQueue: 3 0 5 0 0 0 7 35 I 5 38 I
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - CUMULATIVE AM PEAKMon Aug 14, 2000 14:06:20 Page 1-1
Level of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection 91 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.340
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (se¢/veh): 8.5
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L T R L - T R L T - R
Control: Pezmitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 2 0 0' 0 i 0 0 0 0 i I 0 2 I 0 1 0 2 i 0
Volume Module: CUMULATIVE AM PEAK
Base Vol: 52 0 71 0 0 55 120 722 56 157 1133 62
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 71 0 0 0 120 722 56 157 1133 62
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 71 0 0 0 120 722 56 157 1133 62
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 71 0 0 0 120 722 56 157 1133 62
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF A dj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 54 0 71 0 0 0 120 794 62 157 1246 68
............ I ................ II ........ ~ ...... II ............... Il ...............
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.99 0.99 0.43 0.99 0.99
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.78 0.22 1.~0 2.84 0.16
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 608 5234 409 820 5351 292
CapacityAnalysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.23
Crl~ Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.49 0.49 0.81 0.60 0.60
Volume/Cap: 0.14 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.39 0.39
Uniform Del: 30.4 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 11.8 11.8 2.2 8.0 8.0
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 25.8 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 10.0 10.0 1.9 6.9 6.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 25.8 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 10.0 10.0 1.9 6.9 6.9
DeslgnQueue: 3 0 4 0 0 0 6 24 2 6 30 2
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
MITIG8 - CUMULATIVE PM PEAKMon Aug 14, 2000 14:17:08 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative)
Intersection %1 STEVENS CREEK/VISTA DRIVE
cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.406
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.3
Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T R L T - R
............ I ............... II ............... II ............... II ............... I
Control: Permitted Permitted Prot+Permit Prot+Permit
Rights: Include Ignore Include Include
Min. Green: 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 7 10 10
Lanes: 20001 00001 10210 10210
............ I .............. ~11 ............... II ............... II ............... I
Volume Module: CUMULATIVE PM PEAK
Base Vol: 53 0 189 0 0 53 161 1411 59 127 1351 38
Growth A dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 53 0 189 0 0 0 161 1411 59 127 1351 38
User ~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF AdJ: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PMF Volume: 53 0 189 0 0 0 161 1411 59 127 1351 38
Reduct Vol: 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 53 0 189 0 0 0 161 1411 59 127 1351 38
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF A dj: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10
Final Vol.: 55 0 189 0 0 0 161 1552 65 127 1486 42
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 f900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.99 0.99 0.26 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.88 0.12 1.D0 2.92 0.08
Final Sat.: 3496 0 1615 0 0 1900 537 5416 227 500 5543 157
CapacityAnalysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.27
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.70 0.53 0.53 0.63 0.50 0.50
Volume/Cap: 0.07 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.54 0.54 0.40 0.54 0.54
Uniform Del: 23.7 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 11.7 11.7 7.8 13.1 13.1
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.D .1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0~85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 20.1 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 10.1 10.1 7.1 11.3 11.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 20.1 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 10.1 10.1 7.1 11.3 11.3
DesignQueue: 2 0 8 0 0 0 8 44 2 6 45 1
Traffix 7.1.0607 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DKS ASSOC., OAKLAND, CA
BRIDGE
TEL; (41S) Me. 1111
FAX: (41S) 4eMeM
^ug-~ ~. 2om)
Mr. Mnrk Spencer
DKS
84 West Sunln Clam Strm~l, ~uite .360
Sun Jo~, CA ~$113
RE: Parking inibnnntion
CCS
Ucnr Mm'k:
Pursuant to our phone convcr~ntion this afternoon, 1 am providing infotiaation about two
BIUDGE prujects in Snnta (.'.lam County. Like the CCS project, both Ohlone Corm and
Alnmden Lake Apartments are aI~rdable fi~mily mdni develupmc-nts.
Thc li)llowing inlhrmation dcmons!mt~s that la, th Ohlonu and AIm-d,.n have less than
2:1 parking ratios.
Pmi~-'t Name Number of Units Number of Parking Spaces
¢)hhme Coud ! 35* ] 36
Almaden Laku Apts 144' i 50
* Plua.-~ note dlat thc Ohlono (~oud d(.welopment h-',~ a mix nf eric- to lbur-bgdroom units
and Almaden l.uke has a mix of om'- m three-hedmm]l units. CCS consists oftm~- and
two-bedroom units only.
&NOT. R~I~I~IT. PUIII J~' SFNI~ f (:~XUK~R~ION
Mr. Mark Spencer
August 8, 2000
Page Two
Wc also recently completed daytime parking study at ^lnmdcn Lake Apartmunts. The
r~)lh~wing results demon~rate that most residents do nut park their cars st the site during
the daytime hours.
~av of Week Date Time Srmc~ Used Spaces UnusesJ
Thursduy 7/27/00 3:30 28 116
Friday 7/28/00 9:30 31 113
· Friday 7/2g/00 3:.'40 27 117
hope you find this inlbrmation us~l'ui. Shuuld yuu have uny additional questions, please
do not hesitate lo contnot me.
^hn .~lverberg
DiP:ctor ul'Rusl Estate Development
cc: Rick Williams
FILE No.OSg 09/O~ '00 1~::~ Zu;m~.~ or r~..~o .o~ .oo~ ....
Ms. Ciddy Worde/l
Ci~ of
10~00 Ton~ Av. uu~
Cuix~ino. CA g~014
P.E:~ Co,,-,,,,,,ily Services
Shred Peridng Plan
Dear Ms. Wordelh
As requested at the Cit~ of Cupertino Six=iai Meetin~ of the F. nvironmc, nud Rcvi~
Comminee, 1 am writing ~o ~,~vide a sharai ~-i._~ pl.~ for Ih8
Scrvicm projoct. As you are aware, r~ CCS project includes 24 residential units and
sppmxima~y 6.200 ,f of office. The~ Will bo 47 perking placos on si~ to be sharod
developm~.
In addition ~o ~he shared perkins plan, the followin~ addkio~-t information is anached for
your review.
thc uat~c consultant. DKS. has prepenst .~**ed parki~ lzaphs to dmnonsu~e
the cumulative level of projected parking demand rcs~in.a ~rom the rcsidcntial
units and offic~ space .l~roug~ou! a 24 hour pcgod. In thc m~norandmn, DI~S
concludes ~ Parkiu~ supply of 47 spaces should be adequate to
P,~ki~ survey - B~E Housins Coq~e~ion, consultan~
Thc study found ~ t~tfa! parking dmnand ran~ from .B4 to 1.8 spaces
per unit and did not cxa~,d 2 spaces fo~ 1 unit in any ofd~ othcr developments
$0~ full (even in davel~ wi~h high parkh~ ratios). This data suppor~ the
FIlE No,059 09/06 '00
Ms. Ciddy Wordell
September $, 2000
Pete Two
Also a~ched is a parkin~ model developed by NonProfit Housing Ass~'~ion,
which builds on the l.~cati~ Efficient Mortgage model and John ~loltzclaw's
research on vehicle ownership. T~_ ~_*_ model projects n pm4~n_.a deenand of 1,6 -
1.75 parking spaces to 1 ~csidcntial unit for ~h~ CCS project, considering such
factors as proximity ~o mit, income and n~Yordability. Thc number of
provided on si~e exceeds the demand proj~'tcd by this model.
Overflow i~k~ ~-~eme~.t - As discussed in thc perkin~ menagement plnn,
overflow parkin~ will be nccommodeted at the CUl~tino National Bank. The
Cupcrtino Nmional B~ak is within ~ walM~ disum~e of the site and can e~ly
aec~,,,~e- ovedlow perkins should additional speces be required by thc o~cc
or reside-tier units. Up to 10 spaces w~ql bc availeble durin~ ~be workdny hours
(betw~cn g:30 am and4 pm M-F) and up m 40 speces will be &vailablc during the
non workdey hours (betwe~ 4 pm end 8:30 nm and on weekends). This
It~li~io~l p~k~na, should more than a~_~_~ ovcrflow pitrk~ng demand
should it arise.
We h~e you ~1 the enclosed ~n~o _r~__~on he, lp~l. We would b~ happy to answer nny
questions you nmy have,, please d~ not h~itn~ to contact us.
SI-IARED PARIONG PI. AN
CUPER~O COM]VIUNITY SERVICE8
Vista Drive,
T~ CU]I~O Col*iU~,l,~ty' Servi~..~ ]:l~ojl~"t inc~lt~4.,t 24 1- and 2-1~:lroom
and appmxlmately 6.200 ~0C$ oft~ee/m.v~ spare on Vista Dr~ve o~ofStevens Creelc
Blvd. in Cupertino. Parkin~ fa' both the re~jdem~.l units ~ the office tn~ldJng will be
scco~wu,aated with 47 slated on-site paddng spaces.
Rasj,4,-~finl pn~E
The residents of the 24 units .will be allowed to park in the 47 parking spar4~ provided
site. Tbepatki~ ratio is neady 2 parking spacesto I resid~ntinltmit, azatiothat far
exceeds wh~t. is provided in s'tmi~ residmtial d~vclopn~n~. It is anticipated tlutt the~
47 spaces will more than a~=ommOdate sil of the residential parking de~and for both
T~ o~[~ce ~ wi]] aL~o be a~ommod~t~] on site. The o~ce
will us~ tbe parking spar. as left olin by r~,_'a _-~,_ dmingth~ da~'. It is ant~pated that
open on site. This pattern is ~,-,. on in similar d~'v~lo~ whe~ more ~ half of
the parking sp~.as l~OVidad on site er~ open during tbe day. Using the City's parkina
standards for an o~ee spa~ of this s~, 22. parking ~ will be ne. ec~d by the office.
It is anticipated that at lc. asr 22 spaces will be yarned durin8 the daytim~ hours as
residents tak~ tl,.~ir c~rs to work. It is niso anticipa~ that tl~ CCS office will need less
than th~ full 22 spne~s, based on ~ parking patterns at the e~isting CCS fa~lity.
For the rare o~e. asion u~aan sdditional pa~ is ~ overflow pari~ing will be
accommo,J~! at tl~ Cupe~ino National Bank. Th~ Cupe~_'n,~ Na~,~ Bank is lo,steal
a short mtlk a~cas Stevens Cre~ Blvd.. and can easily be ar, cessed by CCS
users/visitors. The Bank can ~-cowu~Gda~e up to forty spae~ during non=business hours
nmi on ~ and up to ten spaces durinE weekday b-.=~ hours (8:30 am to 4.pm).
Board n,~,bers and other fr~lue~ u.~rs of CC$ would most likely be the users of the
overfl, ow-parking at tl~ Bank. Those mers a~ v'~,o~,,d to parki~ at the Bank (Boa:d
meetings ate cun'ently ~ at ~ locadon), and are ~.~kgly to me the overZlow pm'k, in~
accommod~ons because they are c,*.,.,,,.ittr.d ~o the suc~ss of the project.
Bec.~use CC$ is tbe o~rl~ oftbe mstde,~-~ lmlldin~s and 1t~ ~ of the o~ce
progmtn. Should any parking l~obl~mm arise. CCS ~ tske action to ~rre~ the
l~robl~ms. CCS will he robie to impl-m,~t and m___c,~ ~ re. lated guid~lin~ for the
FILE No.059 09/06 '00 1P:$5 ID:BRIDGE Si= FRX:4].5 495 48~ r'H~: O,' ~.,'
DK$ Associates
Sm1 Jose. Callfl3~ ~113
Memorandum
To: Ann Silverberg, B~clge Housing Corporation
Frem: Mark Spence~'DKS Associates
Date{ September 1, 2000
Re~ Shared Parking Analysis for Cupertino Community Services Project
P00251
As noted in the Final Traffic operations Analysis Report (DKS, August 14, 200), the
proposed project would provide a tctal of 47 on-site parking spaces. Because the
proposed project contains both office and residential components, a shared parking
analysis was conducted to evaluate the total parking demand versus the on-site
supply. The shared parking analysis is presented in Tables 4a and 4b of the report,
and graphically on the attached figures.
What the first two graphs (corresponding to Table 4a of the report) indicate is that
under the City of Cupertino's parking requirements (Zoning Code Tables 19.100.040-
A and C), there would be a projected deficit of parking of up to 10 parking spaces.
This would occur between-9:00 AM and 10:00 AM on weekdays. The dark bars
represent the parking demand from the office, and the lightly shaded bars above the
dark (office) bars represent the parking demand of the residential component. The
bar graph is additive, so that the total perking demand is shown.
A line was drawn across the graph at the 47-space level, which represents the total
parking supply. WI'ten the bars extend above this line, there is a projected parking
deficit. On weekdays under the City's parking requirements, there would always be
a projected parking deficit, with the exception of 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
The third and fourlh graphs (corresponding to Table 4b of the report) show that there
wouldn't be a projected parking deficit under a more realistic set of assumptions.
These assumptions are discussed in detail in the report, and include revising the
distribution of both office and residential parking demand throughout the day. To be
conservative, the parking demand ratios were not changed, although there are data
· Page 1
to support lowering the residential parking demand based on auto ownership rates ~t
similar facilities.
As with the first two graphs, a line was drawn across lite graph at the 47-space level,
~vhich represents the total parking supply. Under the revised (adjusted) assumptions,
the 13ars would not extend above this line, and them would be no projected' parking
deficit. At worst, the parking demand would equal the parking supply during the
evening and overnight conditions.
In summary, the parking supply of 47 spaces should be adequate to accommodate
the anticipated maximum parking demand. The actual anticipated parking demand is
based orr revisions to the City's standard sharecl parking distribution percentages.
These revisions are supported by ob~ewations at similar facilities.
Weekday Parking Demand (Ordinance)
1
12:~ l:ffi 2:~ 3:ffi 4:~ 5:~ 6:ffi 9:~ I0:00 11~ 12:ffi 1:00 2~ 3~ 4:00 6:ffi 7:ffi 6:ffi ~ lO:ffi 11:~
AM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AM ~ ~ ~ PM ffi ~ ffi PM ~ ffi PM ffi PM
Weekend Parldmg Demand (Ordinance)
Z~/~o 50
T~
(
Weekday Parking Demand (Adjusted) ~
15 '~
1 0 m ~ mm --~ ~'
m m ~ m ~
5 m m m m m m ~
m m ~ m m ~
m m m m m ~
m m m m m __~
12:~ 1:00 2:~ ~0 4:~ 5:~ 6:00 g~ 1~ 11:~ 1~:~0 1~ 2:~ 3:~ 4:00 6:~ 7~ 8~ 9:~ I~ 11~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PM ~ ~ ~ ~ PM PM ~
Tim
imoff~ ~ ~ment ~mn~ ~ ~
Weekend Parking Demand (Adjusted)
- ffi
o.
12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 S:00 6:0~ 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 6:00 7:00 0:00 g:oo 10:00 11:00
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
Ti~
l,,,ofn~o Domlmd Cl,,~p~d~pt Dun,nd J
Oklmm Cowl 14~ Crop San,lNe 131i t,Z, 3,4 AR 114: 0.14
~Cmek I~1~ HmJik~ PMIImm ~ :),~alt ~2 1
M~mMW ~X~Hmm~ 8.~ FmndK~ JW~l.~3~ ~ 1MM~7~M-~I
~/6/00
Pmklnj MmM for CC8 Project
(bMed on Jolm' Hobelgw whide oJlorehlp mode1, and FInnio Ida io~ ofiJdaml mdgaOo modd. Jf4tmled for mdtlbndy ~ ~ ~
"~'= ~""'/'" ~ ~.,~'~,.= ,""'T~~ ~ T · g "'""'""""'"'""~:~
! ~ 1,4006 0 ~..OSllj ~ gnu
! 8bdo 0 80 Y 80 1.as 1.aO 6.2. 0 1.as U . !.4808 0 Za,1488 ~ O.tO
o l W la ~T~ nt.ll0. Y ~31.1e0 1.t0 I~e0 U ~,m tm
3 3 Oldmml .0 10 Y ~0 I~0 4.M &2 0
4 4 eMremu ;0 Y tO 6.2 0
Oar Se Y I0 &a o 3.2 l~mOs o I ~ tm)
OStM JO Y ~0 ~.l 0 3.1 t.4808 · I iLO8 tOO
em 30%dlnomBo epmd m $ 4~ T~181~
if not DeMI IMetddM, aiane
ExhP '~ G %.
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT
PARKING SURVEYS OF SIMILAR SITES
YWCNVIIla Num~ 350 Soulh 2nd S~eet 63 63 1.00 49 23 30 0.78
San Jo~e
Open Door. 634 Pan' Avettue 139 64 2.17 t0g 77 92 1.70 6.-~0 AM
Pl~kleweed A.~a~m~tt~ 651 VAlerA~wo 51 32 1.58 40 41 ~ 1.28 9'.46AM
~-...,JECTNAME ADDRESS CITY UNITS STUDIO lBR 2BR 3BR 4BR.RENTI'EVELS. :"...'" ' - PARKING OFF-gTE ON-SlTENAME
Open Doors 634 Parr Avenue Los Oatos 64 24 28 2 29035%, 30050%, 2060% 139 (119 residential, 20 for snorer i~ect) 24 TraGI Bertoloccl
Stevens Creek Village 19140 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupedlno 40 33 7 40~50% or below 60 (49 res, 9 visitor, 2 star0
Plcklewood Apartments 651 Miller Avenue Mill Valley 32 8 16 8 4050%, 4080%, 24O110% 51 (43 res, 6 visitor, 2 publlo) Kareyt Williams
YWCA/VIlla Nueva 350 South 2nd St #504 San Jose 63 12 45 6 63~45% 63 (eft underground, residential) Ronna Sandusky
DKS Assoda~'
10/16N6
Exhibit H
Sclx. 23, 2OOO
Mr. Steve Piasecki
Director of Comn~mity Development
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, Ca 95014
Subject: ApplicafionNos 14-U-00, lg-EA-00, APN: 316-24-008
Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd.
I am the owner of a home at 20292 Cartwright Way in the Vista Gardens Cot?lex,
directly across the street from the above proposed development. My mother-in-law is
currently the occupnnt of the home_ and I am President of the Homeowners Association.
I was ~mnble to attend the Sept. 1 lth meeting of the Planning Commlssio~ and w~l not be
able to attend the October hearing at which the above project wgl be discussed. I do have
strong views about tho project snd thm~ is the reason for this letter.
I accept the fact that Mw-cost housing will be l~i~ across the street from us. I do not
person.ny have objections to thi. part oftbe project because housin~ is so badly r.,~ded in
this valley. I do have strong objecti._ons to the location of the Connmmlty Services on this
site in addition to the ho~t4nE. My objections are about the density on this site, the lack of
recreational areas for the tenants, the lack of adequate parkin~ on the site and the numbers
of people who will be cslllnE on the Comm~mlty Center, much the same as if it were a
Vista Drive is a quiet, residential street with f~m~qies of ail ages. Our complex of 18 units
is populated mainly by retired people who are concerned about their security _s_~d who
worry a great deal about the coming and going of strangers in the nei~ohhorbood. The
Com~nmity C_~ter ~ bring to this quiet neightxa~od all the fears and worries of a daily
influx of unknown visitors. There is in, d_ .,~luate parianS on the site for the Corm~mi~
an on into the early evening.
I sub~ to you*h~ this site will be too crowded for both housing and com,,vmay
a~h'v~_'_~. I fear ths_t the Comm~mlty Center will turn the n~i~hhorhood iiilo a gathering
phce with too m~my cars and too many people ~ a rcsuliJ~ loss of thc privacy and
quietness that is now enjoyed, and perhaps trin~ a loss ofpropeny vahes as well
I urge the Commi*sion to consider denying the Community Center's application and
approving additional low cost hon.~_~ ~mi~s in its place. Room could be found for more
parking and for additional recreationsl space for the tenants if the C~er was located
If the location of the Commnv,~y Cemer at ~hi.~ site is a foregone conclusion, then I urge
the Comm~*~ion to insist on retire on-site parking and to place a restriction on the hours of
op~aiion of the Center to no~.,,~! business hours. Further I wo;,~ hope that the Cc~er
would agree to accept its .~h~e ofrespomibility for ~int~i~g a cle~ quiet and safe
neighborhood.
Carl J. Cottrell
20292 Canwright Way
Cupmino, Ca
President, Homeowners Associaton
City of C~o
Planning Commission
10300 Tone Avenue
Cuperlino, CA 95014
Application No.: 14..U-00, 18-EA-00 APN(s): 316-24=008
Location: Vista Dr. and Stevens Creek Bird
Parkin~
We observed the following when we volunteered eve~ week at CCS for over 2 years-
1. There were numy other people who came to CCS besides .~e 26 cl!ents. They
come to donate food, clothing or money, to apply for housing or other
2. Very few clients corae by bus. Tbe food (mainly canned) is too heavy. They
either have a car or someone drives them.
3. Clients need to park near the building. Th~ bngs of food are too beavy to
catty long dis~ especially for women with children.
We were told at the ~ommunity meeting that CCS has 5 full-time employees and 3 part-
time requiring a total of $ pnrt-/ng spaees.
We need a manager who lives on-site. There may be as many as 84 people in the
complete Although CCS wants to rent to all families, that may not be pom~ole and
therefore some of the units tony hnve all unrelated adults. A manager is needed to
resolve any conflicts or disputes among the residents. In addition, an on-site mannger
would be able to monitor noise levels, such as loud music, and enforce a quiet curfew
aflex 10 pm.
Many of the residents of Vista Gnrdens are elderly and in ill health. Please help us to
keep Vista Drive as quiet as possible.
Thank you,
Marie and Ross Quinn
20261 Reinell Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
Manefacturlng
~POBII.~ September 18, 2000
Sen Jo~, ~ ~110
~) ~(~'~ Andrea Ha~s
~O~NO C~ of Cupe~inb. Planning Chair
~ ~0~00 To~
~m ~ D~mS Cu~dino, CA 95014-3255
~VID ~IG~
~MES N, W~Y, M.D., Ph.D
w~ Dear Ms. Ha~s:
J~N ~ C~
~ I am ~ing on ~ha~ of the Silimn V~lley Man~a~udng Group to
~ ~xpm~ our ~uppod for ~ pmpo,~d
*~r~ For ~our info~ation, ~ 8ilimn V~ll~ ~nuf~ufin~ Omup i~ a publi~
~ v~. ~ mo~t m~p~d ~mplo~ in Silicon Vall~. ~ho ooll~i~l~ pm~id~ jo~
~ m~u~ for a qua~r of a million m~id~n~, or on~ of ~v~ ~ur pfi~t~ ~or
~~,~ ~ ~o~ to emat~ hou~in~ for ~o~m in th~ Vall~.
gR~ ~
E~N ~C~K
~.~.~ for an expanded offi~ and a 24-unit affoffiable housing developme~
~v,. ~m ~d]amnt to th~ oit~'~ n~ tim ,ration. ~. pmpo~d d~v,lopm~nt will
r~ to m~]or bu~ Iin~ ~nd ~o ~tum light mil lin~. It i~ al~o within ~l~nfl
mc~ m~ di~n~ of ~o ~ro~ ~tom~. ~o p~, and man~ other retail ~nd
G~NN ~RD
DEB~ NE~ For these masons, the Silicon Valley Man~a~ufing Group rascally
~~, d~lopm~nt.
~~-~-~s~, ~ation and ~nd Use
JOYCE M. TA~
r~ cc: Veto Oil~ C~ of Cu~dino Plannin~ Commission
J~NN ~N
W~ ~ C~
R~T C. ~E~
Fou~ in t~ ~
City of Cupertino
PlannlnE Commission
103OO
Torte
Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Application No.: 14-U-00, lg-EA-00 APN(s): 316-24-008
Loc~tion: Vista Dr. and Stevens Cr~k Blv~
We believe there are two major problems with the proposed development.
1. Parking is not adequate
2. There are too many build/ngs proposed for the small smount of land.
There are no proposed paridng spaces for CCS employees, volunteers or clients inside
thc complex. Shared parking with the residents is proposed. This situation is very
d/ftc'rent from other .~hnred parking in Cupertino as there are no reta/l st. ores planned.
There should be at least 12-16 spaces inside the complex for CCS.
There are no proposed guest parking spaces. The two-bedroom unit allows 4 people
and the one bedroom allows 3 people, l~nny might have two cars and others such as
police and fire personnel might be working at night, preventing CC$ from parl6ng in
these spaces during the clay.
Under the proposed plan all CCS employees (approximately 8) volunteers (2-4),
clients (approximately 16) have to use the shared parking or the street. Vista Drive is
a narrow residential street and the traffic noise and conl~stion will be a great
inconvenience for all the neighbors.
In addition, there is no proposed open area for the residents and no playground.
Where are these people going to walk? Where are the children going to phy? On
Vista Drive? There are many parks in Cupertino, but children need a place near their
home where they can be supervised.
Herc are some solutions:
1. Build fewer units and add more parking and an open area or play~vun~
2. Build CCS (a 6,000 sq. fi. bu/Id/ng) at another location with more available
parking.
CCS is a very fine organization and many of us have volunteered with them.
Please consider the suggested mod/fications in your final plans.
Marie and Ross Quinn
20261 Reinell Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
Septe~nbe~ 5, 2OO0
Ms. Mary Ellen Cheil
Cupertino Co,~,~,mlt7 S~'viccs
10185 N. St~lling Road
C~o, CA 95014
Re: Cup~o Comm~ S~i~ O~~-U~
D~ ~ E~m:
I ~ ~6ng to ~nfi~ C~o N~on.! B~k's ~llln~e~e W ~mm~ or.ow p~ng ~ rosy
~ a ~ n~ Cu~o Co~ S~ (CCS) ~ce ~ion ~d md~ ~1~
lo,ted off of S~v~ C~ Blvd. ~ C~-o, C~
I ~d~d ~t CCS ~ pl~ to pm~ 48
~ ~d ~e offi~ sp~e ~ a shn~ ~n ~te
sho~d pm~de mo~ ~ ~o~ p~g
acco~o~o~ to ~ c~sln thnl p~H~g is not a ~bl~. We ~ pieced to ~s~ you ~ yo~ effo~.
~ you ~e a~, Cu~o N~o~ B~
St~e~ C~k Blv~, ~slly less ~ 100 y~ ~ It ~d ~ ~y for ~meone to p~k at ~e B~
~d w~ over to ~e CCS ~. We ~ 40 ~ ~ ~ &e B~ ~1 of wMch ~d ~ a~l~le
to CCS be~ ~ ho~ of 4 p.m. ~d 8:30 ~. ~ ~o~ ~ to tm ~es d~g ~e ho~ of 8:30 ~m.
~d 4 p.m. ~II ~so be av~le to CCS for o~ow ~g
Ag~ we don't he,eve thst ~ng ~ be ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w CCS ~velo~n~ but ~ ~ ~y to
~si~ you by pm~aln~ ~e ~o~o~o~ ~o~d you
If you Mve ~y q~o~, I wo~d welcome yo~
S~c~ly,
C. Do~d ~
cc: Arm Silvcrbcrg
Bridge Housing
A ]~EMBER OF THE GREATER BAY BANCORP FAMILY
20230 Stevens C~ek Boulevard · Cupeflino, Ca~fomia 95014,408.725.2301 · fax 408.996.0657 · www. cupnb.com ~.~- /~ 7
September 6, 2000
City of Cupertino
Dept. of Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Application #14-U-00 & 18-EA-O0
APN 316-24-008
I am, hereby, very much against the construction of a 24-unit
affordable housing apartment building and a 6,089 square foot
Cupertino Community Services building at Vista Drive and Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
With an affordable housing apartment building in the immediate
neighborhood, the property value of my duplex located at 10144
and 10154 Vista Drive will most likely take a tumble. At the
same, I could see that my rental will take a tumble if there is
a low rent affordable housing apartment building just a few hundreds
of feet away.
Again, I am strongly against the construction of those two buildings
as described in the Notice of
20252 Cartwfight Way i.:;~ ~ ' ':.' ~.:-': .': .
Cupertino, CA 95014 /,dg OCT 2 3 2000 ~.'.J
Commissioners: Planning Dept. :
Cupertino, CA
Re: Affordable Housing on Vista Drive
Honorable Sir/Madam,
Thank you for taking so much time at the last meeting to find solutions to problems that
strike dread in our hearts and thanks again for scheduling this meeting earlier so that the
senior members of our complex and mothers with small children (like myself) can avail
of the previlege of addressing you.
The most numbing concern for us is that of overcwwdlng inside the facility and its
fallout on the outside on Vista drive. The exception be'mg sought for regulation
mandating 30 ft. distance between two bldgs, is inconceivable given that the bldgs are
quite high and too numerous. Please do not grant this exception. Thank you.
The chaos likely to arise where 'the fire engine exit on Vista has not received any
attention. According to the plan, there will be a confluence where 4 points of entry/exit
will cluster together; right where the fire dept's vehicles are supposed to exit to respond
to emergency calls. The other three entry/exit are those of 1) the medical clinic across the
street 2)of Vista Garden Housing Association 3) of Affoldable Housing and CCS bldg.. I
find it very frightening to think about ;commllting through this mess day in and day out.
Add to this the st~et parking on Vista Drive, to accomodate clients, employees and
volunteers of CCS. ·
And how will this melee- happening so close to junction of Steven's Creek- affect the
traffic entering Vista Drive from left and right of Steven's Creek Blvd.??? Will the fire
dept. still be able to maintain its shining tradition of rcachlr~g emergencies in record
time? Please give this aspect your erudite consideration today. Tomorrow might be too
late!! Thank you in advance!l!
I em a teacher with 20 years devoted to my profession. Currently, I am a teacher of
Hearing Impaired Multilumdicapped kids. When children hail from impoverished
families, their greatest deprivation is paucity of SAFE space to play. In all likelihood
their parents work long hours and they have little else but television to engage them
indoors. Those who venture outside alone often fall prey to crime/abuse of one kind or
another. As I feel dutibound to be an advocate for these children's wellbeing, I humbly
submit that a play area with some play equipment (A swing set, a sand area, a basket ball
hoop etc.) be pro'oded,tn heu of one bldg of 6 un,ts'/~A grassy area for getting together
and BBQing can be a haven for ha~,,,onious living in closely packed, privacy lacking,
cramped community housing. Thank you for considering the needs of our most
disenfranchised population - our children in poverty!!!
Also please say '~ay" to the exception being sought by CCS which will enable then to
make their buildings less than 30 feet apart. The buildings are too tall even without the
exception. Claustrophobia and lack of privacy are known to create paranoia &
unfriendly temperaments. And there could be severe wind tunnelling effect to boot!
Furthermore, there needs to be a m~nager living on site. In absence ofthi.~ arrangement
every disagreement, extmml/intemal, will become a police case. The senior folks and.
those with children at Vista Garden worry about the sU'angers that will live in this gated
community. It seems that we will have, almost no idea about who will move in/out, about
their, background, history etc. How will we know if someone has a criminal history of
child molestation etc.? Vista Drive, which is now a private street,.just like the one you
live on, will soon be advertised with "Come one, come all ".invitation, by the CCS. And
we, the residents of Vista Drive will have lost a lot of mental peace and safety assurances
that we believed we were acquiring Oust like you ) when we bought our homes. A
manager could help us control noise level, parking situation at least!!.
I would like further discussion about:
* Better aesthetics in desi~ appearance & construction
* Make CCS accessible from Randy Lane and have CCS entrance open on the inside of
the complex. This would take some burden off of Vista Drive, which has already taken
the load of exiting of fire dept.'s vehicles.
* Reduce one bldg. of 6 units - instead add more parking and some play area for kids.
* Lower the height of buildings. *
* Recess the bldgs off of Vista Drive so that so that some paridng is possible without
encroaching on the road.
* Make an exception - Require that construction start no earlier than 7:30 or 8:00 am
(some senior folks that live right across on Vista Dr. are very sick and in6rm and
suffered terribly during bldg of the new fire station).
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
,~~incerely yours,
0ct.23, 2000
Planning Commission
10300 Torte Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Application No. 14-U-00, EXC-00, 1 $-EA-00
Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvct
Building of the above complex would create a diverse neighborhood or create problems.
There is a need for such diverse neighborhoods in Cupertino, as mentioned in the
Cupertino Courier. We are not asking for many things we would like, such as lower
Heights of buildings, but we do need MORE PARKING inside the complex. It might
Be difficult to be good neighbor~ if there is constant noise and traffic right outside our
Bedroom and livin~ room windows all day and part of the night This is not aH day
Parking of a car. This is constant coming and going. The costs of a study and other
Changes could have been avoided if they had consider this very obvious parking
Problem in their plans. We were told at the community meetings thst parking was
No problem, but that is not the case. Don't we need and want a diverse, friendly, and
Cooperative neighborhood for Al
Thnnk you
Marie and Ross Quinn
20261 Reinell Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
252-5717
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
November 20, 2000
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino on lV[ay 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974,
Jan. nry 17, 1977, May 1, 1978, and July ?, 1980, the following described project was granted
a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on November 20, 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
18-EA-O0
Application No.: 14-U-00, 10-EXC-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil
Location: Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (north of the new fire station)
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Use p~liiiit to construct a 24 unit affordable housing apmhaent building and a 6,089 sq, mre
foot Cuper~no Community Services building on a 1.18 acre vacant lot.
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan that requires a 30 foot separation between on-
site buildings.
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the
General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts.
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 the City of Cupertlno on
City Clerk
CITY OF CUPERTINO ~o3oo Torte
~eparm~nt of Conununhy ~=l~t ~t~o. Ca 9~014
40L777-330~
S~U~ Only
~ File No.
C~e File No.
PRO~ DES~ON: A~men~
~v~ S~ng
PROJECT DESCRIFEION:
Site Area (sc.) 1 I, ~ Building Coverage ~% Exist. Butlding_~s.f.Proposed Bldg.
Zone ".P G.P. Designation Assessor's Parcel No. -__
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre
'~'~ Total8 Rentnl/Own IMrms Total s.L Price
Uni
#2
U
Type
Type
IJnit
TyI~
Appli¢~bl~ $1~oi~1 Ar~ Ph~: {Ch
~ N. De,~,,,~ Conceptual .. -. ~ S. Sam-Sunny Conceptual
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES '~ NO d '
INITIAL STUDY $OU~..C~_....X/L_ST .....
A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES
1) Cupmino Cenersl Plm, Lind Use menont 23) Corny Plmning Ocpmment
2) Cupeflino GmcrsI PIm, Publi~ Salty Ekmmt 24) Ad. jmacut City's Planning Depm'tm~t
3) Cupmho C, meml Plm, Homing l~meut 25) Coum7 Depmmeml of F. nvironmentd Health
4) Cupmino Choral Plm, Tmmpamion Elem~t 26) M~ .a:-~;~,.t. aesiomd Open Spacc District
5) Cupcrtino Oonmd Pl~ ~nvi~euul Resourm 27) Count7 l'rb nd aecreaeon Oepartmm
6) Cupeflino Genrad Pan. Appendix A* Hillside Demiopmont 28) Cupmino Smimy District
7) Cupmho General Plm, Land Use Map 29) Fremeat Union Hiih School
8) Noise Elemont Amendf~,.~ 30) Cupeflino Union School Dimict
9) City F_'~lJnc PolJ';7 i 31) hr. ifio Om md Electric..
]0) C~p~no ~ Pisa com~ ~ps 22) bu Clw' com~ ~ ~
: ,. ' S4) CALTRANS ' '
B)CUPEMFINOSOURCEDOCUM]~FIB : 3S)~,ountyT~mA&oncy. . ;. :
] ~) Tree euemeon ordhmce VTS ~6) Sma Cam Vd~ Wmr
]2) C~ ~ lmoa, p,,ph~ Maps
13) "Cupe~ion Chnmide' (Cdih~h Hbtmy Cruet, 1~76)
~4) Ceolosicd Rf~o~ (s~ specific) E) O~E.AGEN(;Y DOL~MF.h'tS: . , '
1 S) Pm.'kt~ On:lbumaes 12'/7 '. 3T) BAAQMD Sinvey o f Contmdninf Excefm~
16) Zovins M~ ~8) FF. MA Plood ~ Plood Maps
17) Zonb~ Cod~S~,~_i_fi~ Pin Dononmm 39) USDA, *'SoiJs ofSa~a Clsm
l 8) City Noise (kdinmce 40) Coun~ Hszsrdom W~s2 Mmqonte~
41) County 14crlulg~ Rfmums lnvemo~
C) CI'IY AGENCIES 42) .Sram Clem Valley Warn' Disuict Fuel
~9) Cupeflho Community Development Oept Luk si~
20) CupmJno Publi~ Wedcs DqX. 43) CilI~?.A Huardous Wrote md S~bmnccs
21) Cupertino Pmb dc Rmectiea Oepmnm S~ List
22) cupmino W~' utu~
44) PioJect Plm Sel/Apl~ieltion Mlefials
4S) Fkid
46) i~q~fience with Projm ot'sbni]w s
47) ABAO ll~)jmJom Sefi.
I .... "' .':'."'"'-.' , "'.;'.:
.1) Complete all information requested on 4) When explaining any yes response, labol
· the Initial Study Cover page. T.F.&VE your answer cimtrly (Example '*lq - 3
BLANK SPACES ONLY WI~N A Historical") Please try to respond concisely,
SPECIFIC 1TEM IS NOT and place as many explanatory ruponses as
APPLICABLF.~ possible on each page.
2) Consult the Initi'~ Study Source List; use. S) Upon completing the checlcli~ sign and
thc materials listed therein to complete, the dam the Preparer's Affidavit.
checklist information in Categori~ A
through O. 6) Please attnch the following mater, s
be~m ~abmtU~ the ~ Study to tl~
You am ear.~Rm~ea to cite ot~et telewmt City.
title(s ) ia the "Somme" ~olum~ aext ~ l~e . ume~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~m
quest~oa to ~/aida ~ey tehte.
3)~fyou~he~kaayot'~e"Y~$'tespoase kq l:llIl ~\I~ I~ ('(~ll'l.l~Ti~ - .-
exp.lain~ngthqpotenfialimpactandsuggest [ \1 ~11 ,()( I ~1~(. I)I~L\\~
mitisation if needed.
IMPACT
WILL THE PROJECT... ~ot si~ifl~t s~m~t :umul,.~ve SOURCE
Si~i~ ~i~ ~o
~d)
A) ~D USE G~E~L F~
4) ~t ~ su~tM ~m~'b ~ '.
~mt I~. of~ si. or.. of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /7.12
~o~ ~i~?
S) D~M or divi~ ~
~i~d? ./
B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD
1) Be located in sa a~awhich hm
2) Be I~d on or ~ m a
~nc? 2
4) Bc Io~d in m ~ of~il
e~siom)~
I 0~9
(Om ! m U mi~) m ~~ ~
WILL THE PROJECT... rot si~nifim~ signifier c-mu~. SOURCE
~ SisnJficsm (Mifi~fion (No
1~0 Proposed) Mitipfion
Propcscd)
S) Subs~fltially Ilff¢~ my cxis~ng
public ~ priv,.tc recreation fucility, pm~
wildlif~ pl'~,e$'vc, public u'Bil either in
existence ,,tFndy ~ planned for future
Impl~ncnmtion?
D) SEW AGE/WATER QUALITY
1) Result in · septic field being
constmcmd on soil with s~vcrc driJnfield J~ ..~ [] D' [] 6,9
per~rmencc limimlons?
2) Result in a septic f~ld being ·
I~-_*_-~l w~Jn $0 fe~ oft dminqc smd-' [~ [] [] [] [] 36.39.42"
or w~hln 100 f~t of ny well, ~
3) Result in e~aalsion ora sewer nuln
linc with cap~city m serv, n~w [] [] [] 0 [] 19.20.40'/
development?
4)Substantially dcgmd~ surhce or
groundwa~ qmljty, or Ghe public ~
supply, including but not ]imimd m
typical st~mwstcr pollunUmts
scdiment from comu~on,
lmdscaping nminmmnce, m~mls md
..~.'dity fi~uu mining opemiom)?
.c~n (such ns Iow tim flows)?
6)Chmig in thc quality of pound. [] 42
witcrs throu~ infiltrutJon of~.JiJmed
w~r OF StoFm Wnt~ nmoff~nt hss
confined polluUnts from urbm.
indusifisl or qficult~sl mivifies?
'/)l~luirc n NJ'DES perm~ f~ 20
ecr~s or more?l?
E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING
1) lntcrfcm substmtMlywith ground 20,36
wnmr mclur~? ~ [] [] [] [] '.
2) Substamiully chan~c the din~ction.
rum or flow or quantity ofsmund-
watgl3, or wetl,,-,, ,~ither throusb dire~ [] [] [] D ' 0 20,36,42 .
additions or withdrnvsls, or exmv~ioas~
3)Chnr~ thc ,bsoq~o. rms, dnlnqe
pmZems or thc ru~/mnount of suffm:e ~ [] [] [] [] 2o~6
runoff or v,~hnd?
4) Involve ·-,m,.tl drsim~ disnnd
floodplain
F) FLORA AND
diversJt7 or numbe~ of exiffi~ species,
or t~ introducinS n~w ~-cies. o~ t~ ,'
2) SubmntMb, rcducc tf~ hbit~t
WILL THE PROJECT... ~o~ Sisnir~.m sisnificmt 2umuhfivc SOURCE
Si~nificmR (MMgatio~ (No
NO Proposed) Mitigation
Pfopmed)
somT. e or n~s~ing place for a rede or
endanr~l sp~.ies of plant or animal?
4) Involv~ ~uttin~, removal of ~.~
ftpechnen scale re:es, wheth, indJscnous L~tj [] [] [] [] 11.12,41
to tho sit~ or introduced? .'
G) TRANSPORTATION
I) Cause an incp'~.~e in Iraffic which
is substantial in glation to the existin~
~fffic lomi and cnpa~y of the sm~ ~ O [] [] [] 4.20,35
2) Came my public or privatc sueet
intessectlon ~o function below Level of ' 4,20
3) lncrcasc l~lic hn~.~ds to
pedestriam, bicyclists 8nd ,ehicl. es? ~ [] [] [] [] 20,35
4) Adv~ely affect a~cess to
comm~clal cstnblJshnm~, public
buildinss, schools, parks or other J~ [] [] [] [] 4.10
pedem-i~m oriented a~tlvity mas?
~) Cause a reduction in public -
project site?
6) Increase demand upon existin~
parking facilities,, engender denmnd for [] ~ [] [] [] 15.16
ncw pinking sptce?
7) Inhibit us~ of alternative mod~s of .
usage? ;
H) HOUSING
1) Reduce thc supply ofsfford~ble % .*'
p~sent homc?
2) increase th~ cost ofhousinu in the 3. 16
m~a. or substantially chan,e d~ variety ~f [] [] [] []
of housing Wpcs found in thc
community?
3) Create a submntinl demand for new ~ [] [] [] [] 3.16.47:
homing?
WILL TIlE PROJECT... SO. ..CE
Not $ijnifir, mt Significant Cunmlaivc
Sipificam (Mitisafion (No
NO . Proposed) Mitiistion
'0 Pr°vidc brccding 8r°unds f°r ~ [] [] ~-~ [] 25
mosquitos o~ other disease ~
Be st vmimce with tpplinble
2} C~,__~_- an acst~tically
site open m public vic~. [] [] [] [] [] 1.17
natm'al scenic qusljtics?
4) Obstruct view of a scenic fid~elinc
vislbl¢ Dom the valley
hillfidcs ~.i ~id~tJa] m or publi~
~) Adversely affect th~ at, bit.amd
business district7
li~*~n.* souses upon Mjaccot ~ 1,16 -'
or public roadways?.
IMPACT
YI~.S
WILL THE PROJECT... ~ si~i~ s~mc~ c~-h~ SOURCE
$ig:~fi~t (Miti~fion (No
2) ~ ~v~ly = ~ of h~= I, 10,41
O) PIIBLIC SERVICES
UTILITIES
1) Produce solid waste in substantial
lh~ Ioc~m, di~ibatJo~ or 4~.$i~/of
I~c h.r~o popu]etion of an
3) Caus~ substmtiul
~) F~ Pro~'tion
b) Police Sc~ic.? ~ ~ ~[_~ ~] ~_1~ 33
c) Public Schools? · 29,20
d) PsrluA~.cr~ion'Facilmes?'~ [] [] [] [--J 5. 17, 19. 21
c) Muintmmce'of Public Facilities? [] ~ [] [] [] 19,20~.1
= 4) Cause sul~lal impact upon ~ ...
existin~ utilities or infius~uctu~ in
foltowins c~es:
d) Scwqe Ireatnmnt and disgonl?
-q)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To Be Completed by City SUf0
tFILL THE PROJECT..
YES NO
substantially diminish thc habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a fish
or wildlifc population to drop below salf-sustainable levels; to threaten or
eliminate a plant or animal commlAltity; tO reduce thc number of or
restrict the range of a ram or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate
important examples of the major periods of_California's history or
2. Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the
rl~Jvantage of long terra environmental goals? -.
3. Have environmental izhpacu which are individually limited, but are
incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in
conjunction with the effe~ of past projects, ather current projects, and
probable future projects)
4. Have environmental effects which will ~m~e substantial adverse impacts
on human beings, either directly or indirectly7
PREPA.RER'S AFI~IDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true end correct to the he~;of my knowledge and
belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in respoPdin_~ accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted
appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full end complete d'..mclosum of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial en'm's dated within this Ini~tlnl Stody may e.,suse delay or discontinuance of
related project review procedures, md hereby agree to hold brainless the City of Cupertino, its mffand authorized
agents, fi'om the consequmces of such delay or discontinuance..
I ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
· (To be Completed by City Staff)
IMPACT ARF_,AS:
[] Land Use/General Plan [] Geologie/Seismic Hazard {-I Resources/Parks [] Housing
~ Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Flora & Fauna ~ Transportation
[] Historical/Archaeological [] H~.a!th & Safety [] Air Quality [] Noise
~f'Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] Aesthetics
STAFF EVALUATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Finds:
That the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~nificent ef~ct on the environment, and r~commends .....
that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be gnmted.
That although fl~e project could have a sJ_m~ificant effect on the environment, no sisnific~nt effect will occur
because mitigation measures m-e included in the project. ERC r=comm~nds that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
be granted.
That thc proposed MAY have a si~nific~ut effect on the en~ro~ment and recommends that sn ~'~.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT be
Staff Evaluator ~-'?
E/pla nnbt~.Antstdy4.doc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application: 14-8P-00 Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: Fairgrove Neighborhood
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Adopt Eichler Design Guidelines for the Fairgrove neighborhood to assist homeowners,
proposing additions or new construction, achieve design solutions which preserve the
identity of the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the Eichler Design Guidelines (Exhibit A).
BACKGROUND
Over the past three years City staff has worked with a committee of residents from the
Fairgrove neighborhood to develop design standards for the neighborhood's Eichler style
homes. Exhibit C includes a chronology of events that have led to the development of the
Eichler Design Guidelines. '
EICHLER DESIGN GUIDELINES HANDBOOK
At the October 2, 2000 meeting, the City Council adopted the the 'Rle' (single .family
Eichler) ordinance establishing development standards for Eichler homes and the rezoning
of the Fairgrove neighborhood to from 'R1-6" to 'R1-6e', and endorsed the Planning
Commission's recommendation to prepare Eichler Design Guidelines handbook. The
Planning Commission reviewed the Eichler Guidelines handbook at their December 11,
2000 meeting and recommended approval with some minor changes.
The Eichler Design Guideline handbook is a resource for Fairgrove homeowners intending
to remodel, expand, or replace their homes. The handbook provides information on the
basic principles of the Eichler style to guide homeowners toward successful design
solutions while preserving the identity of the Fairgrove neighborhood. The handbook has
the following components:
· Introduction - This first chapter includes a brief description of why guidelines are
recommended for Fairgreve, provides a description of the Eichler architectural style, and
.._ briefly describes the codes applicable to additions or new construction in Fairgrove.
· 'Rle' Zoning Code - This chapter lists.and illustrates elements of the 'Rle' (Single
Adopt Elchler Design Guidelines for the Fairgrove Neighborhood
January 16, 2000
Page 2
Family Eichler) code which include: setbacks, building design requirements, and privacy
protection requirements.
· Guidelines -The guidelines in this chapter are voluntary and provide information on the
basic principles of Eichler amhitecture including: rooflines, building form, glazing,
building materials, colors, exterior accessories, streetscape, and second stories. The
guidelines can also be a resource for Fairgro~e homeowners interested in preserving
the Eichler style while remodeling or expanding their homes. Since amhitectural
creativity and today's changing needs are of importance to individual homeowners, the
guidelines focus on only those exterior elements of architectural style that are
considered essential for the preservation of neighborhood character.
· Exhibits & Resources - This section has a number of exhibits including a map of the
Fairgrove Neighborhood, a matrix which itemizes the codes and guidelines applicable to
Fairgrove, and a list of Eichler resources (articles, home maintenance products, building
firms specializing in Eichlers, etc.) for homeowners.
REVIEW PROCESS FOR FAIRGROVE
Fairgrove homeowners proposing additions or new construction will be subject to the UR1'
and 'Rle" zoning codes. The 'Rle" code for the Fairgrove neighborhood establishes
additional ordinance requirements relating to setbacks, building design and privacy
· requirements, which are reviewed by staff at the building permit level. If the URle'·
requirements are not met, the applicant may seek an exception in the same manner as
other 'RI" zones. This includes notices to adjoining neighbors and review by the Design
Review Committee.
Enclosures:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No.
B. Eichler Design Guidelines for the Fairgrove Neighborhood
C. "Rl-e/Eichler Guidelines" Chronology
D. Map of Fairgrove Neighborhood
E. Planning Commission excerpted minutes dated September 11, 2000
F. City Council excerpted minutes dated October 2, 2000 and October 16, 2000
G. City Council Ordinance approving development standards for Eichler homes
H. City Council Ordinance rezoning the Fairgrove Neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e
Prepared b~': //~A~rti Shrivastava, Senior Planner
APPROV,~/3 FCR,,~BMITTAL: SUBMITTED BY:
Steve Piasecki Dave Knapp
Director of Comm. Devpt. City Manager
G:~Planning\CC~ccl 4SP00.do=
14-S?-00
EXNIBIT A crv/o1: cmzp. Tn o
10300 Torr~ Avenue
.... Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION 6071 (MINUTE ORDER)
OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF EICItLER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
THE FAIRGKOVE NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION h MINUTE ORDER
The Planning Commission of tho City of Cupertino recommcnds that the City Council approve the
Eichler Design Guidelines attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of December, 2000, at a Kegular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and ChaL, pemon Harris
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Steve PiasecM /s/ Andrea Harris
Steve Piasecki Andrea Hm'ris, ChMrperson
Dkector of Commurdty Development Cupertino PlanMng Commission
g/planning/pdr~porVre.s/res3z003
EXHIBIT C
"RI-e/EICHLER GUIDELINES" CHRONOLOGY
,, 1997- Fairgmve residents discuss concerns due to growth and development, and
approach the Planning Commission for assistance in presenting neighborhood integrity.
· February 1998 & January 1999- Survey responses (conducted by the Fairgrove
Eichler Integrity Committee) from the neighborhood indicate an interest in preserving
the "look and feel', and privacy protection in the Fairgrove neighborhood.
· January 1999- City conducts visual citywide architectural survey to identify distinct
amhitectural styles worthy of preservation, and concludes that the Fairgrove Eichler
neighborhood contains amhitecturally significant homes. Planning Commission directs'
staff to work with residents to develop methods of presenting Eichler architecture in
Fairgrove.
· January 1999 to present- Staff begins working with neighborhood, Fairgrove Eichler
Integrity Committee, and consultant architect, Mark Srebnik, to develop a program for
preservation of neighborhood compatibility and privacy protection.
· February 1999 & January2000- Neighborhood meetings are held to confirm interest,
and to review proposed amendments. Major issues of concern are privacy protection,
large second stories, and exterior appearance from street.
· Mamh 13, 2000- Planning Commission directs staff, Eichler Integrity Committee, and
consultant to work with opposing homeowners to include their Interests.
· Ap#12000- Third and final survey to determine design elements, and whether
preservation should be accomplished in the form of a zoning ordinance, guidelines,
handbook, or a combination.
· May/June 2000- Results of survey indicate interest in an ordinance limited to privacy
protection, building design, and streetscape.
· July 24, 2000- Staff presents 'Rle" ordinance for Fairgrove. Planning Commission
directs staff to make revisions to the "Rle" ordinance.
· September 11, 2000- Planning Commission recommends approval of revised "Rle'
ordinance and rezoning of Fairgrove from 'RI' to 'Rle'. Commission also directs staff
to prepare Eichler Design Guidelines handbook.
· October 2, 2000- City Council adopts =Rle" ordinance, rezonas Fairgrove from 'R1" to
"Rle", and endorses Planning Commission's recommendation to prepare Eichler
Design Guidelines handbook.
· October 16, 2000- City Council second reading of ~Rle" and Fairgrove rezoning.
· November 15, 2000- 'Rle" and Fairgrove rezoning takes effect.
· - December 11, 2000- Planning Commission recommends approval with minor
changes.
- EXHIBIT D
MAP OF FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
I.I l t , , s' , , ,', ,
... ~ ~~//[ k - , - _ _ ~
~ ~ -- cou~ ~ ~ -. "' - ~ I
-- ~ I '~-----'~,..
EXHIBIT E
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETING OF ~
PLANNING COMMISSION w~,l,n ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
SALUTE TO ~ FLAG
ROI.I. CALL
Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris
Commissioners absent: Doyle
Staff presant: Steve Piasecld, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell,
City Planner;, Colin Jung, Associate Planner; VeraGil, Associate Planner;
Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner;, Carmen Lyrmugh, Public Works; Charles
Kilian, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the ,tugust 14, 2000 Regular Planning Commission meeting
MOTION: Com. Kwok minutes of August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as
presented
SECOND: Com. Stevens.
ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of correspondence from Made
and Ross Quinn relative to the CCS low cost housing project; letter from C. Chiu the CCS Iow
cost housing project, anda copy of a letter from the Cupertino National Bank to CCS relative to a
shared parking agreement with the CCS project.
POSTPONEMI~NTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT C3,L]~.NDAR: None
Chairperson Harris opened fl~e public hearing.
PUBLIC H~.ARING
2. Application No.(s): 03-Z-00, 06-EA-00
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue,
Phil Lane, Tantan Avenue and Bollinger Road
P, ezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of arehit~tural control of Eichler homes.
Continued from meeting of July 24, 2000
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 11, 2000
Tentative Ci~ Council Date: O~tober 2, 2000
Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki,. Community Development Director, reviewed the
background of the item, which was continued fi'om the July 24, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting. At the July 24th meeting, the Planning Commission indicated its support for the concept
of creating an Pd-e combining district with rules that would govcro the expansion of rebuilding of
existing homes within the Fair,rove neighborhood. The Planning Commission requested that
several changes or clarifications be incorporated into the ordinance or clarifications rel~uxiing
some aspects of the ordinance, dealing with modifying the recommended language in several
sections,, deciding how to deal with the issue of design guidelines and discussing the solar property
rights issue. He said the' ordinance as structured was geami toward preserving the fundamental
structural elements common to most Eichlers within the neighborhood, including a requirement
for a consistent 20 foot setback; entries must be integrated with the roofline; a maximum slope of
3 end 12; vertical grooves to be incorporated into whatever siding material is used on the walls
facing a public street; the homes must follow ~i~ight architectural lines; and the second story be
exempt from the requirements for wall offsets. Staff suggested that the f'ust floor grade/height be
limited to 12 inches maximum above grade to ensure that new homes and additions do not tower
over their neighbors. Staff is also suggesting additional modified lanhumge to. indicate what should
be done, rather than what should not be done. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of
referencing design guidelines in the ordinance, staff is suggesting removal of the references to be
replaced with the current procedure for design review within the R1 ordinance.
Mr. Piasecki reviewed the reasons for preserving the architectural style of the neighborhood. It
consists of 220 homes, and is a well defined neighborhood with a very distinctive architectural
style, consisting essentially of lower, horizontal, fiat wall planes, and a number of other elements,
including indoor/outdoor living; plenty of glass on the homes as well. He said when there is a
distinctive neighborhood with a distinctive architectural style, it presents a public policy dilemma;
you can either regulate the new homes and additions so that they respect the style, or not regulate
them and allow incremental change out of the neighborhood: It is staff's opinion that even a well
designed contemporary home which tends to be taller, with more vertical lines and highly variable
wall planes, will look significantly differeot and tend to tower over the existing low horizontal
Eichler homes. If there are no design standards, there would be an incremental change out of the
neighborhood, with more or less a hedge podge of more contemporary building styles juxtaposed
next to the Eichler homes, thereby accentuating the differences in style and age from the
neighborhood. Eventually the Eichlers would not be valued es part of a neighb6rhood with a
cohesive architectural statement, but for the land that they sit on and the opportunity to tear them
down and build a more contemporary home. The problem with this scenario, is it will not only
lose the distinctiveness of the neighborhood, but the process of changing out the neighborhood
will take decades and there will be a highly divergent architectural style eventually changing out
the neighborhood over 20 or 30 years or more. Staff feels that the ordinance furthers the interest
of providing a stable neighborhood for all 220 homes and still allows reasonable flexibility to
,update or expand the existing homes by following a few basic rules. Mr. Plasecki suggested a one
year review to address the success of the ordinance in accomplishing the basic objectives.
A map of the Fairgrove neighborhood wes ~isplayed for reference.
Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, referred to Page 2-21 addressing solar rights, specifically
responding to the que~on of what are solar access or property rights of adjoining property
owners. He said that solar rights are governed by state law and for there to be solar access, there
I
Planning Commission Minutes 3. September 11, 2000
must be a recorded solar easement which meets certain criteria under state law. He said it might
be advantageous to use the words "shall infringe upon the solar easements of adjoining propen'y
owners" which Would accomplish the same thing.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Ms. Debra Donde, 733 Stendahl Lane, said that up until now she was not actively involved with
the issue, but said that she was opposed to the pwposal and within an hour timeframe gathered 17
oppositions from 26 residents indicating that they were not all fully aware of the issue. She
distributed the petition to the Planning Commission and said that the neighbors would be holding
meetings to stop the action. They were adamantly opposed to the ordinance and felt they were
being discriminated against; that the ex/sting restrictions were adequate. She said she felt the
Eichler design was not unique, but was the cheapest construction at the time and felt there was no
reason to preserve the design. In response to Com. Corr's questions, she said that she responded
to questionnaires, but they were confusing and misleading, leading to surprise from most of the
people signing the petition she circulated.
Mr. Arik Dondee, 733 Stendahl Lane, said that he was present at some community meetings and'
was opposed to the proposal. He said he was a member of the committee on preserving heritage
and did not recall Eichler homes being on the preservation list; he said he did not feel theEichlers
were a great American innovation or invention in architecture, and said the home was a 50s house
built cheaply to provide housing for the deluge of people coming to Silicon Valley. Mr. Dondee
said he felt there were adequate regulations already to regulate building and control amongst
neighbors, but that he did respect others' tastes of Eichler homes. He said he felt it was outlandish
interference in the freedom of homeowners to do as they wished so long .as it did not harm
neighbors,
Mr. Gaswaran Umamaheshwaran, 739 Stendhal Lane, said that he lived in his Eichler home for
29 years, and was uncomfortable with restrictions, and felt tbey may havb a negative impact on the
value on his property for future buyers.
Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning, and asked that
consideration not be based solely on the number of speakers in opposition, but also the city
Sl~Onsored ballot which was conducted in a fair and honest manner and showed that over 70% of
the responding citizens in the Fa'u~wve neighborhood do want architectural protection. He said
he fei/Eichlers are unique; quality well built, homes worth protecting from eyesore coustruction;
some have been neglected and took only a little work to restore to former greatness. Rancho has
examples of how lots get clear cut, destroying mature landscaping and exposing neighbors to
privacy invasion. He said/)roperty value is more than just the number of rooms; it is not simply
related to that; non-chaotic neighborhoods have a nicer appearance, streetecape is extremely
important; and curb appeal is important in setting property values. Mr. Kirby said the issue of
streetscape which the Rl-e change preserves, provides a coherent backdrop for maintaining a
sense of neighborhood and community, and he urged support of the ordinance.
Mrs. Mary Kirby, 915 Ferngrove, said she was a member of the Eichler integrity committee and
worked diligently for 3 years to keep the residents notified of what was occurring. She said many
residents like herself have many other responsibilities, yet take the time to be involved in issues of
concern relative to their neighborhood. She said she support, ed the compromise reached that will
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 11, 2000
allow people to redesisn if desired, although some homeowners wanted more restrictive
restrictions. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance.
Ms. Florence Chlebour, 619 Phil Court, said she was originally middle of the road when she heard
thc ordinance was to protect the individual's fights, but as time passed, it became almost fanatical
that no changes could be made. She said she hoped what was applicable to the remainder of
Cupertino would protect the Eichlar neighborhood also; however, she said she was confused about
the discussion this evening and questioned if the ordinance stated reasonable flexibility by
following the guidelines or strict guidelines without a compromise. She expressed concern that
her property values would be affected because of having severe restrictions; and she stated that her
home value was just as important as the .architectural structure. She questioned if Cupertino
would have a policy that neighbors would have to sign off on proposed changes; Mr. Piasecki
responded that the policy did not exist.
Chair Harris mad actual setbacks restrictions which were outlined in the aWached staff report.
There will be a minimum setback of 20 feet which is standard in a residential district; the entry
features facing the street shall be integrated with the roofline of the house; the maximum roof
slope will be 3 and 12; wood or other siding material on the wall facing the public street, not
counting the garage, will have vertical grooves 6 inches apart, consistent with theEichler look; the
building design will incorporate straight architectural lines rather than curved lines; second story
building offsets are not required for homes in this area; the first floor shall be no more than 12
inches above the grade; privacy protection related to side and rear yard facing second floor
windows; there will be privacy protection in the regular code and it will stipulate to cover
windows with louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor or put in obscure glass to a
height of 6 feet or have a windowsill of $ feet above the floor. Chair Harris said that a handbook
developed by an architect would outline the design guidelines for the Eichlar homes, and what
kinds of things fit into the character of the Eichlar for those wishing to remodel their home.
Requirements of the law were read and the remainder would be suggestions and guidelines to be
followed to try and maintain the character oftha home.
Following Chair Harris' remarks, Ms. Chlebour urged the Plsnning Commission to vote in favor
of the ordinance.
Mr. Helmut Saki, 874 Bwokgrove Lane, said hc was opposed to the guidelines, and urged the
Planning Commission not to approve the proposed amendment to the single family residential
ordinance. He said he felt it was wrong to assume that only Eichler owners are concerned about
backyard privacy. Traditionally, the backyad is an extension oftha living space into the outside; it
is not at all unique for Eichler design. He said that every homeowner shares the same concerns,
and no special privacy protection should be afforded to Eichler owners that would not apply to all
other single family homes. Mr. Jaki said that if they did not feel the single family ordinance was
appwpriate, change it, but make it applicable and mandatory to ali ~sidences in city. He
questioned why design guidelines had to be cast in an ordinance, and questioned why the Planning
Commissioners did not trust the Community Development Director and the Design Review
Committee with decisions about the Eichler homes, when they were trusted with decisions on
compatibility of structure within a given residential neighborhood, and with the power to approve
or deny exceptions to the prescriptive design regulations. He requested that the Planning
Commission deny the proposed amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September .11, 2000
Mrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, said that the Eichler integrity committee had been
working on the project for 4-1/2 years and had many meetings and surveys which revealed that the
Fairgrove residents cared about privacy and look of their neighborhoods. She said the committee
worked with staff for 2 years .on proposed ordinance and suggested guidelines, as well as
additional things that would be put into an advisory handbook; the guidelines would be used when
someone applies for an exception process. When the proposed amendment was once again
discussed and cootinued in ~Iuly, it provided more time to meet with Mr. Piasecki to expand and
clarify the ordinance where needed and to delete unnecessary language. She briefly discussed
some changes to the ordinance which she supported. She thanked staff and Mr. Piasecki for their
valuable insight and assistance. She pointed out that further modifications occur on a previously
modified home; people purchase Eichlers because they want an Eichler and they spent a great deal
maintaining them and remodeling them. She said she felt the ordinance warranted approval, and
she supported it to keep the neighborhood as it is.
Mr. Udo Strasilla, 902 Brookgrove, expressed surprise at the opposition present at the meeting
because the July meeting seemed nearing approvai/completion. He also said he was surprised so
many people said they were unaware of the issue, and pointed out that as busy as he was, he took
time to attend meetings on important issues. He said he was pleased with the progress of the Rl-e
updated is.~ue, and that there was a lot of give and take involved on everyone's part in order to
arrive at this stage. He showed slides of the Eichler neighborhoods, and noted that the winter
season exposes a lot of mistakes. He said he would like more privacy, and said that the second
story, and deck issue could be more restrictive. Mr. Strasilla said that there am neighborhood
houses that destroy the sense of the Eichlers; however, he felt that the ordinance should be general
for the whole of Cupertino, but Eichlers in particular because of the glass window walls. He said
he was willing to forego the deck issue to move ahead and have the RI-o restrictions enacted,
since only one block away there are bulldozers waiting to bulldoze houses to build monster
homes. Mr. Strasilla said he would remain in the neighborhood only if it was preserved.
Chair Harris clarified for the record that notification is given to the properties on either side,
behind and touching, and across the street, which were the properties requested.
Mr. Stephen Wolgast, 747 Stendahl Lane, Said he moved to the neighborhood in March of 1999,
seeking a home in the Cupertino school district, and liked the attractiveness of the neighborhood,
partly because of the Eichler homes and partly because of the mature foliige. He said he was
involved with the Eichler integrity committee initially as a bystander, and was uncomfortable with
restrictions early in the process, since he felt many of the proposals were too re--hlctive, such as
longer setbacks, rent,lotions on roof equipment, fences, paint color, etc. and because they
recognized that there were many homes that did not fit the proposed guidelines or ordinances
based on years of change. Mr. Wolgast said he felt the current proposal was more realistic and
reduced to the more basic elements that represent ail the houses, with certain exceptions. He Said
he supported the ordinance as it was less r~hlctive and allowed for expansion in terms of floor
space as anywhere else in the city under the R1 and is adequate to preserve the essential character
without much restriction in terms of remodeling or expansion. He urged the Planning
Commission to support the proposed ordinance.
Mr. David Gagnon; 19261 Phil Lane, said he resided on Phil Lane since 1987. He said the
notification of the September 11 meeting wes the fu~t notice he had ~ceived, although the
ordinance has been discussed for some time..He said he was opposed to the wording of the
restrictions, although not generally opposed to the privacy concept or trying to control the
.~
Planninl~ Commission Minutes 6 September 1 I, 11000
takeover of monster homes that may atTeot privacy or curb appeal, lie said he felt the restrictions
in place adequately addressed the issue of privacy and curb appeal. He emphasized that he was
specifically opposed to the language clearly desil~ned to preserve the P-iehler home and make it
difficult to build some other style home if a homeowner so desired. He noted that the reslrictions
on roofline, entry way and siding were clearly there to make sure than an Eichler owner had to
keep it an Eichler home. He said he was opposed to the .~h'ict regulations as p~0ple should be free
to do what they want with their homes. He said he was not opposed to reasonable re-~ir'~ctious on
setbacks and privacy issues; and it was reasonable to permit changing the home design from an
Eichler as long as it has decent curb appeal. Mr. Gagnon asked that the Planning Commission not
approve the ordinance.
Mr. A_nil Deora, 672 Stendahl Lane, said he appeared at the previous meeting and submitted a
three page letter. He said surveys had been done by committees composed of residents; di~rent
questions with different conclusions have been made; and surveys can be tilted in one direction or
another, which he said he felt occurred. He clain/ed that if the City Council sent out the exact
wording of the proposal and asked citizens to vote for or against it, most people would oppose it.
He said that he felt the committee was not doing a fair job. Mr. Deora said that Eichler did a fair
job back in the 50s, but technolo~' has changed, and fiat or angled roofs may not be appropriate
for the future, and those issues.were not considered. He said that the mere name F. ichler does not
mean integrity; nobody is opposed to privacy, and every resident wants theirs and their neighbor's
privacy prote~ted, which should be covered in the city's general rules. If they are not covered
under the general rules, the city should include them and not let there be spaciai rules only for a
small population who want something different. He suggesting getting a referendum from all
citizens and in the particular the area that wants rehabilitation, and if the majority agrees, bow to
the majority.
Mr. Theodore Levine, 706 Stendahi Lane, said that he felt balancing freedom with restrictions was
part of living in a community, and although not free to do whatever one wants all the time, benefit
is derived from being part of a community. He said he followed a 4 year participatory process,
beginning with regular monthly neighborhood meetings announced to all the homes, and
discussion started on ways to preserve an architecture that many residents developed an
appreciation for. He said some wanted a lot of restrictions, some wanted very few, resulting in an
ordinance which reflects a balance with relatively few restrictions. He said the ordinance has no
mention of fences, paint color, paint refleotivity, garage doors, or lighting; and he was not
concerned about property value, especially since his tripled in the last six' years. He said he did
not feel discriminated a~ainst as an Eichler owner, and was supportive of the ordinance, as he was
concerned about developers attacking Eichlers to build 'monster' homes. He concluded by stating
that he hoped the process would conclude soon and asked that the Plnnning Commission support
the ordinance.
Mr. Dick Shuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said that he attended the previous meetings and was not in
favor of restrictions or the ordinance. He said that he liked the Eichler homes, but felt that
restrictions should not exist prohibiting a homeowner from changing his home. He said that the
Eichler homes have unique features such as heating systems in the concrete, and over time need to
be replaced; designs change over 20 years and the homeowner should be permitted to make
updated to his own home.' He said he was opposed to the ordinance.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes ? September I 1, 2000
Chair Harris provided a history of the need for redevelopment stating that houses were built every
way if they met the FAR requirements, until there was a community outcry against the pink
palaces/large houses that did not fit in or maintain the character of the neighborhoods and made no
attempt to do so, and regulations did not exist. Other cities were looked at to see what they wer~
practicing, and those cities also looked around their community and defined separate sections of
the town with certain characteristics and required in those sections those characteristics. An
amhitectural consultant was hired to study other areas of the city and concluded that Cupertino,
being a newer community had very consistent housing styles, with only two different than the
standard ranch house, which were the Eichler homes and the homes in the area by Reguart School
which was known as Polynesian Ranch. An ordinance was developed to protect residents,
including second story requirements, decks; and a design review committee (DRC) was set up,
and set offsets, put trees where windows were put in for screening; and added privacy protections
and character suggestions to try and make houses fit in. Chair Harris said she felt it was
successful, with enlry restrictions, entry height restrictions and a DRC that meets several times
month to look at houses that fall outside the box created and that left the Eichler neighborhood
which is prorated by all those same protections. An architect was hired to study the unique
features of the Eichler homes, identify them, and the concerned members of the community
established-.surveys to inform and talk to the neighbors. Various meetings Were held and surveys
taken over the years as guidelines were developed. As the ordinance was formed, the conclusion
was that people did not want too many restrictions on the redevelopment of their property, they
wanted their property values maintained but mostly wanted the character of their neighborhood
preserved as well; there was no thought to not allowing modernization to the extent of rehabbing
the properties and keeping up the quality of the neighborhood; everyone who spoke wanted the
quality maintained but some of the character as well. She said the result is 4 or $ specific
requirements in a handbook that will have some suggestions of what is in anEichler neighborhood
for people that want to redevelop, and that is what is being proposed this evening. Chair Harris
noted receipt of a petition from 17 persons opposed to the rezoning; however, it is unclear what
they heard when signing the petition as the contents of the survey given to the 26 people are not
known. She said that numerous restrictions were removed 'from the ordinance, residents do not
want the 50s colors, and want to be able to add a second story, or to change their rooflinc from fiat
to a pitched roof, which were all considered in the final package, which is a culmination of 4 years
work.
Com. Stevens said he has been involved in the process for the past 4 years and also with the.
historical review. He said that the main issue was that the homes should be harmonious with the
Eichler style. He pointed out that he previously objected to the further restrictions relative to
privacy, until he became aware the entire back of the Eichler home is glass, and thc restrictions set
in the original R1 were considering windows. Planting cfa tree or two could block a window, but
if the whole back of the house is glass, this may not be feasible, which is a reason for the
additional privacy requirement. He said he felt the uniqueness of the neighborhood would change
and they were requesting a harmonious change. He recommended a review in 5 years, or one as
recommended by staff. He said the application would be forwarded to City Council for decision,
and that he supported the application as recommended by staff.
Com. Corr recalled that he suggested a vote be taken on the issue at the last meeting to move
forward on the application. He said that he has not been particularly sympathetic to the issue,
because of the number of reasons expressed tonight such as the re~iriodons placed on people and
its restrictiveness. He said from the standpoint of a planned development, in any neighborhood
where there is a planned development, there are restrictions; CC&Rs that govern everybody
Planning Commission Minutes s September 11, 2000
'-' around, to keep the focus on the design, which was the whole ~on~ept. He said he felt that the
existing RI zoning when addressing the character of a neighborhood and houses being comparable
one to the other and the l~ichler being so different that it probably should be restrictive, especially
when looking at houses today, vs. the way they were previously. He said that he supported the
ordinance.
Com. Kwok addressed the ordinance change in 3 areas; first, the process, secondly, the
preservation of the architectural integrity, and lastly, the process of exceptions. He said he was
involved in the process for two years, and recalled when he took his first tour, how surprised and
delighted he was to see the uniqueness of the area, the pride in ownership and the need to preserve
the area. He commended the Eichler integrity committee for doing such a thowugh job and their
due diligence in getting the process to its present state. He also commended the residents who
became involved in the process in the beginning and remained involved, despite how busy and
hectic their lives 'may have been at times. He said as a democratic society, people should be
involved in the process or chose not to be, but not come in at the end of a process and complain
that they' were not aware of what had transpired, or say they were too busy to take part. Com.
Kwok said that it has been a long process and credited staff, the committee and the people
involved. He said a lot of dompromises were made as well as modifications to the requirements.
Com. Kwok said the Eichler neighborhood was unique, and if someone desires to move into the
unique neighborhood because of its uniqueness, they like the area, and most likely would be
interested in preserving the architectural integrity of the area. He said that relative to thepro~:ess
which is a one year pilot, the Community Development Director will present a report a year aider
the ordinance is in effect. In the next 12 months interim, the ordinance allows for exceptions to
the process. Com. Kwok said that he supported the ord/nance amendment.
Chair Harris said she supported the ordinance amendment. She said it was a fair compromise
which would allow the uniqueness to remain in Cupertino and still permit rehabilitation and
moderniT~tjon within the constraints.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 6-EA-00
SECOND: Com. Stegens
ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE:' Passed 4-0-0
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 3-Z-00, including review of the effect
of the ordinance by Planning Commission in one year, staff to provide the
completed design guidelines within 60 days with the intent of preparing booklet
for the community members applying for permits in the zoning district by the end
of the year, in Para. 19.28.120 substitute the word "easements" for the word
"access or property rights"
SECOND: Com. Stevens
ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
3. Application No.(s): 13-U-00, 7-EXC-00, 15-EA-00
._ ~ Applicant: Pinn Brothers
Location: 19979-19999Stevens Creek Boulevard
':' EXHIBIT F
October 2, 2000 Page 3
8. Approve COntract change order No. 1, Slurry Seal, Project 2000-102, Resolution
00-250.
9. Acceptance of cily project performed under COnlract: Slurr~ Seal Project 2000-
102 (Dooumentation not required). . -
10. Public nuisance abatement: Set public hearing to COnsider abating a public
nuisance (overgrown weeds creating a fire hazard, and a large accumulation of
garbage and r~fuso discarded on the prop~) at 10200 Stern Avenue (APN 375-
12-002, Patrick McGrath, property owner), Resolution 00-251.
11. Treasurer's Budget Report - August 2000.
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Bumett, Chang, Lowenthal, Statton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jaraes
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Approve the destruction of Parks and Recreation and City Clerk records,
Resolution 00-249.
Carol Baker asked that the Parks and Recreation records listed for deslmetion on
the resolution be retsined if they included information about the architect's
statement about drainage at Wilson Park, superv/sion at Wilson Park, the building
at the park that was supposed to be a community building and is now used as a
storeroom for maintenance, and the play structures that were removed and not
replaced. Deputy City Clerk Wolfe expl-lned that the records listed did not
include those Ms. Baker mentioned and were beinlI destroyed in accordance with
the city's records retention plan.
James moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-249 and to direct staff to review the
listed files to make sure none of the ones Ms. Baker mentioned were included.
Bumett seconded and the motion passed 5-0..
PUBLIC U~.~RINGS
12. Fairgmve Neighborhood- Applications 3-Z-O0 and 6-EA-00, r~zonlng from RI-6
zone to R1-60 zone for the purpose of architocttual conirol of Eichler homes; and
nmending Ch?ter 19.28 of the Cupertino Munloipal Code to add design standards
for Eichler styled homes. The project is located in the Fairgrove Neighborhood,
generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lime, Tantau Avenue, and Bollluger
Road (APNs 375-38-001 through 375-38-055; 375-39-001 through'374-39-060;
October 2, 2000 Page 4
375-40-001 through 375-40-037; 375-41-001 through 375-41-005; 375-41-018
through 375-41-034; and 375-42-001 through 375-42-052). A Negative
Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval.
(a) First reading of Ordinance 1860, "An Ordinance of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino .Amending Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code to hcorpomte Eichler Development Regulations."
(b) First reading of Ordinance 1861, "An. Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Approving a Chan~e of Zonln5 from R1-6 to R1-6e for
Approximately 220 Properties Bordered by Bollinger Read, Tantan
Avenue, Miller Avenue, and Phil Lane as Deseribed in Exhibits A and B.'
(7~ree-month continuance requested by Fairgrove Neighborhood Freedom
Committe~)
Buruett leR the dnla and abstained from the council discussion and action.
Following a video roll in, Community Development Director Piasecki outlined
the st~a,rds in Section 19.28.100.B of Ordinance 1860. He reviewed the
proposed StandArds and introduced an added No. 7 regulating the height of
exterior walls. Ho noted that there is a pwvision allowing for exceptions to tho
standards. He tnllr~t about the request for co~tln,,~ce and suggested they
proceed with the orginAn_ce but/ndicate that staff is willing to meet with those
who don't understand it. If anyone wants to bring back substantial evidence or
concerns that have not been cons/dered, council could always reopen the
ordinance.
Arlene Strasilla, 902 Bmokgrove Lane, said she had watched the last Planning
Commission meeting on video ~apc. At that meeting, a woman talked about how
this had suddenly came to her attention. She said there had been lots of
opportunity dining the last four years for People to 6~id out and provide .input.
She said there have been a lot of newcom~-- and they do not understand what
Eichler architecture is. She talked about Eichler's innovations. She said she
would suggest even stronger lan~age than that proposed. She thought they
should be on the National Resister of Preservation because they are a unique
neighborhood and it is a unique style.
"'.,. Udo Strasilla, 902 Bmoksrove Lane, said they came fi'om Boston 25 years ago
and bought an Eichler. He descn'bed refilling from vacation to find a two story
house with decks and floor-to-ceiling windows o~erlooidng his back yard. He
said there needs to be regulation.
Gary Virshup, Stmdhal Lane, said he was drawn by the design and uniqueness of
-. the Eichlc~. He was concerned when he saw large houses being built in Rancho
Rinconada. He did not believe the earlier privacy measures would equate to
October 2, 2000 Page
Eichler houses. He was in support of the ordinance even though it was pared
down.
Mary Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, member of the Eichler Integrity Committee,
said she hoped council would approve the ordinance.-- She talked about efforts to
get the neighborhood involved. She was conce,,,ed that if restrictions are not in
place soon, they will be seeing lot of change in the neighborhood. She said they
chose this neighborhood because of the Eichler homes.
Stevan Wolgast, 747 Stendhal Lane, said hi was originally uncomfortable with
restrictions but was more comfortable with the current proposal. In his opinion,
there was something in it for everyone. He did not thlnir the enhanced privacy
restrictions were too burdensome and said people could still basically build' the
same size house. He felt this was a good opportunity for those who want to
remodel or enlarge a house and still maintain neighborhood character.
Anll Deora, 672 Standhal Lane, was OpPosed to the restriction, and refen~d to a
letter that he had sent to the council. He showed an Eic. Mer brochure with a
picture of an Eichler with a roof that he said would not conform with the proposed '
guidelines. He said weather conditions have changed, and some materials may
not be available in a few years. He said the standards of the ordinance do not
address privacy which seems to be the conc~',~ of a lot of the speakers. He
questioned the interpretation of the ordinance and said he hoped council would
reject it or ~ive them more time.
Helmut laP, i, 874 Brookgrove Lane, said he was intrigued by the design and lines
of Bichler homes. However, he believed the .existing R1 ordinance, through a
comprehensive design review process, adeq-,',$eiy safeguards against inirusion of.
so-called monster homes and designs which are incompatible with the gcncral
neighborhood. He said everyone has a right to privacy and this is not unique to
those who live in Eichlers. He pointed out a portion of the questionnaire that he
thought was misleading and asked if we need more rules and regulations. He
requested denial of the proposed amendment.
Don Bumett, 729 Standhal Lane, summmized the process. He said there had been
lot of work and compromise which would work for the benefit of everyone in the
neighborhood. He pointed out that the same roles apply regarding floor area
ratios, and there are no tight material restriclions. He described how he had been
able to keep his house comfortable without mechanical air conditioning during the
recant hot weather. He said privacy is important and suggested modifying the
wall height limitation to only apply to side walls. He said there are other Bichlers
that are different from those in this neighborhood; these rules are designed for this
Marcia Ludwig, 6247 Shadygrove Drive, said she had lived in her Bichler for 30
years. She chose to live here because she had seen F, ichlers and wanted to live in
3q-I~
one. She had been fairly involved in the pwceas. She said if people had not
known what was gong on she was afraid they might have signed the petition
because they were frightened by misrepresentations in the petition. She urged
suppor~ of the ordinance.
Deborah Donde, 733 Stev~h~! Lane, said she was representing 44 other fsmilies
in the neighborhood who are opposed. She passed a petition to council. She said
the signers feel disfranchised. Their main opposilion is thc toially unacceptable
idea of a small group having control of their property rights and that the survey
did not indicate that mandator~ measures would take place in thc future. She said
she had collected si~o~sttu~s in the past week and had covered about 40 percent of
the neighborhood, approximately 85 homes. Of those, 45 signed the petition
opposing the ordinauce (53 p~rcen0; 33 households favored the _r~_o,~;ng (39
percent); six homes (6 percent) were rentals and they did not vote; and one house
was for sale (1 percent). She felt that if they had more time, those who opposed
the rezonlng would remain in the majority. She requested-thst the council vote
against the rezonln$ or ~a~t them more time to survey the r~naindm' of the
neighborhood. She s.~ired that they r~neoiber that the purpose of government is
not to iml~ose laws which go counter to the majority of the populace or are only to
the interest of a vocal minority. She said the rezo, lng process has divided the
residents.
Arik Donde, ?33 Stendhal Lane, said it se~med thai everYone agreed thai they lille
Eichler houses. The point was freedom to do what he wanted with his prope~y
without in~'vinging on others. He said he would lille the deflnltion of "mouster
house" and. asked council to reject the proposal, on the basis ~hat there are plenty
of laws and regulations.
Claudia' Falk, 884 Ferngrove Drive, said she lived in an Eichl~r in Sunnyvale
before moving to the l~airgrove neighborhood. She was in favor of the ordinance.
l~,egarrllng the loss of property rights, she said when you live in a community you
have to give up some rights. She ~_~id she was in favor of the ~hictions and felt
they would still allow people to make changes without affecting othe,,' rights.
Theodore Lavine, 706 Stondhal Lane, said he owned a wedge-shaped protml~.
He expressed support for the ordinance. He said the ~xisting R1 orrlln~nce does'
involve giving up freedom in ~xchanse for the benefits of community and
protecling your homes. He said Eichle~s do need more privacy protection because
of the ext~sive glass areas. He said he had modified his home and kept the
renovation looking like the original. He asked ihaI co~mcil deal with the
ordinance at this meeting because as time goes by the neighborhood is in peril.
Nancy Bumelt, 729 Stendhai Lane, said the ordinance is a four-year
..- She described ~ process, which included numerous meetings. She lalked about
the r~rictious ~ w~re dropped including siding on garage doors to match the
house, plain simple front doors, color llmi~ious, hip roof pmhibilion, increased
October 2, 2000 Page 7
rear setback requir~nents for second stories, and window design specifications.
She said privacy is the main issue. The present R.1 ordinance deals only with
foliage control, and Eichlers need more protection because there is more glass.
Piasecki said the survey in June was sent back to,tha~ity. It had been sent out to
the residents in Fairlp'ove with a letter explaining the different options being
considered and that this would potentially be put into an ordinance. He said that
in addition to the privacy requireaients in the RI ordinance which primarily talks
about alignment of windows for privacy p~otection, there would be the added
window rexl~ents for louvers, obscure glass, or a minimum sill height of five
feet.
By consensus, council membea'l agreed ths~ there had been many opportunities for
people to become aware of and involved in the process, and that Ihe neighborhood
deserved protection because it was unique and distinctive because of its
architecture. Staff will meet with those who still have concerns about the
ordinance, address those concerns, and bring th~m back to council ifneceasary.
LoWenthal moved to grant a negative declaration, lames seconded and the
motion passed 5-0. '
Lowenthal moved to approve an amendment to the Cupertino Municipal Code per
Pla~nlng Commission Resolution 6056, with thc ordinance amended to add No. 7
under Section 19.28.100.B to read, "Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards
shall not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the floor to the top
of the wall plate." Chang seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
The Deputy City Clerk read Ordinance 1860 by title.
Lowenthal moved to read the ordinance by title only and the Deputy City Cl~'k's
reading to constitute the first reading thereof, lames seconded and the motion
passed 5-0.
The Deputy City Clerk read Ordimmco 1861 by title.
Lowenthal moved to read the orrllnance by title only and the Deputy City Clerk's
reading to constitute the first reading tlmrecf, lames seconded and the motion
passed 5-0.
Bumett returned to the ~Ais.
There was a recess from 8:16-8:~ p.m.
(Note: Shar~ Guerra spoke he~ regarding C.lab-~.s Creek. Sec under Omi
· Comm~,~icatious.)
Ocwber 16, 2000 Cupertino City Council Pag= 4
ORDINANCES
13. Second readin~ and enactments:
Bumett said he would abstain from voting on the ordinances, because he lived in an
I!ichler home, which was the topic of the following two items.
(a) Ordinance No. 1860, "An Ordinance of the City Council ot~ the City of Cupertino
Amendin~ Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Incorporate Eichler
Development Relpilations"
The City Clerk distributed pal~e 10, which had been amended to reflect item 13(a)
as directed by City Council at the last meeting. The City Clerk read the title of the
ordinance. Lowentbel moved' and Chang seconded to read the ordinance by title
only, and that the. City Clerk's reading .would constitute the second reading
Lowenthal moved and Chang seconded to enact OrrllnA~ce No. 1860 Motion
can/ed 4-0'with Bumett abstaining.
(b) Ordinance No. 1861, "An Oldlnance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
Approving a Change of Zoning From RI-6 to R1-60 for Approximately 220
Propellies Bordered by Bolllnger Road, Tantau Avenue, Miller Avenue and Phil
Lane as Desczibed in Exhibit A and Exhibit B"
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Chang moved and lames seconded
to read the or~linance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would
constitute the second reading tlm'~of. Motion carried 4-0 with Bumett abstaining.
Chang moved and JAmes seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1861. Motion carried
4-0 with Bum' abstsinhS.
STAFF REPORTS - None
COUNCIL REPORTS
James offered her con~zlations to LowenthaL who was the chairperson of the recent Rotary
Club Oktoberfest. She said the klnderplatz s~fion was wonderful, and the event was an example
of a successful partnership between the schools, Rotary club, and community. She thanked the
sponsors and the r~aurants, snd commt:nted on wh~ a diverse/roup was in attendance, lames
also said that she attended the Santa Clara County l:.mergency Preparedness Commission
meeting, and there will be a countywide drill later t_hi~ month focusing on critical needs, such as
hospitals. The city will be conducting its own tabletop exercise. She said she enjoyed
representing the city at the monthly Mayor's breakfast, and reminded evel3,one that there were
vacancies opening up on the boards and commissions in Jan,~ry. She represented the City at a
measure A press ¢onfel~nce, which was a unique' oppormnlty to address a regional interest.
Exhibit G
ORDIN~NCE NO. 1860
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
INCORPORATE EICHLER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
There is hereby added to the municipal Code of Cupertino Section 19.28.100, which is to
read as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated the R1 ordinance amendment; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with thc Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or more Public
Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject RI ordinance amendment meets thc
following requirements:
1. That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichler architectural design
while allowing redevelopment of a site; and
2. That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals
and general weffare of-persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject
parcels; and
3. That the change of zone promotes the orderly development of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones) of the
Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as described in attached Exhibit ,~; and
that Exhibit A, attached hereto, is made part of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after
its passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 2~
day of October, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino thc 16~ day of Octoher, 2000, by thc following vote:
3 q'- .z o
'2'
Ordimme~ lg60 Page 2
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Bumett, Chsn$, ~lsmes, Lowenthal~ Statton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Khnberly Smith /s/John Statton
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
Exhibit H
ORDINANCE NO. 1861
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RI-6 TO
RI-6e FOR APPROXIMATELY 220 PROPERTIES BORDERED BY BOLLINGER
ROAD, TANTAU AVENUE, MILLER AVENUE AND PII~L LANE AS DESCRIBED IN
EXIq~IT "A' AND ~IT
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated the rezoning of property, as described in this
Ordinance; and
WI~AS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance
of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or more Public Hearings on this
matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject change of zone meets the following
requirements:
1) That the change of zone is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino,
and is consistent with the existing uses on the subject lots; and
2) That the properties involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning
designation; and
3) That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichier architectural design while
allowing redevelopment of a site; and
4) That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject
parcels; and
5)That the change of zone promotes the orderly development of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B .is hereby
rezoned to R1-6e, Single Family Residential with a rolnir~lum lot size of 6,000 sq]~nre feet and
Eichler Development Regulations; and thst Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto are m~e
part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its
"~x.. passage.
-\
Ordinance 1861 Page 2
INTRODUCED at n regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
2"~ day of OCtOber, 2000 and ENACTED at n regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 16th day of October 2000, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Burnett, Chang, James, Lowenthal, Statton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Kimberly Smith /s/John Statton
City Clerk Mayor,. City of Cupe~no
1861 Pnl~e 4
3/13/00 City of Cupertino
Rezoning Application No. 3-Z-00
Description o£Properties Proposed for Rezoning
All that certain real property situated in the City of Cupertino, County of ~nta Clara, State of Califomin,
corresponding to the Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) listed below nnd consisting of 6 pnges
(220 properties):
ADDRESS # STREET NAME APN
6003 Bollin§er Road 37538001
6017 Boilinger Road 37538002
6031 BolUnger Road 37538003
6045 Bollinger Road 37538004
6059 Bollinger Road 37538005
6073 Bollinger Road 37538006
6087 Bollinger Road 37538007
6101 Bollinger Road 37538008
61 i 3 Bollinge~ Road 37538009
6125 Bollinger Road 37538010
6137 Bollinger Road 37538011
6149 Bollinger Road 37538012
6148 Willowgrove Lane 3753 g013
6140 Willowgrove Lane 37538014
6128 Willowgrove Lane 37538015
6116 Willowgrove Lane 37538016
61 04 Wiliowgrove Lane 37538017
6092 Willowgr0ve Lane 37538018
6080 Willowgrove Lane 37538019
6072 Willowgrove Lane ' 37538020
6060 Willow~ove Lane 37538021
6052 Willowgrove Lane 37538022
950 Femgrove Drive 37538023
948 Ferngrove Drive 37538024
944 Ferngrove Drive 37538025
938 Femgrove Drive 37538026
932 Ferngrove Drive 37538027
924 Ferngrove Drive 37538028
9 i 8 Femgrove Drive 37538029
910 Femgrove Drive 37538030
904 Femgrove Drive 37538031
898 Ferngrove Drive 37538032
890 Ferngrove Drive 37538033
884 Femgrove Drive 37538034
878 Ferngrove Drive 37538035
870 Femgrove Drive 37538036
862 Ferngrove Drive 37538037
856 Femgrove Drive 37538038
851 Tantau Avenue 37538039
859 Tantau Avenue 37538040
867 Tantau Avenue 37538041
875 Tantau Avenue 37538042
883 Tantan Avenue 37538043
Ordinance 1861 Page 5
ADDRESS # STREET NAME APN
891 Tantan Avenue 37538044
899 Tantnu Avenue 37538045
907 Tantan Avenue 37538046
915 Tantnu Avenue 37538047
923 Tentan Avenue 37538048
93 i Tantau Avenue 37538049
939 Tantau Avenue 37538050
947 Tantan Avenue 37538051
957 Tnntnu Avenue 37538052
965 Tnntnu Avenue 37538053
977 Tantnu Avenue 37538054
985 Tnntau Avenue 37538055
948 Hyde Avenue 37539001
940 Hyde Avenue 37539002
934 Hyde Avenue 37539003
928 Hyde Avenue 37539004
920 Hyde Avenue 37539005
914 Hyde Avenue 37539006
906 Hyde Avenue 37539007
898 Hyde Avenue 37539008
892 Hyde Avenue 37539009
884 Hyde Avenue 37539010
880 Hyde Avenue 37539011
872 Hyde Avenue 37539012
866 Hyde Avenue 37539013
858 Hyde Avenue 37539014
852 Hyde Avenue 37539015
855 B. mokgrove Avenue 37539016
861 Brookgrove Avenue 37539017
869 Brookgrove Avenue .37539018
875 Brookgrove Avenue 37539019
883 Brookgrove Avenue 37539020
889 Brookgrove Avenue 37539021
895 Brookgrove Avenue 37539022
903 Brookgrove Avenue 37539023
909 Brookgrove Lane 37539024
917 Brookgrove Lane 37539025
923 Brookgrove Lene 37539026
93 ] Brookgrove Lane 37539027
937 Brookgrove Lane 37539028
943 Brookgrove Lane 37539029
949 Brookgrove Lane 37539030
948 Brookgrove Lane 37539031
942 Bmokgrove Lnne 37539032
936 Brook, grove Lnne 37539033
930 Brookgrove Lane 37539034
922 Brookgrove Lane 37539035
916 Brookgrove Lane 37539036
908 Brookgrove Lnne 37539037
902 Brookgrove Lane 37539038
894 Brookgrove Lane 37539039
888 Brookgrove Lane 37539040
882 Brookgrove Lane 37539041
874 Brookgrove Lane 37539042
Ordinance 1861 Page
.~ ADDRESS # STREET NAME APN
868 Brookgrove Lnne 37539043
860 Brookgrove Lane 37539044
854 Brookgrove Lane 37539045
853 Brookgrove Lnne 37539046
859 Brookgrove lane 37539047
867 Ferngrove Drive 37539048
873 Ferngrove Drive 37539049
881 Ferngrove Drive 37539050
887 Ferngrove Drive 37539051
893 Ferngrove Drive 37539052
901 Ferngrove Drive 37539053
907 Ferngrove Drive 37539054
915 Ferngrove Drive 37539055
921 Femgrove Drive 37539056
929 Femgrove Drive 37539057
935 Ferngrove Drive 37539058
941 Ferngrove Drive 37539059
947 Femgrove Drive 37539060
6009 Shadygrove Drive 37540001 '
6021 Shadygrove Drive 37540002
6033 Shndygrove Drive 37540003
6045 Shadygrove Drive 37540004
6057 Shndygrove Drive 37540005
6069 Shadygrove Drive 37540006
-- 6081 Shadygrove Drive 37540007
6093 Shadygrove Drive 37540008
6103 Shadygrove Drive 37540009
6115 Shadygrove Drive 375400 ! 0
6127 Shadygrove Drive 3754001 i
6139 Shndygrove Drive .37540012
6149 Shadygrove Drive 37540013
6 i 61 Shndygrove Drive 37540014
6169 Shadygrove Drive ' 37540015
6179 Shadygrove Drive 37540016
6189 Shadygrove Drive 37540017
6199 Shadygrove Drive 37540018
6211 Shndygrove Drive 37540019
6223 Shady~-ove Drive 37540020
6235 Shadygrove'Drive 37540021
6247 Shndygrove Drive 37540022
744 Standhal Lane .37540023
740 Stendhal Lane 37540024
734 5tendhal Lane 37540025
'\. 728 Stendlml Lane 37540026
720 5tendhnl Lane 37540027
714 Stendhal Lane 37540028
706 Stendhal Lane 37540029
698 Ste~dhal Lane 37540030
686 Stendhal Lane 37540031
672 Stendhal Lane 37540032
'-- 658 5tendhal Lane 37540033
644 Stendhal Lane 37540034
630 Stendhal Lane 37540035
616 Stendhal Lane 37540036
3 7
I
1861 Pnge 7
ADDRESS # STREET NAME APN
602 Stendhai Lane 37540037
851 Hyde Avenue 37541001
859 Hyde Avenue 37541002
867 Hyde Avenue 37541003
873 Hyde Avenue 37541004
891 Hyde Avenue 37541005
850 Stendhal Lane 37541018
842 Stendhal Lane 37541019
830 Stendhal Lane 37541020
822. $tendhal Lane 37541021
810 Stendhal Lane 37541022
6224 Shadygrove Drive 37541023
6212 Shadygrove Drive 37541024
6263 Shadygrove Court 37541025
6275 Shndygrove Court 37541026
6283 Shadygrove Court 37541027
6295 Shndygrove Court 37541028
6298 Shadygrove Court 37541029
6288 Shady~-ove Court 37541030
6276 Shndygrove Court 37541031
6264 Shndygrove Court 37541032
6188 Shadygrove Drive 37541033
6178 Shadygrove Drive 37541034
846 Miller Avenue 37542001
834 Miller Avenue 37542002
822 Miller Avenue 37542003
812 Miller Avenue 37542004
804 Miller Avenue 37542005
792 Miller Avenue 37542006
774 Miller Avenue 37542007
754 Miller Avenue 37542008
736 Miller Avenue 37542009
716 Miller Avenue 37542010
698 Miller Avenue 37542011
678 Miller Avenue 37542012
660 Miller Avenue 37542013
642 Miller Avenue 37542014
622 Miller Avenue 37542015
604 Miller Avenue 37542016
605 Phil Court 37542017
619 Phil Court ° 37542018
633 Phil Court 37542019
· 649 Phil Court 37542020
~ 646 Phil Court 37542021
632 Phil Court 37542022
620 Phil Court 37542023
~.,
604 Phil Court 37542024
603 Stendhnl Lene 37542026
617 Stendhal Lane 37542027
631 Stendhal Lane 37542028
645 Stendhal Lane 37542029
709 Stendhal Lane 37542030
721 Stendhal Lane 37542031
729 Stendhal Lane 37542032
Ordinance 1861 P~c 8
733 Stendhnl Lane 37542033
- 739 Stendhal Lane 37542034
743 Stendhnl Lane 37542035
747 Stendhal Lane 37542036
751 Stendlud Lane 37542037
753 Stendhal Lane 37542038
765 Stendhal Lane 37542039
777 Stendhal Lane 37542040
789 Stendhal Lane 37542041
799 Stendhal Lane 37542042
809 Stendl'utl Lane 37542043
821 Stendhal Lane 37542044
829 Stendhai Lane 37542045
841 Stendhal Lane 37542046
849 Stendlud Lane 37542047
CITY OF
CUPEI INO
Agenda No. .~% Agenda Date: Jannary 1'6, 2001
SUBJECT
Application: 2-TM-00, 19-EA-00
Applicant: Brian Kelly, Jr.
Property Owner: Ms. G-race Still Wallin and Ms. Pauline G. Gerst
Property Location: 7825 and 7851 Orion Lane
Application Summary: Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8
single family parcels with an average lot size of 7,800 sq. fL in an Rl-6 zoning district
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends:
1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration 19-EA-00
2) Approval of 2-TM-00 according to Plaoning Commission Resolution 6068
General Plan: Residential Low Density 1-5 d.u./gross acre
Zoning: R1-6 ;'
Project Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration recommended.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held two meetings on this application, largely in order to
provide time for a neighborhood meeting with the applicant, interested neighbors and
staff. The property raises sensitive neighborhood issues due to traffic, the intersection
configuration and the natural qualities of the site, particularly Regnart Creek.
DISCUSSION:
Site Development:
The applicant proposes eight parcels and a new cul-de-sac located south of Regnart Creek.
The area north of the cul-de-sac and lot 8 will be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. The lot sizes range fxom 6,750 to 9,244. Thc sizes of surrounding lots to the north
and south are in the low-to-mid 6,000 sq. fi. range.
The four lots facing Orion Lane will have access on Orion Lane. Street dedication is
required on this frontage. The remaining four lots will have access offthe new cul-de-sac,
Wallin Court.
Prinled on Recycled Paper *-~ '~ -- /
Retaining walls are proposed that will direct drainage of the front lots to Orion Lane. The
rear lots will drain to the new cul-de-sac and to Regnart Creek. The final drainage system to
Regnart Creek will be approved by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Access:
Access to lots 5 - 8 is from a new cul-de-sac, Wallin Court, located at the intersection of
Orion Lane and Milky Way. This location is preferred by the Planning Commission, staff
and the applicant because cars exit toward an intersection, rather than toward existing
residences. Also it provides a buffer between the proposed lots and the creek, which is
preferred because the creek is open to the public and not closed offby property line fences.
Neighbors had various opinions about the cul-de-sac location based on how they perceived
they would be affected, as evidenced by the enclosed petitions.
The final intersection improvements will be reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee, with
a recommendation to the City Council (see Condition 13). The improvements reviewed will
· be stop signs and possible modifications for the intersection design; neighbors will be
infoL'l~ed of the meetings so that they can provide their comments.
Tree Protection:
All oak trees and one walnut tree in the creek area will be preserved.. Oaks trees on the north
side of the creek will be evaluated for any special protection measures that might be needed.
One oak on lot 1 and another on lot 4 are proposed for relocation. A large cedar adjacent to
lot 5 will be protected. Fruit trees and an oak tree in the Orion Lane right-of-way will be
removed. The oak tree will be replaced on a lot facing Orion Lane with a 48" oak.
Regnart Creek:
The property encompasses li. egnsrt Creek. This area, as shown on the tentative map, will be
dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It will be extended to Orogrande Place,
northeast of this project (see Exhibit A)i Erosion repairs will be required by the Santa Clam
Valley Water District. Construction of a soldier pile wall is shown on the plan, and
additional measures, such as fill and rip rap, will be required. Erosion control measures will
include any properties to the north that have been adversely affected. This work will be
approved by the Water District.
Adjacent property owners to the north expressed concerns about the extent of the repairs.
The Water District states that they are generally satisfied with the repairs proposed, but they
will approve the final plan prior to recordation of the final map (see Condition 3).
A trail will be built south of the creek, in lieu of a sidewalk on the north side of the cul-de-
sac. The trail is.shown conceptually on the tentative map. The developer will construct the
trail; the City will secure an easement to include the hail, and will be responsible ibr
maintenance and liability. A joint use agreement between the City and the Water District
will determine the exact design of the trail and fence. A condition is recommended that
requires the final design to be approved prior to recordation of the final map (Condition 22).
Neighborhood Meeting:
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 30, 2000. Staff from the Planning and
Public Works Department was present, as was the applicant. Approximately 1 $ residents
attended. Notes from the meeting are found in Exhibit B.
Enclosures:
Planning Con~rnlssion Resolution 6061i
Exhibit A: Trail connection to Orogrande
Exhibit B: Neighborhood meeting notes
Exhibit C: Staff'Reports and Minutes, November 13, December 11 2000
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Lettm from residents
Plan set
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Suff~% d~. ' Approved~.../by:
Stede Piasecld Dave Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
O:planning/pdreport/cc2tm00
02-TM-O0
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION 6068
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS (3.01
ACRES) INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 7,800
SQUARE FEET IN AN RI-6 ZONING DISTRICT AT 7825 & 7851 ORION LANE
SECTION I: FINDINGS:
WHEREAS, the plsnnlnS 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 Commission has held at least one
public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof 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 arc 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 asrflage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or
their habitat.
e) That the design of the subdivision or thc type of improvements associated therewith are not
I'~kely to cause serious public health pwblems.
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 02-TM-00 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and
That the subeonclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concernln~ Application 01-TM-00, as set forth in the
Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
3s
Resolution 6068 02-TM-00 De, aber 11, 2000
Page -2-
SECTION II: PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 02~TM-00 (22-EA-00)
Applicant: Kelly Gordon Development'Corpomtion
Location: 7825 & 7851 Orion Lane
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the tentative map dated October 5, 2000, except as may be amended by
conditions in this resoltuion.
2. TREE PROTECTION
Trees shall be protected or relocated as shown on the'tentative map. The 20" cedar adjacent to lot 5
shall be protected, and the final map shall be modified to realign the sidewalk to go around the tree.
Any specimen oak trees not shown in the Regnart Creek area shall also be protected. An
internationally certified arborist shall provide an evaluation of the oak trees on the north side of the
bank and any special protection needed for the exposed roots, as~.well as a sci~dule for
implementation of any special protection measures, if needed, prior to recordation of the final map.
Trees shall be protected during demolition and construction with chain-link fencing around the
-. drip-line. The 14" oak removed/n the new right-of-way shall be replaced along the Orion Lane
frontage with a 48" oak tree. A bond in the amount of $20,000 shall be submitted to ensure tree
protection. The bond may be released following receipt of~ report by an internationally certified
arborist that the trees have been adequately protected during development and are expected to
survive.
3. CREEK RESTORATION
The creek restoration plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clam Valley Water District
prior to recordation of the final map.
4. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
Existing structures shall be demolished prior to recordation of the final map.
5. RETAINING WALL MATERIAL
The retai~ing wall material shall be split-face block.
6. DISPOSAL OF PAINT CANS AND CHEMICALS
Paint cans and chemicals shall be disposed of in accordance with the recommendation of the Site
Assessment Report (Advance Soil TechnologY, Inc.) dated September 2000.
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 oftbe amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby
further notified that the 90-day approval per/od in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If
Resolution 6068 02-TM-00 De, aber 11, 2000
Page -3-
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. SFIF~RII~F'S REVIEW
The developer shall incorporate any sheriff's recommendations regarding security and safety
issues related to the trail and creek corridor.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
9. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City
Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
10. 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.
11. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be in.gtalled and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures
shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other fom~s 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 HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
13. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The Developer shall install a stop sign, stop line and markings on Wallin Court. The Traffic
Safety Committee shall consider installing additional stop signs at Milky Way and Orion Lane,
and shall make a recommendation to the City Council. The Developer shall pay for any Wallin
Court, Milky Way and Orion Lane intersection or private/frontage improvements, including any
modifications required to create a "T' intersection for safety reasons, as determined by the
Director of Public Works.
14. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted withirt the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by
the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
15. GRADING
Csrading shall be as approved and required by thc City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08
of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please
contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
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 the City Engineer deems storm
drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site
Resolution 6068 02-TM-00 De, abet 1 I, 2000
Page 4-
storm drainage facilities connected to the City s/omi drainage system. If City storm drains are
not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
No drainage discharge shall flow over land potentially causing bank erosion along Regnart Creek.
The Director of Public Works and the Santa Clara Valley Water District must approve the final
drainage design.
17. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No.
331 and other related O~tlnences 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 pwvisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City'Engineer.
18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, stosssi
drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be
executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
_ Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off~Site Improvement Cost or $1,975.00
minimum
b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Impwvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00
d. Store, Drainage Fee: $1,290/ACRE
e. Power Cost: $ 75 per street light
f. Map Checking Fees: $ 504.00
g. Park Fees: $15,750.00 per lot minus credit for 2 existing
residences
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b.' Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
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 iss~m,ce of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees
changed at that t/me will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. 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 WATERLINES
l~solufion 5058 02-TM-00 De, aber 11, 2000
Page
The developer shall dedicat~ to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City
Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Works 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. BIVlP plans shall be included in your grading
and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
22. WALKWAY/PATHWAY
The developer shall design and construct a walkway/pathway that is no less than 4' and no
greater than 8' in width from the northerly portion of the property on Orion Lane. In addition,
this walkway/pathway shall be constructed generally along the alignment of Regnart Creek to
join with the Santa Clara Valley Water District property at Orogrande Place, and shall include
fencing for safety purposes. This final design must be completed and approved prior tO the
recordation of the final map. Construction must be completed at the same time as the street
improvements. Both design and con,traction shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
CITY ENGI]qEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the eagin~ering and surveying conditions specificd in Section IV. of this
Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
/s/ Ralph Quails
Ralph Quails, City Engineer
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11~ day of December, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, DOyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: coMMIssIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piaseeki /s/ Andrea Harris
Steve Piasecki Andrea Harris, Chairperson
Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission
g:\planning\pdreport/res/2tm00
EXI-HBIT B
Neighborhood meeting
The Pl~mniug Commission requested that the applicant meet with interested neighbors to
discuss their concerns. A meeting was held on November 30, which was attended by
staff and approximately 15 residents. The following issues were discussed:
Traffic/Road: Ray Chong, Cupertino's traffic engineer, said that the Wallin Court radius
could be reduced to improve the turning movement at the intersection and that an all way .
stop could be created. He suggested that the Traffic Safety Committee review the
intersection and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission; the neighbors
could attend the Traffic Safety Committee meeting. He said that other locations for the
cul-de-sac are feasibile, such as in the center or on the east side of the property. Ciddy
Wordell of the Planning Staff stated that the proposed cul-de-sac location is preferred
because it ali~-------~s the road next to the creek and trail, providing open access rather than
fenced lots. The developer stated that the proposed road is preferred because headlights
come out into the street rather than toward existing properties, and the front lots on Orion
Lane have the same configuration as the existing lots, i.e., their fronts, not sides, face
Orion Lane. Some residents preferred the proposed cul-de-sac location, while others
preferred a change, depending on how they were affected by each option.
Regnart Creek: More detailed erosion control plans were discussed. One resident said
these plans were not supported by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Staff said that
the District would review them prior to the Plmanirtg Commission and would convey their
position to staff. The developer said that the restoration plan's goal is to eliminate the
erosion problem with the least amount of negative impact on the creek. A concern was
expressed about the need to further protect an oak with'exposed roots due to erosion.
Regarding the proposed trail, some residents questioned why it was needed, and a
concern was expressed about it becoming a kids' hangout area. Others liked the trail.
Orchard and wildlife protection: A resident stated that he liked retaining some of the
apricot orchard and providing deer habitat. One resident felt the deer were a nuisance.
New homes: Residents asked the developer what they were planning to build, and Mr.
Kelly said that single story homes with basements were planned on Orion Lane.
(3:plnnins/pdrepo~p~po2UnO02
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF CUPERTINO, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application No.: 2-TM-00 Agenda Date: December 11, 2000
Applicant: Brian Kelly, Jr.
Property Owner: Ms. Grace Still Wallin and Ms. Pauline G. Gcrst
property Location: 7825 and 7851 Orion Lane
Application Summary: Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8 single
family parcels with an average lot size of 7,800 sq. ft. in an Rl-6 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Environmental Recommendation: Negative Declaration
Recommendation of approval to the City Council
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission discussed this application at its November 13 meeting and
continued it to this meeting to address several irons, including holding a neighborhood
meeting, as discussed below. The neighborhood meeting notes are found in Exhibit C.
DIsCussION:
Traffic/road:
A focus of much of thc discussion at the November 13 Commission meeting was traffic
and the road location. Staff supports the Wallin Court location as proposed. From both
the City's and the Santa Clara Valley Water District's poitit of view, it is preferable to
locate the new street along the creek because it provides open space for the proposed
trail. Other configurations ~esult in residential fences along the trail's edge. As reported
in the neighborhood meeting section below, the intersection of Wallin Court with Milky
Way and Orion Lane can be improved with a smaller comer radius (five feet) and the
addition of stop sips, The Wallin Court intersection has been redesigned; the enclosed
plan reflects the cbanse. A decision regarding the stop signs will be made by staff in
consultation with the Traffic Safety Cowmlttee, with a recommendation to the City
Council. Residents within 300' of the intersection will be notified of the Traffic Safety
Committee meeting. A condition of approval describes this process.
Another minor change to the tentative map is the addition of a sidewalk on the west
property line that connects thc trail to thc street.
Creek restoration:
· The Planning Commission asked that thc creek restoration plan be reviewed by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District prior to this meeting date. Staff for the Water District
reviewed the applicant's plan, and confirm that it is acceptable to them.
At the last meeting, Planning staff suggested additional wording be included in thc
conditions of approval to require formal approval of thc plan by thc Water District prior
to recordation of the final map. This wording is included in the attached resolution.
Retaining wall material:
The retaining wall nmterial is split-face block (concrete). An example of the material is
shown in Exhibit A. A condition of approval requires that the retaining wall be made of
Initial Study:
The Commission requested that the Initial Study be revised to reflect additional impacts
that were identified. The revised Initial Study added two impacts (not significant): C6)
locating the project near a planned trail and E3) changing the drainage pattern.
Trees:
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, thc applicant requested that the 14" oak tree
located in the new right-of-way shown to be relocated, be replaced instead. The tree has
poor structure, making it less desirable to relocate. Staff agrees that a replacement tree
would be better, and included a condition for a 48" oak replacement tree.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A- Example ofretsinlng wall material
Exhibit B - Trail link to Owgrande Place
Exhibit C - Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Letters from Cupertino residents
pJannlng Commission Staff Report, November 11, 2000
Initial Study (2)
Tentative Map
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of CornmuniV.! Developme~
G:plannin~/pdmporl/p~pc2tm002
CITY OF CUPERTINO, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 9~014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application No.: 2-TM-00 Agenda Date: November 13, 2000
Applicant: Brian I~lly, Jr..
Property Owner:. Ms. Grace Still Wallin and Ms. Pauline (}. (}erst
Property Location: 7825 and 7851 Orion Lane
Application Summary: Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8 single
family parcels with an average lot size of 7,800 sq. it. in an R1-6 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Environmental Recommendation: Negative Deelaration
ReeornmenrJstion of approval to the City Council.
General Plan: Residential Low Density 1-5 d.u./gross acre
Zoning: R1-6
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment:. Negative declaration
DISCUSSION:
Site Description:
The site currently has two residences t~st have a~cess from Orion Lane. Surrounding uses
are Regnart Creek and single ~nmily residential to the north, single family residential to the
west and south and a church to the easL
The applicant proposes eight parcels and a new cul-de-sac located south of Regnart Creek.
The area north of thc cul-de-sac and lot g will be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. The lot sizes range from 6,750 to 9,2a?.. The sizes of surrounding lots to the north
and south are in the low-to-mid 6,000 sq. ft. range.
The four lots facing Orion Lane will have access on Orion Lane. Street dedication is
required on thin frontage. The remaittin__g four lots will have access offthe new cul-de-sac,
Wallin Court.
Site Development:
Retaining walls are proposed to achieve the desired drainage. A 25" high wall is proposed at
the rear of lots 1-4 so that drainnge will. flow to thc Orion Lane storm drain system. A 2 foot
high wall is proposed on the east property line to direct drninagc from the rear lots to Regnart
Creek and the new cul-de-sac, and a 2 foot wall separates lots 5 and 6. Historically, staff
supports retaining.walls up to 2 feet; higher than that is undesirable because increased pad
heights result in increased building heights. Therefore, stnff supports the walls ns proposed.
Santa Clara County Water District does not support the bubble box shown on lot 8 because it
could create erosion problem-~. A condition of approval requires that the Water District
approve final drainage desi?; so there is the opporWnlty to change the bubble box to an
ouffall similar to the one upstream.
The lot sizes and configuration are adequate to support typical single family development.
The applicant intends to build the houses and indict, tes that their plans include detached
garages to the rear on lots 6, 7 and 8, which will address ~st~'concems about garages
dominating the streetscape.
Tree P~otection:
Bight oak trees and one walnut tree in the creek area will be preserved. One oak tree in the
street dedication area for Orion Lane, one oak on lot 1 and another on lot 4 are proposed for
relocation. A large cedar adjacent to lot 5 is proposed for removal due to installation of the
landscape strip and sidewalk. Staff'prefers that the sidewalk be jogged to save the cedar. A
condition of approval requires that the tentative .map be modified to accommodate the cedar.
Re,hart Creek:
The property encompasses Regnart Creek.. This area, as shown on the tentative map, will be
dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It will be extended to Oro~rande Place,
northeast of this project Brosion repairs will be required by the Santa Clam Valley Water
District. Co~h,,ction ora soldier pile wall is shown on the pla~,, and additional measures,
such as fill and rip rap, will be required. Erosion control measures will include any
properties to the north that have been adversely affec~d. This work will be approved by the
Water District.
A trail will be built south oftbe creek, in lieu ofa sidewaJk on the north side of thc cul-de-
sac. The trail is shown conceptually on the tentative map. The developer will construct the
trail; the City will'secure a~ cuscmcnt to include the trail, and will be responsible for
maintenance and liability. A joint usc agreement between thc City end the Water District
will d~.ermine thc exact design of the trail and fence. A condition is recommended tha!
requires thc final dasign to be approved prior to reco~on of the final map.
Soil Test:
A soil test was performed on the property. Thc only recommendation from thc consultant is
that existing paint csn.~ and chemicals stored on-site be manifested and disposed of in
accordance with requirements set forth by the reguiatory agencies. A condition incorporates
this recommendation.
Enclosures:
~odal Resolution
Initial Study
Recommendation of Ellvironmental Review Cowmittee
Lev. er from Alan Stocklmeir and Barry Spieler (11/9/00)
Plan set
Submitted by: Ciddy Won/ell, City Planner
Appwved by: Steve Piasccld, Director of Commtmlty D~velopnlen~,~
G:plannin~#dreport/pdpei~00
Pirating Comminion Mi~um !o December I I. 2000
and the heading without 'sta~ and it should say ... "be approved by the Planning
subsequent to review by the DRC".
Com. Doyle the parking requirements. There were four actions taken in an
attempt to the impacts: Increased 5 parki_qg spaees in a previous meeting; reduced
the size which resulted in 5 less required parking spaces; there is a shared ·
parking that will handle the overflow so that there is additional info..ation
and staff has back with a history Of other s'unilar developments that are currcntly 2
parking which has shown to be somewhat excessive. If the parking is not
successful, thcre fallback mechanism, with some assurances from the people there to
be able to do that.
MOTION: Com. moved to approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition No. $
SECOND: com.
VOTE: Passed $-0-0
Chair Harris noted that the include Application No. 10-EXC-00 in the
heading
MOTION: Com. :to approve Application 10-EXC-00
SECOND: Com. Stevens
- VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
MOTION: Com. approve Application 14-U-00 with Condition
No. 5 and IO-EXC-O0
SECOND: Com. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
The application will be fozwarded January 16, 2001.
5. Application Nos.:
Applicant: Kelly
Locntion: 7825 & 7851 Orio~
Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 into 8 single family parcels with an
average lot of 7,800 square feet
Continued. from meeting of November 13, 2000
Tentative City Council Date: January 16, 2001
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a tentative map to.
· .~ subdivide two parcels into 8 single family parcels on Orion Lane. The application was . ,
presented at the November 13, 2000 meeting where residents expressed concerns over the
Planning Commission Minutes t I December I I. 2000
proposal. The item was continued to address traffic and mad location, creek restoration,
and an existing 14 inch oak tree, and to allow for a neighborhood meeting regarding thc
application. Staff recommends approval of the application; and thc item is scheduled ibr
City Council presentation on January 16, 2001. Chair Harris noted that a petition signed
by 15 people against the neighborhood alternative and for the original plans submitted by
the developer.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, referred to the vicinity map and illustrated the
modifications made, including the redesign, of the entrance of Wallin Court onto thc
existin~ cul de sac bulb; also the trail becomes a sidewalk and extends all the way out to
the cul de sac. She referred to thc issues that were addressed since thc last meeting:. Most
of the issues were discussed at the neighborhood meeting.
Traffic Issue: The primary issue was trnffic and road configuration. The residents had
various points of view on what their preferred option was and they are included in thc staff
report. One of the items from the discussion was that the traffic safety committee
normally does review the possibility of adding stop signs; therefore there, is a condition of
approval for that issne to be discussed by them, and thc neighbors will be invited to attend.
They will discuss the possibility of adding a three way stop or some other possible
configuration to mike that intersection safer. Ms. Wordell stated that another proposed
change was that the existing cul de sac could be changed into more of a regular T
intersection; by paring down the bulb more, which would require wording change for
Condition 12, Page 5-5, to make it Intersection Improvements, to include that staff would
be able to possibly modify the intersection to create a T hltersection for safety reasons; and
the second part of .the condition to include that staff would be looking into the possibility
of stop signs with.the Waffic safety committee. Staff does prefer this configuration with
some of the slight modifications. She said that staff proposed it be done at staff level and
the property owners who might be affected by the direct changes would be contacted prior
to making minor amendments..
Issue of creek restoration: MS. Wordell said that the Planning Commission asked that the
water district have a chance to review their improvement plans and restoration plans prior
to this meeting so that staff would know their stand since there was some concern from
adjacent property'owners. She reported that the water district was supportive of the creek
restoration plan as presented to them by the developer, however, since that time becnuse of
concerns by the neighbors, the water disUlct did have concerns about one of the arens
across from the creek on the north side. There were some improvements proposed here
and it was not clear cut that what vms proposed really was going to be acceptable. Ms.
Wordell said that in any case, a condition of approval has been added to the resolution
which says that all the creek restoration plans must be approved by the water district prior
to final recordation of the rasp, so rather than the city being in the middle or second guess
what the water di--t~lct is or is not going to require in the way of creek improvements, it'
will be their decision and'they must make tlmt. prior to recordntion of the final map.
Plnnn~ng Co~mh$io~ Minutes 12 December I I, 2000
Is,ue of retaining wall: The Pl--n;-g Commission requested that the retaining wall
· -- material be specified; the sample has been provided and a condition states what the
material will be.
Initial Study: There was a request to look at it again to be certain that ail the
enviromnental impacts were addressed. There were two areas which needed further
modification. One was that the project was near a proposed trail and secondly that it did
change the drainage pattern. None of those impacts were found to bc significant.
Trees: The applicant had asked staff to look at a tree in front that they had shown to bc
saved and staff recommended retention and planted in another location. Ms. Wordcll said
that it was not a good structure in terms of replanting, and should be replaced with
something else. A condition h,~ been added that says that the tree can be removed and
replaced with a 48 inch 'box tree somewhere else along the frontage of the property.
Relative to the trees, staff conducted a site visit and recommends adding a condition
relative to having the ~'es in the creek on the north side, evaluated to see if something
more needs to be done .for those. Presently the condition states that the trees will be
protected; however, staff is recommcpding that language be added specifically regarding
the ~'ees with exposed roots potentially being a hazard or if they need to go. She said that
it would be a water district j~ction; however, staffwould like thc developer's arborist
specifically look at the trees prior to recordation of the map to sec if something special
needs to be done. She noted that the two new conditions would be added to Condition No.
.... 2 relative to trees .with exposed roots in the creek, and Condition No. 12, relative to the
intersection improvements. Responding to a concern from Com. Doyle, Ms. Wordell said
that a condition of approval, could be added relative to parking restriction at night related
to security conceras.
Chair Harris asked staff to create the language for Item 2, and that it have a conclusion,
not that it just be review, but that it be reviewed and what the result would be that they are
seeking from thc review.
Ms. Wordell read a fax from the water di-~t~ict stating that conceptually thc creekbank
stabilization measures proposed are acceptable to the water district. Adjustments will
likely be needed as final construction drawings are prepared. She read the contents of the
fax outlining the water district's request to review various documents.
Mr. Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development, distributed a drawing showing how 'the
street relates to Orion and Milky Way with the modifications made, making the
intersection more predominant and for easier access. He reported on the neighborhood
meeting and said that the modified design was based on the concerns voiced by the
neighbors. Stop signs have also l~cn discussed and are open for further discussion. He
said that they have had a number of conve~.~,~tions with Sue Tippets at the water district
and .at this point, she has thc finnl package in hand and is on board with the creek
· - improvements. -,
Pl~niag C,o~mi.,~o~ Minutm 13 December I I. 2000
Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Barry Spieler, 1087 November Drive, said that he had problems with his fence and
part of the ha~k yard tithing in due to the erosion caused by the creek. He said that he felt
at the isst meeting he did not feel that the ~n?imde of the pmblen~.'..was understood, and
he provided photos wlative to his concerns. He said he was in favor of the tentative map,
but would like his concerns addressed, such as moving his fence back on his property line
and the section of the back yard repaired. H'e said that he has talked to Mr. Kelly Sr., nnd
he indicated that he would talk to his soil expert. Mr. Spieler noted that ten years ago he
had 10 f~t of land on the crt~.kside on the other side of the fence and it has gone.
Relative to mitigation of the i~e tiu-ough th= project, Ms. Wordeil explained that the
water district previously agreed at tho time the sulxlivision was put in. that they would
require th~ ~osion control m~u'es et ,h,,t time. There wes a history of a lawsuit and the
water district said they would require ti,;, temediation, but that it was not specified. Sbe
said that the remediation is being proposed through this tentative map. the dedication is
requited through the tentnti__'ve map as well as the condition that the improvement plan or
erosion plan bas to he approved prior to ,,,A? recordation, hence it is getting locked in to
the subdivision. The exact plnn' will he up to the water district. Ms, Wordell said that it
was in the erosion plan to deal with this particular property, but'. the property owner
nffected does not feel it is what he would like to see.
Mr. Alan StoCklmeir, co-owner of 1087 November Drive, said that it was their ..-
understanding with the water district that a remediation;would he accomplished on the
property line at the time the subdivision was done and it would need to be done before
they accepted the dedication. He said that the water clistri~t would require remedintion of.
the bank area before they nocept any dedication from-any developer. He stated that the
water di~tiict was putting a retaining wall in across the ereek frOm his residence, that will
enable the bank to be moved out six feel and have a slope down to the creek, because they
need the support for the roadway being put in. He said he could utilize something similar
where the water di.nlgiot does the improvements on their side of the property, create a
situation where the fence ran he put back in a straight line along with the other neighbors
and move the repa!~ out a small distance. He said it appears that they have addressed a
lot of the problems there other tiara the portion of the property, 2 x 15 feel that was lost
on the top, and they wanted to restore their fenoe line so that it is straight with the fence
line with all the other neighbors in the area. He asked that the developer work with the
homeowuers and perh,~.,~ make some a~.~mmodation.4 relntlve tO fining the problem, and
if they can meet his concerns about getting the fence back, k would he fine. He snid he
was not concerned with what happens on the other side of the fence as long as it meets the
Ms. Wordell distributed a drawing of the proposed distriot plans.
Mr. Piaseoki clarified that Condition No. 3 requires that a ercek restoration plan he
prepamt and ~ the water cliat,i~t approve it. Notl~ in ~ condition precludes nil the ;'
Plmm~ng Commbsion Idinum ~4 December I I. 2OOO
affected parties coming togcther and having a discussion, and staff would encourage it to
OCCUr.
Mr. Leu Gilper, engineering geologist, said that he prepared the documents distributed
and the creek restoration program. He said that relative to creek restoration end creek
remcdiation ill the last six to nine months, a lot of the creek bank restoration projects have
come into the limelight in thc Bay Area because people want to preserve the riparian
corridors, plants and res'tom some of the creeks to their original habitat. He said in
undemking this project, they tried to reduce the impact on the natural environment to
stabilize the banks and that is both good for the people owning the property adjoining it as
well as the creeks; it reduces the sediment input, reduces the clari~y of the water, and helps
the water as well as stabili~ng the banks for the Uees. Relative to the repair, they tried to
stabilize the toe 'of the creekbanks for the 2S and 100 year floods so it will reduce the
undermining, it will protect the bnnks and the pwperty of the people who live along it. Fie
reviewed the mitigation measures to be taken. In order to replace the two feet so the fence
can be straight, the repair would have to encroach further into the creek.' What ps shown is
their ideal aii~me~t to allow the creek to go back to its natural course. There is a
characteristic enrvatum to the creek that got pushed off into the property by a tree. He said
he felt they took a conservative approach and made a l~,,uanent repair on this one part of
the project that is encroaching offsite at the present time. He answered q~iestions about the
materials used in Creek restoration and mitigation.
Mr. Russell Blaiack, 10gl Milky Way, said that he felt the plan had many good features,
but one bad feature, the siting of Wallin Court, as it creates a traffic bn~rd and violates
the subdivision street design. He said a cul de sac off a cul de Sac is referred to a
knucklshead by traffic engineers and with good re~tson. He presented a signed petition
from two-thirds of the homeowners on the affected cul de sac, objecting to the siting of
Wallin Court as it stands becaus~ it is unsafe and unsightly. He urged good sense and
good planning lines to prevail and that the Planning Commission listen to and read the
report of the city's traffic engineer..
Mr. Bruce Eckstcin, 1091 November Drive, dia'ulbuted photos of the other ama on the
north side being addressed. He said the proposed fixes were for five foot high rip rap rock
along the bottom edge, with a vertical distence between 15 and 17 feet, and also undercut.
He said he did not feel itwas sufficient since in the 13 years he resided them, he has scm
the water come up higher than five feet. He showed a photo of a three foot diameter oak
tree with exposed roots. He said he did not know what the city's jurisdiction was with
respect to the water di_~-ict, end who takes care of the trees once someone gains control of
the property. Ms.. Wordell said that staff was suggesting they receive a recommendation
from an arborist of what needs to be done, with a schedule of what needs to be done.
Relative to the safety issue, Ms. Wordoll said that there were steep banks along thc
frontage and as it becomes aceessible to the public, the city wants fencing on the city side,
not accessible from the other side. The trail is on the south side and staff would like to · ..
have some fencing and will work with thc water district on a compromise relative to
Planning Commission Minutes 15 December I I, 2000
fencing because the water district does not want the creek walled off from pedestrians.
She rend the language from Condition 21 relative to the issue ~nd indicated that wording
could be added statin~ that the city will work with the water district regarding snfcty
protection fencing.
Mr. Dave Cracknell, 7811] Orion Lane, said that he wes speaking on behalf of the petition
sent to the city earlier, representing the se~es of neighbors that will be impacted if there is
any change in the layout to. Wallin Court, since a street would exit directly onto Orion
Lane. He said one of the main issues would be the lights from cars exiting out of'Wallin
Court shining directly into the bedrooms of the neighbors affected by the road coming out.
He said the intersection has been reviewed by the traffic department and has l~cca viewed
ns safe.
Mr. Pat Fhvin, 7834 Orion Lane, said that the residents of Orion Lane are the people most
directly nfl'ected. He said the .traffic lights will shine on the properties, whereas if it is
coming out whe~ the planner illustrated, the headlights will shine on Milky WaY. Another
development which includes Orion Place, goes in and makes the same type of diagram and
that also comes out onto Derbyshire Place so the traffic lights from those people shine
right up Derbyshire, they do not shine directly onto any houses.
Cbnlr Haz~is questioned if the T intersection would require a taking of properties not part
of the discussion, 41, 42, 1, at the bulb. Ms. Wordell said that it would involve
abandoning some of the right-of-way to square things off. Chair Harris said that it would
then cost the people in some fashion, and if the~ w~, a cost involved, it should be
discussed at a public hea~ing where they could speak on the issue. Mr. Pinsecki noted that
Condition 12 states that the developer shull pay for any Wallin Court, Milky Way, Orion
Lane intersection improvements. Staff intended that if the traffic engineer feels that T-ing
the intersection off and abandoning some fight-of-way makes sense, the property owners
will be contacted. He said staff was concerned about leaving the knuckle of an old cul de
sac a~ a leftover one which should be straightened out.
Ms. Wordell read the lang-n,oe for Condition 2: "An internationally certified arborist shall
provide an evaluation of the oak trees on the north side of the bank and any special
protection needed for the exposed roots ns well ns a schedule for implementation of any
special protection measures if needed prior to recordation of the final map."
Condition 12: The last sentence of Condition 12 will state that the developer'will have to
pay for the intersection or private or frontage improvements, including any modifications
occurring to equate a T intersection for safety reasons ns determined by the Director of
Public Works. Ms. Wordell said that it was the intent to include private property.
Condition 21: Insert in 4~ line, before "Thi.~ finnl design ..." "The city will work with the
water district zegnrcling safety feneing."
Plannin~ ~mnmission Minutes 16 December I I. 2000
Relative to thc narrow appearan~ of Wallin Court, Mr. Chong said that with proposed
intersection modification and frontage improvements, staff will be looking at more of a
traditional T-intersection, which would create the appearance of a normal intersection.
Mr. Piasecki said that it was considered a fi'ontage mad and parking was permitted on one
side only. Ms. Wordell said that the fire depamnent bs_d reviewed the street and
determined it safe. She said that a condition could be added that the sheriff will review the
tentative map for security and safety issues prior to pseordation.
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 22-EA-00
SECOND: Com. Kwok
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 02-TM-00 with modifications to
Condition 2, 12, 21 and the addition the security notation as appropriate.
SECOND: Com. Kwok
VOTE: Passed .5-0-0
Ms. Wordell noted flu~t the application will be present~! to the City Council on January
15, 2001.
Chair Harris declared from 9:10 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.
6. Application Nos.: 08-EXC-00, I?-EA-00
Applicant: Daryl Fazekas
Location: Re,ntt Road
Hillside exception to conslruct 6,500 sq-nre foot residence on a prominent ridgeliue and
on slopes greater than 30% r an exception to the required second story offset.
Planning Commission decision'unless appealed
Staff presentation: The video reviewed the application for a hillside
exception to conswact a 6,500 home on a pwminent fidgeline and on slopes
greater than 30% and for an to the required second s~ory offset. Staff
recommends appwval of the application.
Ms. Wordell answered questions about visibility of the residence, the proposed
landscaping, and house color and materials, reviewed the information in the staff.
report relative to the two landslides on the and the mitigation for both; one to be
re-engineered with fill and the other will
Cows. Doyle and Kwok expressed concern about e a hillside exception to allow a
home to be built on an existing slide area. Hnn'ls said that she felt the
environmental document should be am~led to that there is a sil,mificant but
mitigated issue, rather than indicate that it was not which would later hold the · -.
city liable for not having considered it as the is approved. She said she
Planning Commltqion Minutes 8 November 13, 2000
Chair Harris announced that because of the time constraints, Items 6 and 8 would be continued.
6. ation Nos.: 01-EXC-00, 03-EA-00
Chung Yeh
11837 Upland Way
Hillside to build a 4,533 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes
greater than 30%.
Continued from ; of October 23, 2000
Planning Commissio~ appealed
MOTION: ~lication 01-EXC-00 and
2000 Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Kwok
NOES: Con
VOTE: 4-1-0
8. Application No.:
Applicant: (Adobe Inn)
Location: Stevens Creek Boulevard
Appeal of architectural and site a approved 77-room hotel.
Planning Commission decision
MOTION: Com. Kwok continue Application 21-ASA-00 to the November
27,
SECOND: Com. Stevens ;
NOES: Com. Corr
VOTE: Passed 4-1-0
Chair Harris declared a recess from 10:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
7. Application Nos.: 02-TM-00, 22-EA-00
Applicant: Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Location: 7825 & 7851 Orion Lane
Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 a~res) into 8 single family paroels with an average
lot size of 7,800 square feet in an RI-6 zoning district.
Tentative City Council Date: 'November 20, 2000
Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a tentative map to
subdivide two parcels into 8 single family par~.els in an R1-6 zoning district. A newcul de sac is
proposed for access by four of the new lots, with the remaining four lots having access on Orion
Lane. Each lot will have an average of 7,800 square feet. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval to the City Council.
Ms. Wordell referred to the tentative map and provided a brief review of the application, as
outlined in the staff report. She noted that retaining walls were proposed for Lots 1 through 4 to
help direct the drainage for those lots to Orion Lane; and a retaining wall along theeast side of the
property to help direct the drainage toward Wallin Court. A condition of approvai stating that the
bubble box the Santa Clara Valley Water Dis~ict is concerned about causing erosion will have to
be addressed to meet their needs. A number of oak trees in the Regnart Creek area and trees in the
Pl:~nnlnS Commi~d. on ~.ut~ 9 ~ov~ ~3, 2000
suMivision bo saved or mloeamd. One 0f &o major elcmcn 0f subdivision is &e
Re~ Creek ~ it will be dedie~d to ~e S~ CI~ V~ley Wa~r Dis~ict ~d erosion
tonal me~ure~ will be enfo~ ~d approved by ~e ~r di~. As noted ~ ~e ~ re~
·ere is at le~t one pmpe~ owner ~mss ~e creek who is concerned ~t erosion con~l be
~ess~ on ~e~ p~pe~, which will ~ ~u~ &e wa~r dis~ict mvi~. ~ ~ also a
proposed ~ail which ~ al~ subject to water dis~ict approval. S~ race--ends appmv~ of ~e
application
~. Bri~ Kelly ~r., Kelly Go,on ~velopment Co., reviewed ~e proposal to co~ct S s~gle
f~ily homes. He noted &at ~e fm~ proposal ~commo~d ~e desks of the Piing
Commission, ~d ~ter dh~i~ so ~at ~e wa~r divot could have access m ~e cmo~ ~d also
ad~ssed ~e ~r di~ict's concern ~at a numar of &e homes not b~k up to &e creek. Ho
expl~ned ~e pm~sed work ~ be done on ~e m~ofit of~e c~ek to ~bil~e ~e creek b~s so
· at ~e p~t problems will ~ solved ~d ~ c~sion would not ~cur. He no~d ~at meetings
have occu~d wi& ~e water di~ic~ Regio~ Wa~r QualiW Con~l Bo~ D~ont of Fish
~d G~e ~d ~e ~y Co~s of Eng~eem mla~ve to ~e pm~s~ ~d crific~ issues relative to
· e creek.
~. M~ ~keby,. Civil Engram, ~pl~ed ~e mitig~on me~s to be ~cd ~lative m
~inage of ~ ? ~d 8, includ~g a taller ~g w~l at ~e ~ of ~e 1o~, which may be
objectionable; ~tive of piping out ~e ~r ~om ~e b~k y~s of ~ ? ~d 8 m ~e
drainage ~m ~ ~e ~ee~ &e ~t wa~r does have ~o c~h b~ wi& a no~alouff~l m
fire cme~ ~d ~ts 7 ~d 8 would have m be co~ec~d ~ ~at sy~m. Ho ~so ~vi~ ~c
util~tion of retaining w~ls.
~. B~ Spieler, c~o~er of s Nov~ber D~vc p~po~, discus~ erosion problems on &e
pmpe~. He said he 1o~ p~ of~c b~k fence on ~c pmpe~ ~d w~ hopi~ for a msol~ion m
repair ~e erosion ~ ~e back y~d. Ho s~d he w~ not oppos~ ~ ~e pmj~t if ~e~ side. of ~e
creek w~ smbil~d ~d ~e go,ion ofh~ prope~ ge~ ~pla~d ~ ~at &e fen~ c~ be mp~d.
He s~d he spoke ~ ~. Tippe~ at ~c ~r dis~i~ ~d ~c pJ~n~ were not a~op~ble to ~o wa~r
dis~ict for st~il~g ~e no~ side.
Ms. Wor~ll repo~d ~at ~e ~ter dis~ct ~ seen some pmlimin~ plus ~d &e applic~t ~
aw~o t~t he h~ to submit appmv~ pl~; Ms. Tip~ ~om ~e wa~r d~h'ict ~s~d her ~at
· e rep~m would be m~e on bo~ sides of~e creek ~d it will ~ p~ of~e pl~ ~at ~ey will
require of~e d~eloper ~d will approve ~d ov~ee &e cen,ken of.
~. Je~ifer Black, 1081 Mi~ Way, ~d ~t ~e would be ~p~ by &e proposed pmjec~
~d no~d ~at she did n~ m~ive notification from &c ~volopom. Sho s~d ~t mfe~ce m
"some" o~ ~es w~ nebulo~ ~d questioned whaler it w~ ~e appmpria~ time in ~e process
to sp~ifically ~ss w~ch o~ ~es. ~. Wo~cll indi~a~d ~at ~c o~ ~es to ~ saved or
relo~t~ were ~o~ on &e ten~tivo map, ~d a condi~on of approv~ indi~s ~at all spec~on
o~ ~ees will be ~ed.
Mr. Russell Blal~ 1081 Mi~ Way, ~d since ~e pmje~ did not ~ve nei~borhood ~pu~ ho
went out ~ ~e nei~rhood m c~v~ for inp~ ~ ~e 12 ~iden~ he ~d m, none of ~em
were ~ favor of &e pmje~ He s~d ~t a loss of ~o omh~ would be fel~ be~e of &e
wildl~e, d~r, bi~s ~d pl~t l~c ~at ~quent &e ~ He ~gge~ed &at a sm~l memo~al
orchid ~m~ ~d seven uni~ be ~m~c~d. Placement of~e a~ess m~ w~ also bmu~t up
by ~c nci~bom, since m~y of ~e nei~bo~' homes ~ bedims ~ ~e ~nt of ~e homes.
He illus~ated proposed ~wings wi~ su~es~d al~ pl~s for thc placement of ~e homes.
He s~d he felt &e ff~c impac~ h~ not been considered, nor &e ~p~t on ~e nei~m and
poll~g of ~e neighbors who ~o acm~ly ~ ~e pa~ of ~e p~posed pmj~t. He mi~ra~d &at
Planning Commi~ion Minutes 10 November 13, 2000
part of the land should be left as a memorial orchard. He said that the exisfingrip rap has never
been planted with willows and suggested that it be made a condition, and to make dealings are
directly with the water district.
Mr. Paul March, 7842 and 7850 Orion Lane, said he concurred with the previous speaker and he
felt the best design would be to have the road along the church property, taking up less road. The
best layout would be to have the entrance road along the church, since the other side of the church
is the road for the Orion Place subdivision.
Ms. Janet Van Zoeren, Chairman of Milky Way Emergency Response Unit, said that she did not
receive notification of the meeting. She said she concurred with many of RussellBlalank's points.
She expressed concern with the road as Wallin Court comes into the cul de sac at the end of Orion
which is where Milky Way begins, and said that there may be a blind entrance of the people
coming in from Wallin Court and it could be a dArigerous spot. She said she was pleased to hear
that attempts would be made to make the creek improvements as natural looking as possible and
would like to encourage making sure that they are that way. She said she would miss the orchard
and the wildlife and questioned their future. She expressed concern about the style of the homes
in the proposed project as they would be facing the existing homes. Ms. Van Zoeren questioned
where the trail started and ended; was it only a trail of this section of the creek on the Wallin
property, or did it connect to the railroad tracks and out to other areas; would people be coming in
the area to park on Wallin Road to gain access to the trail, and if Wallin Road would be wide
enough for parking on both sides which is not the case with the Orion Court put in.
Ms. Wordell said that the path would connect W Arroyo Grande.through a small section of the
creek to the northeast section of the property; it would connect to a cul de sac, the concept being
more for local foot use.
Mr. Don Williamson, IVl/lky Way, expressed concern about the traffic patterns and potential for
accidents with the addition of the new cul de sac. He said he was in favor of a plan that brought
the street in from below rather than up above, from a safety point. He said he hoped there was
some way to keep the deer in the area, and said he liked the concept of a memorial orchard.
Mr. Bob Hayes, 1093 November Drive, said he was not opposed to the project, but understood
some of the concerns expressed. He said he had not heard a specific answer whether the oak trees
along the creek would be preserved, not relocated. Ms. Wordell responded that all the oak trees
along the creek would remain where they were. He said the wildlife and deer seen in the area was
very diverse. He expressed concern with the erosion control in the area. Mr. Hayes said that at a
neighborhood meeting, a representative from the water district discussed what he considered
impwvements to the creek, namely to cut the creek down at a 45 de~ree angle on each side,
cement each side of the creek and put a 12 foot easement on each side to drive the trucks back on
forth. He said he was opposed to that occurring and wanted to ensure that the creek would be
preserved and the wildlife and trees remained there.
Mr. Bruce Eckstein, 1091 November Drive, said the creek problems existed since 1995 and he
was concerned that the water di~h-ict would not follow through, although they were acting on good
faith and he wanted to ensure .follow through. He said he experienced the same problems in his
yard with a two foot strip and a 15 foot drop offas well as neighbors with limbs hanging out into
what used to be a dirt barrier. Mr. Eckstein said he wanted to be certain that the creek was
· preserved.
Chair Harris pointed out that relative to the environmental impact report, there was no reference to
the loss of habitat for the deer, issues with erosion, or the potential loss of thecreeksite to two 12
foot wide concrete wadways. She expressed concern that the document was being appwved that
Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 13, 2000
may not bc a~cumt~. Ms. Wordcll said that thc erosion problems happened in thc past and they
are now addressing the past problem. Relative to thc retaining walls, those were fairly typical
changes, as many subdivisions had two foot retaining walls that direct drainage to the storm drain
system and did not pose a significant impact. Mr. ?iasecki clarified that the Planning Commission
in hearing testimony and information may arrive at different conclusions than the Environmental
Review Committee did with simply the applicant's proposal in front of them. He said it was
viewed in many ways as being positive, including the drainage issue because it was handled
minimally; starting with a three foot retaining wall at the north end of the property and lowered so
that the house would not be sitting on a high pad. The report did not address the loss of the area to
the deer and the wildlife; nor the mention of another road which was not part of the applicant's
proposal.'
Mr. Kelly offered his apologies to the neighbors who did not get written notification, stating that
only neighbors in the surrounding homes within the radius received notices, although others were
close .to the area. He said they were committed to fixing the creek erosion problem, had already
hired hydrologists, geologists and civil engineers and had been working with them for the past 7
months. He estimated that the cost of several hundred thousand dollars would go into the creek
repair, and when completed, the erosion problems would not exist. He said they had met with tho
agencies and once the work is done, they will be accepting the creek and there will be'no concrete
barriers; it will be un all natural tip rap rock fix with plantings. Mr. Kelly said they were also
looking at options relative to the road issue and had not reached a compromise yet on the roads.
Chair Harris questioned if the applicant was willing to meet with the community..
Mr. Brian Kelly, gr., Kelly Gordon Development Co., said he heard the comments from the people
on Milky way who are close but not contiguous to the property, and the comments made relative
to traffic and other issues. He said in his opinion getting further input from the community would
not make any dramatic change to the plan submitted, as many altemafives had already been
considered and they are addressing the major problems. He explained that the creek situation is a
major expense, and will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the preliminary plans to
correct the flow of the creek and to put these fixes in the six primary areas where erosion from El
Nine has taken place. He said it was not a small undertaking on their part; and that it was a
condition of approval; and they were aware that the water district wanis direct access to the creek
and does not want the homes to back up to the creek because of potential future liability. Mr.
Kelly said they met with the water district, the Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Game on the site
and at the water district offices with preliminary conceptual plans. They have received direction
on the water district requirements relative to rip rap, where it should be located, how high it should
be; where the willow trees should be planted, and the hydrologists and engineers are in the process
of finalizing those plans for submittal to the water district. Extensive studies have been done and
the water district knows the essence of the concept, plans have to be finalized for the issuance of
the permit. The work will not be done until the spring or early summer because of the winter
water situatiOns.
Ms. Wordell suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition related to creek restoration;
since the water district is going to require the restoration as part of accepting dedication. The
condition could state that creek restoration on both sides of the creek shall be submitted to and
approved by the water district prior to recordation of the final map, since.similar wording is for the
walkway and the trail.
Mr. Kelly said he was agreeable to the conditi°n as it would allow them to go ahead with their
work on the creek and the improvement plans as well as the final map, and have them all come to
fruition at the same time.
I
Plnnning Conuni~sion Minutes 12 November 13; 2000
Chair I-Ian.is closed the public hearing.
Chair I-Ian.is summnrized the issues: editing the EIR, the creek plan, the retaining wall material,
setting it up so it does not impact the adjacent properties; tra_~c; and creek restoration plan. Com.
Con' said he wns disappointed that Mr. Kelly did not want to meet with the community members
again who were concerned about the creek. The intent would not to go back to the beginning, but
to share information with the community with the hope that more would be supportive of the
project, since most were not opposed, to the project, only some nuances of it.
Corn. Kwok said that he concurred with Com. Con', and that most of the major concern was with
the environmental issues; how to address the creek in te .r~s of restorntion, rip rap, and to address
the erosion portion of it. He said if the issue was addressed, it would provide benefits to the
people to the north of the creek such ns the people along November Drive. Relative to the
engineering aspect, he said he felt if the applicnnt worked closely with the Corps of Engineers, the
flood control people with a satisfactory plan to those people, he wns content with how the erosion
issue was being addressed, and all the other mensures concerned to protect the creek and also
improve the dr~zage.. Com. Kwok said he felt the traf~c issue needed to be addressed by the
applicant meeting with the neighbors, since adding 8 units would create traffic. He said if he wns
going to support the project, he would make it a condition that the applicant meet with the
neighbors and address the concern about the traf~c and perhaps come up with some compromise
mensures to teke care of some of the traffic situations such as improving the road along Orion or
Milky Way that would provide a win-win situation. He said the residents have been fortunnte in
the past yenrs to enjoy the luxury of having an orchard there with wildlife, but with development,
the orchards may have to go. It is important to work out something with the neighborhood and
address the engineering portion with the flood control district.
Com. Corr remarked that while the concept of the memorial orchard is a good one, who would
take care of it; and by having ns much of the creekside open as possible, it does allow n place for
the deer and the animals and. for people to enjoy the creek as opposed to walling it up behind
houses.
Com. Stevens said that it was stated that within a month they would be presenting a plan to the
water district, which would solidify what is being accepted. He said a vacuum exists in that the
applicant did not contact all the residents who may be impacted and many people have been
misinformed. He agreed that the concept cfa memorial orchard was a good one, but not practical;
perhaps a memorial walkway would be more practical. No matter what is chosen, there will be a
traffic impact, which cannot be avoided. CoTM. Stevens said that he favored continuing the
appli~tion for the presentation to thc water district and to allow time for a public meeting. The
applicant was encouraged to meet with the public and the water district.
Chair Harris suggested a 30 day continuance to allow time for a community meeting and the
applicant to complete their creek plan to submit it to the water district, to have a more complete
project to present to the Planning Commission, decide what the retaining wall material should be
and the configuration; report on the community meeting; and perhaps amelio~te some of thc
negative feelings and put some of the fears tO rest. A continuation would also allow staffto write
the language about the creek restoration, and work on emending the EIR based on the further
information received at tonight's meeting.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved-to continue Application 02-TM-00 to the December 11, 2000
Planning Commission meeting
SECOND: Cbm. Stevens
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
RUSSELL BLALACK- 1081 l~ilky Way, Cupertino, CA 9~014
- Phone: (408) 2~-2378 FAX: (408) 996-9234
Ciddy Wordell,
pl~ Departm~
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Ave
Cupert~ CA ~5014. Thursday, Nobler 1~, 2000
De~ city P~r,
EA File 22-EA-00, Ca~e File No 2-TM-O0
I list below a series of facts, and the items to which they apply.
Reference: The proposal development wonM...
A(4) .~ .result. in a substantial change, in the preset land use, from an o~hard to a
subdivision
C(5) ...substantially affect the ~xisting agricultural land use
F(1), (2), (3) ...el:,..:,~ a ma'~r seasonal food source for 6-8 deer
6(1) ..~i-a'ease homes using ~ Way cul-de-sac by 20% (from 20 to 24 homes),
and ~ dowmlr~m traffic by over 30% (ii, om 25 to 33 homes)
_. 6(3) ...increase traffic hazards to 3 houses backing out into the Milky Way cul-de-sac,
to 19 homes ddvln~ through the cul-de-sac, and to children skateho~-ding and
L(3) ...elim;mm,. a scenic ore'rd
N(2) ...eliminate the last renmant of a family orchard that has been tea]ded continuously
for 85 years-
Please make note of these facts, and adjust the associated ~ appropriately.
Thank you for your efforts to help our city with its growin_o process.
Nov. 19, 2000
1088 Milky Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ms. Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Wordell~
As a resident of Milky Way I attended the November 13 Planning Commission meeting. I am
· . pleased to see that the proposed plan for Wallin Court preserves the creek in its natural state. In
particular I think that the proposed trail along the creek is an excellent idea.
For a variety of reasons I feel that it would be better to locate the entrance to Wallin Court at the
eastern end of the subdivision, rather than the western end as shown in the current proposal. I
have enclosed a drawing with a possible layout for an eastern entrance. It has the following
features:
· Keeps all 8 lots.
· Keeps the trail and all trees along the creek.
· Keeps the proposed location of the turnaround circle. (The developers's proposed
location works very well for a n_um_her of reasons.)
· Keeps the SCVWD easement and has minimal impact on current plans for creek upgrades.
· Several of the large oaks near Orion Lane are near lot bounasries and might not need to be
moved.
· If the adjacent church property is ever developed, Wallin Court can provide access for the
northwest comer of that development.
This is not the only possible layout with an eastern entrance. It simply demonstrates that it is
possible to find a good solution with an eastern entrance.
I hope that the developer will consider using a plan with the entrance to Wallin Court at the
eastern end of the subdivision. If there is a good reason not to use this approach I hope it will be
brought out at the meeting with the developer on November 30.
Sincerely,
Don Williamson
November 27, 2000
This letter is in response to the proposed 8 lot subdivision by Kelly-Gordon
Development at the intersection of Orion Lane and Milky Way. This project was
discussed by the Planning Commission at its November 13~ meeting and the applicant
was directed to meet with interested neighbors to review their concerns with respect to
the project. We have reviewed their Tentative Map and are in support of the design
with the proposed Wallin Court connecting to the cull-de-sac knuckle at the Northern
end of Milky Way.
Yesterday, we received an "alternative subdivision design" prepared by a neighbor that
we certainly do not support. This design, superimposed over the Tentative Map with
red pen, still features 8 lots but with a new orientation of Walling Court. Instead of
Walling Court connecting to Milky Way, the design we support, the new design has
-Walling Court connecting to Orion Lane. This was the first.time that we had seen this
proposal and speaking for the ~neighborhood", this is certainly not an alternative that we
will support. Our concerns with respect to this "alternative design~ are as follows:
1. 7818 and 7834 Orion Lane are one story house with bedrooms facing the
existing traffic at the proposed Walling Court exit on Orion .Lane. This will cause
automotive headlights to illuminate these bedrooms during the evening hours.
This situation would not exist with the original design that we support.
2. The driveway at 7826 Orion Lane will be located at the intersection of Walling
Court and Orion Lane which will make backing out vehicles difficult and could
possibly lead to accidents.
3. Traffic existing on to Orion Way from Walling Court will have reduced site
distances if the proposed 6' wall is installed.
4. When the neighborhood was first constructed, it is clear from the existing street
layout that any future'access to 7825 Orion Way would be from Milky Way.
5. Walling Court will become "overflow' parking for the church.
The neighbors of Orion Lane support the original subdivision design by Kelly-Gordon
Development and urge the Planning Commission, at their November 30th meeting, to do
the same by approving the project.
David & Glenda Cracknell
7818 Orion Lane
Bep & Claudia Zambonin
7826 Orion Lane
7834 Orion Lane ,
3S
Alan Sto¢ldmeir
10240 Stonydale Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Barry and lvria Spieler
20620 Rodrigues Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Owners of 1087 November Drive (APN # 362=16-023)
Cupertino, CA 95014
November 9, 2000
Re: Orion Lane Project (02-TM-00)
Dear Planning Commission:
With respect to the Kelly-Gordon Development on Orion Lane in Cupertino
we are concerned with the creek embankment erosion behind our property at 1087
November Drive. The existh~ plans that we have seen do not address
water district requirements for st~hili=~ng the embaaio~. We und~rmnd the plans are
going to be revised and resubmitted to the water disuict but we want to be On record with
the city that we would like our rear yard (approx 2 feet by 15 feet ) restored and the 17
foot near vertical emb~irment stabili=ed in some permanent' fashion. We are one of 4 or 5
proper~ owners on. the opposite side (November side) of the creek that are severely
affected. We would also like to brin~ to your att=~6on that there are 5 or 6 specimen oak
trees on the Nove~iber side of the creek that do not appear on the site map and some of
them are in danger off~lllag into the creek. Over~ll. we are in favor of the project and
think it will be a nice addition to Cupertino, but we want to make sure our concerns are
addressed.
Sincerely,
Bany Spieler
Alan Stocklmeir 12/2/2000
10240 Stonydale Dr.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
408-738-3758
Barry Spieler
20620 Rodrigues Ave.
Cupertino, Ca 950!4
Owners of 1087 November Dr., Cupertino (APN# 362-16-023)
Re: Orion Lane Project in Cupertino by Kelly-Gordon Development
To: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Attn: Sue Tippetts
Dear Sue,
On Thursday November 30th, we attended a City of Cupertino sponsored meeting regarding the
Orion Lane project being proposed by the Kelly=Gordon Development Company.
At the meeting Kelly=Gordon presented their revised plans for the Regnart Creek remediation in
the vicinity of our property. It appears that the plans are substantially the same as their original hand
drawn sketches ( i.e. use of soil nsil.~ and concrete shot onto the existing bank.)
It was our understanding alter speaking with you and reviewing those sketches on November 9th
that this type of remediation was not acceptable to the water district and you specifically told
Kelly-Gordon to revise their initial sketches and develop a different remediafion plan.
We believe their revised plan, which you have received or are about to receive, does not reflect
an adequate remediafion plan for the restoration of our backyard (approximately 2 feet by 20 feet) or
our neighbor's backyard or the permanent stabilization of the 17 foot near vertical embankment
directly on our property lines. We desire that the remediafion will allow us to restore our fence to
its original position on the property llne and have the extremely bs=~rdons vertical drop eliminated.
There is also a 99 inch circumference specimen oak tree 10 feet behind our property line and 5 feet
from the top of the bank with exposed roots which will also require some protection. We believe
that a plan similar to the plan for the embankment directly across the creek from us would be more
appropriate for our side as well.
We would be happy to discuss this fiirther or meet with you at the property to view the situation.
We would like to be notified of any public meetings, revised or new plans, and prior to any final
approval of this project.
Sincerely,
cc: Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino
RUSSELL BI,Al,ACK- 1081 Milky Way, Cupertino, CA 95014
_ Phone: (408) 255-23?8 FAX: (408) 99~-9234
Ciddy Wordell,
city of Cure, no
10300 Torte Ave
Cupertino, CA 9~014. Saturday, December 02, 2000
De~ Ci~
F.,i File 22-EA-O0, Case File No 2-TM-O0
Please make note of the following _~da~ional fact that you may not have fully realized
when you published 22-EA-00:
Reference: The pFoposed development would...
L(4) ...be at vari~ne~ with applicable design guidelines in the subdivision, where all
back lot ingress is by cul-de-sac at right angles to the access street, see Robindell
Way and Lunar Court
Now that you have been r~a~. awa~e of the character of our subdivision, I trust that you
will adjust the associated ~ appropriately.
¥o. ars truly,
RUSSELL BLALACK - 1081 Milky Way, Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: (408) 255-2378 FAX: (408) 996-9234
Ckldy Worde]],
city of Cupertino
10300 Tone Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014. Tuesday, Decembcr 05, 2000
De~r C'~ Phnuer,
EA File 22-E,t-00, Case File No 2-TM-O0
Please include the attached petition in t~ Case File No 2-TM-O0.
The pet~_'on is signed by 2/3 of the homeowners on Milloy Way/Orion Lane cul-de-sac,
and a homeowner immediately ad'~nt to the cul-de-sac: We object to the current siting
of Wallin Court as proposed by the Kelly-Gordon Corporation.
We ask that the Coi~:~:l~tee and the City Council together insist ths~ the Kelly-Gordon
Corporation produce a better plan_ The new plan should follow good traffic safety
~¢s. It should adhere to the existing street hyout standards of our subdivision, where
We ar~ ,ne residents and property owners on and around the Milk: Way / Orion Lane cul-de-sac. We do not want our cul-de-sac to be
turned into a three-way intersection. We ask the Planning Committee and the Cupertino City Council fo reject the proposed siting of Wallln
Court because it is a traffic hazard and it would not conform to the design of the other cul-de-sacs in our subdivision.
Name Address Signature Date
RE: Orion Lane SubdMeion
Developer: Kelly Gordon
We the under, igned petiton ag~in.t the 'neighborhood alt.mative
plan' for the eub-dlvlmlon of the Wallin property
We aupport the original plane a~ .ubmitted by the developer
Kelly Gordon
'2'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the
City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, nnd amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1,
1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by
the City Council of the City of Cupertino on January 16, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
22-EA-00
Application No.(s): 02-TM-00
Applicant: Kelly Gordon Development Corporation
Location: 7825 & 7851 Orion Lane
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Tentative map to subdivide two parcels (3.01 acres) into 8 single family parcels with an
average lot size of 7,800 sqnnre feet in an R1-6 zoning district.
FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY
The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the groject is consistent with the
General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts.
!
Steve l-lasecio
Director of Community Development
CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK
This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office oftbe City Clerk
of the City of Cupertino on ,2001.
City Clerk
g'./planning/erdneg22enO0
3.s--$ 7
ClTV OF ~ER~O ~ CI~ ~o3~ T~ Av~.uc
~p~t ofC~ ~lo~t Cu~, Ca 95014
~8-777-3308
PRO~ DES~ON: A~en~ ?
~vimmen~! S~g
bnmV~ ~ Total ~f. Pfl~ ;
Un~
U~t
~2
U~t
T~
Un~
Unit
T~
3s-31
IMPACT
YES
WILL ~ pROJECT... Not Sianificant sis~c~t ~mu,*.~v~ SOURCE
Si~nifioant (MMptim (No
NO Proposed)
A) LAND u-qE GENERAL PLAN
1) Bequirc a change from the land use 1,7,8
~ PI~?
3) Bequ~ ~t chan~ •fro adopted
~s~__-~c plan or othcr adop~ poli~ ~ [] [] []
4) ]l~,su]t in mlstantM chan~o h ll~ :
pmsant land us~ ofthe sim or that of [] ~ [] [] [] 7.12
adjohins pmpmios7
S) Disruptixdivide thc physical
confl~uradon of an cstablishcd [] [] [] [] [] 7,12,22.41 .
B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD
1) Be IocaW. d in an arca which has
2) Bo IocoMd on or adjacent m n
.~,~ 3) B. Ioc~d ina G~OIOSiC Slud~. ,~ [] [] [] []
Zone? 2
4) Be locked in an mu of soil
Jmtabilit~ (schsidencc, Imdslide, '~ [] [] [] D. '
shrink/swch, soil c~ep m' severe 2,S, 10
erosions)?
S) Cause substantial et,•sion or
displm:em~, compaction o~ 2,14,39
ovcrcovcrins ors•ti cith~ on-sim or off-
'site
7) Came substantial chans~ in
fcaU~? 10.39
8) Involve com~cfion ora building.
o~ 8~----'~- ·
C) RESOURCES/PARKS
result in the sunoval ofa,-S,,ql rmonr~ _
for commercial pmpn~s CmoludJ~ imm
such as roc~ smd. pard, tr~s, mianrds
or top-soil)?
(Clm ] o~ Il soils) m non-qriculund use
or impair fire qriculmral productivity of
,> iii [] [] [] []
Space casemeo~.
WILL TIlE PROJECT... ~o~ Si~nificallt
Si~f~t (Mi~on ~o
D) S~AG~A~ QUA~
1) ~ult ~ a ~pfic fi~d being
~ ~ ~il ~ ~em ~cld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6.9
~ li~m? ~ -
2) ~t in a ~c ficld
~wJ~n 1~ ~ of~ ~11. ~
3) ~lt in ~i~ ora s~ ~
~ qu~i~. ~ ~ ~blic w~ ~6~7
O ·
Md~nt ~m ~o~
h~ md ~ ~ ~i~
~, n~U md ~ci~s. ~
Imh~ m~nm~, ~ nd
.~.Eid~ ~m mi~s o~u)?
~ or ~ wmr ~ff~ ~
7)~qui~ s ~D~ ~t br 20
E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING
I) interim substantially with 8rmmd 20,36
2) Substmtialb7 chmgc th~ dlr~-flo~
ru~ or flow or qmmfiiy of ground-
addifiom or withdrawals, or
panerns or the r~mmount ofsurfuce []~/ D [] [] 20.36
mnoffor weflmd~
4) Involve a.,~al drsin~ dmulel
· t~ ~he locations, course or flow oFils
S) Be Iomed in I floodwuy or
floodplain ~ru? [] ~] [] [] [] 38
F) FLOltA AND FAUNA
1) Si~nificmtly td~c~ fish, wJldli~.
divcrs~ or nmnlx~ oFexisthS
2) Submnti~dly reduc~ the lubJmt sre~
WILL ~ PROJECT... sot Significant Sisniflcant r-umulative SOURCE
Sisnificant (Mifission (No
NO Pr~_~d) Mitig~ion
Proposed)
3) Clma~c lha ~xi~tJn~ hchila~ food
endsnse~d species ofplmt or snJnud?
4) ]nvolv~ cu~nS, removal of
specimen scM, uem. whclh~ indijmous [] ~ [] [] [] li.12,41
lo th~ sJm or jn~odnced?
G) TRANSPORTATION
I) Cause an incr~s.~ in mtso which
is substantial in r~lafion to th~ existing
s~mnn?
2) Cause my public oi' privn~ street
intmection to function below Level of' 4,20
3) lncteas~ traffic b~.~is to '.
p~d~'strims, bi.dim m~d vchidm? [] [] [] [] [] 20.35
,I) Advc~cly allot access m
commcrcial establishments, public
5) Cause - r~ducfion in public -
~nsport~un smvic~ at or ne. th~ ~' [] [] [] [] 3,
proj~'ct si~?
6) In,~.~e d~unnd upon existing
'/) Inhibit us~ o~sJmmmivc n~ of
· ~ us~? -.
H) HOUSING
1) P. cduc~ the supply of atfordable
housin, in thc communi~. OF ruu]t in tl~ ~ [] [] [] [] 3.16
displscmnem ofl~'nom ~om their
pruent home?
2) ir,.~e the cost of housing in lbs 3, 16
area. or mbstantislly chon, the variety ~ [] [] []
of housln~ types found in the
community?
3) Crmteasul~i&~0aldenmndfornew ,~ [] [] [] [] 3.16.47
housing?
1) HEALTH AND SA~m,'i'g
[] [] [] [] 0.42.,3
~ or mmurmm~ of'po~tJdly
2) Involve risk of aplosJun o~ olher ~ [] [] 0 [] 32,43
fonm of uncontn)ll~d ~leme of
hazardous substances?
use of m~7 exis~b~ or inmdl~ of
4) BelocaU~dJnans~aofsemunalfJm ~ [] [] [] [] 2.32
dn~c,9 ..
5) Employ :~chnolofy which could
cvmt of · b~eakdown?
PROJECT... SOURCE
Not Si~ifi~t Si~Jficmt Cumulative
Si~ifl~t (Mifi~ ~o
NO ~ Mi~
~d)
~quim ~ ~r d~ ve~? '
J) AIR QUALITY
:l) Vioin~ my mnbimt air q~i~
~ ~b~ .~ly ~ = ~ D D D 'D ,. 37.42
au~ ~ of~li~
~ NO~
d~ ~ of~
~jm
3) ~t b s~n~ ~ I~is
~.~1~ of.md ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8,18
md ~m i~ ~ntnlne~ h ~
Ciys No~ ~n~
L) AL~-I~I~. t sCS .
1) Be at'varimcc with spplimble
,.,,.,.,..,,.? [] [] [] []
~'- 2) C~e. at~ m ae.~d~-fimdly
site open to public viev~ [] [] [] [] 1.17
3) V'~ually intrude upon an arnof
Mllside~ from midential m or public
~ Adv~ly alTcct II~
I.]7.19
lighting sources upon m~jncant p.~t,~rfies 1,16
or public roadways?
M) ENERGY
1 ) Involve ti~ us~ ofuntmudly Im~ '[~3 [] [] [] []
qumtiti~ of fo~il fue~ or no~-
2) Rmovc vesemioa pmvidins
sumnuF shade or wind-lwe, dm to an ~ [] [] [] [] 11,19
~ or plopofed bldl&ln_~?.
3) Sisnifl~atly ~d,,,,- soltr nc~m to
1) l~ located in an ~ of portugal
IMPACT
Y~,S
WILL ~ PRO~ECT... ~ot ~ignificsnt signiflCanl cumuilfiw SO'CE
Si~ifi~t (~ti~n ~o
NO ~) ~i~
2) ~ ~v~ly a ~ of h~ I, 10,41
~ ~ pm ora sc~flc ~
O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND
TTfIIA]u~
1) Produce solid waste in
~ I~ d~b~ or ~i~ of
3) ~ ~d~ ~p~
c) ~blic S~h? 0 29~0
~~onF~flid=? ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,17,19,21
4) ~,,~ su~d i~:
e) SM~ w~ ~ 3~8
~lic ~ili~ w,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ 1920~1
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNXFICAN~ I
(To Be Completed by City Staff)
THE ~ROSECT...
YES NO
1. Pave thc potential to substantially degradc the quality of the environment, to ~ ~
mbstantinlly diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a'fish -
or wildlife popuhfion to drop below self-sustainable ieveh; to threaten or
climinsM a plant or animal comm~mity; to reduce the number of or
restrict the range ora rare or enchmgered plant or animal;.to eliminate
important examples of the major periods.of. California's history or
2. Have the potential to nchieve short term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long term environmental goals? ~-~ ~
3. Have environmental impacts which are individually liraited, but are "'"
cumulatively considerable? ("Cnmqintively 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 projccts)
4. Have environmental effects which will e_*,,_** substantial adverse impacts ~-~
~ un human beings, either directly or indirectly~.
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the bes~ of my knowledge and
belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding ~_c~_~rately to all questions herein,' and have consulted
appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant env|ronmantul dm. 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 staffand authorized
agents, from the consequences of such delay or ~iqc~tlmmnce.
Print PrL328rer's Nmne ~----~;t ' [~0~.~
.ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(To' be Completed by City StMt)
~'~d Use/Oencrai Plan [] Geologic/Seismic Hszan~.~l~aources/Parks [] Housing
[] Sewage/Water Quality ~Drainage/Flooding [~]~'Flont & Fauna [] Transportation
[] Historical/Archaeological [] Hc~th & Safety [] Air Quality [] Noise
[] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy ~"Aesthetics
STAFF EVALUATION
On th~ basis of this Initial Study, the Enviro-,,,~ntsl R~vi~v CommiU~ (ER.C) Finds: ~ ~.t O~
That the propos,'d project COULD NOT haw a si_~n{~icant reflect on th~ ~uvironm?nl, and r~commends
thai a NEGATIVE DECLARATION b~ {ran~
Tha~ although th~ projmct could haw a si_~m{ficsm mff~'t on thru ~avironm~ut, no significant mffe~'t wi{{ occur
b~cause mitigation m~asur~s sre included h~ thru projmct. ERC r~comm~ads Ih,,t a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
be l~'autmd.
Tha~ thc propos~ MAY have a si_~m{fir, ant ,~t'~t on thru ~aviroum~nt and r~comm~tds that an
EI~ON~TAL IiWIPACT R~PORT bc ~
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF (408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPEILTINO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ~ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUMMARY: APPEAL of Planning Commission Denial of file no. 05-DIR-00, to allow the
removal of three ash trees at Reiuell Place and Cartwright Way.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council can take any of the following actions:
1 ) Uphold the applicant's appeal of 05-DIR-00 and allow removal of three ash trees. If
this option is selected, staff recommends that at least six, 24" boxed Crape Myrtles be
planted as replacements;
2) Deny the appeal and require the ash trees be retained as recommended by thc
· ~ Planning Commission;
3) Continue the item or refer it back to the Planning Commission for more study.
BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2000, the pIAnnlug Commission denied this application,
which .was a referral of a Director's minor modification to allow the removal of three specimen
size ash trees and five.Monterey Pines and their replacement with 8-9 trees at an existing planned
residential development located at Reinell Place and Cartwright Way (Resolution No. 6063).
The plRnning Commission felt that the applicant, Vista' Gardens Homeowners Association, failed
to:
1) 'Adequately justify the removal of the five Monterey Pines by demonstrating they
were diseased or dRmaged, and were untreatable. One of the pines was infected with
pine borer, but it could be treated safely with a pesticide.
2) Adequately justify the removal of the three Modesto Ashes when there was a viable
alternative to removal, that is, a chemical mot control system (such as, Biobarrier) that
would prohibit the encroachment of tree roots into the residential impwvements
(Exhibits A & B).
The denial was subsequently .appealed by Ms. Gay Fischer and William Blasser of the Vista
Gardens Homeowners Association. (Exhibit C). The appeal, as w~itten, is limited to the decision
-. on the three Modesto Ashes.
DISCUSSION:
In support of the appeal, the'applicants have submitted a more detailed arborist report prepared
by an internationally certified arberist, Robert Booty (Exhibit D). Staff also met onsite with the
homeowners and arborist.
In his report, the arborist notes the sizes and locations of the trees, and the compacted nature of
the soils, which has caused the trees to grow with shallow root systems that have encroached on
most of the surrounding improvements and landscaping. To protect surrounding improvements,
staff initially believed that the room needed to be primed on only one or two sides before the
chemical root control system could be installed. The new documentation shows that the tree
roots must be pruned on three to four sides to make usage of the chemical root control system
effective. Staff agrees with the arborist's conclusions that such severe root pruning would
adversely affect the health of the trees and leave the trees structurally unsafe due to the shallow
root structure. The arborist also noted structural weaknesses in each tree that would probably be
further ag~avated by declining tree health due to severe root pruning to protect residential
improvements.
Staff noted gaps in the existing front landscaping where trees may have been removed in the
past, but no replacement trees planted. Staff agrees with the arborist's choice of 24" boxed
Crape MPyfles, but recommends that at least six trees be planted for the three to be removed, if
the City Council upholds the appeal and approves the removal of the ash trees.
EnclosuFes: ~ Pla~nlng Cowmlssion Resolution No. 6063
Exhibit A-1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 11/27/00
Exhibit B-l: Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 11/27/00
Exhibit C-1: Appeal Letter from Gay Fischer & William Blasser
Exhibit D-I: Arborist Report prepared by Robert Booty, Peninsula Tree Inc., dated ·
12/28/00
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
APPRO)/E ~O~ SUBMITTAL: SUBMITTED BY:
Director of Community Development City Manager
s:Plfuming/pdFcport/cc/cc~$di~00sppefd
2
0$-DIR-00
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupe~ino. california 95014
RESOLUTION 6063 DENIAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A REQUEST TO REMOVE
THREE ASH TREES AND FIVE MONTEREY PINES AT A SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT REINELL PLACE & CARTWRIGHT WAY
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 05-DIR-00
Applicant: Vista Gnrdens Homeownem Association
Location: · R~inell Pl~_c~ & Cnrtwright Way
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an npplieation to removal eight sp~imen
size frees and replaco them with other trees, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicnnt has not met the burden of proof requirad ~o support said application; and has not sntisfied
the following requirements:
1) Justified the removal of the ash trees when there is a viable alternative that will preserve the ssh trees and
prohibit the encroachment of tree roots into the residential improvements.
2) Justified the removal of the Monterey Pines by demonstrating they are disensed or damaged, and are untreatnble.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Thnt after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony ~d other evidence submitted in this mntter, thc
Director,s refurral of a Minor Modification is hereby denied; and
That the subconcinsions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and
contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 05-DIR-00. as set forth in the Minutes of the
Plnnning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2000, nm incorporated by reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27* day of November 2000, nt a Regulnr Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino by the following mil call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok end Stevens
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Harris
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle
A-I-i'~:ST: APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piasccki /s/ Andrea Harris
Steve Piasecki Andrea Harris, Chairperson
Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission
g:/planning/pdreport/res/0$dir00 . .
EXHIBIT
City of Cuper~no, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
Department of Community Development Report Form
Application No.: 05-DI~-00 Agenda Date: November 27, 2000
Applicant: Gay Fischer for the Vista Gardens Homeowners' Association
Property Owner:. Vista Gardens Homeowners' Association
Property Location: Reinell Place & Cartwright Way
Application Summary: Referral to the Pls,mln5 Commission of a Director's Minor
Modification to remove eight specimen size trees and replace them with 8-9 trees at an
existing residential planned development
Zoning: P(R1C): Planned Development with Single Family Residential Cluster standards
Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exe, mption
RECOMIV~NDATION: ·
Staff recommends denial of the removal of the Ash trees and Monterey Pines per the
model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Thc Vista Gardens Homeowners Association is requesting the removal of eight
specimen-size lrees, three ~hes and five Monterey Pines (Exhibit A). The existing trees
arc all in common areas of _the residential development (see site plan).
Ash Trees. Thc three ashes are loCated in a 25-foot wide, landscape strip on Vista Drive
on the east side of the property. The three ashes are 21", 25" and 26" in diameter. These
trees are healthy but were not irrigated for deep watering, like many other older trees in
Cupertino. Larger roots have spread westerly across the surface and just below the
surface of thc ground, encroaching on fences, patios and foundations of some of the
homes. Attached photographs show thc intrusion of the roots into the improvements
(Exhibit A). The applicant requests the removal of these ash trees and their replacement
with 5 or 6, 15-gallon crape myrtles.
· Monterey Pines. The Mouterey Pines are in another wide planting strip on the west side
of the property. Three are located in a fenced swimming pool area and two are just
outside of the enclosure near Cartwright Way. The Monterey Pines are 21", 22", 25", 25"
and 30" in diameter (Exhibit A). According to the arborist's report, one of the pines
shows an infestation of pine borer (Exhibit B). There are few details in the report, so
staff called the arborist for additional information. The applicant requests the removal of
these Monterey Pines and their replacement with 2 flowering plums and shrubs to match
existing plantings.
DISCUSSION:
Ash Trees. Staff recommends denial of the request to remove the ASh tr~es. Staff is
aware of the invasive spreading of the roots, but notes there is a genewus growing zone
for these large trees and staff feels' a better solution would be to direct the surface root
growth away from the residential improvements by using a product like Biobarrier, a
long-term root control system. Biobarrier consists of nodules with time release trifluralln
herbicide permanently bonded through a peii~cable geotextile fabric (Exhibit C). The
trifluralin works by stopping the growth of the root tips. This product was recommended
by the City Arborist, Diane Mahan, for this particular situation since the roots can be
inhibited from encroaching on improvements, while leaving sufficient landscaped area
for wot growth. The arborist suggests the Biobarrier be installed along the edge of the
affected residential improvements to a depth of three (3) feet. The Biobarrier needs to be
located near an in/gated area since the moisture activates the herbicide. According to the
literature the root control system is effective for 15 years.
Monterey Pines. Staffrecommends denial of the request to remove the Monterey Pines
became they are not diseased or can be treated safely for the pest infestation. In staff's
conversation with the arborist, he indicated, as an alternative to.removal, thc infected.tree
could be successfully treated with an insecticide if thc infestation did not spread too far.
The iusecticidc is injected directly into the tree, so there should not be a concern about
inlxoduction of chemicals into the swimming pool. According to the report, the trees arc
not diseased, but showing signs of stress from living in an urban environment (i.e., root
cutting, ivy and human activity in the root zeno area.) In response to the applicant's other
concerns about some debris in the swimming pool and shading of the solar panels, the
trees could be pruned back some to reduce pool debris. The solar panels arc near the
south property line and facing in a southerly orientation. The Monterey Pines arc some
distance away along the west property line, and shouldn't.be responsible for shading thc
solar panels because of their distance and orientation.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Applicant's letter and photographs
Exhibit B: Arborist Report from James Scott, Certified Arb0rist #971/3130
Exhibit C: Biobarrier Literature
Plan Set
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
s:planning/pdreporYpc/SDIR00
2
V~.a Gardens HomeoWners Associ~ ~on
Exhibit A
7, 2000
Dear Mr. ~ung,
'f~4~ Garde~ Homeowners Associ_s_iion is requesting a l~,,,,~t for removal of
three ASh trees along the eastern boundary of our property on ~rmta Dr., and five
Monterrey pines dong the western boundary of our property.
The Ash trees were planted without regard for future growth or provision for deep
watering. As a result, large roots spread along the surface ofthe ground, encroaching on
fences, patios and foundations of some of the homes. Attempts to cut and dig out the
roots close to foundations have had m{mimg] success. The tr665 aI~ now 30-40 feet tall,
and concern is increasing that a severe winter storm misht cause a tree to Fall on the
adjacent homes,
There are five Monterrey pines along the western boundary of the complex. Three
of these are located in the pool-area .at the southern end of the property. We have been
advised that all these trees are showing signs of disease, with the three in the pool area
more severely affected. These three trees also increasingly ~__sde the solar panels which
heat the pool, and contribute to the debris in the pool itseK We plan to' retsl, the two
remaining trees for the present, but we expect they will have to be removed as the disease
progresses.
We propose to replant the Vista Dr. side of the c~Inplex with six or seven crepe
myrtle trees. These would be spaced with four or five trees between P.~inell Place and
Cartwright Way, and two trees north ofCa~ L~right Way. Rephcement planti~ in the
.pool area is expected to be two flowering plums and additio-,! shrubs similar to existing
sh'ubbery in the area.
Secretary
· . 20263 Cartwright Way
Tel: 255-0496
Karin Meyer
I.sndscape Committee
20271 Reinen Place
Tel: 366-2336
EXItlBIT B
Certified Arbedst #971/3130
October 22, 2000
143S6 uuiben'), Drive,, be Gale&, CA 66030 ,, Plane: (40~) 370-~096 M (406) 364-11183
,.¢~- 7
Certified Arbodst #971/3130
Cc.~ ~ t~rs Liom~'#667786
October 22, 2OOO
143:15 MMImrr~ Drlw~ LM 6M.4, CA ~ · ~ (4~8) 37~-~089 F~G (4~) 3~4-1288
EXt IT B
TRANSCR~TION OF ARBORIST'S LETTER
lAMES SCOTt
Certified Arborist #971/3130
contractors License #667786
Bonded & Insured
October 22, 2000
VISTA GARDENS HOA
3 MONTEREY PINES
On Oct 21' 00 a site visit was made to evaluate 3 pines at the rear property
line. As viewed, these trees are noimal in tei-ms of foliage size, color and
distribution. Further examination revealed the slight structural damage to the
rock (cement) wall due to surface roots. Also a pitch tube was found on one
--. pine indicating the presence of the Borer Beetle, Dendrocious valens. Pitch
nodules along the tnmk indicate the presence of Pitch Moth Larvae which
are opportunistic pests. Some die back in one pine indicates typical urban
impacts such as root cuttin~ Ivy and human activity in the root zone.
Monterey Pines out of their natural range live Shortened life spans, are
subject to heat stress, pests already inventoried, and Fosarium (pitch canker)
blight. Removing these trees and replacing them with less root invasive
species of smaller potential size would be one option. Mitigation trees of
approved (City) species lists may be another option.
If you have any questions please call me.
J. ScoR
14325 MulbeFry Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030. Phone: (408) 370-2089 Fax: (408) $64-1283
Sap' 20 O0 03:2.~_~ .... Tar~m~ S..p,e. cial~ pr~_..~c~s 40B 28~
Exhibit C
A revolu~on~ new mot consol
system ~at re.ecru r~m m~out
h~ng yom ~ees.
Tree ~ ~t out o[ hand p~t~ qulc~y. ~ can '
enc~ch onto d~ay and sidewalk ~ment.
~t ~ ~r a Ion~ t~ne t~t ~n'~ c~t ~u ,___._____,
Thar s why ~e,'s Blo~er. ,e ~t con,l ~,m
~e Histo~ of Root ConSol.
In 1978, ~e U.S. Depa~ent o~ Ene~
to d~lop ~ntqucs for ~e p~nUon of ~t
encroachment ~m h~a~s ian~li closu~ ~ and . ' '
Ba~lle. ~, Inc. ~mons~ted an eff~ lon~
Bioba~er Is available ~ leng~s of 20 & 1~ f~t and
wt~t~ of 6. 12. ~9.5. 39 and ~8~ Inches.
~f-/~ .
Easy Installation Puts Root Control Out of Sight. And Roots Out of Mind.
'..:~;~i':-~.-.~., .~ .,.....o:
...... ..... :~ .... ..: '· ~ 0'.S~.x.. "$.'.;,'.'.'.,'...'.,,
· :.'"'.'_'-.~"..":'"i) ~ · ',,.' '.'. ~ ~.'.; ...... y~:.
:,.., :.'~':::::.',?' '.'.,.. :..o.. :.:...
'.? o...o..., ..:, ~'¢:'_~:.".:~'.':. :'.".'.'7:i'.'t~r~
. . ... . . . .: . .-w...... ~. ..'. :'.q"5..... :. ~."' .:': "~.d
Tm re~,li nmma~,, kn~ gloves Ihe wech ~h the tep,,~ limb aillt gm acanfe gle pmducl b,/salur~qg Ira lacldgl
Building foundotions
.. '. :.'. '.~:......".",'.-'.:~:'i' ','~: :'"'" ' "'" "" "
~-//
I
I The Technical Aspects
cormal m/mem th~ mrm~e of nodule~Yau can uee B~ol~n,l~r In two waye to other aapect~ of your landacape. I
i with Ume relmm~ t~flurelin hmbl~lde - as a preventative appl~ aLI yOU Arid, Olobanter le earn/to
pemlOnentiy bonded tfin~h a penne- build or as part at a coereetke tmmment unlike cumbersome con..~.'- bm~er; o~ ·
able geotexUle fabric. When slmtegl- program where problem room are
odalr alumey aid~tyle barn~ers.
jc ally placed In tho ~dl. It prevents coad¥pmaenL Pmv~dan la the prefen'ed 191abanler f,, a flexible fab~ tMt you can
without hmming tmee ar nearby from la~'orning at problem. A prgventa- To Inetldl Biobarrler, cont~t yoor
'1 landscaping, ave eppacaaon d Biabmfler can.be uUlgy campapy to dmern~ne the ImaUan
I
done dudng ~,~-,ab~llon or m~lme of any undmgmund fines. W'flh d~h/
· Why Biabander worlm bMom dam~e __,~e~_;_,,e. With oamful tmrmh digging eq .uipment, cut a ~
Tmerootagrowhderallylntheeoil plannlng, yaucanhelpprevenl~osb'y . · trench between me tree ~d the ama to
l a~ Ihey mmmh far nutdenm end w~ter, sidew~k, or cani~h replacement, be protected, cutting mats i~ necessmy.
A~ ~'ee roo~ grow ~fl length and reduce Ilabirdy ~ Mve bbor ~ end The tmnoh should be ~-doM ~D lbo
dllmeter, Ihey MM velu~Me nutdent8 r,o~. eree ~o be protected ~ pW for
Jand water from turFgraes and oan Aa a mW mmmure, Blol~rder mmdm.um prote~ while ~ allowing
dm~ge adja. can cut mximum area for the tree mote to
I cent etnmtums, malntenanc~ grow. You may want to ~onsuit a
I
Ilteralty uprooting come by moro plT)flllg~3nal alt)O~lt J~ you W
greens, c~t than 60 clue~tim~ about mot pruning.
I ,tmetsand ~, ~'oiling mota prevent etalnktg, roll out your Blobarrler I
foundations. ' ~ - for a minimum ~nd uae aL knife to Mm it to fit your
Blobanier : .....~- of 15 years. In Installalion. Positlon the Bldcmn'mr in
uae~ a remml<- ~::"--. conlras~, the ditah/b'endl one Inch below grade,
~., ..,,.~,,~ ~ ' controlling fold be~k 1he ineteJl~l~n flap and ~
'~lat eJlows air, =~ ~ ~ roots by mot landscape pegs provided through the
pruning alone flap to hold the fabdc in place.. Fo~
nu~ents, to pass ~ ~ means t~at · longer d~tche~nch~, BiabaMer
I
thraugh, which yOU must should be overlapped three inches to
help~ maintain . . pm. ne mot~ =rea~e a cantlnuo~s sheet. Ba_,-'~ml and
soil equilibrium :' evmy one to tamp soil gently, maklhg sure the
end hydrology, five years. B~mrder Is hekf In place. Remove the
Permanently atta~ed rmdules of depenolng on the vigor of yaur trees, Installation flep. ~eed over ~d your
polyelhylene deliver a ~ontlnuaus That'a expemdve, labor-intendve work. installalion L~ ~omplete.
amount of trifluralln herbicide to ~e eoll Add the mmta af repairing mot-
for many years. Unlike other baMers, damaged sidewalks or cmt patha, and Call toll-free
Blobarrierwan~befomedabavegrade ' you'mlOokingalave~expenslvempair For mom lnfom~t]om, or to send h~r ,
· level by root swe~., and neilher will It project that never seems to encL alree tochnicai bmchma. ~ ReemW.
la'ack of' ~hllt during free,m/draw wales. Inc, at 1-800-284-2780. .
I
Blobarrler contn~ tools by ~ ~ b)
fishing ~n In-eoB vapor zone of tdflumlln But, with Biobanler, Inst~ It once
i
epprcmlmately Iwo Inchee wk~ an ew:h ~cl far et least 1~ ~ you have pm.
i aide of Ihe fabr~; mot gmwlh In this te~l~ lot yaur lindec~oe. YauYe free
zone b InNbRed beamee the tdlluralln
;
Tn'fluralin le not ey~temic, melnlng th-t
iItw~ n°t be ta"nlnt° the Pl"nt mh~rmne.Bddltion.PI..tritlu.lnor ~.a___-ce_ ~ng.decomp~e~lnln the
Bio>barrier'
I
soft, so If Blob~mter Is removed thare will
, be no rem~inlng tr~ce,1 of ~flul~ln In RO0~ Contl'c~ Sys~m
~ one to ~lx monlhs. Trlfluralln does not ~ ~, -/.2.
; leach In w;ter. /
Biobarrier®Works For Perks Department
Where Other Methods Fail
~ i~R ~ee ~ e~me~. None
~meone ~k a J~m~ ~ ~em, '
mot pruning ~s a ~e ~unk of our
~r ~ ~e ~ I~ of
~e d~e~ ~pl~ ~, md~ ~ ~ ~ a~
Bio'barrio(
The Technical Aspects
Blol~de~ II b a lang4arm . aaff, m ~ Biabmder II b m~ ~ ~IM ~ f~ ~. ~
m~ d ~1~ w~ ~ ~e · one ~ s~ ~ T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ el~ '
~n ~ ~aneMy ~nded ~ · ~ler. ~r II mle~ ~e ~
~ a p~ g~ tab~. ~at ~ ~ required.
~ment ~ ~ ~ 10 ~. You ~n ~ Bi~Ar II M ~ E~ ~ ~11
~ Bl~ff~ . ~~ua~a~. ~at ~ lO~uM~ p~
W~ ~ ~ff~ ~ ~ ~ ~em ~ ~ u~ '~ ~r ~p~ Y~m ~ ~ ~
~~Uc ~ ~ ~ ~ pratt.. ~b~e ~~ ~ ~t ~er
~ob ~'~ M ~ df ~f~me~~ R~ ~~r~e.'
~ p~. ~ ~ a ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ a p~ ~, B~er II b ~ ~ ~.
~w, ~ ~ be ~e ~ ~~ ~ ~r
~er ~.~ ~ m ~ ~n ~
gre~
Pm~, ~,' ~ ":' ~ am~ ea fa~ W~d~ ~~ ~m
U~k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e p~t ~nl~, p~ ~e f~c ~
~ P~, ~qn~e pl~ ~ fab~ ~gos ~ p~ce,
mas s~ss ~ ~ ~ of ~e s~ ~at w ~. I~ ~m
~. Bofom ~m~ ~ ~ ~d s~ke ~ h pl~. ~r
~'ch~ m~, ~o~an~ mat~ ~ ~ ~1 or
ge~b ~i ~M ~r, ~ ~ ~ra~ ~ gm~lu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11 t~l-f~
fl~ to ~ ~gh, ~d ~t ~1~ ~ ~r m. ~ ~ b F~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~
maifl~ln ~ff ~um ~d ~. ~ed ~ a b ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ b~um, ~fl R~y, I
Pe~ ~ ~ of a~m~~ I~ at 1~7~.
~y~ ~r a ~ w~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~. ~m~~rll
~r II ~n~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a n~r
.o....,..,... giobarrier' Il
T~umlln ~ ~ ~m~, me~g ~t
It ~1 ~t be token In~ me p~n~ or ~ PR~MERG~ ~ COBOL BY.EM
n~ pl~ ar I~ing. In
Something 0Id and
Something New
''
G~I~ flo~ Iff N~lle, ~e ~m ho~ ~ ~ ~n
Termed, Is a major ~omugh~ on ~ ~ of ~n~ In ~w
tm~d'~ ~o~ d ~m ~e~ ~o~ ~ ~ open ~em," Green
day, b~ a ~ ~ one of ~e old~ ~. "~ m~n~ Is
~ ~ ~1 pl~ in to~. . ~ ~u ~
Found~ h 17~, Sp~ Hi~ ~ ~
e~W and Mauao~um ~ ~p~i- ~Mer II
m~e~ 1~ a~s ~ ~u~ a n~ b~k dd~lk le~ ng to
~ mBng hl~. ~eplng mon~ent ~ a~; ~e b~
· e ~N ~m ~m~ ~m ~ In ~ In a wbh~e
~md b a ~g ~d Um~ ~m, ~d Green k~
~eumi~ ~. ~s ~dd
· ~gh ~e b~ In m ~me. He
~ ~blm ~ p~ Bbb~r II under a sp~t
~e ha~ mom ~ 80,000 ~ ~e a~ ~u~
' ~ople bu~ ~m, ~d ~e m~o~ ~um~.
have a m~r or ~nu~' ~ ~e ha~ ~d
~ Green, ~ au~nt, g~ ~mugh ~ sl~k or under
s problem." ~e ~m ~'~
~N Jo~ at Sp~ng HII~ ~ ~s ground dug up
~la~y aggra~ng ~ ~ BIo~er II
~em G~n ~ ~ p~ ~ ~r Spring HI~ ~me~N ~at Green
~d gm~ g~ mmpl~ely. To ~ p~n~ng ~
~11 e~ng - ~t ~ of the 1~ lng Blob~ II
~s h~ been d~d ~. In ~e ~e of n~ ~,'
~ Green ~ ~em b enough ~In~ o~ qt ~d
~ lee ~r ~ ~m germ- ~ from ~1~
~ og N~II~. ~ul~m ~st
~ng d~ w~s ~d g~.
~ u~er e~g m~en~ ~
mn~" to un~ at ~ ~me, ~
Biobarrier' I!
PR~M~G~CE ~ED CO~ROL SY~EM
Made of a nmtwoven Seotexiile Studies have shown lhat there aze
Does Tie 'Work
Tfiflurali~ ,, substaz~'e that has
'or 1/o u
both hot and cold days, and it helps
prevmt weed gm~vth between r~in wate~ which bendits the
rows of food crops, is slowly and plant. As mulch decomp~es,
_ ,, .. continuously reJeased in ~ vapor adds
/orm over a minimum of 10 years, course, it helps red-~ weed
~rowth,
inch zone ~ dUPer sid~ of the fab- Howev~ mulch is/mquently
ed growth around tr~es ' rlc, and in this ama root tip c~lls overused. It's oiten piled high
and shrubs is more than simply an cannot divide and reproduce, around th~ plan~, damab, i
una:l~,,ctive situatiom lAreeds corn- which is how mots ~w. Lmm, erhunk wb~_~ it touches ind provid-
pete with desirable plants for water' ' p~n~ sud~ u trees and shru~ in~ a haven/or imects and mold.
and nutrients, and hhey can cause have roo~, ~low the zo~ that are t/nlik~ so~ otl~r u~ skir~s, only
problems when they tangle around ........ /' ~¥ ....
a tree or shrub. But ~fiminatinif '~
_ Lawn mowers and weede.a, ters can ..' ~ ,.. ..... 9.,_~., ;~-,'. x-.-~-' ~. ~,~,_
C '"" '"'""" "'"'' ' '
'damage the bark if they hit a tree :=,-;.., · .,' . ;;:-'-L ~ ~-.' ~..,
~..;. :7.,I.%,.:~.~ ./:x.~,;, -~r~,,a,·
- ' or shrub, providing easy access for ;'t..~..' ...,',t:r, ,~ ,-, :z~,~. - ;~, ,,~.~. -
?"iL'-' ;''~'~' ''&~3 - - · -'
insects and disease. Sprayin§ weeds ~ ,~ - ...
with chemicals must be done repeat- .. . - ~ ,?, ,~,__. _
.,,-. .-_o -,.'_~ ~".,'
edl¥ and the spray ¢~n drift on. to ~_..~!~,~..~ ,.... ~, .,. .
desired plants; pull;vt§ weeds ,s a ~ ~*~}lt_""--~.;.;,"....'.,. '-,v~,~o-v ~,~ ' · 51~;e -
tlme-consuming and never-e~rlir~ ~,~.i~--;,~'~.'~%-~,~-,
Biobarriere H Tree Skirt solves the -~' -',' - s '
trees and shrubs before they have
a chance to grow out o~ control- un~ecimt ~nd c~n conlinua ~o two inches oI mulch on top o~
nourish lt~ planL Weed mots, Biobarrier II Tree Skirt inhibits
Because of the s"uccess o~ Biobarrier~ howeve~ a~ within th~ zone, and w~d 8row~ so you ~ experi-
II Preemergence Weed Control becau~ ~ can't ~s~blish a viabl~ ence the bendRs oJ mulch without
Systeat in iniu~iting weed ~ root sl'slm~, li~ weeds cannot the disadvantages.
survive.
customers began asking for the
product in a size and shape that Trifluralln is not systemlc, and it
could be used around trees and h~ an extremely low wa~r solubil-
;~"~lb$. Now lllaltufactxlx'er Reemay, ity of 0.3 ppm in wate~ It tightly
attach~ to mil, so it seldom
~.../nc, provides two sizes of the migrates, and it decomposes in
pm-cut, easy'to-use solution for to ~ months, which further
stopping weed growth around the reduces ~he potential/or contami-
nation. ~lturalinOs U~idtyis less .~ g - / 7
trees and shrubs in your landscaped ~ that oi lable salt, aspirin or
il'e~, nico[ine.
Tree
S~lrt
Is
pyre ~c won't mv~ or
~ a l~p ~der the fabric, ~y
~ Biob~er ff Tree Sk~, iffs . .. S~ ~ ~mw~ ~'below
~y ~ ~j~ ~e ~S ~d s~ubs ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~
Biobu e il
TREE SKIRT FABRIC
If you have any questions, contact your
nearest Biobarrler distributor or call a
Biobarrier representative at:
REEMAY, INC.
1-800-284-2780
· . .~ g.
'' 'BeCauSe e:]Tl~;ithe T°'UahestSurvivp
It's Timetoweed OUt"{,.ht,~.x~' ' Othe~ LandscaPe' Fabrics.
ighlm
The landscaper's n are: weeds and ..... -
problem grasses. They create an ugly ~''
landscape, potential hazards and compete
~th healthy plantings for space, light, water
and nutrients. Plus, they provide a habitat
for insects and diseases.
But there is a solution.
A guaranteed 'Solution.
Biobarriere II Preemergence I~ "~.~
Weed Control System.
Without BlobarrleP II weeds easily take over any
..-- unprotected landscaped area.
A revolutionary tool for the professional land- ·
scaper, comme~al and induatri-I companies,
Biobarrler il simply provides the ~ost effective ~lobarrle~il
surface vegetation management of any ¼nd- ~"
10-YEAR PROTECTION.
Blobarrier II combines a proven landscape .~~~ .?~...~
fabric with the effective preemergenc~, triflur- .:: :: .- :!.:~ ..... . ,..,.
alln, used to control surface vegetation in mw
crops for over 30 years. Through a patented
control-released process, Biobarrler II emits With eiobatrle~ li dasirab/e plents ~r/ve, but
only the amount of trlfluralln necessanj to unwanted weed~ are prevented from v/ab/e
control weed growth, germ/ne#on above or below any landscaped area.
Non-soluble In water, Biobarder II will not
contemlnate neafoy ground water. And it
eliminates the need for messy chemicals and
spays that can damage or kill adjacent plants.
BEST OFALL, IT'SGUARANTFED
Biobarrier' !1
TO PERFORM FOR 10 YEARS! PRE'EMERGENCE WEED CONTROL SYSTEM
$~ -/~
· - Btobarrler II can be used effectively under 2 inches of mulch,
gravel, stone or top soil. Its fabric cornposiltofl allows
Btobarrler II to be cut and shaped to fit any configuration.
And with its lO-year guarantee'of pe~nnance, Blot)artier II
is designed to pro, de unsurpassed surface vegetatiofl
control when used:
,'.
· Around the base of trees to prevent potential bunk
damage from weed trimmers
· Under guard rail~, mad signs and other roadside areas'.
where mowing or spraying ts unsafe or not feasible
· Beneath bdck or paver walkways
· Beneath gravel in utility substations (electrical or natural
gas) to eliminate spraying
· In greenhouses
· Under wood dec, ks '
· In Shrub and flower beds end rock gardens
- BIOBARRIER~:I~!:PREEi~1ERGENCE WEED CONTROL SYSTE~I
::' Remem~e'~E~.~m~i F°rg~tth~ weeds,'Guaranteed:
REEMA¥
70 Old Hlekory Blvd., PO Box 511
Old Hickory, TN., 37138-3651
Phone: I - 800 * 284 - 2780
Fax: (615) 847 - 7068 m4.u4oo2
EXHIBIT
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 27, 2000
~ircctor's Minor Modif~ation with rc~...i to tho P4anning Co.-n..b.qion to allow thc re,..cval of in the common area ora community housing project in an R-lC zone.
' Commission meeting of October 23, 2000
Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 2000
3. IO-EXC-O0, 14-U-00, 18-EA-00
Applicant: Mary Ellen Cheil (Cupertino Community Services)
Location: ism Drive and Stevens Creek Blvd. (North of new fire station)
Use Permit to construct n 24 unit housing apartment building and a 5,089 square foot
Cupertino Community Services building [.18 acre vacant lot.
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific requires a 30 foot separation between onsite
buildings.
Continued ft'om Planning Commission meeting of October 2000
Request postponement to Planning Commission 2000
MOT[ON: Com. Stevens moved to postpone Application Nos. 1~-00, 14-U-00 and
18-EA-00 to the December 11, 2000 Planning Commission~,?ing
SECOND: Com. Con' ~
ABSENT: Com. Doyle ~.
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ~
~CONSENT CALENDAR: ' Non~ ' ~~--
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None :, · ~
4. Application No.: 05-DIR-00
Applicant: Visa Gardens Homeowners Association
Location: Reinell Place and Cartwright Way
Director's Minor Modification with referral to the Planning Commission to remove eight trees and
replace with six-seven trees at an existing planned residential development.
Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of October 23,'2000
Planning COmmission decision final unless appealed
Staff presentation: ' The video presentation reviewed the application to remove eight treesat an
existing planned residential development, to be replaced with trees and shrubs matching the
existing plantings. Staff believes there are alternatives to removal of tho trees and recommends
denial of the application. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed within 14
calendar days.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, noted the location of the ash trees and monterey pines, and said
that the trees were healthier than shown in the pictures taken somo time ago. He pointed out that
only one of the monterey pines hadan infestation of the pine bore, but that it could be treated; and
that some of the monterey pine trees were showing some stress but have a shortened life span. He
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 27, 2000
_ said they were not at the end of their life span, which is why staff is not recommending removal of
the trees. Staff recommends the use of biobarrler on the problem trees.
Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input.
Ms. Gay Fischer, Vista Gardens Homeowners Asscci-tion, said that she was disappointed in the
staff recommendation. She said that previous unsuccessful attempts were made to have the
application approved, and thcre were photos of root damage that occurred many years ago. She
said there were community conccms that thc trecs might fall and cause damage as there was an
incident a number of years ago that a tree fell during a winter storm, and it was fortunate that it fell
into the street rather than onto a house. She said that she had been working on the application
since July, turned the application into the city in August, and was assured that it was complete. She
expressed frustration that she has been unable to meet repeated staff requests within the48 hour
deadline given, which results in the application being postponed further. She said she wanted
resolution on the issue and pointed out that they were proposing a replanting plan for a2:5 year old
development. They have cut roots in the past, and had heard ofbiobarrier just recently, but said
she felt that it was not a reasonable solution since the concrete would raise up over time. She said
that the manufacturer did not recommend biobarrier for existing planting.
In response to Com. Kwok's question about the time period before results were experienced with
biobarrier, Mr...lung said that the literature indicated the product was activated by moisture, and as
soon as the product is put in and wet down, it releases the chemical and the chemical acts to retard
root growth. The recommendations also warn that when trenching, to remove the roots in the
trench and not allow the toots to touch the fabric or through the fabric when it is rolled down, to
enable both sides to develop properly. Mr. Jung said that there was no Heart of the City
requirement for that part of Vista Drive; but it was further down on one of th& side streets. The
ash trees are a feature of the Stevens Creek Blvd., but not Vista Drive. He said the trees were in
the public right of way but the city arborist had not determ!ne.d that they are city street trees per se.
Ms. Fischer said that the trees were 5-1/2 feet from the curb, and she was told when the pro~ess
started that if the trees were more than five feet from the curb, they belonged to the homeowners.
Ms. Karin Meyer, 20271 Reinell Place, said that the tree in front of house No. 13 designated on
the map, had roots over and under the concrete and under her foundation, as well as roots under
house No. 12. She said they had to dig up their patio and dig for roots: and found roots under their
foundation and also of the next door neighbor, house No. 14. She reviewed their attempts to
resolve the problem with mot killer and find other ways to combat the problem, but nothing
offered guarantees, including the representative from biobarrier. She said they then had to replace
their patio. She noted that the biobarrier might be more successful with new trees but not the size
existing on their properties. She said the product was also bATnrdous to humans and domestic
animals, and cautioned about oontaminatin.s food and water. :She expressed conoern that it was
toxic and hazardous, and that the main water lines were next to the trees and utility lines. Ms.
"Meyer said that the residents liked trees and wanted to replant and have a nice complex, planting
between 6 and 7 crape myrtle trees which are planted throughout Cupertino. Referred to the tree
in the rear, she said she felt it was not the only diseased tree. She said the trees were obstructing
the solar system. It was noted that there were 10 trees in the pool area, as well as 3 huge redwoods
on the border line and one silver dollar Lee. She ~aid they applied for the permit for removal of $
'-- trees because of the concern about the monterey pines, not necessarily to remove them all at once,
but to be able to rectify problems if they worsened. :She said that they wanted to replant in the area
with trees that would not grow as large as the pine Lees which takes away from the solar system.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 27, 2000
The replanting phase would be a step by step phase. Ms. Meyer pointed out that it was their desire
to replant the 25 year development to freshen up its appearance.
Ms.. S. Khan, 20252 Cartwright Way, expressed concern about the trees nearby, especially under
storm conditions, since there was an ash tree in close proximity to her master bedroom and living
room, and the consequences if it should come crashing down on the roof. She said that she had
written a letter requesting more time to address the issue.
Chair Harris questioned if staffhed comparison costs of taking out the trees and replacing them vs.
pruning the roots and putting in the barriers. Mr. Jung responded that staffhad not developed that
information.
Mr~ Jung said that staff approached the two applications differently because the applicants had
different reasons for removing the trees; he was told that the monterey pines were diseased;
however, the arborist's report indicated they were not diseased although one did have an
infestation of the bore beetle, which could be treated with pesticides. He said that an arborist or
landscape contractor would recommend a cutting tree option, whereas a pesticide expert would
recommend a pesticide treatment, depending on their line of expertise. ' Relative to the solar
panels, Mr. Jung said that they were facing in the right direction, located on the
poolhouse/equipment house building, and with the location of the trees, he was not certain how
they would cast shadows in the direction noted by the speakers. Ms. Meyer clarified that some or
the solar panels were on the poolhouse, but the larger array was on what appeared to be a sun
shade.
Ms. Barbara Dixon, 20262 Cartwtight Way, discussed the location of the solar system and the
jacuzzi, and noted that the pine trees were planted by the contractor before they purchased their
home. She said she resided in house No. 11 and branches have broken off from the tree and 'fallen
down in the winter time. Although the tree is not in front ofber home, she said the leaves t'rom the
ash tree constantly clog the drains. '-
Ms. Fischer said the pine trees have been topped several times, but have grown over the years.
She did not know the last time they were topped as she had only been on the landscape committee
for a year. She said that the tree in front of No. 12 was only 11 feet from the house.
Chair Harris closed the public hearing.
Chair Harris said that from their standpoint it was actually two applications: to remove the ash
trees and replace with 6 or 7 crape myrtles and to remove the pines. The approval would be for all
5 pines, 3 immediately and 2 at their discretion.
Com. Corr said that he felt they did not have enough information to reach a decision, ns the
arborist's letter speaks only to the pine trees. He said he was inclined to either support staff'
recommendation or to grant a continuance for them to get more information about the other trees,
as to whether the root barrier would work for them or something similar, but he was reluctant to
remove the trees tht0ughout Cupertino. During the winter storms, branches fall from the trees and
the town would be defoliated if they tried to protect themselves from that happening. He
concurred that the pine trees were messy, and was certain they were affecting the solar system,
however, they were told that only one of them may be diseased with the bore beetle, while the
remainder are satisfactory. Com. Corr said that he was inclined to approve the staff report or to
Planning Commission Minutes s November 27, 2000
continue the application so that the homeowners could do a more complete job in presenting their
case.
Com. Kwok said he was inclined to support staff' recommendation or suggest trying the root
battier for approximately three months to see if it worked. The ash trees appear to be healthy; thc
pine trees should be cut, trimmed or pruned in tAe beginning.
Com. Stevens said his viewpoint was similar. He said he felt the ash trees should remain and the
biobartier tried to see if it will stop the root spread, lie said that 5-1/2 feet from the walkway was a
logical place for the trees, and any other tree in a similar area, except that the ash trees because
they are so stately would need to be topped and thinned or problems would arise. The monterey
pine is a different type of tree, not a native tree, subject to an infestation of some sort, rapid
growing, and the limbs will' frac~re. He said the monterey pine whether, they are. there or not.
could be thinned out or removed.
Chair Harris said she had the opposite view in that she felt the ash trees should be removed
because they are out of scale to the one story development. She said the photos depict the damage
they have caused, and the trees look sparse and shabby, and the biobarrler should have been tried
years ago. She said she felt that the 6 or 7 crape myrtle trees would look more suitable along the
front of the development and they bloom all summer. Com. Harris said the pine trees looked in
good shape, but needed trimming and regular pruning. She recommended trying to treat the bore
beetle before removing a large pine that forms an attractive green. She said the trees were there
before the solar panels and it was likely a mistake to put the solar panels at that location since the
trees were obviously going to grow.
MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to support staff recommendation to try the biobarriera on the
ash trees and trim the pine trees.
SECOND: Com. Stevens
NOES: Chair Harris ' -
ABSENT: Com. Doyle
VOTE: Passed 3- 1-0
Chair Harris clarified that she voted no because she felt there was a high cost to either project;
trimming the roots of big trees is very expensive and if that is what they choose to do, it would be
a double expense if in three months they would utilize the biobarrier.
Mr. Piasecki noted that the applicant could appeal the decision to the City Council within 14
calendar days
Chair Harris suggested that if an appeal was filed, the applicant might seek out more information
from the arborist especially on both types of trees and also on the costs to pursue the
recommended cures. She said there were numerous ways to deal with the issue and they did not
have a wealth of information.
5. Application lqo.(s): 01 I]XC 00, 03 IRA 00
Applicant: Chung Yeh ~1~~-~- -
Location: 11837 Upland Way -
Hillside exception to h,,~]g a %:~33 square foot residence on a prominent ridgeline and on slopes
,~' '~~' : ...... EXHIBIT
,.-' Vis,,, Gardens Homeowners Associa..n
December 11, 2000
City Council
City of Cupertino
Re: Appeal of Plannin$ Commission denial of applic~ion 05-DIR-00
On. August 7, 2000 Vista Gardens Homeowners Association applied for a permit
'for removal of three Ash trees along the eastern boundary of our proper~ on Vista Dr., ';'
Md five Monterrey pines along the western boundary of our property. There are root
problems associated with all. these trees. Root cutting has been pursued in.the past,
weakening the trees. At least one of the pines is infected with borer beafles. The pem,;t
was denied at the planning commission hearing on November 27, 2000.
· We have requested estimates from several tree companies for topping/pruning,
root cutting, installation 'of a root barrier, and spraying. In the course ofinspe0tion by
representatives of these companies, we have again been advised that the ash trees in
particular will soon cause severe problems. In addition to the encroachment of roots on
the sidewalks, fences, and foundations ofthe houses, the roots of the northernmost ash are
We advised the planning commission that we plan to replant with smaller and more
appropriate trees along Vista Drive. These plans cannot proceed while roots From the ash
trees continue to spread. We share the commissions desire to maintain a pleasing
street-scape. We, {herefore, respectfillly request the City COuncil to overturn the denial of
the.t~ee removal permit, at least with respect to the ash trees.
Yogrs truly,
' Secretary
I~? ' ~ ,I j! 20263 CartwriffhtWay
CUPI:RTII~O
' 202S3 Cartwright Way
· Tel: 255-2017
DEC 12
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
..~ CiW Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-31 t 0
ClTYOF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPEI INO Website: www.cupertino.org
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number '-~'7 Agenda Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Veteran's Memorial: Should thc City conlributc $5,000 toward the cost of a World War II Veteran's
Memorial in Washington D.C., or consider options for a memorial to be installed at thc Cupertino
Senior Center.
BACKGROUND
Council received a request from a resident to honor World War II Veterans through a $5,000 cash
contribution to the National World War II Monitorial in Washington D.C. This issue was raised under
Oral Communications and is being placed on the agenda at this time for discussion purposes.
An alternative to contributing to the national memorial is to incorporate a Cupertino memorial with the
completion of the Senior Center. Two suggestions have been discussed:
* Installation of a flag pole/memorial plaque in the courtyard at the entry to the center, and
· Planting of a significant specimen tree with a memorial plaque in the Senior Center lawn.
Senior Center staffhas discussed the opportunity that such a memorial would represent for them; an
annual event to rededicate the memorial and share Veteran stories could be scheduled.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council provide direction to staffon a response to the request to contribute funds to the
National World War H Memorial in Washington D.C.
SUBMITTED BY: ..... APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Director
David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
mp
Pr~n'.ed on ~ecvded Paoer 3 '~ ~' /
CRy Hall
_ 10300 Torte Avenue
· Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPE INO F.x: (408)777-3109
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SER¥1CE$
SUMMARY
Agenda Itern No. ~ Meeting Date: January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSU~
Provide the option for disposing of surplus city property (supplies and equipment) to
another public agency or local charitable organization.
BACKGROUND
Surplus city-property must be currently disposed through (1) a public auction process or
(2) sold to an independent auctioneer with the highest bid. Revenue received from this
process is minimal.
In 2000, a local charitable organization requested surplus cell phones for battered women.
Under our current ordinance, we were unable to accommodate this request. This
amendment provides additional flexibility to participate in helping other public agencies
or local charitable organizations with donations of old or obsolete supplies and
equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council amend our city code to provide for the transfer of
surplus supplies and equipment to certain public agencies and charitable corporations.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A.Atwood David W, Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
ORD CE No. /fig ?
AN ORDINANCE OF crn' COUNCIL OF THE crry
OF CUPERTINO AMENDINO CHAPTER 3.25 OF THE
CITY'S ORDINANCE CODE TO ADD SECTION 3.25.100
TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF SURPLUS
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT TO CERTAIN PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Amendment to Chapter 3.25
There is hereby added to Chapter 3.25 of the City's ordinance c, ode, section 3.25.100
which reads as follows:
3.25.100 Transfers to Certain Public Agencies
and Charitable Corporations
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter to the contrary, the
City Council may approve the transfer of surplus supplies and equipment to a
public agency or a charitable corporation without receipt of valuable
consideration under the following conditions:
1) The surplus supplies and equipment must be utilized only for
the benefit of the residents of Cupertino.
2) The fair market value of said surplus supplies and equipment
shall not exceed $5,000.00.
As used in this section, the term "charitable corporation" means a non-
profit corpo~on which is granted charitable status under the provisions of §
501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
SeCtion 2 Publication Clause
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper
of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days alter its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of
publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the ~ day of ,200~ and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 200~, by the
following vote~
Vote: Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstnin:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
2
.~ City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
_ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM -~ ~ AGENDA DATE Sam~A~y 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
First reading of Ordinance No. ~: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino Amending Section 11.08.250 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to the
Designation of Bicycle Lanes, To Add Bicycle Lanes on De Anza Boulevard from Homestead
Road to State Route 852'
BACKGROUND
In 1998, the City received a $60,000 grant under the Tran.~portation Fund for Clean Air Program
from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to install bike lanes on De AnT~ Boulevard
from Homestead Road to State Route 85.
These bike lanes will benefit residents in commuting on the City's bikeways network. The scope
of work included the installation of tra/~c signs, traffic stripes, and pavement markings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ....
Staff recommends that thc City Council conduct thc first reading of Ordinance No. __,
designating bike lanes on De Anza Boulevard from Homestead Road to State Route 85.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Qt~_o!ls, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City MAn~er
Printed on Recycled Pa~er
: Clatlan Rd -7
~rRd ~
N
LEGEND
· Cupertino Traffic Signal
· Joint Traffic Signal
· Potential Traffic Signal
Bicycle Lanes
De Anza Boulevard
Bicycle Lanes
ORDINANCE NO. 1870
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING SECTION 11.08.250 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF BICYCLE LANES,
TO ADD BICYCLE LANES ON DE ANZA BOULEVARD FROM
HOMESTEAD ROAD TO STATE ROUTE 85
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that
Section 11.08.250 be amended to add the following:
Street Description Sides
Dc P,n?a Boulevard Homestead Road to State Route 85 Both
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _
16a day of Jan. sry, 2001 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this day of .2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Cl~rk Mayor, City of Cup~ino
I
CiW Hall
10300 Ton~ Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPEILTINO Website: www.cupenino.org
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Agenda Item No. ~ Meeting Date: Jan. 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Selection of application deadlines and inte~riew dates for vacancies on the Cupertino Library
Commission.
BACKGROUND
There were three vacancies on the Library Commission, and on Tuesday, Jan. 9, the City Council
interviewed and re-appointed incumbent Diana Wu. However, no other applicants were present, so the
City Clerk's Office will re-post the vacancy notice and send out a press release. Also, the individuals
with applications on file will be contacted again to see if they are still available.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the following dates for the filing dcadline and interviews:
Deadline for applications: Tuesday, Jan 30, 2001
Council interview, of applicants: Monday, Feb 5, 2001
6:00 p.m., conference room A (prior to Council meeting)
Submitted by: Approved for Submission to the City Council:
imberly Smitl/./City C er David W. Knal~p, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. 1866
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO A/VlEND~G TITLE 19 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL
CODE BY PRE-ZONING A 0.26 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT
21103 LAVINA COURT TO PRE-R1-10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET)
...... .(APPLICATION NO. 06-Z-00)
WHEREAS, the City Council directs the pre-zoning of the property to Pre-RI-10
(Application 06-Z-00); and
WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one Public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the pre-zoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, the property to be pre-zoned is presently in the unincorporated area; and
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as a
proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit "B" be hereby pre-zoned to
Pre-RI-10, and that Exhibit "A" attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the
City of Cupertino.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4'h
day of December 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this __ day of , , by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
ATTEST: APPROVED:'
City Clark Mayor, City of Cupertino
g:lpdrgpo~ord/o~dO6zO0
Exhibit
~ONIKIG PLA"r N4A?-
t4o' o~ ~5'w
~;.. TR, A CT N~o. G, 3 ~
..... ~-~. ~ LoT ~
FRom: .coUu~ '"~ ... ...
~ ;'0~ ~
'~ q" ~ ~o, Z
'
~Lo~A ~TAJ AW.
ARIA: ~2~- 08-024
API~F::55; ?..I,10:.,-3 LAVI~A
Exhibit
DESCRIPTION
PRE-ZONE 0.262 ACRE FROM COUNTY TO
ppR RI-IO
Ail that certain real property situated in the County of Santa
Clara, Skate of California, being' all of Lot 48 in Tract No. 631
"GARDEN GATE VILLAGE" a map of which was recorded on May 23, 1949
in Book 22 of Maps at Page 56, Santa Clara County Records.
Date:. September 20, 2000
APN: 326-08-024
Address: 21103 Lavina Ct., Cupertino
Current Evaluation of Pilot Program
The Task Force met most recently on January 4, 2001 where residents and students, along
with school administrators all continued to voice satisfaction with the way the program
was working. Comments from residents indicated a noticeable drop in traffic, which on
the Hyannisport side consists largely of pamn~ dropping students at the school entry,
residents and students parking with permits.
Everyone continues to feel that, up to this point, the conduct has been positive for all
concerned and everyone seems to support the contin-~r~ce of the pilot program. The staff
at Monta Vista High School periodically drive the permit areas to ensure compliance and
ensure that the streets are safe. Residents and school staff report very few complaints
since the inception of the program.
A survey of prospective student drivers in the sophomore and junior class was conducted
by the High School staff was provided to the Council in November and also attached to
this report. The survey indicates the potential for an additionzl 367 students who could
apply for a permit in the future.
Additional Pe, iait Areas for Future Expansion of the Program
In addition to the areas in the pilot program (Dolores Avenue and Hyannisport Drive) the
Task Force is suggesting that they would like to pursue the potential for including other
permit parking areas into the student pilot program. The residential streets that the T~k
Force has identified with the most potential include Fort Baker Drive, Presidio Drive,
Wilkinson Avenue, Shattuck Drive, Santa Theresa Drive, Byme Avenue, Orange Avenue,
and Noouan Court. The District and the High School have agreed, subject to concurrence
by the Council, to take the responsibility for purs~ing that option in those neighborhoods.
The City staff will continue to participate in the task Force meetings and monitor efforts
of the Committee to extend the program,
McClellan Road Residents Concerns
At the time the original pilot program was approved the residents on McClellan Road
immediately west of Monta Vista High had asked to be included in the permit parking
program along with others previously approved. The Council, citing the approval of the
student parking program, did not include the McClellan Road residents in the permit
parking program but suggested an evaluation of thc situation be made after the semester
began.
As indicated to the Council on November 16, 2000, City staff does not recommend any
change to the program at this time. McClellan Road currently h~ a 24-hour no parking
restriction on the west side of the street opposite the residents who have expressed an
interest in Parking permits on the east side of the street.
McClellan is designated a collector street but is very narrow from Madrid Road to where
it tums east toward Monta Vista. This situation creates limitations on roadside parking
within the current right-of-way.
In connection with the Safe Routes to School grant recently received by the City, staff
will evaluate these conditions on McClellan Road and report backto the Council towards
the end of the spring semester with appropriate recommendations regarding the
implementation of the Grant pro.am and will include recommendations with respect to
the McClellan Road situation.
Several members of the m~k force are expected to be present to address the Council on
this matter on ~anuary 16, 2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the extension of the Monta Vista Student Parking Pilot Program for the spring
semester through June 2001.
Approve a position of support for the Fremont Union High School District to extend an
invitation to residents in other adjacent permit parking areas (Fort Baker, Presidio,
Wilkinson, Shattuck, Santa Theresa, Byme, Orange and Noonan) with a report back to
Council with appropriate recowmendafions prior to the end of the spring semester 2001.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
ORJ)IN.~u'VCE NO. 1867
AN ORDINANCE OF Tl~. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AUTIIO]ilZING AN AM~.NDMENT TO THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND
T~[~. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF Tn~, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
That an amendment to the conlract between the City Council of the City of
Cupertino and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retir~,~ent
System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked
Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.
Section 2.
The Mayor of the City of Cuperlino is hereby authorized, empowered, and
directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
Section 3.
_ The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cupertino within 15 days after its
· adoption, in accordance with Gover-,~ment Code Section 36933, shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together
with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances oftbe Council oft_his
City.
INTRODUCBD at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
thc 4th day of December, 2000 and BNACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Cupcrtlno on the 15th day of January, 2001, by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council'
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
CiTY OF Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
C U PEI:LTI NO (408)777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM ~-~ AGENDA DATE January 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval to Extend the Monta Vista High School Pilot Student Parking Program for an
Additional Semester through June 2001.
Approval of Support for the Fremont Union High School District to invite additional
Permit Parking Areas to participate in the Student Parking Pilot program.
BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2000 the Council received a status report Mm the Monta Vista High
School Parking Task Force that positively supported the success of the pilot program in
the Monta Vista Area. The persons representing the Fremont Union High School District,
the Monta Vista Student Body and residents in the surrounding neighborhood all
indicated positive support for the extension of the program through the Spring Semester
ending in June Of 2001. A map indicating the entire current permit parking areas in the
Monta Vista neighborhoods is attached.
In addition, the Committee members had indicated to the Council that they would like to
pursue other adjacent parking permit neighborhoods to encourage their participation in
the student parking program in the following year beginnlqg with the fall semester in
September of 2001.
A letter from the District Superintendent and the Principal of Monta Vista High School
in support of those requests along with some background information is attached.
D~i~t~d Pmmit P~kin~
Augus~Septem~r F~ 9am - 5pm
, ~ Ft BakerlPm~di~New Haven~ld Tow~ilkin~anta Te~s~hat~
Hyannispo~ ~ide) Daily ~ Hyannispo~ (wes~de) Monday- F~W 7am- 4pm
Monday- F~day 8~ - 3:30pL
Lily/Ro~ Blossom Monday -Fdday 8am - 7;30pm
Byrne~oloredN~nanlOrange Monday - F~dw 8am - 4pm
" Manta Vista High School
Memorandum
PARKZNG PZLOT PROEM UPDATE, November'Z, 2000
· 35 students have spaces in front of homes on Hyannispart and Dolores
· Students were I~ovided with a special Halloween card to give to these ~esidents and
were encouraged to leave and card and a small 'Halloween treat' on the doo~*tep of
~heir resident
During the week of October 23, 2000 as ~ was conducted with all of the sophomore
and Junio~ students. Survey results a~e beki~:
5ophomo~es - Class of 03 Total number surveyed 529
Number who I~ve or will have their license %90
by
Number who have or will have access to %56
driving a vehicle to school by 6/%/00
Number who would lik~ to apply for a
reserved parking space in front of a home
~uniars - Class of 02 Total number surveyed 482
Number who hove or will have their license 375
by 6/%/0%
Numbe~ who have or will have access to 288
driving a vehicle to school by 6/1/00
Number who would lik~ to apply for a 2%8
reserved parking sl~ce in front of o home
T~tal ,umber of 367
~phoma~es and ,Tuela~s
who would Gpply far a
~ese~d pa~imj spa~e In
the oommunJty
· ~enior students will be offered the opportunity to apply for one of %0 RESERVED
5PACES in the Parking Lot for the second semester if they are confirmed as Car Pool
applicants. A car pool is defined as ~ seniors, c~iving two different vehicles, sharing
one space. Calls will be made to pm~nts as those applications are turned Jn to verify the-
authenticity of these appli .catians. A lottery will be held to award these %0 RESERVED
SPACES during the week of ,Tanuary
· At this point in time there are 325 Parking spaces in the parking lot on our campus. 7
of these spaces are available for Staff Parking, the remaind~ (252) are availiable for
Senior students. A total of 267 permits have I~e~ gJve~ to 5eniar~.
Fm MONT UN ON HIGH $CHOOt D STR CT
'-- Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista High Schools and Adult/Community Education
Jo~ Hamilton, Superintendent of Schools
lanua~y 8, 2001
Mayor Sandra James
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Monta Vista High School "Pilot Student Parking Permit Program"
Dear Mayor James:
At the April 3, 2000 Council Meeting, members requested that City and District staff 'meet to resolve
concerns regarding a request by residents to extend permit parking to Hysnnlspon Dr. and Dolores Ave.
A Parking Task Force Committee, made up of City/District staff, students and residents from
Hyannispon Dr. and Dolores Ave. immediately began researching ways to mitigate parking concerns,
which is largely due to a growing student population and loss of parking resulting from the District's
facilities renovation program (Measure "H"). Resident input helped to structure the guidelines for a
"Pilot Student Parking Permit Program" that was initiated in September 2000. On November 20, 2000,
Council members received a status report from the Parking Task Force Committee that was ve~j
positive and included resident comments supporting continuance of the "Pilot Student Parking Permit
Program". For your infot'tuafion, we have included an attachment (see Exhibit "A~') that provides
additional background info~mafion related to this subject. On January 4, 2001, the Parking Task Force
Committee unanimously agreed to support a proposal that included the following:
~ Extend the "Pilot Prograni" on Hyannisport Dr. and Dolores Ave. through spring 2001;
,~ Invite residents from existing "Permit Parking" areas, near Monta Vista High School to join the
Parking Task Force Committee to research the feasibility of extending the "Pilot Student Parking
Permit Program" to these residents in fall 2001.
On January 16, 2001, the Council will be conducting a Public Hearing on this topic. We believe that the
Parking Task Force Committee has done an excellent job of researching the issues, collecting
community input and developing creative strategies to help resolve the problem. We want to share our
strong support for the Parking Task Force Committee proposal and assure you that we are fully
committed to this effort. Subject to approval by the Council, the Parking Task Force Committee
intends to hold an informational meeting for residents on February 15, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Monta
Vista High School Library.
On behalf of the students and staff at Monta Vista High School, we want to thank you. for your
continued support and commitment to the important process of working together to resolve our
community challenges.
Sincerely,
A/$oe I-[jm'filton Betty Pow
Superintendent of Schools Monta Vista High School Principal
Attach: Exhibit "A"
589 West Fremont Avenue (408) 522-2200
Post Office Box F FAX (408) 245-5325
Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER http:llwww, fuhsd.org/
Exhibit "A"
Additional Bacl~ound Tnfo~,mtiol~:
The past several years have provided great opportunities, as well as, great challenges for the students,
staff and neighbors who live near Monta Vista High SchOOl (MVHS). In April 1998, the voters in.the
Fremont Union High School District approved a $144 million General Obligation Bond (Measure H) to
provide desperately needed fimdnmental repairs, renovations and new or modernized classrooms at all
five high school sites.
Although some renovation work was completed in 1999, major construction began at MVHS in the
spring of 2000 and will be phased, building by building, over the next four to five years. In order to
house students displaced by the renovation work, portable classroom.~ were installed in the faculty
parking lot (loss of 93 spaces). By modifying existing parlring, creating spaces between buildings, and
adding parking on the outdoor basketball courts, 65 spaces were recaptured. Also, by eliminating
designated parking for students, approximately 60 additional student drivers were accommodated on
campus. During the 2000-01 school year, construction is scheduled to begin on a new gymnasium/
science building. This project will temporarily displace at least 41 parlclng spaces.
Parking Task Force Committee/Council Meetings:
At the April 3, 2000 Cupertino City Council Meeting, residents on Hyannisport Dr. and Dolores Ave,
petitioned to extend the "Permit Parking Zone" to these two streets. After hearing from both those who
advocated for the plan, and those who opposed it, the Council directed City staff to work with the
District to lOOk into the matter and provide a status report at the May I, 2000 Council Meeting. At the
May 1, 2000 meeting, the Council voted unanimously to implement "Permit Parking" immediately, and
to implement the proposed "Pilot Student Parking Permit Program", developed by the Parking Task
Force Committee, for fall semester 2000. It was also decided to expand the Parking Task Force
Committee to include residents from Hyannisport Drive and Dolores Ave,, and together, work to
develop specific guidelines for implementing the "Pilot Student paridng Permit Program". On May 12,
2000, the Parking Task Force Committee met at MVHS, where residents Sandy Ravizza, Jackie Kritzer
and Dennis Yan, represented Hyannisport Dr., and Victoria Gomes and David Shen represented Dolores
Ave. At this meeting, substantial progress was made, but it was decided that another meeting would be
needed to refine the plan. On May 31, 2000, the Parking Task Force Committee met once again, and at
this meeting, additional progress was made to refine the plan to address specific needs of the residents,
as well as, all represented paRi. 'es. ',
At the June 5, 2000, Council Meeting, Mr. Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Worksl provided a status
report and recommended that a Public Hearing be scheduled for June 19, 2000 to discuss the "Pilot
Program" with Hyannisport, Dolores and McClellan residents. Based upon input from the Council at
this meeting, the District strengthened its commitment to research ways to encourage additional car
pooling, bicycling and use of public transportation as a way to minimize the impact of traffic and
parking to the school site and the surrounding neighborhood. As an example, in the 2000-01 school
year, MVHS will be working with the City to implement a $10,000 grant to increase safe bicycling
routes to MVHS. Also, on December 4, 2000, the Council adopted a resolution appropriating $40,000
as the City's share for grant funds to be used for the Safe Routes to School Program, which will provide
traffic-calming measures around Lincoln Elementary, and Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista
High School.
At the November 20, 2000 Council Meeting, the Parking Task Force Committee provided a status
report, which reported on the success of the "Pilot Student Parking Peru,it Program" to date. Council
Members were told that the Committee intended to recommend that the "Parking Pilot Program" be
extended through spring semester 2001, and that it was likely the Committee would recommend
extending the program to other permit parking areas in fall 2001.
Monta Vista High School
Pnrking Task Force Committee
City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014..3255
CITY O~= Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CU PI P INO (408)77%3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: Ja_n_!!_n_ry 16, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review and acceptance of the 1999/2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
BACKGROUND
We arc pleased to inform you that thc City has received a clean bill of health from our auditors,
Maze and Associates, for our 1999/2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). A
draft of this report will be discussed in detail with our Audit Committee. :
The CAFR includes information at both a consolidated and individual fund level to provide the
reader with additional info~taation on the City's operations. We have submitted this report to
thc Govemmcntal Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of Achievement Award.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Submitted by:
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
General Fund
Comparative Statements of RevenU~ E~,~d#um and
Chnnps in Fund Bahness
For the ~ Years Ended June 30, 2000 and 1999
20OO 1999
~-venues: S 23,119~.~9 S 18,067,176
?axes 2,160,655 2,417,202
Use of mm~ey and propert~ 2,728,036 2,76:3,282
tnlergovernmental 1,871,873 2,256,443
~,rges for services 524,057 50:3,223
.:ines and forfeitures 418,870 145,854
Toud revenues 30,822,750 26,153,180
penditures:
2rrent: 1,242,310 1,t3:3,408
aw enforcement 4,693,$65 4,892,704
"~ ublic information 796,458 631,035
,~h,i,~t~ve services 2,387,662 1,993,2~4
1,536,152 1,363,410
¢creation services 2,074,080 1,871,242
ornmunity development 7,821,082 7,285,440
2blic works
rotal expenditures 20,.~$1,309 19,170,473
-:xccss of revenues over (un~) exp~ 10,271,441 6,982,707
let financing sources (uses):
~-rating uansfers in 72~,000 1,116,350
q)eratin8 tr~,~,fets out (9,259,514) ( 18,54 1,170)
oral other f~,-,,~¢ing sources (uses) (8,534,514) (17,424,820) .
tcess (defiency) of revennes
,ver (,,,,der) exp~
,',her ~umcing sources (uses) 1,736,927 (10,442,113)
~d balances, beginning of year 2.~,962,393 36,404J06
~ d balances, end of yesr $ 27,699,320 $ 25,962~93
59
EXHIBIT D
OCEAN AVENUE COURT
EMEEYVlLLE, CAUFORNIA
ACCESSIBLE / ADAPTABLE HOUSING
Fo~the Hou~lng A~ of Alameda Count/
Ocean Avenue Court Is slx 2 and 3 bed- throughout the entire site, Including play
room units of affordable, accessible area, entry porches and automobile
and adaptable family housing located access, In addition to the residences
on an Inflll 8,000 sf site In an existing sin- themselves. The structures are arranged
gle family Emen/vllle neighborhood. The to emulate two typical single family res-
projects design emphasizes accessibility Idences with rear· ~arages.
Cupertino Community Services and Family Houdng
VAN ME'I~ER WlLUAMS POLLACK
An example of a design with tight eaves
Cupertino Community Sen/Ices and Family Housing
VAN METER WILUAMS POLLACK
Bdlinger Rd
N
LEGEND
· Cupertino Traffic Signal
· Joint Traffic Signal
--- · Potential Traffic Signal
i ~ ~ ~, Bridge
CALAB.a2.~S CREEK BRIDGE
on BO~LLINGER ROAD
c~,~ Cupertino Community Services ~
BridgeC, uperltno Housing Housing Corporation Sewices & and c.p.,,~ Famlly~ Housing "~3s.. w,~.. ~,.o.~ van5zo ~l,~ st,.~ st. sas ~..~ Meter cAWilliams ~4~ o? Po,a(
1 2/6/00
c,~ Cupertino Community Services
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Cupertino Housing Sewices & ~ and Family Housing
Bddge Housing Corporation cupemno, caifm~a
1216/00
A1.2
Client Cupertino Community Services ~~:
Cupertino Housing Services & and Family Housing Van Meter Williams Pollack
Bridge Housing Corporation Cupertino, California ~IlI~IllIn' ~ + ~ oe~.
520 Thin:l Street, Ste 525
0 E~[.O~. 1E.2: FIR~'T FLOOR
Client Cupertino Community Services ~,~:
Cupedino Housing ~i~es & and Family Housing Van Ueter Williams Pollack
Bridge Housing Corporation .(~ Cupe.ino, cal~mia 'im=~,*{~=~~ ~ · ~,-- o.~
10/16/00
~ -,-~~~
Illlllt?lllllllllll ..........................
Client Cupertino Community Services
Cupertino Housing Services & and Family Housing Van Meter Williams Pollack
Bridge Housing Corporation (~ Cuper~no, C~i~'nia
10/16~00
WT ~I..EVA'"rI~N iii iii
c,~., Cupertino Community Services
Cupertino Housing Services &~-, and Family Housing~ Van Meter Williams Pollack
Bridge Housing Corporation ~ Cupertino, Cafllomia
1 216100
Client Cupertino Community Services
Cupertino Housing Services & and Family Housing Van Meter Williams Pollack
Bridge Housing Corporation Cup~tieo, California
PLANT PALt:. I I E
SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME HGT X WDTH
/ TREES
J B~HYCHITON POPULNEUS BO~LE TREE ~' X 50'
~ ~ ~US FLORIBUNDA J~ESE C~PLE (~1~) 20' X
~ ~ m ~ ' J ~ ~ CE~IS OCCIDENT~S ~S~RN REDBUD lO' X 7'
/Y' x TRIST~mA CONFERTA BRISB~E BOX 50' X 30'
~ ~ ~ B~U~ JACQUEMONB~ B~RCH 50' X 20'
· .: · ~
'~KOGE/' (PURPLE)
' I I I
m
SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS
j j ~ C~E~ S~QUA C~ELUA
I J cmos PURPUREUS ORCHID R~KROSE
I I RHODODENDRON, SP. RHODODENDRON
JUNIPERUS
RIBES
VINES
~ GRASSES
~ SCHEMATIC PLANTIN~ PLAN
C~tino ~g ~vice8 & Cupertino Community ~ervices Merril + Belu Asmociatea Van Meter Williams Pollack
Bridge ~u~ng C~rati~ ~ ~ v~.. r~. and Family Housing ~~'~
'-~-~! ii!. '
~ [ .,~"~..~.. ~)-~::,~::"~"~'~'~-~---~-e-"-=-=-'~.~.J-~d?- '-~-~ :~--fl;,--t .... -? ~-~.., r
$ T~' V~$ C~'~' ~,' V~ ~NCINIT¥ ~AP (NO SCALE)
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
STEVENS r.r~-r-~,,,. ~..' BLVD. ~;a,~'mc sc.,~r ~
T._.~ T_~ T T ~
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT B
EICH LER DESIGN GUIDELINES
FAIRGROVE
~ January 16, 2001
OTY OF City of Cupertino
CU
PER~INO Comm,,.i~ Development Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
· INTRODUCTION
Why Guidelines?
Where Is Fairgrove?
What Is An Eichler?
Additions, Remodels, and New Homes in Fairgrove
· THE ZONING CODE
-"Rle" Eichler Development Standards
Setbacks
Building Design Requirements
Privacy Protection Requirements
· GUIDELINES
Eichler Design Elements
Rooflines
Building Form
Glazing
Building Materials
Colors
Exterior Accessories
Streetscape
Two Story Homes
· EXHIBITS & RESOURCES
A. Map of Fairgrove
B. Zoning Code Matrix - Fairgrove Neighborhood
C. Eichler Resources
Souri:es
INTRODUCTION
WHY GUIDELINES?
Cupertino has a special community character, which contributes to its unique
quality of life and sense of place enjoyed by people who live and work here.
Neighborhoods play a vital role in illustrating this community quality of living.
The City was approached by some residents of the Fairgrove neighborhood
concerned about preserving the identity of their neighborhood and the privacy of
existing homes as growth and development occurred. A citywide architectural
survey by the City confirmed that Fairgrove, with its unique Eichler homes, was
worthy of preservation. The collaboration between the Fairgrove neighborhood, an
architectural con-sultant, and the City, led to the adoption of the "Rle - Single
Family Eichler" development standards and the rezoning of Fairgrove as an "Rle"
district.
The Eichler Design Guidelines take the next step in encouraging Eichler
homeowners towards successful design solutions while preserving the identity of
their neighborhood. The guidelines can also be 'used as a resource by Fairgrove
homeowners interested in preserving the Eichler style while remodeling their
homes. Since architectural creativity and today's changing needs are of
importance to homeowners, the guidelines focus only on those exterior elements
of the Eichler architectural style that are essential for the preservation of
neighborhood character.
WHERE IS FAIRGROVE?
~ ,~ Ll~' ~ The Fairgrove neighborhood is zoned "Rle
!!!111111 - Eichler Single Family" and includes the
-~%. ........ area bounded by Phil Lane to the north,
.~~ ~~ Tantau Avenue to the east, Bollinger to the
]33~ south, and Miller Avenue to the west.
~_~-~~~~~l~'i~m'~-~ Figure I shows the boundaries of the
Fairgrove neighborhood (see Exhibit A for
~ _ ~--~,0;,' a detailed map). The Fairgrove
~_~ neighborhood consists of a group of 220
iq Eichler homes built in the early 1960's,
which have maintained a consistent Eichler
'- '~ .... ~ architectural style.
FIG. 1 - FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD 3
EICHLER DESIGN GUIDELINES
WHAT IS AN EICHLER?
Eichlers are modernist style homes built by developer, Joseph Eichler, from the
late 1940s through the late 1970s. The homes gained popularity in part, due to
the postwar housing crisis following World War II. Eichler homes exemplified a
regional architectural style for the Bay Area's temperate climate with an emphasis
on modern, geometric lines,
indoor-outdoor living through
open plans, and glazed atriums,
and technological innovation
such as radiant-heat floors. Eichler
homes have a unique design largely
characterized by single stories with
mostly Iow pitched or flat roofs, multiple
indoor/outdoor patios or atriums, slab
foundations, and extensive glass.
REVIEW PROCESS FOR ADDITIONS, REMODELS, AND NEW
HOMES IN FAIRGROVE
Additions, remodels, and new homes in the Fairgrove Neighborhood are subject to
the following:
· "Sinqle Family - R1 Zones" - Chapter 19.28 of the Zoning Code - All new house
construction, additions, and remodel projects in the entire City including the
Fairgrove neighborhood, are required to conform to the R1 Zoning Code.
· "Rle -Eichler Development Requlations" - Chapter 19.28.100 of the Zoninq
Code -All new house construction, additions, and remodel projects in the
Fairgrove Neighborhood are required to conform to the "Rle" regulations. They
are illustrated in Chapter 2.
· Exceptions to the "RI" or "Rl e" Code in the Fairgrove Neighborhood will be
subject to review by the City's Design Review Committee.
· Eichler Design Guidelines - The guidelines illustrated in Chapter 3 apply to the
Fairgrove neighborhood. The guidelines are voluntary and are meant to guide
and encourage residents towards successful improvement solutions while
preserving the neighborhood's unique assets.
Exhibit B in Chapter 4 contains a matrix outlining RI, Rle, and Eichler Design
Guidelines applicable to the Fairgrove neighborhood.
4
THE "Rle" ZONING CODE
All new house construction, addition and remodel projects in the City must conform
to the R1 zoning code regulations in Chapter 19.28 of the Zoning Code.
In addition, new house construction, additions and remodel projects in the
Fairgrove Neighborhood must conform to the following Chapter 19.28.100 -
Development Regulations - Eichler (R1 e) as follows:
ZONING CODE - CHAPTER 19.28.100 DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS - EICHLER (Rl-e)
Rl-e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural
form through the establishment of district site development regulations.
Regulations found in the other sections of this ordinance shall apply to properties
zoned Rl-e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter
and this section, this section shall prevail. Nothing in these regulations is
intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story addition.
A. SETBACK - FIRST STORY
1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
B. BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
1. Entry features facing the street shall -~-~
be integrated with the roofline of
the house.
2. The maximum roof slope shall be
3:12 (rise over run).
DESIRABLE
ltegr ".
r0Oflir~e ·
........................ NOT DESIRABLE
5
EICHLER DESIGN GUIDELINES
3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not
including the garage
door) shall incorporate
vertical grooves, up to six
inches apart.
DESIRABLE
4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than
curved lines.
5. Second story building wall offsets described in section 19.28.060 (D)5b are
not required for homes in the "Rl-e"
zone.
6. The first floor shall be no more than 12
inches above the existin'g grade.
7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side
yards shall not exceed nine feet in
height measured from the top of the
floor to the top of the wall plate.
DESIRABLE
C. PRIVACY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
1. Side & Rear Yard Facing Second Floor Windows
In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Chapter
19.28.060(F), the following is required for all second
story windows:
a. Cover windows with exterior
louvers to a height of six feet
above the second floor, or
b. Obscure glass to a height of ~glass
six feet above the second
floor, or J~ ~ .,~1~
c. Have a window sill height of
Window
sills
five feet minimum above the
second floor. ~ DESIRABLE
GUIDELINES
The Eichler Design Guidelines in this chapter are voluntary and contain information
on basic principles of Eichler architecture for homeowners intending to remodel,
expand, or replace their Eichler home. Architectural creativity and today's changing
needs are of importance to individual homeowners; therefore the guidelines focus
on only those exterior elements of architectural style that are considered essential
for the preservation of neighborhood character.
EICHLER DESIGN ELEMENTS
There are several key design elements that form the Eichler style, including:
rooflines, building form, glazing, materials, details, and streetscape. Additions,
renovations, and new homes should, therefore, conform to the following basic
standards:
· ROOFLINES - should consist of the following types:
· / Broad Iow-pitched gables with deep
overhangs facing the street with ridgeline
perpendicular to the street.
~'Combination of Iow-pitch gables with
overhangs and flat roofs.
v Roof overhangs at all sides of the
building that match the original
overhang. DESIRABLE
v' Flat roof elements at different heights
with or without deep overhangs.
v' Hip roofs are not desirable.
Flat roofs at
different heights
DESIRABLE
NOT DESIRABLE
7
EICHLER DESIGN GUIDFLINE5
· BUILDING FORM
Eichler forms were derived from simple geometric floor plan designs. In
order to maintain compatibility, plans for additions and new homes should
substantially conform to the following:
"RECTANGULAR"
"L-SHAPED"
"C-SHAPED"
Plans may have rooms with different wall heights resulting in multiple roof
elements in one house.
GUIDELINES
· GLAZING
v~ Glass on gable ends or tall
wall is a common feature of
Eichler homes.
DESIRABLE
Y Glazing consists of large panes of glass
without grids.
DESIRABLE
· BUILDING MATERIALS:
Eichlers were originally designed with a limited palette of palette of materials.
Materials used in additions and remodeling projects should therefore
substantially conform to the following:
,/ Redwood/plywood vertical siding with
widths from 1-1/8 inches to 6 inches on
walls and garage doors.
v~ 2x tongue & groove planks on soffits.
DESIRABLE
v' Concrete block or brick
fireplaces.
v' Simple square end wood
beams and posts.
DESIRABLE
EICHLER DESIGN GUIDELINES
· COLORS
v' Exterior colors should be muted earth-tone
colors such as brown, tan, rust, green, light
gray, and desert sand.
· / Bright colors should be sparingly used,
mostly as accents on key building features
such as doors.
DESIRABLE
· EXTERIOR ACCESSORIES
v' Exterior Accessories - such as lighting fixtures should have a simple,
"modernistic" geometric design.
NOT DESIRABLE DESIRABLE
· STREETSCAPE
· / Eichler homes usually have ~ Open front yard with --
eometric landscaping
open front yards with
walkways and planting beds
laid out in simple geometric
patterns.
DESIRABLE
10
GUIDELINES
Since Eichler homes generally tionaI screening not
have very little glass required in front yard
exposure to the street, there
is no need for screening from
the street with fences or
hedges in the front yard
setback.
DESIRABLE
· TWO-STORY HOMES IN AN EICHLER NEIGHBORHOOD -
Eichlers were largely designed as single-story structures. Therefore, second-
story additions to Eichlers, or two-story structures in an Eichler neighborhood,
present a design challenge. Two-story homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood
should conform to the recommendations below in order to end up with a
design that is consistent with the existing structure and is compatible with its
Eichler neighborhood.
· /Second story roofs should
match the form and pitch of
first floor rooflines.
· / Second story walls should be set
back from first floor wails to
minimize appearance of second
story to street.
· / Second story wails may align
with first story walls when the NOT DESIRABLE
wall occurs at rear of the atrium
in an atrium model.
· / Care must be taken in the
design of second story glazing
to avoid privacy invasion to
Eichler homes to the rear, as
they often have large panes of
glass in atriums and rear
elevations.
DESIRABLE
11
EXHIBITS & RESOURCES
EXHIBIT A - MAP OF THE FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOO/~
PH IL mm,
COURT
~DVE DRIVE
SHADYGROVE
COURT
13
EXHIBIT B - CODE MATRIX - FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD [
Z
The following matrix provides a brief summary of Zoning Code regulations and guidelines applicable to the c~
Fairgrove Neighborhood. For detailed information, please refer to the Zoning Code and Eichler Design Guidelines in ~
rn
Chapter 3 of this report. ,-
R1 Rle
EICHLER GUIDELINES
ITEM Zoning Code Chapter 19.28 Zoning Code Chapter
19.28.100
APPLICABILITY TO · Applies · In addition to Rl(in case of Voluntary
FAIRGROVE conflict w/R1 ~ R1 e prevails)
LOT COV./FLOOR AREA
- 1 Story · 45% · SeeR1
2story · 35% · SeeR1
· 35%-45% w/Design Review
· Second story to be 35% of
first story
SETBACKS (1 Story) · 20' min. · 20' min. (regardless of
- Front · Curved driveway- 15' min. driveway curvature)
-Side · OnelO'min, other 5'min. · SeeR1
· Exceptions for small lots &
existing side yards
- Rear · 20' min. · See R1
· 10' min. if usable rear yard
area exceeds 20 x lot
width (at front setback)
R1 Rle
EICHLER GUIDELINES
ITEM Zoning Code Chapter 19.28 Zoning Code Chapter
19.28.100
SE'I:BACKS (2 Story)
- Front · 25' min. · SeeR1 · Setback from first story
· Setback surcharge front facing street
- Side · 10' min. · See R1
· Setback surcharge applies
-Rear · 2S'min. · See R1
SECOND STORY WALLS · 50% of 2nd story walls shall
not be > 6' ht. and shall
have 2' min. high overlap
of 1st story roof against 2nd
story wall w/4' offset
· Wall offsets required every · Wall offsets not required
24' for walls > than 6'
· All second story roofs shall · Same as R1
have 1'min. eaves
HEIGHT -Buildinght. · BIdg. ht. -28'max(second · Height limited by side wall
story setback surcharge heights and roof slope
applies for hts. above 20')
- Building envelope · Max envelope-25 degree
angle above 12 ' ht., 5'
from side property lines
-Gableends . Gable end 20' max. from
peak to natural c. lrade
R1 Rle
EICHLER GUIDELINES
ITEM Zoning Code Chapter 19.28 Zoning Code Chapter
19.28.100
- One Story Limits · For Rl"i" zoned districts NA · Preference for one story
-Entry features · Max. height- 14' . Integrated entry feature
within roofline
- Side walls for corner · Walls facing Right-Of-Way · See R1
lots (ROW) blank walls < 16'
require: 1 offset w/min. 2'
depth &. 6' width; one (1)
30"x30" window; entry
feature; or trellis
w/landscape screening
- Side walls for · Exterior walls adjacent to side
interior lots yards not to exceed 9' ht. -
1st floor to top of plate
- Ht. of First floor · First floor not to be higher
than 12" above existing grade
HILLSIDE EXCEPTIONS · For hillside areas NA
PRIVACY PROTECTION · Planting requirements · See R1 & additional req. below
(for 2 story structures) · Window alignment · Cover windows with exterior
requirements louvers up to 6' above second
· Exceptions for skylights, floor
windows w/sills above 5' · Obscure glass up to 6' above
from floor, facing ROW or second floor
non-residential · Window sill height 5' min.
above second floor
R1 Rle
EICHLER GUIDELINES
ITEM Zoning Code Chapter 19.28 Zoning Code Chapter
1 9.28.100
EXCEPTIONS/DESIGN · Exceptions can not have · See R1 · Follow Eichler Guidelines
R£VlEW "unreasonable privacy" or
"significant visual" impacts
· Single Family Design
Guidelines
BUILDING DESIGN · Single Family Design · Single Family Design · Combination of Iow-pitch
- Roofs Guidelines - Compatible Guidelines gables and flat roofs
Neighborhood Pattern . Maximum roof slope 3:12 · Gable ends of roof to face
street rather than side
· Hip roofs undesirable
"~ - Materials . Vertically grooved siding up to · Vertical redwood/plywood
6" apart required on walls siding with widths from
1-1/8 to 6 inches
facing street
· 2x tongue & groove planks
on soffits
· Concrete block or brick
fireplaces
· Simple square wood
beams & posts
- Streetscape · Single Family Design . First floor front setback -20' . Open front yard
Guidelines w/walkways and planting
in simple geometric
patterns
· No screening required in
front yard
R1 Rle EiCHLER GUIDELINES
ITEM Zoning Code Chapter 19.28 Zoning Code Chapter
19.28.100
- Glazing · Glass on gable ends or tall
wall
· No ¢jrids on windows
- Building Form · Single Family Design · Design should have straight · Simple, geometric floor
Guidelines - Building Form architectural lines rather than plans in keeping with
curved (building form, standard Eichler shapes -
windows) Rect./, "L", "H", "C"
- Details · Exterior Accents (lighting)
-simple, cjeometric design
SECOND STORY DESIGN · Second story roofs should
match form and pitch of
second story rooflines
· Second story wall should
be set back from first floor
· Second story walls may
align with first story walls
at rear of atrium
· Design second story
glazing to avoid privacy
invasion
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS · Section 19.80 · See R1
EXHIBITS & RESOURCES
EICHLER RESOURCES
· Jerry Ditto. E/ch/er Homes - Design for Living. Chronicle Books,
1995.
.............. - ...... This award-winning book chronicles Joe Eichler's
contribution to residential architecture. The book is a
photo-essay, which chronicles the work of Joseph
E/chief and his architects and may be of interest to
the Eichler owner or enthusiast.
· http: //www.eichlernetwork.com
The Eichler Network is a resource for Eichler enthusiasts. The network
publishes a newsletter and an annual 'House Of Questions' 2000/2001'
booklet for information on home improvement, products and services.
· http://w, ww.eichlerhomes.com
This website run by Eichler Homes Realty, Inc., provides real estate services
for Eichler homes in California. The site also includes a link to Eichler
Insights, a newsletter for Eichler homeowners and enthusiasts.
· http: //www.eichlersocal.com
This website provided by Oaktree Realtors, Orange, CA provides real estate
services for Eichler homes, and includes links and resources on Eichlers.
CREDITS
We are grateful to the following for their invaluable information and assistance:
· Architectural Consultant - Mark Srebnik, AIA
· Jerry Ditto. E/ch/er Homes - Design for Living. Chronicle Books, 1995.
· The Eichler Network
· Stephanie Raffel, Oaktree Realtors, Orange, CA
Cover Photographs: Sunset Magazine Home Renovation Award Winner, "E/ch/er
Tract House Rejuvenation"- Secoy. Kosco Architects, Orange, CA
"The Eichler Atrium", Photograph by Ernie Braun/Courtesy, Eich/er Network Archives
View of the living room in the former home of Joseph Eichler/Courtesy of Eich/er
Homes - Design for Living, Jerry Ditto.
Watermark: Eichler home/Courtesy of Eich/er Homes - Design for
Living, Jerry Ditto.
19