The URL can be used to link to this page

02-15-11 Searchable PacketTable of Contents Agenda..... ..............................4 7. January 18 City Council minutes Draft Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. January 24 City Council minutes Draft Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. January 25 City Council minutes Draft Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1 o . Accounts Payable for period ending January 28, 2011 Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11 . Payroll for period ending February 4, 2011 Draft Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 12 . Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2010 Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Investment Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 PARS Trust Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule . . . . . . . 41 General Fund Budget Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Expenditure & Revenue Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 13 . Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 14. Grant of easement for sidewalk purposes, Apple Inc., a California corporation, 19333 Vallco Parkway, Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Grant of Easement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Map... .............................56 15. Development Permit Process Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended Approval Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 B: Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 ... .............................66 C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010 . . . . . . . . . 242 E: City Council minutes from May 18, 2010 meeting . . . . . . . 247 F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees. . . . . 249 G: Transcribed notes from July 28, 2010 group workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251 I: Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 1 J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 O: Comparison of current and recommended approval authorities for projects approved between 2007 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 P: Draft standards and example for on -site signage related to development proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 16 • Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 965 -967 Miller Avenue CC Reconsideration Report on DIR- 2010 -30 . . . . . . . . . . . 300 A. City Council Draft Resolution & Exhibit 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 303 B. Director's Minor Mod. DIR- 2010 -30 dated 9/23/10. . . . . . . 307 C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated 10/5/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 D. PC Staff Report dated 12/14/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 E. Draft PC Meeting Minutes of 12/14/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 F. PC Resolution No. 6619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 G. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 H. CC Meeting Minutes dated 1/4/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 I. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 17 Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011 decision to deny an appeal of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Office Park CC Reconsideration Report on U- 2010 -03, EXC -2010- 04 &TR- 2010 -31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 B. PC Resolution No. 6604 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 C. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 D. PC meeting minutes of 9/14/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 E. Appeal filed on 9/28/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 F. CC Staff Report dated 11/1/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 G. CC meeting minutes of 11/1/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 H. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 I. CC meeting minutes of 1/4/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 J. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 K. CC Action Letter dated 1/6/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 L. Approved Plan Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 18. Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 P Redevelopment Agency Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 City Council Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Loan and Repayment Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 19. Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the City of Cupertino for the use of housing funds Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 A. agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 B. Draft RDA Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 C. Draft City Council Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 20. Public Infrastructure Agreement with the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, City of Cupertino, and Vallco Shopping Mall Staff Report Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 Council Draft Resolution Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 Joint Agreement Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 21. Purchase of storm sewer trash capture devices Staff Report Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 3 CUPERTINO AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL & CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JOINT SPECIAL MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:00 PM JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION — 4:00 PM 1. Subject Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation (one case)(Gov't Code 54956.9(c)) Page No written materials in packet REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CLOSED SESSION 2. Subject Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8); Property: 10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and potential lessee; Under Negotiation: Lease - price and terms of payment Page No written materials in packet 3. Subject Conference with legal counsel - Significant exposure to litigation - (One case) (Gov't Code 54956.9(b)) Page No written materials in packet PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL n Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CEREMONIAL MATTERS — PRESENTATIONS 4. Subject Proclamation recognizing the Santa Clara County Library, the Friends of the Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino Library Foundation for their support of the 9th Annual Silicon Valley Reads (continued from February 1) Recommended Action Present proclamation Page No written materials in packet 5. Subject Presentation about the local branch of Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), a voluntary, non - profit, social and cultural organization which aims at preserving and passing on ancient Hindu heritage and cultural values Recommended Action Receive presentation Page 6. Subject Recognition of the City of Cupertino Finance Department for its excellence in operating budgeting for Fiscal Year 09 -10 from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) Recommended Action Recognize Finance Department Page No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and /or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 7. Subject January 18 City Council minutes Recommended Action Approve minutes Draft Minutes Page 8. Subject January 24 City Council minutes Recommended Action Approve minutes Draft Minutes Page 5 Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9. Subject January 25 City Council minutes Recommended Action Approve minutes Draft Minutes Page Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10. Subject Accounts Payable for period ending January 28, 2011 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -017 Draft Resolution Page 11. Subject Payroll for period ending February 4, 2011 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -018 Draft Resolution Page 13. Subj ect Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -019 Description Extends the appointments of the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Staff Report Resolution Page 14. Subject Grant of easement for sidewalk purposes, Apple Inc., a California corporation, 19333 Vallco Parkway, APN(s) 316 -20 -075 and 316 -20 -076 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -020 Description The property owner of this commercial development agrees to grant to the City an easement for public sidewalk purposes, together with the right to construct, operate, repair and maintain public utilities and improvements, over a portion of the property Resolution Grant of Easement Map Page ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 0 Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Subj ect Development Permit Process Recommended Action a. Provide direction to staff on the list of recommended changes and any additional modifications /enhancements to the permit process and public engagement policy (see Attachment A); and b. Authorize Staff to work on modifications to the Zoning Ordinances as required by the above changes Description Application: CP- 2010 -01; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide; Application Summary: Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit services and organizational efficiency Staff Re ort A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended Approval Authority B: Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17 2009 C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010 E: City Council minutes from Maw 2010 meeting F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees G: Transcribed notes from July 28 2010 group workshop H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees I: Tall�Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 _group workshop K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010 M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative processes N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit Process O: Comparison of current and recommended approval authorities for pro'ea cts approved between 2007 and 2009 P: Draft standards and example for on -site sipnage related to development rrooposals Page UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 16. Subject Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 965- 967 Miller Avenue Recommended Action Conduct a hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11 -021 Description Application: DIR- 2010 -30; Appellant: Erwin Wolf, Applicant: Linda Shen - Jung (GLSAA, LLC); Location: 965 -967 Miller Avenue; APN: 369 -19 -052; Application Summary: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council decision to deny an appeal of a 7 Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Director's Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 965 -967 Miller Avenue CC Reconsideration Report on DIR- 2010 -30 17. Subject Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011 decision to deny an appeal of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Office Park Recommended Action Conduct a hearing and adopt Resolution No. 11 -022 Description Application Nos: U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31; Applicant: Dave Yocke (AT &T); Petitioners: Grace Chen, Guo Jin; Address: Results Way (rear parking lot); APN: 357 -20 -042; Application Summary: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council decision to deny the appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park CC Reconsideration Report on U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 &TR- 2010 -31 A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1 B. PC Resolution No. 6604 C. PC Staff Report dated 9/14/10 D. PC meeting minutes of 9/14/10 E AAppeal filed on 9/28/10 F. CC Staff Report dated 11 /1 /10 G. CC meeting minutes of 11 /1 /10 H. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11 I. CC meeting minutes of 1/4/11 J. Reconsideration Petition filed 1/18/11 K. CC Action Letter dated 1/6/11 L. Approved Plan Set Page ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECONVENES Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 18. Subject Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -01 B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -023 Description Adopt corresponding resolutions authorizing the City and Agency to enter into the Agreement Staff Report Redevelopment Agency Resolution City Council Resolution Loan and Repayment Agreement Page 19. Subject Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the City of Cupertino for the use of housing funds Recommended Action A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -02 B. City Council action: 1) Increase RDA Housing set -aside fund expenditure budget by $1,000,000 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11 -024 20. Subject Public Infrastructure Agreement with the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, City of Cupertino, and Vallco Shopping Mall Recommended Action A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -03 B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -025 Description Includes installation of storm sewer trash capture devices and reimbursement for the construction of public street improvements Staff Report Placeholder RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder Council Draft Resolution Placeholder Joint Agreement Placeholder Page CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT 9 Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 21. Subj ect Purchase of storm sewer trash capture devices Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -04 Description Staff Report Placeholder RDA Draft Resolution Placeholder Page ADJOURNMENT The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408 - 777 -3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda /minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 10 UPERTINO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, January 18, 2011 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 3:07 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice -Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang (3:11 p.m.), Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Gilbert Wong announced the closed sessions and invited comments from the public. Michael McNutt stated that the bid process had taken a very long time and that Council's decision on January 4 was reverse discrimination. He urged the Council to reverse their decision and sign the lease with Coffee Society. Darcy Paul stated that he had been retained as legal counsel for the Coffee Society. He stated that the lease negotiations had gone on long before the RFP process began and actually started in November 2009. He stated that it was Coffee Society's position that the process has been unnecessarily long and some added good faith would be needed to restore them to the position they were in before January 4, 2011. Paula Davis, Chairwoman of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of the following individuals: Andrew Brumm Clare Brumm Stuart Chessen Peggy Griffin John Ishii Janice Ishii Linda Vincent John Vincent Wada Naniwada Mahesh Nihalani Roger Schindewolf Patty Robinson Kevin McClelland Ruby Elbogen Sonal Abhyanker 11 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Ms. Davis read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated January 18, and copies were distributed to the City Council members. The purpose of the letter was to express the Chamber's disapproval of the City Council's decision on January 4 to reopen the bid process for the Coffee Society property (item No. 3, below). Ms. Davis stated that it was the Chamber's understanding that the bid process was well advertised and that all interested parties were clearly aware that the bid process was open and it was not the obligation of Council or City staff to walk specific businesses through the process. Ms. Davis also stated that it was critical for local government to exhibit fairness and consistency when dealing with business, and urged the Council to reconsider its latest position and award the lease to Coffee Society. At 3:14 p.m., Council went into closed session to discuss the following items: 1. Subject Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8); Property: 10346 Scenic Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiator: Carol Atwood; under negotiation: terms Recommended Action Provide direction to negotiator 2. Subject Conference with legal counsel - Significant exposure to litigation - (Three cases) Gov't Code 54956.9(b) 3. Subject Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8; Property: 10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and potential lessees; Under Negotiation: Lease - price and terms of payment At 6:50 p.m., Council reconvened in open session. Mayor Wong announced that the Council had done the following: 1. Met with the real property negotiator and gave direction. 2. Council was briefed by legal counsel and gave direction. No action was taken. 3. On January 4th, the City Council had concerns about the process. On further review of the RFP process, the Council is comfortable going forward with the lease. Therefore, the City Council directed the real property negotiator to re -offer the lease previously signed by the Coffee Society and considered at the January 4 meeting, and place the item on a future Council agenda for City action. CEREMONIAL MATTERS — PRESENTATIONS 4. Subject Declare January 2011 to be National Blood Donor Month Recommended Action Present proclamation to the American Red Cross, Northern California Blood Services Region Mayor Wong presented the proclamation to Barb Larkin, CEO of the American Red Cross Silicon Valley Chapter. She noted that the phone number for individuals to call for more information is 1- 800 -RED CROSS. 12 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Council member Wang stepped away from the dais before postponements. POSTPONEMENTS Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to continue Item No. 15 to February 1. The motion carried unanimously with Council member Wang absent. Santoro moved and Chang seconded to continue Item No. 10 to February 1. The motion carried unanimously with Council member Wang absent. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt distributed the following written communications: • A letter dated January 18 expressing the Chamber of Commerce's disapproval of the City Council's decision to reopen the bid process for the Coffee Society property • Emails from Ross Heitkamp, President of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, supporting the current CIP (Item No. 17b) and supporting Alternative 4A for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Phase][[ (Item No. 17c) • Email from Leslie Fowler in favor of opening the Scenic Avenue Trail so that her son can bicycle through Blackberry Farm park to Monta Vista High School (Item 17) • A copy of the Capital Improvement Status Report prepared by staff (17b) • Emails from Gail Bower and from Donna Austin, representing the Cupertino Historical Society, in favor of Alternative 4A (17c) • Email from Geoffrey Sherman opposed to any encroachment onto any part of the Blackberry Farm golf course (item 17c) • Pictures from Barbara Stocklmeir showing the West Side of Stevens Creek Park (item 17c) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Elise Gerson, Director of Resident Services at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio, said that cell phone coverage on their campus has very poor to no reception at all. She said she wanted to alert Council that they are starting the process with the Planning Department and AT &T to pursue a cell tower on the campus. She noted that they look forward to Council's support when this item comes before them. Council member Wang returned to the dais before Consent Calendar. 13 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 4 CONSENT CALENDAR Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 5. Subject December 7 City Council minutes Recommended Action Approve minutes 6. Subject December 21 City Council minutes Recommended Action Approve minutes 7. Subject Accounts Payable for period ending December 31, 2010 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -004 8. Subject Phase IV of the Employee Wellness Program Recommended Action Approve additional proposed enhancements to the Employee Wellness Program 9. Subject Changes to the Selection of Classification that receive Automobile Allowance Recommended Action Eliminate Automobile Allowance for selected classifications 10. Subject Animals in Disaster Annex to Cupertino Emergency Plan Recommended Action Approve as an Annex to the Cupertino Emergency Plan Description Document addresses Cupertino's role in caring for displaced pets and stray animals following a major emergency when the City's Animal Control Service is overwhelmed 11. Subject Fee waiver for St. Joseph's Catholic School Athletic Teams Recommended Action Deny fee waiver request 12. Subject Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Steven A. Breinberg and Danna S. Breinberg, 10625 Cordova Road, APN 342 -22 -103 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -005 Description The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property 13. Subject Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Raman V. Mummidivarapu and Bhavani Mummidivarapu, 10134 South Tantau, APN 375 -07 -038 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -006 Description The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None 14 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Subject Annual renewal of bingo permits for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council Recommended Action Conduct public hearing and renew permits Mayor Wong opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no requests to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to renew the bingo permits. The motion carried unanimously. 15. Subj ect Green Building Ordinance Recommended Action Continue to February 1 Description Application: MCA - 2010 -04; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide; Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance Under "Postponements," this item was continued to the meeting of February 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 16. Subject Abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No. 10 -224 Recommended Action Note protest(s) and adopt Resolution No. 11 -007 Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. Council had questions regarding changing the deadline date for inspections and concurred to hold off on this item until the County representative arrived to answer questions. 17. Mid -Year Operating and Capital budget review: a. Subject Mid -Year budget adjustment Recommended Action Approve mid -year budget adjustment Written communications for Item No. 17 included: • Emails from Ross Heitkamp, President of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, supporting the current CIP (Item No. 17b) and supporting Alternative 4A for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Phase II (Item No. 17c) • Email from Leslie Fowler in favor of opening the Scenic Avenue Trail so that her son can bicycle through Blackberry Farm park to Monta Vista High School (Item 17) • A copy of the Capital Improvement Status Report prepared by staff (17b) • Emails from Gail Bower and from Donna Austin, representing the Cupertino Historical Society, in favor of Alternative 4A (17c) 15 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 6 • Email from Geoffrey Sherman opposed to any encroachment onto any part of the Blackberry Farm golf course (item 17c) • Pictures from Barbara Stocklmeir showing the West Side of Stevens Creek Park (item 17c) Finance Director David Woo reviewed the staff report. Jennifer Griffin said she had a question about how the mayor would be handling the public input for all three items. She thought all the input would be at the end and said she doesn't have anything to say for item a, but does for item b. Action Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to approve the mid -year budget adjustments as presented. The motion carried unanimously. b. Subject Mid -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Status Report Recommended Action Direct staff to proceed with the CIP as currently approved, with adjustments to the program to be proposed during the annual budget review in spring, 2011 Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. He noted the changes made to the CIP status report that was handed out on the dais. Council asked questions from staff. Jennifer Griffin commended the City for the Sterling Barnhart Park acquisition and delivery. She said that she and her neighbors love the park and are very appreciative. She also thanked Council for keeping the Lawrence Mitty Park on the horizon for the future. Carol Stanek said that she wanted to reiterate all the great support from the community for the Scenic Circle access and hopes it will happen as soon as possible. Action Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to accept the report with clarification that any items for potential reallocation would not move forward until Council sees them first. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Wong reordered the agenda to return to item number 16 regarding weed abatement. Moe Kumre from the County answered questions about whether the deadline date could be moved back from April 15. He said that another courtesy letter would go out from the County regarding if the deadline date has changed, noting that the County would work with residents to get the weeds abated, and giving the contact information for the County. Mr. Kumre noted that all the property owners would need to be noticed again if the deadline were to be moved. He also said that Council could change the deadline date at any of its meetings. 16 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Mayor Wong noted one speaker card with the name of Sri, but the person wasn't in the audience anymore. Mr. Kumre said he would look through the list and see if any person matched that name and contact the person if possible. Action Santoro moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 11 -007 with the change to move the deadline date to April 30. Wang offered a friendly amendment to have the date change be for next year to avoid having to re- notice. Santoro accepted the friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 8:38 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. Council continued with item number 17c. c. Subj ect Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Phase H Recommended Action 1. Authorize staff to initiate the design effort for Alternative 4A 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment with SSA Landscape Architects for design services not to exceed $200,000 3. Authorize the City Manager to issue Letters of Intent to various granting agencies clarifying the City's intent to proceed with Alternative 4A and creek restoration 4. Authorize staff to initiate an environmental clearance process for the project Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Patrick Kwok from the Santa Clara Valley Water District discussed the voter approved Measure B for open space. He noted that the measure provides funding for water quality, protection, trails and open space, and water restoration. He indicated that the water district had partnered with the City on Phase I of the project and that there was $100,000 remaining that the City must reapply for. A formal request to the Board is crucial and grant requests are due by March 15. He stated that the District supports staff recommendation of 4A and is willing to work with the City on the design. He introduced Deborah Cordo (staff member) who has also worked on this project. Ms. Cordo said that the $800,000 grant money was never in the budget. She indicated that there were three grants available in the trails category and three in the environmental category. She noted that these grants are competitive and urged Council to get the grant applications in. She also stated that letters of intent and support helps the Board in making its decision. Brad Allen thanked the City for supporting creeks and restoration and it shows in the quality of the parks. He said he supports 4A. Marianne Cali, board member of Stevens Creek Watershed Council, thanked the City for the beautiful job of Phase I restoration of the Stevens Creek Corridor and supports 4A. 17 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Mike Ferreira spoke on behalf of the Loma Prieta Sierra Club and was in favor of 4A. He stated that he was impressed with the job that the Parks and Recreation Commission did to come up with a feasible design and project that was not at the expense of interest groups. Shani Kleinhaus of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society supported 4A. James Robenolt expressed gratitude and admiration of Phase I of the Stevens Creek restoration through Blackberry Farm. He indicated that he would like to see the same level of excellence through Phase II and not lose the funding available. He supports 4A. Deborah Jamison said she supported 4A because it is the most cost effective and also creates a hydrological and ecological, friendly ecosystem which is the purpose of the restoration. She urged council to take advantage of all funding available and accept the $1.2 million grant. Dale Compton supported option 4A. Ann Ng, member of board of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, said she thought it makes sense to fix the creek first before continuing with Phase II. She supported option 4A. Barbara Stocklmeir showed a picture from 1995 of what water can do to the creek. She stated that she agrees with option 4A. She stated that she has an issue with where the trail might end up on Stevens Creek as far as bicyclists go. She noted that there is a really hard, right turn down the driveway of a steep hill from the west side and that oil from cars might even make it worse. She stated that the bike path could just keep going the way it is which puts one on the other side of the creek to the golf course or it could go parallel to the home owners association on the back side of the creek restoration. She urged Council to consider the safety of children when considering the final destination of the bike path. Council asked questions of staff. Action Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded the following: 1. Authorize staff to initiate the design effort for Alternative 4A 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment with SSA Landscape Architects for design services not to exceed $200,000 3. Authorize the City Manager to issue Letters of Intent to various granting agencies clarifying the City's intent to proceed with Alternative 4A and creek restoration 4. Authorize staff to initiate an environmental clearance process for the project The motion carried unanimously. Council member Chang stepped away from the dais before Ordinances. in January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 9 ORDINANCES 18. Subject Municipal Code amendments to be consistent with the 2007 -2014 Housing Element Recommended Action Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 11 -2073 Description Municipal Code Amendments (MCA- 2010 -06) to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) Ordinance), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (PF) Zone Ordinance), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances Ordinance) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2007 -2014 Housing Element; "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending to Chapter 19.48 (Planned Development (P) zones), Chapter 19.72 (Private Recreation (FP) zone), Chapter 19.124 (Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances) and Chapter 20.04 (Specific Plans) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to be consistent with the 2010 Housing Element" Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: Chang. Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to enact Ordinance No. 11 -2073. Ayes: Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: Chang. Council member Chang returned to the dais. STAFF REPORTS Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt reported that an unusually large number of applications were received for the city's advisory commissions. The City Council had already set aside Monday and Tuesday, January 25 and 26, at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the interviews, but the typical schedule of 8 minutes per interview resulted in the meetings going very late into the evening. She asked if the Council would like to retain the current schedule, which would result in the Tuesday meeting lasting until 11:50 p.m., or if they would like to adjust the schedule by starting earlier, shortening the interview time, or adding an additional day. The Council concurred to begin the interviews at 4:00 p.m. COUNCIL REPORTS Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. 19 January 18, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 10 ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Monday, January 24 beginning at 4:00 p.m. for Commission interviews, Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777 -3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertmo.org Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT &T U -verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org Click on Agendas &Minutes then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777 -2364. 20 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, January 24, 2011 ROLL CALL At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular adjourned meeting to order in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS 1. Interview applicants for commission vacancies: ■ Planning The City Council interviewed Don Sun, Eric Rafia, Alain Dang, Alan Takahashi, Clinton Brownley, Muneesh Goomer, Rose Grymes, Daniel Nguyen, Rajeev Joshi, Annie Ho, Raj eev Raman, Sharon Saturnio, and Xiao Liu. The City Council appointed Don Sun and Clinton Brownley to full terms ending January 2015. ■ Housing The City Council interviewed Xiao Liu, Raj eev Raman, Annie Ho, and Sharon Saturnio. The City Council appointed Raj eev Raman to a full term ending January 2015. ■ Fine Arts The City Council interviewed Raj eswari Mahalingam, Joelle Lieb, Jessi Kaur, Russell Leong, Elizabeth Adler, Donna Bee - Gates, and Savita Vaidhyanathan. The City Council appointed Joelle Lieb and Jessi Kaur to full terms ending January 2015 and Russell Leong to a partial term ending January 2013 (counts as a full term). 21 January 24, 2011 Cupertino City Council ■ Parks and Recreation Page 2 The City Council interviewed Savita Vaidhyanthan, David Fung, Emma Wang, YuHong Tang, and David Lee. The City Council appointed David Fung and David Lee to full terms ending January 2015. ADJOURNMENT At 9:58 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, January 25 at 4:00 p.m. to conduct additional commission interviews. The meeting will be held in Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue. Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk 22 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, January 25, 2011 ROLL CALL At 4:03 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular adjourned meeting to order in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS 1. Interview applicants for commission vacancies: ■ Library The City Council interviewed Anne Ezzat, Rose Grymes, Thomas Wang, Janet Riddell, Sushma Anantharam, Adrian Kolb, Jane Otto, and Vijay Veeramachaneni. The City Council appointed Rose Grymes and Adrian Kolb to full terms ending January 2015. ■ Bicycle Pedestrian The City Council interviewed Jimmy Duarte, Jill Mitsch, William Chan, and Ashish Kolli. The City Council appointed Jill Mitsch, William Chan, and Ashish Kolli to a full term ending January 2015. ■ Technology, Information, & Communication The City Council interviewed Bhimachar Venkatesh, Jitendra Jadhav, Raj eev Joshi, Rod Livingood, Duleep Pillai, Vijay Veeramachaneni, Beverly Siegel, and Peter Friedland. The City Council appointed Jitendra Jadhav, Rod Livingood, and Peter Friedland to full terms ending January 2015. 23 January 25, 2011 Cupertino City Council ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 28, 2011 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 , 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 25 H a w m wN C7 U a� 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 N H H w H 0 H N z w � ro ow rd zro m N W w O W H O Q V O I O w O !x O W q [I E H H o H H O U C7 w a4 a ry H V H V N 0 m 3 a) W A m 41 rd tn ro q ii 41 V U Id U Id H A li H \ 0 U P4 O uHm E H m H W \ •• u w m U u zz A N O H O H H H •• •• U w E W X a° y H w U QE r34 o r o o m In H to Ln ui H to m to o to Hm o kDH rmt rui o in m z r O O O O o O a o o tp u� rom �Nmcn rl In mNrin rl InP UI ,-I m u7m tnr In n O m I f l O P P N m O w N r N H H O m p O O Ill N m p H N I r) N H N u l Ln l t 0 N u l m H N O N m Ln O N ID m Ln m mta dr rN m NN Nto NP i to N tom toN dr m w i-c'l o w Ln r H H N H H N H H H H H m H N N H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O P O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 P g O 0 0 q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O o O O o 0 0 o O P o P P P o P P P P O P P O g o P P P P o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a Q r„ T q ro ro �4 s4 ro u s4 3 r s 4�1 W N r , r -ii ri O a a U w a z a O 1 3 1 1 I I 1 I I H N E ri ,k X X X X X x X x .A H H ,A H H -i ,H -i H -i H -i H .A H H ,A ri H H H ri H ,A ri H ,A PI \ U U U U U U U U U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H o N al N QI dl 95 N � y N � y m f1' m ,I .O Cl ?a' x Cl N A 6 H ri riN ri i N H H,A riH ri HH HH rH r N r i rl l l r rl ,A A U \ U U U U U V U V TJ H H HH H Nrl ri A -1 H HH H riH Hr1 H-1 1 AHriH Hri vl to \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ W I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H A H I H H H H H H I I 1 I I I I F I i I f \ HH HHH HH NH ri HHHH H ri HH.. HHHH H HH H I H Qa Qa Qa 41 4A aJ Qa Qa 4-1 I \ (I N N N w N QI U Q) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I r Ri Ri Ri Ri RS Pi Ri R: Ri H N r-I A A A A A HHHH H LfH HHH HHHHHH HH El P4 W 0 N0 HriN mHm�OO 000000 000 000ln ui u; Ino q � o o qp0 gOOq pp Oq OP OHOO H O oOlo to to In ul \ d� Hln f'1 1111i11i10000N V'1H fr10 HHm dr ul r mHNN N Nd� 1n mm rrr r m mm H H m1. dr dr dr dr -�f d� drt to to to tow O O 0 0 0 O d d O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 l0 m m m m m m m m m H H H H H H H N [' I H H H H H H H H H r i H H H r i H H w ul ul Ln ul IR ul IR In Ln ul HH HHH HH u1N HHHH H H HHH HH H W-1 A A H Hut W P4 rn o a U H £ W P4 Pi Ul a W E x ZO W HE HHH FFEFFFFFE FFFFFF HEEEEE Ef t�l A Ls rs A Ls r.!Lsr.!L8 �s Ls r.! Ls �s Ls tl r.s rs'1 of r�l Ls t�l 0 L �l LG W w O rS U [3 W N[ -IEEE EEEEEE EEEEEH EFN D P P H P El P El h ttl lA U H I4 7 H U El E m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m � In mrnrnmmrnmmmmmmmrnmrnmrnmmmmmmmrnmm I m X I X X X I X X X I X I X d'dI d'd'd' d'd'd' d'dl dr W d'd`d'd'd' dl dr dl d�dr dr d' d�dr d� dr H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H {] H H H H H H H H H H -1-1 H r i HHH r i HHH HHHH r i H H r i H H H r{ H N H H H q \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ - \\ \ \\\ \ \\ \ \\ P 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W U] \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ H H H H H N H N H H HHH H HHHHHH HHHHH HHH HHriH Hr{H H H O O 0 I� H O O O O P O O q o 0 o O o O O o O O a 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 o O O O P g P O W Q m H N r 1 d- u) t o r m t o N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N I 'T u l r r r r r r r r r m m m m m to r D m W m O n m m m W m m m m m m m mmmmmm m H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H rl ri H H H HHH H H H H H H H H H H H 0 U to to to to Ln to to to w m m to a Ln w W to to a m ul ul m tD a rn to to to to to w t to m Ln to to w H U ul w to W to In m W w ID ww ul Ill v7 v w w ul 111 kD w Ln 111 w r!1 w IR w ul w ul w ko w I L'I H D W � to m � to to to to mto to to to w to �tnamto to to to mto to to to mto Ito wtow x I U H U w a x o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uj N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r-11 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L Y. J O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N rl H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H z H O U U H U z H w m H n H H H m w H Q 26 N W [Q H Q wH C7 U w FC O O 0 0 0 0 N (� H w H O H N z - ro ow p z� ro H fx N a W [fi o W H O B O 1 0 w O C4 o W o 5 H H W o U 0 0 W d P4 CN U H W A U N ci 4l 3 a m A a a ro Ln N -3 +l N La ro z NA H +) r 0 H U WH � ,A 4 H W m d V w H NH C7 U \ • z z rA N O H O H H H a 4 H W U Q H v] Fe [� mm Nti Ln In wn O m r mm H n O o N mw H r-w o M to lO ON m NOl m M W ,A P w N mW N mmu[} D rmmNOQld o ophui q W o O Vi rA[ r Ln W NN w Mrlm r o U o, O m dl o o" r H am m m m r H Ili H H N m Ili n u) w O Ili m m m O w w N C- w[ m 111 5 LnN O ON Nww d•N Ln'A"w m d•010 Iv m VI u7 m mIn duo N rir H N hw dp m N N H H H Ln W H H r1 m n N o m Ln H Io N m dl IO N m H N I`I O o O o a a a o O o O o O O O O O O O O o o O O o I'D 10 o N O a O o O O O O O O O o O o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o a o 0 o O o rl m n m o a o o a o o a o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a H Ol m d• a a o a a o 0 0 0 0 co M i m W N N cn to l z wa u l o A 1 1 H H O O H V1 U E H IC 3G N H py O a 7 E ,A ,A H ,A .A A A -i A A H .A H ri H r1 ci i i ri i H H TA Z Zi a s Pl H H H HHHH H H H.-1H H A A A A A HHH [!J \ H \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\\ z a O O H R .A H H 0.' H Hri H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H m n HH G] U A H HHH H H H HHH H HHHri HH r1 \ W Fi x \\ W w HH.- i H HriH H H HH HH H H H HHH H HH O H NPi L1 M \\ z q I I I I l l l l l I l l l I I I l I i l l l NN N 1 N NN ry NNN NNNNNNNNN [!J w 0 P4 (.Ta' Py �� HH 3 H H H H HHH r A cA H AHHHHH H A H V . A pcOyq [ W q� U E r , r r r r r r N - I H H HHH H H N,NA H N ,A 3 r O Ux (0 , r P4 H H n W o o0 on o H N ry H Hrn X11 rnmO,A H Nr A o NNN did o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o dI O H H H O o 0 \ Ili If1 N N dl m N M m H N In V"1 lfi m 111 111 lfi lfi w w dl q l0 l0 10 lO l0 lO r {� r m m m m m l0 m m m m m m m F � } y o000000000000000a00000 NH H H Hrl Hrl Ti riH N r-1 rl H rHH HH w H H H H m H H H H H H H H H H H H u1 H H H H H HHHH HEEHEEE E1 HHFEEEEE H I-S L�1.7l LS Q1 LS I-S Q; LS 41 Lb La Lb A all LH W QS LH0 W HHEEE EEEEEF E 1+HHHHHH ELI H FCFCFCfC��Cr .CrCFCr.CdrC�CFCddKCr.C�CKC�4 M O 000 1p O H H H M Ili Ili Ll) Ili w H dI d dl O O O o 0 m H H H H Ln H ri ri ri U z H V U U a aaa LO aaa rn cn n 00m 'r d o m m � m m m 000 m m H w w H 1ri o 0 a H H m Ill Ill m 0 0 0 00 H H H H H H E EE a H F r 3 3 O1 t7 C7 w zz H H 0 0 o H d• � O O H H H H F C W >-A V] In co W Pq U 04 N P4 c � Q � � I mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - I Ol mm mOl mmmmm MmmMMmMm mmm M N r- Ill Ln Ul " I O a o o a O O o o 0 o 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 a d• N w w w I Ir d• d• dl d• " d• d• d• d• d• " dl d< V " dt dl d' d' [Y M N d< 1� d• H -1 -1 HH Hr -IHr -I H HHr -I HHH HHH HHH ,1 rl ri ri rl q HHHHH Hrl ri N rAH H A HH -1 -1 H ri H H H HH H 7 7. m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N "N" H 00000, as rl a s HHH HHH HHH H H H H H WWa H O O O O O O o O o o O o o O o O O o O o 0 0 O o a O o 2 t O N NNNN ry N NNNN ry N N N N N N N N N m " 10 Ln 7 l f l I z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m oo m m m m m m m m m m m m H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H r i H H r i H H H H H H o w to w w U l V to w w w ww to w w w w w w w w w w In w w w w w Ln H U m Ln w Io Ln w%Dw Io Lll Ill 111 Ifl In 111 Ii i "1 In llN N lll Ln Ill Ill Ln Ill ID H W w w w In w w w w w Io Io w w w to Io Io Io Io Io w m w U U u W u U u .'C O o 0 o 0 0 0 a o o a 0 0 a o 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 o o o o o Ul N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F N N N N N N A,' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 U HH Hr{H rl ri Hri riH HHH H rAH H H A ri H H H uvu zzz H H H W W [fi P: P. P: q H q H q H H " H H H H U U U pi N pi El 11 El Q [7 FL FL coca 7 EE pi Pi w' 00 W 3 W F O 2 H FC rn H � H I H o O O N m n m m w 0 N W d• d< W ri A ri ri ri ri H rl H H H H H H H H m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N \ \\ \ \\ \ H H H H H H H H H o a o 0 0 0 0 0 w w w r m Cl) m O mmm m mm m m H H H r i H r1 H Ti w lnw w ww w In Ln UL [li N W Il? N Ill w ww w W w Io u 5 V 5 U t tJ 000 O 00 o O N N N H N N N E N N o a o o o O a 0 a O HH HE Ti H H H rl z H 0 O U U d u H w I m w d; H N H W E H �-i N 0 N A rx 27 m E o a a m o n r ( A m M M IrI rl In N 0 h 0 to m r p N 000 d a a a m o a N mrnmM h ri In rn In N m NH eil a w a In m m%o vi O In O a o 0 O a a a t- woo a s oi,-IH n mm vl n re, m m m In m r HIn m kno w, a In d a a o m N r w re) r ap rn m m r, m m 4 m m w In H q In N n m In ui H to O K £ G N Lfi ri i H W M H m H H H H m H In W N N P4 ri � z WH C7 U a a o a a 0 o 0 o 0 0 a 0 0 o p a d o a o 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H o o O p d d p 6 a o o a o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o 0 a C O O O O o O a d a o a 0 0 0 o O O 000000 o a 0 O o O O Q U W U to H I a aaa a a a W P4 Al as P, a, N r+1 \ m U ril I z z Z 1 \ W H w 1n M M m m wW W Www Ww W W 0 a I m z N w I a n aaaaaawaa as 0 u w p H m 7 O d 000000000 00 11911,99 q H v] H m 0 N I N 12 S F �. \ d W N O O H N .A .A r { to r-I rl ri H H H r1 H H . A ri r1 r H H r1 H ri r, -1 ,-1 r, .S{ \ \ \ \\ H H N H rl q$ W W H \ U H H N co O C4 p m U d d d a a a a a 0 00 [ m u I I I I 1 (1 ] N 4 fi � N N N N N N N N N N N U l o o a o o I W z o # O A ri iH Hrl z�' W H M d p U W I a C4 Q n, I I 1 I I I I I i 00000 0a o0 S I op O u 'A HH HTi q q a q ri W . A ri H H H H r, rl ,-1 ,-1 r1 b ,T, .T, ,T, '�'i .T, F4 O U F oa oo aaa oa 00 to to Ul rj) W a to H q o I N U1 NN NN NNN NN N N a � W F{� r.>; a'ry'r.>; .•� W \ 2.1 o I pp qq U >i �+ .�I �+ .11 71 71 P 0 w N a 1 .7 U U (1 w 9 la W z H r Ww m I w Cd W Q ww ww www W 4 N co 0.'i co aaa P, P1 W W F7 a rl ry w ri a E N z W ro E1 a O W W a m o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o 00 d a Ln o 1p o m o m m o Vl ro q Vr d mm mm mm m mm rn o In o mto m 4 m m Ln H Cr.' H \ m m l Ln M m m m m m m m m m m m m m -1 m d m Mr 10 7n L f7 M m q E m m m m m W m M m 4n 10 10 m l0 10 l0 p ,Z.1 d o 0 a o o 0 0 o O O o O O O O o p c d 0 d O 0 d 0 a d d a a d d d pq [/] W a a P M r1 .� H m m rl m m rl M rl m m m m m r rl rl r m r1 rl m n a W LD rl c rl 1D �0 to �o to to In In l0 In l0 In rl rl H H H H H ri Ln Ln r, H H H Ln 1n H H '.7 q U o I U U w 1 O f>i O o r W as Lh w o w a WW E' LO W m E co o i o U H H O I co W N N N y yl y, 71 71 ,Si U fJl [f] ur, W E aaaaaaaaa u ro [A El w dl to z to a wa w wwawa zZ N w H P4 N I W H }i a a a C4 a PI {L PI p1 H H ro U Cy w 3C u ri o 1 I a W � Ln H Vl m ao W 0)m c 7] ]] wLo L9 ul to ul iri m m m a ro H W A r1 71 U z ',7 000000000 H H H [o P] U W FA Q 0 Q 'J 'J 1 .7 '.7 r.� P�4 14 d N Ei to vl P: fr' I W H H 0) co to cc m to N Co Vl 'W W P1 Vl ri N Q H H H iz) n W m Qi I I H E 11 1-4 O O H . , In Gn Pn Fn in LQ W W W u '.7 1 7 z H H x xxx`x to W ro to W HH W P4 La S4 U p d rt m m Pi m 000000 MPQP mm ol m 00060 UU 'J U ci A m m a 43 ICS i i r i H h hr r C r r t- r- mm n 00 m H c} r1 m I p o 1n o ri r1 rl rl H H H H H H m m m 1n .n 1n 1n 1n N N m h 0 O H 1 N N N l0 O m.MM 111u L!}mm mm m N O 11. m m N m 1n % Ln i h 1 4 m ri m r7MMM m MMM m m M m x m ri riH H ri H HHrI H rl H dr N d1 � N 0 N H H H H H H H H r H 1 H H rl l H ci H r1 H H rl H .-1 11 H r1 11 .i ci H 0 r1 r1 H M r1 H HrlH H H H Hri H H H H HrlH H r1H H H H rl W fi� i r ] ] m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m mm m m m m H 1-i 1 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N ry N N N NNN N N N N N N N E+ t) U1 H H O P d o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o p P O OOP O o p O b P P - r l C rl m H i.l r \ W [� N o �' •• Q H N M m In l In Ln In tin In In In m m OOOO O rlH N m a In 0 1-L q I z m m m m m m 0 m m M m m m m m m m m m m m m p O O p a O O O O O O U H H H H r H N " N H H r l H r 1 N N N N N N N N N N N E U W H W H o 3C 10 to m w Lo In 'm 1n 1n 1n 1n m w W w 1n Lo m W to cn a m Ln w 1n to m a �• ri m P H u m m Ifl lfl m ui L11 If] In Ln Ln In In In Ln In Ill 1n U) } In In rn M 1n In n I n Q Ln M �n % �n In l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 IA In [, l0 l 1n 1n In 1n �0 �O 1D �0 �n �0 %0 lD In w lD �0 w 1 D % lD ID l0 xH Pw1 UW , U HNH U U a (�1 1, 1 y U � 'y o .1 H H F 7 U rJ [] z EZ w a H •• • P4 W W U P W O O O a a a o n o o o o o 11..�� 11..�� E X 1 ] U N N N N P P rj N N N N N N N N N H 0 d� N N E� d N O N a N O a a O a c N N N N N E 00 c P N N E O N O N O N a N 1 A E t 4 U r rat Cl H -11 ral O O O r -11 -1 rii -l-1 N H H C, rrl d d d r r r H EE, H r F, i 11 r a ri H i d' I f 1 �➢ O o o d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a d 1 O O L D M W m M O N m P D 1 M O L n � m ,� MLDmMOOOOOOOPOOPPmO M M W,-i LD Ln o H M � Ln r a � O N N mn Hmmw w Hm N n Mm Lamm M O m Mn H m m m M h M h m M m H O ri MOO W0 NM ow m 0 0 0 r i-I LD Ln r N ri dL M N Ln m w l0 m N M lD m (7 M H H N m m N N H ri f'1 1D N H Ln M H d' LD M rl r i x H H H N LD H d H N H h m N W N N W W E+ U U O o 0 o 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 o O o O O O O o O o q O q O O q O O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O P g q 0 O o 0 0 0 a o 0 o O o 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P P P O d 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O O W 0 r H I W pPPa a'paP P�P�P��kC,�,�pxxp F 0 y O zxxxxxxxxHt-+ W EA N N N N EA P P E P F E E+ ri Ir x ,7 � O i W ` H O O H E-1 O u u u U U U u u u u u u U U U U U U L t 1 i r i ri I r i .-i o w H O o .] PL H \ H H M U N a W W' P U) H H H H 1-1 H H H .... H H H H H H N H O lD (7 o W O x W W x x x m x x Pi L•4 Pi Pi Pi Pi w m Cd F4 \ o Lb w H L z O R 1 H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H El 1-1 0 H H H H H H H H H H H N I H a s Pi O a o 1 a a la O H H W P I r7 HH iD W N A H w w w \ w O � � HHH yH HHHHH j HHHH" fC) { P� m I I W r4 F4 W W r4 F4 W µ µ W W W W W W W W FL E7 E7 f] E]f] Fn f] r7 r] FD F7 FD F3 r3 FD f] H w \ H .�•L M w �C a W n N H O w H N 0 N W H d rL W +-I o N h M n D 00 N M M Q1 N d'M O O 6 O Ln H d O IT z Ln H A n N m M M M M q Ln m Ln li1 Ln Ln .L7 Lo Ln Ln Ln Lrl Ln Ln LrI M IV LI) Ln m Ln LI) m IV IV H'�] q m mmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmm Ln m mm 'V a m m m �n m G4' VJ W Cn o O d H Ooo dOOdOOOOOOO OOO o hH A A AHHH HHH H HHH H O ri O ri co H H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H o H O r m N H O Cp H Ln H H H ri H ri ri H H ri H H H H ri H H H ,A H H ri H ,A w H ri H lfl d1 R 0 1 � 0 p m O o i WP4P404P4P4C4 4P4P1P1P P4 P1 L4 L4 P4 4 CA W O W O 1 xx xxxx F4' Pi Pi F4 P4 Pi Pi Pi m P4 Pi u U u PI S+H •• i 000000000000000000 zz 0 H � x Hm o 1 ',Z UUUUUUUUUUuuuu UUuu (11 H H z H w 0 H H P 1 O Z. H Ea U uC7 1 H Zix Zi Zi Zi 7. Zi Zi x Zi Z47. .'�. 'Z z z z z O ,11 yl Ri p .z IV. I H 000000000000000000 H .10 w r� H H cq R N H I H H HHHHHHH HHH M H 7 - i H H H F P 1 P4 Q U Ul {n I HFFHHHHHFFHFFFFHFF `,� `J ' '� '� ' µ' PL PL F4' PI w O [n H x H R 0.4 pa W ri O 0.1 Ws ,7 .7 it L 7 ,7 .5 L 7 .5 i7 5 000000000000000000 S ' W M x W H H O U U D9 U' W SC n V z z pi 04 �H-1 a r U S H w W Z Z zZ HHHHHHH HzdH HHH HzH W H ri1 p r [] z H ,7 H z H zH H ca F E-I El ,.pyg7 P4 PI 1 rx� rah W w i z r r rzH�rzH� W WW W a£ ww 0.1 0 H O U W F a H aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 14 o o �� µ w H 0 U a 7 w N i u U U u U U U u U U u U U u U U U U U u u u Q R R R W W W w A D1 r d I O hhhhhhhrhhhr(- rrr r r N d H N f � r '� I O r rrrr rrr rr rrh rrh r- r- LD O N LD LD 0 O H H O I O m m m m m m m m m m m m m O D[ O m m m H M Q 1 M r d L H H q H t `7 m H W Ea I N M M M MMM MM f`I MMM M S•l ['1M MM M HN H N LD rn N M N M N rd F H H H ri ri H H ri ri H H H H ri ri H N H N ri ri H r { H H ri H 1 1 H ri H ri Si R H H r NH H riH H HHHH H H H ri H,-1 H H H H ,-1 H H H ri ' Cl ' Cl ' Cl Li m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m U W co N \ N N N N N N N N q N N N N N N N N N N \\ \ \\\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ N \ N \ ry N \\ N \ N \ N \ ry \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ b V1 H H HN rq riHH H slH -IrlH H H H H ri ri H H H H r-I H H H H LQ ri c �j W H H W C7 •• Q d rr hr h rh hh hhh hh hrh [� m 41 P d ri N M d In LD r m O1 O HR 1 z o 00000 00 PP OPd Od dOd d 0 o ri .A ri H H H ri ri ri H ri U R O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U W H O LD w LD w LD LD LD LD w LD w L iD LD LD LD W L➢ LD ID Lo lD LD %D ID %D W LD LD lD LD %D J, H m H x H U Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln U1 W W Ln m W ui Ln m LD Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 111 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lr7 ` d1 a H x lD ti0 LO w LD w ID w w ID w w ID w w LD LD LD LD L➢ w L➢ W LD 1D LD lD LD 1D w 1D LD UCry 1 U HNC U U oC,4 HE EA U u H •• •• U a W W W W 0 11 u W W O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H d N d N d d N N E d N O N o N o N d N d N d N d N O (11 N X F Q H O N ri !.0 O O O O a O O O o O O a O O O O O O 0 o 0 0 o O P O P P o 0 0 o O El Cj ri H ,A H H H H H H ,A H H ,A H H H ri ,A H F -1 ri rl ri E rl rl H H H ri rl rl rl H 0 U U H U RA I m dL H N H W E H co ri N C3 W A R a 29 In In o M O p O m O N r-I In m M O O m� ry O O o O N n N o In H O + ] ,T O m O m O 1l O M O l0 O N i 10 0 o M 1� m 1D o o lD W 1f r 1`1 kD 0 H W ry In W in N ri M r M H n O �V O M M M dr O rn W M ri Ul 0 M N M N N W m n d1 N M n m m m 01 M Ql ry r H dl M N W W H 0 N M N m N H ry d r d H m H N M n n N O N m N W H 0. U W E+ Lh U }q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o H �� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H ❑ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 o a 0 0 0 o O ul r U W U d m H U E k H w H H fn fn W U H U a u ro w k z w W o O W u U w 1 z m r H H n m 0 o H ri x -1 o E N -1 Ln o LL H U \ x ri n W U N \ O w �D kD w H H o M o H N m N Lh N \ O X in m m m O p: In m m ri N Q o o U M 1 \ m u U U h U \ a 0 0 0 m m In N O Ln y J M O w d M M 0 w o 0 1 H\ H 'mmm u N d I z F4 94 - o q r., Ti o n o ro \ o W p,' d 0 H LO Ln a ri Fa Fa Fa Cl H W H a a a a 0 1 N \ [4 H M W r-I w w FL N \ U 4 LL LL LL LL O I I U rl H ty U CC'�3 U U' N W fn W LL W \ H E PL a w a A m 1 v, M w r N E N H H W ,-I E 0 N ro P, O W p W o rl 0 0 0 0 1n M ul 0 o n o Q, M 0 M m �r o O o 0 0 z m 0 1n o o ul o O 0 o o O o l O ly m o ul Ul 'y dl d H \ m ul a m Ul m � q "r m m d M Ul Ul m dT Ln Ul �r m m m m E P.' M n m 0 m 0 O d1 O ,A 0 O m 0 r r n ul m Ul O " O m 0 0 0 O U 1n cc M 0 m m a 0 m 0 �n 0 m 0 m m m 0 0 0 W [A O M H n , A ,A .A , A V) w LO H H H H H H H H N H H r H m m m W H O 1p H In w H ci ci N ry N w w ri H r•1 r•1 A r•1 ri ri Ln ri W ID ID Q C71 0 1 m u m a w w. m a oa o W O I yl f ul w O P �p U I U H H p; U z P4 III H H H z H H H w fq i-7 D z O H Q U E+ W w Lei P; W W W p; W� H aaa W w m H w z S'I w m W rNi i P4 Ln w Ep4 ❑1 W A QOQ H O H r l FC r l r PP�QQj U H H H " H E �� Q C7 F { { �W U �j H Q f1l x Q H H I H w z W z W p m p W W O W 7 rA kx w ❑ W z p p p W 7, C7 U W u q H H E E. G' I H w m H w 1-7 k-7 1-7 a 0 r 4 H N z - W V] m m m N Q] S 1 1 W E m O tri ��FGGG 7+ W O Q a 000 0 [7 0 I 11 0 O O U 5 O H rl Fti a N S 4 w W W W p; f4 V a M z O W O C7 p p 0 r) 17 I W w m w w 0 0 I 1 1 (a (7 0 [] L7 0 0 N 1 A l l o Q] o 4� 16 I n O o n r r r H H c-1 H ri Ln N N r m 1 1 1 ro i o m m n H N m m m m w m w W m m N ri Ln ri n n n ri 1 ry �n M n m �D Tv ,A , A r i H 1n %D m w Ln dv d' 'T Ln M m r1 N M m M M m N M di Vr m M M I13 H c-I c-1 H ri ri H ri H H H ri H ri r i r i r i rl r i H H -1 ri . A r i A H N Q H H H . A , A I . A -1 A r -{ r -I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rl r-I rl ri r-1 W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m H J.] 17 N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H U w m \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ VJ N N rl .A .A H .A ri H rl ri H H H H H c-I H H H c-I H c-I ri c-I H H V) H o 0 0 o O O O o 0 o O o O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N C7 H N ri \ m W N 1 n F2 H W 1�i C7 0 ❑ d O o H N M d 1n C4 n n m o H N r 114 m r m o 0 0 O H Q I z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M Nl M m m M Nl m M M M m M W CN W U a 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U d ri m W H H 0 H Li U lO In m u In In U1 1n lO Ul m l0 Ln u LO v LO n U 1D L➢ U7 L➢ N Ln U1 ui ul Ln 1D Ln Ln Ln Ul 1n lD L'I L➢ lD U1 Ln Ln lD L➢ 4 n Q ri H W W H W �n % D tD to W �n in ko m �o w �n w �n �n �n W �n lD �n �n a W �n w lD w In �n in U 1 U H Nri U U z u\ z z H w 0 ,-I H H U V Z H .• •, N W U W O x O O O o o O o 0 0 0 O a 0 p p o 0 O O O O O O O p p 1 p H w U d o o 0 o 0 0 0 0000 o 0 0 0 0 o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U rl r{ H H H ri r{ ri H H E H H Ti ri ri H H E r1 H H H rk H H H H 30 w rN W f4 H w W E 0 U Ffg O O O 0 0 a N H H W .� O E N £ ro z ° P W � r E t 7 P; Pl O P, H O G q U O N 1 0 0 a: o }i E H m O H 0 0 W N r4 A H U N q m 3 m m fi xs u i7 y u y: 1 U Id H z H� M1 u O F4Hm EP'. A d. U HN H [7 H H H H o H H H .. .. u w F� a ° u qE+ m4 N r o ri O O O r m uy �D O O N O O o 0 0 o N H W r o O O o a Z w o. r o 0 o m r H m o %c o o O O n o O t w o O O r- 0 \O Ln m Ln ry O Ln A r M O CO H O ul ul W ri O m m m m O N ul O dl M KP %D N dr In m r O 41 N \O rn . dl - N r H m O r O 1 r Ln m Ln O m H a m (n w m N N ul O H N 1D N m O T� r ID O N O Lu H N H N N H ,A 1D In H y{ O. q o 0 0 0 000 o O O O o 0 o O o 0 o COO o o O o O E FC O O O o 0 0 0 o O o o O O O p q q q o o q q O q q O q o Z Ei o 0 0 o O O o o a o 0 0 0 o O O O o O o O O O O O O O O 0 m U W U m H U W W U U ro H 3 z z > u w H \ w a H w x a ft� w r m P1 U \ w w w 3 N E a o Zi 0 Ln LD 0 m m Rl a r m I o N 1 H m H N O H 1 -1 \ \\ H H H ,A ,A ,A w m E m , - 1 s{ fn H H H H H ,s{ U U ,A En m CL H O U o \ \ U W W m m m H W in pi H \ N O 'j 04 w W N O O QI q q CQ -I H N m f4 H \\ rn 4 PI N N \ C 1 1 \ U m r� rte+ 1 \ Ei \ U U U N ri rl L l a n4 W N o E S� o E [p � W rn ra � o f4 A A q Pl H O ro l W W H o A Pr I U o H O H 1-7 H ['. 0.4 \ U 4 1 rpjq) N U] P1 W N \ v] a \ 'Z. 04124 A m pq P�11 W H W W }+ o 0 \ N W W W W '. ' D N rte- r 7 W WFx� 1 m G< CO 01 F E E w r U m r P'. a F P'. P4 m m H w m P'. P4 E rk w 4 d O v o H 0 ul O O "I In H O O H H N N H m H 0 O q m N Ln H Ln O cN m m H q H O N O o m o t \ m (n W m H H m dr H ul dr In In M m m m m m dr o ul �} 1,1 a 0 0 m m l0 U1 m 0 o m m m O o a o O O o O O o r o 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 H H H M H H H m r N r r r-i ri H H H L l H H r1 H r H H 19 H i w ,� M H Ti r m M v fl LO r-{ H M H H H H H H lfl H H xx O E 1 O m rC !EN E E x 1 a W WW m S3 W W P KC� Lh s E U I C.1 m O H 0 n n z w w z E FC KC rj) P4 PI 1 M m - ri HH H H '�] p H z W Pi 1 Fc H m m m o E{ a m m m a of m o a 1 W " } W W z fk V m m Iq W w Z, U 1 m a w [ 1 [_1 o a '.7 hl FC an d o o Pi O a w S+ 5 c cQi o m [} U ° w w m 4 KKU w P4 (-1 rx o .i rx rx m z rx w Iv E E nc 3 H 1 z U w w o H ww H PP; a a U ww x n4 P4 x w A JJ Ly W q P' O m W al al E g 0 a W W E H H d Y1 S-i 1 0 m �y' N 1 - 7 f4 .4 � U7 } ?J H H W � � � H H I w H ul E Fa Fa x 1 r (U 4 4 l H O rd O r4' K� N 1 1 H O U U �i r�4 r�4 r • m 1-a a 1 1 a a x ;4 1 � 0 H Ln i H H H H i m m dr O m m m H m " kD O m m m r 1 0 �O rn U) l r i m o o cN i LD r o m m N W m m m O N r r do r- L n 0 0 H i m N H O r r m N rq cN N m N 1 m N dr £ d' m N m � d� N d' £ H H � H N ri A ri ri H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H � q H H H H H H H H H N H ,A H H H H H H H H H H ,A H W m m N N N m W W tD m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m H N ry ry Nry ry ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E m H H H H H H H H H H H 1 M H H H I H H H i A i A H H O O O O O o 0 o q 4 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 o a 0 0 H m M W H 0 0 O H N m dl ul LI 10 r m m O N N m m do In LD l L r m al 1 0 0 2i d' W N N W dr " dr N r dl In N rl rl In In lfl N In In In ul W m w N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N N N N N N H I In I L L L L L LO L Ln n l LD n m n In L n m m ul ul In m LO n L m m m m Ln m LO H U u1 n fi w w w Ln m ul m m ul m m ul ul ul m Q H W LD 1n to LD m to m � m m m Ln to m to m m Ln Ln to m m Ln m U U u U u P El m u 1 u�� U V V CIJ N N N N N N N N E N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C F J C O o a o 0 0 0 o O o 0 O O 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 o o O o 0 0 0 0 E H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E H H H H E H H H H H 31 r E a n m N W m Ln r lnm � mmmo dl m m u o m o o m r o 0 o mko - 1 O O In m O r O H O O O W my Q O Fn mHr V N rO A rdl In nlmMm In 1pc H N O r dl o M 0 0 cO N H m q p U1 N" H Vp M M N m M N o r H N N to r O O N m o M N O r o Ln w 10 M H H N H H .A N. A M m N a. N M m In H N N W W W N r1 H H N m N d� H H W W F O O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o m W In N W H Ul O H N U I U x U) V M H a w w a a H x I W H m 04 � H W O N rl H H Pr W H . A m H O N \ 1n H \ -tk o \ Y O H W o m m N \ m o M W m W w o M F4 o U \ H H \ V w \ F� cn rn \ w I to KG o W rC H I w o O N o Q 0 I o U .A U o 1 I H a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa �-I m H \ H as O I \ N PI PI N PI N N PI N P1 Pr Pr P4 P� M NNN N ri \ m rrl \ Q N N O I H N NNNNN NN N C14 rk 244L FL W W 'A r) I r) .':F 'D 'A ." aJ7 ])'�.D O 7' H \ N H \ N W 1-1 \ U I :. a O H \ H W W N .7)r m I r W mm Mm m En U)U]Ul U]VI M W mmm NUJ H m W m M (9 m W WV) N pE H W H .A O E N r7+ N ON fti' W H O o H O H O H ri H H O O d o H O M H O O O O O O O O r U] O ,4 U] 1(S m In O In H IV In O � rl H \ M ll1 r l!7 N mH InH 1pHN mInM dl In rlf7H m m m r dI N M H W W o 1n 0 W 0 Glom W m�mmmmmHm to mvr m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a o 0 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 to 0 o 0 m 0 0 �o 0 to 0 m 0 toq 00 W U) H o o m In H H HHHHH HHri HH HHHI�HHH H H ri H rl rI H .� rl H H H r l H In rl rl H H N ko H H r In rl H r N .A H to Ln r U7 H H H H H H Q 0 i U W O H N W W H H V rpm H H O ;4 O I H a s w O U H H 0 P4 P4 F z W 4L F w O I H U H W 1 7 p U CH7 o i o a F4 W rry W Ur W r I U W W U1 W fy V w w ¢ ry H I V Q a �1 F W N H 0 M H H H U W H H W Oo H 'j 000000000000000000 a Fk N N NM N N W N N NNNN N N PI � , y 0 w w 00 ? H W H W N N H >~ U Ix UUU V U UUU UUUUUUU UUU W r4 W ul W q � W E 3 I u wwwwwr�..wwr..wwNNL,wNwww a p P4 o a w w £ D 000000000000000000 o a U w w w w o rx; (14 QI I A I I rHi - rHi Id I W I� O m w A w 0 qm0 qfl MN 0 qfl MMM N mm In d' to N m N w M N H H i N o m m m am m m rn m m mm m mmm m m m o I" M W O M o M mm cn H H pa�a'"amVaaa "-rw "qVvl m N w A M N mLn N E H r1 AH.A H iH r1 H r1 rI rI r1 r1H H HH H H H H H H H H H HH SJ q H H HH HH HH HHH -j -1 HHHH H H H N N H H H H ri HH 11 \ \ \ \ \ \ ry \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m m m m m m tb m W W W W W m W W m @ W W W ro m J -I ry N N N N N N N N N N NNN N NN N N N N N N N N N ry ry ry N N N N U 1 H H HH HH HHH HH H H H HHHH H rl rl rl H H H .H H H HH H O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 V rl H A [ M H H W V •• O H N M tnM MM MMM fl) MMM re) d� ILn kn r W m O H N MM O FA I 2i N w � W W kD W ID W pow �n� W to to tn �n to W W N r r r rr U W 0 W O N N NNN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rq N N ry N N N N N U A Fy H W W H H W o H U U 1 Ln i1 tin to M Ln 1n M m m m to tin Ln 1n Ln uo m U In 1n 1n 1n Ln In 1n U1 m In W In In 1n ul 1n In w In 10 to In w Ln In In 1n Ln U7 1n to In In ,A dr N � W H �A 1p w In w n V In �n 5 �n �n �o �o lD I0 10 to +n �o to w w w �n 5n W W w ao 10 In w to w to In �n i0 10 V U HNH [J U U U �L H N O H [I 2 El U M o ff H H P U U U CJ H .. .. Ga W W U Wo �C .7 El S I- 4 L) 0 E N 0 N 000000000000000000` Cl N N N N{ N N N N N N N N N N N N N H 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N o N o N 0 N 0 N 0 N oo N N E i 1 1 H NU � O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O O O O O O O 000 F m4 LLLJJJ E ri H ri ri rq ri H H ri H H H H H H it IHHE i H A r1 r A A l H HHE H 0 O U U 4 a H U z z w Ln N w H H H N H W F n Q 32 W H O N O H H m O O O H m m r H O m w dI H Ifl m O O O Ql O m O O O m 1414 ,7 O N O rl H � O O O O vl W tll O Irl dl �u d� O d� vl d� ut ul O In ul , o O O dl rn O o fn o M M M ul o a lO m N n m 'ry dI m Ln O m m H m n m ul w w M O O m H H to ,A d H H m n N O N N kD w kn N ow" m ul ul o O w ul el kn ul ul N rn O U) N O HH n N m ul H H m N Ul H H HHN Hn m rn � W a w nn 1 H N � �n mm�� m 'm�am H U W m 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � 00 n rl H H m H n H H H N H H H H H H m H H HH H H H m N W In H N H m H ul ul H H H aI N H H H H rl 10 H rl H H H N H l0 lD ul a > H W I I WE a' N U H O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 i-7 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d d o 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d 0 O O d o In W W w w w w w H En O t-I f4 to 0f w ww O 1-0 `�-! R: - U] F H �Cy�� 'FTiI O W O a O 0 0 ry R H w H 0 F N ° zm N rx m a W m a P4 H O r U o I o O f4 a W 0 HH o H H a U L7 W dI R', N H o H U N S•. N 4J yJ (U A e1 a.l b ta N S4 V V U b N H C] H z \ I 4 n O H Ca L) w° a\.. ti4w KC m a U A N O H 0 H H U W EB �4U A E rn d W U A i W W WG 0 [n H O H 7A W N A M U fx 1 N 0 W u \ H o � I n m a U U A -ii y w m H U U E W� W Vl W U1 0 D m 1414 U H H N H H H H C�7 rl zz O O M M a \ a rn H rl w 140.411 O o0W r a It) A. ❑ P W W W w 01 w H o 0 Ifl a H H H O a � H \ H H H H O \ \ www Ul I7 n n pl fx a. a O H 0 D m z N N H H W H C�7 rl n o H H rl \ a rn H rl a 140.411 O P, r I- \ 5 It) A. ❑ P W W W w 01 w a Y+ yI 5+ 5+ YI W U V U U V q mmmmo I o 0 0 o H ry 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N W H H H W H H H H P aa` a H 20000 H OO H H H H H FFFFF m aw u n W W U 00 I � H H U U o 0 N N N U u O O o0 N N a a ww E P, W O rn N O m O O O OO N 0 a� H Ill 0 0 O 000 00 al 00 n Ifl O H O al O ul Ill O O O O O It O N H dI H H H H H W 1p \ d� m w n rn O d' It N N N n ul V} iv N [n Ill m Vl Ill w In ul Ul m m � m alp � o a w nn 1 m � �n mm�� m 'm�am U W m 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 00 n rl H H m H n [� H H N H H H H H H m H H HH H H H m N W In H N H m H ul ul H H H aI N H H H H rl 10 H rl H H H N H l0 lD ul > H W I I >I E a' N U H H U z i-7 q a W W w w w w H En O t-I f4 to 0f w ww O 1-0 `�-! R: - F H �Cy�� 'FTiI O W O m u FG m H> H rG H W W W m rxrxrx H w ��a�� 2 q [4 W U m x x x W `Q oo a u m x �"� �' z o wwww `° �'�' F' F' F' v �� I z H >i w� �-I �zy w HHH NNE+ �W U H a rCy� l as W nnnn qw] rl I I A O ?+ O HH H H o ryry'' Z r r C C uj Q W 7 I H � EEIEF F FH E' Pi a) I I I fx M U U G4 fq !n Ua Ul uJ U) u] m u] U] m W u1 Ul U] m Ul U] Ul I i I m w vl mm m a o HHHH O mU1 m Ll _ I H H Q1m n H H m o 0 UO Ufl lD H H nn n n m IP Ul Lo N W o 0 I n O n n n 14 N m � dI O m m m H H H H o W %D O O W D p u Q1 m I f'i l0 Ql m fn H dI f1 1p d 4 � I W N M N fn In In l"1 H � dl d� d� dl d .F. d� l0 UO H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H rl H H H H rl H H rl H H H H H q N H H rl rl H H H rl H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m0 \ u] H H r l r l ri H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 q d- Ill l0 UO n m Ql O H H H N Ill m Ill I W n n n n n co 0 0 I ' zj n n n n n n n m W m m m m m w m m m m" m m m m m m m m W En N N O N N UO N lD N UD N U N N N N ID lfl N l0 N U N N N N N w lD lD UG N lD N N N N N lD Ln ID Ufl N N 1n " N N N w H U m m ul ui I fl ul l Ul Ul m In N IP I fl l I Ln ll U} In m ul IP m In In Ln m H W m m �� w w m �D kD � �n lD m a m Uo w w �� w w w w w w to In U w �U W w a w %D � w o u u x x x x o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 I U D 0 0 0 0 14 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nn ca N N N N H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N N N N E N N N N 1 o O 000 O d O O 0000 o 0 o O o 0 0o O O O o o O o o d co H H H rl E H H N H rl H H E H H H H H H H H H H H H H H El H H H H 33 C7 z H O U U F4 H U W I H N H W H H H N N A a m E m w O O O \D N cr N r w H H r o O o tip N In to M [r o ri w m w o 00000 N r o o q N o r m N W W r r O 1l o m W r N m -1 O O N N N O W 0 N H r O Lo r . . M lD ri lD CO \D . O � W . M . Ul . m . Dl . N . . . . . C r tY w �D V] . m . . m m H I- i H H H H H Dl m Ln O H m Ill In r r m M H M dp r O m O M P %D O N N " Pi P: r m ri rl rl r dl N H Dl O d� a M H H 1l to H ri N f-- N r m m r r r r r r W m - w m W A N H Lo o I [I N[-IE[A W W W W W r1 r H r [- r H F4 Cl A H HHH H P; ri r m Pd P: P: Pd P: a W E �} U O O o 0 O o O p O q O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 p 0 O 0 o 0 p o p 0 p 0 p p a o a o 0 0 If} l�1 Ifl dl W E O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q p O O O O o O o 0 0 0 0 m m m W N N N W M M M U1 W O p 0 0 a O N Q H H 0 - W � b 0w N H Pi W P r W il o � Q V q I o w 0 W 6 E u1 0 H H O U C7 FC N 0 U ri U N d a m A (u IA 10 G Id H N 4J U Itl N z 1 H 1 r N H m F R H W H W I \ W a ? m d V H N H V H N O H O H H P H •• V [ H W U QE to rC Q I a z I w I LL O 0 H H P o H N u m o Q H I o I ry I I I w E a Q d' \ m w C] P: ° w W a �C FA o m U n n00nn u U W W W W W �r I n � H m m m m m a a wwwww 0 o a o 00000 U1 H U1 000 0 0 m 1 In l0 u w �D 1D H H H ri H H H U \ o 0 0 0 O W pJ W ry N NN N N M W P: aoraora M r-I rs `.i w P, w r a w ra r w a� r a w r a w H I- i H H H H H O W r-I o000 U U U H H HHHH N N N N N N H a' W H 1 r r H ri H r-I r a P: r W W 4, w W o m n n00nn FA p �r I n LO z H m m m m m w D m mwmww 0 o a o 00000 S� H H m f'1 m M M M m H H In l0 u w �D 1D w r7 rn E E E n, m HHIAHH H H H H H Q O'Z]05 W P: aoraora M r-I rs `.i r-I rl r-I rl rl P, r a w ra r w a� r a w r a w H I- i H H H H j U p W w H H H H U U U H H HHHH W H F l O 1 r r H ri H r-I zzz2z EQ U1 HHHHH a m FC o xxIs Lj 01 H In U] m w m W A N H Lo o I [I N[-IE[A In 0 0 o o m o o H O Ir} In dl ,A o IV m IV In o m dl m 1D w d� a o O o 0 0 H H H H H r 0 r H , H 11 r r H H r H i N H H H ll7 -1 H r-1 H H H H m a z U v1 H U1 H H 4 P4 u O ul H 5 O w rA A w U] F W N rS F a H P: P; a P: P: H H P.' II z H o a s a >° as Plan H H I m o o m a m ul o I O r 1D a dl � dl q 1D lfl O In N N ry f'1 M M M M I 01 H 1D ll1 ry NryNN N H ri W N ID MMMMM I 1D M dp a^, d r r r r r M ri M d� M m m mmm m E r-I H H N ,A ri N H H H H , A H r{ H H H ri H H H ri H H ri H ri H ri H H ri H H H H ri H H ri H ri W m m m m m m mmm m m w w w aD aD w r r r r r P N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N ry ry N ry N ry U] H H r-I r-I r-I r-I H ri ri ri H ri , r-I H H r-I r-I H r-I H H w N z W C) O 1-1 N M 'p W u1 In In If} W r m m O H N !4 K� 4 H I 'm m m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O H H H H H 1D W W ID ID lD 1D w kD W kD w iD ID W lD r r r r r 0 H U In Ul In Ul Ul In In Ul N u7 u1 u1 u1 In M U1 In N N N N N U H W 10 w u U to W �D W W w W w W w 1D H ri H ri ri U V U u 3 3 3 3 V x O q E W x W W r m PI P4 u u U a V a U a W Pd ' � ,-I r Lo o ff o o N N N p p o g N nj N N p p N N p 6 N O O O 0 0 0 0 o FG p o O 0 U] N E N N N N N N () o p o 0 - N N N O N N N N N N N N r.L. o 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 o p ri o H O O O - O r� E+ � � H � r1 i ri E+ U •� rl , , , r ri ,i ri ri ri r-1 ri ri ri ri E E E E E H z E P O V V H U w I 0 In H N r-I w E H H N H a E Q P4 34 w FA p LO z H A p Q H X11 ftl m w r7 rn cn a W P: M r-I rs `.i r-I rl r-I rl rl P, C1 Q r CI H H HHHH Q DI r-I r-I F zzzz U a m w m a I H V o I I W W W W W H F4 Cl A H HHH H P; ri r m Pd P: P: Pd P: a In 0 0 o o m o o H O Ir} In dl ,A o IV m IV In o m dl m 1D w d� a o O o 0 0 H H H H H r 0 r H , H 11 r r H H r H i N H H H ll7 -1 H r-1 H H H H m a z U v1 H U1 H H 4 P4 u O ul H 5 O w rA A w U] F W N rS F a H P: P; a P: P: H H P.' II z H o a s a >° as Plan H H I m o o m a m ul o I O r 1D a dl � dl q 1D lfl O In N N ry f'1 M M M M I 01 H 1D ll1 ry NryNN N H ri W N ID MMMMM I 1D M dp a^, d r r r r r M ri M d� M m m mmm m E r-I H H N ,A ri N H H H H , A H r{ H H H ri H H H ri H H ri H ri H ri H H ri H H H H ri H H ri H ri W m m m m m m mmm m m w w w aD aD w r r r r r P N N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N ry ry N ry N ry U] H H r-I r-I r-I r-I H ri ri ri H ri , r-I H H r-I r-I H r-I H H w N z W C) O 1-1 N M 'p W u1 In In If} W r m m O H N !4 K� 4 H I 'm m m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O H H H H H 1D W W ID ID lD 1D w kD W kD w iD ID W lD r r r r r 0 H U In Ul In Ul Ul In In Ul N u7 u1 u1 u1 In M U1 In N N N N N U H W 10 w u U to W �D W W w W w W w 1D H ri H ri ri U V U u 3 3 3 3 V x O q E W x W W r m PI P4 u u U a V a U a W Pd ' � ,-I r Lo o ff o o N N N p p o g N nj N N p p N N p 6 N O O O 0 0 0 0 o FG p o O 0 U] N E N N N N N N () o p o 0 - N N N O N N N N N N N N r.L. o 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 o p ri o H O O O - O r� E+ � � H � r1 i ri E+ U •� rl , , , r ri ,i ri ri ri r-1 ri ri ri ri E E E E E H z E P O V V H U w I 0 In H N r-I w E H H N H a E Q P4 34 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON February 4, 2011 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 $ 528,064.63 Less Employee Deductions $(164,672.86) NET PAYROLL $ 363 Payroll check numbers issued 98444 through 98477 Payroll voucher numbers issued V29905 through V30112 Void clreck/voucher number(s) Manual check/voucher number(s) 98478 CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative *vices PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of , 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 35 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2010 Recommended Action Accept the report Description Investments The market and book value of the City's portfolio both totaled $51.2 million at December 31, 2010. The portfolio's December yield of 0.28% was down from the September 2010 yield of 0.33% and the year ago rate of 0.46% due to the portfolio's safe and liquid mix of investments and because of the temporary high portion of the portfolio in cash and money market positions due to maturities and tax deposits during the holiday office closure. The liquid positions were re- invested in January. The LAIF benchmark was at 0.46% for December, down from 0.50% in September and 0.57% a year ago, reflective of their move to a higher percentage of investments backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. The portfolio increased from September to December by $5 million due to sales and property tax receipts. Maturing Treasuries and a certificate of deposit totaling $9.6 million were either re- invested into new Treasuries or temporarily left in the money market fund. Investments are in full compliance with the City investment policy and State law and are tiered to provide sufficient cash flows to pay City obligations over the next six months. Market values on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo Bank Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. The retiree medical PARS trust market value grew from $7.1 million to $7.4 million during the quarter ending December 31, 2010. The portfolio of money market, fixed income and equity mutual funds returned 4.3% for the quarter and 6.67% since inception six months ago. Short- term volatility of market value is anticipated, with positive returns expected in the long run to fund future retiree medical obligations. 36 General Fund Budget Report Revenues are up five percent over last year, led by strong growth in sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, property transfer taxes and charges for services. Grant revenues, fines and forfeitures are trailing results from last year while other categories are relatively steady. Growth will need to continue in order to achieve this year's projections. Expenditures are on track with last year results and this year's budget expectations. Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy City Treasurer Reviewed by. David Woo for Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Investment Portfolio PARS Trust Report Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule General Fund Budget Report Expenditure & Revenue Charts 37 City of Cupertino Investment Portfolio December 31, 2010 ACTIVITY DATE I COUPON YIELD ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZED PURCHASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION RATE To Maturit3 COST VALUE VALUE PROFIT /LOSS SECURITIES MATURED 09/23/10 10/28/10 US Treasury Bill 0.11% 0.11 0 /0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 09/23/10 11/12/10 US Treasury Bill 0.12% 0.12% 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 09/23/10 12/09/10 US Treasury Bill 0.13% 0.13% 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 01/29/10 12/31/10 US Treasury Note 0.88% 0.25% 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 06/28/10 12/31/10 US Treasury Note 0.88% 0.15% 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 12/28/05 12/28/10 Natl Bnk of New York City, Flushing NY 4.90% 4.90% 97,000 97,000 97,000 0 SECURITIES PURCHASED 11/22/10 01/20/11 US Treasury Bill 0.11 0 /0 0.11% 2,999,820 3,000,000 2,999,940 120 12/17/10 10/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00% 0.26% 2,012,099 2,000,000 2,011,720 (379) CITY PORTFOLIO CASH 12/31/10 Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking 16,086 16,086 16,086 0 12/31/10 Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements 0.10% 0.10% 5,557,479 5,557,479 5,557,479 0 5,573,565 5,573,565 5,573,565 0 LAIF 12/31/10 LAIF - State Pool 0.46% 0.46% 594,808 594,808 594,808 0 MONEY MARKET FUNDS 12/31/10 Wells Fargo 100% Treasury 0.01% 0.01 0 /0 8,313,987 8,313,987 8,313,987 0 8,313,987 8,313,987 8,313,987 0 US TREASURY SECURITIES 11/22/10 01/20/11 US Treasury Bill 0.11% 0.11 0 /0 2,999,820 3,000,000 2,999,940 120 01/29/10 01/31/11 US Treasury Note 0.88% 0.28% 2,501,254 2,500,000 2,501,275 21 04/26/10 02/28/11 US Treasury Note 0.88% 0.39% 5,003,891 5,000,000 5,005,250 1,359 03/26/10 03/31/11 US Treasury Note 0.88% 0.44% 5,005,321 5,000,000 5,008,200 2,879 04/29/10 04/30/11 US Treasury Note 4.88% 0.43% 6,087,449 6,000,000 6,090,720 3,271 05/27/10 05/31/11 US Treasury Note 4.88% 0.41% 5,092,073 5,000,000 5,095,500 3,427 06/28/10 06/30/11 US Treasury Note 1.13% 0.33% 2,007,822 2,000,000 2,009,220 1,398 07/28/10 07/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00% 0.32% 2,007,921 2,000,000 2,008,900 979 08/27/10 08/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00% 0.28% 2,009,569 2,000,000 2,010,080 511 09/28/10 09/30/11 US Treasury Note 1.00% 0.25% 2,011,158 2,000,000 2,010,780 (378) 12/17/10 10/31/11 US Treasury Note 1.00% 0.26% 2,012,099 2,000,000 2,011,720 (379) 36,738,377 36,500,000 36,751,585 13,208 Total Managed Portfolio 1 51.220.737 1 50,982,360 1 51.233.945 13,208 Average Yield 0.28% Average Length to Maturity (in years) 0.26 MONEY MARKET FUNDS Kester Trust 12/31/10 Wells Institutional Money Mkt Acct 0.15% 0.15% 48,404 48,404 48,404 0 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO Bond Reserve Acct Ambac Assurance Security Bond 1 1 1 Bond Payment Acct Wells Treasury Plus Money Mkt 0.01% 0.01% 1,015,072 1,015,072 1,015,072 0 Total Bond Reserve Portfolio 1,015,073 1 015 073 1.015.073 0 i :,%&* a i " I A • T 'gb=, 906 4P 'Imp ' IRTAfn& '04" 0, W aft*' 'h"ll ul a "All Q El 0 0 I 39 E .6 Ul lj � u 0.70% 0.60% 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% Rate of Return Comparison --*--LAIF —0--Cupertino 41 Compliance Schedule COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino December 31, 2010 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $50 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities Up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except for Treasuries and US Agencies) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies Page 2 '., City of Cupertino General Fund Budget Report December 31, 2010 Budget Actual 2009110 2010111 1213112009 1213112010 Analysis of Trends Taxes: Sales Tax 11,249,000 12,036,000 7,814,643 8,463,831 Business to business improvement Property Tax 10,419,503 12,076,000 6,174,438 6,088,845 Flat real estate market and CPI Transient Occupancy 1,994,000 2,094,000 994,505 1,189,817 Occupancy rates up, delinquent taxes received this year Utility Tax 3,366,000 3,433,000 1,237,284 1,314,169 Electric, gas, non - wireless telecom improved Franchise Fees 2,630,000 2,656,000 505,123 590,165 Prior year revenue recorded this year Other Taxes 1,200,000 1,224,000 495,406 757,605 Transfer tax from N.Vallco property sale Licenses and Permits 3,210,000 2,610,000 1,519,991 1,495,901 Plan checks and inspections down Use of Money & Property 891,000 1,188,000 338,287 329,654 Intergovernmental 492,296 553,000 272,927 222,625 Different grants Charges for Services 1,434,000 1,652,000 720,299 845,665 Senior Center, planning fees up Fines & Forfeitures 902,000 920,000 331,803 244,138 Lower fine assessments in courts Other Revenue 100,000 100,000 52,028 36,086 Total Revenue 37.8 8 799 40.542 000 20 456 734 21578 SOl S% over year Operating Expenditures: Administrative 1,517,004 1,611,138 633,113 719,451 On track Law Enforcement 8,565,636 8,833,336 4,198,952 4,358,436 On track Public & Environ. Affairs 1,494,522 1,461,143 666,953 666,477 On track Administrative Service 4,062,641 4,234,559 1,904,993 1,735,503 On track & election off -year Recreation Service 4,289,549 4,444,052 1,904,514 1,928,869 On track Community Development 3,560,750 3,703,100 1,426,023 1,440,113 On track Public Works 11,803,700 12,216,022 5,207,046 5,234,688 On track Total Expenditures 35.293.802 36.503.350 15.941.594 16.083.537 Transfers In 991,512 265,000 0 132,498 CIP savings in adopted budget Transfers Out - 9,374,885 - 6,725,000 - 3,786,498 - 3,362,496 Debt service, capital, and retiree medical funding Net Gain/(Loss) -5 789 376 -2 421350 728 642 2 264 966 43 General Fund Expenditures Projected vs. Actual y 20,000 c R V! 69 t 15,000 a � is o �7 10,000 L R } 5,000 0 . 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 Month ---* — Projected, per current budget f Actual m" Sales Tax Projections vs. Actual $10,000 V! C y $8,000 0 ~ $6,000 6 $4,000 a $2,000 $0 ---* — Projected, per current budget --M—Actual 9/10 10/10 11/10 Month $8,000 V! R $7,000 V! 'o $6,000 ~ $5,000 0 6 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Property Tax Projections vs. Actual 12/10 — Projected, per current budget Actual 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 Month 45 Transient Occupancy Tax Projected vs. Actual 0 1,600 v c R 51,200 v3 O a � 800 L 400 FIN ---* — Projected, per current budget f Actual 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 Month Licenses & Permits Projected vs. Actual 0 2,000 v C R V! 7 O N � H 6 1,000 N — Projected, per current budget f Actual a 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 Month M Charges for Services Projected vs. Actual y 1,000 v c R V! fR � O N t R � ° 500 0 L R a H 10/10 11/10 12/10 9/10 — Projected, per current budget f Actual Month y 1,000 v c R V! fR � O a t ° 500 L R A ll Use of Money & Property Projected vs. Actual ---* — Projected, per current budget f Actual 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 Month 47 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3227 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Recommended Action Adopt Resolution Description Extends the appointments of the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer. Discussion Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. This Section requires government agencies to appoint a treasurer and deputy treasurer on an annual basis. The attached resolution extends the current appointments of Carol Atwood and David Woo as the City's Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, respectively. This legislation was intended to provide ongoing review of investment issues by the governing body. Fiscal Impact None Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Kelly Kline for Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Resolution EN RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10 -021 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 annually adopts an investment policy; WHEREAS, the City invests funds in accordance with provisions of California Government Code Section 53600; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby rescinds Resolution No. 10 -021 and appoints Carol Atwood City Treasurer and David Woo as Deputy Treasurer; 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 future delivery thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of February 2011 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 1I- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES, FROM APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 19333 VALLCO PARKWAY, APN 316 -20 -075 AND 316 -20 -076 WHEREAS, Apple Inc., a California corporation, has executed a Grant of Easement for sidewalk purposes, which is in good and sufficient form, granting the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain property for sidewalk purposes situate at 19333 Vallco Parkway, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. 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 15 day of February, 2011 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 50 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES APN 316 -20 -075 &c 316 - 20.076 19333 Valleo Parkway Cupertino, CA 95014 APPLE INC. a California corporation ( "Apple "), grants to the CITY OF CUPERTINO a non- exclusive easement for public sidewalk purposes, together with the obligation to construct any and all improvements which shall be or become necessary for the operation of the sidewalk (and to repair, operate and maintain any existing or future sidewalk improvements), over the hereinafter described property which is situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and is described as follows ( "Easement Area "): (see Exhibit "A" & `B ") Nothing herein contained shall prohibit Apple from constructing or allowing a third parry to construct any improvement within the Easement Area, so long as such improvement does not permanently interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk within the Easement Area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed this _ day of �1 ' 2011. California corporation t�� rcc rte, ,- LC- Title (Notary acknowledgment to be attached) 51 October 14, 2010 Job No. A09020 -1 Page I of 2 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR: SIDEWALK EASEMENT All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on March 26, 1978 in Book 438 of Maps at Pages 12 -13, Santa Clara County Records, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwesterly corner of said Parcel 1; Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 1, North 01'05'14" West, 2.50 feet to a point on a line parallel to and distant 2.50 feet northerly at right angles to the northerly line of Vallco Parkway as shown on said Map; Thence along said parallel line, North 88 °54'46" East, 16.21 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line, along a non - tangent curve to the left having a radius 8.50 feet and to which point a radial line bears South 41 0 12'23" East, through a central angle of 26 °54'54" for an are distance of 3.99 feet; Thence South 64 °44'57" East, 7.18 feet to a point on said parallel line; Thence along said parallel line, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 88 °54'46" East, 55.00 feet; 2. Along a curve to the right having a radius of 707.50 feet, through a central angle of 32 °50'37" for an are distance of 405.56 feet; 3. South 58 °14'37" East, 87.72 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line, the following four (4) courses and distances: 1. North 31 °45'23" East, 10.00 feet; 2. South 58 °14'37" East, 10.50 feet; 3. South 31 °45'23" West, 0.50 feet; 4. Along a curve to the left having a radius of 9.50 feet, through a central angle of 90 °00'00" for an are distance of 14.92 feet to a point on said parallel line, Thence along said parallel line, South 58 °14'37" East, 77.91 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel 2; Thence along the said easterly line, South 31 ° 45'23" West, 2.50 feet to a point on said northerly line of Vallco Parkway; 1APROJECTS1A090201U0CSISURVEY UOCS\LEGAL EESCRIPTIONS1Sidewalk Ease menALegaI Description.doc 52 October 14, 2010 Job No. A09020 -1 Page 2 of 2 Thence along said northerly line the following three (3) courses and distances: 1. North 58 °14'37" West, 185.63 feet; 2. Along a curve to the left having a radius of 705.00 feet, through a central angle of 32 °50'37" for an are distance of 404.13 feet; 3. South 88 0 54'46" West, 80.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. As shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Legal Description prepared by Kier & Wright, Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. UINC S�j� M, A49 y© � Date Ryan M. Aznaya, L.S. 8134 4 '0.81 3 ��° OF CA0F 1APR0JECTS1A090201DOCSISURVEY DOCSILEGAL DUSCRIPTIONS1Sidewalk EasementTegal Description.doc 53 CURVE TABLE: LINE TABLE: CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH LINE BEARING DISTANCE C1 8.50' 26 °54'54" 3.99' L1 N O1 °05'14" W 2.50' C2 9.50' 90 °00'00" 14.92' L2 N 88 °54'46" E 16.21' L3 S 64 °44'5 7" E 7.18' L4 N 88 °54'46" E 55.00' L5 S 58 °14'37" E 87.72' L6 N 31'45'23" E 10.00' L7 S 58 °14'37" E 10.50' L8 S 31 °4S'23" W O.SO' 1 L9 S 58 °14'37" E 77.91' L 1 /4 00 L10 S 31 °45'23" W 2.50' z � f / wI \ Ll 1 S 88 °54'46" W 80.00' LU M Lon L5 L-9/ x / PARCEL 2 \ , (438 M 12 -13) o PARCEL 1 L= 4 L5 L9 ZL l O (438 M 12 -13) p.3 ® L= 404.13' N 58 °14'37" W f 185.63' VALLCO PARKWAY 0 5 . U L 1 - / POINT OF BEGINNING NOTE The easement offset is exaggerated on this plat for visual clarity. I Spa LAND 6 Z11 0 Jj No. 8 qTF OF C A 60 Dt f State of California County of On ,� /� /—J// before me, personally appeared (Here insert nathe and title of the. of LcJ�iS�r}�v )/ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PER] URY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary PubNc - Cctliarnts S #Mf Clara County ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION Signature of Notary Public DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT (Title or description of attached document) (Title or description of attached document continued) Number of Pages Document Date (Additional information) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY THE SIGNER El Individual (s) 1i Corporate Officer (Title) ❑ Partner(s) El Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee(&) ❑ Other INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM Airy rner acinvowledgt completed in California roust contain verbiage exactly as appears above in the notary section or a separate acknowledgment fonn nrusl be properly completed and attached to that document. The onbo exception is if a document is to be recorded outside of California. In such instances, any ahernaiivc acknowledgment verbiage as may be printed on such a document so long os the verbiage does not require the notary to do something that is illegal for a uotari> in California (i.e, terrifying the authorized capacity of the signei). Please check the docrinrertt carefully for proper notarial wording and attach dais form ifrequired. • Stale and County information must be the State and County where the document signer(s) personally appeared before ilia notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of notarization must be the date that the signer(s) personally appeared which must also be the same date the acknowledgment is completed. • The notary public must print his or her name as it appears within his or her commission followed by a comma and then your title (notary public). • Print the name(s) of document signer(s) who personally appear at the time of notarization. • Indicate the correct singular or plural forms by crossing off incorrect forms (i.e. helshc/tlley— is /are ) or. circling the correct forms. Failure to correctly indicate this information may lead to rejection of document recording. • The notary seal impression must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not cover text or lines. If seal impression smudges, re -seal if a sufficient area permits, othcrwisp complete a different acknowledgment form. • Signature of the notary public must match the signature on file with the office of the county clerk. Additional. information is not required but could help to ensure this acknowledgment is not misused or attached to a different document. Indicate title or type of attached document, number of pages and date. Indicate the capacity claimcd by the signer. If the claimed capacity is_ a Corporate officer, indicate the title (i.e. CEO, CFO, Secretary). • Securely attach this document to the signed document 2008 Version CAPA v12.10.07 800 - 873 -9865 wwwRotaryClasses.eom r �IiESTAS Cammlialon 168 ®519 .. M Go�lm. E lies Oct 17 2013 [Notary Sea]) 55 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 wwwxupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Sub, ect Development Permit Process Review Recommended Action 1. Provide direction to staff on the list of recommended changes and any additional modifications /enhancements to the permit process and public engagement policy (see Attachment A); and 2. Authorize Staff to work on modifications to the Zoning Ordinances as required by the above changes. Description Review of the Management Study of the permit process and opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's development permit services and organizational efficiency. Background As part of the Council's 2008 -2009 work program, the Council directed a comprehensive review of the City's development review process. In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was hired to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the City's development permit process and operations. Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment B for Matrix's Management Study of the Permit Process Report). The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City's website. Matrix compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. The Matrix Report recommendations fall in the following categories: • About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented. • About 22 percent of the recommendations are being currently being implemented by staff. • About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission review /City Council action in the form of Ordinance/Policy amendments or funding. 57 • About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to inconsistencies with City policies /department functions and /or potential liability concerns; and • About four percent of the recommendations were based on incorrect assumptions by the Consultant. Attachment C is a summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. City Council Review The Planning Commission reviewed the Matrix report on April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010 and provided recommendations for the Council to consider (see Attachment D for Council staff report dated May 18, 2010). The City Council reviewed the report on May 18, 2010 (see Attachment E for minutes). The Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and noted that they would specifically like to include input from single- family homeowners who have had experience with the permitting process and members of the public. The Council then directed staff to: 1. Conduct additional group workshops for the community to collect feedback regarding the permit process; 2. Send notices to all applicants, property owners, and developers who got permits from the City in the last five years. In addition, place appropriate notices in newspapers. Community Outreach Efforts Approximately 5,300 notices were mailed to invite permittees and property owners to comment on the development permit process. In addition, notices were placed in the Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene and the City's website. Two group workshops (July 28, 2010 and September 8, 2010) were facilitated by Mr. Ken Rodriguez. The first meeting was focused on collecting comments on the main themes of the Matrix Report (See Attachment F). See Attachment G for comments from the first group meeting. At the second meeting, workshop attendees were given an opportunity to provide their opinion about the levels of approval for projects. Participants were provided a handout to indicate their opinion on what level approvals for different types of projects should be given (See Attachment H). The results of this exercise have been compiled in Attachment I. General comments from this meeting have been compiled in Attachment J. Staff has reviewed the group workshop input and has noted where recommendations create potential discrepancies and /or legal considerations. The discussion in the community workshops revolved around the following themes (See Attachments G and J for details): • The development process needs to be simplified. • A comprehensive online permitting system is key to simplifying both processing and tracking proj ects. • While simplifying approval processes is desirable, the current level of public engagement should not be reduced. A detailed discussion of these issues is provided later in the report. Planning Commission Review On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the input from the group workshops (See Attachment K for minutes from the Planning Commission's November 9, 2010 meeting). They generally agreed with all the changes recommended in the report (See Attachment L for Staff Report). Individual Commissioners also made additional recommendations noted later in the staff report. The Planning Commission agreed to forward the recommendations to the Council for consideration and direction. The Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee (composed of Commissioner Miller and Lee) to provide staff with ideas for additional improvements to internal administrative processes. The subcommittee met with staff on November 23, 2010 (see Attachment M for comments from the subcommittee). Staff is also working on a draft process workflow chart for the planning process for discussion with the subcommittee (see Attachment N). Staff will be refining the chart and providing it with the application forms on the City's website. A second meeting with the subcommittee is scheduled for February 9, 2011. Subcommittee comments from the February 9, 2011 meeting will be forwarded to the Council as a desk item. Planning Commission Recommendations The following outlines recommendations from the Planning Commission after reviewing input from the group workshops. In cases where staff has made an alternative or additional recommendation, a specific notation has been provided. Specific comments provided by the public are also noted. 1. ORDINANCE /POLICY AMENDMENTS A. Simplifying Approval Authority The Planning Commission supports simplification of approval authority as noted below: i. The City Council should review all projects that are "outside the box" of regulations — i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan, Zoning, and Ordinance and /or involve the preparation of an Environment Impact Report (EIR). Such projects and Tentative Maps are required to be reviewed by the City Council per State law. ii. Projects that fit "within the "box" of existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations should be approved at the Planning Commission level. iii. Projects that are small, do not cause impacts, are exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would have no environmental impacts should be reviewed by staff. Projects that typically are exempt under CEQA include new construction with six units or less and 10,000 square feet or less of new non- residential development or additions, facade improvements, site improvements including landscaping, replacement or reconstruction of non - residential buildings, etc. 59 ➢ Project Approval Threshold Alternative for Council Consideration: o The current recommendation is to allow new construction exempt under CEQA to be approved at staff level. An alternate recommendation could be to allow new construction exempt under CEQA to be approved by the DRC. Single - family homes and other minor permits could still be approved at staff level per the current ordinance. Attachment A.1 shows the current and recommended levels for the projects and Attachment O provides a list of past projects and the level at which they would be approved under the recommended process. o Under the current recommendations, the Council will review all projects which require General Plan or Zoning Amendments and any project for which an EIR is prepared. An alternative for Council review would be projects that propose > 50 residential units and /or 50,000 square feet of commercial space and /or 100,000 square feet of industrial space. Comments from residents: A number of residents expressed concern about reducing thresholds of project approval and recommended enhancing public noticing in case the thresholds are reduced. A few residents commented if thresholds of approval were reduced, appeal fees should also be lowered or eliminated to remove deterrents to their right to appeal a lower level decision. The current appeal fee is set at $162 and is refunded if the appeal is upheld. B. Ordinance Amendments Single Family (RI) Ordinance — a few workshop attendees brought up the following issues related to the R1 ordinance. a. Design Review for two -story homes is onerous. b. Story Poles are expensive and not effective in conveying the shape of a house. c. Noticing is financially burdensome and intrusive since entire plan sets with floor plans have to be mailed. At the November 9, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the requirements of the two story permit process and privacy planting requirements at length but did not make any recommendations. A Planning Commissioner noted that these requirements are onerous. Some Commissioners expressed concern about making changes to the R1 ordinance. Staff recommends that any changes to the R1 Ordinance should be part of a separate project to ensure that stakeholders interested specifically in the R1 Ordinance are included. Comments from residents: Some community members also expressed concern with changing the R1 ordinance. ii. Protected Tree Ordinance At the November 9, 2010 meeting, the requirements of the Protected Tree ordinance were also discussed. A Planning Commissioner noted .1 that current requirements for restricting removals and requiring replacements were onerous. C. Communication: The group workshop attendees discussed the issue of noticing at length. Some members of the community who have previously obtained permits from the City and some Planning Commissioners felt that the requirements were onerous. Other community members felt that they like the improvements made by the City over the years to increase noticing and wanted to retain them. They additionally commented that any process streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input. Based upon a review of past projects where notification was enhanced, the Planning Commission recommends a consistent policy for projects where expectations for the applicant as well as neighbors /residents would be clear from the start. A draft concept of this new public engagement process policy — Advise, Collaborate, Team up (ACT) is shown in Attachment A. The recommended ACT Public Engagement Process has the following three levels of engagement: Advise Level — Enhanced noticing shall be provided for all projects through on -site signage, and project links on the City's website. The specific recommendations are provided in Attachment A. Additionally, to make project signs on the site providing notice of development proposals easily recognizable, staff is proposing a draft sign and standards based on a review of signs and standards in San Jose and Mountain View (see Attachment P). ii. Collaborate Level — This level incorporates requirements for the "Advise Level" noted above as well as additional notification for projects that have the potential to create neighborhood -level impacts. The Planning Commission recommends a threshold of 15 residential units, 25,000 square feet of retail /commercial use and 50,000 square feet of office /industrial use for this level. Projects at this level would be required to expand noticing to 1,000 feet and have a neighborhood meeting. The public engagement process at this level allows for dialogue between all parties and helps to discuss solutions that could be brought to decision - makers for their consideration. iii. Team Up Level — This is the highest level of public engagement for projects with city -wide implications. Staff recommends this level for large projects such as major General Plan amendments and zoning and Planned Development/Use permits that require an EIR. Projects at this level would require will require site signage, enhanced notification at the neighborhood or City -wide level depending on the type of project, and community workshops to allow for dialogue between interested parties. Examples of where the City has used this process include the South Vallco Master Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. 61 D. Improving Readability and Consistency The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to work on the following changes to improve consistency between various City documents and their readability: i. Review existing conceptual plans and area plans to make older documents consistent with the General Plan and update them with new graphics. No amendments to the plans are proposed as part of this review. An administrative update with new graphics is expected to cost about $5,000 -7,500 per document. ii. Review the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Staff notes that we are currently working on a number of Council work program items and that these tasks will be done on a long -term basis as time permits. 2. INFRASTRUCTURE /TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS: Many workshop attendees indicated strong support for a comprehensive online permitting system (see Attachment G). Seven of the 15 attendees at the first workshop indicated support for the acquisition and implementation of an online permit system where they could submit applications, track the progress online and obtain permits online without having to submit paper plans. Based on the preliminary discussion, they also supported the idea of instituting a technology fee of roughly 4% in order to cover some of the costs of acquiring a new permitting system. On January 18, 2011, the Council preliminarily approved $350,000 to move forward with the acquisition of the first phase of an online permit system. The system is expected to cost a total of $500,000. Staff is currently coordinating with the departments expected to use this system to create an RFP, which will allow us to solicit bids for Phase 1 by Summer 2011. The Council will review a request for the remaining $150,000 for the online permitting system as part of the budget for FY 2011 -12 and FY 2012 -13. 3. INTERNAL PROCESS CHANGES: Staff is working on making improvements to inter - departmental communication by: A. Continually reviewing and evaluating changes and enhancements to internal processes on an ongoing basis. B. Preparing customized manuals and how -to guides to help homeowners, contractors and developers get the best information possible on preparation of application submittal materials and requirements /processes. C. Implementing suggestions from the Planning Commission subcommittee, applicants and staff. M NEXT STEPS: Once the Council provides direction on the general recommendation from the Planning Commission, staff will bring specific ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission for review and, upon recommendation for approval, to the City Council. As noted earlier, staff recommends that a review of specific ordinances such as the R1 ordinance and Protected Tree ordinance should be designated as a separate project. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A: Public Engagement Process and Recommended Approval Authority B: Matrix Consulting Group's report titled, "Management Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 C: Summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments D: City Council Staff Report dated May 18, 2010 E: City Council minutes from May 18, 2010 meeting F: Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees G: Transcribed notes from July 28, 2010 group workshop H: Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees I: Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop J: Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop K: Planning Commission minutes from November 9, 2010 meeting L: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2010 M: Comments from Subcommittee on administrative processes N: Draft Process Workflow Chart of the Planning Permit Process O: Comparison of current and recommended approval authorities for projects approved between 2007 and 2009 P: Draft standards and example for on -site signage related to development proposals 63 Cupertino Public Engagement Process -ACT ATTACHMENT A `,� I LEVELS OF ENWEMENT community impact 1, "Collaborate" level >_ 25 units; 25,000sq.ft. retail /commercial, 50,000 office /industrial. Low H igh 2. All EIRs to be processed at "Team Up" level, NOTE; Current and proposed approval authority and noticio$ requirements are further detailed in Attachment A,1 oil 11 r _ �:� � I i' �I� — �!f EI I t a ,� �I 11 I �� + � � � 4 �� 4 �E� � � � i - j� C �� I � 7�, � ��` � II i � 91 '� �ti �i II � _� I� ICI � I �I' � ]' I�� 3 I , C E E I S , - � I I II 4 I�, �. 1 D � � � � �" � � N I Y 111 � lists, y ig; t j' J 3 k� I �� r � r ��l ' ;�," � .� r at��l �; I � i '�� k �� - ;5 I � E y ��`� i 1 VW, 1 s I y I I I i I ;t �l � n � I� III �n I ��'�� ' �� I �.� - ;c II ,� � I � .'1 I �.'t _.I� -� _�I��f �c �,, � I I �� I� �II }�� II � , I`��I I� � {�� VI fi �� ' II� �I ,�I � �� I �, Y� �I z�` a + � � �hh i �I ii� I I� I'� { fit ��l'�'�I &� � !f �� I � �v �, A g R im El i! am co �K TuR ' 1 T ir II"� � �� E� ^ —I +,'� � ,E.�. I�,��,�� ' L=4'�] LjL L; — �t�'rI�I�It��t��,lE�l� I� ��hl�� ij��l� �•� �k�� , A la 2 GIs 4 ATTACHMENT B Management Study of the Permit Process CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA E 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101 Palo Alto, California 94303 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509 November 17, 2009 .. Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT STAFFING 3. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT PROCESS 1 8 17 4. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM 71 5. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT CENTER 6. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT ADMINISTRATION 81 7. ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 100 APPENDIX 1- PROFILE 107 APPENDIX 2 - FOCUS GROUPS 133 APPENDIX 3 - COMPARATIVE SURVEY 143 APPENDIX 4 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 156 67 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report, which follows, presents the results of the organization and management analysis of the permit process conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group. This first chapter introduces the analysis — outlining principal objectives and how the analysis was conducted, and the executive summary. 1. AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES. The project team conducted a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the permit process in Cupertino including the existing operations, process, service levels, and staffing levels. The analysis was to be fact based and include all aspects of service provision by the City. The analysis focused on: • Organizational structure, including the division of labor and manager /supervisor spans of control; • Effectiveness of staffing and service levels including, but not be limited to, staff assignments, workload, training, and cost - effectiveness of service levels and service delivery; • Opportunities to streamline the permit process; and • Benchmarks and other objective indicators of program effectiveness. The approach of the project team in meeting this scope is portrayed below. • Develop an in -depth understanding of the key issues impacting the permit process. The Matrix Consulting Group conducted interviews with City staff involved in the permit process at all levels. Interviews focused on goals and objectives, management systems, the use of technology, the levels of service provided by the City, the resources available to provide those services, etc. • Develop a profile of the divisions involved in the permit process. The Matrix Consulting Group conducted interviews with City staff and other key staff in the City to document the current organization of services, the structure and functions of the Department, budgets, workload data, management systems, inventory of the infrastructure, etc. Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 .: CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Conduct a comparison of the permit processes, program, and practices to `best management practices.' • Conduct focus groups to elicit feedback from customers of the City's permit processes regarding the adequacy of the levels of service provided by the City. • Evaluate the staffing, organization structure, and service levels in the divisions involved in the permit process. This included interviews with key staff to develop an understanding of the current service delivery model, evaluation of the adequacy of current service levels, work practices, work planning and scheduling systems, productivity and staffing levels, the plan of organization, and asset management. The objective of this assessment was to identify opportunities for improvement in the operational and economic efficiency of the City in the delivery of permit services and practicable opportunities for enhancing the quality of its product and services. 2. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS VIEWED CUPERTINO'S PERMIT PROCESS AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICON VALLEY. As part of the management study of the permitting process, the Matrix Consulting Group conducted three focus group meetings with a representative sample of customers of the process. The purpose of the focus group meetings was to obtain development industry perceptions of Cupertino's permitting process and to assess overall customer satisfaction. Overall, the response of the participants in the focus groups regarding the Cupertino permitting process was quite positive. Most of the participants were involved in development in many Silicon Valley cities, and they gave Cupertino high grades relative to their experiences in nearby communities. With respect to staff attitude, helpfulness, accessibility and reasonableness, the focus group participants ranked Cupertino among the top three cities, along with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 .• CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process generally felt that Cupertino was substantially better than San Jose, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and slightly better than Mountain View, Milpitas and Fremont. The "small town atmosphere" was cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff members were generally available when needed, and they exhibited a friendly and positive attitude. Most participants knew staff members of all departments by name, and they appreciated the fact that, for any given project, they generally dealt with the same planner, plan checker, inspector and engineer throughout the entire process. The word "excellent" was used several times in describing the attitude and professionalism of staff. The groups were nearly unanimous, however, in identifying two major problems with the Cupertino permitting process: (1) lack of an effective automated on -line permitting information system, and (2) the City's politically- charged atmosphere relative to development and growth. Participants felt that Cupertino lagged far behind adjacent jurisdictions in providing an efficient, reliable and user - friendly automated /on -line system. They cited hand - written applications, difficulties in checking the status of an application, and delays in receiving staff comments and corrections as problems that could be solved by such a system. While the politically charged atmosphere was not part and parcel of the permitting system, it is a major determinant of the overall perception of Cupertino's attitude toward development and the development industry. Participants recognized the sharp division of opinion within the community -at -large with regard to development and growth, which division was reflected within the City Council and between the Council Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process and the Planning Commission. The result of this atmosphere for developers was less predictability, greater risk, greater frustration and unanticipated time delays. 3. THE CITY EMPLOYS A NUMBER OF BEST PRACTICES. An organizational and management analysis by its nature focuses on opportunities for improvement. However, there are a number of strengths in the City. Examples of these strengths are portrayed below. • The City Council conducts an annual goal setting session to establish the annual work program for the City — including items related to the land use planning of the City. • The Planning Commission members are provided the opportunity to attend the annual League of California's Cities Planner Institute. Newly appointed Commission members are provided an orientation by City staff. • Staff reports provide a discussion of the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and identified, where appropriate, alternatives to be considered. • Planning Commission meetings are televised and prior meetings are archived and available for viewing of the City's web site. • The Planning Division is the sole point of contact for the applicant. All planning permit applications are submitted to the Planning Division counter in the permit center and routed to other divisions by the Division. • Building permit plan checks for zoning compliance are typically completed by the Planning Division on the same day (or within one business day) of receipt from the Building Division. • All major planning ordinances and regulations, including the general plan, the zoning ordinance, and design guidelines are available on -line through the City's web site. Additionally, Planning Commission agendas (current and prior) and minutes are available to the public on the website. • The Building Official conducts weekly training with inspections personnel to update on new codes, convey code interpretations, etc. • Over - the - counter building permit plan check service is generally available for very small residential projects (250 sq. ft. or less) that can be reviewed by Building Division staff in less than thirty (30) minutes, and for very small commercial projects which can be reviewed by Building Division and Fire District Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 71 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process staff in less than thirty (30) minutes. Commercial over - the - counter plan checks are made only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, between the hours of 1:30 and 2:30 p.m. Fire District staff is available only at these times. • Over 40% of building permits are issued over the counter. • The Building Division has published "target dates" for plan review submittals, including for express (5 business days), new construction (10 business days), and tenant improvement (10 business days). • A one -stop shop exists for submittal of permit applications. • Building inspection requests are responded to by a Building Inspector within one workday of request. • Inspections can be requested online, via fax, e-mail, and telephone. • Combination inspectors are assigned to general geographical locations and conduct all types of inspections within their respective area. • Inspectors utilize hand -held devices to record and upload inspection results. • The Building Division allows the phased permits such as foundation -only permits. • The Engineering Division publishes commercial and residential guides on -line that identify how the development process works (including cycle times), and the types of information that need to be submitted, and to whom. These strengths provide a sound basis for further enhancements. 4. AGENDA FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. In developing recommendations for the improvement of the permit process, the project team was guided by a philosophy that Cupertino should be the "best of the best." That philosophy, and its impact on the permitting process, is reflected in a publication of the American Planning Association entitled The Development Review Process. A Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 72 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Means To A Nobler and Greater End.' The publication indicated that to be the "best of the best ", a City's permitting process needs to deliver: • Predictability including clear expectations, no surprises, and a clear decision process with decision points; • Fair treatment with rules that are the same for everyone with the offering of trust to applicants by the City and the demonstration of trustworthy behavior by the City; • Accurate and accessible information that is easy to find and understand, with clear applicant requirements and standards; • Timely processing that establishes early tentative dates for hearings, guaranteed review turnaround times. And published commission and council meeting dates; • Reasonable and fair costs for application fees, impact fees, and development commitments; • Competent staff with a team that possesses a balance of "hard" technical skills and "soft" people skills; • Elegant regulations that fit the circumstances of Cupertino, are easy to navigate, are rational, and that contain desired outcomes not requiring "herculean" efforts top attain. The report itself contains over 100 recommendations. It is important for the City, as it begins to implement these recommendations, not to get lost in the volume and number of recommendations. One of the first steps should be that the Community Development Director develop a plan of implementation for the recommendations contained within this report for the review and approval of the City Manager. The recommendations contained within the report are summarized in the appendix. American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, The Development Review Process: A Means To A Nobler and Greater End, January 2005. Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 73 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The principal opportunities for improvement that apply to all aspects of the permit process address the City's need for better technology management accountability, a streamlined process, enhanced training for employees. To that end, the top five recommendations regarding the permit process are presented below. (1) A fully functional automated permit information system. Use of technology to enhancer the management of the building, planning, and engineering permit processes including: • Acquire and fully deploy an automated permit information system; and • Fund technology expenditures with a technology fee to be assessed on building, planning, and engineering permits. (2) Clarity of regulations - Strive for clear and understandable regulations that provide developers real guidance and direction at the very conception of their project (e.g., Heart of the City Specific Plan). (3) Simplification of the permit process - streamline the planning and building permit plan check processes by simplifying a complicated process for minor permits, and empowering staff and the Planning Commission with additional decision making authority. Overall, the City's permit process is one of the more convoluted processes observed by the Matrix Consulting Group. (4) Accountability — Develop and deploy management controls and reporting systems that enable the City Manager to hold the Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and Planning, Building, and Engineering division - heads accountable for meeting cycle time objectives for plan checking. (5) Training - Staff development in the Building Division, Engineering Division, and Planning Division so that the staff has the necessary set of skills to effectively serve the applicant and the community. The chapters that follow present these recommendations in more detail. Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 74 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 2. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT STAFFING This chapter presents an analysis of the staffing requirements for the Community Development Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as it pertains to the processing of planning, building, and engineering permits. 1. STAFFING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION IS SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE EXISTING CURRENT PLANNING WORKLOAD. The project team reviewed the recent workload of the current planning function to determine the appropriateness of existing staffing levels. The first table below outlines the estimated hours available by a current planner for review activities — assumptions are made regarding time spent on non - planning functions such as leave time (vacation, sick, holidays), training, and staff meetings. Element Hours Total Annual Hours 2,080 Holidays 88 Vacation 80 Sick Leave 80 Training 80 Staff Meetings 8 hours per month 96 Administrative Duties /Projects 8 hours per month 96 Total Annual Available Hours Per FTE to Conduct Reviews 1,560 These assumptions show that each full -time employee has, on average, 1,560 hours per year to devote to planning activities. Since the City has made a decision to have employees involved in both current planning and advanced planning, a portion of these hours would be allocated to the advanced planning and current planning. The following tables outlines the current workload experienced by the City of Cupertino over the last three years. Workload has clearly been declining, a pattern found in California as a whole. The first table outlines the number of applications, by type, for the City Planning Division. The second table summarizes applications by Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 75 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process approval level (to show the workload associated with applications considered at the staff, Planning Commission, Design Review and City Council approval levels. Application Workload By Type of Application / Permit Application Type 2006 2007 2008 3 Year Average Architectural Site Approval 25 19 9 17.7 City Project Applications 3 4 2 3.0 Development Agreements 0 0 0 0.0 Director's Minor Modifications / Temporary Use Permits 36 38 37 37.0 Environmental Assessments 20 10 10 13.3 Exceptions 14 11 17 14.0 General Plan Amendments 0 0 1 0.3 Interpretations 0 1 0 0.3 Minor Residential Permit 38 34 37 36.3 Modified /Amended 7 3 5 5.0 Municipal Code Amendment 3 1 4 2.7 R -1 Design Review 62 44 32 46.0 Specific Plan Amendments 1 0 1 0.7 Tentative Map 12 12 2 8.7 Tree Removal Permit 17 14 16 15.7 Use Permit 14 11 4 9.7 Variance 2 3 1 2.0 Zoning 6 0 1 2.3 Application Workload Sorted by Approval Level Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 76 2008/09 (estimated based on 6 3 year Applications by Approval Level 2006/07 2007/08 month data) Average Planning Commission Application (INT, M, TM, V) 26 8 12 15.3 City Council Applications (CP, GP, MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z ) 34 32 32 32.7 Design Review Committee Applications ASA, EXC 45 29 14 29.3 Staff Level (DIR, R, RM) 160 100 90 116.7 Environmental Assessments 12 8 8 9.3 TOTAL 277 177 156 203.3 Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 76 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The project team evaluated staffing levels based upon the 2008 workload. The following table summarizes the annual workload for current planning functions based upon 2008 and applying an estimated number of hours per review for each category of application based upon user fee studies conducted by the project team with significant increases in the staff hours per type of permit made for Cupertino based upon the staff- intensive permit processes used by the City for these types of permits. Application Type 2008 Workload Hours to Review Hours Required Minor Architectural Site Approval 5 24 120 Major Architectural Site Approval 4 32 128 City Project Applications 2 30 60 Director's Minor Modifications / Temporary Use Permits 37 16 592 Environmental Assessments 10 60 600 Exceptions 17 32 544 Minor Residential Permit 37 32 1,184 Modified /Amended 5 32 160 Municipal Code Amendment 4 200 800 R -1 Design Review 32 32 1,024 Specific Plan Amendments 1 300 300 Tentative Map 2 32 64 Tree Removal Permit 16 10 160 Minor Use Permit 2 40 80 Major Use Permit 2 120 240 Variance 1 32 32 Zoning 1 150 150 TOTAL 6,238 Important pints to note regarding the data presented in the table are presented below. • There is an estimated need for 6,238 hours of current planning activity or the equivalent of almost 4.0 full -time equivalent professional planners. • Additional staff hours would be required for the coverage of the counter and building permits. This should not be a significant amount of hours beyond that required for the planning permit workload. • In evaluating this balance of workload to available staff, it should be recognized that the City Planner should not allocate more than one -half of his available work Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 77 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process hours to current or to long -range planning workload; the remainder should be allocated to management of the Division. • This would suggest that only 5.0 full -time equivalent positions authorized for the Planning Division are actually available for processing planning permits. This excludes the temporary and unbudgeted Assistant Planner position. The workload data clearly indicates that the Planning Division has adequate number of authorized positions to deal responsively with planning permit workload. The remaining 1.0 planner position within the Planning Division should be utilized to address the advanced planning services that are necessary to develop and update regulations that fit the circumstances of Cupertino, are easy to navigate, are rational, and that contain desired outcomes not requiring "herculean" efforts top attain. In addition, the City Planner Recommendation #1: Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle existing current planning workloads. 2. THE NUMBER OF BUILDING INSPECTORS IN THE BUILDING DIVISION IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT GIVEN CURRENT INSPECTION WORKLOAD. The primary objective of the Building Inspectors is to conduct building permit field inspections to ensure commercial and residential construction projects are being conducted to various codes and standards. Inspectors spend the majority of their time in the field, with the following outlining a typical day: • 6:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2 -hour window to customers, etc. • 7:30 to 11:30: conduct field stops and inspections • 11:30 to 12:30: lunch • 12:30 to 4:00: conduct field stops and inspections • 4:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field inspections using the Palm Pilot and Pentamation Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The project team analyzed workload data to determine the number of inspections and amount of time spent on inspections for staff within this Division. The level of inspections workload within the Division has fluctuated over the last three years — averaging approximately 22,120 total inspections per year based on data obtained from the City, as shown below for the past three fiscal years: Year Number of Inspections 2006/2007 24,816 2007/2008 20,147 2008/2009 21,398 It is important to note these figures represent the total number of inspections, not inspection "stops ". Typically, each inspection stop includes a multiple number of inspections. Based on our experience working with other cities, building inspectors average a little less than 3 (2.95) inspections per inspection stop. Applied to number of Division inspections above, this equates to approximately 8,655 stops made by inspectors in FY 2006 / 2007, 6,741 inspection stops in FY 2007 / 2008, and an estimated 7,169 inspection stops in FY 2008 / 2009. The benchmark utilized by the project team for the number of inspection stops per inspector is an average between 12 and 16 on a daily basis. Utilizing an average personnel availability of 208 working days per year (or 1,664 available hours per employee after leaves, training time, etc.) for each of the Divisions four (4) building inspectors, the following table estimates the number of daily inspections stops: Year # of Inspections # of Inspection Stops (Estimate) # of Inspection Stops per Day (Estimate) # of Daily Stops / Inspector @ (3.5 Inspectors) 2006/2007 24,816 8,655 41.6 11.9 2007/2008 20,147 6,741 32.4 9.3 2008/2009 21,398 7,169 34.5 9.9 Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 79 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Based on this assessment, there are opportunities to reallocate resources and enhance the utilization of Division building inspectors. As overall development activity fluctuates in the City, this directly impacts the number of inspections required. At the staffing level of three and one -half inspectors, the average daily number of stops ranged between 10 and 11. Recommendation #2: Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and, when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for other duties such as plan checking of residential interior remodels, over - the - counter plan checking, etc. 3. AUTHORIZED STAFFING FOR BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECKING AND COUNTER SERVICES IN THE BUILDING DIVISION IS SUFFICIENT GIVEN EXISTING WORKLOAD. The Building Division allocates one Building Inspector to review and process over - the - counter plan check applications (supported / backed -up by other Building Inspector personnel as needed), and one Plan Check Engineer to review plans for small projects (remodels, small additions, etc.), mid -size projects (larger additions, remodels, etc.), and large -size projects (brand -new homes, major tenant improvements, etc.) The Counter Technician utilizes a routing sheet during the intake process that includes: • Basic contact information; • Project description and number; and • Routing sheet (for other departments such as public works, fire department, etc.) Overall, the application review process involves knowledge and activities associated with the uniform building codes, national electronic codes, plumbing and mechanical codes, energy and Title 24, sending out correction notices, structural plan checks, and issuing building permits, and the permit process include reviewing applications, attending pre - application meetings, and recommending conditions. Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 :1 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (1) The Building Permit Plan Check Function is Adequately Staffed. The City has authorized a number of various staff to support the building permit application process as needed, including the following: • Building Division: 2 (1 dedicated front - counter building inspector and 1 plan check engineer, and other building inspectors as back -up when necessary) • Planning Division: 5 full -time plus 2 interns • Public Works: 3 technician and engineering positions • Fire: 2 offsite positions (with designated counter hours on a weekly basis) • Sanitary: 1 off -site position During FY 2007 / 2008, the Building Division received and processed 2,177 total building permits (703 commercial permits and 1,474 residential permits), with 42% being approved over the counter by the designated front - counter building inspector — equaling approximately 1,262 building permits requiring routing and approval. Based on previous user fee studies conducted by the firm for building permits, the average staff hours required for plan checking a building permit plan is 4.1 hours (ranging from a high of 30 — 35 hours for large family dwelling, hotels, motels, churches, etc., to a low of 1 to 4 hours for signs, demos, etc.). Based on this data, the following table estimates the staffing requirements for the building permit plan check process. As shown above, over 5,000 hours are utilized to review building permit applications, or approximately 3.3 full -time equivalent positions. Given the number of Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 Hours # of Permits Reviewed 1,262.0 Avg. Hours to Process 4.1 Hours Required 5,174.3 FTE Availability Available Hours per Staff 1,560.0 FTEs Required 3.3 As shown above, over 5,000 hours are utilized to review building permit applications, or approximately 3.3 full -time equivalent positions. Given the number of Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process personnel allocated for possible building permit application review, as well as the number of contractors being utilize to complete their current workload, the number of staffing is appropriate given the workload. Recommendation #3: Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to building permit plan checking in the Building Division. (2) Building Division Staffing Levels for the Front - Counter Are Appropriate. The full time Building Inspector positions serve as the primary points of contact for the front counter, provide public information, respond to inquiries regarding application status and timing, intake applications and plans for review, calculate plan review and permit fees, and perform over - the - counter plan review for projects with standard plans and /or simple scope. The administrative support positions primarily assist with the processing of new permit application submittals, including data entry of project application information, creation of project files, coordination of sending and receiving plans that are routed to the appropriate reviewing departments (i.e., public works, fire, sanitation, etc.), processing plan check fees, collecting fee balances, and issuing permits. In addition, these positions provide back up support to the counter function due to absence of either of the primary contacts. The Building Division's staffing level for its permit intake and processing function is consistent with jurisdictions of similar permit processing workloads and development climates. However, the workload of permit counter staff is exacerbated by the lack of an automated permit information system. Inefficiencies in the current intake and processing function include: • Applicants typically complete an application using a paper -based system. Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 ., CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • The Office Specialist position then inputs the handwritten application information into the Division's permit information system (Pentamation) Although existing staffing levels for the Division's permit counter are adequate for existing workload, an improved permit information system may work to reduce wait time at the counter, elimination of duplication of effort on data entry, better internal financial control, and increase the number of over - the - counter project reviews. Further evidence that suggests adequate staffing is the focus group participants' perception that plan check turnaround time is more than satisfactory. Recommendation #4: Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the Building Division's permit counter. 4. THE AMOUNT OF STAFF AUTHORIZED FOR THE ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR BUILDING, PLANNING, AND ENGINEERING PERMITS IS APPROPRIATE. Currently, the Engineering Division allocates various personnel, as needed, toward processing the building permits that are routed from the Community Development Building Division for review. The project team documented the number of permit applications processed by the Engineering Division for review and approval. The level of staffing allocated to the Division is sufficient for permit plan checking of engineering permits, building permits, and planning permits. Recommendation #5: The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing authorized for the permit plan check process. Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 3. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT PROCESS This chapter presents an analysis of the permit process including planning, building, and engineering permits. The analysis identifies opportunities to (1) streamline the process for minor permits, and (2) enhance the management of the process. Overall, the City's permit process for minor planning permits and minor building permits is much more complicated than necessary and than that found in the City's peers. The recommendations of the project team to simplify and streamline the process are presented in the following sections of this chapter. 1. THE PROCESS FOR MINOR PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE STREAMLINED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. One of the "building blocks" of the permit system is the regulatory framework. The zoning ordinance is the regulatory framework that drives the planning permit process. There are a number of tradeoffs in the development and administration of zoning ordinances including: • Flexibility versus predictability; • Flexibility versus administrative cost; • Development cost versus quality; • Preservation versus development; and • Under - regulation versus over - regulation. In considering these tradeoffs, there are a number of lessons to be learned from other cities. These lessons include striking the right balance between discretionary review and "as -of- right" development. Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 ., CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The Matrix Consulting Group does not believe that the City has struck that right balance. While the Community Development Director is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or deny minor planning permits, the minor permit process is complicated, more so than other comparable cities. Cupertino, for example, requires a planning permit for: • Construction of a two -story residence; it is not an "as -of- right" permit; • All new or expanded second story decks for single family residences with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards; • Changing a wood fence to a wrought iron fence in front of a fifteen (15) unit residential project; and • Minor landscaping and exterior enhancements for a condominium project. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the process for minor planning permits be streamlined. There are several alternatives to streamline the minor planning permit process. These alternatives are presented below. • Increase the types and extent of minor projects approved at the Director - level. This could include: R2 /R3 /ML /PD — minor architectural and site modifications Sign, fence, deck, R1 exceptions; R1 front yard interpretation; Tandem garage review; Minor building less than 5,000 square feet including commercial /office /industrial and four (4) residential units or less — equivalent to a Director's Architectural and Site Application; and Minor use permits. • Increase the approval authority of the Planning Commission; Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Reduce projects requiring City Council review such as conditional use permit extensions, appeals of the Director's decision, etc.; • Permit outright the uses that are currently permitted with minor planning permits by the Community Development Director, where appropriate, using performance - based development standards; or • Permit outright the uses that are currently permitted with minor planning permits by the Community Development Director with limitations with specific performance -based development standards). Many of the conditional uses in the existing zoning ordinance are appropriate considering the circumstances such as hotels, full - service restaurants, theaters, etc. This is because site - specific impacts can be considered based upon neighborhood concerns expressed at public hearings, and appropriate conditions of approval then applied to minimize impacts. The reasons for requiring minor planning permits for all new or expanded second story decks for single family residences with views into neighboring residential side or rear yards are far less clear. Potential impacts can be addressed with performance standards. These performance standards are designed to deal with two basic concerns: • How to minimize the adverse effects that new construction or the use of one's property can have on its neighbors; and • How to encourage optimal development patterns and activities within a community, as expressed in planning policies. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends a new "limited" designation concept that would impose standards and performance requirements that recognize the types of uses and the project conditions that generate adverse effects while streamlining the minor planning permit process. The use of performance standards would simplify the use regulations, avoid extensive reliance on minor planning permits, and streamline approvals by deeming Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 :. CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process such uses permitted subject to codified performance standards. These codified performance standards would need to be tailored to the type of use. The streamlining of the process, based upon the application of performance standards, would expand the number of permits that are permitted, if performance standards are met. For example: • Ministerial Review (e.g., plot plan or Director's Review). No discretionary review and no conditions of approval; subject to codified performance standards. • Quasi - ministerial review (e.g., tree removal permit). Discretionary review for CEQA document; conditions of approval may be required; subject to codified performance standards. No conditions of approval or public hearing; approved by the Community Development Director The Matrix Consulting Group believes that the City's processing of minor planning permits should be streamlined, using performance standards. The process should be streamlined so that these types of minor development are treated as a permitted use that would only require a building permit, not a minor planning permit. This modification to the process would require the development of effective design guidelines for all of the types of residential development that occur within the City (single - family and multi - family) and the development of performance standards for this type of development. Recommendation #6: The City should streamline the process for minor planning permits by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi - ministerial review and are subject to codified performance standards. Recommendation #7: The Planning Division should develop codified performance standards and requirements for these minor permits for consideration and approval of the City Council. Recommendation #8: The approval of these codified performance standards and requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the conversion of these minor planning permits to permitted uses. Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE THE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES. Section 19.124.060 of the City's zoning ordinance provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 19.124.050, the City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission for conditional use permits and variances. This is a highly unusual level of approval for these types of permits. In each of the peer cities included in the comparative survey, the zoning administrator was approving conditional use permits and variances. None of the peer cities required the approval of a Planning Commission and a City Council. This process is also unusual in that the City Council rarely reverses a decision made by the Planning Commission. Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision - making authority with the City Council having the right of appeal. This is the role of a planning commission that was envisioned when these commissions were originally created in the United States: to provide for a public hearing for land use decisions to enable the input of adjacent property owners and consideration of that input in land use decisions. Recommendation #9: Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision - making authority for conditional use permits and variances with the City Council having the right of appeal. Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 3. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD NOT WRITE STAFF REPORTS FOR MINOR PLANNING PERMITS OR MAIL PLAN SETS TO ADJACENT RESIDENTS. With or without the streamlining of the minor permit process, there are other steps that the City should take to simplify that process. These steps are presented below. • The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for minor permits. At the present time, staff arte writing 3 -page staff reports for such types of minor permits as: Constructing a 42 square foot addition to an existing 2 -story SFR; modification to a use permit; Minor modification to re- landscape the front of an apartment complex; Minor architectural landscaping and outdoor patio enhancements at an existing bank; — Allowing a portion of a 2 -car garage to encroach by 1 -foot into the 19 -foot front -yard setback; and Enclose an existing sunroom that is setback 17' from the rear property line. This is an inefficient use of the time of the staff of the Planning Division. Staff should document the findings and conditions of approval for these minor permits into the automated permit information system. Written reports should not be developed for these minor permits. This is the typical approach used by the City's peers; staff in the planning divisions in these peer cities are not writing staff reports for minor permits. • The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed. These adjacent property owners should still be noticed. However, these plan sets should be made available at City Hall if requested. Most other planning divisions in these peer cities do not even notice these minor permits. Overall, the process utilized for minor planning permits should be simpler than the process used for major planning permits. At the present time, the difference is indistinguishable. Second story residential decks are being treated as if they were major Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 :• CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process land development. While the impact on and interest of adjacent property owners should not be ignored, the process should be simplified to reflect the scope of the proposed development. Recommendation #10: The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for minor permits. Recommendation #11: The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed. 4. APPEALS OF DECISIONS REGARDING PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE APPEAL. At the present time, decisions regarding planning permits may be appealed as much as two times. These decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. This is an unusual appeal process not utilized in peer cities. The appeal process should be modified so that only one appeal is possible. The City Council itself, however, should continue to be able to appeal decisions to the Council -level itself. Recommendation #12: The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits should be limited to one appeal. 5. ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A COVENANT. An obstacle to permit streamlining is the requirement for the filing of covenants subsequent to approval of a planning application. This was a common practice in the 1980's and some cities continued this practice to ensure that future owners of property or tenants were aware of the conditions of approval. However, in a 1987 decision, Anza Parking Corp. vs. City of Burlingame (1987), courts have determined that conditions of approval "run with the land." As a consequence, most cities have discontinued requiring of the recording of the Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 .X CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process conditions of approval. It is unnecessary. Recommendation #13: Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants subsequent to approval of a planning application. 6. THE CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES FOR PLANNING PERMITS SHOULD BE REDUCED. The Planning Division does not utilize a set of established plan review cycle objectives that differ based upon the nature of the application. The Division is following the statutory requirements that are in place requiring approval or denial of submitted applications. The ability to evaluate actual review times and performance data is difficult because the Planning Division is not utilizing the Pentamation system for tracking of plan review actions and the existing database that is utilized only captures initial application date and date of final action (approval or denial by staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council). It does not track other relevant dates for applications such as date application deemed complete, date of first and subsequent reviews (if applicable), or dates for individual reviews completed by other departments. The following table summarizes the total processing times for various application types processed in calendar year 2008, based upon the project team's review and analysis of the available data in the Planning Division database. This table shows the average time, in calendar days, from the date of submittal to the date of decision (either approval or denial). The database also groups items together in broad categories making evaluation of subsets of applications by type more difficult. Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 91 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Type of Application Cycle Time Director's Minor Modifications / Temporary Use 35.0 Exception Applications 17.0 R -1 Design Review 45.1 Minor Residential Permit 32.0 Tree Removal 32.7 The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that differential plan review times be established based upon the size and complexity of the application submission as follow. Possible calendar date targets for processing different types of applications, based upon the experience of progressive cities and counties, are presented in the table below. The City should establish cycle time objectives for all planning applications for the length of time -- in calendar days -- required to process applications from the date of submittal to the date of the applicant's initial public hearing or the approval / disapproval of the application by staff (for those applications subject to administrative approval). Possible calendar date benchmarks for processing different types of planning applications are presented in the table below. Application Type Review Times in Calendar Days Architectural Site Approval 90 Director's Minor Modifications / Temporary Use 30 Exception Applications 30 Minor Residential Permits 30 R -1 Design Review 30 Minor Residential Permit 30 Tree Removal 7 Conditional use permit 60 Variance 60 Parcel Map 60 These possible targets for processing applications are based upon the project team's experience, and should be reviewed by the City Planner, Community Development Director, and the City Manager, modified as necessary, and adopted by Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 'I CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process the City Council. Within these processing times, differential time periods for review for the first submission and re- reviews should also be established. Typically, the re- submittal plan review timeframe should be established at no more than one -half of the time review period for initial review. For the Planning Division to effectively set cycle time objectives and meet them, it is important to have an effective public education effort and the availability of application guides that identify, in detail, submittal requirements and that provide guidance to the applicant. Case managers accepting applications must conduct a thorough review to ensure that applications are complete (have all required elements for a review to be conducted) or to inform the applicant of the missing items. Recommendation #14: The timelines for processing of planning permits by the City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential time periods for review based upon project size and complexity and to differentiate between initial and re- submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re- submittals should be established at no more than one -half the timeframe required for the initial review. Recommendation #15: Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should be published to the Department website and prominently displayed in the Department's application materials. 7. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD MAKE THE TENTATIVE PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION SCHEDULE MORE VISIBLE ON ITS WEB PAGE. The Planning Division has developed a tentative application schedule for planning permits. However, this schedule is "hidden" in a 34 -page planning application form. The Division should separate this schedule from the 34 -page application form, and publish it separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the Planning "sidebar." The "sidebar" should contain a link to the tentative application schedule. Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 93 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation #16: The Planning Division should separate the tentative application schedule from the 34 -page planning application form, and publish it separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the Planning "sidebar." 8. DEVELOP AND ADOPT PLANNING PERMIT CYCLE TIME AGREEMENTS WITH APPLICANTS FOR HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS. Effective planning permit services are able to provide services in a way that is quick, consistent and predictable. The recommendations to change the way the Planning Division provides its planning permit plan check services will help the City enhance its services. This is particularly important as the City competes against its peers for commercial development. A tool that the Cupertino could utilize to enhance its effectiveness in competing against its peers for commercial development is the use of cycle time agreements with applicants for high priority projects. These agreements, which should be used selectively to further the City's economic development objectives, are simple and highly effective. The agreements are non - binding and typically are limited to 2 -pages in length. The City could choose, for example, to offer cycle time agreements for: • Commercial projects in the City's commercial centers; • Industrial projects that generate or retain over 50 employment opportunities; • Commercial projects that generate significant new sales tax revenue; and • Affordable housing projects of 10 units or more. The City should discuss and decide the types of projects that should be afforded cycle time agreements and the exact content of the agreement. Cycle time agreements should include basic project information and a schedule for processing of the planning Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 ., CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process permit plan that includes a schedule for the City and for the applicant. Recommendation #17: Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements with applicants for high priority projects. 9. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ALL OF THE PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO GO THROUGH A PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW. At the present time, a pre - application conference is required prior to submittal on all planning permit applications. The purpose of the pre - application conference is to determine if the application is ready for submittal. The applicant is required to call the case manager to schedule a time for the review of their application materials. The Planning Division recommends that the applicant allow enough time prior to the application deadline to prepare additional information or make changes in case any are needed. This practice should be utilized only for complex applications such as conditional use permits, parcel maps, and architectural and site review permits. It should not be utilized for routine planning permit applications approved by the Community Development Director, for example. The applicant should be able to submit an application in the permit center without pre - application review for routine planning permit applications. This will require that the Division develop and deploy measures to control the submittal of incomplete applications other than the pre - application conference. Recommendation #18: Pre - application conferences should not be required for routine planning permit applications approved by the Community Development Director. 10. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD TAKE MEASURES TO REDUCE THE EXTENT OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS. In the absence of a pre - application conference, the Planning Division could encounter a significant number of planning permit applications being deemed Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 95 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process incomplete thirty days after submittal. The Division needs to take steps to assure that the proportion of applications deemed incomplete after the thirty -day review is relatively small. (1) The Planning Division Should Develop and Adopt a Written Policy On Planning Application Completeness. This policy should be developed to clarify the responsibility of the Planning Division staff assigned to the permit center for checking planning applications for completeness at submittal and rejecting the application if incomplete, the essential submittal requirements for each type of application to be deemed complete, timelines for all divisions / departments involved in the 30 -day completeness review to provide comments back to the Planning Division, etc. Recommendation #19: The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written policy on planning application completeness and the basis for rejecting incomplete applications. Recommendation #20: Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for rejecting planning applications as incomplete. (2) The Application Guides Should Be Tailored For Each Type of Planning Permit and Include All Of The City's Requirements For An Applicant To Achieve A Complete Submittal. The Planning Division has developed application forms and guides for its application types such as conditional use permits, variances, etc. The Planning Application form, for example, is for all non - residential applications. It contains a list of all fees charged by the Planning Department. It also contains information required by the Public Works Department for meeting the C3 requirements for water retention on site etc. It is 34 -pages long. These application guides need to be customized to each type of permit (i.e., Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 M CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process conditional use permit, variance, etc.). The guides should define the required submittal and application information for the applicant to aid in the development of a complete application for each specific type of permit. These application guides should not be 34- pages long. These guides should be approximately 4 to 6 pages in length. The City Planner should assemble a team of staff for those divisions / departments involved in the planning permit process and update all of the City's application guides for planning permits. These guides should include the whole gamut of application requirements, but the City Planner should exercise authority to assure these requirements are realistic. These application guides should include a checklist of submittal requirements that an applicant has to check off and that requires the applicant's signature. This is designed to have the applicant self - certify the application includes all of the information required to achieve a complete submittal. The Division has developed a limited number of such checklists for parking, for hillside exception applications, tentative maps, variances, and the CEQA initial study. These checklists should be expanded to included each application type, and be integrated with the application guide itself for each type of permit, which is not the case at the present time. Recommendation #21: Planning application guides should be developed for each specific type of planning permit to include all of the City's requirements for an applicant to achieve a complete submittal. Recommendation #22: These planning permit application guides should be approximately 4 to 6 pages in length. Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 97 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (3) The Case Manager Should Meet With The Applicant To Discuss Issues That Have Been Found During The Initial Thirty -Day Completeness Review Of The Application Applicants for planning permit applications, or their representatives, should be invited to meet with the case manager and other necessary staff to discuss their application if it will be deemed incomplete at 30 -days. The case manager would inform the applicant face -to -face about basic problems, if any, with the application being deemed complete, preliminary environmental findings, basic conditions that might be imposed, and timing for processing of the application. The meeting would allow the applicant to meet staff members that are working on the application, and staff could hear what goals the applicant might have, and what problems the conditions might cause. Recommendation #23: The case manager in the Planning Division should meet with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 30 -day completeness review of the application. (4) The Planning Division Should Provide Training To Consulting Planners, Architects, Engineers And Developers Regarding Its Planning Permit Submittal Requirements. The Planning Division should be proactive and periodically meet with consulting planners, architects, engineers, and with developers that prepare discretionary permit applications for submittal to the City and discuss planning permit submittal requirements. As part of this training, the staff should identify for consulting planners, architects, and engineers and with developers the most common factors that delay projects. These discussions should also occur after each submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application and when they encountered particular problems meeting submittal requirements. The Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 .; CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process training of the consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers should be viewed as an ongoing responsibility, almost like preventive medicine. The intent is to prevent a recurring pattern of incomplete submittals. It is in the Division's best interests to educate applicants, make them aware of how the City interprets regulations, provide them with examples of acceptable work, and otherwise help them navigate the process. Recommendation #24: The Planning Division should provide training to consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers regarding its planning permit submittal requirements. Recommendation #25: The Planning Division should provide training after each submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application and when they encountered particular problems meeting submittal requirements. 11. UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MANAGE THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS. There are a number of important objectives for the City in the management of the planning, building, and engineering permit process. These objectives include the following: • Consistent interpretation of regulations; • Clear communication of the process and the requirements; • The predictability of the process; • Staff responsiveness; • Consistency; and • Accountability for decisions and the management of the process. The automated permit information system, when fully deployed, should be utilized to enhance the accountability for management of the process. The approach to Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 .. CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process the use of the automated permit information system to enhance accountability is presented below. (1) Monitor and Maintain Case Assignment and Case Status Information in the Automated Permit Information System. The current approach to monitoring and maintenance of planning, building, and engineering permit cases could be improved by effective case management, supervision, and monitoring using an automated permit information system including: • Improving management's ability to track project staff's progress; • Improving staff's ability to track concurrent project developments; and • Improving the ability of management to manage workload within their division. Accurate data on workload, by permit type, cyclical variances in activity, and workload activity by team and by planner are all essential management tools. With this information, management can make informed, logical decisions regarding staffing, budgeting, procedures, and organizational structure. This will necessitate managers, supervisors, and staff to be held accountable for the timely input and updating of data into the automated permit information system. This is one of the biggest challenges that cities face in the deployment of these systems. Recommendation #26: Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for the maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information system by managers, supervisors, and staff assigned to processing planning, building and engineering permit applications. Recommendation #27: Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure that assigns responsibility to the division -heads for assuring ongoing maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information system and that requires the division -heads to audit the caseload assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active, is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should be terminated, or has been closed and the case should be updated in the automated permit information system. Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 100 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (2) Track And Monitor The Success Or Failure Of Staff Assigned To Processing Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications In Meeting Cycle Time Objectives. The City, once it has established cycle time objectives for planning, building, and engineering permit applications, should utilize the automated permit information system to measure and monitor staff performance in meeting these objectives. It is important for the division -heads to have quantifiable tools to: regulate performance, identify training, staffing needs, and detect organizational deficiencies. The cycle time objectives can serve as fair and accurate means to gauge staff performance for the following reasons: • Staff will know and be familiar with the standards; • Standards are easily understandable; • Standards are flexible; • Standards have been created through their input. The management reports defined and discussed in a later section of this chapter, if generated on a regular basis, would track both individual and overall staff performance. Recommendation #28: The City should hold division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring the success or failure of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular management information reports generated on a monthly basis by the automated permit information system. Recommendation #29: The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be integrated into their performance evaluation. (3) The Division -Heads Should Be Held Accountable For Formally Planning and Scheduling Planning, Building, and Engineering Permit Applications Processed By Their Staff Using the Automated Permit Information System. The division -heads in the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should be held accountable for preparing and maintaining a schedule for processing of planning, Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 101 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process building, and engineering permit applications by their staff. The purpose of the schedule is to make visible the amount of calendar days required to analyze and reach a decision on the permit application. The specific objectives related to the design and development of this system should be as follows: • To establish a process whereby specific calendar day targets are set for each application based upon cycle time objectives established by the City; • To utilize the proposed automated permitting systems to ease the tracking of the timeliness of the processing of planning permit applications and enable the division -heads to hold their staff accountable; and • To generate data sufficient to assist in the assessment of the performance of these staff in comparison to those cycle time objectives; Major elements of the system are presented below. • The division -heads would review incoming applications and analyze application characteristics, focusing in particular on potential processing difficulties. Once difficulties are identified, the division -heads would (1) set calendar day targets for completing the analysis of the application, and (2) set overall staff hours allocated to the staff for processing the application. The division -head would review the most recent open case inventory report and note the workload of their plan checking staff. Cases would then be assigned as appropriate. The division - head would then enter the cycle time target dates and the name of the staff in the automated permit information system. When projects are first assigned, the staff to whom the permit application is assigned would review the calendar day and staff hour target established for the case. If the staff believe that the targets are unreasonable after a review of the application, those staff should discuss them with the division -head and negotiate appropriate changes. The automated permit information system should be utilized to track the extent to which the specific cycle time objectives are met, and to `red flag' permits that exceed these guidelines. The division -heads should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case inventory and the completion of the processing of permits in accordance Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 102 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process with the cycle time objectives. The planning and scheduling system should be utilized to • Evaluate employee performance; • Balance workload among different staff; and • Quantify the anticipated completion date of various applications given all work in progress. The planning and scheduling system should be designed to manage the workload including reviewing actual progress versus scheduled deadlines and facilitate the shifting of work assignment and schedules in the face of changing priorities or ►Xl•Ti:7rerro1 Recommendation #30: The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by their staff using the automated permit information system. Recommendation #31: The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case inventory and the completion of the processing of permits by their staff in accordance with the cycle time objectives. (4) Generate Ongoing Monthly Management Information Reports Using the Automated Permit Information System To Track Performance Against Cycle Time Objectives And Monitor The Case Workload And Performance of Staff Assigned To Processing Permit Applications. The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering must receive reliable information on workload and individual staff workload to use in scheduling. In addition, overall information on staff efficiency and productivity should be available for staff evaluation. Management information reports capture the detailed information about staff productivity and performance to monitor workload, balance assignments and evaluate internal operations. After several discussions with management and staff, we Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 103 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process recommend the automated permit information system be utilized to track and report the following information: • Division Workload; • Case Tracking; • Elapsed Processing Times; • Work in Backlog; • Personnel Productivity; and • Project Management Measures. The division -heads are not currently provided with the type of reliable information necessary to manage the processing of permits. The Matrix Consulting Group believes it is imperative that management be provided with reliable case information to manage, direct and enhance the operations and the processing of permits. Once these initial management information reports are implemented and used routinely. These management reports focus more on staff performance and workload monitoring necessary for management to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the divisions. Recommendation #32: The City should utilize the automated permit information system to generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of these permits. 12. THE ROLE OF THE CASE MANAGER IN THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. The City currently utilizes a quasi -case manager approach in processing planning permit applications in which the assigned case planner takes the lead in shepherding the application through the planning process. The purpose of this case Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 104 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process manager system is to provide applicants with a single point of contact as their permit goes through the multi - department (or Division) plan check process and to coordinate the development of a unified set of comments and corrections for applicants. Assigned case managers currently perform some of the functions of a comprehensive case manager — though additional expansion of these duties is necessary. There are three key aspects of case management that leading organizations use to support an organized approach to permit administration. These are: (1) providing a single point of contact for applicants, (2) having dedicated project managers, and (3) monitoring internal timelines. These are described below: • Single Point of Contact — A single point of contact is having one person assigned to a particular permit or permit type, and having that individual accessible to the applicant for any questions regarding permit application, review, and issuance. • Dedicated Case Managers — Similar to a single point of contact, dedicated project managers (also known as application facilitators, case managers) are typically assigned only for large or complex projects. A project manager is different from the single point of contact, in that the project managers take an active role in managing the permit application through the permit process. • Monitoring Internal Timelines — These are the approaches used to monitor the time it takes to process a permit from the time of permit application. The case manager in the Planning Division should be responsible for managing all aspects of a planning permit application submitted to the Planning Division, including being the single point of contact for applications submitted, monitoring internal timelines and each reviewer (whether within the Planning Division or external to it), and taking an active role in managing the permit application and moving it through the permit process. The case manager should be empowered to manage the review of these permit applications by all staff in the various divisions /departments that are conducting reviews. Matrix Consulting Group Page 38 105 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The project manager should further be empowered as the team leader of a multi- discipline team comprised of staff from all reviewing entities but particularly from Planning, Engineering, Fire and Building. While the Planning Division already utilizes a quasi -case manager system, the parameters and authority of the case manager should be clarified and defined in writing. The parameters or authority of the project or case manager should include those aspects defined in the following paragraphs. (1) The Case Manager Should Be Responsible for Making Sure the Applicant Gets to a Clear Decision Point in Accordance with Adopted Timelines. The case manager position is designed to make sure that the review of the permit application submitted to the Planning Division proceeds in a timely and predictable fashion. The current process utilized by the Planning Division for processing development permits includes the following: • Applicants have available, under the current process, the ability to attend a pre - submittal meeting with representatives of the various reviewing Departments. Submission requirements and the general conception of the proposed development are discussed. • Once an application is submitted, it is assigned to a current planner who becomes the "project manager" for that project. • Development plans are routed to several departments, including Building, Public Works /Engineering, etc. Reviewing divisions / departments are provided a deadline for returned comments. • After the review meeting, the case manager assigned to the project summarizes the comments and sends them to the applicant. • If revisions are required, based on division / department comments, it is the applicant's responsibility to work out issues with individual departments / divisions. Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 106 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process While the initial stages of this process are consistent with a good case manager system, the latter stages lack clear guidelines, and sometimes follow- through, on how quickly divisions / departments should respond to revisions made by the applicant and when an ultimate decision will be made. The case manager from the Planning Division assigned to the project should facilitate the resolution of issues between the applicant and reviewing divisions / departments. However clear rules have not been established. As a result, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the case manager's role throughout the process be clarified. Some concerns were identified regarding the ability to get timely responses to voice mail and phone messages left by applicants with reviewing departments /divisions or the assigned planner. To remedy this, all interactions with an applicant should be noted in a Planning Division policy regarding timeframes for responding to inquiries on projects (i.e. — within 24 hours) should be established. If a formal response cannot be given to the applicant within the established time frame, they should at least be contacted and provided a time by which a response will be issued. Recommendation #33: The Planning Division should establish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30 -day initial completeness review and subsequent reviews. Recommendation #34: A formal written policy should be established for response times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from applicants that are received via email and /or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held accountable for meeting these guidelines. Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 107 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (2) The Case Manager Should Be Responsible for Complete and Timely Communication Among the Multi- Disciplinary Team. The case manager should make sure communication occurs among the multi- disciplinary team, and that complex issues are resolved, such as when conditions of approval issued by individual departments imposed conflicting requirements on the applicant. During the focus groups conducted by the project team, a number of comments were received regarding conditions of approval imposed on projects. Two specific areas of concern were: • Not all conditions appeared to be related to code requirements but were preferences of specific individuals conducting the review; and • Staff reports often contained conditions of approval that differed from those previously discussed between staff and the applicant. While the case manager is not expected to be the technical expert on reviews conducted by other Departments, the project manager project manager should lead any discussions that focus on resolving conflicting conditions of approval or competing code requirements. His or her job is to keep the review process of the permit application submitted to the Planning Division coordinated and predictable. Additionally, the case planner should ensure that all conditions of approval distributed to applicants clearly identify the code or regulation that imposes the condition to prevent conditions being imposed that are "personal preferences ". To ensure that there is no lack of understanding between the applicant and staff, all conditions of approval should be documented in writing and provided to the applicant. Additionally, a copy of the staff's draft report should be provided to the applicant when developed — ideally with sufficient time for the applicant's review prior to the meeting at which it is being considered. Matrix Consulting Group Page 41 1: CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation #35: The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as the project manager and be responsible for the communication among the multi- disciplinary team and the resolution of conflicting conditions of approval or competing code requirements. Recommendation #36: The case manager should ensure that all conditions of approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition references the specific code or regulation that imposes / regulates the issues. Additionally, a copy of the staff report should be provided to the applicant once completed. (3) The Role and Authority of the Case Manager Should Be Clarified in a Written Policy. The responsibility and the authority of the project manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division, and approved by the Community Development Director. The responsibility and authority, in addition to that previously identified, should include: • Conducting pre - application meetings and reviews as appropriate; • Collecting and integrating comments from other divisions and departments; • Resolving inter - division or inter - departmental problems, such as conflicting conditions of approval; • Assuring that the conditions of approval suggested by other divisions or departments are reasonable, specific to the project under review (and not blanket conditions of approval that are inapplicable), and reference specific regulations; • Analyzing the application in regards to compliance with zoning regulations and the general plan; • Coordinating citizen input and comments; • Working with the applicant to resolve problems and revise the project as appropriate; • Managing the processing of the permit application in accordance with adopted timelines and seeing that they are met; • Promptly reviewing and issuing notifications of omissions or problems with the project; Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 109 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Coordinating with key decision makers; • Signing the staff reports; and • Following up on enforcement of conditions. The role of the case manager should be that of a team leader; if there are problems with one of the members of the team, it would not be the role of the project manager to resolve this problem directly with that member, but rather with the supervisor of that member of the team. It also does not suggest that the project manager has the authority to override code requirements or adopted standards. However, if the project manager has a problem with the conditions of approval suggested by the team member, it should be the role of the project manager to resolve that problem working with the member of the team or the supervisor of that member of the team. In summary, the case manager is a team leader for a multi - disciplinary team who is responsible for keeping the review of a permit application on track, who makes sure issues involving conflicting code or regulatory issues are resolved, who charts a clear course for the applicant through the review process, and who makes sure issues regarding the application are identified early in the review process. Recommendation #37: The authority of the case manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division and approved by the Community Development Director. 13. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UTILIZED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENTS IN THE REVIEW OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING PERMITS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED. In the experience of the Matrix Consulting Group, one of the primary methods for assuring consistency in the completion of plan check activities, whether it is a building Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 110 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process permit plan check, final development permit plan check, or conditional use plan check, or any other type of planning application review, is to document and publicize in writing the standard conditions of approval that staff will be utilizing. The Planning Division should take the lead in the development of this effort. Other divisions and departments involved in the permit activities should follow suit and develop, in writing, their own standard conditions of approval. This would include Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Building. These standard conditions of approval (related to land development applications) should be posted on the Planning Division's web site for use by the general public and the development community to aid them in knowing what will be expected from them when applying for permits. They should be developed in "plain English" so they are suitable for use by both seasoned developers and individual citizens undertaking a small project or who do not routinely utilize the planning process. The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating and publicizing the development of these standard conditions of approval by all of the divisions and departments. Recommendation #38: The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering permits should be documented and posted to the City's web site. Recommendation #39: The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the divisions and departments. Matrix Consulting Group Page 44 111 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 14. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND UTILIZE A FULL RANGE OF CHECKLISTS FOR THE REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY ITS OWN STAFF. To increase consistent application of the enabling ordinances among all staff, and to provide a means for the applicant to pre - evaluate an application prior to submission, the Planning Division staff should review and update the current checklists that are available as part of the application handouts. The Division has developed a limited number of such checklists for parking, for hillside exception applications, tentative maps, variances, and the CEQA initial study. These checklists should be expanded to included each application type, and be integrated with the application guide itself for each type of permit, which is not the case at the present time. These checklists should be designed to ensure that staff (and applicants) are reviewing all critical areas of each application for a common series of compliance factors with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Given the various modifications to the Zoning Ordinance that take place over time and the myriad of situations that can arise when trying to apply and interpret the code, this can reduce uncertainty and inconsistent application of the principal regulations. These checklists should be posted on the departmental web site when available; and when completed as part of a plan review, should become a part of the application file. For example, for a preliminary development plan application, the checklist could include such aspects as the following: • Setting up the file; • Reviewing for consistency with zoning guidelines, parking standards, setback and height requirements, compliance with requirements for drainage, downstream sanitary sewer analysis, traffic impact analysis, etc.; Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 112 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Working with the applicant to obtain an adequate design for either staff approval or the Planning Commission; • Coordinating the resolution of revisions required by other divisions / departments; and • Conditional clearance prior to the building permit plan check. The checklists should be utilized in all project reviews to ensure consistency and completeness of the reviews conducted. These checklists also provide important guidance to individuals, contractors, design professionals, and developers that are doing work for the first time in the City to fully understand how the codes are applied in Cupertino, specific requirements that must be met, and generally detail the type and level of detail of the information necessary for submittal in order to gain approval. Recommendation #40: The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the review and processing of discretionary and administrative applications by its own staff. Recommendation #41: The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its web site for use by those individuals submitting plans. 15. THE PLANNING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP MULTI - FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND SIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES. The purpose of design guidelines should be to guide, educate and motivate homeowners, developers and designers to create projects that contribute to community design objectives and provide the tools needed for staff, the Design Review Committee and other decision - makers to properly evaluate development proposals. The City has developed residential design guidelines, but other design guidelines either have not been developed (multi - family) or not fully developed (signs). There are a number of issues that would need to be considered in the development of commercial design guidelines, for example, such as the following: Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 113 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • How to maintain a commercial area consistent with the existing neighborhoods with regard to bulk, size, height, and scale of structures? Will the commercial development be consistent with the scenic character of the City and enhance the appearance of the specific commercial area? The guidelines should encourage design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Cupertino. • What methods for controlling size, bulk and scale are preferred? How compatible is the structure's mass, bulk and scale with neighboring structures' mass, bulk and scale? How does a large expanse of wall contribute to a structure's appearance of bulk? How can a structure's mass be articulated to minimize large expanses of walls? Do building plate heights create wall, window and door details that are of a human scale? The design guidelines should provide a richness of architectural facade depth and detail, provide a unified design around all sides of the building, avoid blank walls and service areas that are visible from adjacent streets and projects, and utilize high quality building materials and details, • Are the guidelines easy to understand and based upon transparent rationale? • Do the guidelines work to ensure that the beauty of commercial areas is preserved with consideration of structure placement, use of materials, landscaping, exterior lighting, etc? • Can the design guidelines be crafted to make the review process proceed more efficiently? The commercial design guidelines should cover a number of topics including the following: • Site planning; • Site layout, development pattern, building orientation, etc.; • Relationship to surrounding development; • Vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation; • Parking; • Landscaping and screening; • Lighting; • Hotels and motels (building materials, internal circulation, building form, building architecture, etc.); and Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 114 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Signage. The challenge in the development of these guidelines will be to crafting clear quantitative review standards that are easy to administer and offer certainty to developers and citizens alike while maintaining a requisite degree of design flexibility to allow and encourage creative site and building design. Recommendation #42: The Planning Division should develop design guidelines for multi - family, commercial, and signs. 16. CODE INTERPRETATIONS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED AND PUBLISHED TO THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISION'S WEB SITES. Another tool to help the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions achieve consistency in plan checking is an "interpretations log" that records how various provisions of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes are interpreted and applied in cases where the application of certain regulations is not entirely clear. Interviews with personnel within the Planning Division indicate that a number of code interpretations have already been documented and are contained within a binder in the office for use by staff. However, these interpretations are not disseminated beyond the Division and are not available for use by the public to better understand how to comply with the City's regulations. The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should begin documenting code interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes and publish these interpretations on the City's web site. These interpretations should be reviewed at least annually (and whenever the referenced regulation is modified or Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 115 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process adjusted) to ensure continued applicability. Only interpretations that are not "site specific" should be included. Recommendation #43: The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes and make these available to the public on their web sites. 17. ENHANCE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK PROCESS. The length of time taken to process building permit plans cannot be managed or controlled in any meaningful way unless certain conditions exist: • Targets are set for the length of time each organizational unit should take to process building permit plans. • Actual processing times are systematically collected and monitored. • On -going processing time performance is visible to all concerned parties. The City should utilize the automated permit information system so that these conditions can be met and control exercised over the length of time expended in processing building permit applications and plans. The steps that should be taken for improving the control over the length of the time required for processing building permit plans are presented in the sections below. (1) Revise the Cycle Time Goals for the Length of Time Required to Process Building Permit Plans to Serve as a Performance Guideline for All Organizational Units. The Building Division has already adopted cycle time goals for building permit plan checking. These goals include the following: These cycle times include: Residential Plan Review Cycle Times: • Over the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 116 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (500 sq. ft. or less) within 5 business days • Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, second review within 5 working days • Large / Major Projects: apartments and subdivisions (over 10 units) is a minimum of 4 weeks. Commercial Plan Review Cycle Times • Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30 • Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (10,000 sq. ft. or less) within 5 working days • Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, rechecks within 5 working days • Large / Major Projects: minimum 4 weeks. There are a number of problems with these cycle time objectives. First, these goals do not identify the types of permits that should be plan checked over - the - counter. The Residential Plan Review Process Workbook, for example, merely states that "this process is for very small residential projects (250 sq. ft. or less) that can be reviewed by Building Department staff in less than thirty (30) minutes. It does not specify the specific types of permits that can be approved over - the - counter. Other cities that provide responsive over - the - counter services will identify the specific types of building permits that can be approved over - the - counter such as electrical lights, HVAC replacements, reroofs, sewer line replacement, water heater replacement, kitchen remodel, new windows, portable spas, solar systems, decks, The Division should clarify those types of permits that will be plan checked over- the - counter in these plan check objectives. Secondly, some types of minor residential Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 117 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process remodel projects and additions should be plan checked in less than five (5) working days. Examples of these types of permits are presented in the table below. Balcony Remodel — Major SFD Addition SFD Accessory Building — Detached Accessible Ramps Fences w /Calculations. Garage — Detached (SFD) Patio Enclosure (SFD) Third, the commercial cycle time goals the plan check cycle goals for tenant improvements are too long based upon the experience of the firm with other cities. The Building Division should revise these cycle time benchmarks and include a number of features. These features are presented below. • The benchmarks should identify those organizations that should receive the building permit plans. For example, pools, decks, and spas should be plan checked only by Building, simple tenant improvements should be plan checked only by Building, and commercial shells by Building, Planning, Fire, and Engineering. • These benchmarks should be established as a joint effort by each of these units. Ultimately, however, the Chief Building Official needs to review these targets to determine whether processing targets are not unacceptably long. • The benchmarks need to be differentiated according to the type of plan being processed and its complexity. The target for processing a plan for a residential interior remodel should be different than that of a custom single - family residence. • These benchmarks should be designed to enable the Chief Building Official to hold each organizational unit involved in the plan checking process accountable for the length of time the unit takes to review and approve plans. Matrix Consulting Group Page 51 118 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The attainment of these benchmarks is dependent upon streamlining a number of the existing processes, the effective use of the automated permit information system to document actual cycle time versus these objectives, the effective and expanded use of over - the - counter plan checking by the Building Inspector, etc. Recommendation #44: Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for the length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as a performance guideline for all organizational units. (2) Utilize the Automated Permit Information System to Assure the Status of Each Plan Check Is Readily Visible. The automated permit information system should be used to make visible the amount of calendar time required to check building permit plans and enable an easy comparison with targets for processing these plans. The specific objectives related to the system include: • To establish a process whereby specific calendar data targets are set for each building permit plan. • To generate data sufficient to assess the performance of each division or department (Planning, Building, Engineering, Fire, etc.) in comparison to those targets. • To enable automated feedback to the Chief Building Official when plan checking by these divisions exceeds targets. Major elements of the system are as follows: • The Building Division would enter the appropriate data for processing each building permit plan including the divisions to which the plan is distributed, the date of distribution, and the due dates. • The Division would enter the actual date the plans were returned by all units after completing the plan check. • The Chief Building Official, or his / her designee, on a weekly basis — would access the system to determine which plans are still being checked and exceeded the targets. The Senior Plans Examiner would then contact the manager or supervisor of those units to prompt the completion of those plan Matrix Consulting Group Page 52 119 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process checks. • The Division would utilize the automated permit information system to generate reports regarding actual processing time versus targets. The automated permit information system should be the tool which the Division utilizes to manage the plan check process and assure the time required to process building permit plans consistently meet targets. Recommendation #45: The Building Division should utilize the automated permit information system to assure the status of each plan is readily visible. (3) The Chief Building Official Should Be Given the Written Authority and Responsibility to Interface with Other Organizational Units to Resolve Delays in Processing Building Permit Plans. This authority should include the following elements: • Scheduling of the plan check of building permit plans by the various organizational units. • Identification of the timing and priorities for plan checking of building permit plans by the various organizational units involved in commenting and analyzing the plans. • Monitoring the timely plan check of building permit plans and contacting the managers or supervisors of these units to prompt the completion of the plan check if the guidelines for completion are exceeded. This authority and responsibility should be clearly spelled out to other organizational units involved in processing building permit plans by the Community Development Director. Recommendation #46: The Chief Building Official should be given the written authority and responsibility to interface with other organizational units to resolve delays in processing building permit plans in a formal written policy published by the Community Development Director. Matrix Consulting Group Page 53 120 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 18. SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK PROCESS. This section presents an analysis of the plan review and permitting services provided by the Building Division. Similar to other sections in this chapter, this section focuses on issues related to: • Levels of service provided by the plan review and permitting programs; • Ability to increase services to the public; and, • Ability to increase customer service to the public. The following are summaries of improvement opportunities in the plan review and permitting programs of the Building and Safety Division. (1) The Extent of Building Permits Provided On -line Should Be Expanded. Permits that do not require a plan check, such as single trade permits (i.e., water heater change -out, furnace change -out, re- roofs, and even simple kitchen remodels), often known as over - the - counter permits, are well suited to on -line permit processing. Similar to e- commerce transactions, such as buying products from a web site, this activity involves credit card processing and the printing of a permit. On -line processing of permit applications can be as basic as automating only the front -end information collection process or as complete as full automation of the entire over - the - counter permit transaction. At their own personal computer, applicants can apply for a building permit, schedule an inspection, and print the permit and receipt. Credit card payments are secured through the use of encryption technology. Applicants can setup their access so that basic information does not need to be re- entered for multiple transactions. The City has the capability to allow applicants to complete a permit application via the Internet. Matrix Consulting Group Page 54 121 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Applicants, for example, can complete on -line forms and hit a "send" button to transmit the application to the City's permit database. The on -line system can process, review, approve, and stores completed permits. The permit system then generates a permit for the applicant. Applicants can pay for permits using a credit card. The Division should expand this feature. In the first month — mid - September to mid- October — 10% of the building permits were issued on -line. The objective of the Division should be to issue 20% of its building permits over the Internet. This should include simple kitchen remodel, re- roofs, skylights, masonry chimney repair, swimming pool removal, gas lines, irrigation sprinklers, sewer lines, tub and shower replace /repair, water heaters, water piping, water service lines, air conditioning, chimney, electrical panes, furnace, gas line, lighting, and spas. Some of these permits are already issued on -line; the range of the types of permits issued on- line should be expanded. Recommendation #47: The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of its building permits over the Internet. (2) Expand the Extent of Building Permits Issued Over - the - Counter. For the past several fiscal years, the Division has plan checked from 42% to 45% of the building permit applications over - the - counter, as noted below. Year # of Over - the - Counter Plan Checks # of Other Plan Checks % Over - the - Counter 2006/2007 1,069 1,306 45% 2007/2008 923 1,275 42% 2008/2009 1,104 1,104 43% The best practice target for this practice is 50% to 75% of total building permits being checked over the counter. The project team does not expect that over - the - counter building permits would be Matrix Consulting Group Page 55 122 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process issued for such permits as new multi - family, new commercial, or new single family. However, the project team does expect that over - the - counter permits can be issued for such building permits as the following: • Single family addition. Single story room addition not to exceed 600 square feet; • Single family Outdoor Pools and Spas; • Single family Patio Enclosures; • Single family New Roof Framing Over Existing Roof (without major structural work); • Office Space: Tenant Improvements for office space less than 4,000 square feet. For commercial projects to be issued over - the - counter, the following restrictions should apply: • There will be no storage of hazardous materials of any amount in the space; • The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations to the structural system of the building (e.g. openings into bearing or shear walls, changes to floor system, etc.). Structural modifications required to install roof mounted mechanical equipment should be exempted pending plans examiner verification; • The proposed tenant improvement should not contain any alterations or modification to fire -rated walls; and • The application does not require any special Planning, or Fire District processing. The project team should expect that the Division should be able to increase the number of building permits issued over - the - counter from 42% to 45% of total plan checks to 60% using these criteria. The Counter Technician, when the position is filled, should be utilized for the plan checking and issuance of these types of minor and miscellaneous building permits. This assignment should recognize the impact of this additional skill and knowledge Matrix Consulting Group Page 56 123 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process requirements. The Counter Technician should be required to obtain certification by the International Code Council as a Permit Technician to enable this position to the provide over - the - counter plan checking. This would increase the responsibility of the Counter Technician and will also benefit the Division by enabling the Division to enhance the Building Inspector assigned to counter duty to plan checking of residential and commercial plans of a more significant nature, such as tenant improvements. This reassignment could be achieved by the following method: • The Division should provide the support, funding, and work hours necessary for the Counter Technician to obtain certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician. • The Building Official should function as a team leader for the Counter Technician and train the incumbent in the performance of plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permit plans. • The Plan Check Engineer should provide code and practical plan check training to the Counter Technician for an appropriate period of time. • The Division should establish a time period for training and implement the program on a target date. The Division should confer with the Counter Technician to establish the implementation date. The Division should establish the target date realizing that some of the quality expertise will only occur with practice. A comfort level can be achieved by realizing that support by the Plan Check Engineer is available. This method will produce quality performing Counter Technician that is fully capable of plan checking miscellaneous and minor building permit plans. Recommendation #48: The Building Division should increase the number of building permits issued over - the - counter to 60% of all building permits issued. Recommendation #49: The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to Building Technician. Recommendation #50: The Building Technician position, when filled, should be utilized to provide over - the - counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous building permits. Matrix Consulting Group Page 57 124 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation: #51 The Building Technician classification should be revised to require certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician within 12 months of hire. Recommendation #52: The Building Division should provide support, funding, and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC - certified Permit Technician. (3) Develop Standard Plans For Use By The Public In The Construction Of Minor Residential Improvements. A number of residents in Cupertino and other communities are do- it- yourselfers in terms of constructing minor retaining walls, residential patio covers, detached storage sheds, and outdoor fireplaces. In other instances, residents will pull building permits rather than their contractors for construction such as spas. The City should assist these "do it yourselfers" meet building permit plan check requirements by developing standard plans. These standard plans, if utilized by the "do it yourselfers" in applying for their building permit, would allow avoiding the retention of an architect or designer for the preparation of these plans, as long as the homeowner utilized these standard plans. In addition, the Building Division should develop a "Home Improvement Center" web page on the City's web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process. Recommendation #53: Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in minor residential improvements. Recommendation #54: Develop a "Home Improvement Center" web page on the Town's web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection process. Matrix Consulting Group Page 58 125 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (4) The Division Has Developed a Number of Cycle Time Objectives for Plan Review, But Actual Cycle Time Exceeds the Objectives. The Division has established cycle times for both residential and commercial plan reviews. This information is identified within the guidebooks published by the Division and available on the Division's web site. The project team analyzed plan check cycle time data provided by the Division that identified the number of building permit plan checks completed during FY 2007 / 2008 (showing the permit number, permit type, apply date, date in, revision, date out, reviewer, and permit issue date). The following exhibit shows the calculation of the number of days between the "date out" and the "apply date," and utilizes a sampling of 3,932 permits received by the Division. As indicated in the exhibit, the average time between the application date and the date of review completion was 33 days (and a median of 24 days). For the top ten permit types in terms of volume (excluding single trade permits), the average days from "application date" to "date out" was 40 days. The data provided does not allow for the calculation of elapsed time between re- submittals. Additionally, it is a challenge for the Division, given current technology limitations, to identify and publish more comprehensive data that will allow the project team or the Division to better manage its cycle time performance. However, based on this available data, actual cycle times are generally longer than the cycle time objectives (e.g., for large projects the cycle time objective is 28 days, however, the average for all types of permit applications is 33 days). Matrix Consulting Group Page 59 126 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 1 (1) Building Division Plan Check Cycle Time Type # of Permits # of Days (Apply Date to Date Out) # of Reviews TELECOMFAC 27 78.3 1.7 SOLAR -RES 49 11.4 1.1 SFDWL -REM 189 24.3 1.3 SFDWL -NEW2 2 2.0 1.0 SFDWL -NEW1 237 59.5 1.6 SFDWL -DEM 56 40.1 1.1 SFDWL -ADD1 345 38.0 1.5 RM131 1 2.0 1.0 MFDWL -REM 9 21.4 1.4 MFDWL -NEW1 4 4.8 1.0 FU RN /AC 106 48.4 1.5 COMML -TI 259 32.8 1.3 COMML -NEW 15 14.9 1.1 COMML -DEM 3 1.0 1.0 CM136 2 14.5 1.0 CM131 8 16.1 1.4 CMAP2 8 18.8 1.4 CELECTRICA 1 9.0 1.0 CEAP5 10 19.6 1.1 1 SOLARRES 51 13.6 1.1 1 SOLARCOMM 5 10.8 1.0 1 SHELLBLDG 42 82.5 1.9 1 SFDWLREM 8 25.6 1.3 1 SFDWLNEW1 7 16.9 1.0 1 SFDWLDEM 103 41.4 1.1 1 SFDWLADD1 21 30.3 1.3 1 RPSS 8 32.4 1.5 1 RBSP 6 10.2 1.2 1 R3SFDW 454 73.5 1.7 1 R3SFDREM 173 23.0 1.3 1 R3SFDALT 5 19.8 1.4 1 R3SFDADD 662 48.5 1.5 1 R3SFD 5 22.6 1.8 1 R1APTRM 37 177.7 1.3 1 R1APT 116 125.2 1.6 1M TI 54 54.7 1.5 11 TI 7 16.1 1.3 1 GENRES 182 26.9 1.2 1GENCOM 122 43.9 1.4 1E TI 11 29.7 1.8 1 COMMLTI 1 9.0 1.0 1COMMLADD 4 10.0 1.0 1 CMAP2 1 2.0 1.0 1 CEAP6 5 37.0 1.4 Matrix Consulting Group Page 60 127 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 1 (2) Type # of Permits # of Days (Apply Date to Date Out ) # of Reviews 1 CEAP5 19 13.6 1.4 1 BOFF 16 45.7 1.9 1B TI 371 30.9 1.4 1A3 34 53.4 1.8 1A TI 71 42.9 1.4 Average 33.2 1.3 Median 24.3 1.3 Matrix Consulting Group Page 61 128 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The project team also calculated the cycle time from the application date to the actual permit "issue date," and found the average number of days was 68, while the median number of days between application date and the permit issuance date was 54 days. This suggests that once the Building Division completes plan checking, there is a lag time between the final plan review, and when the applicant actually picked up and paid for the permit. The Division cannot and should not be held accountable for this lag. Once a mechanism is in place to more comprehensively measure actual cycle time performance, monthly reports should be developed for reporting the actual time required to plan check building permit plans versus the targets. The information contained in this report would be used for several purposes: • To identify where processing delays are occurring, in what step of the process, and the organizational unit responsible • To trigger questions regarding the causes of the delays so that corrective action can be take • To provide a more reliable and readily available record on what happened to each building permit plan. It should be underscored that the scheduling and monitoring system proposed is not intended to replace the responsibility and accountability of staff in other organizational units who actually plan check the building permit plans. This system has been designed only to provide important and more accurate, comprehensive and uniform information regarding the plan checking of building permit plans and to pinpoint the manager that owns the process: the Building Official. Without this information and this ownership, it is virtually impossible to control the number of days required for processing of these building permit plans. Recommendation #55: The Building Division should improve the building permit plan check performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives. Matrix Consulting Group Page 62 129 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (5) Reduce The Number Of Organizational Units That Plan Check Some Types Of Building Permit Plans. In many instances, the divisions / departments that plan check building permit plans in Cupertino is different than patterns used in other cities. For example: • Single- family additions are routed to the Planning Division, the Engineering Division, Building Division, Sanitary, and Fire Prevention; • Patios and decks are routed to the Planning Division and Building Division; and • Tenant improvements are routed to the Planning Division, Building Division, Sanitary, and Fire Prevention. Other cities have reallocated responsibility for zoning clearance with their Building Division. This eliminates the need for building permit plan checking of simpler building permit plans by the Planning Division such as patios and decks, single family additions, or tenant improvements Other cities, such as Pasadena, only route single - family additions and remodels and new single family residences to the Fire Department for plan checking if located in the Hillside District Overlay. The City should take steps to reduce the number of divisions / departments that plan check building permit plans. The project team recommends the City review the routing of building permit plans to assess if all organizational units need to review these plans. For example, the City could consider the following: • The City should eliminate the routing for single - family remodels /additions to the Planning Division, Fire Prevention, and to the Engineering Division. This will require the Building Division to check for zoning clearances, and easements. • Tenant improvements should not be routed to the Planning Division. This will require the Building Division to check for zoning clearances. • Minor permits, such as awnings, spas, and pools, should be plan checked solely by the Building Division. Matrix Consulting Group Page 63 130 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The project team believes the routing of building permit plans can be reduced. The Chief Building Official should develop a proposal for review of the City Manager's Office and the affected departments. With the effective deployment of the automated permit information system, the responsibility for zoning clearance should be reassigned to the Building Division. The automated permit information system should enable the plan checking staff of the Building Division to determine the zoning of the property. This would enable the staff of the Division to determine the development standards (e.g., setbacks) for the applications. This transition should not occur until the Building Division staff has been trained in the use of the system, and Building Division staff has been trained in applying the development standards. Recommendation #56: The Building Division should reduce the number of divisions and departments that are routed building permit plans. Recommendation #57: The City should assign responsibility to the Building Division for zoning clearance of simple building permits. 19. CONTRACTORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE BUILDING INSPECTIONS UP TO 7:00 AM OF THE DAY OF THE REQUESTED INSPECTION. The leading industry practice for customers to schedule an inspection is up to 7:00 AM the morning of the desired date and time. Inspection requests are processed until 3:30 PM the day before the scheduled inspection. This is due the highly manual nature of the scheduling process, which involves the following: • The administrative staff print out the listing of requested inspections at the end of the afternoon Matrix Consulting Group Page 64 131 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • The Senior Building Inspector then reviews and manually assigns the various inspections staff based on geographical location, workload, areas of interest / expertise, etc. • The Senior Building Inspector then prints the master copy and distributes to inspections staff in the morning, printing a specific copy for each building inspector. • The Building Inspector staff then determines the windows of time they will conduct the inspection (typically 2 -hour windows). The Building Inspector notes these windows of time on the master copy and makes copies for the division's administrative staff to enable these staff to respond to telephone inquiries about time window. Because of these processes, the ability to accommodate inspections requests up to 7:00 AM the same day is challenging, as the schedule is confirmed by that time. As such, the Division should utilize more automated processes in order to better accommodate same -day inspection requests. Recommendation #58: The Building Division should adopt a policy to accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request service. 20. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION IS MEETING THEIR CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVE FOR PLAN CHECKING BUILDING PERMIT PLANS IN 5 TO 10 DAYS. The project team obtained Engineering Division data for building permit plan checking. Using a sample of 19 building permit applications, the plan check cycle time of the Division is presented in the table below. Matrix Consulting Group Page 65 132 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 1st Review # Date In Date out Days 1 2/2/09 2/2/09 0 2 10/15/08 10/16/08 1 3 10/20/08 10/21/08 1 4 10/23/08 10/27/08 4 5 11/14/08 11/18/08 4 6 10/16/08 10/21/08 5 7 10/7/08 10/13/08 6 8 11/19/08 11/25/08 6 9 2/13/09 2/19/09 6 10 10/20/08 10/28/08 8 11 1/5/09 1/13/09 8 12 3/2/09 3/11/09 9 13 3/2/09 3/11/09 9 14 11/12/08 11/21/08 9 15 10/8/08 10/22/08 14 16 2/2/09 2/17/09 15 17 1/9/09 1/25/09 16 18 2/6/09 2/23/09 17 19 12/16/08 1/9/09 24 Average 9 Median 8 As shown above, the average number of days for this sample was nine (9) days of review time, with a median of eight (8) days. It is important to note, however, that this was just a sampling of over 159 building permit reviews conducted over a 3 -month period, including the following: Plan Type Number Arch 108 Arch / IMP 2 Arch / RGP 1 IMP 43 Parcel Map 3 RGP 1 Structural 1 3 -Month Total 159 Matrix Consulting Group Page 66 133 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Annualized, the Engineering Division conducts approximately 636 permit application plan checks that are routed from the Community Development Department, which equates to approximately 12 per week, or 2.5 per day. Based on this assessment, the Engineering Division should better track the intake dates of building permits being routed from the Community Development Department, and continuously monitor their cycle time performance of reviews. 21. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES FOR ENGINEERING PERMITS. The Engineering Division has an important role in the planning and building permit processes. In these instances, the Division is most often not the lead in the process: the Community Development Department is the lead in the process. The Division, however, is the lead with some permits. This could include grading permits, improvement plans, utility joint trench permits, encroachment permits, heavy haul permits, sewer lateral or water service permits, etc. A guide for a grading permit could include such aspects as the following: • The purpose of the permit • The process for plan checking the permit • The required material that must be submitted with the application such as grading plan, preliminary landscape and irrigation plan, etc. • A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements • General grading notes / conditions of approval In each of these instances, the Engineering Division should develop an application guide. Recommendation #59: The Engineering Division should develop application guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead. Matrix Consulting Group Page 67 134 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 22. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD PUBLISH ITS CYCLE TIME OBJECTIVES FOR PLAN CHECKING TO ITS WEB PAGE. To provide better customer service, the Engineering Division has a number of items available on the web site, including the following: • Engineering Standards - which includes guidelines as the City of Cupertino Standard Details, the Best Management Practice Plan Sheet, and Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (user manual). • Pavement Management Program — which is a comprehensive description of the program, maintenance techniques, and overall condition of Cupertino's streets • Fee Schedule (effective July 1, 2008) — which summarizes the user fees for engineering, planning, building, and recreation • Maps and Data — which provides a city map guide and a Water Service Boundary Map • Permit Applications — which allow users to download various types of applications, including an encroachment permit, grading permit, permit parking, streamside modification, and block party / special event permit. The Engineering Division should also develop cycle time objectives for all permit applications for the length of time -- in calendar days -- required to process applications from the date of submittal to the date of the applicant's initial public hearing or the approval / disapproval of the application by staff. Possible calendar date benchmarks for processing different types of permit applications are presented in the table below. Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 135 Proposed Cycle Time Objective (Calendar Type of Permit Days) At The Median Tentative maps / Parcel Maps 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan check, and 10 calendar days for rechecks Final Subdivision Map Improvement Plans 21 calendar days to complete for the first plan check, and 10 calendar days for rechecks Final Parcel Map Improvement Plans 14 calendar days to complete for the first plan check, and 7 calendar days for rechecks Grading Plans 14 calendar days to complete the first check, and 7 calendar days for rechecks. Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 135 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process For the Engineering Division to set cycle time objectives from the date of submittal of the application, as opposed to the date the application is deemed complete, the Engineering Division staff will need to be rigorous in checking applications at submittal to assure the applications contain all of the essential information required to achieve a complete submittal, and rejecting applications that do not contain this essential information. It will also require that the application guides developed that clearly identify the elements of a complete application. As a general policy, the Engineering Division has an objective of reviewing the first submission within 5 to 10 days for building permit review, however, this should be stated in the residential development guidebook and the commercial development guidebook, as well as made available on the Division web -site. Recommendation #60: The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to the Division's web site and identify these cycle time objectives in the Division's application guides. 23. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP APPLICATION GUIDES FOR ENGINEERING PERMITS. The Engineering Division has an important role in the planning and building permit processes. In these instances, the Division is most often not the lead in the process: the Community Development Department is the lead in the process. The Division, however, is the lead with some permits. This could include grading permits, improvement plans, utility joint trench permits, encroachment permits, heavy haul permits, sewer lateral or water service permits, etc. A guide for a grading permit could include such aspects as the following: • The purpose of the permit • The process for plan checking the permit Matrix Consulting Group Page 69 136 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • The required material that must be submitted with the application such as grading plan, preliminary landscape and irrigation plan, etc. • A checklist to assure the applicant is aware of submittal requirements • General grading notes / conditions of approval In each of these instances, the Engineering Division should develop an application guide. Recommendation #61: The Engineering Division should develop application guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan checking. Matrix Consulting Group Page 70 137 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 4. ANALYSIS OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM The acquisition of a fully functional and easy -to -use automated permit information system should be viewed as a high priority by the City of Cupertino. However, If the City is to obtain an effective return on its investment, there are a number of features that should be included with the system. 1. ALL OF THE CITY'S DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS SHOULD UTILIZE THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM TO MEET ALL OF THEIR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. It is apparent that not all of the divisions and departments involved in the permit, plan check, and inspection process do not utilize an automated permit information system or do not fully utilize the existing automated permit information system.. The City will be making a significant investment in an automated permit information system. The system will be capable of a broad range of tasks including the following: • Plan review tracking; • Permitting including the issuance and tracking of permits; • Inspections scheduling and tracking; • Workflow management; • Fee calculation and collection; • Customer communications through web -based customer services; • Telephone -based voice response services; and • Inter- and intra - departmental communication and management. Matrix Consulting Group Page 71 138 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process All of the departments and divisions involved in the issuance of permits need to utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building permit, and engineering permit process. Recommendation #62: All of the departments and divisions should utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building permit, and engineering permit process. Recommendation #63: Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the automated permit information system to support the work of these departments and divisions. Recommendation #64: Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the automated permit information system. 2. THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ACCESS TO THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM OVER THE INTERNET. Automating the permit process opens the door for customer self - service. Simple e- permitting capabilities allow citizens and businesses to use both the Internet and the telephone to check the status of their permit application or comment on new development projects. The use of standard Web development technologies and relational databases make permit information available through the Internet. A fully functional automated permit process provides the capacity for the public and for applicants to access the automated permit information system through the Internet. This capacity would make information from the City's permit database accessible via the Internet by permit applicants, residents, and other interested parties. In this instance, the City's web site would provide a search form where citizens enter a property address or permit number to receive current information on that permit, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from any computer with Internet access. The City can control the amount of information that is accessible by the public and can limit the Matrix Consulting Group Page 72 139 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process amount of users by incorporating password protection, if it chooses to do so. This feature of the automated permit information system should be utilized to enable applicants to check the status of their permits. Giving applicants the ability to check the status online reduces telephone and walk -in traffic and allows applicants and city residents to review this information even when City Hall is closed. It should also be utilized to enable citizens to review proposed projects online. By placing information about proposed developments on the web, citizens have increased opportunity to participate in the extent and type of development occurring in their neighborhood. Overland Park, Kansas, for example, enables citizens to access development activity in their neighborhood through a marriage of their permitting software and geographical information system. The City's Web site contains "What's Happening In My Neighborhood." Recommendation #65: The City should utilize the automated permit information system to provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data through the Internet or for the public and applicants to subscribe to information. 3. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD INCLUDE THE CAPACITY TO INTERFACE WITH AN INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE. Interactive Voice Response systems (IVR) systems are used widely throughout the customer service industry. When calling a bank, credit card company or utility company, most customers interact with an automated voice system before reaching a live person. An IVR system is available 24 hours a day and can simultaneously handle multiple callers. When connected to an automated permit system, IVR enables permit applicants and other interested parties to receive information such as permit status and the expected date of completion, schedule an inspection, or obtain the results of an Matrix Consulting Group Page 73 140 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process inspection. An IVR system can be programmed to adapt to an organization's specific needs. For example, announcements can be incorporated into the IVR system notifying external customers of changes in the permit process, important dates, and events of concern to permit applicants. City employees are responsible for maintaining the system and providing back- up customer service when callers indicate the need to speak directly with Permit Center /counter staff or other city staff. Both internal and external customers use the IVR at any time, night or day. An IVR system is a "black box" (a self- contained computing system that can be plugged into other systems) that interfaces with a host computer(s) and telephone system through various communications protocols. Calls come into the system through the telephone switch or are routed by an Automated Call Distributor (ACD). The system prompts callers to select the information they want from a menu. The caller makes a selection either by using the touch -tone keypad or by speaking into the telephone receiver. The system then retrieves the requested information from the host system and "delivers" it to the caller. Recommendation #66: The automated permit information system should include the capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice Response system. Recommendation #67: The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System. 4. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE WIRELESS CAPABILITIES. Using a handheld computer, inspectors in the field should be able to access the City's permit database. They should be able to download a list of scheduled inspections, Matrix Consulting Group Page 74 141 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process enter inspection results, and even print a certificate using a small, wireless printer. Inspectors should also be able to collect information in the field and load this information into the permit database. Building inspectors in the Building Division have mobile "laptop" systems for field use. These mobile systems should be used in field. Recommendation #68: The automated permit information system should have wireless capabilities. 5. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE CAPABILITY FOR AUTOMATED WORKFLOW. Complex planning and building permits often have to be routed to several employees at different departments and divisions within the City. Automating the permit process using the automated permit information system means that the planning and building permit will not sit on a desk too long or get misplaced as it is being reviewed. The system itself operates according to business tasks and rules defined by the City. Automated workflow systems encompass role /relationship definition, security, auditing, and tracking capabilities. Users have the ability to know who has taken what actions on what date and where a particular task is in a sequence of steps. In addition, the system may have the ability to effectively archive required data and recreate representations of data. Managers and permit staff use automated workflow to track a variety of documents, plans and attachments associated with a planning and building permits permit application. External customers do not usually access the agency's workflow system. Recommendation #69: The automated permit information system should have an automated workflow capacity. Matrix Consulting Group Page 75 142 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 6. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR ONLINE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION TOOLS. The City should host project management and collaborative Web tools on their own Web site. Both city employees and external permit participants from the design and building community work together via electronic communication to share documents. A password should be required to enter the Web site, but be accessed from any computer. Architects, consultants, developers, and contractors should be able to use this tool to participate with City plan checking staff on complex projects involving a large number of plans and details. Recommendation #70: The automated permit information system should have the capacity for online project management and collaboration tools. 7. THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR INTERFACING WITH GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS). GIS links maps of an area with information from a database to generate maps and reports, allowing users to display, analyze, maintain, and model location -based information to support decision making. GIS systems have the capability to combine disparate sets of data (maps, aerial photographs, land coordinates) from various departments and agencies (such as water, electric, gas, land use) to graphically display data in any combination, for many purposes. For permitting, GIS can be used to search for addresses and features such as poles, utility mains or pipes below or above ground, water table and seismic information, and find its location in relation to any other location such as a freeway, or residential, commercial, or flood zone. Matrix Consulting Group Page 76 143 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation #71: The automated permit information system should have the capacity to interface with ESRI GIS. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS SHOULD BE STORED IN PERMITS PLUS. Document management tools within the automated permit information system will offer the capacity to transform paper documents into digital documents and files, allowing staff to store, manage, and access documents and applicants and the public to access these documents using a standard interface — the automated permit information system. Using these document management tools, any information associated with the permit process is digital and indexed to the permit application. In addition to the electronic documents that can be stored in the automated permit information system, hard copy documents, photos and drawings can be scanned and converted to digital files in the automated permit information system. Organizations are beginning to integrate document management tools into their permit processes because this technology improves the linkages between related information and provides a single point of access to multiple sources of permit information. The City should accomplish this goal using a number of approaches. These approaches are presented in the paragraphs below. • All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and inspections should be archived in the automated permit information system so that they can be stored and located more easily and efficiently. The automated permit information system will have the capacity to store electronic documents (such as those created by Microsoft Word or Excel), legacy documents imaged or scanned from paper or microfiche, and documents and images from databases. In addition, city staff can scan non - electronic documents to add them to the document management database. • The City should scan architectural plans submitted to the City electronically or require the applicant to submit electronic copies of these architectural plans. This is not an uncommon approach. Other cities and Matrix Consulting Group Page 77 144 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process counties have already taken this step. • Architectural plans that are scanned should be archived in the automated permit information system. All plans should be labeled and archived for future reference. There are a number of public agencies that are not only archiving these architectural plans, but also receiving these plans from applicants over the Internet. Recommendation #72: All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and inspections should be archived in the automated permit information system. Recommendation #73: Architectural plans should be archived in the automated permit information system once the permit is finalized. 9. PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT ANNOTATIONS, CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE STORED IN THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM. Once planning and building permits are plan checked, annotations and comments could be added within the automated permit information system, shared among the review team, and forwarded to the applicant. This is an essential element of the automated permit information system: to facilitate collaboration, integration, and cooperation among staff, applicants, architects, and the neighborhoods. Use of the automated permit information system for these annotations and comments provides the potential for 24/7 access to staff, applicants, architects, and the neighborhoods. The City should fully utilize the capacity of the automated permit information system storing comments and corrections. All of the divisions and departments that utilize the automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, comments, and conditions in this system. Recommendation #74: All of the divisions and departments that utilize the automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, comments, and conditions in the system. Matrix Consulting Group Page 78 145 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 10. THE CITY SHOULD ACQUIRE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL COMMERCIAL -OFF- THE -SHELF AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM. The City is now working with Pentamation to develop a fully functional automated permit information system. This process has been ongoing for several years and the automated permit information system has not yet reached its full development and conclusion. The Planning Division is still using a Microsoft Access database to track permit applications, while the Engineering Division is using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to track permit applications. Various features of the Pentamation permit system have yet to be implemented. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a fully functional automated permit information system. Regardless of that effort, the Matrix Consulting Group believes that the City should acquire a fully developed commercial- off - the -shelf automated permit information system. Given the costs of the Pentamation permit system to -date, the Matrix Consulting Group believes that the City would be better served by acquiring a system that has already been fully developed and deployed, with a significant installed customer base, rather than continuing to allocate additional funds for the development of the automated permit information system by Pentamation. Recommendation #75: The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a fully functional automated permit information system. Recommendation #76: The City should acquire a fully developed commercial -off- the -shelf automated permit information system. Matrix Consulting Group Page 79 146 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 5. ANALYSIS OF THE PERMIT CENTER The Matrix Consulting Group evaluates permit centers from the context of sufficient space for receiving and serving customers; sit -down counters for customers; computers that customers can access for application preparation and review of zoning, building materials, reading material; maps (general plan /zoning) available for customer access; application guides and forms; toys for children; etc. 1. THE CITY SHOULD REMODEL THE PERMIT CENTER. In the evaluating the ability of the downstairs permit center to effectively serve the City's customers in this context, the Matrix Consulting Group noted numerous problems from a customer service perspective regarding the permit center as presented below. • The space available in the permit center is limited and at peak hours the center is crowded. Our national experience is that the best permit centers have extremely large waiting areas so customers do not feel they are in such a hectic environment. Given the number of permit center customers, the lobby is too small. A few of our recommendations can help this. • There is an absence of sit -down work space for customers. • There is a shortage of conference rooms for staff to have meetings with permit center customers to discuss their applications. • The permit center is not staffed during the lunch hour. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City remodel the permit center. The permit center should provide sit -down counters for customers, computers that customers can access, better access to small conference rooms for staff to meet with applicants and discuss their applications, etc. Recommendation #77: The City should remodel the permit center. Matrix Consulting Group Page 80 147 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 6. ANALYSIS OF PERMIT ADMINISTRATION This chapter presents an analysis of the administrative practices of the permit process such as staff training, customer service in the permit center, etc. 1. A GREATER FOCUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF PLANNERS TO SERVE THE FRONT COUNTER DURING ALL HOURS OF OPERATIONS AND INCREASE THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC ON A WALK -IN BASIS. At the present time, all planners are assigned (on a rotating basis) to works shifts at the front counter. The staff member assigned to the counter is not required to remain at the counter, but is provided a pager to carry so that they can be located when a customer arrives and needs assistance. While generally this approach is effective in utilizing staff time and freeing them up to work on projects at their desk, some issues with this approach were identified including periodic inability to locate the planner in a timely manner, and the wait time for customers during the location of the planner by the receptionist in the permit center. Additionally, the counter is not staffed during lunch hours as the entire City organization takes a coordinated lunch period and services to the public (at the permit center) are closed from noon to 1:00 p.m. While this approach typically works well for staff, it often eliminates a key time period for many applicants who may need or desire to conduct permit processing during their lunch period. The Division should provide a greater focus on ensuring that a planner is available during all hours of operation, including the lunch hour, to address issues and answer questions at the front counter. This can be easily accomplished through efforts such as the following: Matrix Consulting Group Page 81 um CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Rotating lunch hours so that front counter service can be provided throughout all hours of operations; and • Increasing the time spent at the front counter during the shift by physically basing a planner at the front counter and utilizing the computer at the counter for planners to conduct other work activities when an applicant is not present. This approach will increase the availability of staff to handle customer issues promptly, and eliminate the perception, shared with the project team, that Planning staff is not always readily available or easily located to handle counter functions. Additionally, the project team recommends that the Planning and Development Department institute a set schedule for providing review of minor corrections over the counter to expedite the approval process. This can be undertaken on a pilot basis to determine the usefulness to the applicants and gauge the workload that is generated by this approach. Individual planners assigned to current planning should have a set number of hours, on a recurring weekly basis, where they are available in the office to review minor corrections on planning related issues outstanding. The hours for each current planner should be posted in the Permit Center and on the Department's web site. The Department should establish guidelines for what constitutes "minor corrections" and should inform applicants when they qualify to utilize this service by noting this when comments are issued for a particular plan review. Recommendation #78: A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at the front counter during all hours of operation including during the lunch hour. Recommendation #79: The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor corrections to expedite the approval process. Matrix Consulting Group Page 82 149 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 2. SEVERAL COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO EDUCATE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. One of the easiest, least expensive and most effective opportunities to enhance the service provided to the customer is to ensure that frequent, timely, and meaningful dialogue is undertaken. These interactions should be designed to increase the customer's understanding of existing procedures and policies, and to provide a mechanism for staff to receive ongoing feedback regarding issues from the development community. The following sections outline some specific recommendations. (1) A "How to Develop in the City of Cupertino" Guide Should Be Developed. A comprehensive how to guide should be developed that covers the entire permit process from project concept through the final certificate of occupancy. In developing this guide, the City needs to ensure that it is developed in a "plain English" approach that is understandable by a variety of audiences and not just those that work within the development arena on a daily basis. The City currently has in place many elements that would be included within this document. These would simply need to be updated and refined for inclusion. This document needs to be more than a simple recitation of the ordinances, but clearly explain the steps of the process, how to comply and appropriately submit an application, and identify the review that will be conducted by staff. Within this document, it would be appropriate to include copies of checklists for each phase of the process that clearly identify to the applicant the information that must be submitted and why it is Matrix Consulting Group Page 83 150 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process required. A section that clearly outlines the review time standards that have been adopted by the City should also be included within the document. Another critical component of the guide should be a section outlining the standard conditions of approval for each of the reviewing departments (as discussed previously in this chapter). Recommendation #80: The City should develop a comprehensive "How -to Manual" or "Development Guide" for use by the public and publish this document to their web site. (2) The Level of Ongoing Dialogue Between the Community Development Department and the Development Community Should Be Increased. The Community Development Department should focus on increasing the amount and type of communication, dialogue and interaction with the development community in a proactive manner — not simply working with them when problems arise. This should be initiated by publishing a periodic newsletter (either 2 or 4 times per year) that addresses changing requirements, code interpretations, a discussion of emerging issues, or an informational discussion of a particular policy or requirement. These newsletters should be posted on the City's web site and emailed directly to all individuals who sign -up to receive them. Additionally, at least annually, the Community Development Department should host a meeting with the development community to discuss issues of general interest, solicit input for consideration on specific regulations under consideration for revision, and provide an opportunity to receive feedback regarding service levels. Most communities that implement this approach utilize a one and a half hour to two -hour meeting that is focused on a specific topic and held in a community center. Matrix Consulting Group Page 84 151 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Finally, the Community Development Department should conduct an annual survey of the development community to evaluate the Community Development Department's level of performance. This can easily be accomplished through the use of a short online survey. Staff should consider whether there are a significant number of customers that wouldn't be able to respond online and if so, hard copy forms of the survey should be available in the permit center. Additionally, comment postcards should be made available to all applicants following the completion of the application review (approval or denial), asking them to evaluate the level of services provided on their case. The City of San Jose has developed a customer satisfaction survey; the Matrix Consulting Group has provided a copy to the Community Development Department. Recommendation #81: The Community Development Department should institute a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is distributed to the development community containing code or interpretation updates, training information, and general discussion of relevant topics. Recommendation #82: The Community Development Department should conduct at least an annual meeting to engage the development community in a discussion of general issues regarding permit matters in Cupertino, solicit input regarding service levels, and seek input regarding potential changes to the enabling legislation (general plan, subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes). Recommendation #83: The Community Development Department should conduct an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey. (3) New Ordinance and Code Requirements Should Be Implemented After Communication With The Development Community. When Building Inspectors bring new information into the field for building inspection that was acquired at outside training or realize that something that they have not been requiring is, in fact, required by the codes, Building Inspectors immediately call for Matrix Consulting Group Page 85 152 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process corrections. On other occasions they may decide to change requirements after meeting together. This causes hardship for owners and contractors when construction has to be dismantled and it impacts their costs and job completion deadlines. Owners and contractors are entitled to notice time in order to prepare for requirements not previously imposed. The Building Division should provide 60 -days notice regarding any changed requirements not previously invoked, and should not impact jobs under construction. Recommendation #84: The City should require that any new ordinance and code requirements not previously imposed will not be enforced on current construction and future jobs until the industry is informed and a 60 -day waiting period is put in place. Recommendation #85: The City should communicate any new plan review and inspection requirements to developers, contractors, architects, engineers, and the construction community through issuance of information bulletins and a newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the new requirements, and show effective date of implementation. 3. ADDITIONAL TRAINING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO STAFF OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING DIVISIONS. During the conduct of the study, the project team concluded that, as a general rule, the staff assigned to the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions were generally well- versed and trained regarding their assigned duties and in professional planning techniques There are several areas where the project team recommends that the City focus additional efforts to further enhance the training of staff of the Planning Division. These include: • Supporting and encouraging staff to achieve the AICP certification available from the American Planning Association. This is the nationally recognized certification for professional planners, and it ensures that staff stay both current in the planning profession and maintain a broad understanding of applicable planning techniques and practices, including emerging and developing aspects of the profession. Achievement of the AICP certification should be Matrix Consulting Group Page 86 153 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process strongly considered as a requirement for advancement within the Planner job family. • The utilization of the current bi- weekly departmental staff meeting to increase staff's understanding of difficult compliance issues related to implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. At each meeting an individual staff member should be responsible for leading a short training session on a particular topic. The focus of this training should be to increase the staff ability to make decisions at the lowest appropriate level in the organization. This will also have an added benefit of increasing consistency among staff. Staff who have attended external training sessions should also share the training information received during these departmental staff meetings. • Coordinating the training that staff attend annually to ensure that the limited training funds are most effectively utilized. Priority should be given to ensuring that all staff attend sufficient training in order to maintain their AICP certification. Additionally, training should be coordinated so that staff attend a variety of training sessions and generally do not all attend the same training session (which may be appropriate on certain topics). An enhanced focus on these areas of training will increase and maintain the professional knowledge and skills of the planning professionals in the City. Sending individual Building Inspectors to classes presented outside of the City is also encouraged. It is equally important that the staff share the information received from seminars and classes, and that all agree on the use of each subject. Individual Building Inspectors that receive information learned from outside the organization need to verify how it is going to be utilized in the City through team learning and sharing. Placing priority on training, sharing of information, and agreement on interpretations should contribute to the issue of consistency. Coordination and consistency can be enhanced by periodic meetings between fire inspectors, Plan Check Engineer, Building Inspectors, Counter Technician, and all personnel who participate in the development process, to review operations and contribute to efficient delivery of services. Involving everyone who serves in the Matrix Consulting Group Page 87 154 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process development process will assure that all good ideas are heard and will allow everyone to participate and take advantage of resolution of all matters. If consensus cannot be achieved, supervision and management may have to make decisions and publish their findings. This kind of effort will give all personnel the opportunity to be involved, provide input and take ownership for the process. Recommendation #86: All full -time planners should be encouraged to attain the AICP certification from the American Planning Association. The City of Cupertino should consider requiring achievement of this certification to progress through the Planner job family. Recommendation #87: The Planning, Building and Engineering division -heads should develop annual training programs for each employee in the division. Recommendation #88: The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should provide additional training to increase their ability to make decisions regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes to increase consistency of interpretation among staff. Recommendation #89: Provide not less that 40 -hours of job - related training annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. Recommendation #90: Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign all employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their presentation. Bring in outside industry training where appropriate. Recommendation #91: The Building Division should implement quarterly training sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building Inspectors, the Plan Check Engineer, the Counter Technician, and all employees involved in the development process (Planning, Engineering, Fire Prevention, etc.) to review operations, eliminate overlap or duplication, and improve coordination for efficient delivery of services. Allow each discipline to present matters of concern for decision and resolution. Recommendation #92: The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency. Matrix Consulting Group Page 88 155 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 4. THE CITY SHOULD UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City conduct a comprehensive development fee study that covers the planning, engineering and building permit plan review and inspection fees within the next several years. While the Planning Division has a goal of covering 100% of their current planning processes through related fees, the City has not undertaken a fee study of the planning land development fees in recent years. The fees associated with the building permits were last reviewed in 2007. The best practice is to undertake a comprehensive fee analysis at least every five years. The City should ensure that all planning, building, and engineering permit fees related to land development are included in the next fee study conducted. The inclusion of these fees in the study at the same time the building fees are evaluated will not increase the cost of the study significantly and should require an additional expenditure within the range of $10,000 to no more than $15,000. Recommendation #93: The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning, building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees are appropriately calculated and assessed. 5. THE CITY SHOULD CHARGE A TECHNOLOGY FEE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE AUTOMATED PERMIT INFORMATION SYSTEM AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS. A key tenet of the City's development services is that the costs of these services should be recovered through user fees. In fact, one of the City's financial policies states, "we will pursue cost recovery for services funded by governmental funds incorporating defined budgets, specific goals, and measurable milestones." Matrix Consulting Group Page 89 156 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge on its planning and building permits. This fee should be based upon the actual costs to fund the deployment of the automated permit information systems, the accessory technologies such as wireless devices, the ongoing licensing fees, and the replacement funding for the system. The funding should also be utilized to deploy the geographic information system within the Community Development Department. Other cities, such as Sacramento and Culver City, already charge such a technology fee. In both instances, it amounts to a 4% surcharge. Recommendation #94: The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to its building permits. 6. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR PERMIT PROCESSING. The division -heads in the Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should develop a central desk manual for employees which lists office management duties and who is responsible. The manual should include instructions on how to use the manual, detailed definitions of procedures or processes, direction about when and where to get help, and any other necessary resources and references (software manuals, important phone numbers, etc.). Examples of items to be included in the manual are shown below. Function Policies and Procedure Information Permit Processing Overview of processes required from start to finish on application submittals • Application submittal checklists and requirements • Protocol for answering the phones, scheduling appointments • Policies for rejecting incomplete submittals • Process for fee calculations and collecting money • Procedures for packaging and routing plan submittals • Plan routing matrix by e of project and department requiring review Matrix Consulting Group Page 90 157 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Function Policies and Procedure Information Plan Review Plan Review Checklists • Case management duties for plan review staff • Cycle review times by type of project • Customer service goals such as response times for email and phone inquiries • Frequently Asked Questions • Common Code interpretations • Policies regarding communication with customers about vacation and 9/80 schedules An employee desk manual will provide a quick reference for employees to get questions answered, back each other up in the case of absence, and gain a comprehensive understanding of the Division's operations. In addition, it provides the division -heads a method for standardizing operating procedures and developing measures of accountability for those procedures for staff. The division -heads should also work closely with lead workers, supervisors and managers in the Division to update the manuals on at least an annual basis. Recommendation #95: A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all major work functions and services provided by the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. A copy of the manual should be available to each employee, and updated at a minimum on an annual basis. The manual should be published to the Intranet. 7. THE MANAGEMENT OF ADVANCED PLANNING SHOULD BE IMPROVED. The Planning Division already develops an annual work program for advanced planning projects for each fiscal year. For example, the advanced work program for fiscal year 2009 -10 includes the development of a green building policy / sustainable land use policy, a long -term assessment of the City's jobs / housing balance, etc. The annual work program includes a bar chart schedule for each project included in the annual work program. This is a good step. Additional improvements are required to enhance Matrix Consulting Group Page 91 158 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process accountability. (1) The Annual Work Program Should be Expanded. The annual work program should be expanded. The program should be include such information as the following: • A description of the project (already included in the existing program); • The priority of the project (already included in the existing program); • A summary of previous work performed on the project; • The tasks to be performed for the project in the next fiscal year; • The milestone dates for each project; • The name of the project manager; • The proposed allocation of staff hours per Planner per month to the various projects; • The month -by -month allocation of staff hours by planner; • The proposed consulting budget for the project, if appropriate) in the next fiscal year including the source of funding, appropriation status, and proposed expenditures by major component; • A summary month -by -month Gantt chart for the year that provides an overall summary of the tasks to be performed for each project ((already included in the existing program). This expanded annual work program will likely require one to two pages per project. Recommendation #96: The Planning Division should expand the annual work program. (2) A Project Work Plan Should Be Prepared Prior to the Initiation of Each Advanced Planning Project. At the inception of a project, the project may be loosely defined. For example, the initial request may be for a zoning ordinance amendment that presents legal or policy issues. If potential project issues are identified early, the City Planner can determine Matrix Consulting Group Page 92 159 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process whether alternatives need to be developed to achieve the desired result. If the project is not adequately defined, the estimated time requirements are likely to be understated. The projects should be formally defined, in writing, via a project work plan. This project work plan is, in essence, a scoping document. The Planning Division should not initiate an advanced planning project until this scoping document has been developed. The project work plan should include the components enumerated below. • The project title; • A general project description including a narrative summary description of the project; • The project objectives; • The planning process to be utilized that would be utilized (such as the tasks and activities involved in the study startup, data collection an analysis, development of study alternatives, environmental assessment, and final study report); • The study data needs and sources (maps, soil studies, etc.); • A budget covering the project management or Planning Division staffing including the staff costs, consulting costs and other related costs such as traffic analysis, environmental impact report preparation, etc.; • The responsibility for completing the various components of the advanced planning project including the manager, supervisor or lead worker, and planning staff; • The extent of coordination necessary, listing the inter - agency coordination by outside agency with whom coordination will be required in the completion of the advanced planning project, the nature of the coordination, and the key contacts; • The preliminary schedule for completing the advanced planning project • A document control procedure and record - keeping system including contract documents; • Project team organizational structure and staffing levels required throughout the advanced planning project, including the estimated staffing required in terms of person hours required for each task; and Matrix Consulting Group Page 93 160 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Community relation and public information requirements including public hearings or meetings and how the public will be informed and involved in the advanced planning project and informed about the progress of the project. A project work plan should be completed before commencement of an advanced planning project. It should be reviewed with the Planning Commission prior to the commencement of the project. Recommendation #97: The Planning Division should complete a project work plan prior to commencement of an advanced planning project. (3) A Quarterly Report Should Be Prepared Reporting Progress Against the Project Work Plan The Planning Division should prepare a quarterly narrative statement regarding each advanced planning project. The following information should be included in this status report. • The advanced planning project name; • The project manager assigned to the project; • A comparison of actual project costs to date versus planned including Budget for the project including staff costs, consultant costs, and other related costs; and Project expenditures to date separately identifying staff expenditures from consulting expenditures; • A comparison of actual project schedule to date versus planned including: The date the advanced planning project was scheduled to begin and actually begun; and The current status of the project containing explanations such as 30% complete. These should be simple reports. The reports should be published quarterly, on- line on the Internet. Each project should be presented on a single line with information Matrix Consulting Group Page 94 161 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process regarding the project number, project title, project description, budget amount, current balance, the project manager, the date for completion, and comments (e.g., project is 50% complete). Recommendation #98: The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report regarding the status of advanced planning projects. (4) A Final Report Should Be Prepared on Completion of an Advanced Planning Project. Without a formal analysis and distribution for review, the mistakes and weaknesses of one project will almost certainly be repeated on others. The final report should focus on analyzing the good and bad aspects of the completed project, transmitting that information to the staff of the Advanced Planning Section, and providing a convenient summary of the project. At the completion of the project, the project manager assigned to the project should complete a final report including: • Project name, and a description of the project. • Costs — planned versus actual with an identification of reasons for the variances; • The staff hours allocated to the project - planned versus actual; • The schedule for completion of the project - planned versus actual; • Whether the project at completion met the expectations of the community, the appropriate Boards and Commissions and City Council; • Comments and discussion regarding the project as necessary including unusual conditions encountered during the project. This report should be circulated to the other staff within the Planning Division, the City Planner, and the Community Development Director. Recommendation #99: At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final report should be published good and bad aspects of the completed project, Matrix Consulting Group Page 95 162 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process transmitting that information to the staff of the Planning Division, and providing a convenient summary of the project. (5) The Vacant Senior Planner Position Should be Filled and Dedicated to Advanced Planning. Regardless of the project management practices for advanced planning, the City needs to dedicate staff to advanced planning. At the present time, the Planning Division is allocated a temporary Assistant Planner position. There is sufficient ongoing advanced planning workload to warrant a full -time authorized position. The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated to advanced planning. To help pay for the costs of advanced planning, the City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee. This fee is permissible, and utilized by a number of cities to enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning. Recommendation #100: The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated to advanced planning. Recommendation #101: The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a surcharge to its building permits. 8. THE SENIOR PLANNERS SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS LEAD PROFESSIONALS IN THE PLANNING DIVISION. In evaluating the current plan of organization for the Planning Division in comparison to the principles noted above, a number of issues are apparent. These issues, presented as advantages and disadvantages, are presented in the table below. Matrix Consulting Group Page 96 163 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Advantages Disadvantages • The current structure provides clear lines of The lines of accountability and functional accountability, but at the City Planner level. cohesion are muddled in regards to the • The current approach to organizing long -range provision of advanced planning and current planning and current planning promotes planning below the level of City Planner. resource sharing, scalability (ability to manage The spans of control are too narrow for the peaks and valleys), and adaptability (cross Senior Planners if the Senior Planners are to functional capability) since staff can be utilized be utilized as first -line supervisors. for both advanced planning and current The "handoffs" for advanced planning projects planning. can be a problem given the absence of staff • The spans of control for the City Planner are dedicated to this function. reasonable, and not too broad. The current structure impedes workload management, resource sharing, scalability, and adaptability since different Senior Planners are responsible for current and for advanced planning. • The current structure does not aid performance management, quality control checks, and consistency of policy /procedure application since different Senior Planners are responsible for current and for advanced planning. • The current structure impedes the sharing of knowledge and understanding due to the lack of lead workers. The current plan of organization clearly offers a number of advantages. The current plan of organization has worked for the Division. However, the current plan of organization has a number of issues associated with it as noted previously. The Matrix Consulting Group recommends a modified plan of organization for the Division that provides for career growth for the Senior Planners by utilizing these three Senior Planners as lead professionals for distinct services within the Division. Important points to note regarding the proposed role of the Senior Planners are presented below. • The City Planner would continue as the division -head for the Planning Division. • The Three Senior Planners would be responsible for taking the lead a distinct function. One of the Senior Planners should take the lead for Current Planning, the other should take the lead for Advanced Planning, and the third for CEQA. These three Senior Planners would be the lead practitioners in these areas. Matrix Consulting Group Page 97 164 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • In this role, the Senior Planner would be responsible for being a lead professional for a team of other professionals. This team could include Assistant and Associate Planners or staff from other divisions, as appropriate. These three Senior Planner positions should be trained and utilized as lead professionals. Recommendation #102: The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead professionals within the Planning Division. This role should be clarified in a written division policy and procedure. 9. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION SHOULD UPDATE THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN. The stormwater master plan was prepared in the 1980's. Master plans typically have a 20 -year life span at the maximum given changes in the regulatory environment and the implementation of the capital projects contained in the master plan. The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master plan in the next two years using a consulting engineering firm. The pricing in this economic environment should be advantageous to the City. Recommendation #103: The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master plan in the next two years using a consulting engineering firm. 10. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO AVOID CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS IN THE EARLY MORNING. A number of different types of planning permits require the consideration and decision of the City Council. This includes such types of permits as conditional use permits and variances. The project team, in studying the permit process, also reviewed the decision- making process. A review of this process found that the decisions made by the City Council sometimes occur in the early morning. This is unusual and not commonly found Matrix Consulting Group Page 98 165 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process in Cupertino's peer cities. The decisions made in the early morning by the City Council defeat the purpose of public hearings since few members of the public can afford to participate in the public process in the early morning. The Mayor and the City Manager should develop alternatives for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings after a certain hour in the evening such as 11 pm. Implementation of these alternatives would enable viable public comment and participation. Recommendation #104: The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. Matrix Consulting Group Page 99 166 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 7. ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE This section presents an analysis of the Planning Commission and staff interactions with the Commission, as well as approaches that could be utilized by the Community Development Department to enhance the effectiveness of the operations and planning efforts of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee. The Planning Commission is appointed by the City Council and is designed to review and make recommendations on major planning permits and to provide feedback and review of changes to enabling legislation affecting the planning process. The Design Review Commission is a subset of the Planning Commission and includes members of the Planning Commission acting on behalf of the full Commission. 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SHOULD CONDUCT AN ANNUAL RETREAT WITH STAFF. The staff of the Community Development Department Planning Division should conduct a retreat with the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee annually. The purpose of the retreats is to enable the Commission and Committee to get away from the ordinary routine and discuss strategic issues such as the annual work program, for example. One city's annual retreat agenda for its Planning Commission consisted of the following: • The Commissions' role in implementing City Council policy; • Review of variances and planned unit developments zoning regulations; and • The code enforcement process, coordination with Planning and case studies. Other cities utilize these annual retreats to discuss zoning regulations, the Matrix Consulting Group Page 100 167 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process grounds upon which applications can be denied, future planning efforts and developing issues, transportation issues, housing policy, etc. It is important to keep the commission fully aware of changing requirement, trends in the industry, and specific challenges that may be faced in the coming year. Similar topics should be covered with the Design Review Committee to ensure a clear vision and the development of an agreed upon annual work program that is in conformance with the adopted City Council policy goals. Managerial and supervisory staff of the Planning Division should participate in this annual retreat with the Commission and Committee. An important part of the annual retreat is to define the relationship between the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee and the staff of the Planning Division. This includes the expectations the two entities have of staff and, similarly, what expectations staff has of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. Without discussing the expectations each has of the other, misunderstandings can result. This, in turn, can lead to publicly aired disagreements on critical planning issues that reflect poorly on the City as a whole. To enhance the working relationships between the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Planning Division should conduct joint retreat sessions with the Planning Commission and the City Council annually. The purpose of these joint work sessions is to discuss matters involving planning, land use, and community change management issues. To avoid being haphazard and disjointed, an agenda should be developed by the Department and followed through the retreat to ensure an orderly and comprehensive session. Matrix Consulting Group Page 101 .: CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The Planning Division should designate one individual, such as the City Planner, to serve as the facilitator to keep this annual retreat on track, develop the agenda, coordinate the meeting, and conclude the retreat by developing an agreed upon list of actions or next steps. Recommendation #105: The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats with staff. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONDUCT A JOINT MEETING EACH YEAR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. It is extremely critical for the effective implementation of the general plan and the zoning regulations that the City Council and the Planning Commission speak from the same basis on a common vision for the city and development activities. The Commission and the City Council need to discuss their expectations of each other. Regular meetings, not less than once annually, keep lines of communication open between the bodies, preventing rifts and misunderstandings. The Planning Commission functions as an extension of the City Council in implementing land development within the City of Cupertino. It is critical that all entities are proceeding in their review and approval (or denial) with a common vision and understanding of what is trying to be achieved. In addition, these meetings are a good time to discuss potential changes (at a high level) in the Zoning Ordinance utilized by the City. This session can include a joint visioning exercise between the Planning Commission and the City Council to provide guidance to staff in making changes in the enabling ordinances and setting work priorities for the coming year. By conducting this joint visioning exercise for the updating of the zoning ordinance (and the design review regulations), listening to ideas Matrix Consulting Group Page 102 169 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (and complaints) about a range of neighborhood and citywide issues, the City Council and these two Commissions can provide early input and direction to these critical policy documents, to assure the document incorporates the important perspectives and concerns of all interested parties and present a common vision for the future of Cupertino. This will reduce the chances of being "blind- sided" by critical comments at the end of the process or the City Council and the Commissions proceeding in different directions. Recommendation #106: The City Council and the Planning Commission should conduct joint meetings at least annually. Recommendation #107: The City Council and Planning Commission should conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of any updating of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. COMMISSION MEMBERS SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONGOING ANNUAL TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES. The Planning Division should provide members of the Planning Commission with ongoing training. This issue is so important that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee have passed legislation in the past few years that mandates orientation for new Planning Commissioners and continuing education for these commissioners (as well as staff). This training ensures that members serving on this critical commission are provided a common base of knowledge of the planning profession and the enabling ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Cupertino. The ongoing training that should be provided by the Planning Division to commission members should include such topics as the following: • The legal basis for the Commission; • The duties, roles and responsibilities of the Commission, including the kinds of decisions that the Commission makes, and the required legal basis for making Matrix Consulting Group Page 103 170 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process those decisions; • The structure and staffing of the Planning Division, and the duties, roles and responsibilities of staff; • Recent significant issues, significant applications, and advanced planning program initiatives that the Commission and City Council have considered; • The comprehensive plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and any design guidelines that have been developed by the City, and the overall planning and land use framework; • The bylaws of the Commission and the City Council, meeting management and procedures; • Public participation, both in terms of noticing and at Commission and City Council meetings; • Environmental regulations and environmental issues; • Sources of funding for the Planning Division and the most recent adopted annual budget for the division — both revenues and expenditures; • The most recent advanced planning work program adopted by the City Council; and • Publications available from the Planning Division. In addition, each member of the Planning Commission should be provided with membership in the American Planning Association. The American Planning Association provides information specifically for Planning Commissioners including a Commissioner newsletter, a CD -ROM and video training package series for planning commissioners, audio training packages, a planning commissioner training resource center, a planners book service and a series of retreats at the annual American Planning Association annual conference, the monthly Planning magazine, and other relevant material. This membership is available at a discounted rate for planning board members. Recommendation #108: Planning Commission members should be provided with ongoing training of no less than four hours a year. Matrix Consulting Group Page 104 171 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation #109: The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be provided with membership in the American Planning Association. 4. AN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED THE CITY COUNCIL. As part of ensuring ongoing communications and interaction, the City Planning Commission, with the assistance of staff from the Planning Division, should prepare an annual report. This report should be formally submitted to the City Council. The report should outline the activities performed by the Planning Commission including information such as: • Workload data, including the number of cases processed and summaries of the outcome; • Major issues faced during the year; and • Identification of potential areas for future revision in the enabling ordinances (drawn from both cases where the commission had difficulty in applying it during the prior year, or from areas identified as potentially conflicting or problematic). This report should be reviewed during the annual meeting held between the City Council and the Planning Commission. Recommendation #110: The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report summarizing their activities and submit it to the City Council. 5. THE CITY SHOULD TAKE A NUMBER OF STEPS TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. It is clear from a review of agendas and minutes of the Planning Commission that these meetings are lengthy. The Planning Division should work with the Chairperson of the Commission to develop and implement steps to reduce the length of these meetings. The recommendations of the Matrix Consulting Group to address this challenge are presented below. Matrix Consulting Group Page 105 172 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Clarify the Responsibility of the Chairperson To Manage Commission Meetings. The clarification of the responsibility of the chairperson should include presiding over all commission deliberations and having the authority to preserve order, enforcing rules of the commission, assuring commission meetings are conducted in accordance with commission bylaws, and determining the commission order of business. The bylaws should clarify that one of the main duties of the chairperson is to preside over meetings of commission and ensure these meetings are well -run, prompt, that its membership is respectful of each other and staff, that these meetings do not consistently end at the early hours of the morning, and a pleasant atmosphere exists at these meetings. The role and responsibility of the chairperson should include monitoring Commissioner comments to assure these comments are pertinent to the matter and concise, that Commissioners avoid issues that it cannot use to base its decisions, and provide direction to the public about what issues are germane to the Commission. Recommendation #111: Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to manage Commission meetings. • Amend Planning Commission Bylaws To Reduce the Amount of Time Available to Public Speakers to the Same Amount As Provided by the City Council. The amount of time provided for applicants, appellants, and the public should be the same for the Planning Commission as the public. The issues considered by the City Council are equally as serious and complex as those before the Planning Commission. The amount of time provided for public speakers by both bodies should be the same. Recommendation #112: Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce the amount of time available to public speakers to the same amount as that provided at City Council meetings. Matrix Consulting Group Page 106 173 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process APPENDIX 1 - PROFILE This section of the profile provides organizational and operational information for the resources allocated to the City permit process, including the Administrative, Planning, Economic Development and Housing, and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department, and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. The information in this profile is based upon interviews conducted with Division personnel, collection of workload statistics from various information management systems, and review of budget and other documentation, and is organized as follows: • Administrative Division; • Planning Division; • Economic Development and Housing Division; • Building Division; and • Public Works Engineering Division. For each of these areas, the project team provides the organizational structures, the key roles and responsibilities of staff involved in the permit process, and a summary of workload and service levels where available. 1. THE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 6 POSITIONS. The Administrative Services provides overall direction to the Community Development Department and general administrative support to the department's other divisions (the Planning Division, Economic Development and Housing Division, and the Building Division). Its activities include staff support to top and mid -level management, and the Planning Commission, Design Review Commission, Environmental Review Matrix Consulting Group Page 107 174 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Commission, and the Housing Commission. It is involved in the overall direction and coordination of department's different programs and work processes. The Division accomplishes a number of ongoing tasks including the following: • Provides overall support to the department in the areas of budget management, purchasing and personnel recruitments; • Monitors contracts and payments for professional consultants (such as Arborist, Architectural Advisor, and Geologist) hired by the department; and • Oversees and monitors work plan items of the department's different programs including completion of the annual work plan items adopted by the City Council. The fiscal year 2008 / 09 work plan adopted by the City Council included the following projects and tasks related to the Community Development Department. • Major Developments: Periodic updates and analysis regarding major development projects including: Cupertino Square, HP Property, The Oaks, Rose Bowl, North Vallco Parkway Retail, and California Pizza Kitchen. • E- Services: Implementation of enhanced E- Services including online building permitting and inspection scheduling, on -line issuance of basic permitting functions, and redesign of website. • Housing: Implement various affordable housing efforts including: develop and encourage development of housing opportunities for Cupertino workers, creation of a teacher housing assistance program, and implementation of Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing. • Economic Development / Redevelopment: Several Council priorities were established including: - Encourage, retain and support health environment for retail growth. - Consider retail in reviewing new developments. • Planning: Specific projects adopted by the City Council as priorities in the Planning area included: - Review the Heart of the City plan. - Development of Green Building Standards. Matrix Consulting Group Page 108 175 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process - Preparation of Historic Preservation Policy. - Develop policy for tree topping under property maintenance standards. - Place sign code review on Planning Commission work program. - Update of General Plan Housing Element The plan of organization for the Administration Division is presented in the first exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized 6 full -time equivalent positions. The number of staff by classification is presented in the table below. Class Title Number of Authorized Positions Director of Community Development 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Senior Office Assistant 2 Administrative Clerk 2 The roles and responsibilities of the staff assigned to this Division are presented in the second exhibit at the end of this chapter. The following table outlines the overall budget, by division, for the Community Development Department. As noted in the chart above, the overall budget for the Community Development Department has increased only 1.1 % over the last four years. A review of the budget detail shows that the major areas of change during this time period are the amount of funds allocated for contractual services and special projects. Matrix Consulting Group Page 109 176 % Change 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 05/06 to Actual Actual Adopted Adopted 08/09 Administration $209,148 $194,606 $211,184 $265,068 26.7% Planning $1,024,561 $1,166,623 $1,674,265 $1,750,428 70.8% Housing $1,394,794 $375,568 $555,828 $740,553 -46.9% Building $2,438,731 $2,230,732 $2,107,466 $2,365,653 -3.0% TOTAL r $5,067,234 $3,967,529 $4,548,743 $5,121,702 1.1 As noted in the chart above, the overall budget for the Community Development Department has increased only 1.1 % over the last four years. A review of the budget detail shows that the major areas of change during this time period are the amount of funds allocated for contractual services and special projects. Matrix Consulting Group Page 109 176 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 2. THE PLANNING DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 5.5 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING POSITIONS. The Planning Division is responsible for long -range planning and current planning. The plan of organization for the Planning Division is presented in the third exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized 5.5 full -time equivalent professional planning positions. One of these positions — A Senior Planner - is vacant; a temporary Assistant Planner position has been authorized. Important points to note concerning the plan of organization are presented below. • The Planning Division is organized in one section. All planners carry both an advanced planning and a current planning workload. Senior Planner typically are assigned those projects that are more complex, have unique characteristics, or are otherwise more difficult. The Assistant and Associate Planners handle more routine applications. • The City Planner serves as the division -head for the Planning Division, and reports to the Community Development Director. The City Planner provides overall guidance to the Division, supervises all staff of the division, and is responsible for assigning applications to staff planners. • The Associate Planner is shared between the Planning Division and the Economic Development and Housing Division. • The Planning Intern works 24 hours per week and is responsible for handling counter functions, processing of simple planning applications, and special projects as assigned. • Daily counter / phone duties are shared between two planners. • The authorized Planning Division staffing is presented in the table below. Class Title Number of Authorized Positions Number of Vacant Positions City Planner 1.0 0 Senior Planner 3.0 1 Associate Planner 0.5 0 Assistant Planner 1.0 0 Assistant Planner - Temporary 1.0 TOTAL 6.5 1 The table shows 6.5 positions; one of these 6.5 positions is a 1.0 temporary Assistant Planner. Matrix Consulting Group Page 110 177 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The roles and responsibilities of the staff assigned to the Planning Division are presented in the fourth exhibit at the end of this chapter. The fifth exhibit presented at the end of this chapter presents the workload for the Planning Division, while the sixth exhibit presents service levels and other important operational characteristics for the Planning Division. The Planning Division supports three commissions: the Planning Commission, the Design Review Commission (a subset of the Planning Commission) and the Environmental Review Commission. The make up and roles of the Commissions are presented in the paragraphs below. • Planning Commission. The Planning Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council to carry out a variety of assigned and delegated functions. State law sets out the major areas over which the Planning Commission has authority, either as a decision - making or advisory body to the City Council. The Commission is responsible for recommending various development policies to the City Council, and once adopted in the form of the City's General Plan or other ordinances (such as sign ordinance), for reviewing development applications for their conformance to the adopted plans and policies. The Commission acts as an advisory body to the City Council on applications for subdivision of land, and the approval or denial of tentative parcel maps (four parcels or greater) and, making recommendations to the City Council on a variety of discretionary development applications (Conditional Use Permits, Development Plan Review Permits, etc.), variances from the zoning regulations and for the environmental assessment of such applications, as proscribed by law or municipal ordinance. • Design Review Committee. The Design Review Commission consists of the Planning Commission Vice -Chair and one additional Planning Commission member appointed by the Planning Commission. An alternate member is designed in the absence of the Planning Commission member and is also selected by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Committee is charged with reducing the Planning Commission's workload by addressing design review responsibilities and incorporating professional architectural advice into the process. • Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Commission consists of the following members: one City council person, one Planning Matrix Consulting Group Page 111 178 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Commission, the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development (or their designated alternatives). The Chair of the Committee may appoint one at -large nonvoting citizen member to the committee. The Environmental Review Commission is responsible for reviewing all discretionary projects, not otherwise exempted from environmental assessment, for evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Committee will evaluate the initial study of a project to determine whether the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 3. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DIVISION IS AUTHORIZED 2.5 EMPLOYEES. The Economic Development and Redevelopment Division is responsible for managing the City's overall economic development efforts (including business attraction, retention and assistance), CDBG administration, housing programs and related services. Primary goals related to housing include: • Encourage a balanced community by improving local availability of affordable housing opportunities; and • Maintain existing housing through correction of housing deficiencies and building code violations. • Prepare updates or modifications to the Housing Element of the General Plan when necessary. • Prepare and submit approved Consolidated Plan to HUD. • Coordinate the Request for Proposals process for CDBG funds and Affordable Housing Funds annually. Present CDBG proposals to the Housing Commission for their recommendation to the City Council. • Develop and monitor contracts with all CDBG sub - recipients on a quarterly basis. • Present funding applications and coordinate meetings of the Cupertino Housing Commission. Conduct quarterly monitoring of housing program accounts and affordable housing loan / rent payments to the Affordable Housing Fund. Work with local developers to encourage development of 30 affordable housing units. • Monitor existing Housing Rehabilitation Program loan collections, payoffs, foreclosures and program income for a $100,000 loan portfolio. • Facilitate Mortgage Credit Certificate funding in the amount of $100,000. Matrix Consulting Group Page 112 179 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Work with school district to provide teacher housing opportunities. The plan of organization for the Economic Development and Housing Division is presented in the seventh exhibit at the end of this chapter. The Division is authorized 2.5 full -time equivalent positions. Important points to note concerning the plan of organization are presented below. • The Division is managed by the Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager. • One staff member, the Senior Planner CDBG, is responsible for administration and oversight of all CDBG, public service and housing programs. • The Division shares an Associate Planner with the Planning Division. While staffing is shown as split 50% between the two Divisions, current planning functions take priority over non - planning activities. • The authorized Economic Development and Housing Division staffing is presented in the table below. Class Title Number of Authorized Positions Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager 1 Senior Planner CDBG 1 Associate Planner .5 TOTAL 2.5 The eighth exhibit at the end of this chapter presents the roles and responsibilities of the staff of the Division. 3. THE BUILDING DIVISION IS ALLOCATED 10.0 FULL -TIME EQUIVALENTS The Building Division safeguards the health and safety of residents, workers, and visitors to the City of Cupertino through the administration and enforcement of building codes and ordinances adopted by the City, by providing field inspections and plan checking, and overall regulating the design, construction, use, occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The Division service objectives include: Matrix Consulting Group Page 113 :1 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • Assist customers in meeting their deadlines and objectives • Increase the knowledge of staff through in -house training, meetings, and seminars. • Provide useful and informative data on the City's website. The plan of organization for the Building Division is presented at the end of this profile. The Division is authorized 10.0 full -time equivalent positions. Important points to note concerning the plan of organization are presented below. • The personnel of the Division are primarily organized within building inspections and plan checking. • The authorized Building Division staffing is presented in the table below: Class Title Number of Authorized Positions Building Official 1 Senior Building Inspector 1 Building Inspector 6 Plan Check Engineer 1 Counter Technician 1 • The Building Official is the overall manager of the Division, providing general guidance and leadership and represents the Division in meetings with elected City officials, executives, and the community. • The administrative support is responsible for routing plans and entering data regarding permit applications and inspections into the computer application. • The Building Inspection section is responsible for conducting required field inspections at various points of residential and commercial building projects, address citizen complaints, enforce building codes, conduct community education, etc. • The Plan Check section is responsible for reviewing residential and commercial building, remodel, and tenant improvement plans for conformance to State and Municipal building codes. The key roles and responsibilities of the personnel assigned to the Building Division are presented in an exhibit at the end of this profile. Other exhibits for the Division presents service level information. Matrix Consulting Group Page 114 181 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 4. THE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ALLOCATES APPROXIMATELY 1.25 FULL -TIME EQUIVALENTS TO THE PERMIT PROCESS The Public Works Engineering Division reviews plans for private residential and commercial developments to ensure conformance with City standards. Public Works Engineering staff involved in the permit process are co- located with the Community Development Department personnel (within the same office space) with the following positions providing some level of involvement in the building permit approval process: • The Assistant Director of Public Works oversees the review of building and discretionary permits (encroachment, grading, etc.), commercial development, land division, single family dwelling, room additions, etc., including those projects which impact the right of way and on additions resulting in 25% or more square footage • An Engineering Technician is routed the plans from the Building Division and enters the information into an excel spreadsheet for tracking purposes. This position will route to an engineer for review. • Engineer positions provide all the permit review (1 position is dedicated, 1 other position to a much lesser extent), processing the drawings, conducting site visits utilizing field checklists, reviewing plans, spending time with developers and owners to make sure public works issues are being addressed. For the past three months, the Engineer Division conducted approximately 159 plan checks for permits. Annualized, the Public Works Engineering Division conducts plan reviews routed from Community Development for approximately 636 permits (or 53 per week). Matrix Consulting Group Page 115 :. CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 2 Plan of Organization of the Administration Division Director (1) Planning Division City Planner (1) Economic Development & Housing Division Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager (1) Building Division Building Official (1) Administrative Services Division Administrative Assistant (1) Administrative Clerk (2) Senior Office Assistant (2) Matrix Consulting Group Page 116 183 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 3 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Administrative Division Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Community 1.0 • Supervises the City Planner, Building Official, Economic Development Director Development/Redevelopment Manager, and the Administrative Assistant. • Represent the City in development and land use matters. • Plans, organizes, controls, and evaluates the work activities of the Community Development Department. • Research, analyze and recommend policies for development and land use matters. • Implements and monitors long -term plans, goals and objectives focused on achieving the Department's mission and City Council priorities and annual workplan. • Directs the development of and monitors performance against the annual department budget. • Participate in numerous public meetings including City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings. • Oversees the development, implementation and evaluation of plans, policies, systems and procedures to achieve the Department's goals, objectives and work standards • Provides leadership to develop and retain highly competent, service- oriented staff through selection, training and day -to- day management practices that support the Department's mission and values Administrative 1.0 • Reports to the Community Development Director. Assistant • Assists the Community Development Director by providing administrative and technical support in the planning, direction and operation of the department. • Serves as Office Manager and supervisor for all Administrative support staff. Assigns, prioritizes and evaluates work efforts of assigned staff. • Oversees departmental records retention program. • Assists with department budget development and ongoing administration and monitoring of budget. • Performs all accounts payable and payroll functions for the Department. • Manages on -going and project specific contracts for external consultants and resources (i.e. - architectural /design consultant, arborist resources, geologist/soils consultant, traffic consultant, and environmental assessments. • Handles bond processing, recordkeeping and tracking. • Manages Planning Commission agenda process including drafting Director's report. • Drafts Development Activity Report. • Oversees and updates departmental website. • Serves as project manager for eGov implementation. Matrix Consulting Group Page 117 ., CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 3 (2) Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Senior Office Assistant 2.0 Provides back up support to administrative staff assigned to the Planning Division, including the front lobby counter to help with minor questions about plan check, issue permits and collect fee balances. • Processing the plan checks, including data entry, checking for fees, routing them to different departments based on scope off work, filing the charts, etc.) • Other general administrative duties include filing, scanning and microfilming, printing out the daily schedule, handling phone calls, and consensus reports. • One Sr. Office Assistant assigned to serve as receptionist / front counter staff. • Enters applications into permitting software, accepts and processes permit payments, and issues receipt to applicant. • Answers incoming calls and walk -ins and directs to appropriate division / staff member. • Conducts research of permits as requested. Administrative Clerk 1.0 • Reports to the Administrative Assistant. • Provides administrative support to Planning staff including preparation and distribution of agenda packets for Planning Commission (PC), Design Review Commission (DRC), and Environmental Review Commission (ERC). • Prepares minutes of DRC and ERC meetings. • Handles noticing of property owners within applicable radius for planning applications. • Assists in entering new planning applications into Planning Database. • Coordinates efforts between IT and Pentamation on implementation of planning module and e- services. • Responsible for developing reports from data maintained in Pentamation utilizing Cognos. • Oversees records storage and retention efforts of Community Development Department. • Performs application and permit electronic filing program including indexing and organizing of microfilm that has been converted to electronic format. Conducts scanning of records. • Maintains all planning application files (paper copies). • Provides backup for issuance of building permits. Matrix Consulting Group Page 118 185 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 3 (3) Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Administrative Clerk 1.0 Takes phone calls regarding inspection requests and schedules inspections in Pentamation. • Processing the incoming and outgoing plan checks, including entering the permit information into Pentamation (permit number, intake date, due date, department route, etc.). • Delivering documents to planners and the respective Departments, including Public Works, Fire, and Sanitation • Processing address changes and sending out letters to the affected agencies (Assessor's Office, utilities, school districts, etc.) of the change, and sending out letters for expired permits • Printing out the master inspection log report on a daily basis and updating it to include the assigned inspector and time of inspection. • Entering into Pentamation the field inspection results and comments, if any. • Other general administrative duties such as ordering supplies, handing customer phone calls, handling the Quarterly Construction Tax report, etc. • Answers phones and assists callers directly or by transferring them to appropriate staff member. Matrix Consulting Group Page 119 :. CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 4 Plan of Organization of the Planning Division Senior Planner (3) (1 vacant) Planning Intern (0.5 - part -time) City Planner (1) Assistant Planner (2) (1 budgeted; 1 temporary) Associate Planner (5) Matrix Consulting Group Page 120 187 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 5 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Planning Division Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities City Planner 1.0 Manages the Planning Division including supervision of all planning staff (6.1 full time equivalents). • Ensures current planning operations meet all federal, state, and local rules and regulations for processing times, public disclosure, compliance with codes, environmental assessments, etc. • Coordinates divisions efforts with other agencies (including Fire and Health) and adjoining communities. • Maintains a small current planning workload as necessary. • Reviews all work of assigned staff including staff reports, administrative approvals, etc. • Responsible for case assignments to planners. • Drafts policies and procedures related to current and advanced planning and ensures the adherence of the Division to adopted policies and procedures. • Develops goals and objectives for the Division, and monitors performance. • One Senior Planner supervises work efforts of the contracted Assistant Planner and the Planning Intern. Senior Planner 3.0 Reports to City Planner. (1 vacant) Carry both a current planning and advanced planning workload. Generally assigned more complex current planning projects. • Conducts zoning studies; analyzes land use issues; recommends resolutions to land use problems; directs proposed ordinances through review process. • Reviews assigned planning applications to ensure compliance with General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, and City Development Standards. Ensures appropriate environmental reviews are conducted. • Serves as case manager for planning applications and coordinates review with other departments and external agencies. Prepares staff reports to Planning Commission and City Council for assigned projects. • Coordinates development review meetings with reviewing departments /agencies and applicants. • Assists with development of special and specific plans. • Perform building permit plan checks for zoning compliance. • Manages, supervises or prepares reports for special planning projects and studies. • Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon complaints received. Conducts investigations and works with residents to reach compliance. Matrix Consulting Group Page 121 Im CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 5 (2) Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Associate Planner 0.5 Reports jointly to City Planner and Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager. • Has assigned counter duty in rotation with other City planners. • Assigned both a current and advanced planning case load. • Current planning work activities include review and processing of applications for single family applications, building permit plan check approvals (for zoning compliance), basic residential and non - residential applications. • Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon complaints received. Conducts investigations and works with residents to reach compliance. • Conducts tree removal permit reviews — conducts site visits and coordinates with arborist to determine appropriateness of request. Assistant Planner 2.0 Reports to one of the Senior Planners. (1 budgeted; 1 Assigned to counter duty schedule in rotation with other unbudgeted and Planners. temporary) Provides information and guidance to applicants submitting a variety of projects including: small residential, 2 nd story additions, processing of covenants, and building permit plan checks (zoning compliance), • Ensures applications meet City codes and requirements including compliance with Zoning Ordinance and standard conditions of approval. Where required develops staff reports, issuance of public notices, and development of staff recommendation for approval /denial. • Developing Historical Ordinance for consideration by the City Council. • Handles zoning code enforcement cases based upon complaints received. Conducts investigations and works with residents to reach compliance. Matrix Consulting Group Page 122 :• CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 6 Workload For the Planning Division Application Workload By Type of Application / Permit Application Type 2006 2007 2008 Architectural Site Approval 25 19 9 City Project Applications 3 4 2 Development Agreements 0 0 0 Director's Minor Modifications / Temporary Use Permits 36 38 37 Environmental Assessments 20 10 10 Exceptions 14 11 17 General Plan Amendments 0 0 1 Interpretations 0 1 0 Minor Residential Permit 38 34 37 Modified /Amended 7 3 5 Municipal Code Amendment 3 1 4 R -1 Design Review 62 44 32 Specific Plan Amendments 1 0 1 Tentative Map 12 12 2 Tree Removal Permit 17 14 16 Use Permit 14 11 4 Variance 2 3 1 Zoning 6 0 1 TOTAL 260 205 179 Application Workload Sorted by Approval Level Applications by Approval Level 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 (6 months) Planning Commission Application (INT, M, TM, V) 26 8 6 City Council Applications (CP, GP, MCA, SPA, TR, U, Z 34 32 16 Design Review Committee Applications ASA, EXC 45 29 7 Staff Level (DIR, R, RM) 160 100 45 Environmental Assessments 12 8 4 TOTAL 277 177 78 Matrix Consulting Group Page 123 190 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 7 Service Levels For the Planning Division Characteristic Description Hours of Operation and Schedule Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Office closed from Noon to 1:00 p.m. daily. • Individual work hours for each Planner varies. Some staff are on AWP schedule which includes every other Friday off and others are on a traditional work schedule. Starting and ending times vary to provide office and counter coverage. Coverage Area For all processing of discretionary and administrative permit applications assuring the applications meet the requirements of the general plan and the zoning ordinance. • Staff provide support to Planning Commission, Environmental Review Commission, and Design Review Commission. • All planners have assigned counter duty shifts. Counter service is provided in two shifts: 7:30 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:30. Planners have pagers so they do not remain at counter unless customer is present. • Responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any Specific or Area Plans. • Specific and Master Plans overseen include: - Heart of the City Specific Plan - N. De Anza Blvd. Specific Plan - South Vallco Master Plan - North Vallco Master Plan - Wireless Facilities Master Plan Training and Certification The planning series classification descriptions do not require AICP certification. • There are three AICP certified members on staff. Codes Administered and Enforced General Plan • Zoning ordinance • Sign Ordinance • Subdivision Map Act • California Environmental Quality Act Matrix Consulting Group Page 124 191 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 8 Plan of Organization of the Economic Development and Housing Division Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager (1) Associate Planner Senior Planner CDBG (.5) (1) Matrix Consulting Group Page 125 192 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 9 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division Position Number of Positions Description of Responsibilities Economic 1.0 Reports to the Director of Community Development. Development / Directly supervises the Senior Planner CDBG and Redevelopment Associate Planner (half time assignment). Manager Oversees the City's economic development and redevelopment activities including recruitment/retention efforts, identification of available space for business locations /relocations. • Maintains, compiles and /or analyzes data regarding community demographics. • Oversees City TIF district. • Serves as liaison with variety of organizations and committees including Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Committee. • Conducts City branding /marketing efforts. • Develops various publications and brochures including Restaurant Guide. • Develops and maintains redevelopment plan for the City. • Oversees City's CDBG and housing programs. • Drafts / updates relevant sections of General Plan and assists with development of specific plans (i.e. — Heart of the City Plan). Senior Planner CDBG 1.0 Reports to Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager. • Oversees the City's CDBG program (including public service grant allocations); assisting with development of staff recommendation to CDBG Committee for action and recommendation to City Council. • Serves as staff liaison to Housing Commission. • Performs all grant administration functions and sub - recipient monitoring for allocated funds. • Oversees and coordinates funds allocated to affordable housing received from Housing Mitigation fee charged on new developments. • Enters required data into HUD's IDIS system and prepared requests for fund drawdowns. • Responsible for development of Housing Element of the General plan. Coordinates and oversees efforts of consultant. Matrix Consulting Group Page 126 193 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 9 (2) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff of the Economic Development and Housing Division Associate Planner 0.5 Reports to both City Planner and Economic Development / Redevelopment Manager. • Prepares economic data and analysis to support Economic Development efforts. • Conducts data analysis on sales tax receipts generated — restaurant program. • Works on special projects as assigned (i.e. — preferred caterer list). • Develops a variety of reports and brochures as requested to support programs and efforts of the Division. Dining guide is one recent example. Matrix Consulting Group Page 127 194 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 10 Plan of Organization of the Building Division ,s 0, ... * ._ -a..- � Y Matrix Consulting Group Page 128 195 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 11 (1) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff Of the Building Division Position Number of Description of Responsibilities Positions Building Division Administration Building Official 1.0 Serves as Chief Building Code Official for the City of Cupertino. • Oversees operation of the Building Division including performance of the building inspectors, plan check staff, and permit processing. • Develops and monitors the budget for the Division. • Conducts selective plan reviews for complex, high - profile or otherwise difficult projects. • Assigns, evaluates and monitors work activities of assigned staff. • Responsible for making all final City decisions regarding code applica bilit , approval of alternative methods /materials, etc. Building Inspection Senior Building 1.0 Reports to the Building Official. Inspector Conducts inspections on complex, sensitive or problematic projects. • Serves as working supervisor for Field Inspectors and counter plan check personnel. Assigns and evaluates work activities. • Prepares daily inspection schedule and assignment of inspections to inspectors. • Conducts non - structural building permit plan checks (tenant improvements, small additions with conventional framing). • Handles some code interpretation issues. • Handles customer complaints. Matrix Consulting Group Page 129 196 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 11 (2) Roles and Responsibilities of the Staff Of the Building Division Building Inspector 6.0 Primary responsibility is conducting inspections for projects at various stages requiring a building permit (construction and remodels) that affect a structure's electrical, plumbing, and / or mechanical systems, including initial inspection and any necessary follow up for re- inspections, writing correction notices, issuing permits, etc. • Responding to citizen complaints and addressing building code violations (including those resulting from proactive enforcement). • Answering questions and providing education to developers, contractors, architects and the general community regarding building and development, including non -point source environmental initiatives, etc. • 1 position is assigned to the front counter and is responsible for the intake, review, routing and / or approval of over -the- counter plan checks, express plan checks, standard plan checks, and large/major projects. Plan Check Plan Check Engineer 1.0 Primary responsibility is reviewing building plans for small (remodels, minor additions), mid -size (larger additions, significant remodels), and large (major tenant improvements, new homes) projects. • Verifying that plans for construction or alteration to commercial, residential, and industrial structures comply with State and municipal codes and ordinances. • Works with architects, engineers, and contractors to address questions and issues regarding structural design, zoning, grading, energy standards, etc. • Other duties include checking plans over the counter for smaller rojects and attending development meetings. Counter Technician 1.0 This position is vacant. Matrix Consulting Group Page 130 197 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 12 (1) Service Levels for the Building Division Characteristic Description Hours of Operation and Schedule Counter operation is open between 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM (closed between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM) • Building inspections may be scheduled between the hours of 7:30 AM to 12:00 PM, and from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM by phone, with customers given a 2 -hour window. • To schedule an inspection for the next day requires the inspection to be requested by 3:00 PM the previous day. • Inspectors provide on -call roofing inspections for tear -off and ply -wood nail and will be there within an hour. Service / Turnaround Targets Residential Plan Review Cycle Times: • Over the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes • Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (500 sq. ft. or less) within 5 business days • Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, second review within 5 working days • Large / Major Projects: apartments and subdivisions (over 10 units) is a minimum of 4 weeks. Commercial Plan Review Cycle Times: • Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30 (these are the hours when Fire Plan Reviewers are available at the counter). • Express Plan Check: medium sized projects (10,000 sq. ft. or less) within 5 working days • Standard Plan Check: initial review within 10 working days, rechecks within 5 working days • Large / Major Projects: minimum 4 weeks. Coverage Area Building Inspector work schedule is M -F from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM, and typically work schedule is as follows: - 6:30 to 7:30: plan inspection route, provide 2 -hour window to customers, etc. - 7:30 to 11:30: conduct field stops and inspections - 11:30 to 12:30: lunch - 12:30 to 4:00: conduct field stops and inspections - 4:00 to 4:30: enter and / or upload results of field inspections using the palm pilot and Pentamation • Personnel are combination inspectors and generally perform all types of inspections. • Building inspectors are not generally assigned to one of five "regions" but are reassigned, as needed, based upon workload and specific expertise. Matrix Consulting Group Page 131 .; CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Exhibit 12 (2) Characteristic Description Training and Certification Team conducts staff meetings each Tuesday from 730 — 900 for building code updates, training, etc. • Building Inspector position require an ICBO certification. Codes Administered and Enforced Latest approved by the State of California Matrix Consulting Group Page 132 199 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process APPENDIX 2 - FOCUS GROUPS As part of the management study of the permitting process, the Matrix Consulting Group conducted three focus group meetings with a representative sample of customers of the process. The purpose of the focus group meetings was to obtain development industry perceptions of Cupertino's permitting process and to assess overall customer satisfaction. Participants in the three focus groups included developers (30 %), major landowners / businesses (30 %), contractors (10 %), and professionals (e.g., architects) (30 %). Almost all of the participants had worked with Planning, Building and Public Works /Engineering; one participant had worked only with Planning. They were selected based upon their knowledge and experience with the City's permitting process. The focus groups were intended to elicit views and opinions on positive and negative aspects of relevant development service activities and to seek ideas for change that would improve and streamline the process. In considering the results, the reader must bear in mind that unlike technical research and statistics, the views expressed by individuals are subjective and may reflect personal biases. In addition, there will be conflicting perspectives between the developer, residents and businesses surrounding the proposed development, the City's permit staff. These conflicting perspectives are inevitable in a democratic society, and result in compromise. Not everyone will get everything they want, and sometimes this generates negative perspectives (i.e., developers believe staff are too regulatory; residents feel that staff are too friendly to developers). Matrix Consulting Group Page 133 200 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Nonetheless, these perspectives are important as the objective material because it is these people, with their feelings and prejudices, who establish the users' perception of the strengths and weaknesses of the process. It is not important to determine whether or not a particular response is "correct ": rather each response is accepted as a perception, recognizing that perception is reality to the person holding the perception. The reader should also be aware that although the participants were questioned on both positive and negative aspects of the process, the tendency of respondents was to dwell upon those negative aspects that they felt could be improved upon. 1. THE CUPERTINO PERMITTING PROCESS WAS VIEWED BY THE FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS AS ONE OF THE BEST IN SILICON VALLEY Overall, the response of the participants in the focus groups to the Cupertino permitting process was quite positive. Most of the participants were involved in development in many Silicon Valley cities, and they gave Cupertino high grades relative to their experiences in nearby communities. With respect to staff attitude, helpfulness, accessibility and reasonableness, the focus group participants ranked Cupertino among the top three cities, along with Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. They generally felt that Cupertino was substantially better than San Jose, Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and slightly better than Mountain View, Milpitas and Fremont. The "small town atmosphere" was cited as a Cupertino advantage. Staff members were generally available when needed, and they exhibited a friendly and positive attitude. Most participants knew staff members of all departments by name, and they appreciated the fact that, for any given project, they generally dealt with the same planner, plan checker, inspector and engineer throughout the entire process. The Matrix Consulting Group Page 134 201 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process word "excellent" was used several times in describing the attitude and professionalism of staff. The groups were nearly unanimous, however, in identifying two major problems with the Cupertino permitting process: (1) lack of an effective automated on -line permitting information system, and (2) the City's politically- charged atmosphere relative to development and growth. Participants felt that Cupertino lagged far behind adjacent jurisdictions in providing an efficient, reliable and user - friendly automated /on -line system. They cited hand - written applications, difficulties in checking the status of an application, and delays in receiving staff comments and corrections as problems that could be solved by such a system. While the politically charged atmosphere was not part and parcel of the permitting system, it is a major determinant of the overall perception of Cupertino's attitude toward development and the development industry. Participants recognized the sharp division of opinion within the community -at -large with regard to development and growth, which division was reflected within the City Council and between the Council and the Planning Commission. The result of this atmosphere for developers was less predictability, greater risk, greater frustration and unanticipated time delays. 2. PLANNING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS FRIENDLY AND HELPFUL, BUT CAUTIOUS AND SUBJECTIVE The Planning staff was complimented on its professionalism, its friendliness, and its sincere effort to be helpful. Focus group participants found planners to be generally accessible, particularly at the permit counter. Some focus group participants cited the slow response to telephone calls and a -mails as a negative factor. Matrix Consulting Group Page 135 202 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Most participants felt that planners tried to anticipate the reactions of the Planning Commission and City Council to a proposed project, and advised developers accordingly. Some felt that this advice was merely a cover to "push their own agenda." One participant noted that the "ebb and flow of public opinion" makes it nearly impossible to predict Planning Commission and City Council responses. Developers reported that they were routinely advised by planners to meet early in the process with those in the public most likely affected by the proposed project. They found this advice to be sound and the meetings with the public to be useful. Most participants saw plan review turn - around time and consistency as acceptable. Some had a sense that the plan review planner had to go back and get direction from "someone else," creating unnecessary delay and uncertainty. The overall turn - around time for processing a development application was seen as long, but not unnecessarily so given the public notice and other legal requirements built into the system. There was no sense that turn - around time in Cupertino suffered relative to other communities. On the negative side, some focus group participants felt that Cupertino planners are too rigid, exercising less of a "how can we make this work" attitude than staff of other City departments. This caution and lack of flexibility was attributed to fear that they might "get nailed politically" when they appeared before the Commission or Council if they strayed too far from a rigid interpretation of the code. On the other hand, some participants found Cupertino planners to be too subjective. This was particularly true with regard to architectural and landscape design review. The feeling was that recommendations and conditions of approval were often Matrix Consulting Group Page 136 203 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process based upon the individual planner's taste and prejudices, rather than upon sound principles of design. Required plan changes at times appear arbitrary, based upon opinion rather than upon code. Some developers stated that they are often "surprised" when they receive a copy of the staff report, because conditions of approval bear little resemblance to their prior discussions with staff. "Where is the nexus between the required plan change and the alleged negative impact ?" asked one developer. Recommended Improvements: The focus group participants offered numerous recommended improvements for Planning, more than for any other department. They are listed below in no particular order of priority. • The Planning Commission should hold public "study sessions" on potentially controversial projects well before the formal public hearing. This would expose community concerns early in the process and allow developers to anticipate the Planning Commission's major issues with the project. • In their communication with developers, planners should always emphasize facts over opinions. For instance, instead of saying "There's no way City Council will ever approve that! ", they should report the specific actions of Council on similar projects over the past year. • Planners should be careful to link a recommended plan change or condition of approval to a specific code section or Council policy, or should explain the nexus to the negative impact being addressed. • Planning managers should nurture a department culture which consistently produces the best professional recommendations as opposed to the recommendations that will most likely satisfy the Planning Commission or City Council, and be prepared to support and defend those recommendations in the public forum. • Applicants should be given the opportunity to review and comment on a draft staff report on their project before it is released to the public. This would eliminate factual errors in the report (and discussion of them at the public hearing) and allow for negotiation on conditions of approval. Matrix Consulting Group Page 137 204 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 3. BUILDING STAFF IS VIEWED AS KNOWLEDGEABLE, REASONABLE, AND EXHIBITING A PROBLEM - SOLVING ATTITUDE Focus group participants expressed a very positive perception of the Building function in Cupertino - -- "one of the best around." Building staff were seen as friendly, always accommodating, accessible, and willing to "sort through the gray areas" to come up with a reasonable solution. Participant's felt that the consistency in building plan checking has improved since plan checking was moved in- house. They appreciated the fact that the same plan checker is in charge of a particular project throughout the entire process. Plan corrections were considered to be clear and specific. Plan check turn - around time was seen to be good, although some felt that comments are delayed by a slower response time by fire prevention. Complex issues are apparently routinely referred to the Building Official for resolution. Participants seemed to respect the Building Official's rulings, but they felt that he is often too busy to render a prompt decision. There was strong consensus that the Cupertino Building staff places unusually strong emphasis on Title 24 accessibility requirements, and that the interpretation of these requirements was noticeably less flexible than interpretation of the overall building code. Inspectors were charged with enforcing Title 24 requirements, and they seemed to be overly cautious and exacting in requiring corrections. Overall, participants felt that the Building staff was too fearful of being sued over Title 24 and were therefore unwilling to take reasonable risk in interpreting the requirements. Building inspectors are generally seen to be helpful, reasonable and consistent. They almost always show up on the job when they say they will. A developer noted one Matrix Consulting Group Page 138 205 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process exception; the developer lost a whole day's work when an inspection request was apparently not properly entered into the system. It was reported that inspectors occasionally give oral direction rather than writing corrections on the inspection card. Recommended Improvements: • The Building Official should explain in detail his rulings on new and complex issues to the Building plan checkers, and delegate to them responsibility for ruling on similar issues when they arise. • Applicants should be permitted to substitute pages in approved plans when minor modifications are made, rather than be required to submit a new full set of plans. • Inspection requests should be confirmed with the contractor by e -mail to insure that the requests are properly and accurately logged into the system. 4. PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING STAFF WAS VIEWED AS PROFESSIONAL AND HELPFUL Focus group participants had limited, but largely positive comments with regard to Public Works /Engineering. They felt that the staff was knowledgeable, helpful, accessible and easy to work with. Turn - around time was good, although final resolution of some issues was often delayed by the slow response time of public utilities. Engineering codes and guidelines are consistently interpreted. One participant expressed concern that traffic engineering requirements appeared to lack sufficient nexus to the anticipated project impacts. This was likened to alleged similar subjectivity and personal bias in the recommendations of the Planning staff. Matrix Consulting Group Page 139 206 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 5. FIRE PREVENTION IS VIEWED AS FRIENDLY AND HELPFUL, BUT NOT AS FLEXIBLE AND READILY ACCESSIBLE AS CUPERTINO IN -HOUSE STAFF Cupertino contracts with Santa Clara County for provision of Fire Prevention services. Because the workload does not require a full -time plan checker, Fire Prevention staff is scheduled for limited hours at the public counter. Focus group participants felt that the limited availability of Fire Prevention staff made the Cupertino development permitting process less smooth and less expeditious than it might otherwise be. They felt that this often made it difficult for Cupertino staff to set up interdepartmental meetings to review and comment on development applications, adding delay to the process. One developer indicated that he somewhat overcame the accessibility problem by meeting with Fire Prevention staff in their Los Gatos office. None saw this as an attitude problem on the part of Fire Prevention, but merely as a scheduling problem. Fire Prevention plan check was viewed as being very consistent, and inspection was viewed to be consistent with plan check. The groups noted, however, "huge swings" in the priorities of Fire Prevention with changes in the Fire Marshall. The current Fire Marshall is a firefighter, as opposed to a codes person, and relies heavily upon his inspection staff to discover violations requiring correction. As a result, field inspection often requires changes that were not anticipated through plan check. Despite these concerns, the participants seemed quite accepting of the present Fire Prevention system, and made no specific recommendations for improvement. Matrix Consulting Group Page 140 207 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process 6. THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING PROCESS IS NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD Focus group participants had little experience in relating to Economic Development staff. Those that did had positive comments, noting ready availability, good input, and "very good at connecting the dots in the process." One developer was grateful for Economic Development's assistance in community outreach. The majority of the participants, however, did not realize that Economic Development was available to assist them navigate through the development permitting process. 7. THE CREATION OF AN EFFICIENT AND USER - FRIENDLY ON -LINE PERMIT PROCESSING AND TRACKING SYSTEM IS VIEWED AS THE SINGLE MOST NEEDEDIMPROVEMENT The focus group participants had numerous negative comments about the public counter, noting that it is "dungeon - like," "uninviting," and "with the Wizard behind the wall!" Nevertheless, none thought that modernization of the public counter should be high priority for the expenditure of limited funds. Rather, they unanimously agreed that any available resources should be directed toward the acquisition of a user - friendly on- line permit information system. When asked if they would utilize an on -line system, focus group participants responded with a resounding "absolutely!" They felt that such a system should, at a minimum, offer its public users the following on -line operations: • Permit application; • Inspection request scheduling; • Status of application within the system; and • Comments of various departments on the application as they are completed by each department (i.e., not withheld until all departments had completed their review). Matrix Consulting Group Page 141 1: CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The focus group participants felt that Cupertino lags far behind other Silicon Valley communities in not having an automated, on -line permit information system. In their opinion, this is the single most important improvement that the City could make to its development permitting process. Matrix Consulting Group Page 142 209 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process APPENDIX 3 - COMPARATIVE SURVEY This chapter presents the results of the comparative survey conducted as part of the management study of the Community Development Department. Seven cities were selected for this comparative survey. The cities are presented below. • Novato; • Dublin; • Mountain View; • Petaluma; • Palo Alto; • Pleasanton; and • San Ramon. Of the seven cities, three did not respond including Petaluma, Palo Alto, and Pleasanton. 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The table, below, presents the population and estimated geographical size (square miles) of the city for each of the four responding cities and Cupertino. City 2008 Population Estimated Size of the City Dublin 46,934 12.6 Mountain View 73,932 12.2 Novato 52,737 27.7 San Ramon 59,002 11.6 Cupertino 55,551 10.9 Important points to note concerning the data presented in the table are presented below. • The population of the cities ranged form a low of 46,934 for Dublin to a high of 73,932 for Mountain View. Matrix Consulting Group Page 143 210 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process • The geographical size of the cities ranged from a low of 10.9 square miles for Cupertino to a high of 27.7 square miles for Novato. 2. PLANNING DIVISIONS The first section of the survey asked questions regarding the planning department / division. The following sections present a summary of the information collected. (1) Staffing Levels The cities provided data concerning the number of staff authorized for advanced and current planning. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses among the comparative cities. City Staff Allocated to Advanced Planning Staff Allocated to Current Planning Dublin 1.0 6.0 Mountain View 2.0 8.0 Novato 1.5 8.5 San Ramon 1.5 2.5 Cupertino 1.0 4.5 Important points to note concerning the data contained in the table are presented below. • The number of staff allocated to advanced planning ranged from a low of 1 in Dublin to a high of 2 in Mountain View. • The number of staff allocated to current planning ranged from a low of 2.5 in San Ramon to a high of 8.5 in Novato. Overall, the cities were mixed in terms of dedicating staff to Advanced Planning on a full -time basis. Novato and Mountain View indicated that these cities dedicated staff to Advanced Planning. Dublin, San Ramon, and Cupertino did not dedicate staff to Advanced Planning. Matrix Consulting Group Page 144 211 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (3) Interdepartmental Development Review Committee The cities were asked if an interdepartmental committee is utilized to review and critique planning permit applications after submittal, the departments or divisions that participate, and how the Committee meets. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses from the cities. City Interdepartmental Divisions /Departments Meetings Committee Dublin Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire, As needed Police, Water District Mountain View Yes Engineering, Planning, Building, Fire, Once a month Urban Forest Novato Yes Planning, Building, Engineering As Needed San Ramon Yes Engineering, Transportation, Fire, Police, As Needed Building, Plannin Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, Engineerin All of the cities use an interdepartmental development review committee. The most commonly included divisions / departments were Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Building. (4) Architectural Review Board Information was requested regarding the role and responsibilities of the Architectural Review Board including whether the cities had an Architectural Review Board, whether the Board considers an application before or after the Planning Commission, and the types of applications requiring the approval of the Board. The following table presents a summary of information gathered. Matrix Consulting Group Page 145 212 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process City Architectural Before or After the Planning Considers Types of Applications (Approved or Review Board Same Application Recommended) Dublin No N/A N / A Mountain Yes Before Single family structures on lots less View than 5,000 square feet or in subdivisions with 5 or more lots, new single family and 2 family units in the R -3 zone, 2 single family dwellings on a single lot in an R 2 zone, buildings and site improvements in multi - family, commercial, and industrial districts, minor setback and FAR exceptions, etc. Novato Yes Before All commercial, office, industrial and most residential construction. San Ramon Yes Before All new construction, including signs, but excluding TI's Cupertino Yes; a sub- Before 2 -story residential development committee of with a FAR over 35% located in a the Planning single - family residential zoning Commission district, single - family home in a PD zoning district, minor modifications to buildings, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new development, redevelopment, or modification in such zones where such review is required. Exceptions to the R1 Ordinance, minor architectural and site changes, minor development proposals located in a Planned Development zone, minor modifications and exceptions to buildings, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new development, redevelopment, or modification in such zones where such review is required. Matrix Consulting Group Page 146 213 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (5) Formal Design Guidelines The cities were asked if they have formal written design guidelines and the year the guidelines were developed. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses among the comparative cities. City Formal Design Guidelines Dublin Yes Mountain View Yes Novato Yes San Ramon Yes Cupertino Yes All of the cities have developed formal design guidelines. Mountain View has developed design guidelines for small lot development, row houses, and town houses, (6) Role of A Zoning Administrator The cities were asked if a zoning administrator is utilized and the type of applications approved by a zoning administrator. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City Zoning Administrator? Applications Dublin Yes Conditional use permits and variances Mountain View Yes Conditional use permit, density bonus, sign permits, sign programs, variances, temporary use permits Novato Yes Temporary use permits, use permits and variances San Ramon Yes Use permits, variances, home occupation permits, parcel maps Cupertino No N/A All of the cities, with the exception of Cupertino, utilize a zoning administrator to approve / deny a variety of planning permits including conditional use permits, variances, temporary use permits, etc. Matrix Consulting Group Page 147 214 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (7) Planning Applications Approved at the Staff Level The cities included in the comparative survey were asked to provide information in regards to the types of application that may be approved at the staff level. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City Applications Dublin No response Mountain View No response Novato Minor design review San Ramon Minor design review, minor exceptions Cupertino Minor design review, exceptions All of the cities empower staff to approve minor planning permit applications at staff level. (8) Use of the Case Manager Concept The cities were asked if they use a case manager concept in processing planning permit applications, and his / her responsibility in managing the processing of these applications. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. All of the cities, including Cupertino, use the case manager concept for managing the processing of planning permits. (9) Standard Conditions of Approval and Correction Lists for Planning Permits The cities were asked if all of the divisions / departments that are involved in the processing of planning permits had developed written conditions of approval, written Matrix Consulting Group Page 148 215 Processing (from receipt through Architectural Review Board to City Case Manager Concept Planning Commission and City Council) Dublin Yes Yes Mountain View Yes N/A Novato No N/A San Ramon Yes- Yes Cupertino Yes Yes All of the cities, including Cupertino, use the case manager concept for managing the processing of planning permits. (9) Standard Conditions of Approval and Correction Lists for Planning Permits The cities were asked if all of the divisions / departments that are involved in the processing of planning permits had developed written conditions of approval, written Matrix Consulting Group Page 148 215 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process correction lists, and whether these conditions of approval and correction lists had been published to the City's Internet. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City Written Conditions of Approval Written Correction Checklists Internet Availability Dublin Yes No No Mountain View Yes No No Novato Yes Yes No San Ramon Yes Yes No Cupertino Yes Yes No All of the cities have written conditions of approval, only Novato and San Ramon have developed written correction lists, and none of the cities have published these conditions of approval or correction lists to the Planning Division's web site. (10) Cycle Time Objectives For the Processing of Planning Permits. The cities were asked if they have developed cycle time objectives for the processing of planning permits, the cycle time objectives and the degree of success in meeting these objectives. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City Processing Targets How Successful in Meeting Targets Dublin No N/A Mountain View No N/A Novato No N/A San Ramon Yes 90% Cupertino Yes 90% Only two cities reported having processing targets: San Ramon and Cupertino. (11) One -Stop Permit Center The cities were requested to provide information regarding their one -stop center for development permits. The cities were also asked what functions were co- located at Matrix Consulting Group Page 149 216 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process the one -stop center and the hours the center was open for business. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City One -Stop Center Functions Co- located Hours of Operations Dublin No N/A N / A Mountain View Yes Planning and Building 8 am to 5 pm; closed for lunch Novato Yes Planning, Building, and 9 am to 12 noon Engineering San Ramon Yes Planning, Building, 8 am to 5 pm, 3 days a Engineering, and Fire week Cupertino Yes Planning, Building, and 7:30 am to 12 noon; 1 Engineering m to 5 Pm The following points present a summary of information in the table above. • All of the cities report having one -stop centers except Dublin. • Those cities with one -stop centers co- located Planning and Building in each instance, and Planning, Building, and Engineering in the instance of Novato, San Ramon, and Cupertino. • The hours of operations of the one -stop permit centers were dissimilar amongst all cities. 3. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION The cities were asked to provide information regarding their building and safety division. The following sections provide a summary of the responses. (1) Valuation and Number of Permits The cities were asked to provide the total building permit valuation and the total number of building permits. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses. City Total Building Permit Valuation Dublin $306,000,000 Mountain View No Response Novato $78,000,000 San Ramon $65,300,000 Cupertino $222,500,000 Overall, the total building permit valuation ranged from a low of $65,000,000 in San Ramon to a high of $306,000,000 in Dublin. Matrix Consulting Group Page 150 217 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (2) Staffing Levels The cities were asked to provide the number of plan checking staff authorized for building permit plan checking. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses. City Total Staffing Dublin 0.0; outsourced Mountain View 90% Novato 2.5 San Ramon 2.0 Cupertino 2.5 The total number of plan checking staff authorized for building permit plan checking ranged from a low of 0 in Dublin (all plan checking that cannot be approved over - the - counter is outsourced) to 2.5 staff in Novato. (3) Utilization of Plan Check Consultants The cities were asked to indicate the proportion of their building permit plans that were plan checked by consulting plan checkers. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses among the comparative cities. City % Of Permits Plans Checked by Consultants Dublin 50% Mountain View 90% Novato 30% to 40% San Ramon <5% Cupertino 0% Dublin had the highest proportion of permits that were outsourced: 50 %. Mountain View, San Ramon, and Cupertino all had little to none of their building permit plan checking outsourced. Matrix Consulting Group Page 151 218 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process (4) Plan Checking of Simple Building Permits Plan The cities were asked to describe alternatives for plan checking building permit plans including the proportion of their building permit plans checked over the counter that require plan checking (excluding MEP permits), whether partial permits were issued, and requirements for plan checking of retrofit window replacements. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses among the comparative cities. City Over the Counter Partial Permits Retrofit Window Replacement Dublin 10% No / rarely Yes Mountain View 10% Yes No Novato 20% Yes Yes San Ramon >50% Yes Yes Cupertino 44% Yes Yes Important points to recognize concerning the data contained in the table are presented in the paragraphs below. • Most of the cities reported that 10% to 25% of their building permit plans were plan checked over the counter. San Ramon plan checked over 50% of its building permit plans over - the - counter.. • Dublin was the only city that did not issue partial permits. • Only Mountain View did not require building permits for retrofit window replacements in which the framing was not altered. (5) Plan Check Cycle Time Targets The cities were asked if they had developed cycle time targets for the building permit plan checking, the cycle time in terms of days or weeks, and the degree of success in meeting those targets. City Processing Targets Targets Dublin Yes 98% Mountain View Yes 95% Novato Yes 90% San Ramon Yes 95% Cupertino Yes 98% Matrix Consulting Group Page 152 219 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process As the table indicates, all of the cities have adopted cycle time objectives for building permit plan checking. All of the cities are highly successful in meeting these objectives. For Cupertino, it is not possible to determine the success rate in meeting these cycle time objectives given the limitations in the reporting module of the automated permit information system. (6) Standard Conditions of Approval and Correction Lists for Building Permits The cities were asked if all of the divisions / departments that are involved in the processing of building permits had developed written conditions of approval, written correction lists, and whether these conditions of approval and correction lists had been published to the City's Internet. The table, below, presents a summary of the responses of the cities. City Written Conditions of Ap roval Written Correction Checklists Internet Availability Dublin Yes No No Mountain View Yes No No Novato Partial Yes No San Ramon Yes No No Cupertino Yes Yes No All of the cities have written conditions of approval with the exception of Novato, only Novato and Cupertino have developed a written correction list, and none of the cities have published these conditions of approval or correction lists to the Building Division's web site. (7) Building Permit Plans Approvals The cities were asked to identify the type of building permit plans that were plan checked over the counter. The following table presents a summary of the information gathered. Matrix Consulting Group Page 153 220 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process City Over - the - Counter Dublin Single trade permits, commercial signs w/o calcs, Mountain View residential bathroom repair, residential fireplace, Novato residential repair/ in -kind, residential spa, residential San Ramon skylights Mountain View Single trade and minor building permits including kitchen / bath remodels without structural modifications Novato Single trade permits and kitchen and bath remodels. San Ramon Residential improvements and minor tenant improvements Cupertino Residential: Over the Counter: small projects (250 sq. ft. or less) within 30 minutes Commercial: Over the Counter: less than 30 minutes only on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between 1:30 and 2:30 (these are the hours when Fire Plan Reviewers are available at the counter). Overall, the types of building permit plans that were plan checked over - the - counter was not extensive besides single trade permits. (8) Combination Building Inspectors The cities were asked about their utilization of combination inspectors. The following table presents a summary of the information gathered. City Combination Inspectors Dublin Yes Mountain View Yes Novato Yes San Ramon Yes Cupertino Yes All of the cities use combination inspectors as a normal practice. (9) Percentage Of Building Inspection Requests Responded To The Next Day The cities also provided responses regarding the percentage of inspection requests that were inspected the next working day. City % Of Inspection Requests Inspected the Next Working Da Dublin 100% Mountain View 100% Novato 100% San Ramon 100% Cupertino 100% Matrix Consulting Group Page 154 221 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process The majority of the cities reported responding to inspection requests within the next working day. (10) Use of A Case Manager For Building Permits The cities were asked if a case manager was utilized for processing of building permits. The following table presents a summary of the information gathered. City Case Manager Dublin No Mountain View No Novato No San Ramon No Cupertino Yes Only Cupertino uses a "case manager" concept in its Building Division. Matrix Consulting Group Page 155 222 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process APPENDIX 4 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* Chapter 2 -Analysis of Permit Staffing 223 Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle existing 1 current planning workloads. 8 Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and, when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for other duties such as plan checking of residential interior remodels, over - the - counter 2 plan checking, etc. 11 Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to building permit 3 plan checking in the Building Division. 14 Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the Building 4 Division's permit counter. 15 The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing authorized for 5 the permit plan check process. 16 Chapter 3 - Analysis of the Permit Process The City should streamline the process for minor planning permits by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi - ministerial review and are subject to codified performance 6 standards. 17 The Planning Division should develop codified performance standards and requirements for these minor permits for 7 consideration and approval of the City Council. 17 The approval of these codified performance standards and requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the 8 conversion of these minor planning permits to permitted uses. 17 Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision - making authority for conditional use permits and variances with the City 9 Council having the right of appeal. 21 The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff reports for 10 minor permits. 22 The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for minor 11 permits to those adjacent property owners that are noticed. 22 The number of appeals that are possible for planning permits 12 should be limited to one appeal. 23 Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants subsequent to 13 approval of a planning application. 23 The timelines for processing of planning permits by the City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential time periods for review based upon project size and complexity and to differentiate between initial and re- submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re- submittals should be established at no more than one -half the 14 timeframe required for the initial review. 24 Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should be published to the Department website and prominently displayed in 15 the Department's application materials. 24 Matrix Consulting Group Page 156 223 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* The Planning Division should separate the tentative application schedule from the 34 -page planning application form, and publish it separately to its first web page for the Planning Division in the 16 Planning "sidebar." 26 Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time agreements with 17 applicants for high priority projects 27 Pre - application conferences should not be required for routine planning permit applications approved by the Community 18 Development Director. 28 The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written policy on planning application completeness and the basis for rejecting 19 incomplete applications. 29 Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for rejecting planning 20 applications as incomplete. 29 Planning application guides should be developed for each specific type of planning permit to include all of the City's requirements for 21 an applicant to achieve a complete submittal. 29 These planning permit application guides should be approximately 22 4 to 6 pages in length. 29 The case manager in the Planning Division should meet with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 23 30 -day completeness review of the application. 31 The Planning Division should provide training to consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers regarding its 24 planning permit submittal requirements. 31 The Planning Division should provide training after each submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application and when they encountered 25 particular problems meeting submittal requirements. 31 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for the maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information system by managers, supervisors, and staff assigned to 26 processing planning, building and engineering permit applications 33 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure that assigns responsibility to the division -heads for assuring ongoing maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information system and that requires the division -heads to audit the caseload assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active, is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should be terminated, or has been closed and the case should be updated in 27 the automated permit information system. 33 The City should hold division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring the success or failure of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular management information reports generated on a monthly basis by 28 the automated permit information system. 34 The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be 29 integrated into their performance evaluation. 34 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by 30 their staff using the automated permit information system. 34 Matrix Consulting Group Page 157 224 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case inventory and the completion of the processing of permits by their 31 staff in accordance with the cycle time objectives 34 The City should utilize the automated permit information system to generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of 32 these permits. 36 The Planning Division should establish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30- 33 day initial completeness review and subsequent reviews. 39 A formal written policy should be established for response times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from applicants that are received via email and /or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held 34 accountable for meeting these guidelines. 39 The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as the project manager and be responsible for the communication among the multi - disciplinary team and the resolution of conflicting 35 conditions of approval or competing code requirements. 41 The case manager should ensure that all conditions of approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that each condition references the specific code or regulation that imposes / regulates the issues. Additionally, a copy of the staff report should be 36 provided to the applicant once completed. 41 The authority of the case manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division and approved 37 by the Community Development Director. 42 The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering 38 permits should be documented and posted to the City's web site. 43 The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of approval by all of the 39 divisions and departments. 43 The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the review and processing of discretionary and administrative 40 applications by its own staff. 45 The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its web site 41 for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45 The Planning Division should develop design guidelines for multi - 42 family, commercial, and signs. 46 The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes and make these available to the public on their web 43 sites. 48 Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for the length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as 44 a performance guideline for all organizational units. 49 The Building Division should utilize the automated permit information system to assure the status of each plan is readily 45 visible. 52 Matrix Consulting Group Page 158 225 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* The Chief Building Official should be given the written authority and responsibility to interface with other organizational units to resolve delays in processing building permit plans in a formal written policy 46 published by the Community Development Director. 53 The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of its building 47 permits over the Internet. 54 The Building Division should increase the number of building permits issued over - the - counter to 60% of all building permits 48 issued. 55 The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to Building 49 Technician. 55 The Building Technician position, when filled, should be utilized to provide over - the - counter plan checking of minor and miscellaneous 50 building permits. 55 The Building Technician classification should be revised to require certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician within 12 months 51 of hire. 55 The Building Division should provide support, funding, and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an ICC - certified Permit 52 Technician. 55 Develop standard building permit plans for use by the public in 53 minor residential improvements. 58 Develop a "Home Improvement Center" web page on the Town's web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building 54 permit plan check and inspection process. 58 The Building Division should improve the building permit plan check 55 performance to meet its stated plan check cycle time objectives. 59 The Building Division should reduce the number of divisions and 56 departments that are routed building permit plans. 63 The City should assign responsibility to the Building Division for 57 zoning clearance of simple building permits. 63 The Building Division should adopt a policy to accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for same day inspection request 58 service. 64 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for 59 those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67 The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to the Division's web site and identify these cycle time objectives in 60 the Division's application guides. 68 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for 61 those permits in which the Division is the lead for plan checking. 70 Chapter 4 - Analysis of the Automated Permit Information System All of the departments and divisions should utilize the automated permit information system for all aspects of the planning, building 62 permit, and engineering permit process. 71 Modules, applications and reports should be developed within the automated permit information system to support the work of these 63 departments and divisions. 71 Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the use of the 64 automated permit information system. 71 Matrix Consulting Group Page 159 W CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* The City should utilize the automated permit information system to provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data through the Internet or for the public and applicants to subscribe to 65 information. 72 Matrix Consulting Group Page 160 227 The automated permit information system should include the 66 capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice Response system. 73 The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) 67 System. 73 The automated permit information system should have wireless 68 capabilities. 74 The automated permit information system should have an 69 automated workflow capacity. 75 The automated permit information system should have the capacity 70 for online project management and collaboration tools. 76 The automated permit information system should have the capacity 71 to interface with ESRI GIS. 76 All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan checks, and inspections should be archived in the automated permit information 72 system. 77 Architectural plans should be archived in the automated permit 73 information system once the permit is finalized 77 All of the divisions and departments that utilize the automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, 74 comments, and conditions in the system. 78 The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a 75 fully functional automated permit information system. 79 The City should acquire a fully developed commercial - off -the -shelf 76 automated permit information system. 79 Chapter 5 - Analysis of the Permit Center 77 The City should remodel the permit center. 80 Chapter 6 - Analysis of Permit Administration A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at the front counter during all hours of operation including during the lunch 78 hour. 81 The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor corrections to 79 expedite the approval process. 81 The City should develop a comprehensive "How -to Manual' or "Development Guide" for use by the public and publish this 80 document to their web site. 83 The Community Development Department should institute a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is distributed to the development community containing code or interpretation updates, training information, and general discussion of relevant 81 topics. 84 Matrix Consulting Group Page 160 227 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* The Community Development Department should conduct at least an annual meeting to engage the development community in a discussion of general issues regarding permit matters in Cupertino, solicit input regarding service levels, and seek input regarding potential changes to the enabling legislation (general plan, 82 subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes). 84 The Community Development Department should conduct an 83 annual and ongoing customer satisfaction survey 84 The City should require that any new ordinance and code requirements not previously imposed will not be enforced on current construction and future jobs until the industry is informed 84 and a 60 -day waiting period is put in place. 85 The City should communicate any new plan review and inspection requirements to developers, contractors, architects, engineers, and the construction community through issuance of information bulletins and a newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the new requirements, and show effective date of 85 implementation. 85 All full -time planners should be encouraged to attain the AICP certification from the American Planning Association. The City of Cupertino should consider requiring achievement of this 86 certification to progress through the Planner job family. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering division -heads should 87 develop annual training programs for each employee in the division. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should provide additional training to increase their ability to make decisions regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building 88 codes to increase consistency of interpretation among staff. 86 Provide not less that 40 -hours of job - related training annually for 89 each employee of the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. 86 Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign all employees as presenters, and have them prepare outlines for their 90 presentation. Bring in outside industry training where appropriate. 86 The Building Division should implement quarterly training sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building Inspectors, the Plan Check Engineer, the Counter Technician, and all employees involved in the development process (Planning, Engineering, Fire Prevention, etc.) to review operations, eliminate overlap or duplication, and improve coordination for efficient delivery of services. Allow each discipline to present matters of concern for 91 decision and resolution. 86 The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at 92 least monthly, in the building code training to achieve consistency. 86 The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning, building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees 93 are appropriately calculated and assessed. 89 The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge to its 94 building permits. 89 Matrix Consulting Group Page 161 WMV CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Management Study of the Permit Process Recommendation Page # Recommendation Number* A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all major work functions and services provided by the Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. A copy of the manual should be available to each employee, and updated at a minimum on an annual basis. 95 The manual should be published to the Intranet. 90 96 The Planning Division should expand the annual work program. 92 The Planning Division should complete a project work plan prior to 97 commencement of an advanced planning project. 92 The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report regarding 98 the status of advanced planning projects. 94 At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final report should be published good and bad aspects of the completed project, transmitting that information to the staff of the Planning 99 Division, and providing a convenient summary of the project. 95 The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and dedicated 100 to advanced planning. 96 The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a surcharge to its 101 building permits. 96 The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead professionals within the Planning Division. This role should be clarified in a written 102 division policy and procedure. 96 The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public 103 hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. 98 The Engineering Division should update the stormwater master 104 plan in the next two years using a consulting engineering firm. 98 Chapter 7 - Analysis of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee 105 The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats with staff 100 The City Council and the Planning Commission should conduct 106 joint meetings at least annually. 102 The City Council and Planning Commission should conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of any updating of the 107 Zoning Ordinance. 102 Planning Commission members should be provided with ongoing 108 training of no less than four hours a year. 102 The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be 109 provided with membership in the American Planning Association. 103 The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report 110 summarizing their activities and submit it to the City Council. 103 Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to manage Commission 111 meetings. 105 Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce the amount of time available to public speakers to the same amount as 112 that provided at City Council meetings. 105 * The page number reference indicates the page where the discussion regarding the recommendation commences, not necessarily the actual page location of the recommendation itself. Matrix Consulting Group Page 162 229 ATTACHMENT C SUMMARY TABLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH STAFF COMMENTS No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Corrections The workload table on page 10 does not include time required to serve the counter functions and Staffing in the Planning Division is sufficient to handle other miscellaneous tasks which amount to an 1 1 existing current planning workloads. additional 1.OFTE 8 Cycle times noted on page 25 include multiple submittals. A more accurate measure of cycle The timelines for processing of planning permits by the time would be to count the time between when an City should be reviewed and revised to provide differential application is deemed complete and the approval time periods for review based upon project size and date for the project. It should be noted that this complexity and to differentiate between initial and re- distinction is harder to capture since the City's submittal reviews. Plan review timeframes for re- data management system is not currently able to submittals should be established at no more than one -half provide this information — a situation that can be 2 14 the timeframe required for the initial review. remedied with improved permitting software. 24 The cycle times noted on page 60 are not accurate because they also include multiple resubmittals. The correct way to note cycle times would be to get the difference between the last submittal and the permit date. The current permitting software does not capture this The Building Division should improve the building permit distinction. As noted on page 152, even with plan check performance to meet its stated plan check these numbers, the Building Division meets its 3 55 1 cycle time objectives (Table on Pg 60) 1 cycle time objectives 98% of the time. 59 Currently in Place Maintain current building inspection staffing levels and, when workload permits, utilize Building Inspectors for 1 other duties such as plan checking of residential interior 2 remodels, over - the - counter plan checking, etc. 11 Continue with the staffing levels that are allocated to 2 3 building permit plan checking in the Building Division. 14 Continue the adequate level of staffing dedicated to the 3 4 Building Division's permit counter. 15 The Engineering Division should maintain the staffing 4 5 authorized for the permit plan check process. 16 Adopted cycle time objectives for planning permits should Already posted with application forms be published to the Department website and prominently 5 15 displayed in the Department's application materials. 24 The Planning Division should develop and adopt a written Checklist included in application forms and 6 19 policy on planning application completeness and the customized for each application by project planner 29 230 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* basis for rejecting incomplete applications. Training should be provided to the Planning Division staff Ongoing assigned to the Permit Center regarding the basis for 7 20 rejecting planning applications as incomplete. 29 The case manager in the Planning Division should meet Ongoing with the applicant to discuss issues that have been found during the initial 30 -day completeness review of the 8 23 application. 31 The ability of the staff in the Planning, Building and Ongoing Engineering divisions to consistently meet the cycle time objectives should be integrated into their performance 9 29 evaluation. 34 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering Included in review should be held accountable for the ongoing maintenance of this open case inventory and the completion of the processing of permits by their staff in accordance with the 10 31 cycle time objectives 34 The Planning Division should establish guidelines for reviewing departments to respond to all submissions by applicants and establish clear timelines at each step. This would include the 30 -day initial completeness review and 11 33 subsequent reviews. 39 The case planner in the Planning Division should serve as the project manager and be responsible for the communication among the multi - disciplinary team and the resolution of conflicting conditions of approval or 12 35 competing code requirements. 41 The case manager should ensure that all conditions of Applicant is informed of the staff recommendation approval are provided to the applicant in writing and that as well as all the conditions of approval ahead of each condition references the specific code or regulation time. Staff report is provided to applicant when that imposes I regulates the issues. Additionally, a copy the packet is ready for public review. of the staff report should be provided to the applicant 13 36 once completed. 41 The authority of the case manager should be clearly spelled out in a written policy developed by the Planning Division and approved by the Community Development 14 37 Director. 42 The conditions of approval utilized by all of the divisions and departments in the review of planning, building, and engineering permits should be documented and posted to 15 38 the City's web site. 43 The Planning Division should take lead responsibility in facilitating the development of these written conditions of 16 39 approval by all of the divisions and departments. 43 231 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* The Planning Division should develop and utilize checklists for the review and processing of discretionary 17 40 and administrative applications by its own staff. 45 The Planning Division should publish its checklists to its 18 41 web site for use by those individuals submitting plans. 45 Revise the building permit plan check cycle time goals for the length of time required to process building permit plans to serve as a performance guideline for all 19 44 organizational units. 49 The Building Division should utilize the automated permit information system to assure the status of each plan is 20 45 readily visible. 52 The Chief Building Official should be given the written Building Official already has authority to interface authority and responsibility to interface with other with other departments and agencies to resolve organizational units to resolve delays in processing delays in processing building permits building permit plans in a formal written policy published 21 46 by the Community Development Director. 53 We already keep routing to the minimum required. The Building Division should reduce the number of Routing is only done to departments that have divisions and departments that are routed building permit conditions of approval or review authority over 22 56 plans. projects. The Building Division should adopt a policy to We accommodate requests up to 7:OOAM based accommodate inspection requests up to 7:00 AM for on availability. 23 58 same day inspection request service. 64 Our current policy allows us to schedule appointments at the applicant's convenience and communicate through email in addition to having The Planning Division should conduct a pilot program of the counter staffed from 7:30 -5:30 every day. providing scheduled hours for "walk in" reviews of minor This allows us to provide better service than 24 79 corrections to expedite the approval process. having availability only during scheduled hours. 81 The City should communicate any new plan review and We currently do this with mailed notices, our inspection requirements to developers, contractors, website, flyers at the counter and newspaper architects, engineers, and the construction community notices. through issuance of information bulletins and a newsletter. Distribute information bulletins describing the new requirements, and show effective date of 25 85 implementation. 85 All full -time planners should be encouraged to attain the AICP certification from the American Planning Association. The City of Cupertino should consider requiring achievement of this certification to progress 26 86 through the Planner job family. 86 The Planning, Building and Engineering division -heads should develop annual training programs for each 27 87 employee in the division. 86 232 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* The Planning, Building and Engineering divisions should provide additional training to increase their ability to make decisions regarding subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and building codes to increase consistency of 28 88 interpretation among staff. 86 Provide not less that 40 -hours of job - related training annually for each employee of the Planning, Building and 29 89 Engineering divisions. 86 The Building Division should implement quarterly training The City has a Pre - hearing Committee consisting sessions with Fire Prevention Inspectors, Building of departments and agencies involved in the Inspectors, the Plan Check Engineer, the Counter development process that discusses issues as Technician, and all employees involved in the they arise. development process (Planning, Engineering, Fire Prevention, etc.) to review operations, eliminate overlap or duplication, and improve coordination for efficient delivery of services. Allow each discipline to present 30 91 matters of concern for decision and resolution. 86 The Building Division should involve the District Fire Inspectors, at least monthly, in the building code training 31 92 to achieve consistency. 86 The Planning Division prepares an annual work The Planning Division should expand the annual work program with the Planning Commission and 32 96 program. Council. 92 The Planning Division should complete a project work The scope and schedule for large projects are plan prior to commencement of an advanced planning reviewed and approved by the Council 33 97 project. 92 The Planning Division should publish a quarterly report 34 98 regarding the status of advanced planning projects. 94 Our flat organizational setup allows us to handle a The Senior Planners should be utilized as lead large workload with a comparatively small staff of professionals within the Planning Division. This role 4.5 planners. We already utilize this system of should be clarified in a written division policy and having planners become "experts" on an issue 35 102 procedure. and train other staff. 96 The Planning Commission attends an annual conference that also serves as an opportunity for The Planning Commission should conduct annual retreats discussion. Staff plans to add a retreat to the 36 105 with staff Planning Commission agenda for 2010 100 The Planning Commission attends a three -day Planning Commission members should be provided with annual conference and is provided additional 37 108 ongoing training of no less than four hours a year. opportunities to train throughout the year. 102 The members of the Planning Commission should continue to be provided with membership in the American 38 109 Planning Association. 103 233 No, Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Can Be Implemented Administratively The Planning Division should separate the tentative application schedule from the 34 -page planning application form, and publish it separately to its first web 1 16 page for the Planning Division in the Planning "sidebar." 26 Develop and adopt planning permit cycle time 2 17 agreements with applicants for high priority projects 27 Planning application guides should be developed for each specific type of planning permit to include all of the City's requirements for an applicant to achieve a complete 3 21 submittal. 29 These planning permit application guides should be 4 22 approximately 4 to 6 pages in length. 29 The Planning Division should provide training to consulting planners, architects, engineers and developers 5 24 regarding its planning permit submittal requirements. 31 The Planning Division should provide training after each submittal when consulting planners, architects, and engineers are involved in the development of the application and when they encountered particular 6 25 problems meeting submittal requirements. 31 The division -heads in Planning, Building and Engineering should formally plan and schedule the permit applications processed by their staff using the automated permit 7 30 information system. 34 A formal written policy should be established for response The City has a policy of returning inquiries within times by Planning Division staff to inquiries from 24 -hour period. applicants that are received via email and/or voice mail. Planning Division staff should be held accountable for 8 34 meeting these guidelines. 39 The Planning, Building, and Engineering divisions should document interpretations of the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and building codes and make 9 43 these available to the public on their web sites. 48 The Counter Technician position should be reclassified to We have a Counter Technician position that can 10 49 Building Technician. be renamed Building Technician 55 The Building Technician position, when filled, should be Already in the job description for the Counter utilized to provide over - the - counter plan checking of minor Technician 11 50 and miscellaneous building permits. 55 The Building Technician classification should be revised Already in the requirements for the Counter to require certification as an ICC- certified Permit Technician 12 51 Technician within 12 months of hire. 55 234 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* The Building Division should provide support, funding, Same as above and training to the Building Technician to obtain as an 13 52 ICC- certified Permit Technician. 55 Develop a "Home Improvement Center' web page on the Town's web site to assist the homeowner navigate through the building permit plan check and inspection 14 54 process. 58 The Engineering Division should develop application 15 59 guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead. 67 The Engineering Division should publish its cycle time objectives to the Division's web site and identify these 16 60 cycle time objectives in the Division's application guides. 68 The Engineering Division should develop application guides for those permits in which the Division is the lead 17 61 for plan checking. 70 A greater focus should be placed by the Planning Division Can open counter at lunch hour. Having on ensuring availability of a professional staff member at permanent staff at the counter not recommended the front counter during all hours of operation including since this would require additional staff, which 18 78 during the lunch hour. would be more expensive. 81 The City should develop a comprehensive "How -to Manual" or "Development Guide" for use by the public 19 80 and publish this document to their web site. 83 The Community Development Department should institute Can be implemented as an email flyerlwebsite a periodic (two to four times per year) newsletter that is resource distributed to the development community containing code or interpretation updates, training information, and 20 81 general discussion of relevant topics. 84 The Community Development Department should conduct at least an annual meeting to engage the development community in a discussion of general issues regarding permit matters in Cupertino, solicit input regarding service levels, and seek input regarding potential changes to the enabling legislation (general plan, subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and 21 82 building codes). 84 The Community Development Department should The City has survey cards at the Development conduct an annual and ongoing customer satisfaction Permit Center that people can fill out. In addition, 22 83 survey the City conducts periodic Godbe surveys. 84 Establish and publish quarterly training agendas. Assign Staff has begun to identify items for training and all employees as presenters, and have them prepare plans to begin this shortly. outlines for their presentation. Bring in outside industry 23 90 training where appropriate. 86 A comprehensive desk manual should be developed for all major work functions and services provided by the 24 95 Planning, Building and Engineering divisions. A copy of 90 235 No. Matrix Recomm. # Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* the manual should be available to each employee, and updated at a minimum on an annual basis. The manual should be publi shed to the Intranet. The vacant Senior Planner position should be filled and Already in the budget (position is vacant). Can be dedicated to advanced planning. implemented if workload indicates more staff is 25 100 needed. 96 At the completion of an advanced planning project, a final report should be published good and bad aspects of the completed project, transmitting that information to the staff of the Planning Division, and providing a convenient 26 99 summary of the project. 95 The Planning Commission should prepare an annual report summarizing their activities and submit it to the City 27 110 Council. 103 236 237 Requires Council Review for Implementation (Budget /Ordinance) Matrix No. Recomm Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category The City should streamline the process for minor Requires Ordinance change Streamline planning permits by increasing the number of permitted uses that require quasi - ministerial review and are subject 1 6 to codified performance standards. 17 The Planning Division should develop codified Requires Ordinance change Streamline performance standards and requirements for these minor permits for consideration and approval of the City 2 7 Council. 17 The approval of these codified performance standards Requires Ordinance change Streamline and requirements by the City Council should be sequenced to the conversion of these minor planning 3 8 permits to permitted uses. 17 Section 19.124.060 of the zoning ordinance should be Requires Ordinance change Streamline modified. The Planning Commission should be the final decision - making authority for conditional use permits and 4 g variances with the City Council having the right of appeal. 21 The staff of the Planning Division should not write staff Requires policy change Streamline 5 10 reports for minor permits. 22 The Planning Division should not mail the plan sets for Requires Ordinance /policy change Streamline minor permits to those adjacent property owners that are 6 11 noticed. 22 The number of appeals that are possible for planning Requires Ordinance change Streamline 7 12 permits should be limited to one appeal. 23 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure for We already implement this without our Infrastructure/Technology the maintenance of case status information in the permitting system. A well- designed automated permit information system by managers, online permitting system (which requires supervisors, and staff assigned to processing planning, funding) will help automate many of the building and engineering permit applications. functions that currently need manual 8 26 checks. 33 Develop and adopt a written City policy and procedure Same as above Infrastructure/Technology that assigns responsibility to the division -heads for assuring ongoing maintenance of case status information in the automated permit information system and that requires the division -heads to audit the caseload assigned to staff to determine whether the case is active, is inactive as a result of applicant inaction and should be terminated, or has been closed and the case should be 9 27 updated in the automated permit information system. 33 237 238 Matrix No. Recomm. Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. 'No * Category The City should hold division -heads in Planning, Building Same as above Infrastructure/Technology and Engineering accountable for tracking and monitoring the success or failure of their staff in meeting cycle time objectives through regular management information reports generated on a monthly basis by the automated 10 28 permit information system. 34 The City should utilize the automated permit information Same as above Infrastructure/Technology system to generate ongoing monthly management information reports to track performance against cycle time objectives and monitor the case workload and performance for staff assigned to the processing of these 11 32 permits. 36 The Planning Division should develop design guidelines Requires funding for Readability and Consistency 12 42 for multi - family, commercial, and signs. consultants /outreach 46 Our current online permitting system Infrastructure/Technology allows about 10% of our permits to be The Building Division should issue not less than 20% of processed. A more robust permitting its building permits over the Internet. system (which requires funding) will increase the type and number of permits 13 47 that can be handled online. 54 The Building Division should increase the number of Same comment as above. It should be Infrastructure/Technology building permits issued over - the - counter to 60% of all noted that the complexity of the permit building permits issued. types will determine whether they can be 14 48 handled online. 55 All of the departments and divisions should utilize the Requires funding for new automated Infrastructure/Technology automated permit information system for all aspects of permitting system the planning, building permit, and engineering permit 15 62 process. 71 Modules, applications and reports should be developed Same as above Infrastructure/Technology within the automated permit information system to 16 63 support the work of these departments and divisions. 71 Training should be provided to staff as appropriate in the Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 17 64 use of the automated permit information system. 71 The City should utilize the automated permit information Same as above Infrastructure/Technology system to provide the capacity for the public and for applicants to access data through the Internet or for the 18 65 public and applicants to subscribe to information. 72 The automated permit information system should include Same as above Infrastructure/Technology the capacity to interface with an Interactive Voice 19 66 Response system. 73 The City should acquire an Interactive Voice Response Same as above Infrastructure/Technology (IVR) System. 20 67 73 238 239 Matrix No. Recomm. Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. 'No * Category The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 21 68 wireless capabilities. 74 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 22 69 an automated workflow capacity. 75 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology the capacity for online project management and 23 70 collaboration tools. 76 The automated permit information system should have Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 24 71 the capacity to interface with ESRI GIS. 76 All documents created by staff regarding permits, plan Same as above Infrastructure/Technology checks, and inspections should be archived in the 25 72 automated permit information system. 77 Architectural plans should be archived in the automated Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 26 73 permit information system once the permit is finalized 77 All of the divisions and departments that utilize the Same as above Infrastructure/Technology automated permit information system should enter and store their annotations, comments, and conditions in the 27 74 system. 78 The City should provide Pentamation with the opportunity Same as above Infrastructure/Technology to identify the total installed cost for the development and deployment of a fully functional automated permit 28 75 information system. 79 The City should acquire a fully developed commercial -off- Same as above Infrastructure/Technology 29 76 the -shelf automated permit information system. 79 The City should remodel the permit center. Requires funding Infrastructure/Technology 30 77 80 The City of Cupertino should ensure that all planning, Requires funding for Fee Study Fees/Cost Recovery building, and engineering permit fees are reviewed and evaluated when the next review of development fee schedules is conducted to ensure fees are appropriately 31 93 calculated and assessed. 89 The City should charge a technology fee as a surcharge Requires funding for Fee Study Fees/Cost Recovery 32 94 to its building permits. 89 The City should charge a zoning ordinance update fee to Requires funding for Fee Study Fees/Cost Recovery enable the fiscal sustainability of advanced planning as a 33 101 surcharge to its building permits. 96 The Mayor and City Manager should develop alternatives Council Policy Other for the consideration of the City Council to avoid conducting public hearings for City Council meetings in the early morning. 34 103 98 239 240 Matrix Not Recommended No. Recomm, Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* Category ' Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No The Engineering Division should update the stormwater Requires funding for Stormwater Master Streamlining master plan in the next two years using a consulting Plan critical conditions of approval are recorded 35 104 engineering firm. against the property to ensure that the 98 Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants The City Council and the Planning Commission should Council Policy 1 Other 36 106 conduct joint meetings at least annually. 102 Pre - application conferences should not be required Pre- application conferences help The City Council and Planning Commission should Council Policy for routine planning permit applications approved by Other 2 conduct a joint visioning exercise early in the process of the Community Development Director. before submittals and reduce cycle times. 28 37 107 any updating of the Zoning Ordinance. Not recommended due to liability 102 Amend the Planning Commission bylaws to clarify the Requires change to bylaws Other Develop standard building permit plans for use by the typically need to be customized for a responsibility of the Planning Commission chairperson to 3 53 public in minor residential improvements. 38 111 manage Commission meetings. 105 Not recommended because many planning Amend the bylaws of the Planning Commission to reduce Requires change to bylaws /policy applications have conditions of approval Other the amount of time available to public speakers to the that require detailed review that is best 39 112 same amount as that provided at City Council meetings. 105 240 Not Recommended Matrix No. Recomm. Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No The City uses covenants to ensure that critical conditions of approval are recorded against the property to ensure that the Eliminate the requirement for a filing of covenants intent of a decision remains as properties 1 13 subsequent to approval of a planning application. change owners. 23 Pre - application conferences should not be required Pre- application conferences help for routine planning permit applications approved by applicants provide complete applications 2 18 the Community Development Director. before submittals and reduce cycle times. 28 Not recommended due to liability associated with providing plans, which Develop standard building permit plans for use by the typically need to be customized for a 3 53 public in minor residential improvements. particular situation. 58 Not recommended because many planning applications have conditions of approval that require detailed review that is best The City should assign responsibility to the Building done by a planner. This also allows Division for zoning clearance of simple building multiple reviews to be done in a shorter permits. time instead of having one person follow up on all issues. 4 57 1 63 240 No. Matrix Recomm. Matrix Recommendation Staff Comments Pg. No.* We already provide adequate notice of public hearings, first and second readings for ordinance amendments through the The City should require that any new ordinance and newspaper, mailed notices and our code requirements not previously imposed will not be website. In addition the ordinance goes enforced on current construction and future jobs until into effect 30 -days after the second the industry is informed and a 60 -day waiting period is reading. This provides more than 60 days 5 84 put in place. notice for potential applicants. 85 Notes 1. The recommendations are listed using Matrix numbering system (for easy reference) and not in the order of priority. 2. * The page number reference indicates the page where the discussion regarding the recommendation commences, not necessarily the actual page location of the recommendation itself. 241 ATTACHMENT D OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (408) 777 -3333 o CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. a Agenda Date: Application Summary: Review the Matrix management study of the permit process. Consider authorizing staff to move forward with recommended process enhancements and ordinance amendments, Application No. CP- 2010 -01, City of Cupertino, Citywide. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that City Council authorize staff to proceed with the following recommended policy zoning amendments. More specifically, the Council should: • Provide additional ideas and recommendations related to permit process enhancements • Comment upon and prioritize the list of changes recommended by the Planning Commission • Direct staff to initiate public review process for the ordinance/ policy amendments BACKGROUND In 2009; the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis of the development permit process and operations. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency. Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment A). The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City's website. They then compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. Attachment B is a summary table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. 242 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 PaLye 2 The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13 (see Attachments C & D for staff report and draft minutes), April 27 (see Attachments E & F for staff report and draft minutes) and May 11, 2010 (see Attachment G for staff report). Specific recommendations of the Planning Commission are included in this report. DISCUSSION: Recommendation Categories Matrix's recommendations may be divided into three major categories: 1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments 2. Infrastructure/ Technology Improvements 3. Fee Amendments /Cost Recovery 1. ORDINANCE/POLICY AMENDMENTS A substantial amount of Matrix's recommendations focus on streamlining the City's development Review process. Matrix suggested that the City's ordinance be reviewed 'to allow a wider range of projects to be approved administratively (subject to codified performance standards) and at the Planning Commission level. Finally, there are opportunities to enhance and revise the City's Municipal code and various Specific/ Conceptual Plans to improve the readability and consistency. These are discussed later in this report. (a) Streamlining the Permit Process (i) Adjusting the review authority for projects Matrix identified that Cupertino has additional layers of approval when compared to cities of comparable size and recommends that the permit process should be streamlined. Staff conducted a high level comparison of approval authorities of comparable local cities with a reputation for efficiency such as Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment H). The Planning Commission reviewed the comparative review authority study and provided their recommendations (see Attachment H, recommendation column). The entire list of specific Planning Commission recommendations is provided in Attachment I. (ii) Reducing noticing requirements Matrix noted that the City's notification requirements often exceed the State's requirements for noticing. Occasionally, the cost of notification for a project far exceeds the cost of the application. Examples include: ■ R1 notification: The original Matrix recommendation was to stop sending out plan sets and only send out the mailed notice. However, staff and the Planning Commission note that these recommendations have to be balanced with community concerns regarding adequate noticing. The Commission also noted that any reduction in noticing plan sets should only be considered after a new online permitting and information system is implemented. 243 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 3 ■ Projects of Citywide significance: Provide one Citywide notice with links to the City's website for more information, updates, etc. (b) Improving Readability and Consistency The recommendation is to conduct a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Specific staff recommendations include: • Codify the Planned Industrial and Office (MP /OP) zones in the Zoning Ordinance. This section is currently used but not codified. • Incorporate the West Valley industrial Park Zoning area (ML -rc) into the Light Industrial (ML) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. • Create a new Commercial ordinance to include all commercial zones including General Commercial (CG) ordinance and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) uses and standards. • Clarify and cleanup definitions, permitted uses, parking ratios, daycare policies, etc. (c) Speci lConceptual Plans Many of the city's Specific and Conceptual Plans were adopted in the 1970's and 1980's. Since then, the General Plan has been updated three times. Planning Commission recommends updating the following Specific Plans as time permits to be consistent with the new General Plan with updated formats and graphics. • North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan • South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan • Monta Vista Special Center and Design Guidelines • South Sunnyvale- Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan The estimated cost of updating each plan on a limited scale is between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on the scope of the project and outreach. 2. INFRASTRUCTURpff ECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS (a) Online Permit System One of the high - priority recommendations in the Matrix report is the implementation of a new automated permit software system. The Planning Commission supports staffs efforts to implement a comprehensive upgrade to the permitting technology and recommends the following: • Implement a new permit system that will help improve information efficiency and provide benefit to permit system users • Software Integration for the permit review system between departments is necessary • Fees increases are of concern but could be acceptable if there is a comparable savings in copying /printing /transportation costs 244 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Update May 18, 2010 Page 4 (b) Infrastructure Improvements The Matrix Study recommends redesigning the permit counter area to improve customer service. The Planning Commission recommends remodeling the permit center to add a meeting place where staff can sit down with customers to discuss ideas /plans. I FEE AMENDMENTS/COST RECOVERY The Matrix study recommended a fee study to provide for, cost - recovery for projects. The Planning Commission recommends evaluating the fee structure of the permit process to ensure that fees: • Are competitive with comparable markets, • Show a nexus in charging the fees associated with a particular application • Are not cost - prohibitive. • Are reduced to support affordable housing and green building projects, but in a revenue neutral manner. 4. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS There are other miscellaneous recommendations made by Matrix relating to Planning Commission and City Council bylaws and communication. The Planning Commission made the following recommendations: • Consider annual Planning Commission & Staff annual off -site retreat/ workshop • Consider Planning Commission & City Council off -site retreat/ workshop when new members are elected/ appointed. NEXT STEPS Based on City Council direction to proceed with policy /ordinance /specific plan amendments/ updates, staff will bring back a schedule of the amendments/ updates based on the City Council's prioritization. These projects will then be incorporated into the Planning Commissions and City Council's Work Programs. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planneid!5' c• Reviewed by: a rivastava Community Development Director Approved by: avi W. Knapp City Manager 245 Attachment A Matrix Consutling Group's report titled, "Management G Planning \ PDREPORT \ CC \ 2010 \ CP- 2010 -01 CC.doc 246 Study of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 Attachment B Summary Table of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff comments Attachment C Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Attachment D Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 13, 2010 Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 2010 Attachment F Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 27, 2010 Attachment G Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010 Attachment H Comparison chart of permit processes for various cities and Staff's recommendations Attachment I Summary of the Planning Commission comments and input G Planning \ PDREPORT \ CC \ 2010 \ CP- 2010 -01 CC.doc 246 ATTACHMENT E May 18, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to approve the use permit modification M- 2010 -01 to remove the reciprocal access and parking easement. The motion carried unanimously. 23.. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program: a. Conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of the (2010 -15) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan, Resolution No. 10 -100 b. Direct staff to dissolve the CDBG Steering Committee and amend Chapter 2.86 of the Municipal Code to give the Housing Commission authority to make CDBG funding and policy recommendations in the future Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Senior Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 10 -100. The motion carried unanimously. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to direct staff to amend Chapter 2.86 of the Municipal Code to expand the Housing Commission's responsibilities to include CDBG oversight and to dissolve the CDBG Steering Committee. The motion carried with Wong voting no. Council recessed from 8:47 p.m. to 9:02 p.m. 24. Review the Matrix management study of the permit process Consider authorizing staff to move forward with recommended process enhancements and ordinance amendments, Application No. CP- 2010 -01, City of Cupertino, Citywide. Written communications for this item included a records request and correspondence from Bern Steves asking Council to defer making any changes stemming from the report for at least 3 months; a records request and correspondence from Keith Murphy; email from Keith Murphy regarding the public records request; email requesting continuance from Marolyn Chow. Associate Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report. At 9:30 p.m. Mayor Wang opened the public hearing. Marty Miller said that matrix report has many shortcomings but that there are also a lot of good suggestions in the report to approve processes. He suggested that at least staff go through the suggested improvements and prioritize them. Jennifer Griffin said that the public has been shut out of this process for the past year and that there has been no Citywide noticing on this topic. She said she was concerned that 247 May 18, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 9 the focus groups didn't include anyone living in Cupertino and that the residents should be involved. She noted that she likes the way the noticing for development is done now and not to change it. She also said that the Design Review Committee (DRC) is extremely valuable. Ruby Elbogen said that the best focus group was Main Street Cupertino because it was an open process and many people came and participated. She noted that focus groups should be made up of people who volunteer for the group and have gone through the process rather than anonymous people. She urged Council to keep the DRC and to have more public input rather than less. At 9:38 p.m. Mayor Wang closed the public hearing. Council directed staff to invite groups from the community to workshops in order to discuss the permit process and left the Citywide no up to staff. Council also concurred to authorize staff to obtain an accurate cost for software for an online permitting system in the future. Council recessed from 10:25 p.m. to 10:36 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 25. Consider adopting an ordinance moving the date of the City's eg neral municipal election to consolidate it with the statewide general election commencing November 2012. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10 -2061: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino moving the date of the City's general municipal election to consolidate it with the statewide general election commencing November 2012." Written communications for this item included emails from Patrick Kwok and Julie Lunn opposing the date change, and an email from Ignatius Ding regarding a complaint sent to the Fair Political Practices Commission. Ignatius Ding said that it would be bad politics to change the date of the election and noted that local issues would be lost if the election were changed to coincide with a State election. He read a letter submitted to Council regarding the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and cited a section from the Election Code. City Attorney Carol Korade said that she read the FPPC letter and categorically, no impropriety exists on Council's action tonight or back in March on this issue. Jennifer Griffin said that she doesn't see any benefit for the future in changing the election and asked to have a courtesy notice sent Citywide to inform residents of Council's decision on this item. ' TI � E Tl 17 MMa 71 77 T I M - L "�-, IWO. et. !—p W. -15 - if �� I III I NO, it, � ■ I � II�I� �� l jim- m' ""-[I limi Ift I= Jim 0. ON 0 MoII � � � �� ■I III,, 4 + �� i �I � � i�� ' � P' iff IS U. UK iff 0 a I'm it, � 'Im ow IMT �W ilm M, l jim- m' ""-[I limi Ift I= Jim NOW it, � 'Im ow IMT �W ilm M, l jim- m' NOW m11 � wil M ft ift im Ifs IIS WW I M I p A A li a W I I VI i f WU WWMI VI i f WWMI PON �'I M MWII ism WWMI PON �'I M MWII ism .j l� I Wmi mm� �MEM IMW� ff=m J WK I A W NOW 4-M A W—W I ptf FHOW E NOW moo W ff� 7Z, Le, W ml I wi W k a MW IL M A _W , � 7-M 2� OWU W E 17 W M tt a 4 . - 7� I� � t �I Qp 1, 1.4 � I L I � M��m a • i t ff.. 7,7077 ". 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 �� WR �� al n ol I 'm 3�j-mm vl� 3 .............. _g G � .8� Y3'•' • q� J i4"" �11 .Y -: �• Asa � -; 7 f 7 q 7 . i J r"n". -� . " RMW G&MML 5 ' ul WNW- ■ �'Z• �5. +2 :3 :3� xe� "sl .. -� ' t• . - -. .i �. 31': 'ir"�7• . '�° - ...- � -� G 9•' Btu :�3� :i �_3 ::.F_ n ` f' I y I i a:r.'l - v5 lL•'p ! 1 r-! 259 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 9, 2010 ATTACHMENT K Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • Said that the current ordinance amendments presented are proposed to make the zoning ordinance consistent with the housing element adopted in 2010; the environmental determination is that it is CEQA impacted because there are no environmental impacts. • In April 2010, the City Council adopted the housing element and also adopted some associated Municipal Code amendments; however, since then additional changes have been identified related to consistency or conformance with both the housing element and also with other chapters of the Municipal Code. The layout is also being changed to improve readability and trying to eliminate redundancies or discrepancies. • She reviewed the amendment details for Chapter 19.48 — Planned Development (P) Zones; Chapter 19.124 — Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances; Chapter 19.72 — Private Recreation (FP) Zones and Chapter 20.04 — Specific Plans, as outlined in the staff report. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the recommended amendments. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing; as no one was present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried 5 -0 -0 to approve Application MCA- 2010 -06 per the model resolution. 5. CP- 2010 -01 Review of the Management study of the Permit process and City of Cupertino opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's permit Citywide Location services and organizational history. Continued from the May 8, 2010 City Council meeting; Tentative City Council date: February 2011 Chair Brophy noted that the presentation is for discussion purposes only, no motions will be made; discussions will include what should be covered and establish a formal public hearing to discuss what recommended changes will be made. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the Council reviewed the documentation that staff provided the Planning Commission as part of the matrix report, and they wanted staff to conduct two workshops where everybody who had gone through 1:he permitting process were noticed as well as interested parties in the last five years. Two different workshops were held. Consultant Ken Rodriguez will discuss what input was heard from the workshops and what the compilation of the data is, and Piu Ghosh will review the technical details. Ken Rodriguez, Consultant: • Reported on the two workshops held and applauded staff on the excellent job of documenting the workshops. Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the staff report relative to the development process review; Matrix Consulting Group prepared a comprehensive analysis of the city's development permit process in November 2009; Planning Commission reviewed it in April and May and the City Council also reviewed the item in May. City Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach into the community and sent notices to all property owners, contractors and developers who airs Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 9, 2010 received permits within the last 5 years. Outreach efforts included the mailing of 5,300 notices and notices were also placed in Cupertino Courtier, Scene and the city's website. • The first workshop was held on July 28, 2010; 19 attendees including 4 Planning Commissioners. Different themes were identified within the Matrix report, including streamlining, technology and communication. The main comment from the meeting was that the development process needs to be streamlined; a comprehensive online permitting system is key; and that streamlining is desirable as long as there is no reduction in the level of public engagement that the city currently does. • The second workshop was held on September 8, 2010; a group exercise and free discussion was held, details are outlined in the staff report, Page 5 -3; the only change recommended related to parcel maps, that those could be approved administratively. No changes were suggested to the single - family review process; however, changes were suggested to the exception processes. She reviewed the recommended changes as outlined in the staff report. • Relative to communication, the attendees at the second workshop discussed at length the noticing process. Some members of the community, especially applicants, felt that the requirements were onerous, while others were satisfied with the level of communication and felt that any streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input. Staff is suggesting a new enhanced public engagement process called ACT — Advise, Collaborate, and Team Up which was explained in detail on Page 5 -5 of the staff report. • Relative to technology, at the first workshop, 7 of the 15 attendees indicated support for a new online permitting system; preliminary discussion held indicated support for roughly a 4% increase in fees to cover the cost of the system. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission comment on the proposed changes and submit any other proposed modifications or recommendations to be forwarded to City Council. Com. Miller: • Said that lowering the level of approvals is a good idea which is one way to improve efficiency. Also staff suggested an online system to improve efficiency. The Matrix report has a number of suggestions in terms of reducing some work which they felt was unnecessary. It was suggested that two story residences be treated the same as one story as far as the approval process is concerned. • One area that wasn't adequately addressed is the actual processes that staff currently has in place and how they can be improved. Aarti Shrivastava: • Noted that the flow chart in the staff report outlines the processes which change depending on what the applicant provides; every one of the processes follow the flow chart, except for R1 which staff can provide. • Staff is also looking at many of the administrative changes and to make those in -house improvements. The flow chart except for the RI, doesn't include story poles; and the tree removal process is different. The process is what you see in front of you, changes depending on who is applying, how much information they provide. Com. Miller: • Said that he felt the flow chart does not help an applicant in terms of what steps he has to take, and that is where the exercise could be valuable because the output of the exercise could be put online for clear understanding. None of the steps are clear in the ordinance or guidelines it is very confusing for a new applicant. He suggested addressing it as a Planning Commission and make improvements and submit something to the Council. 261 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 9, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said she was attempting to differentiate between ordinance amendments and internal processes. The application packet addresses many of the questions and staff is looking to improve it and customize it for RI vs. all other applications. The flow charts describe the steps in a process and what meetings are needed to go through it, and the application packet walks the applicant through each paper to provide in order to complete the application. Com. Miller: • Said he felt the application packet was not fully complete as to the current requirements. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she has followed the process from the beginning and felt there was too much change happening. She said the way Cupertino does business now protects and maintains strong neighborhoods and asked why would they want to change it? Cupertino's process has evolved over a number of years to be uniquely Cupertino's. The city has politically active residents who are trying to maintain the true nature and strength of their neighborhoods and she saw no reason for change. She said she felt there were many outside forces beyond Cupertino that don't like the way that Cupertinians do things and she had concerns that some of those people are influencing this beyond the point they should, such as the anonymous focus groups in the Matrix report. Relative to the many reports, she did not want a lower level of authority, but things to stay as is. She wanted to make sure the neighborhood notification continues and that the neighbors remain involved; as they are the heart and soul of Cupertino. Kevin McClelland, representing the Board of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: • In favor of application. • Applauded the review of the process and the work that has been done so far; it is a step in the right direction. • He disagreed with the previous speaker regarding her comment about standards being lowered to make it easier for people to conduct business in Cupertino; he saw no evidence where standards are being lowered. • He suggested having a better timeframe on some of the approvals and response times to help keep projects moving along; many times information can be missing or there can be snags that stall or slow down a process. • He also suggested having better timeframes and perhaps alternatives for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to ensure that everyone is heard, and the meetings have a distinct timeframe and be completed in a shorter timeframe. • They support the online system which would help to not only save the city money but also streamline and help the process. Bob McVie, Cupertino resident: • Said he supported the online system as it would save staff time and provide access to the public on a readymade basis. Item 3 is important where overwhelmingly the group members were looking at streamlining but didn't want a reduction in the level of public engagement; they do not want to revert back to the 1990s after going through 10 years of developing what they now have. • Referring to Attachment 1, Collaborate level, it mentions greater than 25 units, 25,000 sq. ft. of retail, commercial, industrial; all three categories are major developments in Cupertino; Cupertino is a small city. He recommended those be reduced to a lower level of 10 to 15 units, 10,000 sq. ft. of retail and about 25,000 sq. ft. of office; /industrial. He recommended 262 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 increasing the neighborhood notice which is at 500 feet minimum to past notifications wouldn't get to the citizens of Cupertino, but commercial properties. November 9, 2010 1,000 feet, because in the only to the developed He said he appreciated the process; it was informative for all and allowed the public to provide input at those meetings. Darcy Paul, Cupertino resident: • Said he supported the streamlining process for development permitting. Relative to noticing, he applauded the Commission for considering expanding the general notice which will benefit public input. • He said he felt the three minute limit for each speaker makes it arduous because some meetings go until 2 or 3 a.m. which is not necessarily an effective process. He said he was not suggesting eliminating the public input process at meetings, but try to make it more efficient if there are comments prior to the meeting, being processed by the city. He said with respect to being able to integrate some modern technologies and using online tools, he supported being more creative about how to process public input in that manner Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Chair Brophy: • Reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to put together an agenda for formal consideration. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that a major or minor permit depends on the size of the project and that decides whether the Commission or Council hears the items. • If it is a conditional use or CG ordinance, it has certain uses that could be approved at staff level and certain uses for Commission approval; everything cannot be put in one box. They could say the more intense or more controversial uses get reviewed at the Planning Commission and the larger projects get reviewed at the Council level. She noted that they have taken every project individually, but if they are combined in one application, the highest approval body will review it. • She said when it was first brought to the Planning Commission the Planning Commission did not want to open up the Rl, but they heard in meetings some comments from people saying that it was onerous and they thought they would bring it back to see if the Planning Commission did have any comments to move forward. The last time the R1 was looked at was in 2009; it has been through three or four reviews in the last 8 to 10 years and the last set went through a fair amount of vetting by the community as well as Planning Commission and Council. There is also design review, story poles and noticing, and comments can be forwarded to staff. Chair Brophy: • Relative to tree removals, especially in the case of owner- occupied houses, there were opinions that the process is onerous. What are the thoughts on tree removal, whether or not the problems arise are greater than what the social benefits are. Aarti Shrivastava: • The ordinance states that if a tree is dead or in a very hazardous situation, if staff can determine the condition and not have to see an arborist, there is no requirement for an arborist report. 263 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 November 9, 2010 On occasion, there are reports that the tree appears healthy but there is something going on inside the tree, and more information is needed; if staff cannot make a determination, an arborist report is required. There is no charge if it is determined dead or hazardous and a replacement schedule per the tree ordinance is worked out at no charge. If it is a protected tree per the ordinance, the ordinance requires tree: replacement; if it is non - protected tree, they do not require replacement. Com. Miller: • Relative to the tree ordinance, if a tree dies of natural causes whether protected or not, it has lived and died on its own and there should not: be a requirement that you have to replace it with two more protected trees. He said he had difficulty with that concept. • Said that staff spends an inordinate amount of time on architectural review; it is not done for one -story buildings but is done extensively for two -story buildings. Suggested that it is an area where significant improvements could be made in efficiency and how to do things with no loss of quality in eliminating or changing the process. • The new ordinance that allows square footages on the second floor greater than 45% of the first floor have requirements that it would have to be a definable style and need to have four - sided architectures. • It may make sense but then it is required that all those sides be hidden behind privacy protection. He said he was at a loss to see where the benefit is of spending time and effort on getting very detailed architecture, particularly when the buildings are small and lots are tight, and then hiding that beautiful architecture behind a barrier of landscaping. He said it was an area that should be looked at. • Many cities require story poles but Cupertino takes it a level that no other city does; requiring that an engineer go out and survey the exact location where the story poles are to be planted in the ground, which is an expensive proposition, from $2,000 to $5,000 for poles that will stay up for a month. The city also requires that all the corners and ridgelines be detailed in plastic. He said when looking at the plan and looking at the story poles he could not distinguish all the detail and doubted that anyone else could. He questioned the value of the expenditure which is another area to look into. • Relative to noticing, he said he did not see; a reason to send out detailed floor plans to neighbors; what goes on in the interior of the building is a private matter of the homeowner and does not have to be disclosed to the neighbors. It is appropriate to put a four sided elevations to see the site plan, the grading, drainage, but not floor plans; why should the neighbor have the right to comment on the location of someone else's bathroom. • The other issue with the R1 ordinance that creates much conflict, is the concept of compatibility with the neighborhood and mass and bulk; they are very subjective and it causes endless discussions and arguments. Relative to compatibility and conformity, he referred to the Willow Glen neighborhood in San Jose, where every house is different than the neighbors, yet the neighborhood look good and one couldn't: argue about conformity or compatibility there. One of the reasons Cupertino is now allowing a larger second story is because people have said that Cupertino has the wedding cake look and they want to get away from that. The compatibility stipulation in the ordinance goes to the same question and it does not allow for creativity for designs that could fit in with the neighborhood or are not allowed because they don't look like the ranch house next door. It is another area where it is right to look at the R1 ordinance. • He cautioned about reopening the R1 ordinance because it is a risky thing; however, it could be opened in a limited way and agree to address certain things and agree to send that request onto City Council. 264 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 November 9, 2010 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said staff would like to get comments on Attachment 1 and IA which are the heart of the recommendations; Attachment 1 tries to put a level of certainty into projects where both the applicants as well as people understand what the requirements are. • The second takes it to the technical level and compiles data received from the group workshops along with the recommended public strategy. The site signage is a great idea, it addresses people who may not have been in the noticing radius; renters, people who moved in new and weren't updated on the metro scan; it addresses a lot of issues and we have looked at this from all angles and tried to find the best way to inform the public as well as a creative way to get input. We believe for larger projects, the neighborhood workshops are a better way than the three minute input at meetings. Com. Giefer: • Said she was part of the development of the current RI over the past 8 years, and many of the points that Com. Miller brought up were the things that were put in the R1 because that was what the public was most fearful of; they felt a lack of control; they felt they didn't know what was going on in residential development; they had no way of understanding what was going to happen in properties adjacent and across from them. She recalled that they sent out the floor plans because some people's living rooms or family rooms would be facing a neighbor's master bedroom; and they discussed what the appropriate level of information given out should be. She suggested that if they reopen the R1, they tie it in with the they had with green building where they lowered the overall FAR, and the greener the building is, the more FAR you are entitled to. • She said that story poles do work, but if there is new information to make the process easier for the developer, they should consider it. • Said that no more angry groups are coming to meetings which happened during the two story development issues, because neighbors know what is going on, and she said she did not want the future Planning Commissions to have to deal with that. She said if they are going to look at RI or send it to Council then they should look at FAR, and reducing the overall FAR in the city; if you want to increase your FAR back up to the current levels, then build a greener home. • She said it would be helpful to know exactly what information is required for various permits and try to transpose a timeline. Com. Kaneda: Said he did not like the fact that two stories are treated separately from one story; the argument for not having a stricter review on one story buildings is that you have a fence in between and it more or less blocks the view between houses; but at the street level, architecture is architecture and it can get ugly or nice. He recalled his personal experience, when his architect told him not to try to do a two story house in Cupertino because he would have to go through an architectural review and it is not worth the hassle. He decided on a one story, although he preferred a two story home. Com. Giefer: • Said during her remodel they did not experience major problems; her pool plans were lost three times and they had to make one phone call about a framing issue but it was worked out. Ken Rodriguez: • Said he was interested in people's experiences with the R1. On a commercial level, the Matrix report is very accurate; extremely cooperative and very organized. • Said he liked the idea of computer permit streamlining, and suggested that the Council go to Apple and partner with them and beta test the whole system with them. 265 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 November 9, 2010 Cupertino is a place where people want to locate because of the school system and a nice community, and building a single family home is probably the only time they will do that. The process is confusing, it could be simpler for first timers, and with the help of technology staff will be able to put many of those printed documents on the computer. He said he was hopeful that all the things discussed will be translated into that process and it will make it easier for the first time person. Fle said some communities because of budget cuts are forced to cut down on staff, and people going to their city hall are forced to locate the staff through phone lines in the lobby area, which is impersonal. Aarti Shrivastava: • Noted that the planning department hours have been extended to improve customer service. Com. Giefer: • Said that having a process online similar to "R1 For Dummies" would make it simple for people going through the process. Details explaining what the documents consist of, etc. and what to expect when attending a design review meeting or Planning Commission meeting, would be extremely helpful to people because not everyone utilizes an architect. Ken Rodriguez: • Once you get the process online, people could study the process and complete the paperwork in their own homes; it is a daunting process for people to appear before a Planning Commission meeting or City Council meeting. Com. Kaneda: • Suggesting making available a set of drawings for the public to look at as part of the process. Staff said she would discuss it offline with Com. Kaneda. Com. Miller: • He said a detailed flow chart was needed, showing each step including the deliverables, what the city is expecting you to submit, what the dependencies are for doing those submittals; going through it step by step would provide a birds eye view of exactly what each process involves and where. When it is laid out, you can see where improvements can be made and staff can possibly make some modifications afterwards, and that could be the basis of documentation to go online for an applicant to look at and get a better idea up front of what needs to be done. It is a valuable process to go through and they can find places to make improvements. • Provided an example of an R1 approval requirement of providing the interior square footage of the proposed house. Staff requires the applicant to provide drawings of squares inside the house which would indicate the total square footage. If the application was designed on a CAD system, it is a more efficient and accurate way to provide the information. There are other similar areas where improvements can be made, and by flow charting it out and seeing all the requirements, staff can then look at them individually and make suggestions for improvement. • Reiterated that they were asked to look at the process, and he felt he could not do an evaluation of the process without knowing exactly what the process is, and asked for more detail to better understand the process, where it works and where improvements can be made. R He said if applicants have to go through it, the commissioners should also. Chair Brophy: • Said that the Commission's role is to focus on things related to the ordinance and some of these issues brought up are not ordinance matters, but work processes, and he was not sure 266 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 November 9, 2010 they were set up for resolving those types of issues. If it is not in an ordinance, it shouldn't be a matter for the Commission to resolve. Said they need to resolve the R1 issue; he agreed with Corns. Giefer and Miller, that some of the process is unduly complicated, but to the extent that they have generous FAR scores, he was not sure they were willing to reopen that issue. They reviewed in in detail and the Council expressed their opinion in no uncertain terms and notwithstanding the Commission's unanimous view that they were not going to touch the FAR matter. Said he was reluctant to reopen RI unless there are specific ordinance problems such as the story poles not requiring a formal engineering survey or the corner and ridgelines detail, because he did not feel they were providing much value. Piu Ghosh: • Said they do require story pole certification; however, it does not have to be by a surveyor, and can be done by a contractor. They must be presented at the correct height and location, which has been a contentious point in past RI appeals. Aarti Shrivastava: • Story poles requirements are part of the ordinance and staff will implement whatever the Planning Commission and City Council decide should be implemented as part of the ordinance. If the story pole requirement is removed, they won't have to do it any longer. Whatever requirements the Council decides, staff wants to ensure that the applicant is able to self - certify without staff having to go and check every detail because that takes extra staff time. She said she understood the issues, and perhaps they could be argued in relation to the ordinance to say that many of the story pole requirements are onerous, and that people who have gone through the process are best able to bring those comments in. Com. Miller: • Suggested a subcommittee of two commissioners to meet with staff, and present findings to the Planning Commission. Corn. Giefer: • Suggested that it be Planning Commissioners who were not involved with the original R1 so their discovery would be original and not be tainted by prior hearings and feedback, which would provide unbiased information. Corn. Miller: • Said he felt they would lose experience and knowledge that is valuable in the process, if they took that approach. Aarti Shrivastava: • Having gone through the RI process recently, it is appropriate to bring a lot of this; staff was hoping to get more comments on Attachment 1 and IA; I am not saying that other changes don't have to be made, but if we could get some of that to see if we are in the right direction, or not, and then we can look at Rl, we will bring the comments to the Council about generally trying to streamline the R1 requirements. Chair Brophy: • Said he was not sure he agreed with the comment about noticing, as they were already covered under zoning amendments up to 1,000 ft. and to the extent you have an industrial parcel in Vallco. 267 Cupertino Planning Commission 19 November 9, 2010 Com. Giefer: • There are special cases where you have the best intentions, with 300, 500 or 1,000 square feet, but only one neighbor would actually get notice, but others are interested; with RHS adjacent property owners were included because the parcels were so large that notice may have been sent to only one resident. Valerie Armento: • Said that an ordinance sets the minimum standard that is going to apply uniformly throughout the city; there is nothing that prohibits noticing extra or additionally in those types of situations, but it sets the minimum requirement which is going to apply across the board; so you want to set something that is reasonable and not overly burdensome in the grand scheme of things recognizing that in special cases, you can always notice in addition. Keep in mind that going to the the 500 or 300 foot level know, as they drive or walk by the site. It will be another requirement that will end up in the handout. • The Wireless Ordinance states that it should be a specific radius noticing or two properties on either side of the subject property. Com. Miller: • Said feedback from neighbors said the most effective thing when changing the ordinance was putting up the renderings; people walking by can see them and get a good visual idea of exactly what the house is going to look like, which is far superior to the story poles and anything else done. Com. Kaneda: • Expressed concern about the issue of whether or not to allow balconies on homes in Cupertino. He said he did not personally care whether or not balconies were permitted, but he noted the inconsistencies in some neighborhoods where balconies were permitted and within a five block area, balconies were not permitted in anolher neighborhood, because of complaints from neighbors. Chair Brophy: • Said he did not want the Planning Commission involved with gates and fences. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the ordinance remains as is. Com. Miller: • Suggested having a subcommittee to look at R1 and bring it back to the Commission. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said they did not address R1 because it was heard loud and clear that the Planning Commission did not want to open up the R1. • Relative to the RI, staff hoped it would be more of a streamline process for revenue producing projects in the city. Having just gone throu0 an RI they weren't excited about reopening it again; one of the things people value is certainty and if the R1 is reopened every year it is not providing the best service to their customers. • However, if there are things that both the Commission and Council think should be removed, staff will address it, but their focus is going to be on trying to make the ordinance clear about the process, trying to make it clear for the commercial developments and the larger projects providing that protection to neighbors to add noticing. .: Cupertino Planning Commission 20 November 9, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Said he would like to avoid getting involved with second story decks because they can't be addressed without going into the whole R1 ordinance. He was not opposed to minor landscaping and exterior enhancements for condos, but not interested in working on changing wood fences to wrought iron fences, etc. He said he would rather not deal with the core of the R1, but focus more on internal work processes rather than ordinance processes. Aarti Shrivastava: Said staff was looking at internal work processes, and working with applicants and any comments from commissioners would be welcomed. Staff is not looking at all Matrix recommendations relative to the R1 specific ordinance amendments; they have gone to the two public meetings and are bringing back the recommendations for the ordinance amendments. Staff is also working on the internal staff improvements as well as the online permitting process. They have received a lot of positive feedback on the online permitting, we are seeking funding for it. Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Com. Giefer: • Concurred with Chair Brophy, but does not feel as part of Matrix, they should open it up. Com. Miller: • Said he disagreed; the architectural review is such a huge resource and expensive process for both the city and the applicant that it screams out for review. It is an area they could save countless hours of staff time and thousands of dollars of applicant time by doing a better job. It is such a sore point with every applicant who comes in and has to go through it. There is no better time for improvement than now. Chair Brophy: • Said if there are large homes on small lots, there is an inherent potential for being intrusive to the adjoining houses, and he preferred not to reopen it. Com. Miller: • Said there were two separate processes, one for one story and a different one for two story houses. There are actually duplicate processes going on because the two story homes have to be reviewed by the city architect and then reviewed again by staff, the applicant gets two sets of changes, one from the architect and another one from city staff. • It is a problem particularly for an applicant who hires an architect who has an opinion; they go and get reviewed by the city architect and he may have a slightly different opinion; and then they get reviewed by the staff who may or may not have architectural experience. All this has to go into a mix and come out, and it is a very long, expensive process, and I don't see where it adds any quality whatsoever to the end result. We can let it go on, but that is not my preference; my preference is when there is a problem, fix it. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the homes that are above 45% are because of specific guidelines; the ones below are not. Staff comments along with the architect's comments are integrated as early as possible; the idea being to integrate all comments from different departments as well as the consultants; the person is always working with one staff planner. Com. Kaneda: • Said he was concerned about trying to balance two things; if you totally let it go it reverts back 269 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 November 9, 2010 to the reason they started trying to put controls on it in the first place, which is the monster homes where you build a straight wall up to the edge of the allowable property envelope. The other option is to follow Palo Alto which has a DRC and they look at everything; it is overly onerous but they have beautiful homes. He said he did not like the past layer cake architecture which encouraged one style of building which is not particularly attractive; the Spanish style development architecture that developers use up and down the peninsula. He said he did not like seeing every house in Cupertino looking like that. Said his sense was to give it some time and see if the problem looks like it has been taken care of to see what the results are before tweaking it more. Com. Miller: • The two story process that people have been complaining about has been in place for five years; the way to put controls on it is to be more prescriptive and put more guidelines and requirements in the ordinance, but give the ,applicant's architect flexibility to choose among them. Presently they are subject to staff saying; they know there is a set of guidelines, but this is the one they want you to follow. He said he would like to eliminate that issue as well. Com. Giefer: • Said they just changed the first to second FAR to specifically address architectural differentiation last year. Chair Brophy: • Com. Miller gave the example of the Willow Glen neighborhood where you have homes quite different from one another and where there is no problem. The reason why that worked and is not working as well any longer is because the homes were much smaller relative to the size of the lots; when you were building homes at 15 or 20% of lot size, you could build whatever you wanted and your neighbor may not like it, but it didn't overwhelm him. In Willow Glen today, homes are being torn down and large homes are being built. • Said he did not feel the process addresses the issue; one ordinance says you can put a very large home on very small lot, but it has to be good architecture; and the reason clients are unhappy is because you cannot build 45% homes that are good architecture on a standard lot in a California suburb. Com. Miller: • Said he had no objection to lowering the FAR and if other commissioners feel the same way and want to do that with other recommendations, send them to the Council for their reaction. • Relative to story poles, he said he questioned their value, but was willing to get input from the residents. He said he felt the use of renderings provided a very clear picture of what is going in there. There is a height limit and story poles are intended to see mass, bulk and height and they have setbacks and height limits to address those issues. If someone is building something within those guidelines then- they have a strong argument for getting approval, even if their neighbor doesn't like it; otherwise they can change the guidelines which is what is being discussed. Com. Giefer: • Said she would not support a minute order, because it is outside of the matrix. She said they should focus on things such as policy; the feedback received and the direction they started out with on the project. 270 Cupertino Planning Commission 22 November 9, 2010 Com. Miller: • Said he understood the direction was to look at the permitting process and suggest improvements, and that is why he wanted to see flow charts and deliverables. From that, they may decide that there are some changes to the ordinance that make sense based on that review. Com. Giefer: • Said she had no problem with the flow charts and looking at the process. That is something they can handle as they have discussed wanting to review that. • Said she heard Com. Miller's ideas on this as a developer and recalled sitting through long meetings where the community felt the city had abandoned them, and people who have lived here their entire lives didn't have a say in things; which was a concern in terms of where they are headed. Com. Miller: • Commented that open hearings have been held where the public can attend and give their input. Following discussion, there was a straw vote 4 -1 not to forward a minute order to the Council. Com. Miller: • Said he understood the objective was to look at the permitting process, but felt he could not do so without knowing what the process is. He suggested a subcommittee be formed to address it and bring it back to the Commission. He volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and suggested another commissioner also serve on the subcommittee. Com. Giefer: • Cautioned the Commission on bias; and suggested they get fresh ideas and let people who haven't dealt with this before, review it and see what they come up with to get a new perspective. Com. Miller: • Said he felt there was no substitute for having someone who understands it to begin with; who has been through it, followed it and gone into detail, and doesn't have to spend a month getting up to speed. Vice Chair Lee: • Volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Aarti Shrivastava: Recommended that staff bring the Commission's input on Attachments 1, 2 and a recommendation that two commissioners would work with staff to provide their input on processes; staff will continue to take input from applicants throughout the process and look at improving it offline. Next step would be to go to the Council with Commission's recommendation on the broad brush area to say, they have heard your comments on Attachments 1 and 2 on the collaborative process, reducing the number of units to 15 in order to require neighborhood meeting; didn't hear any changes to the retail or office; there wasn't a majority vote to make any changes to the R1, and that we work with two commissioners and involve applicants in trying to make the process more user friendly. 271 Cupertino Planning Commission 23 November 9, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Suggested waiving the $162 appeals fee, since it doesn't cover the costs associated with an appeal, and sends the wrong message to residents. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the appeals fee was established to discourage frivolous appeals and it doesn't begin to cover the costs which range between $5,000 to $6,000. Staff feels having a nominal fee helps, but if the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation, they will bring it forward to Council. She noted that if the appeal is upheld, the appeal fee is returned to the appellant. Com. Kaneda: • Said he felt the fee discourages frivolous appeals and is warranted. Chair Brophy: • Said that in the interest of democracy, the few frivolous appeals they receive, is worth not having a fee. Com. Giefer: • Said she was neutral on charging an appeals fete. Vice Chair Lee: • People appeal because they are upset so it is not likely that charging them a fee of $162 given will generate a large number of new appeals. Com. Miller: • Said there should be an appeals fee, even if it is a small barrier to frivolous appeals. If the appeal is granted, the fee is not charged to you which seems to be reasonable and the appeals are usually done by several people or an entire neighborhood and the $162 fee divided amongst neighbors would not seem to be a hardship in Cupertino. The Council decided on the fee not long ago. Vice Chair Lee: • Relative to signs for tree removal, the draft states that a sign needs to be up; and if it with another application, they need to have an ASA and have to remove a number of trees. A TR could be put up; however, if it is one person in the home that wants to cut down one tree, it should not be required if not associated with a major sign approval. Aarti Shrivastava: • This wasn't an addition by staff; it is a current requirement in the ordinance; the tree ordinance was reviewed in 2007 and it was added at that time. Any recommendation can be brought forward to the Council. Com. Giefer: • Said her experience is it is usually a planned. development because somebody moves in and doesn't understand there was a landscaping plan approved as part of the overall development, even if it is 5 homes. If a home is a part of a planned development, a replacement plan is needed in order to remove a tree. People may be caught off guard because they did not realize the planting was approved as part of the development. 272 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 November 9, 2010 Valerie Armento: • Cautioned the Commission that they were conducting a process study to focus on the process, and discussion should not drift into regulations. Aarti Shrivastava: • Reviewed the tree removal process. If a heritage tree is removed, it is to be replaced by one 48 inch box tree. The heritage trees are specific historic trees that are mapped in the city, with tags on them; protected trees are five species used for landscape plans approved as part of a planned development. An arborist is consulted to determine the best replacement for the site because of possible overcrowding. • If the homeowner does not agree with the tree replacement, they would have to appeal to the Planning Commission or decision maker. • Explained the different options relative to tree replacement for various reasons. Com. Miller: • The Director has the discretion to do what she wants, including not replacing the tree. If the reason for removing a tree is because there is crowding among the trees, it would be better for the remaining trees to have that one tree removed; does the ordinance require the replacement of the tree that was removed? • In general the tree ordinance is somewhat onerous on the homeowners. We view the trees as a community good, but it is an individual cost and there is some level of unfairness and some of the expense associated with permanent removal and the replacement by more trees tends to be costly. Requiring signage is just another expense that may not be necessary. I think we should look at single family residences and planned development. He explained the requirements for tree replacement when trees are removed. Chair Brophy: • Said it seemed unreasonable to have to replace a large tree that has died of natural causes; trees grow from small to large and it is expecting a lot to replace a tree that has died of natural causes. Com. Kaneda: • Said he agreed with Com. Miller, that if you require privacy planting and then in later years when the trees are overgrown, they have to be thinned out; the person who was originally required to plant all the trees should not have to pay an in -lieu fee in addition to removing the tree; it adds insult to injury. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that the R1 process allows a neighbor to waive a planting requirement; if the neighbor says they don't need the new trees planted, it is still part of the waiver and is acceptable. Aarti Shrivastava summarized: • All the ordinance recommendations have been identified in the packets; relative to the administrative process, staff is redoing the handouts; lunch time counter has been implemented, and there will be an internal meeting to see if the process can be streamlined, and staff will meet with the subcommittee as well. There are specific ordinance issues that are identified that the staff will bring it back to the full Commission for consideration. • She confirmed the 15 unit reduction in the collaboration section as well. 273 Cupertino Planning Commission 25 November 9, 2010 NEW BUSINESS None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO Environmental Review Committee No meeting; Housing Commission Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010 Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioner Meeting scheduled for November 10, 2010. Economic Development Committee Meetine Com. Miller provided the following summary: • The commercial environment has been decimated; there is concern that there is something like a couple of trillion dollars worth of building loans coming due over the next three years and some people felt that they would be taken care of in some way; other people thought they would create another crisis. Aside from that, though most of the participants felt they were cautiously optimistic that we had reached bottom and that in various places around the Bay Area, we were starting to see some small evidence of new development going on, particularly in the East Bay; there was some concerns about the legislation coming out of Sacramento and the amount that it was adding to the cost of construction; specifically new EPA requirements from the federal level as well as SB375 and AB332, and they even attached a number to it indicating that that would cost at least $6 per square foot to everything they did. Also, they are hoping as we move forward that the money situation loosens up, because it presently is extremely difficult to get loans. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUDaTY DEVELOPMENT Aarti Shrivastava reported: • The Council reviewed the appeal of the wireless facility on Results Way Nov. 1 and directed staff to work with the applicant to find an alternate location on the front portion of the site closer to McClellan, to see if that could be identified. If they could, the item would come back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. If they can't identify an alternate location, then they would go back to t:he Council. • On the modification to the Shashi hotel, the Council. approved the modification, but they raised the parking ratio to .75 per room (the Commission had recommended .6). The valet service would stay in place and they also wanted the Council to get an update of the parking annually for the first three years of operation. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled f�lFN v�ember 23, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabet is, Recording, Secretary Approved as presented: December 14, 2010 274 ATTACHMENT L CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENJE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planning@cuper ino.or PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 Agenda Date: November 9, 2010 Application: CP- 2010 -01 Applicant: City of Cupertinc Property Location: Citywide Application Summary: Review of the Management Study of the Permit Process and opportunities to enhance the quality of the City's development permit services and organizational efficiency. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide: • Comments on the list of recommended changes, to the permit process and public engagement policy (see Attachments 1.1A and 15); and • Provide any additional modifications and/or recommendations related to permit process enhancements. BACKGROUND In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to conduct a comprehensive organization and management analysis. of the development permit process and operations. The objective of the analysis was to identify opportunities for enhancing the quality of the City's permit services and improve organizational efficiency. Matrix began their research in March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009 (see Attachment 2). The study used a variety of sources for it;; analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of th � development process, permit data and the City's website. Matrix then compared Cupertino's permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry. A list of recommendations was presentE d to improve the City's permit process and organizational efficiency. The recommendations fall in the following; categories: • About 35 percent of the recommendations have already been implemented. L/6 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 2 • About 22 percent of the recommendati ins are being currently being implemented by staff. • About 35 percent of the recommendations need Planning Commission review /City Council action in the form of Ordinance/ Policy amendments or funding. • About four percent of the recommendations should not be considered either due to inconsistencies with City policies/ department functions and /or potential liability concerns; and • About four percent of the recommendations were based on incorrect assumptions by the Consultant. Attachment 3 is a summary table of recc mmendations in the Matrix report with staff comments. The Planning Commission reviewed the item on April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010 (see Attachments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 for staff reports and minutes). The City Council reviewed the item on May 18, 2010 (se:! Attachments 10 & 11 for staff report and minutes). The Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and directed staff to: 1. Conduct additional workshops for the community to collect feedback regarding the permit process; 2. Send notices to all applicants, proper ty owners, and developers who got permits from the City in the last five years. Li addition, place appropriate notices in local newspapers. Approximately 5,300 notices were mailer to invite permittees and property owners to participate in workshops on the development permit process. In addition, notices were placed in the Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene and the City's website. Two group workshops were held - one on July 28, 2010 and another on September 8, 2010. The first meeting was focused on collecting comments on the main themes of the Matrix Report. At the second meeting, workshop attendees were given an opportunity to provide their opinion about the levels of approval for different types of projects. Group Workshop #1 Nineteen residents and property owners (including four Planning Commissioners) attended the group workshop on July 23, 2010. At the first meeting, the group was asked to comment on three main categories indentified from the Matrix Report, streamlining, technology and communication. The attendees were provided with six key recommendations made by Matrix in each category for discussion (see Attachment 12). Participants were also given an opportunity at the end of the meeting to have an open discussion on all items that were not covered by the three main categories. Comments from the group are summarized in Attachment 13. zf6 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 3 Group Workshop #2 Twenty eight community members znd developers (including two Planning Commissioners and one Councilmember) attended the September 8 11, group workshop. The attendees were provided with han louts that compared Cupertino's approval authority with three neighboring cities: Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (see Attachment 14). Each category was discus >ed and following the discussion participants were asked to indicate on the handout what their opinion was. The results of this exercise have been tallied and are sumrr arized in Attachment 15 and the comments from the group have been summarized in Attachment 16. The main points brought up by the groups at the workshops were: • The majority of the group agreed chat the development process needs to be streamlined. • A comprehensive online permitting system is key to streamlining both processing and tracking projects. • An overwhelming majority of the grcup members agreed that while streamlining approval processes is desirable, they did not want a reduction in the level of public engagement that the current processes 7illow. Also, staff has reviewed the input to see if there are discrepancies or legal requirements that would require changes to the recommendations provided in the group workshops. In cases where changes have been proposed, staff has noted the change. A chart is attached that shows projects approved between 2006 and 2009 (see Attachment 17). It compares how the project would have been reviewed per the workshop attendees' recommendation, staff's recommendations, and the current ordinance requirements. Following the two group workshops, staff has compiled the input received at the group workshops into the following categories: 1. Ordinance/ Policy Amendments 2. Infrastructure/ Technology ImprovemEnts DISCUSSION The following is a compilation of input received at the group workshops. In cases where staff has made a different recommendation or where staff has provided additional recommendations, they are specifically noted in each section. 1. ORDINANCF/POLICY AMENDMENTS Based on the results of the group workshops, staff has attached its recommendations in Attachment 1. A. Streamlining Approval Authority: The comments from the first group workshop and the results of the tally of the responses from the second group woi kshop indicates support for reducing the 217 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 4 thresholds of the approval level for prc jects that are smaller and do not have far reaching impacts. The majority of the group discussion included the following concepts: • The City Council should review all prcjects that are "outside the box' of regulations - i.e. those that require a change to the General Plan or Zoning. Staff notes that these projects, Ordinance amendments, and Te;Ttative Maps are required to be reviewed by the City Council per State law. Staff would like to add a recommendation that any project that requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should also be reviewed by Council. • Projects that fit "within the "box" of the existing General Plan, zoning and other City regulations should be approved at the Planning Commission level. • Projects that are small and do not cau. impacts should be reviewed by staff. Staff notes that such projects could include those that are exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would not have an environmental impact. Projects that typically are exempt under CEQA include new con:;truction with six units or less and 10,000 square feet or less of new non - residential development or additions, facade improvements, site improvements including landscaping, replacement or reconstruction of non - residential buildings, etc. Staff would additionally like to recommend that any project that uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) infill exemption (Section 15332 of Categorical Exemptions of CEQA) require Planning Commission approval. • A number of residents expressed co ncern about reducing thresholds of project approval and recommended enhancir g public noticing in case the thresholds are reduced. • A few residents commented if thresholds of approval were reduced, appeal fees should also be lowered or eliminated to remove deterrents to their right to appeal a lower level decision. The current appeal fee is set at $162 and is refunded if the appeal is upheld. • Single Family (R1) Ordinance - While the Planning Commission had indicated at their meeting on April 27, 2010, that they d..d not want to review amendments to the R1 Ordinance, it is important to note thz.t some workshop attendees brought up the issue that R1 requirements were onero is. The two story permit application involves the following three steps: • Design Review • Story Poles - expensive and not always effective if not properly installed • Noticing - financially burdensome and could cause potential security issues since entire plan sets with floor plans have to be mailed While staff does not have specific recommendations, the Planning Commission may have comments or recommendations they wish the Council to consider. 1 The In -fill Development Exemption under CEQA is used typically for larger developments that are on urbanized sites of up to 5 acres in size. Since - uch projects may be larger than what other CEQA exemptions allow, staff recommends that they be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 1t8 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 5 B. Communication: The group workshop attendees discussed - :he issue of noticing at length. Some members of the community who have previously obtained permits from the City felt that the requirements were onerous. Other community members liked the improvements made by the City over the years to increase noticing and wanted to retain them. The participants additionally commented that any process streamlining should not result in reduction of public noticing and input. In response to the comments received in he group workshops, staff is recommending an enhanced public engagement process based on the following key principles: • A participation process must ensure that a participant's time is well spent. • A participation process must be focu 3ed and participants' needs should be fully aired and considered. • Project and participation expectations must be clear from the start. Staff has reviewed past projects where r otification was enhanced and would like to recommend a consistent policy for projecti where expectations for the applicant as well as neighbors / residents would be clear from the start. A draft concept of this new public engagement process policy - Advise, Collaborate, Team up (ACT) is shown in Attachment 1, with further details of current policy and proposed changes in Attachment 1A. The recommended ACT Public Engagement Process has the following levels of engagement: • Advise - Staff is recommending enhar cing noticing for all projects by requiring on- site signage, and providing link;; on the City's website. The specific recommendations are provided in Attachment 1A. Additionally, to make project signs on the site providing notice of development proposals easily recognizable, staff is proposing a draft sign and Standards based on a review of signs and standards in San Jose and Mountain Vi 2w (see Attachment 18). • Collaborate - This level incorporates enhanced notification for projects that have the potential to create neighborhood impacts. Staff is suggesting a threshold of 25 residential units, 25,000 square feet of retail/ commercial use and 50,000 square feet of office/ industrial use since project; at this level have the potential to create neighborhood level impacts. ProjectE at this level would be required to expand noticing to 500 feet and have a neighborhood meeting. The public engagement process at this level allows for dialogue between all parties and helps to discuss solutions that could be brought to decision- makers for their consideration. • Team Up - This is the highest level of public engagement for projects with city -wide implications. Staff recommends this I avel for large projects such as major General Plan amendments and zoning and Planned Development /Use permits that require an EIR. Projects at this level .would require expanded or city -wide noticing and focus groups/ workshops. Examples o: where the City has used this process include the South Vallco Master Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan. 219 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 6 Staff would also like to note that we are working on improving inter- departmental communication. Internal processes that can be improved upon by simple policy changes are also being evaluated and instituted. F irthermore, efforts are being made to prepare additional manuals and how -to guides to help homeowners, contractors and developers get the best information possible on prep 3.ration of application submittal materials and requirements/ processes. C. Improving Readability and Consistency In order to improve consistency between various City documents and improve readability of documents, staff recommends the following: • Review existing conceptual plans and area plans to make older documents consistent with the General Plan and to update them with new graphics. No amendments to the plans are proposed as part of this review. An administrative update with new graphics is expected 'o cost about $5,000 -7,500 per document. • Review the Zoning Ordinance for consistency and the use of tables to reduce repetition and optimize readability. The Sign Ordinance is an example of where this was done. Staff notes that we are currently working on a number of Council work program items and that the above - mentioned tasks will be done on a long -term basis as time permits. 2. INFRASTRUCTURE/TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS: Many workshop attendees indicated s :rong support for a comprehensive online permitting system (see Attachment 13). Seven of the 15 attendees at the first workshop indicated support for the acquisition anc implementation of an online permit system where they could submit applications, track the progress online and obtain permits online without having to submit paper plans. Based on the preliminary discussion, while many of the attendees supported the idea of instituting a technology fee of roughly 4% in order to cover some of the costs of acquiring a new permitting system, some attendees wanted to keep access to Raper plans. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission comments and recommendations will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Once the Council provides direction on issues to focus on, staff will bring related ordinance amE ndments to the Planning Commission for consideration. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary C ao City Planner Approved by: �r Aarti S vastava I/ Community Development Director Lt5 CP- 2010 -01 Matrix Project Recommendations November 9, 2010 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Recommended Approval Authority and Public Engagement Process (ACT) Attachment 1A Current and pioposed noticing requirements Attachment 2 Matrix Consul Group's report titled, "Management Shady of the Permit Process," dated November 17, 2009 Attachment 3 Summary tabl �! of recommendations in the Matrix report with staff conunerts Attachment 4 Pl annin g Conunission Staff Report dated April 13, 2010 Attachment 5 Planning Corrunission minutes from April 13, 2010 meeting Attachment 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 2010 Attachment 7 Planning Commission minutes from April 27, 2010 meeting Attachment 8 Planning Corrunission Staff Report dated May 11, 2010 Attachment 9 Planning Corrunission minutes from May 11, 2010 meeting Attachment 10 City Council St aff Report dated May 18, 2010 Attachment 11 City Council rr,inutes from May 18, 2010 meeting Attachment 12 Handouts to July 28, 2010 group workshop attendees Attachment 13 Summarized r otes and analysis from July 28, 2010 group workshop Attachment 14 Handouts to September 8, 2010 group workshop attendees Attachment 15 Tally of Approval Authority from September 8, 2010 group workshop anc: comparison of current level of approval authority and group recommendation to the cities of Mountain VieV T, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Attachment 16 Transcribed notes from September 8, 2010 group workshop Attachment 17 Comparison of approval authority on projects approved between 2006 and 2009 and group recommendations. Attachment 18 Draft standards and example for on -site signage related to development proposals. G: \ Planning � PDREPORT `pc CP reports \ 2010 CPreport � C - P- 2010 -01 PC 11- 09- 10.doc zo l ATTACHMENT M Comments from November 23, 2010 from Subcommittee on process changes Comments from the subcommittee related to internal administrative processes focused on the following key principles: 1. Customer service comes first. 2. Coordinate the development process so that projects are processed in parallel among all departments to make for a seamless and efficient experience. 3. Provide consistency among staff and across departments to allow for certainty in the process. 4. Provide online resources, training and workshops to applicants, contractors and the public to help them understand the permit process. 5. Use feedback from participants in the process including applicants, the public, staff and decision - makers to make continuous improvements to internal processes. The following are specific comments related to the abovementioned principles: A. Promote Case Manager approach to projects B. Avoid inconsistency related to project requirements or code interpretations among staff members - by having regular staff discussion and sessions on project conditions and requirements. C. Improve consistency and clarity in the review process (i.e., clarify interpretations and definitions) - for example, what items need to be completed before final occupancy is granted and what items can be deferred with bonds, agreements, etc.? D. Clarify and /or simplify dependencies of the development review process - for example - is a tentative map application required before architectural site approval for home design for a subdivision can be approved? E. Promote parallel processes where possible F. On -site signage for projects is a good idea G. Improve inter - departmental coordination H. Provide online training resources and links for information such as the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements, Green Building resources, etc. I. Host "how to" workshops, especially for first -time users of the permitting process - for example, single - family homeowners considering an addition/ remodel or building a new home. J. Create "how -to" manuals K. Allow flexibility (i.e., tree selection for privacy protection trees and /or mitigation for removal of protected trees)l y, L. Streamline process and approval requirements (i.e., remove architectural review for two story home approvals M. Consider eliminating onerous requirements (i.e., story poles, noticing, landscaping requirements, tree removal process) 1 N. Review ways to get input on improvements from users of the process including survey cards for applicants, discussions with staff, Commissioners, Council, etc. Notes: 1. May require ordinance amendment(s). 283 Application flowchart to Approval ATTACHMENT N 11112011 Talk to Bldg /Public Additional alronsend tion Forks and Fire with planner finalise te[hni[al Yes Reuiew /darificotion? reuiew slop e and budget Land Use /Zoning Comments to appll[ant considerations? NO Planner reuiew 0o es; itpeed ° 3 S dapsl Arborist /Geote[hoi[al /Traffi[ Colle[tdeposlt Consultantreulew [3 Consultant Preliminar Environmental andlnmate ° ° ° ° °.. weeks,more(or dra(treport Y mpact /Arousti[alReuiew? derations? ontract [om Imated ro e[ts to planner Review (15 Days)) , cons' p p I CA Oneweekmax. Provide Applicant Comments on issucs and hangos. May bo itorativo, Turnaround doponds on applicant completeness and turnaround ............................................................................................................................. ............................... Plans to admin — (orrouhng[1 ` plan weekmaal euiew : eletoQry file toadmm formal Apph[antto f leto f er(or Planner(or (or(ile ............. ....... ............................... p p . uiew and preparation Submittal a date laps ` Pre hearing Review ( "14 Doys) , Plops routed to Building, Plopping, Public Works, Fire end Sanitary District and LL heanng deportmentssuch es Health, Sheriff, Witter District etc es peeessary .............. Yes Pa[ketto CC S daps priorto meeting date .............. .............................................. ......... .............................................. ......... .......x....xxx x xxx::xx. Reconsideration? Building Plannin Publi[Works fire Sanitar Sheri(Ps g V Water Health Water S[hool AI[oholand NeporttoCMdue Department pepartmen Department Department District Department District pepartmen Companies District BeuerageControl Other State and 6 days priorto CouI genies hearing date Pa[ketto pNCfPC4 ...... xxx. xxx....... xxxx xx. x: :x::xxxx.xx.x::x::xxxxxx.x::x:: xxxxx. x.x::x::xxxxxx.x::x::xxxxxxv... xxxxx .xxx..xxxxxx.xx..xxxxxxx...xxl cc daps prior to meeting Draft Staff eport PLhearing to Coo due to pRCar D RC/ PC daps prior to PC or CC? No Contact applicant outlining Pre- hearmgmeehng; Not[ing21 iss ues and changes required concssuesor dapspnor Yes ....... �-. erns? final to hearing 2, Preltmtnarycondthons pe[islon? ofapproval ; =VPS A cal? PP Noxx Draft Staff Report N to Planning Manager due 12 Appli[antto make changes to plans ERL daps prior to NO and resubmitand/or respond to Ve$ ° °° comments. Must receive plans 3 4 ................ weeks priorto hearing date to allow 2nd round of review review time. if necessary. Any modifications requiredffmade Budding Neighborhood ................... Permit meeting,i( Astaff0rstaf or VeS.n..n.i flowchart does not account for the applican2$4esponse tim es and/or multiple reviews Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 ATTACHMENT 0 1 ofm Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Four lot subdivision, A5A- 2007 -01, U- 2007 -01, four new houses Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for four TM- 2007 -01, EA- 2007 -01 Frank Ho (Linnet homes) single family residences in a planned development PC I PC 1 Exterior signs, fa §ade Architectural Site Approval for exterior signs, canopy I I I I Steve details (California and awnings for California Pizza Kitchen (Vallco I I A5A- 2007 -02 Peterson Pizza Kitchen) Fashion Park) DRC I Admin. 117 apartment units, 117 apartment units, a public park, a recreational park, parking facility, and leasing office within an existing I I exception, variance apartment complex (Villa Serra /The Grove),for a total A5A- 2007 -03, TR- 2007 -02, from side, front and of 505 units with exception to side, front and rear I I EXC- 2007 -06, V- 2007 -02, EA Michael rear yard setbacks setback, a parking variance and associated tree 2007 -02 Ducote (Villa Serra) removals. CC I PC 1 A5A- 2007 -04, U- 2007 -02, Metro Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative I I TM- 2007 -05, EA- 2007 -03, Planning Map for a new six -unit single family residential planned I I TR- 2007 -09 Group 6 unit single family PD development with associated Tree Removals. CC I CC Architectural Site Approval of a proposed 10,650 1 ICC approval square foot retail building and one -level parking garage since on an existing office site, Tentative Map to subdivide I (Heart of A5A- 2007 -05, U- 2007 -03, Retail building, a parcel into two with associated Tree Removals and an the City TM- 2007 -08, TR- 2007 -03, Clifford parking garage exception to the front setback in the Heart of the I (Exception EXC- 2007 -08, EA- 2007 -05 Chang (Tantou Retail) City Specific Plan Area. CC 1 CC l required. Architectural and Site approval and Use Permit for a I I proposed 4- 5tory, 122 room hotel, 3 -5tory 56,194 square foot mixed use retail /office /convention center I I building over an underground parking podium and site 4 story hotel, 3 story improvements at an existing shopping center. I I A5A- 2007 -06, U- 2007 -04, mixed use retail (Oaks Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into two and TM- 2007 -09, EA- 2007 -06 Karen Ngo Hotel & Retail bldgs) condominiumizing one parcel further. CC 1 CC 1 Architectural and Site Approval for exterior signs at A5A- 2007 -07 Strike, Inc. Exterior signs Cupertino Square (formerly Vallco Fashion Park) DRC 1 Admin. 1 1 ofm Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 2 ofA Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Outdoor dining area Architectural Site Approval for an outdoor dining area A5A- 2007 -08 Susan Chen along SCB at an existing restaurant DRC I Admin. Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative I I A5A- 2007 -09, U- 2007 -05, 2 unit single family PD Map for two single family residences, 2,838 square TM- 2007 -10 Terry Brown on Pasadena feet each, in a planned development zoning district PC I Admin. ing a ory re T011 rc i ec ura i e rova an a er i or wo A5A- 2007 -10, U- 2007 -06, Brian bldgs, parking garage one -story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet EA- 2007 -08 Replinger (Cupertino Village) and a two -level parking deck CC I PC Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative A5A- 2007 -12, TM- 2007 -11, U Jyan -Ping 2 new houses on Map for two, two -story 2,193 square foot single family I I 2007 -08 Lily Chang Pasadena residences PC I Admin. Tontou Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for a A5A- 2007 -14, U- 2007 -09, Investments, 100,000 square foot, two -story office building and TR- 2007 -06, EA- 2007 -10 LLC 2 story office building site improvements with associated tree removals. CC I PC New daycare center Architectural Site Approval for site modifications and I I A5A- 2007 -15, U- 2007 -10 Jody Chan (Legend Learning Ctr) Use Permit for a Day Care Center /Specialized School PC I PC I Landscaping, parking Architectural Site Approval for fa §ade, landscaping I I modifications and parking lot modifications for an existing I I A5A- 2007 -16 Mahesh Patel (Furniture 2000) commercial building PC I PC details and Landscape Architectural Site Approval for final building and I I improvements (Las landscaping plans for an approved residential A5A- 2007 -17 Keith Kolkar Palmas) development DRC I Admin. nion urc New 5,000 s.. Arc itectura Site Approval and Modification o a se A5A- 2007 -18, M- 2007 -03 of Cupertino building Permit for a new 5,000 square foot building PC I Admin. Architectural Site Approval for a new two -story 3,676 A5A- 2007 -19 Li -Sheng Fu New 2 story duplex duplex DRC I Admin. Jonathan Sign exception Sign Exception to exceed the allowed height for a wall EXC- 2007 -01 Hobbs (5ymantec) sign DRC j Admin. j 2 ofA Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 J UTZO Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot I I second story addition to an existing residence for a Hillside Exception for total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 I I Jennifer 2nd story addition square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a EXC- 2007 -02 Jodoin (DeCarli home) prominent ridgeline PC I PC Sign exception Sign Exception to exceed the allowed sign height for I I EXC- 2007 -03, DIR- 2007 -05 Aaron Kelsey (Marketplace) sign on a tower element DRC I Admin. Fence Exception to construct a driveway gate at an EXC- 2007 -04 Amor Gupta Fence exception existing single family residence DRC I Admin. Sign Exception for two additional wall signs, with two I I on one wall face, and an exception to exceed the EXC- 2007 -07 Whole Foods Sign exception allowed height of 48" inches DRC I Admin. Hillside Exception to construct a new 5,765 sq. ft. I I EXC- 2007 -09, EA- 2007 -07 Kathy Yates Hillside exception residence on slopes greater than 30% slope PC I PC Fence exception to construct a fence in the front EXC- 2007 -10 Sasho Cukic Fence exception setback area of a single - family residence DRC j Admin. j Car wash consistent Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is I I w/ PD, Rec & Ent zone consistent with the Planned Development, I I INT- 2007 -01 Greg Malley (Homestead Lanes) Recreation /Entertainment Zoning District PC I Admin. Modification to a Use Permit (20 -U -99) to extend the hours of operation of an existing restaurant to 9:30 I I PM (with patrons /employees leaving by 11 PM) Monday Masayoshi Extend hours of through Friday and 10 PM on Friday and Saturday I I M- 2007 -01 Fujioka operation (Kiku Sushi) (with patrons /employees leaving by 1AM) PC I PC Modification to an existing Use Permit (16 -U -76) to Clarify food services modify the conditions under which food services allowance at businesses will be allowed in the Marketplace Shopping I I M- 2007 -02, U- 2007 -11 Evershine Marketplace Center along the rear service corridor CC I PC U- 2006 -13, Z- 2006 -05, EA- Lawrence 22 residential units Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1 acre parcel into 21 I I 2006 -18 Guy (Las Palmas) 1 parcel5 and one common parcel CC I CC J UTZO Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 4 ofd Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Tentative Map to subdivide a .46 acre parcel into two parcels, 8,375 square feet and 11,470 square feet TM- 2007 -03, V- 2007 -03 Tracy Nsu 2 lot subdivision respectively CC I PC I Rick Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three I I TM- 2007 -04 Bleszynski 3 lot subdivision parcels, ranging from 6,650 to 7,047 square feet PC I Admin. 3 parcel condominiums Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use TM- 2007 -06 Terry Brown (Hu) development into three parcels PC I Admin. 3 parcel condominiums Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use I I TM- 2007 -07 Terry Brown (Peng) development into three parcels PC I Admin. Tentative Map to create three condominiums units, 3 parcel condominiums one commercial and two residential, on a previously TM- 2007 -12 Terry Brown (Ghazvini) approved mixed -use development PC I Admin. 2 lot subdivision with variance to allow 50 Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into two with I I V- 2007 -01, EXC- 2006 -14, TM foot wide lots where variance to allow 50 foot wide lots where 60 foot is 2006 -12 Jitka Cymbal 60 foot is required required. PC I PC Architectural and Site approval for a new exterior entrance and minor exterior changes to an existing Ray Exterior changes restaurant (TGI Friday's) located at Cupertino Square I I A5A- 2008 -02, EXC- 2008 -09 Newcomer (TGI Friday) Shopping Center DRC I Admin. Architectural and Site approval of a landscape street Landsca p a improvement Ian and final details of the Green p p improvements and Building measures according to the conditions of final green building approval as directed by the City Council at their A5A- 2008 -03 Mike Ducote measures (Villa Serra) meeting of July 3, 2007 DRC I Admin. Final building and Architectural and Site approval to finalize the Brian landscape details architectural, site and landscaping plans for an I I A5A- 2008 -04 Replinger (Cupertino Village) approved Use Permit (U- 2007 -06) DRC I Admin. 4 ofd Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 5 ofa Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Architectural and Site approval and Modification of an I I existing Use Permit for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the I I development of three new, two -story office buildings containing 155,500 s sure feet, a two - level, 204 space 3 new two story parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping I I A5A- 2008 -05, EA- 2008 -06, office buldings improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office park TR- 2008 -06, M- 2008 -03 Tim Kelly (Results Way) (Results Way Campus) and associated Tree Removals. CC I PC Architectural and 5ite Approval for a master plan for a mixed -use development consisting of approximately, 147,000 square feet of retail commercial, 100,000 I I square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 160 unit senior (age restricted) housing, facility, 145,000 I I square foot athletic club, a four level parking garage I I and a 1.6 acre park /town square. (A project alternative A5A- 2008 -06, EA- 2008 -07, Kevin Mixed use- retail, consists of approximately 205,000 square feet of I I U- 2008 -01, TR- 2008 -08, TM- Dare /500 commercial, hotel, office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic 2008 -01 Forbes LLC housing (Main Street) club). CC I CC Architectural and Site Approval for a proposed 5- I I story, 138 -room hotel of approximately 82,000 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and I I A5A- 2008 -07, EA- 2008 -08, Rojeev 5 story hotel (Shashi conference rooms built over atwo -level underground U- 2008 -02, TR- 2008 -09 Chopra Hotel) parking podium that contains tandem parking. CC I PC Landscape and minor Architectural and Site Approval for landscaping, I I building improvements parking improvements, and accessory structures at an I I A5A- 2008 -08 Tom Dyer (5t.Jucle's) existing church. DRC I Admin. Architectural and Site Approval for the addition of a new chiller building to support a new lab, seismic upgrades to the existing building, a building fa §ade I I Christine New chiller bldg, change, tree removal and upgraded landscaping plan A5A- 2008 -09 Liong seismic upgrades (HP) for Building 47. DRC j Admin. j 5 ofa Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 6 ofd Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Sign Exception to exceed the number of allowed tenant names on a monument sign, to exceed the allowed maximum sign height and to exceed the I I Sign exception number of allowed signs for several tenants as part of EXC- 2008 -01 Evershine (Marketplace) a sign program DRC I Admin. Single Family Residential Exception to construct a I I Michael portion of a side -yard addition to within five feet of EXC- 2008 -02, RM- 2008 -07 Abler R1 setback exception the north, side property line DRC I DRC Sign exception (Civic Sign Exception for a monument sign in the public right I I EXC- 2008 -03 Tenny Tsai Park, LLC) of way and second wall sign DRC I Admin. Sign exception (Jiffy Sign Exception for a proposed logo to exceed the EXC- 2008 -04 Barbara Ford Lube) allowed height (Jiffy Lube) DRC I Admin. Sign exception Sign Exception for a ground sign more than 8 feet tall (Cupertino Landing measuring from the sidewalk grade and aground sign I I EXC- 2008 -05 Karen Ngo former Any Mountain) area exceeding 100 square feet DRC I Admin. Single Family Residential Exception to construct a portion of a single story addition to within five feet of EXC- 2008 -06 Susan Chen R1 setback exception the non- cornforming side yard setback DRC I DRC Exception tote Singe Family Residential Development regulations to reduce the front yard setback on an irregularly shaped lot by approximately I I one foot resulting in an approximately 19 foot front yard setback for a portion of a new two car garage at I I EXC- 2008 -10 John Jeong R1 setback exception an existing home DRC I DRC Residential Design Exception to allow more than 50% 2nd floor exposed wall of a second floor, exposed wall height to exceed 6 EXC- 2008 -11, R- 2008 -18 Sabrina Ellis exception in R1 feet Admin. j Admin. j Residential Design Review Exception to reduce the I I EXC- 2008 -12, R- 2008 -19 Mohsen Jolili Setback exception required 10 foot surcharge to 4.5 feet for a new DRC I DRC 6 ofd Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 7 ofa Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Residential Design Exception for a portion of a 910 Breanna square foot single story addition to encroach into the EXC- 2008 -13 Chamberlin Set back exception required front yard setback DRC I DRC 7 ofa Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Hillside Exception for a new two story, 3304 square Hillside exception for foot, single family residence on a slope greater than I I EXC- 2008 -14, TR- 2008 -05 Amy Cheng a home 30 %. PC I PC Sign exception Sign Exception request to allow signs to exceed the (Evertrust Bank at number and maximum hight limitations at an existing I I Kyi Chow Crossroads Shopping commercial building (EverTrust Bank) located at 20510 I EXC- 2008 -15 Shor Center) Stevens Creek Boulevard. DRC Admin. Exception request to construct a one -car garage I I where a two -car garage is required by ordinance at an I I EXC- 2008 -16 Quynh Tran Garage exception existing single family residence. DRC I DRC Height exception for a wireless Height Exception to allow 8 panel antennas to be antenna /personal mounted at a height of 94 feet 4 inches and a I I EXC- 2008 -17, V- 2008 -01, Dayna communication facility microwave dish to be mounted at a height of 85 feet 6 DIR- 2008 -37 Aguirre (T- Mobile) inches on a lattice tower where 55 feet is allowed. PC I PC Modification to Modification of a Hillside Exception (EXC - 1995 -06) to Jennifer hillside exception (De allow a 328 square foot second story addition to an I I M- 2008 -01, TR- 2008 -04 Jodoin Carli home) existing residence on a prominent ridgeline PC I PC Modification to Modification of the Architecture and Site approval required fees (Villa (A5A- 2007 -03) to amend the fees required by the M- 2008 -04 Mike Ducote Serra Apts) conditions of approval. CC j CC j Modification to a Use Permit (11 -U -77) to allow a Modification to shared parking agreement between two office Jackie parking agreement buildings at 20400 Marioni Avenue and 10500 North M- 2008 -05 Horton (Apple) be Anza Boulevard. PC j Admin. j Tentative Map to divide a new mixed -use building into I I TM- 2008 -02 Terry Brown 3 parcel condominiums 2 commercial units and 1 residential condominium unit. PC I Admin. Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 9 ofm Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit for New commercial, construction of a 2,159 square foot retail commercial modification to building, conversion of an existing 2,917 square foot I I existing bldg former auto repair buidling into retail commercial and A5A- 2009 -01, U- 2009 -01 Eugene Sakai (Learning Game) associated site improvements. PC I Admin. Architectural and Site and Use Permit to allow the construction of a new automated corwash tunnel, a new I I trash enclosure and enhancements to the parking lot, I I Muthana New car wash (Valero and new landscaping features at an existing gas A5A- 2009 -02, U- 2009 -02 Ibrahim Gas Station) station. PC I PC Architectural & Site Approval for a proposed new I I New house in Oak 5,202 square foot, two - story, single family residence A5A- 2009 -03 Barre Barnes Valley in a Planned Development Residential DRC I Admin. Architectural & Site Approval and Height Exception to allow the replacement of an existing 60 -foot tall I I Height exception for baseball field light pole with a wireless a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of a base I I antenna /personal equipment enclosure and a 75 -foot tall monopole that Dayna communication facility will carry six panel antennas and the baseball field I I A5A- 2009 -04, EXC- 2009 -02 Aguirre (T- Mobile) lights. PC I PC Architectural & Site Approval and Use Permit for a 441 square foot garage within 3 feet of the sideyard I I setback and a 368 square foot residential addition Set back exception & with a reduced rearyeard setback located in a light I I A5A- 2009 -05, U- 2009 -05 Tim Roduenz addition industrial zone. DRC I DRC Architectural & Site Approval for exterior building I I Greg Exterior modification modifications and landscaping improvements and Tree A5A- 2009 -06, TR- 2009 -17 IMurokomi Ito office building IRemoval5 at an existing office building. I DRC I Admin. 9 ofm Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 ATTACHMENT 0 1 ofm Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Four lot subdivision, A5A- 2007 -01, U- 2007 -01, four new houses Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for four TM- 2007 -01, EA- 2007 -01 Frank Ho (Linnet homes) single family residences in a planned development PC I PC 1 Exterior signs, fa §ade Architectural Site Approval for exterior signs, canopy I I I I Steve details (California and awnings for California Pizza Kitchen (Vallco I I A5A- 2007 -02 Peterson Pizza Kitchen) Fashion Park) DRC I Admin. 117 apartment units, 117 apartment units, a public park, a recreational park, parking facility, and leasing office within an existing I I exception, variance apartment complex (Villa Serra /The Grove),for a total A5A- 2007 -03, TR- 2007 -02, from side, front and of 505 units with exception to side, front and rear I I EXC- 2007 -06, V- 2007 -02, EA Michael rear yard setbacks setback, a parking variance and associated tree 2007 -02 Ducote (Villa Serra) removals. CC I PC 1 A5A- 2007 -04, U- 2007 -02, Metro Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative I I TM- 2007 -05, EA- 2007 -03, Planning Map for a new six -unit single family residential planned I I TR- 2007 -09 Group 6 unit single family PD development with associated Tree Removals. CC I CC Architectural Site Approval of a proposed 10,650 1 ICC approval square foot retail building and one -level parking garage since on an existing office site, Tentative Map to subdivide I (Heart of A5A- 2007 -05, U- 2007 -03, Retail building, a parcel into two with associated Tree Removals and an the City TM- 2007 -08, TR- 2007 -03, Clifford parking garage exception to the front setback in the Heart of the I (Exception EXC- 2007 -08, EA- 2007 -05 Chang (Tantou Retail) City Specific Plan Area. CC 1 CC l required. Architectural and Site approval and Use Permit for a I I proposed 4- 5tory, 122 room hotel, 3 -5tory 56,194 square foot mixed use retail /office /convention center I I building over an underground parking podium and site 4 story hotel, 3 story improvements at an existing shopping center. I I A5A- 2007 -06, U- 2007 -04, mixed use retail (Oaks Tentative Map to subdivide one parcel into two and TM- 2007 -09, EA- 2007 -06 Karen Ngo Hotel & Retail bldgs) condominiumizing one parcel further. CC 1 CC 1 Architectural and Site Approval for exterior signs at A5A- 2007 -07 Strike, Inc. Exterior signs Cupertino Square (formerly Vallco Fashion Park) DRC 1 Admin. 1 1 ofm Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 2 ofA Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Outdoor dining area Architectural Site Approval for an outdoor dining area A5A- 2007 -08 Susan Chen along SCB at an existing restaurant DRC I Admin. Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative I I A5A- 2007 -09, U- 2007 -05, 2 unit single family PD Map for two single family residences, 2,838 square TM- 2007 -10 Terry Brown on Pasadena feet each, in a planned development zoning district PC I Admin. ing a ory re T011 rc i ec ura i e rova an a er i or wo A5A- 2007 -10, U- 2007 -06, Brian bldgs, parking garage one -story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet EA- 2007 -08 Replinger (Cupertino Village) and a two -level parking deck CC I PC Architectural Site Approval, Use Permit and Tentative A5A- 2007 -12, TM- 2007 -11, U Jyan -Ping 2 new houses on Map for two, two -story 2,193 square foot single family I I 2007 -08 Lily Chang Pasadena residences PC I Admin. Tontou Architectural Site Approval and Use Permit for a A5A- 2007 -14, U- 2007 -09, Investments, 100,000 square foot, two -story office building and TR- 2007 -06, EA- 2007 -10 LLC 2 story office building site improvements with associated tree removals. CC I PC New daycare center Architectural Site Approval for site modifications and I I A5A- 2007 -15, U- 2007 -10 Jody Chan (Legend Learning Ctr) Use Permit for a Day Care Center /Specialized School PC I PC I Landscaping, parking Architectural Site Approval for fa §ade, landscaping I I modifications and parking lot modifications for an existing I I A5A- 2007 -16 Mahesh Patel (Furniture 2000) commercial building PC I PC details and Landscape Architectural Site Approval for final building and I I improvements (Las landscaping plans for an approved residential A5A- 2007 -17 Keith Kolkar Palmas) development DRC I Admin. nion urc New 5,000 s.. Arc itectura Site Approval and Modification o a se A5A- 2007 -18, M- 2007 -03 of Cupertino building Permit for a new 5,000 square foot building PC I Admin. Architectural Site Approval for a new two -story 3,676 A5A- 2007 -19 Li -Sheng Fu New 2 story duplex duplex DRC I Admin. Jonathan Sign exception Sign Exception to exceed the allowed height for a wall EXC- 2007 -01 Hobbs (5ymantec) sign DRC j Admin. j 2 ofA Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 J UTZO Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Hillside Exception to construct a 689 square foot I I second story addition to an existing residence for a Hillside Exception for total of 6,870 square feet, which exceeds the 6,500 I I Jennifer 2nd story addition square feet allowed, and an exception to build on a EXC- 2007 -02 Jodoin (DeCarli home) prominent ridgeline PC I PC Sign exception Sign Exception to exceed the allowed sign height for I I EXC- 2007 -03, DIR- 2007 -05 Aaron Kelsey (Marketplace) sign on a tower element DRC I Admin. Fence Exception to construct a driveway gate at an EXC- 2007 -04 Amor Gupta Fence exception existing single family residence DRC I Admin. Sign Exception for two additional wall signs, with two I I on one wall face, and an exception to exceed the EXC- 2007 -07 Whole Foods Sign exception allowed height of 48" inches DRC I Admin. Hillside Exception to construct a new 5,765 sq. ft. I I EXC- 2007 -09, EA- 2007 -07 Kathy Yates Hillside exception residence on slopes greater than 30% slope PC I PC Fence exception to construct a fence in the front EXC- 2007 -10 Sasho Cukic Fence exception setback area of a single - family residence DRC j Admin. j Car wash consistent Interpretation that a proposed car washing facility is I I w/ PD, Rec & Ent zone consistent with the Planned Development, I I INT- 2007 -01 Greg Malley (Homestead Lanes) Recreation /Entertainment Zoning District PC I Admin. Modification to a Use Permit (20 -U -99) to extend the hours of operation of an existing restaurant to 9:30 I I PM (with patrons /employees leaving by 11 PM) Monday Masayoshi Extend hours of through Friday and 10 PM on Friday and Saturday I I M- 2007 -01 Fujioka operation (Kiku Sushi) (with patrons /employees leaving by 1AM) PC I PC Modification to an existing Use Permit (16 -U -76) to Clarify food services modify the conditions under which food services allowance at businesses will be allowed in the Marketplace Shopping I I M- 2007 -02, U- 2007 -11 Evershine Marketplace Center along the rear service corridor CC I PC U- 2006 -13, Z- 2006 -05, EA- Lawrence 22 residential units Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1 acre parcel into 21 I I 2006 -18 Guy (Las Palmas) 1 parcel5 and one common parcel CC I CC J UTZO Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 4 ofd Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Tentative Map to subdivide a .46 acre parcel into two parcels, 8,375 square feet and 11,470 square feet TM- 2007 -03, V- 2007 -03 Tracy Nsu 2 lot subdivision respectively CC I PC I Rick Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three I I TM- 2007 -04 Bleszynski 3 lot subdivision parcels, ranging from 6,650 to 7,047 square feet PC I Admin. 3 parcel condominiums Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use TM- 2007 -06 Terry Brown (Hu) development into three parcels PC I Admin. 3 parcel condominiums Tentative Map to subdivide an approved mixed use I I TM- 2007 -07 Terry Brown (Peng) development into three parcels PC I Admin. Tentative Map to create three condominiums units, 3 parcel condominiums one commercial and two residential, on a previously TM- 2007 -12 Terry Brown (Ghazvini) approved mixed -use development PC I Admin. 2 lot subdivision with variance to allow 50 Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into two with I I V- 2007 -01, EXC- 2006 -14, TM foot wide lots where variance to allow 50 foot wide lots where 60 foot is 2006 -12 Jitka Cymbal 60 foot is required required. PC I PC Architectural and Site approval for a new exterior entrance and minor exterior changes to an existing Ray Exterior changes restaurant (TGI Friday's) located at Cupertino Square I I A5A- 2008 -02, EXC- 2008 -09 Newcomer (TGI Friday) Shopping Center DRC I Admin. Architectural and Site approval of a landscape street Landsca p a improvement Ian and final details of the Green p p improvements and Building measures according to the conditions of final green building approval as directed by the City Council at their A5A- 2008 -03 Mike Ducote measures (Villa Serra) meeting of July 3, 2007 DRC I Admin. Final building and Architectural and Site approval to finalize the Brian landscape details architectural, site and landscaping plans for an I I A5A- 2008 -04 Replinger (Cupertino Village) approved Use Permit (U- 2007 -06) DRC I Admin. 4 ofd Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 5 ofa Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Architectural and Site approval and Modification of an I I existing Use Permit for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the I I development of three new, two -story office buildings containing 155,500 s sure feet, a two - level, 204 space 3 new two story parking garage, surface parking lot and landscaping I I A5A- 2008 -05, EA- 2008 -06, office buldings improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office park TR- 2008 -06, M- 2008 -03 Tim Kelly (Results Way) (Results Way Campus) and associated Tree Removals. CC I PC Architectural and 5ite Approval for a master plan for a mixed -use development consisting of approximately, 147,000 square feet of retail commercial, 100,000 I I square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 160 unit senior (age restricted) housing, facility, 145,000 I I square foot athletic club, a four level parking garage I I and a 1.6 acre park /town square. (A project alternative A5A- 2008 -06, EA- 2008 -07, Kevin Mixed use- retail, consists of approximately 205,000 square feet of I I U- 2008 -01, TR- 2008 -08, TM- Dare /500 commercial, hotel, office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic 2008 -01 Forbes LLC housing (Main Street) club). CC I CC Architectural and Site Approval for a proposed 5- I I story, 138 -room hotel of approximately 82,000 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and I I A5A- 2008 -07, EA- 2008 -08, Rojeev 5 story hotel (Shashi conference rooms built over atwo -level underground U- 2008 -02, TR- 2008 -09 Chopra Hotel) parking podium that contains tandem parking. CC I PC Landscape and minor Architectural and Site Approval for landscaping, I I building improvements parking improvements, and accessory structures at an I I A5A- 2008 -08 Tom Dyer (5t.Jucle's) existing church. DRC I Admin. Architectural and Site Approval for the addition of a new chiller building to support a new lab, seismic upgrades to the existing building, a building fa §ade I I Christine New chiller bldg, change, tree removal and upgraded landscaping plan A5A- 2008 -09 Liong seismic upgrades (HP) for Building 47. DRC j Admin. j 5 ofa Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 6 ofd Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Sign Exception to exceed the number of allowed tenant names on a monument sign, to exceed the allowed maximum sign height and to exceed the I I Sign exception number of allowed signs for several tenants as part of EXC- 2008 -01 Evershine (Marketplace) a sign program DRC I Admin. Single Family Residential Exception to construct a I I Michael portion of a side -yard addition to within five feet of EXC- 2008 -02, RM- 2008 -07 Abler R1 setback exception the north, side property line DRC I DRC Sign exception (Civic Sign Exception for a monument sign in the public right I I EXC- 2008 -03 Tenny Tsai Park, LLC) of way and second wall sign DRC I Admin. Sign exception (Jiffy Sign Exception for a proposed logo to exceed the EXC- 2008 -04 Barbara Ford Lube) allowed height (Jiffy Lube) DRC I Admin. Sign exception Sign Exception for a ground sign more than 8 feet tall (Cupertino Landing measuring from the sidewalk grade and aground sign I I EXC- 2008 -05 Karen Ngo former Any Mountain) area exceeding 100 square feet DRC I Admin. Single Family Residential Exception to construct a portion of a single story addition to within five feet of EXC- 2008 -06 Susan Chen R1 setback exception the non- cornforming side yard setback DRC I DRC Exception tote Singe Family Residential Development regulations to reduce the front yard setback on an irregularly shaped lot by approximately I I one foot resulting in an approximately 19 foot front yard setback for a portion of a new two car garage at I I EXC- 2008 -10 John Jeong R1 setback exception an existing home DRC I DRC Residential Design Exception to allow more than 50% 2nd floor exposed wall of a second floor, exposed wall height to exceed 6 EXC- 2008 -11, R- 2008 -18 Sabrina Ellis exception in R1 feet Admin. j Admin. j Residential Design Review Exception to reduce the I I EXC- 2008 -12, R- 2008 -19 Mohsen Jolili Setback exception required 10 foot surcharge to 4.5 feet for a new DRC I DRC 6 ofd Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 7 ofa Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Residential Design Exception for a portion of a 910 Breanna square foot single story addition to encroach into the EXC- 2008 -13 Chamberlin Set back exception required front yard setback DRC I DRC 7 ofa Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Hillside Exception for a new two story, 3304 square Hillside exception for foot, single family residence on a slope greater than I I EXC- 2008 -14, TR- 2008 -05 Amy Cheng a home 30 %. PC I PC Sign exception Sign Exception request to allow signs to exceed the (Evertrust Bank at number and maximum hight limitations at an existing I I Kyi Chow Crossroads Shopping commercial building (EverTrust Bank) located at 20510 I EXC- 2008 -15 Shor Center) Stevens Creek Boulevard. DRC Admin. Exception request to construct a one -car garage I I where a two -car garage is required by ordinance at an I I EXC- 2008 -16 Quynh Tran Garage exception existing single family residence. DRC I DRC Height exception for a wireless Height Exception to allow 8 panel antennas to be antenna /personal mounted at a height of 94 feet 4 inches and a I I EXC- 2008 -17, V- 2008 -01, Dayna communication facility microwave dish to be mounted at a height of 85 feet 6 DIR- 2008 -37 Aguirre (T- Mobile) inches on a lattice tower where 55 feet is allowed. PC I PC Modification to Modification of a Hillside Exception (EXC - 1995 -06) to Jennifer hillside exception (De allow a 328 square foot second story addition to an I I M- 2008 -01, TR- 2008 -04 Jodoin Carli home) existing residence on a prominent ridgeline PC I PC Modification to Modification of the Architecture and Site approval required fees (Villa (A5A- 2007 -03) to amend the fees required by the M- 2008 -04 Mike Ducote Serra Apts) conditions of approval. CC j CC j Modification to a Use Permit (11 -U -77) to allow a Modification to shared parking agreement between two office Jackie parking agreement buildings at 20400 Marioni Avenue and 10500 North M- 2008 -05 Horton (Apple) be Anza Boulevard. PC j Admin. j Tentative Map to divide a new mixed -use building into I I TM- 2008 -02 Terry Brown 3 parcel condominiums 2 commercial units and 1 residential condominium unit. PC I Admin. Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 9 ofm Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit for New commercial, construction of a 2,159 square foot retail commercial modification to building, conversion of an existing 2,917 square foot I I existing bldg former auto repair buidling into retail commercial and A5A- 2009 -01, U- 2009 -01 Eugene Sakai (Learning Game) associated site improvements. PC I Admin. Architectural and Site and Use Permit to allow the construction of a new automated corwash tunnel, a new I I trash enclosure and enhancements to the parking lot, I I Muthana New car wash (Valero and new landscaping features at an existing gas A5A- 2009 -02, U- 2009 -02 Ibrahim Gas Station) station. PC I PC Architectural & Site Approval for a proposed new I I New house in Oak 5,202 square foot, two - story, single family residence A5A- 2009 -03 Barre Barnes Valley in a Planned Development Residential DRC I Admin. Architectural & Site Approval and Height Exception to allow the replacement of an existing 60 -foot tall I I Height exception for baseball field light pole with a wireless a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of a base I I antenna /personal equipment enclosure and a 75 -foot tall monopole that Dayna communication facility will carry six panel antennas and the baseball field I I A5A- 2009 -04, EXC- 2009 -02 Aguirre (T- Mobile) lights. PC I PC Architectural & Site Approval and Use Permit for a 441 square foot garage within 3 feet of the sideyard I I setback and a 368 square foot residential addition Set back exception & with a reduced rearyeard setback located in a light I I A5A- 2009 -05, U- 2009 -05 Tim Roduenz addition industrial zone. DRC I DRC Architectural & Site Approval for exterior building I I Greg Exterior modification modifications and landscaping improvements and Tree A5A- 2009 -06, TR- 2009 -17 IMurokomi Ito office building IRemoval5 at an existing office building. I DRC I Admin. 9 ofm Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 10 ON Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Architectural & Site Approval and Use Permit to construct two new, two -story single family residences with two new detached granny units in a Planned I I A5A- 2009 -07, U- 2009 -07, 2 new houses on Development District.Tentative Map to subdivide a TM- 2009 -05 Terry Brown Pasadena (Adzich) parcel in to two. PC I Admin. 1 Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit to allow the demolition of 95,666 s uare feet of existin q 9 I I commercial space and the construction of 146,458 I I square feet of new commercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three new I I major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center. The approval also allows a 24 -hour drive - through I I pharmacy and a second drive - through at one of the A5A- 2009 -08, U- 2009 -08, Ken 4 new commercial satellite buildings to operate from 6;00 a.m. to 11;00 I I EA- 2009 -11, TR- 2010 -08 Rodrigues bldgs (PW Market) p.m including associated Tree Removals. CC I PC IPC approval Height exception for I 1 5ince a wireless Height Exception to allow three panel antennas to be I (height antenna /personal mounted at a height of 149 feet and three microwave I lexception communication facility dishes mounted at a height of 148 feet where 55 feet I Iwas EXC- 2009 -07, DIR- 2009 -20 Gordon Bell (Clearwire) is the maximum height allowed. PC I PC ( requested. I I IPC approval Height exception for Height Exception to allow three panel antennas to be since a wireless mounted at a height of about 158 feet and three I 1height antenna /personal microwave dishes mounted at a height of about 157 1 (exception communication facility feet on a PG &E lattice tower extension where 55 feet IWO5 EXC- 2009 -08, DIR- 2009 -21 Gordon Bell (Clearwire) is the maximum height allowed. PC 1 PC 1reque5ted. 10 ON Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 11 098 Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments IPC approval Height exception for I isince a wireless I (height antenna /personal I lexception communication facility Height exception for antennas to be mounted at a 1 Iwas EXC- 2009 -09, DIR- 2009 -36 Gordon Bell (Clearwire) height of 97 & 98 feet where 55 feet is the maximum. PC 1 PC 1 reque5ted. Modification to an existing Use Permit (U- 2002 -06) to amend the conditions to allow specialized tutorial or I I studio uses, and the amount of office /retail uses along be Anza Boulevard. Includes a reassessment of the I I Modification of uses shared parking arrangement within the parking M- 2009 -01 Tenny Tsai (Civic Park) structure. CC 1 PC 1 Modification to Use Major Amendment modifying the Architectural and Permit to extend Site Approval (A5A- 2008 -05), Use Permit I I permit for five years, Modification (M- 2008 -03), Director's Minor phasing, clarifying Modification (DIR- 2008 -32) and Tree Removal Permit I I conditions and (TR- 2008 -06) for the purpose of extending the modification of expiration date of these approvals for six years, I I traffic and signal phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval, conditions (Results and modifying the traffic and signal improvement M- 2009 -02 Tim Kelly Way) condition. CC 1 PC 1 Modification to a Use Permit (49 -U -87) to allow an approximately 6,670 square foot preschool & daycare I I facility to operate at an existing commercial building. New Childcare facility The application also includes a new outdoor play area in I I M- 2009 -03 Suna Lai (Growing Tree) a section of the existing rear parking lot. CC I PC New afterschool Modification to the Use Permit (6 -U -86) to allow an program (Bethel afterschool program for children at the existing M- 2009 -05 Anjoli Arora Lutheran) Bethel Lutheran Church I PC 1 PC 1 11 098 Comparison of Current and Recommended Approval Authorities for projects between 2007 and 2009 12 090 Current Group Application(s) Name Brief Description Description Approval Recommendation Comments Remove a condition of Modification of Use Permit (U- 2003 -04, Condition I I approval re; easement #22) to remove the Public Pedestrian Easement at the I I M- 2009 -06 Elaine Chong (Metropolitan) Metropolitan at Cupertino. CC I PC Modification of uses to remove "retail only" Modification to an existing Use Permit (U- 2004 -01) to Catherine condition (Adobe amend the conditions to allow commercial /office uses I I M- 2009 -07 Chen Terrace) where only retail had been allowed. CC I PC Modification of uses to allow a private Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (25- I I Kevin school (West Valley U -83) to allow the operation of a Mandarin Immersion M- 2009 -08 Pasquinelli Presbyterian Church) grammar school. PC I PC Tentative Ma to subdivide a 13.47 acre parcel into Map p I I four parcels ranging from 2.86 acres to 3.65 acres TM- 2009 -02, EA- 2009 -06 Bigler 4 lot subdivision each. PC j PC j Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 42,925 I 1 I 1 3 lot subdivision square foot parcel into three parcels ranging from I I TM- 2009 -03 Brian Kelly (Amelia Ct) 12,049 to 14,470 square feet. PC 1 Admin. 1 Tentative Map request to subdivide one parcel into 3 lot subdivision - three commercial condominium units, one residential I I TM- 2009 -04 Terry Brown condo condominium unit, and a common area lot. PC 1 Admin. 1 David Full bar in a Use Permit to allow a full bar to operate inside an U- 2009 -04 O'Mara restaurant (Aqui) existing restaurant. PC 1 PC 1 Use Permit to allow an 8,400 square foot daycare facility to operate at an existing commercial building. I I Daycare center The application also includes a new outdoor play area in U- 2009 -09 Cindy Cheng (Kiddie Academy) the existing rear parking lot. CC 1 PC 1 12 090 _ - ., �� `: !� IM ll A Aw M " Aa \ �` �� 'Mop �� v _ \ � � \ /` \ \ \ / / § \ �\ j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approved parking pad to be located at a duplex located at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. Recommended Action Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council's decision on the duplex parking pad at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. Adopt the draft resolution, Denying the Petition of Erwin Wolf seeking Council reconsideration of its decision to approve the duplex parking pad at 965 -967 Miller Avenue (See Attachment A). Description Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification Approval to allow a parking pad in front of a duplex located at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. Discussion Background The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up to the reconsideration request: Sept. 23, 2010 Community Development Director approved the duplex parking pad with a Director's Minor Modification, DIR- 2010 -30 (Attachment B). Oct. 5, 2010 Project approval appealed by adjacent property owner Erwin Wolf (Attachment Q. Dec. 14, 2010 Appeal heard by Planning Commission who recommended approval of the appeal on a 3 -2 -0 vote (Attachment D, E, & F). Jan. 4, 2011 Appeal heard by City Council, who denied the appeal on a 5 -0 vote (Attachment G, H). Jan. 18, 2011 Appellant Erwin Wolf files petition for reconsideration (Attachment I). 300 Basis for the Reconsideration The City's Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and /or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City's findings of fact on each of these criteria are delineated below. Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that there are errors in 1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller the City staff report: Avenue between Atherwood Avenue & 1) Staff states there are numerous Miller Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct Avenue duplexes with parking in the garage access to Miller Avenue or a side front setback. However, there is only street and four duplexes have parking in the one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a like this one with the parking in the front setback means, which is a designated rear. In both cases, there are no parking building setback from a front property line, pads in the landscaped front setback. regardless if that front setback area is used Driveways of other duplexes are not for landscaping, driveways or parking. front setbacks. This proposed pad 2) It is a fact that there have been no reported would be the only one on the front accidents of vehicles backing into setback. pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch 2) The assumption that no of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years. vehicle /pedestrian /bicycle accidents Most single- family and two - family happened is that this design is safe- is residential houses in Cupertino require 301 wrong. 3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller Avenue have cars that park much closer to the garage door, leaving ample room for safe passage. The proposed pad with car parked therein would totally obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles exiting from the driveway. vehicles to back into the public street. Based on the statistics and the proposed design, staff noted that the project didn't appear to create a significant safety risk. 3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City Council lengthened the parking pad by incorporating the abutting pedestrian path, increasing its length from 17 feet to about 21feet. The longer length meets City standards for parking stall length. The parking pad would not hang over the public sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle to park over a public sidewalk. Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director; Carol Korade, City Attorney Approved for Submission by. David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. City Council draft Resolution and Exhibit 1 B. Director's Minor Modification Approval dated Sept. 23, 2010 C. Appeal by Erwin Wolf dated Oct. 5, 2010 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated Dec. 14, 2010 E. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Dec. 14, 2010 F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619 G. City Council Staff Report dated Jan. 4, 2011 H. City Council Meeting Action Minutes of Jan. 4, 2011 I. Petition for Reconsideration filed Jan. 18, 2011 302 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF ERWIN WOLF SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF DIR- 2010 -30, A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PARKING PAD IN FRONT OF A DUPLEX AT 965 -967 MILLER AVENUE WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification approval of a parking pad in front of an existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing denied the appeal filed by Erwin Wolf on a 5 -0 vote at its meeting of January 4, 2011 WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Erwin Wolf requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by denying the appeal of a Director's approval (file no. DIR- 2010 -30) of a parking pad for an existing duplex at 965 -967 Miller Avenue. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096(B)(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4, 2011 on item is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15 day of February 2011, by the following vote: 303 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 304 EXHIBIT 1 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its juri sdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and /or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition The petition for reconsideration consists of one page. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The petitioner has made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #5b and #5c. The City's findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below. Finding: With respect to grounds 5b and 5c, the petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that there are errors 1) There are 32 duplexes that front on Miller in the City staff report: Avenue between Atherwood Avenue & 1) Staff states there are numerous Miller Bollinger Road. 28 duplexes have direct Avenue duplexes with parking in the garage access to Miller Avenue or a side front setback. However, there is only street and four duplexes have parking in the one other set of Miller Ave. duplexes rear. The petitioner misunderstands what a like this one with the parking in the front setback means, which is a designated rear. In both cases, there are no parking building setback from a front property line, pads in the landscaped front setback. regardless if that front setback area is used Driveways of other duplexes are not for landscaping, driveways or parking. 305 front setbacks. This proposed pad would be the only one on the front setback. 2) The assumption that no vehicle /pedestrian /bicycle accidents happened is that this design is safe- is wrong. 3) Duplexes with garages that front Miller Avenue have cars that park much closer to the garage door, leaving ample room for safe passage. The proposed pad with car parked therein would totally obstruct the view of the sidewalk and of any pedestrian or bicyclist for vehicles exiting from the driveway. 2) It is a fact that there have been no reported accidents of vehicles backing into pedestrians or bicyclists along this stretch of Miller Avenue over the last 5 years. Most single- family and two - family residential houses in Cupertino require vehicles to back into the public street. Based on the statistics and typical designs, staff noted that the project didn't appear to create a significant safety risk. 3) At its January 4, 2011 hearing, the City Council lengthened the parking pad by incorporating the abutting pedestrian path, increasing its length from 17 feet to about 21 feet. The longer length meets City standards for parking stall length. The parking pad would not hang over the public sidewalk. It is illegal for a parked vehicle to park over a public sidewalk. 306 FEW CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777 -3308 To: Mayor and City Council Members Chairperson and Planning Commissioners From: Aard Shrivastava, Director of Community Developmen Prepared by: Piu Ghosh Date: September 23, 2010 Subject: Director's Minor Modification, DIR- 2010.30, to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space. Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code allows for administrative approval of minor changes in a project. The Director reports his decision to the City Council and Planning Commission in time to allow an appeal of the decision within fourteen calendar days. DISCUSSION The project is located in a P(R2) - Planned Development Duplex zoning district. According to Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code, any modifications to the project site would require an approval from the Director of Community Development with a Director's Minor Modification. The applicant is proposing to resurface approximately 187 square feet of existing turf in the front yard setback area with pervious stone pavers for parking purposes (see Attachment 1 - Plan set). ACTION The Director of Community Development deems the modification minor and approves the plan set (Pages 1 -4) with the following conditions of approval: 1. PAVING MATERIALS The paving materials for the proposed parking space shall be permeable pavers on an aggregate base as shown on the plans. This approval of the modification is effective September 23, 2010, The fourteen calendar day appeal period will expire on October 7, 2010. Enclosures: Attachment 1: Plan Set � �'cupertinosan groups Planning yPDREPOR.T`DIRreparfs`2010`DIR °2010 30.docx 307 LO 1 I M Y L c3` -_ C `9 11,1 Q� s t� �I l r � r - U 842 Miller Ave _ Google Maps ti!1 L"'Al Page 1 of 1 d lre D http: / /maps.google.com/ maps ?hl =en &q= 967 +miller+95014 &ie= UTF8 &hq= &h 967 +... 8/22/2010 309 1. Excavate to the proper design depth (see diagram at top right*). Remove all surplus unsuitable sub -base material. Compact the area which has been cleared. Then spread and compact the area with Class It 3/4" minus aggregate for base material. The depth of the base should be 3 to 12 inches, depending on anticipated traffic, native soil conditions or as otherwise directed by Site Engineer, Architect or Landscape Architect. Compact base in lifts to 95% proctor density, Installation Tip: Calstone recommends a minimum of 6 to 8 inches of compacted base in residential vehicular conditions. 3 to 4 inches in pedestrian only areas. 2. Spread concrete sand evenly over the base and screed to a uniform depth of 1 to 1 1/2 inches up to t he edge. (Edge restraints can be of various types, e.g. PVC (Snap Edge /PaveEdge), concrete, wood, aluminum, etc.). The screeded sand should not be pre - compacted. 3. Install the Paving Stones hand tight in the desired pattern 1/4 inches to 3/8 inches above final grade. The joints between the units should be approximately 1/16 to 1/8 inches wide. Most pavers are made with spacer bars to create a minimum joint width. These spacer bars will provide the minimum joint necessary for sand to enter. 4. Cut the Paving Stones when required with a paver splitter or saw to fit accurately and neatly. Installation Tip: When saw cutting, be careful to not allow cutting residue (wet or dry) to land on the pavers. The residue will permanently dull the appearance of the paving stones. This type of staining is extremely, if not impossible to remove. Saw cut pavers should be rinsed thoroughly before placing them into the laying field. 5. Once an area is installed, compact the pavers 2 -3 passes into the bedding sand with a plate vibrator. This piece of equipment should be capable of 3000 to 5000 lbs. centrifugal compaction force, and operate at a frequency of 80 to 90 hertz. 55 , , _-• Concrete oncrete Pavers *Design Depth 1 2 3/8" 1 -1112" Sand Bed a ° 0 Base Sand 11 Q: Base b \So i`1 Material l Sub Base Plastic Edging Metal Pin ` Concrete Pavers Sand Material Soil Sub Base Installation Tip: One of the most attractive features of a Calstone paving stone is the elegant finish achieved through the Duraface process. Care should be taken to preserve this finish during installation. Most vibratory plate manufacturers offer impact pads designed specifically for paving stone installations. If this is not available, the installer should use some other form of intermediate media such as thin plywood, carpet, cardboard, landscape fabric, etc. This added protection is not necessary in our River Rock and Quarry Stone product lines. 6. Then sweep a dry sand over the, pavers and into the joints. Make 4 -5 passes with the plate vibrator across the surface or until the joints are full of sand. 7. Sweep off excess sand and wash down completed project. The paver surface is now ready for use. If using polymeric joint sand, read and follow manufacturer's directions. Concrete Pavers Sand Joint City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue C U P E RT l N® Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777 -3223 APPEAL Attachment G r ' f 1. Application No. ..i b ( o 2. Applicant(s) Name: f 3. Appellant(s) Name: 1. !� c� Address - / 0 3J- , G V � P.� t O I A SoAeJ C4 FIZIT , Phone Number o�..._� �r 7 Email 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development ❑ Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works ❑ Appeal a decision of Planning Commission ❑ Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee ❑ Appeal a decision of Code Enforcement 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: L-23 0 6. Basis of appeal: Signature(s) i Please complete form, include appeal fee of $162.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 10 -072 ($155.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777 -3223 312 Application No. DIR 2010 -30 1. Safety - at present it is difficult to exit driveway into busy Miller Ave. With proposed changes and a car or SW parked therein it is impossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic, accidents will happen. 2. Proposed parking area does not belong on the setback area without direct access to it. It also degrades the appearance of the properties. Erwin Wolf W j 313 Attachment D CUPERTINO OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CM HALL 10300 `I'ORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 s FAX (408) 777 -3333 • planning®cupertino.ors� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Date: December 14, 2010 Application: DIR- 2010 -30 Appeal Applicant: Linda Shen -Jung, GLSAA, LLC Appellant: Erwin Wolf APPLICATION SUMMARY Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 967 Miller Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission uphold the Director's decision per the attached resolution (see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND On September 23, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved a Director's Minor Modification to allow the replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with pervious stone pavers in the front setback of an existing duplex for parking purposes (see Attachment 2). The Planning Commissioners, Council Members and adjacent property owners were mailed notices of the Director's action. An appeal was filed on October 5, 2010 by Mr. Erwin Wolf (see Attachment 3). Mr. Wolf owns the adjacent duplex to the north (957, 959 Miller Avenue), which shares a common driveway with the applicant's duplex. The duplexes were developed in San Jose before they were later annexed to the City of Cupertino in 1979. At the time, San Jose required four parking spaces per duplex; Cupertino's parking code requires six parking spaces per duplex. There is a wide swath of landscaping in the front yard. The project was approved since the proposed parking area was consistent with other sites in the neighborhood and served as an added vehicle maneuvering area to improve the vehicular circulation and safety when entering or exiting the driveway. DISCUSSION The appellant's appeal is based on the following points (staff responses to each of the points are in italics): 314 DIR- 2010 -30 appeal 965, 967 Miller Avenue December 14, 2010 Paee 2 1) Safety - at present it is difficult to exit drivewa y into busy Miller Ave. With p roposed changes and a car or SW parked therein it is im ossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic, accidents will happen. Staff does not believe that vehicle parking in the front setback poses a significant safety risk. If anything, the newly created stone paver area provides more vehicle maneuvering area that would enhance circulation. While this pair of duplexes and several others in the area have their parking sited toward the middle of their lots, many more duplexes in the Miller Avenue area have garages and driveway aprons (in the front setback) that front directly on Miller Avenue. There are no reports of vehicular /pedestrian/bicyclist accidents in this area because of vehicle parking in the front setback. 2) Proposed parking area does not belong on the setback area without direct access to it. It also degrades the appearance of the properties. This particular duplex has been designed with rear parking (one garage space and one driveway apron space per residential unit) and a shared driveway with the adjacent duplex. The design arrangement creates a Iarger than normal landscaped front setback. Certainly, parking is not prohibited in the front setback as evidenced by the numerous duplexes in the area with garages that front on Miller Avenue. The proposed parking stall will take up 22 of the front landscape area and has direct access to the main driveway. Further, the use of pervious stone pavers complements the existing front landscaping scheme and also retains onsite storm water runoff. Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: a City Planner ATTACHMENTS Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Attachment 1: Model Resolution Attachment 2: Director's Minor Modification Memorandum dated September 23, 2010 Attachment 3: Appellent's Appeal Form dated October 5, 2010 G:planning /pdreport /Appeals /2010 /DIR- 2010 -30 appeal pc.doc 315 Attachment E Cupertino Planning Con PUBLIC HEARING 1. DIR- 2010 -30 Linda Shen -Jung (GLSAA, LLQ 967 Miller Ave. anission 2 December 14, 2010 Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the the purpose of a parking space. Tentative City Council date: January 4, 2011 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the appeal of an approval of Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space; appellant is Erwin Wolf. He reviewed the appellant's two objections to the proposed parking stall; specifically the safety factor which the appellant felt would be the difficulty in exiting the driveway onto Miller Avenue with the potential of causing accidents; and that the proposed parking did not belong on the setback area without direct access. The appellant also felt that the added parking stall would degrade the property appearance. Staff noted that vehicle parking in front setbacks is a common feature of other duplexes along Miller Avenue; there were no accident reports involving vehicles backing into pedestrians or bicyclists in the last 5 years; the paved area when not in use would provide more vehicle maneuvering area; the duplex has a larger than typical landscaped front setback, and the stall would only take up 22% of the front setback landscaping with direct access to the driveway. • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the appeal be denied. Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the application. Mr. Erwin Wolf, Appellant: • Said that other duplexes in the area had front garages and require front driveways; however the applicant's duplex does not have a garage in front and has a common driveway. He said that an additional vehicle would obstruct the view to the street for cars backing out of the driveway into traffic. Gordon Shen -Jung, properly owner: • Said that the additional parking space out front would provide a buffer zone for backing out into the street; and improve the safety for tenants of both duplexes, providing more space to maneuver their vehicles. He said his tenant presently has two automobiles, one is parked in the garage and the other in the driveway. They will soon have three cars as his son will be coming home from school; and it is difficult to find parking in the street. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing The appellant and staff discussed alternative layouts for the proposed parking area in the front area. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said staff was not concerned about the potential precedent of putting parking in the front yard; particularly in the duplex zone because there are adjacent similar driveways already established with driveways fronting the street. Also, in terms of the percentage of the landscaping covered, it is only about 22 to 25 %; and staff feels that it is not a concern unless it takes up more than 50% of the landscaped area. Com. Miller: • Said that the two issues are whether or not the parking in front is acceptable or not; and the issue of potentially the area not being wide enough and it is inconvenient. Perhaps the 316 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 December 14, 2010 neighbors would agree to cut their lawn back in the area on both sides, which would widen it to mitigate that issue. He said he agreed with Mr. Wolf's point about the safety of children on bikes and walking; particularly if there are elderly tenants there who may not be as attentive as younger people; there is the potential for accidents there. Com. Kaneda: • Said he understood the concern about safety issues, but felt that from a safety standpoint, every other property on the street allows the same level of potential danger, and he did not feel the project was not doing anything-that was not already being done on the street. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Giefer: • Said from the front view of the residence, it has a good residential feel to it. From the overhead view, for the residences with street facing driveways, it makes sense that they would have driveways facing the street, and there is nothing they can do to change the neighborhood pattern now; but they can prevent proliferation of stacking cars in front of all the residences along Miller Avenue and giving it more of a higher density automotive look and feel. She said she felt it denigrates the visual aspect of the neighborhood and she did not want to see more intensity of vehicles stacked up in front of the houses. • Said she did not feel the need for a 3 -point turn radius, because that is what the T was designed for. Between the two resident units, property owners, and the shared drive, they already have that space, and she was concerned about the downgrading of the appeal of the visual aspect by allowing additional parking in front of the duplex. She said she felt it was the wrong thing, and agreed with Com. Miller that they would see a proliferation of it; starting with 22% of the frontage of the road and potentially increasing to above 40 %. Everything in front of every duplex that doesn't have a front facing driveway is going to be paved over and more cars would be in front. • There may be a safety issue also since it is across from a middle school and a multi - language school. • Said she did not want to intensify the vehicle orientation of the neighborhood and would not support the application; but would support the appellant. Chair Brophy: • Said the alternative to putting a car in that space would be for somebody to park right on Miller; both in terms of aesthetics and terms of safety, which would be less desirable. Com. Giefer: • Said the street was already designed to have cars parked in front of it on Miller Avenue and that was acceptable; however she did not want to stack cars in front of the houses on both sides of the sidewalk. The internal parking to each unit is intensified as opposed to maintaining the current parking pattern along Miller Avenue; she said she was not opposed to the cars parking on Miller Road because that is where they are supposed to be. Vice Chair Lee: • Asked staff if it was considered deficient parking in accordance with the Cupertino City codes, since it was done many years ago when it was San Jose. Colin Jung, Senior Planner: • Said that from a Cupertino standpoint the developments could be considered deficient; Cupertino requires 6 parking stalls for a duplex. At the time they were developed in San Jose, they were provided with only 4 spaces per duplex. 317 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 December 14, 2010 Com. Giefer: • Noted that Cupertino did not exist in 1953, it was county land; and was there a parking requirement? There would not have been a parking ordinance and they would be allowed to do even less. Com. Kaneda: • Asked staff if the duplex with shared driveway occurs in 50% of the homes along the street, or only in a few occurrences on the street. Colin Jung: • When walking both sides of the street, more than 50% of the duplexes had garages fronting on Miller Avenue. There are more of the duplexes with a shared driveway, but it is not a preponderance of what is seen on Miller Avenue. It is fortunate that there is onstreet parking on Miller Avenue, so that despite the deficiency from the standpoint of parking in the duplexes, they can park along the street. Gary Chao: • Said that technically the unit is already a legal non - conforming situation; the stall in this case is more of an amenity; it is not really required; they are not triggering discretionary review or adding onto the building, where they will be asked to conform to the standard. That is why in the staff report the area is categorized as more of a parking /vehicle maneuverability area. In some cases, in residential districts, there will be a hammerhead with a flare out on the side leading to a two -car garage. Staff is satisfied it is interlocking pavers as opposed to concrete in terms of the visual implications; but it could be smaller. In that case it would be a compact car that would have to park in there or it would serve more as a maneuverability area. He noted that the 17 feet is the depth of the grass, that is not to consider that 3 foot or 4 foot path; they could essentially renovate and make that part of interlocking pavers so that would help absorb some of that dual purpose; it would serve as a path and double as a vehicle maneuvering area or some interim ancillary parking. Vice Chair Lee: • Suggested they do that that so that there would be at least a few feet toward the sidewalk so a car could not back all the way in there which would alleviate some of the safety concerns. Gary Chao: • Said the 17 feet is the depth of the grass strip; the city requirement for a head -in stall is 18 feet. Said the I1 x 17 was doubled as a vehicle maneuverability area and staff was not concerned if they added a few feet for that purpose; it could be reduced to the minimum in terms of 8 -112 feet wide. He said that if they were going to approve it, it should be kept at 17 feet so they can pull in and out of it. Motion: Motion by Com. MillIer, second Com. Giefer, and carried by 3 -2 -0; Coms. Lee and Kaneda voted No, to uphold the appeal of DIR- 2010 -30. Jane Va — tiglp ino previously approved Conditional Use Permit (U- 2003 -04) Housing Partners, LLC) to a in requirements to be incorporated into an 19501,19503,19505, appropriate alternate ega in lieu of the covenants, 19507 Stevens Creek conditions and restrictions (CC &R's). Tenter 1v cil 318 ATTACHMENT F CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6619 DIR- 2010 -30 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION ALLOWING PAVING IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PARKING SPACE AT 965 & 967 MILLER AVENUE (Recommending Denial of Project) SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification application, file no. DIR - 2010 -30, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, allowing a vehicle to park in the front setback of the duplex will increase safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, there is ample parking on the street; and WHEREAS, there is adequate space on the driveway to turnaround a vehicle without creating an additional turn around; and WHEREAS, allowing the parking stall in the landscaped front setback of the duplex will set an undesirable precedent for the neighborhood; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the appeal of Director's Minor Modification, file no. DIR - 2010 -30 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR -2010- 30 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 319 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DIR- 2010 -30 (appeal) Applicant: Ms. Linda Shen -Jung Property Owner: GLSAA, LLC Location: 965 & 967 Miller Avenue PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of December 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Miller, Giefer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee, Kaneda ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development APPROVED: s Paul Bro h Paul Brophy, Chair Cupertino Planning Conunission G /planning/pdreport /rcOO101DIR- 2010 -30 res appeai.doc 2 320 Attachment G COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 . www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 r� Subject Appeal of a Director's Approval to allow a paved parking stall in the front yard of an existing duplex. Recommended Action Uphold appeal (See Attachment A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619) Description Application: DIR- 2010 -30 Appeal Applicant: Linda Shen -Jung (GLSAA, LLC) Appellant: Erwin Wolf Location: 965 -967 Miller Avenue, APN 369 -19 -052 Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking space. Discussion Background On September 23, 2010, the Director of Community Development approved a Director's Minor Modification to allow the replacement of an 11 foot by 17 foot turf area with pervious stone pavers in the front setback for parking purposes for an existing duplex (Attachment B). The approval was appealed on October 5, 2010 by Mr. Erwin Wolf who owns the adjacent duplex to the north (957 -959 Miller Avenue — see Attachment Q. His duplex shares a common driveway with the applicant's duplex. According to the applicant, the paved area will not only provide additional parking on the property, but will improve. maneuverability for residents of both duplexes, allowing vehicles to enter and exit at the same time, and allow vehicles to turn around and head into traffic. Planning Commission On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission heard the appeal and recommended that the Council uphold the appeal (i.e., deny the Director's Approval) on a 3-2 vote (Vice -Chair Lee & Kaneda voting no — see Attachment D). The draft Commission meeting minutes will be available at the Council hearing. The Planning Commission discussed following issues at the hearing: Al 321 • The safety (to pedestrians and bicyclists) of having a vehicle parked in the front setback next to a driveway • Potentially modifying the size and the orientation of the paved area relative to its functions as a parking stall and as a vehicle turnout and turnaround • The necessity of having a vehicle turnaround since one already exists at the garages • The necessity of having an additional parking stall since there is available street parking • The precedent, and desirability of allowing parking /paving in the landscaped front setback of this duplex The dissenting Commissioners who did not support the appeal felt that parking in the front setback did not pose a significant safety risk because: • There were numerous other duplexes on Miller with front setback parking. • There were numerous examples of front setback landscaping that obstructs motorist's views of the sidewalk. • There are no reported accidents of motorists backing into pedestrians or bicyclists. • Any remaining risk could be avoided by redesigning and reorienting the paved area. Appellant Concerns The concerns and comments expressed by the appellant are summarized below (Responses are provided in italics): + Safety — It is difficult to exit driveway into busy Miller Avenue, especially for elderly tenants. With the proposed change and a car parked in the space, it is impossible to see the sidewalk foot and bicycle traffic. Accidents will happen. Response: There are numerous duplexes on Miller Avenue with parking in the front setback area. There have been no reports of vehicular /pedestrian bicyclist accidents in this area because of vehicle parking in the front setback Having a car parked at the proposed area is no different from the cars parked on the numerous driveways in front of other existing duplexes in the immediate neighborhood. • Proposed parking does not belong in setback area without direct access and it degrades the appearance of the properties. Response: The duplex design has a larger than normal landscaped front setback. The parking stall takes up 22% of the landscaped front and has direct access to the driveway. Parking is not prohibited in the front setback area and the paved area will improve the maneuverability of vehicles on the lot. Pervious pavers will retain onsite storm water runoff. Prepared b L Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by. Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6619 322 B: Director's Minor Modification Approval, DIR- 2010 -30 C. Appeal Petition from Erwin Wolf for DIR- 2010 -30 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2010 323 January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Att[LIihll'P,nt RECESS — Prior to the Council recess. City Manager David Knapp introduced Terry Calderone, Cupertino's former Police Chief who had recently retired, and also introduced the city's new Police Chief Carl Neusel. Captain Neusel said that it was an honor to be selected for the position and expressed his commitment to providing the highest level of law enforcement in Cupertino. The Council was in recess from 9:40 to 9:53 p.m. 10. Subject Appeal of the Director's decision allowing a parking. pad to be located at a duplex located at 967 Miller Avenue Description Application: DIR- 2010 -30; Appellant: Erwin Wolf; Applicant: Linda Shen - Jung (GLSAA, LLC); Location: 965 -967 Miller Avenue; APN: 369 -19 -052; Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's Minor Modification decision to allow paving in the front yard of an existing duplex for the purpose of a parking stall at 965 -967 Miller Avenue Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report. Speakers representing the appellant, Erwin Wolf, were Michael and Cheryl Wolf. Michael Wolf expressed safety concerns for elderly tenants because visibility could be an issue if additional parking were added. He stated that there has been ample parking for 30 years. He also suggested that the property appearance could be compromised and impact marketability. Cheryl Wolf said there could be safety issues for emergency vehicles responding to an emergency with a vehicle extended to the sidewalk. The appellants said there was 'room for two or three cars on the street and that things are o.k. the way they are. The applicants Gordon Jung and Linda Shen -Jung said they submitted the application based on a request of their tenants (a husband, wife, and their son) who were having difficulty finding parking in their neighborhood. Mr. Jung said that everyone has passed a driver's test and exercises caution by stopping at the sidewalk before going into the street. He did not see a driving safety issue and requested that the application be approved. The public hearing was closed at 10:25 p.m. Action: Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to deny the appeal of the Director's decision with the following conditions. The motion carried unanimously. The parking area shall be revised to incorporate the 41" pedestrian path immediately north, increasing the parking pad depth from 17 feet to approximately 20 feet; The corner of the existing planting area immediately north of the proposed parking pad shall be rounded -off to further enhance the vehicle movement No parked cars shall extend over any portion of the sidewalk, except as may be necessary to enter or leave the property. 11. Subject Application for modification of an existing mixed -use development (M- 2010 -08) located at 19501 -19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan) Recommended Action Consider a Modification (M- 2010 -08) to the Use Permit for the Metropolitan mixed -use development 18 324 r l <�rt� ATTACHMENT I To be completed by City Clerk staff Staff Form - Appeals (attach to Appeal form submitted) 7�1 A Loki O'Jer�-� 6 1. Application No.. r - 2 ° - 3 0 2. Fee submitted? Yes No 3. Date of decision or mailing: 1 2 ° Et 4. Date appeal received: 5. Hearing scheduled for 5Y 3.1 l g lhs�, 6. Notification sent to: Applicant(s) Appellant(s) ct Interested parties CA d i t �r CC'.' Planning Department 7. Date legal notice published: 12 13 ? 1 o appealslstaff.doc 325 City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino Ca. 95014 Petition for reconsideration of Councils Decision on Dir- 2010 -30 per 5 b,c � r�c�19av19D JAN 1 8 2011 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK 5b /c City staff report is inaccurate on several item. Safety- only one other pair of duplexes on 915 and921 Miller Ave are the same in garage location and shared driveways, there are no front set back parking pads. All the rest of duplexes have front garage excess and driveways. The assumption that no vehicular / pedestrian /bicycle accidents happened is that this design is safe - is wrong. The fact that this proposed proposed parking pad is like most duplexes on the west side of Miller Ave is no different - is wrong. This proposed pad would be the only one on the front setback. Driveways of the other duplexes are not front setbacks and cars park much closer to the garagedoor leaving ample room for safe passage. The proposed pad with the intended SW or car parked therein totally obstruct the view to the right sidewalk traffic (pedestrian and bicycle), any vehicle exiting from the driveway will be over the sidewalk before the driver sees anything coming. Respectfully yours Erwin Wolf 10326 Virginia Swan PI Cupertino, Ca 95014 326 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Reconsideration petition for a City Council denial of an appeal of an approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of antennas mounted on a monopine and an equipment enclosure in the rear parking lot of the Results Way Business Park. Recommended Action Conduct a hearing on the petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council's decision on the personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Business Park. Adopt the draft resolution, Denying the Petition of Grace Chen and Guo Jin seeking Council reconsideration of its decision to deny the appeal, and thus approve the personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Business Park (See Attachment A). Description Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission approvals of the following: Use Permit (U- 2010 -03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC- 2010 -04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR- 2010 -31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot) /APN 357 -20 -042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT &T Mobility) Petitioners: Grace Chen & Guo Jin Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC 327 Discussion Background The following is a summary of the various events that occurred regarding this project leading up to the reconsideration request: Sept. 14, 2010 Planning Commission approved the entitlements for the personal wireless service facility on a 4 -1 vote (Attachments B, C, D & L). Sept. 28, 2010 Project approval appealed by three adjacent neighbors, Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin (Attachment E). Nov. 1, 2010 Appeal heard by City Council at two meetings who denied the Jan. 4, 2011 appeal on a 4 -1 vote (Attachments F, G, H & I). Jan. 18, 2011 Appellants Grace Chen & Guo Jin file petition for reconsideration (Attachment J). Basis for the Reconsideration The City's Municipal Code, section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties to petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; and /or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the fourth full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The grounds for the reconsideration are summarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims do not bear any relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City's findings of fact on each of claims and the criterion are delineated below. 328 Findin : There are three claims that do not bear any relationship to the Reconsideration criteria found in municipal code section 2.08.096(B). Petition Response Screening landscaping for the monopine needs Petitioners seek to add and refine development to follow strict aesthetic guidelines. We conditions that have already been adopted by request the addition of a condition to the the City Council (Attachment K) which does approval that the "additional screening trees at not relate to the reconsideration criteria. the northern property line" will conform to that Petitioners' interests are already addressed by of the approved redevelopment plans of the Council's added condition #6: "require that Results Way office park and any revisions or tree planting conform to the approved modifications of those plans. Landscape development plans of the results way office screening plans are unclear and should be open park." In addition to #6, City Council added for public view. six more conditions pertaining to landscaping. Staff has already agreed to allow Astoria Townhome owners to informally review the landscape plans when they are submitted. Request to add a new condition to the approval Petitioners seek to add new development requiring applicant to pay $30,000 to the condition to City Council approval, which does Astoria Homeowners Association for not relate to the reconsideration criteria. There additional irrigation, trees, fencing and related are no legal grounds to add this condition. matters connected to the visual screening of the wireless facility. We are talking to the property owners of 10340 There is no evidence or facts that relate to the & 10420 Bubb Road to explore a lease for a reconsideration criteria. The request for cell site. This alternative site should have continuance should be denied. The applicant similar criteria as compared to the approval already evaluated 10420 Bubb Road in its with less impact to residents. We request alternative site analysis (PC staff report). additional time allowance Applicant cited a lack of room and proximity to the freeway where AT &T already has coverage. Finding: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Morita Vista High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal Code, section 2.08.096(l). Petition Response The Fremont Union High School District has The petitioners have not presented any recently entered into leases for cell sites at evidence that FUHSD would be willing to several other high schools in the District. consider Morita Vista H.S. for cell sites again. More than 5 years have passed since AT &T The 2005 City approval of a wireless facility at approached FUHSD about Morita Vista High Morita Vista H.S. expired in 2007, so the School (H.S.). Given what has happened at applicant would need to go through another other area high schools, AT &T should go back public entitlement process again. A request to and check about antenna opportunities at place a wireless facility at a school site is not 329 Monta Vista since District criteria may have before the Council. evolved. Based on the above findings and the fact that the petitioners failed to provide relevant grounds /evidence for the reconsideration, staff recommends that the City Council deny the reconsideration request and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director, Carol Korade, City Attorney Approved for Submission by. David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. City Council draft Resolution and Exhibit 1 B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604 C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10 D. Planning Commission meeting minutes from 9/14/10 E. Appeal filed by Allen Wang, Grace Chen & Guo Jin on 9/28/10 F. City Council staff report dated 11 /1 /10 G. City Council meeting action minutes of 11 /1 /10 H. City Council staff report dated 1/4/11 I. City Council meeting action minutes of 1/4/11 J. Petition for Reconsideration filed Jan. 18, 2011 K. City Council Action Letter dated 1/6/11 L. Approved plan set 330 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF GRACE CHEN & GUO JIN SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010-04 & TR- 2010 -31, A USE PERMIT, HEIGHT EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE PARK WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to deny an appeal of a Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal approvals to facilitate the development of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Office Park. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing denied the appeal filed by Allen Wang, Grace Chen and Guo Jin on a 4 -1 vote at its meeting of January 4, 2011 WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Grace Chen and Guo Jin requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have failed to offer any new evidence that there are any feasible alternative sites to the project that are less intrusive. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096(B)(1).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4, 2011 on item is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 331 Cupertino this 15 day of February 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 332 EXHIBIT 1 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its juri sdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and /or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the fourth full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The grounds for the reconsideration are summarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims do not bear any relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City's findings of fact on each of claims and the criterion are delineated below. Findin : There are three claims that do not bear any relationship to the Reconsideration criteria found in municipal code section 2.08.096(B). Petition Response Screening landscaping for the monopine Petitioners seek to add and refine needs to follow strict aesthetic guidelines. development conditions that have already We request the addition of a condition to been adopted by the City Council the approval that the "additional screening (Attachment K) which does not relate to trees at the northern property line" will the reconsideration criteria. Petitioners' conform to that of the approved interests are already addressed by redevelopment plans of the Results Way Council's added condition #6: "require that office park and any revisions or tree planting conform with the approved modifications of those plans. Landscape development plans of the results way office screening plans are unclear and should be park." In addition to #6, City Council open for public view. added six more conditions pertaining to 333 Finding: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Monta Vista High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal Code, section 2.08.096(1). Petition landscaping. Staff has already agreed to allow Astoria Townhome owners to informally review the landscape plans when they are submitted. Request to add a new condition to the Petitioners seek to add new development approval requiring applicant to pay condition to City Council approval, which $30,000 to the Astoria Homeowners does not relate to the reconsideration Association for additional irrigation, trees, criteria. There are no legal grounds to add fencing and related matters connected to this condition. the visual screening of the wireless facility. expired in 2007, so the applicant would We are talking to the property owners of There is no evidence or facts that relate to 10340 & 10420 Bubb Road to explore a the reconsideration criteria. The request lease for a cell site. This alternative site for continuance should be denied. The should have similar criteria as compared to applicant already evaluated 10420 Bubb the approval with less impact to residents. Road in its alternative site analysis (PC We request additional time allowance staff report). Applicant cited a lack of room and proximity to the freeway where AT &T already has coverage. Finding: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Monta Vista High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal Code, section 2.08.096(1). Petition Response The Fremont Union High School District The petitioners have not presented any has recently entered into leases for cell evidence that FUHSD would be willing to sites at several other high schools in the consider Monta Vista H.S. for cell sites District. More than 5 years have passed again. The 2005 City approval of a since AT &T approached FUHSD about wireless facility at Monta Vista H.S. Monta Vista High School (H.S.). Given expired in 2007, so the applicant would what has happened at other area high need to go through another public schools, AT &T should go back and check entitlement process again. A request to about antenna opportunities at Monta Vista place a wireless facility at a school site is since District criteria may have evolved. not before the Council. 334 ATTACHMENT B City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue imi Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777 -3251 C U P E RT I N 0 FAX (408) 777 -3333 Community Development Department September 16, 2010 Dave Yocke Trillium Telecom 7901 Stoneridge Dr., Suite 503 Pleasanton, Ca, 94588 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION LETTER - U- 2010 -03, EXC-2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31 This letter confirms the decision of the Pl annin g Commission, given at the meeting of September 14, 2010, approving a Use Permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility, consisting of a 74 -foot tall monopine with twelve panel antennas and associated base equipment; approving a height exception to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of about 67 feet or less; approving the removal and replacement of up to four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the installation of a proposed personal wireless service facility, located at the Results Way office complex, according to Pl annin g Commission Resolution No. (s) 6604, 6605 and 6606. Please be aware that if this Permit is not used within a two -year period, it shall expire on September 14, 2012. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this decision. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Council. Sincerely, Colin Jung Senior Planner Planning Department Enclosures: Resolution 6604, 6605, 6606 CC: ECI Two Results, LLC, 1301 Shoreway Rd, Suite 250, Belmont, CA 94402 Allen Wong, 10170 imperial Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 g: /planning/post heanng/actfonletterU 2010- 03,EXC- 2010- 04,TR- 2010 -3I 335 U-2010-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6604 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVNG A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY, CONSISTING OF A 74 -FOOT TALL MONQPINE WITH TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED BASE EQUIPMENT AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE PARK SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan, the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance and the purpose of this title. 3) That the operation of the facility will comply with federal safety standards for radio frequency radiation emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 336 Resolution No. 6604 U- 2010.03 September 14, 2010 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2010 -03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U- 2010 -03 Applicant: Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Location: Results Way SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "at &t /CN3242 -A /November Drive /Results Way/ Cupertino, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T -1, A -0 through A -3, A -1.1 and C -1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such' fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. COLOCATION OF ANTENNAE The treepole shall be structurally designed to accommodate the collocation of additional antera - tae from other wireless carriers. The co- location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 4. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said aerial and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition. 337 Resolution No. 66 U- 2010 -03 September 14, 2010 Page 3 __ ___ ___ _____ W - -- 5. EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review -the state of wireless communication technologies, camouflage tecluziques and maintenance to determine if the visual impact of the aerial facility can be reduced. b. TREE POLE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE The applicant shall use a sufficient number of artificial branches to obscure the appearance of the panel antennae and any associated mounting framework. The top portion of the tree pole shall have branches of varying length to give the tree pole a conical form. Panel antennae mounted away from the mast shall have needle covers to blend with the green foliage of the artificial branches. The mast shall be wrapped with a faux bark and any antenna mounted close to the mast shall be painted brown to mimic a tree hunk. The foliage shall have a mottled green coloration. The building permit shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to ensure the above condition is met. The applicant shall perform regular maintenance of the tree pole to maintain its appearance and obscure the panel antennae from public view. 7. EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE The base equipment enclosure shall be constructed of high quality materials and/or be screened by appropriate landscaping as determined by the Director of Community Development. The final enclosure design, wall treatment/ color and screening strategy shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 8. TREE REPLACEMENT The removed trees are to be replaced with three (3) 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Commmunity Development prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant steal l provide a letter from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain t1te trees. In addition, the final landscaping plan shall confirm that the existing irrigation systems are operating properly in order to service the existing and new trees in the area. 9. TESTING OF RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) LEVELS Radio frequency levels will be monitored and tested annually for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final occupancy approval. The result of these tests will be made available to the Planning Department and the FCC for review. The City 338 Resolution No. 6604 U- 2010 -03 September 14, 2010 Page 4 reserves the right to perform code enforcement actions and /or revoke this use permit if the results show RF levels inconsistent with the federal standards. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: /s /Aarti Sluivastava Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director APPROVED: Zs/ Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission G.I pl r<rming/pdrepor /r 2010 -03 res.doc 339 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO, 6605 EXC- 2010 -04 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ANTENNAS TO BE MOUNTED ON A MONOPINE AT A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 67 FEET OR LESS ON A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT RESULTS WAY SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC- 2010 -04 Applicant: Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) Location: Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, in order to provide height flexibility in situations where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 19.108 occur, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Height Exception for this application: 1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this title will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this title in that the extra antenna height above the ordinance maximum of 55 feet is needed because the monopine rests in a location below the grade of the neighborhood that will be serviced with telephone coverage. 2. That the proposed project will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that the wireless technology produces RF energy below federal exposure standards, and 3. That the proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic because it is not sited within the travel ways or sight lines of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. EXC - 2010 -04 is hereby approved; and 340 Resolution No. 6605 EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC - 2010 -04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010, and are incorporated by reference herein, SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "at &t /CN3242 -A/ November Drive /Results Way /Cupertino, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31./10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled-T -1, A -0 through A -3, A -1.1 and C -1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. 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 Goveriunent Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and .a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino b the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director APPROVED: /s/Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Plarming Commission g: lyIrrnrfing /F>ilr 1FXC- 2070 -04 res.doc 341 TR- 2010 -31 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6606 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UP TO FOUR COASTAL REDWOODS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A PROPOSED PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE COMPLEX SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR- 2010 -31 Applicant: Dave Yocke (AT &T Mobility) Location: Results Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission of the City of Cupertino received an application to approve the removal of four Coastal Redwoods that are by an approved development plan considered protected trees subject to Chapter 14.18, the Protected Tree Ordinance of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Con nnission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission finds: 1. That the aforementioned trees are in conflict with the development proposal; 2. That the application for Tree Removal, file no. TR- 2010 -31, is hereby approved; and 3. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2010 are incorporated by reference herein, 342 Resolution No. 6606 TR- 2010 -08 April 13, 2010 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based on. Exhibits titled: "at &t /CN3242 -A /November Drive /Results Way /Cupertino, California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T -1, A -0 through A -3, A -1.1 and C -1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT The removed trees are to be replaced with three 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. Applicant shall provide a letter from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain the trees. 3. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATI OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period ill which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14LI1 day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 343 ATTACHMENT C OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ® CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 ® FAX (408) 777 -3333 ® planning@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Noe Agenda Date: September 14, 2010 Application: U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT &T Mobility) Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Property Location: Results Way Application Summary: Use Permit (U- 2010 -03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74 -foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC- 2010 -04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR- 2010 -31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. Approve the use permit (U- 2010 -03) with additional design conditions per the model resolution; 2. Approve the height exception (EXC- 2010 -04) per the model resolution; and 3. Approve the tree removal (TR- 2010 -31) per the model resolution (Attachment 1). PROJECT DATA Property Zoning: Planned Development - Light Industrial - P(ML) Allowed Height: 55 feet Height of Monopine: 74 feet (measured from grade to foliage top) Height of Antennas: 67 feet max. (measured from grade to top of panels) Required Setback: 75 feet (to residentially zoned property line) Proposed Setback: 334 feet to Imperial Ave. residence 344 Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 2 246 feet to Olive Ave. residence 207 feet to Astoria townhouses Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption Proposed Project The applicant, Dave Yocke (representing AT &T Mobility) is proposing a personal wireless service monopine located in the westerly landscape strip of the rear parking lot of the Results Way Office Park (see aerial diagram below). The monopine consists of twelve panel antennas arranged in two racks of six antennas on a simulated pine tree pole. Associated base equipments are located within a fenced enclosure near the base of the pole. The monopine will be designed for collocation so that more antennas and base equipment may be added by other wireless carriers in the future. Any future addition to the monopine will require additional radio frequency energy analysis to confirm that the cumulative emission exposures are below Federal safety limits. The project site is surrounded by mainly office and industrial land uses. The nearest residential property is approximately 207 feet to the north. Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 3 Previous Application Approximately one year ago, the Planning Commission reviewed a similar application (U- 2003 -03, EXC- 2009 -05) for a six - antenna monopine with provisions for a future expansion or collocation. That proposal was withdrawn when AT &T changed its applicant /contractor. The new applicant has submitted a new monopine proposal consisting of six more antennas (a total of 12) compared with the original application. The new monopine is located approximately 170 feet north of the original location on the same property Coverage Demand In 2007, the City's Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) conducted an on -line survey of residents and workers to identify cell phone usage and issues in the City. AT &T was found to be one of two wireless carriers to have the widest subscription bases in Cupertino, and the Bubb Road /McClellan Road area was identified as the #I problem area for lack of cell phone coverage by survey respondents. The existing and proposed AT &T phone coverages are depicted in Attachment 2. The Santa Clara County Sheriffs has also submitted a letter noting the importance of improving wireless communications coverage throughout the city in order to improve law enforcement communications and effectiveness (Attachment 3). Site Location The AT &T monopine is proposed in the westerly landscape strip of the office park which has numerous tall and large trees to the south and smaller trees to the north. The proposed location is 2.75 times the required 75 -foot setback from a residentially zoned property. Treepole and Enclosure Appearance The appearance of the monopine will be comparable to modern tree pole designs, such as the one located at 10121 Miller Avenue, Cupertino. The tree design includes: ® Faux bark cladding ® An artificial pine branch structure that will resemble a tree and obscure the antenna racks ® Pine needle covers that will obscure the panel antenna even further (See photosimulations, Attachment 4) Sample actual AT &T monopine proposed at Results Way, Cupertino 346 Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 4 Even though there are many tall, mature trees in the office park's westerly landscape strip, the immediate project vicinity is occupied with smaller stature trees, which makes it more challenging to blend in the project. In order to achieve a more natural and realistic tree image and enhance the equipment screen wall (12 -foot concrete block wall), staff is recommending the following conditions of approval: • The needle camouflage shall be a more mottled green color, which is more natural looking than the deep forest green color found on the Miller Avenue tree • The top half of the monopine shall be designed with a more conical form and the the bottom half of the tree foliage should be more dense in order to simulate the shape of a real pine tree • The upper six feet of the base equipment screen wall shall be clad with high quality metal panels with a color to match the metal work in the approved office project. Area around the enclosure shall be landscaped with shrubs to help the monopine blend in with the existing landscaping. Height Exception Request The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 67 feet for the antennas and 74 feet for the monopine, where 55 feet is allowed by the Wireless Ordinance. The extra height is needed because the rear grade of the office park is approximately 19 feet lower than the grade at McClellan Road. According to 19.108.100 of the City's Wireless Ordinance, an exception may be granted by the Commission for an antenna exceeding the maximum height limit where practical difficulties exist. According to the applicant's engineer, given the project's unique topography, the antennas need the extra height to "see" over the tops of the adjacent office buildings to provide phone coverage to the neighborhood to the south. The extra pole height is also needed to allow for a potential collocation by another wireless carrier on the same pole. Staff supports the proposed height exception given the reasons mentioned above and the fact that the City has previously approved similar height requests for similar reasons. Radio Frequency E� neWj Assessment AT &T Mobility commissioned the preparation of a radio frequency energy (RFE) assessment (Attachment 5) to determine the projected radio emission levels and compare them against the federal exposure safety standards (that is, PCS: 1.0 mW /cm Cellular: 0.58 mW /cm The report concluded that the project is within the federal safety standards for RFE exposure with estimated exposures as follows: 347 Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RF Energy Exposure Context % of Maximum Permissible Exposure Ground level (AT &T facility only) 0.62% Ground level (AT &T & existing Sprint- Nextel) 0.75% Roof of Building to the west 3.2% 2nd Floor Elevation of nearest residence 0.93% It should be noted that per Federal law, local agencies are prohibited from regulating such facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions if the emissions meet federal safety standards, such as stated above. Alternative Site Anali sis Since 2005, AT &T /Cingular has sought to provide better wireless communications coverage to the Monta Vista area with the following outcomes: Site # Site Location Outcome 1 Monta Vista H.S. gymnasium Building- mounted antennas approved by Planning Commission in 2005. Later FUHSD & AT &T declined to proceed with lease due to _p arent opposition, 2 Lands of Union Pacific Rail Cingular (purchased by AT &T) was interested Roads (UPRR) near Bubb Rd. in a monopine proposal. Appeal of Commission denial was withdrawn because conflict with SCVWD easement made project undevelo able. 3 Results Way frontage parking Initial 2008 AT &T proposal (file no. U- 2008 -03) lot near McClellan Road rejected by staff because of lack of abutting landscaping and visibility to McClellan Road. 4 Results Way office building Determined to be infeasible by AT &T for lack roof near McClellan Road of adequate building height & accessibility by service personnel. 5 Results Way east side of rear Determined to be infeasible by property parking lot near UPRR owner. Area planned for new underground railroad tracks. utilities (i.e. water, sewer & storm drainage) to serve approved, future development. 6 Results Way west side of rear Project was continued indefinitely by the parking lot near Imperial Planning Commission in 2009 because of Avenue (U- 2008 -03) disagreement between property owner and applicant. Project was later withdrawn when applicant changed. Site is located in a utility easement. 7 Results Way westerly rear Current proposal p arking lot near Imperial Dave Yocke (for AT &T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 6 Avenue The above alternate sites were either reviewed at a public meeting or discussed with staff in the context of project review. They are depicted on a map ® see Attachment 6. The applicant has also look at other sites in the area and those are outlined in Attachment 7. Comments from the TICC In accordance with the wireless communications facilities ordinance, the plans and supporting documentation were referred to designated members of the TICC. TICC provided the following comments (Attachment 3): ® The RF study was properly done and demonstrates that RF exposures are below federal safety standards. (Staff notes: antennas are not proposed at 35 feet. This is a possible collocation opportunity that still must undergo RF energy analysis when a proposal is submitted.) ® The monopine design provides adequate camouflage for the cell tower. Its location in an office/ industrial park will make it even less noticeable and should not adversely impact the neighborhood. ® The facility will greatly benefit Cupertino residents as this area is known as a major gap in AT &T's wireless coverage of Cupertino. Public Hearing Noticing The project property has not changed, so the public hearing noticing has been mailed to the same property owners within 1,000 -foot radius of the project property boundaries. An earlier courtesy notice was emailed on August 24, 2010 to interested parties who provided an email address on the former applications. Staff understands that AT &T has sent additional noticing to its customers in the area. Staff has received nearly forty email messages about this project. The majority of the writers support a new AT &T cell phone tower in the Monta Vista area to improve cell phone coverage (Attachment 9). Tree Removal Four (4) six inch diameter Coastal Redwoods in the westerly landscape strip are proposed for removal as part of the project. The removal of the four redwoods is necessary in order to facilitate the proposed monopole and associated base equipments /enclosure. Staff recommends that the four redwoods be replaced with three (3) new 24 -inch box Coastal Redwoods planted in the northwest corner landscape strip. Staff is also recommending that the irrigation system be rehabilitated by the applicant to ensure that the new trees and the existing trees in this area thrive. 349 Dave Yocke (for AT&T Mobility) U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 September 14, 2010 Page 7 Prepared by: Colin Jung AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by y Planner ATTACHMENTS Approved by Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director Attachment 1: Model resolutions for U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31 Attachment 2: Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps Attachment 3: Santa Clara County Sheriff's letter dated June 23, 2010 Attachment 4: Photosimulations of treepole (3) Attachment 5: Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc.: AT &T Mobility, Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A), Results Way, Cupertino, California dated August 20, 2010 Attachment 6: AT &T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map Attachment 7: Alternate Site Analysis provided by applicant Attachment 3: Communications from TIC Commissioners Attachment 9: Emails from residents and workers in Cupertino Plan Set G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ 2010ureports\ U-2010-03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010- 31.doc 350 E ATTACHMENT D Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 14, 2010 way to approach a site like this. However, the work has been done and that is why the existing retaining walls are to remain. They are going with a tiered foundation system building around the existing foundation so that there will be two layers of strengthening of the site. Com. eda: • Said li derstood that the applicant had the property zoned for hillside resid zal and they have a ri o build. Based on the plans, it appears the end result from an a ion standpoint will be better what is presently there, because you will be planting t Il and putting in something that ctually help mitigate erosion and water flow across a site. • The owner must be a there is a fault line which carries a certain ; all of Cupertino is at risk from an earthqualcc, is area potentially is more at risk than average site in Cupertino. If the owner is going in wz heir eyes open to the fact that th are quite close to a fault line and potentially in a rupture zo that is important for them t ow. • Said he assumed the city would re they have a good ctural consultant that will make sure the building is securely drilled into bedroc o it will remain stable if there is an earthquake. • With all those things in place, he said he wo ort the application. Chair Brophy: • Said he was sympathetic to Com. Giefe ' argument an ' this were a clean site that had not been developed, he would vote again He said the as ey have a hillside exception is not only to make sure that the de ' is done well but to deel that some sites are just too heavily sloped to be subject to d lopment, which the current site i • Said he was certain they wo use a quality geotechnical engineer, oted that whenever there are heavy winter rain ne can drive around the hilly parts of the city see emergency arrangements being tak care of to deal with hillside slippage, and those pres bly were all designed by compete geotechnical engineers. He said he would bring an engine even if it is 47 degrees. • He said it is lik e whole idea that the city is providing its land for offstreet parking, bu Com. Giefer d, the main concern is just the incredible steepness of it. There are some sites in the futur ey simply have to look at and tell the applicants that the risk of developing them is too gr to the community at large. That is a fact of nature, not a policy issue. Having said that, taff pointed out, with the construction that is going on there, to try to undo what has air been done would probably cause more damage than building a house. • said he hoped in the future they would have stricter policy in terms of deciding whether or of a site is actually developable, rather than saying how can we make it developable and make it the least problem. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -1 -0, Com, Giefer voted No, to approve Applications M- 2010 -04, and EA-2010-03. 2. - 2010 -03, XC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31 Dave Yocke/ AT &T, Results Way Use Permit request to allow a personal wireless service facility consisting of 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park; Height Exception to allow antennas to be mounted on the monopine at a height of 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; Tree Removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of four Redwood trees as part of the wireless service facility installation. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. 351 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 14, 2010 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Use Permit for a personal wireless service facility with 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine with base equipment at the existing Results Way Office Park; height exception to allow antennas to be mounted on the monopine at 67 feet where 55 feet is allowed; and tree removal permit for removal and replacement of four Redwood trees; as outlined in the staff report. • He reviewed the site location and noted that the proposal was to provide improved AT &T cell phone coverage for the Monta Vista area. He also reviewed the design of the monopine as detailed in the staff report, Page 2/4. The history of AT &T's attempts (and the outcomes) since 2005, to provide better wireless communications coverage in the Monta Vista area were also reviewed; a table showing the locations and outcomes is included in the staff report. • Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal per the model resolutions. Conn.. Miller: • Asked if Blackberry Farm location or Deep Cliff had been considered for placement of the facility. Colin Jung: • Said Blackberry Farm would be a challenging location, because it is in a giant hole; to get something that is even covering anything on the residential outside, you would likely have to go up 100 feet. Deep Cliff is part of another hole and it would also require a very tall antenna location. The applicant could comment, as they developed a search radius. Leon Beechman, AT &T: • Showed slides relating to some of the questions about the service and the fact that it is needed. Information related to demand, showing capacity issue: a lot of which is driven by the evolution of the telecommunications wireless industry; much of it is driven by one of the local companies; you get a sense of why we need to add to the capacity of our network. ® Showed facts produced by the TIC, showing that people in Cupertino want improved service. Survey responded to the wireless service; issue of quality: demand has grown and coverage has deteriorated somewhat since 2007. Safety concerns: only 50 out of 600 respondents had safety concerns; the vast majority did not have concerns with safety. • The majority did not have concerns about aesthetics, the site of the towers has been improved over time and will be addressed with the proposal. Over 50% of the people responding to the survey had issues with coverage, which is in the same area of the proposed new facilities. He said he felt they were offering a good thing for the city; it will improve the wireless coverage, it is a high usage area for wireless services. They have worked about 5 years to get this done and think it will benefit the local economy. Scott Longhurst, President, Trillian Co. (AT &T land use consultant): • Continued with a slide presentation, describing the proposed project to build a 74 foot tall monopine, placing 12 antennas, stacked in 3 sectors of 2 antennas each, and pulled those antennas in close to the pole which will be benefited by the conical shape at the top. • The antennas will be much less visible to the general public; socks will be put over those antennas that have additional pine needles that will help diffuse the straight lines of them for a more natural shape. • Inside of the equipment compound, they are proposing 7 equipment cabinets; 3 will be deployed; at the present time reserving space for 4 additional cabinets. As technology changes, an additional capacity needs to be added to the site which can be done by adding cabinets within the shelter itself without having to go onto the pole. There is some ancillary 352 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 September 14, 2010 equipment including power and telephone cabinets; the cabling to connect the antennas to the equipment cabinets, electrical meters, etc., will be housed inside the equipment enclosure. • Staff has asked that the project be designed as well as engineered to accommodate a future carrier; the plan is to do so, there would be up to 9 additional panel antennas that, could be deployed at the site in the future. • He illustrated the proposed location on the existing property; the existing view and what it would look like if the site is built. The site is needed because presently.AT &T does have a significant gap in coverage in the Monta Vista area, their initial anticipated coverage area is to the southwest primarily to cover the school areas and to the residential areas to the south and west. There is fairly good coverage to the east which is why they tried not to move the site any further north and east because they would be getting into areas where there is already acceptable coverage. • The Bubb Road and McClellan Road area has been identified by the survey as the No. 1 area needed improved coverage. Over the last few years AT &T has experienced approximately 500% growth rate as depicted in other slides, primarily due to the advent of Smart Phones and the apps that have been developed for public use and further enhance the use of the smart phones. The additional heights have been requested for two reasons, to serve that greater geographic area and see over the surrounding buildings. • Referred to an-updated coverage map, and explained why the location was chosen. There have been a variety of locations analyzed over the past 3 -5 years; this is the closest non - residential property to their original coverage objectives, which was centered more around the high school itself and the surrounding residential community. • Reviewed the benefits of the project, which will improve coverage for AT &T customers in an area of Cupertino that is currently receiving substandard coverage, specifically at the College, high school, middle schools, residents to the west and across Imperial Avenue, and south of McClellan as well as the businesses in the area and Highway 85. As part of this improved coverage, AT &T customers will receive improved data speeds, including faster internet connectivity, and file downloads. It will also provide customers with the latest technologies including 3G and 4G as well as improved access to 911 services which are location based. • Said they reviewed the staff report and have no problems with any proposed conditions; and would submit for Director's review the building materials for the equipment enclosure. He requested that the Commission grant approval and allow the project to move forward. Chair Brophy: • Based on a -mails received, the No. l concern is how can they respond to the concerns that people have about what might exist in spite of the FCC standards that states the Commission cannot consider health effects from any project that meets the FCC design. Dr. Jerry Bushberg, Consultant: • The report states that it is 1% of the allowable limit; allowable limit has a safety factor of 50 fold built into it which is a big margin of safety, about 5,000 times below the level thought to be potentially harmful. The public safety limit was established assuming that people might be exposed 24 hours per day/365 days per year, and the reason the large safety factor was applied to the public exposure standard, which is 50 times below the threshold for effects and ten times below the level for occupational exposure, is because the public has a wide variety of people in it from healthy to infirm, from young to old. Chair Brophy: • Asked what the general state of scientific belief was in terms of the effects of emissions from cell towers. Studies from Germany and Israel argued that cancer rates within 400 meters of cell towers were 3 or 4 times that of the areas that did not have cell towers near them. 353 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 14, 2010 Dr. Bushberg; • Over the last ten years in particular, mostly because of the proliferation of wireless technology and the concern for a large percentage of the population using cell phones, there have been a number of independent scientific commissions that have been set up to answer the question whether the health and safety standards currently in existence in Europe and USA are adequate to protect the public health and safety. He illustrated a list of some involved; the list was reviewed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and after their review of these reports, each one of which typically is 100 -200 pages, their collective statement about this was as follows: "Today expert reviews on health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion; there have been no adverse consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below international guidelines ". • The literature is vast, and literally contains thousands of biological effect studies, both studies on cells, studies on animals, both long and short terms, as well as epidemiological studies and what they refer to as human provocation studies where people are exposed and they look at effects like whether they get headaches or not, and effects on sleep, etc. There are going to be in any body of research individual studies that show either an effect that other studies don't show, or on the other side of the extreme, shows the absence of the fact where some studies do show an effect. The responsibility of all of these scientific organizations and committees that have been impaneled is to review the entire body of literature and look at the weight of the evidence, and that is what the recommendations both from these reports and a collective judgment of the WHO is based on, not individual papers. • Said that there is a recent study (re: children) 2010 American Cancer Society website, evaluating potential threats relating to cancer. Where the exposures are the highest, people actually using a cell phone, and exposure that you get when you use your cell phone is many times greater than the typical exposure one gets from living around a cell site. • There have been a number studies both around AM and FM broadcast facilities, e.g. TV towers, and one published that the American Cancer Society called attention to, in Britain involved 1,000 families of young children with cancer and a similar group of families without, and they found no link between the mothers' exposure to towers during pregnancy based on distance from those sites. Their website talks about the issue in detail with additional reference to the research itself. • Said that the present phones have a feature called adaptive power control, if they have a very strong signal, the cell sites only want to see a signal strength which remains at a certain level. To save battery life on the phones, if you are very close and there is a good signal to the cell site, the cell site will signal the phone to turn its power down to get it within that range. If you are very far away and have a poor signal, such as one bar, then it will signal the phone to turn up to maximum power to make the connection if it can. One of the effects of having good coverage, is to lower people's exposure from the phones through the use of adaptive power control; the individual exposures which are typically the highest, will be reduced. TIC representative: • Said because many years have passed and there are different Commissioners from when the first report was given, he provided a copy of the report. He said that AT &T reps summarized • The only thing they didn't say that was relevant is that AT &T three years ago had about a 42% share of the city of Cupertino; it was the dominant carrier. The two carriers that mattered in Cupertino were Verizon and AT &T; they each had over 40% share, everyone else combined at about 15% share. The estimate is that AT &T has grown to be even more dominant because of the rise of the IPhone. s The other point that was made was that not only has there been a coverage hole but the coverage hole has got worse because people's demands upon their Smart Phones and other 354 Cupertino Planning Commission September 14, 2010 devices have become huge. Relative to the question about putting them higher in the hills, putting cell phones higher in a hill area doesn't necessarily improve coverage because of the nature of the way the microwave range radiation works to get a bounce off hills. It may look like you have coverage, but not really be able to have a consistent coverage from those areas. • The survey done three years ago was statistically valid, with a huge response, three times that from a typical voting poll with a very small percentage error; the results were likely to be statistically valid for the whole city. This is an area that in the three years since, in terms of e- mails received and e-mails the city has received, overwhelmingly by a factor of 100 to 1, the comment received are people begging for a fix to the cell coverage and the general wireless coverage within the city. That is why we worked with you and the City Council to make the changes that were made in the ordinance for cell towers. We would like to see improvements made in this area so we don't have to worry about it anymore. Colin Jung: • Summarized the areas that can be considered in the Planning Commission deliberation and what can't. Said the Federal law was clear on the point, that while they could hear all input presented, the law states that local agencies and decision makers of local agencies cannot make decisions on personal wireless service facilities such as this one on the basis of health effects if it is demonstrated that the emissions from that facility meet or are below federal safety standards. Other issues within the purview of the Planning Commission include issues of design, visibility, location, importance of service to the community, etc. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Steve Malani, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Imperial Avenue in this particular area is blighted and there is an existing conduit run that they proposed going through the property that goes to Imperial Avenue. He said he was opposed to the routing of the conduit; his perception is that the conduit run impacts the development opportunity of that particular parcel. • He suggested they recommend to the applicant that the conduit line be moved closer to the property line. Eventually somebody will redevelop that property and it needs to be redeveloped and reworked; and said he would like to see the conduit moved closer to the property line. Colin Jung: • Said he had a discussion with the property owner who said he had the same concern, that the electrical and telephone connections for this tower are taken off of Imperial Avenue and go through one of those smaller light industrial properties that is owned by the Results Way Office Park owners. On the plans itself it shows the conduit run going right through the center of the property; and the property owner said he did not know what they had planned for the future, but felt they would be limiting their options if they run it through the center of it. Colin Jung said he was sure that the property owner would take care of it as he was aware of the concern from his own economic interest. Xiaorwen Liu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said that Dr. Bushberg's report spoke to the effects on children; the British study only studied effects on children up to 4 years old; no long term effect of children's health. Said her children would be exposed to cell phone radiation 24 hours a day, because of proximity to the school and their home. If the cell phone tower is installed, they will likely move from their 355 Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 14, 2010 home, as the facility would have a negative effect on their home value. ® AT &T does not need to build the tower there to fill their current gap; the best location would be a non - residential area. Agnes Fu, Astoria Town House resident: • Opposed to the project. • Distributed copy of petition of 240 signatures opposed to the location. • Showed photos of the Astoria townhouses, the tower is twice the height of 3 story townhouse; most of the residents will see the cell tower every day when driving on their community road. She compared the height of the tower to trees on the properties nearby, and said if the tower is built in the proposed location, they would move as they were concerned about the effects of radiation on her children. • She said she would drive her children to school to reduce the time of exposure, which will increase the traffic problems around the school. Also the City of Cupertino encourages children to walk to school. The tower is counter - environmental. Katrina Huang, 6 year old Lincoln School student: • Opposed to project. • Said she and her mother sometimes walk in the neighborhood and she didn't want to see a very tall tower in their neighborhood. Kate Huang, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Raised concerns about health effects. The proposed location is close to two townhouse communities, most have school aged children; all the children are as valuable as those living in the Monta Vista area; it is a concern to parents and children who walk to school every day. • Once the tower is up, it will be easier for another carrier to add to the existing pole or another one; there is already one existing near there and the level of RF radiation combined will not be linear; the level will be much more and increased in a higher frequency. • Said that the public hearing conflicted with Monta Vista's Back to School Night and many parents are unable to attend the public hearing due to scheduling conflicts. Because of the scheduling conflict, the result is an unfair representation of public opinion, especially of those whose lives who are greatly impacted by tonight's decision. Cid Pereira, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said she chose to reside in Cupertino because of the quality of life, concern for its citizens, and excellent schools. Although it is important to be viable and provide services and look to the future, never forget the quality of life, balance and harmony in this. • The placement of the tower has been attempted a number of times, and most people don't want it in their yard. The services are needed, but it should be with thoughtfulness and responsibility. Perhaps there is a better location for it, somewhere where it doesn't impact the lives of the Cupertino community. Ashley Wellman, Cupertino resident: • In favor of project. • Said she was in favor of the project and was disgruntled with AT &T because of the current poor service, and would not remain a customer if she was not under contract. Said she was • frustrated because all her calls are dropped within her home and service is not good in her home or close proximity. 356 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 14, 2010 Alexander Wu, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said the tower is big and noticeable, and he did not want to see the big ugly, chunky tree when he walked by the area every day. • Recalled that it was the seventh time that the facility had been relocated, so there must be adequate reasons it has failed before. Natalino Camilleri, Monta Vista area resident: • Said he was an RF professional with a PhD. In RF and electro magnetics, and did not work for AT &T. Said one could not deny that service in that area is bad, and has been such for a long time. AT &T has been trying to put something there for more than 5 years; they need to get the project moving, and help them get there. The area needs improved coverage. Relative to safety, he said he agreed with the AT &T consultant and the data shown, and if AT &T wanted to put a tower in his backyard, he would agree to it. Andrew Wu, Imperial Avenue, Cupertino: • Said his unit faces the parking lot, which presently has a good, harmonious view and if AT &T moves forward with the proposal, it will make the community very ugly. Said he was not opposed to AT &T improving the coverage, but was opposed to the proposed location. • Other carriers in the area have excellent coverage, and do not have their facility next to the residential area. Stop this project at the beginning; remember the Wall Street greed, bringing the entire country and economics down. AT &T is starting a greedy approach to take over this beautiful community and put ugly construction there. There are many ways to improve the coverage, but this way is the wrong way and I ask you to stop this from the beginning; keep our community beautiful for the present and next generations. • Said he was also concerned about the radiation potential. There is a much better choice. Stephen Chen, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Said that the FCC Act states that the community cannot refuse AT &T the right to place a cell phone tower there just because of health concerns. • He relayed his father's concerns for property values in the community, stating that one of Cupertino's greatest assets is its stability for property values because of its high quality education. We are living in a crucial economic times and luckily we are in this district in such a high quality, high level educational district, so our property values would not drop so much. Once AT &T places the cell phone tower in the proposed location, the residents will react, and future home buyers would react. • He said he felt the cell phone tower will affect the entire residential area by giving potential home buyers an excuse to bring down the property values of the area which is something the City of Cupertino cannot afford, because the property taxes they gain from the houses are able to fuel the standard of education that Cupertino School District currently provides. He said he did not think the community would sacrifice the property taxes that the community offers the City by purchasing the houses_ The new homes represent a more modem, cleaner environment to live in, and future home buyers will express concern over the large radial tower there and possibly bring down the value of the home. • He urged the Commission to help preserve the high quality education that will be able to sustain the next generation of homeowners; have AT &T choose a more preferable spot for future home buyers and residents of Astoria. 357 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 September 14, 2010 Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Addressed the five redwood trees to be removed on the industrial park property; when the young trees surrounding the monopine grow taller, will they compromise the actual monopine structure, because redwoods will grow very quickly. • If the project is approved, the cell tower will be there for quiet a while so the redwood trees will grow up around it, having attained a height of 20 -25 feet within 9 years if they are adequately watered. What are the future plans for this, since it is assumed that all the redwoods out there are part of the approved planting guide for this industrial park there; and that is why there needs to be a permit to remove those trees. • There have been great hopes for this industrial park, to try to make sure this property is going to go forward and be able to be refurbished and have a useful life as an industrial park. • Referring to an earlier comment about the conduit run, she said it would not be the best thing to have the conduit going across the middle of the parking lot off of the industrial park if it is going to be used in the future. • If the monopine is not to be used again by AT &T in the future, will it be completely taken down and disassembled and removed or will it be left on the property? There has been an improvement in the appearance of many of the trees; some elderly ones are in poor condition. She asked that they address some of her questions about the size of the redwoods? Colin Jung: • Said the trees are about 20 -30 feet in height, not sure of age, but not in good health; the tops of the trees are dead with an abundance of brown foliage, and they will not grow much taller. Looking at it from the standpoint of a screening issue, they need to be removed and new trees planted; it is a staff condition that they rehabilitate the irrigation system and begin to take much better care of the trees in the rear parking lot. Nicholas Chen, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to project. • Said he was concerned about the radio frequencies and how the radio emissions will affect the health of all the people in the townhouse complex, because studies have shown that cell phones has increased your chances of getting brain cancer. Many of the residents are concerned that it would lower the property values of the Astoria townhomes, and would cause additional health problems, and with more monopines or other radio emission towers set up, the combined amount will likely affect residents more than a single monopine. • On behalf of the townhouse residents, he asked that the Commission acknowledge their pleas to secure their property values and their future likelihood as long as they reside there. Jenny Zhong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said she felt it was a bad idea to install a radiation tower at Results Way since it is very close to the schools and residential area. There are many students and residents who walk through the intersection of McClellan and Bubb Road everyday which is close to Results Way. The monopine is not a real tree and the residents don't want to live under the suspect radiation waves area. • She urged the Commission to consider their concerns. Srinivas Rama, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Works in the technology industry; purchased a home in Cupertino because of the quality of life, school district and appreciating property values. Said that as a parent he expected to take 358 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 14, 2010 risks on his own so that his family could have a good quality of life, and having a cell tower with any amount of unknown risks to their health and quality of life is unacceptable to him. He said that the direction his property value has taken is a financial setback for his family. The location of the monopine is close to three different schools where the students attend from 8 to 10 hours per day. He questioned why the tower would have to be over 70 feet in height. He asked that the Commission consider all the issues before making a decision on the proposed monopine. Thomas Huang, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said he lives next to the location of the proposed monopine. • Said he felt it was a health hazard to all the residents and students going through the area; there are 3 schools in the area, and it is not a good idea for the kids to be exposed to radiation for long periods of time especially during school days. He said he heard that people who live in the area have three to four more times chances of getting cancer; and also from AT &T staff, that even though there is no link between pregnancies and exposure to the tower, there is more concern to people living in this area. Do the people who want better service or internet connection know where the tower is proposed to be located? • He referred to the Monta Vista handbook where it states that the students should not use their cell phones at school; they are to be turned off and put in backpacks. • He said the monopine would be seen from the family's windows and would obstruct views on the mountain trails and of the city. It will not be a good sight since it will be sticking out, since most of the buildings and trees are 1 -3 storys high, while the monopine is 5 -6 storys high. Grace Chen, Astoria townhome resident: • Opposed to project. • President Obama has recently encouraged capital expenditures by major corporations to revamp old and existing technologies. • She asked if AT &T had the latest technologies at existing cell sites, and when technologies become antiquated in two or three years, can the existing sites be replace with newer ones that potentially can resolve the problems that exist in the Monta Vista area. • She questioned if the reports on radiation related to a 70 foot monopine and up -to -date technology. Their reports may have been dated in 1999 where 10 years ago they were not talking about the size and magnitude of what is seen today and the radiation that is emitted. Old data cannot be used in order to make decisions on what may impact the community 10 -20 years in the future. • She said if the project is approved, she was requesting that a rider be placed onto the application that homes in the proximity of 1,000 feet from the cell tower, be monetarily compensated for the devaluation of the homes. • She referred to Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan, which states "artificials should be visually integrated and should not be significantly taller than...'; and it is taller and cannot be visually integrated in that area and it is contrary to what the Wireless FMP has set forth. • The purpose of tonight is for AT &T to increase its coverage, why is it necessary that if they do not need the 12 antenna panels that it is included in tonight's application. If this improves their service, are all 12 panels necessary? How many panels do they need to fulfill their commitment to providing good cell phone service. I would like you to request AT &T to give you the answers prior to the approval. • She said she sent an e -mail to the Commissioners, and requested that each issue stated in the e- mail be addressed. 359 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 14, 2010 Chris Ho, Astoria townhome resident: • Opposed to project. • Said he planned to live in the Astoria townbomes longer if the proposal is denied. He said he did not want his child to get the radiation. • Said be bad AT &T service for 12 years. If they say they care about their customers, they have to do something to improve their service. They have to improve their products first, because I have used a cell phone that has good reception and I don't have antenna gage problem that IPhone has. There is a rumor that Verizon will have IPbone within a year, so by the time you build the tower, it is already gone for that business. I don't think that is something we need to worry about that much. Astoria townhomes are three levels so it is much higher. • Said although there is a lot of research saying that there is no link between pregnancy and radiation, that study is only one year old, compared to the residents who lived there for many years. Said he did not want to participate in cancer research because they are putting the power there and he would just leave immediately. He said he was not the one who volunteered himself to put the tower in their back yard. Andrew (7 year old child) no last name given: • Opposed to project. • Said he resided on Imperial Avenue a few hundred yards away from the proposed cell tower, and would attend Monta Vista high school in the future. • He asked the Commission not to approve the cell phone tower there because his parents might move from their residence if the tower is built; and be didn't want to move away from his best friend who also lived in the area. Gin Guo, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said he worked in the technology industry and understood the technology; said he felt it was a waste of money and effort to build the cell tower. The area is already well covered; the issue for AT &T is not coverage, it is capacity. It is because AT &T has a bad infrastructure; the coverage is there but they couldn't handle it so they need to upgrade their infrastructure to improve the capacity, not the coverage. Alen Wong, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to project. • Noted that the application is incorrect; the tree is 80 feet tall; the 74 feet height is based on future parking lot elevation and he said he did not think the office building renovation project would raise it 6 feet from the existing parking lot. If someone put a future grade there 5 feet above the existing lot, it is not correct. • Showed existing coverage map from staff report. The proposed location is in front of Lincoln Elementary School; it is based on the wrong location; the actual location is 1300 feet away_ He noted that there were 4 or 5 different versions of the coverage map. • Other carriers have better coverage in Cupertino than AT &T. Verizon towers are near the highway, away from the residential area; Sprint puts towers near the highway and put roof mounted near residential areas; that is what AT &T should do. Vincent Chin, Monta Vista High School student: • Opposed to the project. • Said he had aesthetic concerns about building a 70 foot tower. The nearby townhomes are 40 feet tall, and the trees about the same height; the 70 foot tower will not blend in with the surrounding areas. Monopine towers are designed to fit in with the surroundings, that is why 360 Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 14, 2010 they look like trees, but this tower will stand out excessively. • Relative to radiation concerns, he said he was not in a position to dispute the professional word of consultants; but said the correlation between cancer and cell phone. towers has not been definitively proven or disproven. Based on that we should not be building a tower on uncertainties of whether or not it will or will not cause cancer. Weibing Zhou, Cupertino resident: • Opposed to the project. • Said that all speakers except two, object to the proposal, and he agreed with them for. all the reasons they mentioned. He said he has Verizon service and doesn't have any problems; whereas he had service problems when contracted with AT &T. He was not convinced.that the cell tower is the solution for the coverage; AT &T gets a lot of reception companies nationwide, does Verizon or Sprint have more cell towers than AT &T? He said the tower was not necessary. • Said that Appendix 9 of the proposal is totally biased, because it does not include any feedback from people who are against the approval. For those people who don't mind installing a cell tower in their back yard, he said he was willing to donate $10 to help with the installation. Kam Chung, Imperial Avenue resident: • Opposed to project. • Said that customers of Sprint and Verizon don't have coverage issues; so she did not believe the tower is the only way that AT &T can improve their signal or services. They can come up with a better way other than erecting a tall tower in her front yard. • Said she had same concerns as other speakers and hoped that the Commission would address all the concerns and questions expressed at the meeting before making a decision. Bob Austin, Cupertino resident: • Said he was neutral about the project. He said he has an IPhone and it would be good to have better coverage; once he turns his head, the coverage is lost. • Based on evidence heard tonight, he hoped the Commission doesn't make a decision for this proposal without more feedback; but take more time to discuss issues with residents who are experts in the technology area. Said that he felt AT &T could have made a better effort and provided more documentation for the community to read on the proposal. • Who is going to get paid for this; where is the money coming from. Does AT &T give to the city through taxes, is that why it is such a big deal? He said the path the students take every day is full of weeds and he takes it upon himself to mow them down; the city does not do it. He said in his opinion the city doesn't take care of it unless they get money for it; and he would like to see the city put some time into taking care of the path. • What is the long term impact? Is Verizon going to come and put in some cell towers? What will happen in a year when Verizon takes over the IPhone; is AT &T in a race to get to the cell tower built before then? Are there going to be more cell towers? Where does it end ?? • He said if the cell tower goes in, he will get better service; if it doesn't, he will have a better view. Robert (no last name given): • Opposed to the project. • Said he had friends and relatives living in the Astoria Townhomes, and pointed out that if AT &T is proposing to put up the cell tower, it is only 207 feet away from the townhomes. There are 80 -100 kids who live in the townhome and whose health will be affected by the cell tower. He asked the Commission to take that into consideration. 361 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 14, 2010 Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com. Kaneda: • For AT &T, there was a comment that it was not an issue of coverage, but an issue of capacity. Can someone explain that? • The maps shown the cell tower will cover further down along Bubb Road but then as you get to Rainbow, it appears that there is once again no coverage. Are we going to have another application at some point in the future for Rainbow Road and are there any other major holes in Cupertino? Son Bui, AT &T RF Radio Frequency Engineer: • Specifically for this area, the requirement that is lacking is coverage. Capacity is tied into that, but it is more after effect as you get more users specifically for this area; it is a coverage lacking and when we say coverage, we have different thoughts about coverage. Here, the point is coverage for in- building as well as improved coverage surrounding the outside areas. • Said it was difficult to predict where the requirements are; but as you get further away from the cell site, the coverage decreases and as shown on the map, toward the north, northeast side and northwest, they have existing coverage that will overlap with this. To that end, there is good coverage, or sufficient coverage. Toward the south, only time and number of subscribers and requirements will dictate whether or not that is needed; it is hard to tell in the immediate future whether it is needed there. Colin Jung: • Said staff was working with a number of AT &T contractors to look at cell sites in the southern part of Cupertino that are going to address the areas around Rainbow and also along Stevens Canyon Road in those areas. There are many more coverage issues with AT &T. Com. Miller: • Said that several residents showed a map they took off the AT &T website which gave a different coverage story than the map shown at the meeting by AT &T. He asked for an explanation of the discrepancy. • Said it seemed that AT &T had a continuous problem and Verizon does not. Is that a function of Verizon with superior technology? What is the reason we don't see these demands for cell towers in town and yet Verizon has good reception throughout most of the city? Son Bui: • Said he would review where they got it off the website and discuss internally when it was created, under what condition and the circumstances it was done for. He said he understood it was created for different requirements, and the new requirement now is that they do need the coverage there. • Said the perception that one is better than the other lies with coverage, and we know that for this specific area and a lot of areas, AT &T is going to spend a lot of money to improve that and close the gap. From that perspective, there is a need to build more sites. Other factors play into that; the number of users, naturally both are at the top of the competition and the more users you have, your coverage requirements there is more demand for that. It is hard to say who has more subscribers and it varies from local area to area. In general, AT &T does need improved coverage in this area. Colin Jung: • Said that a number of the carriers that staff is working with, includes Verizon and they are 362 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 14, 2010 looking to improve their coverage in the southern part of Cupertino, in the same areas around Rainbow and Stevens Canyon Road. In certain people's minds, they do have better coverage, but they have holes in their network also. He reported that in meeting with the AT &T engineers, they discussed the service in areas, and it was brought to their attention that AT &T tested certain areas by driving in those areas mostly at non -peak times, rather than at peak times when customers were complaining of problems. He said that the marketing people were not talking to the network engineering people, which might account for the differences reported in coverage. Cam. Giefer: • Asked if the project is approved, and the tower installed, what the average lifespan is of the tower before replacing components, what is the use and maintenance model for the devices; how frequently would AT &T come in and update its devices and do routine maintenance; what is anticipated in terms of mean times between failures? Son Bui: • Legally if the site goes down, AT &T has to service it to make sure the service isn't interrupted, he did not know how frequent that is, and will get the data from area to area and the type of equipment purchased. It is difficult to quantify what the average is. Scott Longhurst: • Said that the sites are monitored remotely; there is a network operation center, all facilities are monitored and alarmed; if someone enters the facility an alarm goes off. If a component goes down, an alarm goes off and cell techs go out to the sites. They generally visit the sites every month to six weeks with laptops, and run diagnostics and leave. In terms of the technology itself, that is more difficult to answer because technology moves very rapidly. There are changes being made to existing facilities to change over from copper T1 lines to fiber optics to help with the capacity issue at existing facilities; they are also moving towards 4G. He said they requested additional cabinet space up front so that as that technology is deployed, they can go in and set the cabinets; some of the changes can be just swapping out cards. Chair Brophy: • He asked Astoria townhome resident Grace Chen to comment on the solitary antenna versus the monopine relative to health issues, aesthetics and property values. Grace Chen: • That was approved in 1997, the Astoria complex had not yet been built. It is on a roof, about 15 feet in height. Today AT &T's proposal is a 74 foot tower which hides 12 panel antennas. It is likened to comparing David and Goliath; a solitary antenna 15 feet high, compared to a 74 foot high monopine. One is at Cupertino Supply and the one they are proposing is directly behind Cupertino Supply which is 207 feet away from the development. • This one is at the same location parallel except a few feet apart; prior to today, they were not aware that there was a cell tower in the vicinity, because it doesn't look like a cell tower; perhaps it has been there, but because they didn't know it was there, they were not concerned when this development was constructed. Today they have an impact; they can impact the decision of building a tower, which currently the closest development is 207 feet away; the townhouse complex has a higher percentage of children under 18; whereas 35% of the houses in Cupertino have children under 18_ Chair Brophy: • Said he had wanted to hear the issue of the Sprint Nextel one which he sees when walking 363 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 14, 2010 down Imperial Avenue, as compared to the faux tree; he said he had a difficult time understanding the acceptance of one compared to the other. Com. Kaneda: • Said he has heard a lot about reduced property values related to cell towers; then the comment that there was a cell tower the whole time and not many knew about it, so it goes against reduced property values. An e -mail from Marshal Jackson, realtor, states that he is not aware of any negative impacts on property values from cell towers. He asked staff if they were aware of any research regarding the impacts of cell towers on property values. Colin Jung: • Said that they are not appraisers or real estate agents and did not have that information. AT &T representative: • Said there was a report commissioned in Los Angeles County; the appraiser was from the Northern California area and found there was not a direct correlation between a cell site and the proximity to homes and property values. He said he would supply a copy of the report. Com. Kaneda: • Said they were not permitted to make findings based on health concerns; and asked if they were permitted to make findings based on perceived changes in property values based on health concerns. AT &T representative: • Said the law states that if the RF emissions are consistent with the FCC guidelines then you cannot use those as a basis for denying the project. When posing the question, one would ultimately be saying the RF emissions was a factor in the decision making, and again if the RF emissions are consistent with guidelines they are not appropriate as a factor in the Commissioner's decision making. Com. Kaneda: Said that once again they were in the unenviable position of having to listen to many concerns about health issues, but having their hands tied on whether or not they are permitted to make findings based on them. There were a large number of comments based on health concerns that they cannot take into account on the project. Said he lived in the area, and had a child attending Kennedy Middle School, and understood the parents' concerns. He said there was a coverage issue in the area; friends have visited his home who have AT &T coverage, and they experience dropped calls when they walk into his home. He said he felt there was also a coverage issue along Bubb Road. He said another reason he was not that concerned about the health issue, is that the calculated numbers that the consultants are coming out with, is 1 /100 of the maximum guidelines and it is 1 /5,000' of the levels that they think will affect health.. Radiation is a bad word that everyone is afraid of; but the fact is there is radiation everywhere, and this form of radiation at the levels being discussed„ don't appear to be health threatening. There are two experts who are bonafide experts on radio frequency and the health effects; one is a paid consultant of AT &T, so everyone may be slightly skeptical of what be says; but the other person has, no ties to AT &T, and both of them said that they have no concerns with health issues. He said his biggest concern that he can rule on is the fact that the monopine is twice as tall as anything else in the neighborhood; but I think that mitigates against there is a cell tower nearby on top of a building that is actually not disguised at all; it is on top of a one -story building, and nobody seemed to be bothered by it or mentioned it. 364 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 September 14, 2010 • He said he supported the application as he could not find anything to rule on and deny the project. Com. Giefer: • Said Com. Kaneda did a good job summarizing what they can and cannot consider and make fmdings on. The Commission can make their findings based on land use and from the staff report, the applicant report and the testimony from the community. She said she has not heard anything that would allow her to rule that it is an inappropriate land use, and she would support the project. Com. Miller: • Said he was an engineer and from his perspective he was convinced that there is not a safety issue. However, logical arguments are being made, and they are receiving emotional responses from the community, which is very challenging. A lot of input has been received at the meeting, they have also received many a -mails and have received petitions as well. The input is 5 to l against the tower as far as the residents are concerned; the people who are opposed to it are those people who live closest to the tower. • AT &T did a survey, and it said that everyone wants and needs better coverage. What it boils down to, is everyone wants better coverage, but everyone wants the tower in someone else's back yard, and that is the challenge faced. • Said from his standpoint he could see the benefits of having the tower; however, he is also sensitive to the fact that there is a large group of residents in the city who, even though it might benefit them from a technology standpoint, don't want it. The customers for the product and the service do not want the product and the service. He said he had to be sensitive to that fact. For those reasons, there are some other issues besides the one the Commission is not permitted to discuss; the fact is that it doesn't fit into the environment, it does stick up into the air and it is aesthetically an issue; and it also does not meet the height requirement. He said for those reasons, he did not support the project. Vice Chair Lee: • She said that at the Mayor's monthly meetings, the TIC has said every month that they have listened to the residents and are working for the residents to get more cell phone coverage in the southwest area, the tri school area, the Bubb area, McClellan Road, and they are working hard so that AT &T can have better coverage in that area. • Said that she has been attending the meetings for four years and it seems like there might be an opportunity for them to improve coverage for businesses and residents. • She said she felt they should approve the project. Chair Brophy: • Said he felt that given the problems of the locations on the west side in the McClellan Road corridor, this is not necessarily an ideal location but is as good as you will find, because once you get further west, it is entirely residential areas_ The tree is not exactly an ideal solution, but it is better than having a 70 -foot pole. He believes that over time the redevelopment of the Measurex property will lead to larger natural foliage which will make it stand out less. Under those circumstances and under the restrictions set by Federal law, he said he would vote to support the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4 -0 -1, Com. Miller voted No; to approve Application U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31. 365 Cupertino Planning Coy. mission 14 September 14, 2010 Chair Brophy: • Stated that Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days. None None discussed. : Chair Brophy reported that the Mercede Road project was : No meeting. Com. Kaneda report" • The TIC reported that AT &T application would be co g back. • Tin Tin Market went ba pt and closed down. • P.W Market has closed. • Hewlett Packard is moving ou n a two -year time C. • Seagate will move in and take o Symantec's ces. • Commissioner's appreciation drone Septe r 23 • The city has funding set aside to cr mg guards at 10 locations in the city for the schools. There are more than 10 locati ceded; the city is proposing to use that funding to go to the schools and train the volunteer ecome certified crossing guards. Chair Brophy: • Reported that World of Music we out of Vice Chair Lee: • On August 11, she attende ublic Safety Commissio said they are piloting the Voltage program at Kennedy and cola schools, with RFIDs an ackpacks; students go through a zapper meter. It starts ith the school year, they have s e in Oct. and May and the Commission fields co laints about traffic in the area. • Sept. 23 is Commiss' ers' Dinner; spouses are invited. • There are ope ' on the Parks & Rec Commission, Fine s Commission, Bike Commission, B' & Pedestrian Commission, & Public Safety; intervie this month. • Relative to Gr n Building Ordinance, the Mayor said they should m sure that more information is ven to builders regarding the grants so they can access grant ation. • July Com ity Congress was very successful. Acterra does an exam in your use, looks at your ele city usage, your refrigerator, put in a thermostat and guarantee you can e 25% on your ctricity bills. They showed residents how to make compost at their homes, an ave hints h the average person could save. • Par nd Rec: Discussed Memorial Park; will have educational campaigns because of th gee , signs will be posted not to feed the ducks. They are trying to raise money for the fences fo e dog park. • e Arts Commission: Shakespeare Festival ended; some budget money went to Euphrat useum; every First Friday in October is City Arts Day. The Mayor wants each Commission to put out an event. 366 R ' ' ATTACHMENT E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 31 City of Cupertino 103A0 Torre Avenue Cupertino, ACA 9614 An AvW 12 Application No. U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31 Applicant(s) Name: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (For AT &T Mobility) Appellant(s) Name: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo jin Address 10170 Imperial Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone Number (408) 421 -0207 Email structors@yahoo.com Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works Appeal a decision of Planning Commission Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee Appeal a decision of Code Enforcement Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: September 16, 2010 Basis of appeal: See Attachment 1 Signature(s) Please complete form, include appeal fee of $162.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 09 -051 ($155.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777 -3223. r' 367 NIT 1 0 j -._ _ __ 1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of ,, Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Flan. It violates the following policies: Policy 6 -1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right -of -way, and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6 -2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6 -3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. L It is contrary to the following aesthetic guidelines relating to Lattice Towers and Monopoles on page 24 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility. The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.). The proposed 74' tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings. See Photo 1 -1. Results Way Office Park parking lot — westerly strip, with proposed monopole added for illustration. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller. It does not blend iri with current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the surrounding buildings, of approximate 30 feet. See Photo 1 -2. View from Imperial Avenue, with proposed monopole added for illustration. The proposed cell tower will be significantly taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current Cupertino city ordinance - and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood - do not allow structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet. The existing roof - mounted Sprint - Nextel antennas structure is already an eye -sore to the neighbors, the residents in Morita Visat do not want to see another one so nearby. See Photo 1 -3. View from Imperial Way of the roof mounted Sprint - Nextel antenna, with proposed monopole added for illustration. Again, the proposed monopole will tower over existing structures and buildings. The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road. Attachment 1 -1 .: F 2, The application does not meet the safety requirement established in City ofAC-upertino's Wireless Facilities aster Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 7 -1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7 -2 : The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal wireless service facilities: For building- mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; ■ For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level; I For all co- located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding FM guidelines) and For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. The radiofrequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated August 20, 2010, is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about 65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56' above ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also based on the bottom elevation of future antennas proposed at lower elevations. A radiofrequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT &T and other carriers. AT &T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year's application, AT &T had proposed six antennas. The city should not approve more antennas than actually needed to improve the coverage. 3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map based on the proposed location. Prior to the planning commission meeting, dated September 14, 2010, an outdated proposed coverage based on the antennas located about 1,300 feet away from the actual proposed location was included in the staff report and another outdated proposed coverage map which is offset about 170 feet was presented by AT &T's representative in the meeting. See Exhibit 1. 1 Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment 2: Coverage Map (Existing). Location of proposed monopole and associated coverage area are placed at intersection of Imperial Way and McClellan Road, differing from that mentioned in the Staff Report. An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site should be studied and reviewed. The city should not approve a wireless facility application Attachment 1 -2 369 =■ :. 1 ■. i rka without even seen a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Next, if the location of the proposed monopole is incorrectly placed on the map, then the coverage area that the proposed monopole is to service will be affected. As a result, Exhibit 1.2 (from the Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment 2: Coverage Map (Proposed)) does not accurately reflect that the coverage area of the proposed monopole. We can see from the proposed coverage map that the 74 feet tree pole at the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively. See Exhibit 1.3 Google Earth with proposed "wrong" and "correct" location of the monopole. Given that the proposed location is to be in the Result Way office park, those customers who AT &T would like to service, that is living on/near Bubb Road, south of McClellan Road, will still not be included the "new" coverage area. Those clients who have complained of poor service, that is south of McClellan Road, still will not be in the coverage area, because the physical location of the monopole is shifted northward by at least 400 meters or 1250 feet. Also, so far, we have three different versions of existing coverage map. One, from AT &T's official website ( www. wireless .att.com /cover A ageviewer / , with zip code 95014) the coverage map shows good coverage for most of the Morita Vista area, See Exhibit 1.4 AT &T Coverage Viewer. One was included in the staff report that shows that the proposed tree pole is located in acceptable coverage area. See Exhibit 1.1. The area prior to the monopole has acceptable coverage. Third, a coverage map presented by AT &T's representative in the September 14, 2010 meeting shows that at the proposed tree pole that there is no/limited coverage. See Exhibit 1.5. Coverage maps presented by AT &T, Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, September 14, 2010 We need to determine the assumptions of the existing coverage map and the proposed coverage map, on a revised map. 4. G overagp versus capacity It was brought up during the Planning Commission meeting, on September 14, 2010, that in the area under discussion at times there is good coverage. It was mentioned that there was a "significant degradation in coverage" especially during after school hours and after work hours when many parents are calling their children. This particular area of Monta Vista is the home to Cupertino's education trifecta of Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle, and Morita Vista High School. More than 4,400 students (not including teachers and administrators) arrive at school and are dismissed, within a 30 -60 minutes interval. Attachment 1 -3 370 ti • Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as "poor coverage ". This issue still needs to be explored and further discussed by the city staff, council members and its residents. It should be clear whether there is a need for this application and perhaps seek other alternatives that can resolve this issue. P Alternative locations and structures shall expand to later areas. Knowing that the antennas at the proposed location will not improve the coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings, with considerations to aesthetic, coverage improvement, and such. It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the more than the 74' tree pole located at this wrong location. 3. Half of the Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint- Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet, there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is it necessary that a 74' monopole is the only viable solution to help AT &T provide better service to its customers in this area? Had AT &T really explored all alternatives? Can roof mounted antennas serve as potential solutions to AT &T's problems, or does AT &T have other intentions? Attachment 1 -4 371 1 1:19b. } 373 V rid Photo I -I View from Imperial Avenue, with proposed monopole added for illustration Photo 1 -3 View from Imperial Avenue — of existing roof mounted antenna 374 _ �_r _- ,; =�= ` _�,�. - - :� � "- . -- -- - i_ r -_ �•� ,�........ - .. -_ .� iii - `' � � 377 Exhibit 1.3 Noe R FromCoog)eWarth, proposed monopole at "wroqg" location and "correct" location Coverage Viewer 0 Page 1 of 1 IlPar tner (Best Good Moderate No Service Available Mobile Broadband Coverage IF 11 Show Mobile Broadband Coverage Important Information About the Coveraae Map Map may include areas served by unaffiliated carriers, and may depict their licensed area rather than an approximation of the coverage there. Actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT &T does not guarantee coverage. Charges will be based on the location of the site receiving and transmitting the call, not the location of the subscriber. ii http: / /www. wireless. att. com /coverageviewer /print.jse= voice &lat = 37.3143551090278.., 9/13/2010 Exhibit 1.4 AT &TWoverage Viewer 379 Exhibit 1. CoverajgWg aps presented by AT fIT,wCupertino r lannir6g Commission meeting, September 14, 010 ATTACHMENT F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 • FAX: (408) 777 -3333 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Sub, ect Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility Meeting Date: November 1, 2010 Recommendation Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Description Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals: Use Permit (U- 2010 -03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74 -foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results Way office park. Height Exception (EXC- 2010 -04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR- 2010 -31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357 -20 -042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT &T Mobility) Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC Background On September 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved (4 -1 vote; Miller voting no) a proposal for a 74 -foot tall AT &T wireless service monopine located in the northwest corner of the parking lot at the Results Way office park (Attachments 13-resolution, C- hearing minutes, D- Commission staff report & L- approved plan set) The Commission noted that most of residents' concerns related to perceived hazards of RF energy, and a radio frequency study determined that the :1 cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal safety standards. The commissioners noted that federal law prohibits cities from making wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that met federal standards. Generally, the Commissioners felt that the monopine was well- designed and given its location and context, the facility would not be visually obtrusive. Commissioner Miller voted no on the project. He felt the monopine was too visible at the proposed location, being over twice the height of the existing trees. The Planning Commission hearing was well attended and comments were received from both supporters, as well as those who opposed the project. Please see Attachment I for the numerous emails and letters received. For a detailed Planning Commission hearing discussion, please refer to the September 14, 2010 Commission meeting minutes (Attachment Q. The Planning Commission decision was appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010 (Attachment A — Appeal Request). Di -,cii -,-,ion The basis of the appeal is described below followed by staff comments in italics. Where the applicant has provided the response, at the request of staff, the comments are so noted: 1. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Appeal Point 1(a) It violates the following policy: Policy 6 -1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right -of -way and from residential neighborhoods. "The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians, passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road." Staf' Response The Glossary of the City's Wireless Master Plan (p. 38) describes a visually "intrusive " impact as a wireless facility "that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of conflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings. " The project does not visually contradict its surroundings as it has been camouflaged as a tree and it is sited in a large landscape strip with other trees of similar shape. The Facilities Master Plan Siting and Design Guidelines for Lattice Towers and Monopoles recommends that: "Intrusive and Obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement. " The project is already sited in a wide landscape berm with other trees of similar form (Coastal Redwoods). The Planning Commission approval included the rehabilitation of the irrigation system and the planting of three 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Trees planted in this location would have the most beneficial effect in screening views of the project for nearby Astoria residents. Pa 381 The monopine is most visible in the vicinity of Imperial Avenue and Olive Avenue. It has limited visibility to McClellan Road as it is separated by over 1, 400 feet of landscaping with tall, mature trees and over 650 feet of intervening landscaping and buildings to Bubb Road. Appeal Point 1(b) It violates the following policy: Policy 6 -2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. The proposed 74' tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding buildings. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller. Existing landscaping has a height similar to the surrounding buildings of approximately 30 feet. Staff Response: It is more appropriate to make height comparisons between the proposed monopine with the existing vegetation, rather than the buildings. The project lot is large and the topography varies. While the redwood trees (25 -35 feet tall) immediately around the monopine (74 feet) are much shorter, the closest building is 265 feet away and is on a grade 10 feet higher than the proposed facility. Ideally to make the monopine blend better with the surrounding, it should be located near those existing trees of comparable height in the landscape strip; however, those taller trees directly abut residences and the 75 foot setback requirement between a wireless facility and a residential property line could not be met. The 74 foot height for the monopine is needed for two reasons: 1) The monopine must be tall enough to see over the buildings in order to provide cell coverage to residential neighborhoods and schools south of the project site; and 2) Provide an opportunity for another wireless carrier to collocation its antennas on the monopine. The City requires wireless carriers to consider collocation opportunities when they propose new monopoles in order to reduce the proliferation of new wireless facilities and if it will reduce the visual intrusiveness of having more new facilities in the area. Given the difficulty of finding suitable wireless facility sites in this area and the fact that two other wireless carriers are looking for a Monta Vista location, makes this monopine a strong candidate for collocation. AT &T has indicated to staff that the 74 foot height is the minimum height needed for the carrier to meet its coverage objectives for the area, regardless if whether the collocation of antennas is permitted in the future or not. Appeal Point 1(c ) : It violates the following policy: Policy 6 -3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. It does not blend in with the current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the y, surrounding buildings, of approximately 30 feet .... The proposed cell tower will be significantly taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current Cupertino City Ordinance — and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood — does not allow structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet. Staf' Response: The difference in height between the monopine and surrounding structures has been answered in the previous response. The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC Section 19.108, Attachment G) permits a maximum structure height of 55 feet. Taller structure heights maybe allowed with a height exception approval. New wireless facilities with similar heights have been approved by the City in the past. The wireless facility has been designed to be compatible with its surroundings with faux bark, branching limbs and needle covers on the antennas to hide the antennas (Attachment F- photosimulations). Additional conditions were approved by the Planning Commission to give the monopine a more natural appearance. They include mottling the green color of the artificial needles and shaping and adding branching to give it a more natural appearance. Another condition requires the applicant to perform regular maintenance to maintain the appearance of the monopine. 2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in the City of Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies: Policy 7 -1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7 -2: The City shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for all co- located antennas. (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines). The radio frequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, dated August 20, 2010 is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective height about 65 feet above ground. A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56' above ground) of the lower tier of the antennas proposed and also the bottom elevation of future antennas proposed at lower elevations. A radio frequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT &T and other carriers. AT &T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application. In last year's application, AT &T had proposed six antennas. The City should not approve more antennas than actually needed to improve coverage. Staf' Response: A last minute design change lowered the height of six of the twelve proposed antennas from 65 feet to 56 feet. An updated radio frequency study for the revised 12- antenna design (Attachment J) with the lowered tier of antennas demonstrates that the radio frequency energy exposure plus the contribution from the existing, next door, Sprint- Nextel personal wireless service facility is still well within the Federal safety standard. The maximum calculated cumulative level of radio frequency emissions at ground is 0.73% of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE). 4 383 At the second floor elevation of any nearby residence, the exposure is 0.92% of the MPE. On the rooftop of any nearby non - residential building, the exposure is estimated to be 2.4% of the MPE. According to the applicant, the number of antennas has changed from the initial six requested in the 2009 application to the 12 requested as part of this application because it would allow AT &T the flexibility to add additional antennas as new technology is deployed. The proposed 12 antennas have been included on all drawings, photo- simulations, project descriptions and in the City staff report. Furthermore the Hammett & Edison radio frequency energy report based its analyses and conclusions of the facility utilizing all 12 antennas operating at maximum power levels. Also, as stated in the Planning Commission staff report, staff will require a new radio frequency energy study when a future antenna collocation proposal is made. Staff normally requires anew radio frequency study whenever an antenna collocation occurs, but the City Council may add it as a requirement to its action on the appeal. 3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage map based on the proposed location. An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site should be studied and reviewed. The City should not approve a wireless facility application without even seeing a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location. Three different coverage maps have been available: The first coverage map included with the Planning Commission staff report shows the proposed facility near the intersection of Imperial Avenue and McClellan Road. If the facility is incorrectly placed on the map, then the proposed coverage area is likely wrong too. The second coverage map from AT &T's website ( www. wireless .att.com /coverageviewer / , with zip code 95014) shows good coverage for most of Monta Vista. The third coverage map was presented by AT &T's representative at the September 14, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing shows that at the proposed facility site that there is no /limited coverage. Staf' Response: Please see Attachment K for the updated coverage maps (showing existing and proposed coverage) with the location of the facility accurately depicted. The applicant states that its website ( www. wireless .att.com /coverageviewer) coverage maps were developed to allow existing and potential AT &T customers the ability to view the general level of coverage in a geographic area. AT &T included a statement on the website to ensure viewers understand the limitations of the website, noting that actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT &T also noted that the maps shown on the AT &T web page are intended for use for the general public and are not as detailed as the radio frequency engineering maps submitted to the city and discussed at the planning commission public hearing. The radio frequency coverage maps are based on data taken in the field and sophisticated computer programs and models that provide a graphical representation of existing coverage as well as coverage if the proposed facility is built. Wireless ., networks are dynamic and their performance is influenced by a number of factors including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding sites and the number of users accessing the network. The level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is also impacted by these factors. 4. It was mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing that at times cell coverage was good in Monta Vista. It was also mentioned that there was a significant degradation in coverage especially during after - school hours and after -work hours when many parents are calling their children. More than 4,400 students plus teachers and administrators arrive at school and are dismissed within a 30 -60 minutes interval. Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as "poor coverage." This issue still needs to be explored and discussed. The need for the facility is not clear -cut, perhaps other alternatives can resolve this issue. Staff response: The applicant states that the level of coverage in a geographic area served by a wireless facility is impacted by numerous factors, including the geography of the surrounding area, heights of existing trees and buildings, locations of surrounding (wireless facility) sites and the number of users accessing that facility at any given time. For instance, sites located near freeways usually have peak times that correspond to the peak traffic hours on the freeway. As traffic increases on the freeway, more people in the same geographic area are attempting to make calls and once the wireless network reaches capacity, no more calls can be initiated and existing calls may be dropped. So, even though there may be "coverage " in an area, the level of service may be lower than expected due to an increase in network traffic. Staff notes that the 2007 Technology, Information and Communications Commission survey of cell phone users in Cupertino documented that the Monta Vista /Kennedy SchoolsBubb Road/McClellan Road area was the number one poor cell phone coverage area in Cupertino Staff also believes that the perception of `good" cell phone coverage has also evolved over the years. Historically, consumers used cell phones when they were mobile (i.e. outdoors). Nowadays, consumers expect their cell phones to operate at work and at home (i.e. in buildings). In general, low power radio signals are inadequate to provide good in- building coverage and wireless networks must be built -up and expanded in order to provide better in- building cell phone coverage. 5. Alternative locations and structures should expand to larger areas. Since the proposed location will not improve coverage effectively, it is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office buildings. It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof - mounted antennas at the center of coverage gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the 74 -foot tall treepole. Half of Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint - Nextel & Verizon Wireless, and yet there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is a 74 -foot tall monopole the only viable solution to improve AT &T coverage? Had AT &T really explored all alternatives? Can roof - mounted antennas serve as a potential solution? ra 385 Staf' Response: Sprint- Nextel's wireless facility is located on Imperial Avenue next door to the Astoria Townhomes; the closest Verizon Wireless site is on the De Anza College campus. Staff has summarized AT &T's and city staff's 5-year search and evaluation for a suitable Monta Vista wireless facility site in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D). As part of their due diligence, AT &T also approached other property owners in the general area including, the following: Potential Co- Location Opportunity: • 10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino The property owner and AT &T were not interested in pursuing a lease due to lack of room for a facility. Other Alternative Locations Explored: Monta Vista High School - The project was subsequently approved by the city however, due to concerns raised by parents and neighbors, the school board declined to enter into a lease agreement to permit the facility to be constructed. At that time, suggestions were made by opponents of the project and city staff to move the location of the facility out of the residentially -zoned areas and look at commercial properties to the northeast that had sufficient space to accommodate the proposed use. • 21495 McClellan Road, Cupertino —The property owner and AT &T were not interested in lease due to lack of room for a facility. • Industrial Areas to the East -These were reviewed and had no available space (without taking up parking spaces) or were too close to the freeway where AT &T currently has coverage from existing facilities to the northeast and southeast. • Utility Poles these are used in extreme locations where a standard wireless facility cannot be built (steep hillsides, public right -of -way, etc.). If utility poles are used, height is compromised and it would take multiple facilities to obtain the same coverage that one standard facility (such as the one proposed) can obtain. • Sites on Results Way - The applicant submitted an application to the city in 2008 to place the proposed facility near the southwest corner of the office park. This initial site was rejected by staff, so the applicant sought an alternate location in the rear parking lot landscape strip near the building. This site was reviewed at a Planning Commission hearing but the application was ultimately withdrawn because of conflicts with a utility easement. A third location on the property was proposed by the applicant in June 2010 (current proposal). Due to future development plans on the subject property and proximity to existing utility easements and overhead power lines, the current location was ultimately selected as a compromise location that met the requirements of the city while allowing AT &T to meet most of the original coverage objectives. IV/ :• Staff notes that the Results Way Office Park consists of three separate parcels. The entire focus of the current application has been on the rear parcel that is furthest away from McClellan Road. Most other alternative sites on the properties were not feasible because of the property owner's approved redevelopment plans, utility easements and closer proximity to residential properties. Selection of an alternative site on the other two parcels would require a separate City review. Prepared by Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by. Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by. David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment A. Appeal of U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 and TR- 2010 -31 dated 9/28/10 B. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution No. 6604 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10 E. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Letter dated 6/23/10 F. Photosimulations of monopine (3) G. AT &T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map H. Communications from TIC Commissioners I. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters J. AT &T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino, California /Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10 K. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps (updated) L. Planning Commission - approved Plan Set 387 ATTACHMENT G November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Paize 7 Jerim Griffin said that the site is a good location for a high class hotel and close to the restauran in the area. She wanted to make sure parking in Cupertino isn't compromised and to keep 1 parking on -site. She said she was concerned about the reduction of banquet space b was glad to see the hotel would be high class. Robert McKibbin sai at every development in the last 10 years has had inadequate parking in Cupertino. He id he was concerned about valet parking and using adjacent land for employees to park. urged Council to go to .9 parking spaces as was required for other hotels in the area. Steve Scharf said that it sets a bad prec ent to reduce the parking and urged Council to keep the parking as was approved a year o. He said he was unhappy that the hotel would be just another business class hotel with t a restaurant. The public hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m. Council asked questions about the public art requirement. ty Attorney Carol Korade explained that there is no way to waive the requirement but that re may be flexibility in working with the Fine Arts Commission to discuss what art wouXreq noted that if art wasn't feasible, the applicant could apply to Fine Arts C for in -lieu application, but that is discouraged. Council also discussed the parment ratio. Action Mahoney moved to modify use permit U- 2008 -02, to incorporate an ali plan to keep the same number of rooms, reduce the amenity space, reduce the pz ratio to .75 requiring valet parking, and to review the parking plan after one and two of operation. Wong seconded. The motion carried with Chang voting no. ,k 26. Subject Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way Recommended Action Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Description Application Nos: U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31; Applicant: Dave Yocke (AT &T); Address: Results Way (rear parking lot) APN: 35720 -042 Written communication for this item included an amended Attachment J and a letter of support from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President Lynn Ching. Discussion Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report. W . November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8 The appellants made a PowerPoint presentation regarding their appeal as noted in the staff report. At 11:10 p.m. Mayor Wang opened the public hearing. Zvi Ashkemazi said he was in favor of the wireless service facility because it's important for people to not just be able to use their phones to talk on, but to also be able to connect to businesses in the area and get information across the airways. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the wireless service facility: • Xuena Xu • Amy Xiao • Agnes Fu • Huang Shang • Cid Pereira • Bo Choy • Andre Chiu • Wen Chen • Xiaowne Liu • Jeannie Kimura • Ramani Narayan • Mark Ma • Vikas Salherhra • Andrew Wu • Ken Young • Sherry Hsu • Chris Ho Their comments included: • The monopine is too tall for the area • It is located too close to a residential area and a school • There is a flaw in the application • The area is a bad location, the applicants should find a different one, perhaps adding to an existing tower at De Anza College • The monopine would be visually intrusive, and artificial trees look ugly • This application is premature, and is inconsistent with the ordinance, and it violates the Wireless Master Plan policies • There is not enough data • Who will benefit from the facility • The coverage will still not be enough • This will be a hub for all the other companies to build their towers At 11:55 p.m. the public hearing was closed. Leon Beauchman from AT &T said the tower application came about as a result of customer demand and the Monta Vista area was the number one area noted from the survey. He explained that they have been working for five years to come up with a solution and it's not a quick fix. Scott Longhurst from Trillium Companies representing AT &T noted that this has been a collaborative effort with staff and the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC). He noted that the area focus was that around Monta Vista High School which was shown to be substandard from the TICC report. NO November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Peter Friedland from the TICC gave a brief history of the survey of cell coverage in Cupertino done three and a half years ago. He noted the key findings: 65% of Cupertino citizens thought cell coverage was inadequate; three areas were identified as having poor coverage including Bubb at Mcclellan, Foothill Blvd., and Apple. He said that the TICC worked with staff and the Planning Commission, talked with the different carriers, and proposed an ordinance change around cell towers to include hillside areas and parks. The ordinance changes were approved. He said that the TICC and staff have worked the past three years with AT &T to find a place for a tower in Cupertino. He noted that the Sheriff and Fire Departments also expressed a desire to fix the coverage. issue. Council asked questions of staff, the applicant, and the RF (radio frequency) engineer from AT &T. Rashid, the RF Engineer from AT &T, responded to a question about the coverage map and said that the map the appellants were showing is an old one that showed a 2G network. He explained that since the iPhone, the network works on 3G. Mark Newman from Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers, who prepared the RF exposure analysis for the site, answered a question from Council regarding near and far field calculations. He said that for this particular antenna it would be in the 20 -30 foot range directly in front of the antennae. The property owner from Embarcadero Property responded to a question from Council during a discussion on another location for the antennae, and he showed on a map where a new development is being planned on the property. Action Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission approval with the adjustment that the decision on the trees is left up to the Planning Director, but should be at least a 36 -inch box of the fastest growing redwood variety with good irrigation to provide maximum growth, and monitoring. The motion failed with Chang, Wang, and Wong voting no. Council went into closed session at 1:47 a.m. regarding Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of GC Section 5495.9. Council came back into open session at 2:05 a.m. and the City Attorney announced that Council received legal advice on the standards for approving or denying this particular appeal and the requirements of Federal law. Chang moved to uphold the appeal. The motion died for lack of a second. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to continue the item and send it back to the Planning Commission to discuss the feasibility of another alternative near Site 4 and to bring the results back to Council. The motion carried with Chang and Santoro voting no. 390 November 1, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 10 City Attorney Carol Korade explained that Council is keeping this application on the table and remanding it back to the Planning Commission to see if there is a feasible way to deal with the gap in coverage that is less intrusive, for example within the height limit, and then have the original application and the alternative brought back to Council for a decision. The applicant and Mr. Beauchman from AT &T asked some procedural questions. The City Attorney clarified that the applicant does not have to start all over again. Council has listened to the appellants concern and the appeal is on- going, but the Council is trying to find an alternative location to address the concerns. The hearing will be continued and will be brought back to Council for a final decision. She noted that this is in interim step and the Planning Commission will notice and hear the consideration of an alternative location and bring a recommendation back to Council. She also noted that a time limit does not apply in this case. The appellants said that they are found the process acceptable. The property owner noted his concern that if the alternative site is near the front of his property than it would need to be visually appealing. V1TiTII11OJL -&, lJ 1J V 1.7 1\ L' UA] - 1 V u1il. NEW SINESS 27. Su_ bject onsider scheduling a Study Session on current Capital Improvements Program Projects. Recommended A 'on: Schedule a study session for November 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm. Discussion City Man r David Knapp reviewed the staff report. Action Wong moved and Sant seconded to hold a study session on Dec. 21. Mahoney added a friendly amendment to can the Dec. 21 meeting if the study session is the only item on the agenda. After further disc ion, Wong withdrew his motion and Council concurred to have a report come to them in t weekly Items of Interest. ORDINANCES 28. Subject Amend the Cupertino Municipal Code to revise d re -title the existing Franchise Ordinance to be consistent with the new waste mana ent and recycling Recology Franchise Agreement. Recommended Action Conduct second reading of Ordinance Nos. 10- and 10- 2070. Description a. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amen Chapter 6.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to revise and re -title the existing Franchise 391 ATTACHMENT H CUPERTINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95094 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.ora CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: January 4, 2011 ¢' Subj t f ' Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's September 14, 2010 approval, based upon the referenced attachments and the record of this proceeding. This will permit the Applicant to construct a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park. Description Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals: Use Permit (U- 2010 -03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve panel antennas mounted on a 74 -foot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the Results .Way office park. Height Exception (EXC- 2010 -04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed. Tree Removal (TR- 2010 -31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility. Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357 -20 -042 Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT &T Mobility) Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Property Owner: EC1 Two Results, LLC Discussion Background On November 1, 2010, the City Council heard an appeal of an AT &T personal wireless service facility designed to look like a tree at the Results Way Office Park (Attachment A- Council - Appeal staff report dated November 1, 2010). Discussion and testimony during the meeting can be reviewed in the City Council meeting minutes (Attachment B). The City Council directed that the applicant and property owner consider an alternate site for the personal wireless service facility located off the Results Way driveway entry behind Buildings No. 1 & 2 at the entrance of 42 392 the office campus. With the applicant's consent, the hearing was continued indefinitely to give the property owner and applicant time to evaluate the alternate site. The applicant and property owner have completed their evaluation of the alternate site, with the applicant suggesting several different facility designs for the location. The property owner reviewed the site and designs over the last month and has rejected the alternate location as a site for a personal wireless service facility (Attachment C). Other alternative sites have been suggested on the three properties that compose the Results Way Office Park (Attachment K). These alternate sites have been discussed at the public hearings, neighborhood meeting and in the staff reports (Attachments A & G). The property owner has reviewed these alternates and feels at this time that the only feasible site is the site proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission (Attachment C & D). Other off -site alternate sites have been discussed in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports (Attachments A & G). The PIanning Commission reviewed and approved this project on September 14, 2010 (4 -1 vote; Miller voting no) (Attachments E- resolution, F- hearing minutes, G- Commission staff report, M- public correspondence & P- approved plan set) and its approval was.appealed by three residents on September 28, 2010 (Attachment H). The primary concerns raised by the project opponents at the September 14, 2010 Commission hearing related to perceived hazards of radio frequency energy. However, a radio frequency study determined that the cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed emissions) were well below federal safety standards. Federal Iaw prohibits cities from making wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that meet federal standards. Responses to Appeal Points The appeal points are described with staff comments in Attachment A- Council Appeal staff report dated 1111110. Height Exception The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance restricts the maximum height of a personal wireless service facility to 55 feet, except in situations where the facility is mounted on a tall building where the wireless facility may be ten feet taller than the building. In all other antenna mounting situations, such as a monopole (treepole), utility pole or utility tower, where the applicant desires to mount the antennas above the 55 feet height limit, he /she must apply for a height exception that may be granted by the Planning Commission. The height exception is reviewed and may be approved at a public hearing if there are practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this ordinance from strict application of the regulations. The exception also must not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements, not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and not create a hazardous condition for pedestrians or vehicle traffic. 43 393 Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission's actions on wireless facility height exception requests. To date, the Commission has approved ten height exceptions and denied one. The height exception approvals range from 60 feet to 158 feet. In the one case where the Planning Commission denied the height exception, the decision was appealed by the applicant, but later withdrawn when the applicant discovered development conflict issues with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Planning Commission findings for the approval of the project height exception can be found in Resolution No. 6605 (Attachment E). Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner & Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Council appeal staff report dated 11/1110 B. City Council Meeting Minutes from 11/1/10 C. Letter from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to AT &T dated 12 /3 /10 D. Email from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to City & AT &T dated 12/16/10 E. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6604, 6605 & 6606 F. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10 G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9 /14 /10 H. Appeal of U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04 and TR- 2010 -31 dated 9/28/10 I. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Letter dated 6/23/10 J. Photosimulations of monopine (3) K. AT &T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map L. Communications from TIC Commissioners M. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters N. AT &T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino, California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10 /26 /10 O. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps P. Planning Commission- approved Plan Set N 44 394 January 4, 2011 - Aleehel-ie <Rmmended Torre) Act Publi ating Place 6. Subject A holic Suite 200 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Attachment I Approve application for On -Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Beverage License, One Eyed Spirits, 19200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Approve application for Distilled Spirits Importer and Wholesaler 7. Subject Quitclaim Dee d Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Vivekanand Karnataki and Deepti Naik, 1 2 Bret Avenue Recommended Action Adopt Re lution No. 11 -003 Descripttion The property owners o is residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin der the overlying property 8. Subject: Municipal Improvements, Kelly Gord Recommended Action Accept Municipal Imps Description Municipal improvements include paving and new utility services Development Corp., 10231 Amelia Court curb & gutter, driveway approach, ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (. 2. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11 -001 Discussion: Council member Barry Chang asked for additional detail on p ments to G. Bortolotto, Spencon Construction, and some handwritten notations. Administrati Services Director Carol Atwood said she would research these items and provide more info ation about the projects in question, and would also provide a copy of the city's purchasing po nts payable Action: Chang moved and Wang seconded to approve the accounts item a ©.on +oa Tl.n mniinn r 1, LI_tl_1]a . ._....... PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Subject Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way Recommended Action Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility at the existing Results Way office park Description Application Nos. U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, TR- 2010 -31; Applicant: Scott Longhurst (AT &T); Appellants: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin; Address: Results Way (rear parking lot); APN: 357 -20 -042; Application Summary: Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a personal wireless service facility consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park Discussion: Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report and the history of the project's approval and appeal hearings. He said that the owner had reviewed the alternate 395 January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 4 sites suggested by the City Council, along with several facility design options, but still felt that the only feasible site was the proposal that was approved by the Planning Commission. Appellant Grace Chen reviewed a series of slides including a summary of the AT &T application. She pointed out discrepancies in the monopine height compared to the other trees in the area and she said it would not blend harmoniously with other trees in neighborhood because they are of smaller stature, about 20 feet high, and may not grow much taller. She mentioned Ordinance 09 -2038 which amended the wireless facilities ordinance. Ms. Chen asked that the Council uphold the appeal and direct AT &T to consider other viable alternatives, such existing telephone poles, and to consider Ordinance 90 -2038, amendments to Chapter 19.108 of the Wireless Communications Facilities of the Cupertino Municipal Code, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Scott Longhurst, Trilliam Telecom (for AT &T Mobility), thanked the Council for their commitment and hard work on the project. He said that AT &T has shown good faith in working with City staff, the community, and elected officials to find a suitably zoned area for the facility. This project meets the zoning code and is compliant with development standards. He asked the Council to uphold Planning Commission's recommendation, deny the appeal and let the project move forward. Rose Grymes spoke about the need to improve cell phone service in Cupertino because of an increasing demand for cell phone integrity and reliability. Andrew Wu spoke in opposition to the AT &T monopine. He underscored Ms. Chen's presentation and the City should follow already - established guidelines. Xuena Xu said that, based on the current ordinance, the City should not allow the monopole be 75 feet high. Xiaowen Liu showed an overhead diagram of the site and said that the proposed location was too far north of the problem coverage area. She said she was not opposed to the tower, just its location. Mark Ma said that AT &T should consider changing the location of this monopine antenna to a completely different location. He referred to prior applications, which were denied, and said that this tower is taller than the previously denied versions. Leon Beauchmon, representing AT &T, said he would be retiring and his replacement would be Randy Okamura. Mr. Beauchmon said he had been working with the City for 5 years and they believed this was the best solution. Kevin McClelland, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged that cell phone coverage in Cupertino was not as good as it could be. He requested that Council support Cupertino's telecommunications infrastructure and deny the appeal, 396 January 4, 2011 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Randy Okamura said he had been the "External Affairs Manager in Palo Alto. He said he wished to respond to Mr. Wu's comments and explain that he had worked on the Palo Alto monopine project. He had participated in the decision to withdraw the proposal, which was partly because they did not properly engage the community. He said they would be sure to follow through with community outreach in the future. Chris Ho, a resident of Astoria Townhomes, said he wanted improved coverage for AT &T users, but he didn't like this proposal because it exceeds the height limit. He suggested bringing the antennae down to a lower height, and he asked Council to reject proposal. Mr. Longhurst talked about why the original location was still the only feasible location, and explained that the monopole height had to be increased from 55 feet to 75 feet in order to make up for the difference in grade, since the property sloped down in the back by 19 feet. Council members discussed methods to provide additional screening, such as mounding areas around the monopole to plant new trees, and add additional trees along the property line by the residences. Mr. Longhurst said that AT &T would agree to the suggestions for more screening trees, berms, and irrigation. He asked if there could be $75,000 dollar cap on the additional mitigation measures. Discussion followed about whether there were other alternate sites. City Attorney Carol Korade explained that a wireless provider must make an initial showing that the method it is proposing, to fill a significant gap in its service, is the least intrusive. The city is not compelled to accept the provided solution, but if it is rejected the city must show potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives. The provider must then have an opportunity to dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the city. Action: Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to deny the appeal, required the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and added the following conditions to the Planning Commission resolution: (1) Plant additional screening trees at the northern property line to screen the tree ogle from the Astoria Townhome development; (2) Require berming and plant at least two 36" box, Coastal Redwoods (Blue Aptos variety) on the berm on either side of the monopole to screen it; (3) Improve irrigation around the trees to ensure proper growth; (4) Remove and replace trees with dead tops; (4) Adequately maintain and water the trees in the parking lot; (5) Require an annual status report on the trees by a certified arborist for three years from the date of the tree planting; (6) Require that tree planting conform with the approved development plans of the Results Way office park; and (7) Allow a monetary cap of $75,000 for the berming and tree planting required in the added conditions. 397 ATTACHMENT J 10192 Imperial Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 January 18, 2011 Office of the City Clerk City Hall 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 JAN 18 2011 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK RE: Petition for Reconsideration of Appeal of an Approval of a Wireless Service Facility on Results Way, dated January 6, 2011. To the Members of the City Council: Astoria residents are moving out The result of the approval of the use permits, U- 2010 -03, EXC- 2010 -04, and TR02010 -31, has led to an exodus of selective residents of Cupertino's Astoria townhome complex. Most recently, there has been an explosion of sale listings in the Astoria townhomes (south complex), that which is closer to the rear parking lot of the Results Way office parr. Homes bordering the south perimeter of the Astoria complex will have a clear unobstructed view of the personal wireless service facility, consisting of 12 panel antennas mounted on a 74 -foot tall monopine (and associate equipment located at the Results Way office park). A solitary 74 -foot tall monopine will tower above small stature trees in a desolate parking lot once installation is complete. Though not substantiated, underlying reasons for the sudden influx of sale listings particularly in the south complex is due to the likelihood of a personal wireless service facility nearby. The hasty departures of members of the Astoria community call for the urgency for Cupertino City Council to reconsider its decision of the appeal of AT &T's use permits, and to clarify and reconsider the following points: Point 1: The need for an integrated landscape plan. With the imminent installation of the 74 -foot tall monopine, it is clear that any landscaping plan in the Results Way office park follow strict aesthetic guidelines of visually integrating and retaining a natural appearance of the environ. The letter, relating to the appeal, from the Office of the City Clerk, dated January 6, 2011, numerates additional conditions to the Planning Commission resolution (Letter, dated January 6, 2011, paragraph 1). As residents of the Astoria townhomes, we request to add and include the following: Confirm the "additional screening trees at the northern property line" will conform to that of the approved re- development plans of the 19.8 acre Results Way office park (ASA- 2008-05, M- 2008 -03, TR- 2008 -06), approved by the City Council, on September 17, 2008, and any revisions or modifications to the redevelopment plans thereafter. Landscape plans on the Results Way that which is intended to visually integrate and to retain a natural appearance of the wireless service facility are unclear and need to be .; further clarified and explained in detailed. Complete and full landscape plans, relating to such, should be made available for public viewing and open for review by the appellants. Point 2: A lump sum of S30,000 to be appropriated to Astoria HOA That, as a result of AT &T personal wireless service facility to be located in the rear parking lot of the Results Way office park, that an additional monetary cap of $30,000, is to be allocated for use on the adjacent property of the Astoria townbomes, for the specific use along Astoria's south side of the property, on the items listed below, but not limited to: For the use of labor and materials to install additional irrigation and plantings of additional screening trees, along the south side of the Astoria townhome property; For the installation of additional fencing, along the south side of Astoria townhome, that which borders the adjacent light- industrial commercial areas, so to create a more visual separation of the residential and the light- industrial commercial areas; and, That which the Astoria Homeowners Association deem necessary and relevant as a direct result of the adjacent AT &T personal wireless service facility. Payment is to be deposited with Astoria Homeowners Association, and to be further directed for the use, that which stated above, by its Board of Directors. Point 3: Re-negotiate with FUHSD of lease opportunities at Monta Vista H.S. The best -fit location of an AT &T personal wireless service facility, that will greatly improve areas in Monta Vista having poor or inadequate wireless service coverage, is that of the set of already approved permits (by the Cupertino Planning Commission in 2005), of building - mounted antennas on Monta Vista H.S. gymnasium. Regretfully, AT &T did not proceed because of withdraw of lease agreement by the Fremont Union High School District ( FUHSD). Since 2005, there have been installations of cell towers in the Fremont Union High School District, specifically at Fremont High School, Sunnyvale, and at Cupertino High School, Cupertino. Moreover, at the Fremont Union High School District Regular Meeting of the Governing Board, on January 4, 2011, the board discussed and considered the approving and the lease and construction of a new cell tower at Lynbrook High School, San Jose. More than five years have passed since AT &T had approached the Fremont Union High School District regarding lease opportunities on Monta Vista High School. Given FUHSD recent approvals of cell towers at other high schools in the district, now is the time to re- consider the possibility of antennas on the Monta Vista H.S. property. AT &T should re- negotiate with FUHSD of leasing of Monta Vista H.S. AT &T should verify that what deem impossible is actually possible because criteria used in the past may have evolved. AT &T should seek to substantiate that the only viable alternative is the less desirable rear parking lot in the Results Way office park. Point 4: Alternative site location of personal wireless service facilitV in Monta Vista We are in preliminary discussion with property owner(s) on nearby Bubb Road, with specific address of 10340 Bubb Road and 10420 Bubb Road. We initiated talks with the property owners to explore the leasing of space on the property to AT &T for a personal wireless service facility and that does not involve applying for parking exception permits. 2 399 The alternative site should have similar or better criteria as compared to the existing solution and have even less impact to the nearby residents. We ask that the City Council grant us additional time allowance as we confer with the property owners and the related committees. Summary We would like to work collaboratively with AT &T to find mutually beneficial solutions. The best outcome is for everyone to come away from the table happy with the results and a WIN -WIN for all parties involved. We ask that the City Council modify its decision, as explained in the Letter from the Office of the City Clerk, dated January 6, 2011, with particulars to the points cited above. To highlight the key points: ■ We ask that we take part in the review of the landscaping plans of the Results Way office park, so that is cohesive and integrating with the surroundings; s We have been presented with a signed agreement between AT &T and Astoria Homeowners Association; ■ We can help in facilitating in the approval of the lease agreement of Monta Vista H.S. by the FUHSD; and We have the opportunity to submit, in writing, of a willing property owner to lease AT &T space adequate for a personal wireless service facility. Sincerely, Grace Chen PGuo 10192 Imperial Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: gwychen@yahoo.com Cellphone: 808 -206 -5175 3 400 401 ATTACHMENT K CUPERTINO January 6, 2011 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3223 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366 Re: Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way At its January 4 meeting, the Cupertino City made the following action: Denied the appeal, required the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, and added the following conditions to the Planning Commission resolution: (1) plant additional screening trees at the northern property line to screen the treepole from the astoria townhome development; (2) require berming and plant at least two 36" box, coastal redwoods blue aptos variety on the berm on either side of the monopole to screen it; (3) improve irrigation around the trees to ensure proper growth; (4) remove and replace trees with dead tops; (4) adequately maintain and water the trees in the parking lot; (5) require an annual status report on the trees by a certified arborist for three years from the date of the tree planting; (6) require that tree planting conform with the approved development plans of the results way office park; (7) allow a monetary cap of $75,000 for the berming and tree planting required in the added conditions. The Use Permit conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "at &t/CN3242- A/November Drive/Results Way /Cupertino; California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T -1, A -0 through A -3, A -1.1 and C -1, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, "I U- 2010 -03 January 6, 2011 2 dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. COLOCATION OF ANTENNAE The treepole shall be structurally designed to accommodate the collocation of additional antennae from other wireless carriers. The co- location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 4. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said aerial and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition. 5. EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant May apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review the state of wireless communication technologies, camouflage techniques and maintenance to determine if the visual impact of the aerial facility can be reduced. 6. TREE POLE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE The applicant shall use a sufficient number of artificial branches to obscure the appearance of the panel antennae and any associated mounting framework. The top portion of the tree pole shall have branches of varying length to give the tree pole a conical form. Panel antennae mounted away from the mast shall. have needle covers to blend with the green foliage of the artificial branches. The mast shall be wrapped with a faux bark and any antenna mounted close to the mast shall be painted brown to mimic a tree trunk. The foliage shall have a mottled green coloration. The building permit shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to ensure the above condition is met. The applicant shall perform regular maintenance of the tree pole to maintain its appearance and obscure the panel antennae from public view. F 7. EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE =` The base equipment enclosure shall be constructed of high quality materials and/or be screened by appropriate landscaping as determined by the Director of Community Development. The final enclosure design, wall treatment/color and screening strategy shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. TREE REPLACEMENT The removed trees are to be replaced with three (3) 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the M U- 2010 -03 January 6, 2011 3 Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide a letter from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain the trees. In addition, the final landscaping plan shall confirm that the existing irrigation systems are operating properly in order to service the existing and new trees in the area. 9. TESTING OF RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) LEVELS Radio frequency levels will be monitored and tested annually for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final occupancy approval. The result of these tests will be made available to the Planning Department and the FCC for review. The City reserves the right to perform code enforcement actions and/or revoke this use permit if the results show RF levels inconsistent with the federal standards. Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408- 777 -3308 for clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the site until required tree protection devices are installed. The conditions of project approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that. the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section: 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the City Council's decision in this matter, must first file a Petition for Reconsideration with the City Clerk within tee: days after the mailing of the notice of the Council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with Municipal Ordinance code §2.08.096. Sincerely, _ Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Community Development Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin 10170 Imperial Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Trillium Telecom Attn. Scott Longhurst 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 503 Pleasanton, CA 94598 I.i SPECIAL INSPECTIONS COIORET Ill yIDR SUE CON'DOIAIS ARE 1EIM =ALLY N rci OIVNFIVNCE WITH 1 -E SUL INOSII&TION ;FFCRI I CWLPEIE MOMENT-RE9EIFC SPACE TRIAL 137 VAR TIRG FCLN6MOV DDIVO(CIS CAUD TO RENIOiCNC E11L ANC ";'RE'.SING STEP i t NL',I ;LLT.RI WE GAS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS COIORET Ill yIDR SUE CON'DOIAIS ARE 1EIM =ALLY N ! BN i INSTALLED N CxNETE OIVNFIVNCE WITH 1 -E SUL INOSII&TION ;FFCRI I CWLPEIE MOMENT-RE9EIFC SPACE TRIAL 137 VAR TIRG FCLN6MOV DDIVO(CIS CAUD TO RENIOiCNC E11L ANC ";'RE'.SING STEP i t NL',I ;LLT.RI WE GAS PAPER DEPTH AND SON STRAIN IS! PRDA[E SUL C1M'ACOH _TI VIES, OCR CF i2 NM E. 91111 HOLD - RESIDING PER PAVE FL., RELATVE UN` -7I', SEARING VALUE: i3 N'CNINO REMOgLNG T:E. HIT PRVINE SUL EAKINSQI TEST R61TS EMRNSMN , HIG1- 9TRFNGIN DOING ITD. PEODINEICATRG FOR FCOVRADUCI6. U- ' SPULT"T M ^S"IFY I REIN) CID PISUR, FDNCRETE 0710: FLOOR M DESIGN -09 EACH SNUCK SF_ 14 SW3E (047CL 561EN I INS AS he CD FILL 'D SPPW -NPUE) GEPR OHNG 15 SPKK 2ISIS CESCHCF Ie Off-STE F0I011ON OF RI NC mJF01ERD I IE& FOJNtK (RAG, :RLEEIII I CAISSONS) 1 OINER SPECIAL NSPECIIN 0.S RE) ONfC Rf 2 SNDTCP.T .131], I NR I DEVRIDN 0- IYCE CF INSPEGTIEN REGARD, 11[ATON, REQC& I JRA Joi Ewe k AnxIcm, loo, ArcMBCIwe & - oNCOmmud:4lons 7 SDr Jamul, Plc ;'. sum 'S5 N4epu1 Feaeh, hilerria Ti Poaoo 94i 7x -79]9 Furl OAS 760 -7971 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CCNTANED IN NS SET OF CChTRJCRCN DEC INENIS S PROPRIETARY MY TIC ONE A U5E OR DISCLC LCE OTHER. THAI THLT V,iIC- RELSTFE TO &- h IL" IS S - RICTY PRCHFIEC. STANF ti 'r \fin a sf = / RETIRED FOR va:AF GE l9t N 4:20 R,,!,,,d ON, PIemA�I ", DID 'rna 945BE APPROJAES R.F. = N:HNEER DIE SIZE ADO, 4 ZONING ]e E ERIOSSO ON AA F ATAT CM A . OW,_F AcPNOVAL T PRI TAME NOVEMBER DRIVE CN3242 —A RESULTS WAY DUTCH NO, CAN :cFNL4 95C14 SANTA CLAW OJUIT+ W10 PREANITHADY 2D FMEVD (PI) Co DOB DESIGN CHANCE (P2; 0'1/02/09 FINAL 771 01/26,10 STE RE.C(ATCN (P4) 05/10/10 150 "n ZO'S "P5) OS/2>,hC CIIEM :1 11 NTS i D6 /10 /ID PLANNING G CADym ;; ( ON/16 PUWNIIIG CCVM�NIS (FBI OR/7},M CLIENT CIAINNNT6 0) 0 1 DEFIED ANTENNA :GNNT V PEim6N AML Is ......— EHE7 TIT.E TITLE SHEET T ®1 CONSULTANT TEAM CHENTS REPRESENTATIVE ERICSSON INC. ON) SIONEPICGE MULL READ =LIT= 400 PLEASANDON, CALIFDRNA 91569 DON51NJCRON MANAGERS lM LENCIOM FFONEI (516) 474113 TRILLIUM CONSULTING 5912 SOUSA AV:HUE, SOLD: 202 HTHORNTON 3EACF, CAJCI 02:49 PHONE: (714) 799 -1000 SIDE ACOU6IFICN & ZONING, TOM JOHNSON FNCNE (m) 2co -279 RF ENdNEA: SARAN HAITI (AT&T, FHCNE (32.) 3CO -5919 ARCHITECT', JERREY ROME AND ASTUDATE$ 3 AN JOQUIN AWIA SUITE 155 NFWPCFT 3E1(H, CAUFORMM i256C PHONE [7O 7TA -6772 FPM: (349) 750 -7971 CONTACT: RODIN NELSON LAND SURVEYOR: CAL VADA SURVEYING, INC. 411 JENNINS DIPOLE, STATE 2U5 CORONA, CA FORMA 92EAD PHONE 1151 290 -9961 FAD: (051) 250-9746 CUTEST, EXACT GCNIALEI DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY APPLICWN, AT &T IJORNTI" — ?OSENOJT 1 ?N[ PLENSANTCN, LAL'.FORNIA 94566 OWNER: E: NO RESULTS L.C. 301'.FOA:IYAy RCA) SR i5L BE LENT, SSJTCPN[A 94001 CONIAD' ANNRER FRCWN PHONE (ED) 292L11DD CHIEF ON SITE'ELE @N FACLIT HONE CHILD AGGRESS: REST a AlY 111111HG, CALL Fell 55014 e,ESSORS PAKE_ Ni , 757- 20-046 LATITUDE', JT 19' ID.15' N LONCIT.OE. '22 Y AN d2 W AT /4NC TIC ANC -63 EXISTING 70NINC: - P (M-) PRQ'CSEC PRO ET AREA "I _l} FL PHO'OSEL SP: n: CCK.TPIICTIIYN: - !PE V-8 PRPGSEC OC'PAiICY; U NISNNG TYPE OF IRNNSIRJCIpN: NOT PPFUWL; EXISTING OCCUPANCY: NOT ACWLCAEL: ,LFISDICNOh: CITY CF CLFENTNO COUNTY. SDNTA CAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION AT&T 90B In PROPOSES TO CONCERTI DI -RA- AND MAINTAIN AN JN'AANNED WRELSS CCNMUNIG - ACWTY TITS =911 WILL LASTS OF THE FOLLO'NINGI ' INSTALL A PROTEST, NNIVCFINE VVFH ('2) PIGPOSLD A& ANTENNA" YITHN9 THE PROPOSED DOUIPoIENI ENCLDSJRE. INSTAL (24) iJHS 0' 7/9'0 COUAL CARE AND (12) - MAC INSTALL AT &T C:T000R EOUIPMU CARINETi MOJNTED ON A CONCRETE PFD WIIHIN A CI.W 'MALL :N:LOSURE UNDERGImLNC II RUNS FOR ELECTRNAL 41 TEIEPHN. LEGAL DESCRIPTION RJNG ALL OF PALE. 7, AS SFOWN TEN NT CP.TANY IICEL YAP HIICi N #IC PL " "D FOR RECORD III THE LPH OF Ti: R:COFOER OF TFE 01111 1� SANTA CIARA, STATE OF CAJFORNI4 ON APRIL 12, 1979 V ROCK S OF NAPS AT PACTS 12 AND 11 AND DING A POI 0: TIE FIGS DEGR',ED IN TI'AT ;.:6TFN COCLMED RE:LP,DED OCTC0 R 14,'37° IN COCK E662 AT FACE '"L N THE 0710E OF 'HE '.ECOFDER OF i1NTd CaRA rDUN1Y AI'J KIND BORE PARI:JARI DESCPRED AS FCLLOMS; 3E; 4ING AT TIE SOUTHNESTA.Y DORMER CF SAID'VCEI: TFEICE A ONG TIE YIEiTERLY Lh[ OF SAD PACE. NORTH O1' Cl' DO' 1'I;G 2 FEET TO THE SCJIEK!'ERTY CORNER OF THE LANDS DESCRIDED IN £110 AUDI 8562 AT PA:: 45: THENCE kON; THE AETEFIY JHE OF SAID UNCE NORM 7"T 31555 FEET; TFENLE SOUTH u' 56 16" FAST PC% FEE TC - iE GSTEFLY LIME OF SAID TAHOE: THENCE ALDNC SAID LINE EOVIN 19' 06' 4' FAST 17 °_41 FELT In ME NORTHEASTERLY C(FNEF OF 5410 PARCEL: THENCE ALONG THE HIM'' LINE OF SAC FARCE_ SOL'H 19' CE' 4B" FAST 293,11 FEFl TI T -; SOLTHFCS E,i -Y CORNER OF SAID PAi.11 THENCE ALONG THE S)R'fRLY TIME OF SAID W2 NORTH d� 24� 5" AEG 1:1.05 FEET, THENCE C'ONTI NWNO A ON TI SAID WE DORN 89 ' 5 24' WLS 220 59 IEET TO THE RAFT OF DEC ,IANG, ATTACHMENT J SHEET INDEX - -I TPLE SHEET A -D SIT: PLAN A -1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A -1.1 TEE REMO'IAL ;LAN A NORTH & SOUTH ELPNATIONS A -J EAST ELJATICN C -I SHE SUMP (FAR FEFEI;NCE ON Y) APPLICABLE CODES All WORK SHALL PAFIY YNTH TIE TULF41INO APPACIOLE CODE GAUFOFIEA 301111 DOLE, 401 ECTH1A 111111 2116 NTE11 11111111E GALFOFVA 1 1: CDIE OID7 SAN, JISED ON THE SODS IIFERIkROWL NRE CCOE, WNFURNIA I.ECFANIWL 011 2007 EELON, RUD CID - 1= 2GC6 UNIFORM NECHAINIf1,- CODE WLFOR4A'WNSINO.WE, 2DT EDITION, FIS:D CST - HE 2606 LNIFOFM PJAMRNG CODE CAIIURMA EIE.TRILA. CODE 2007 GOODS, RUED ON THE 10K NAICNW EIEC"RICAL CODE CAHF7RNA ENERGY COD: 2307 EDINON. N THE NFU' OF CONFUPT,' MOST FEEIRIL'AIE CODE STILL'FCVNL ACCESSIBILITY DISCLAIMER THIS PRI I: AN UNOCCUPIED ADET£SS T :EEDMULNOATICxS R2IDIY IS ENEN'PT _KM )S46L:C ACCESS i;OL15E&EN7. SCALE THE DPAnING SCALES 6HON, IN THS SET ?;FFESENT THE CORRE.T 2AT ONET WHEN TIESE DRANNGS IF[ PRNNTEC IN A 217%15" FDRMAI. IF [HIS DRAWING SET S NOT 2A'kM% THE SET D NOT TC SORE. SITE PLAN KEYNOTES I PROPaf) 9TH ANIMUAt MD oN 0. PRO=CSE11 HCNCEIWE 1' S E 7 PRCPCBLO AiHI EOUIPMNIi EVCICSLgE', SEE S9m E' %-J, 41H OJ= DI 22 - Of X 424 LUSE 4THIN A 6'- O' CHU REVNING WALL BIBLE) URE TO BATCH PAS '1 ' , SEE SHEET A -i. (a) EA Iva Jmn Po E ` NTm TAV'S"'MNP Avo RD=DSfo a &t OhfR saJRCE + \/ EAA 113 JI Po E & PROPOSED ATHT mcO HOC, C"/ _11111 5' -0" PRICE AT &T 1.1111,111 FENS' VV H TE.CC CCNDJT POUT- PTA 719 01. 1:LC0 SUBMIT SNE TC EE 4" CW S "i 1 0 PVC. POAER CONDUIT SIZE TO BE SPECIFIED BY SERVING LEFT' COTI SE MAL 2/N1, 6 REPOSE) 12' N'IOE AT&T ACCESR POJIE TO SEE, TO HE HAY !C AFTER DEVELOPIlEN OF SRE. i�PA x�EO u'� 0 A iAga V T 7 CA E OEV]fRJEINT ASPHALT PAVED PARKING uNDER s . - fEPAAr SvLO=uLvi,. 3 (OLDER ED LOPI 13UI_PLUS. ELDER SCPAAT- I RNA . 0' EXE111 EJ L)VGS ON PEMPRRY, l0 EXR IV FV[PPlY JNE 11 4' 0 W,C�CESSTFOUT DAP'EWA° ADD FUTURE � 50Us %F j�l ( ''tp '/ p e ED, 5 ` f 111' Al "11 \11 IoT �N it ;LP 3��/ 1 1 ACTDR ORECPOA1JNOM At IN N)AL NO, CW CABLE LuM1AE5 LA'.-Nte ANTENNA LN;'i ft 5 ' t )') SZE M 23 'ACTED 742-2C4 C IO iA6 AZ ID Wd9TN 1 Z -?f1 ]0 10 J9 AT USI 2N _ MLR{g 1 42 - f 1 10 IO RI 21 W4 1 N 142- tF1_,_ BI W' AT111N 142 -264 20' BY NO eW' OEN 112.41 10' m W[ j /�' WFFIIMREN1122E1_ B F1 AA4 2E4 B 10 0 LI ion N M - 0 l0 e A' ci DO 1 WTI 7 -RI 4 _G3 - Je" i _ . - .W FDT ELT - IC WN6EN 742 2E4 LE 10 ANTENNA COAXIAL ( CABLE 7 SCHEDU T I, CONRv1CTCR TO PE94DE A.L SJOR - J INSTALL 30 FUNS OF CCA✓„ 12 TEA'S AND AVTENNAS. 2 SOESON PC'2OV OE Al ON CDNNECTORS, ANCILLARY EC'J "MENT (INCLUDING MATED ST61PPMq GROUND KEE W) 3 TWIRACCIM TO CCLOR CODE A.L CORN, COLOREC EANDS OF TAPE ON COAX IDETBTIFY SEMR, FREDJEVDI 7401I P' TRAMS417 CRCLP AS DELONS'. SECTOR A ASIA 19OU X 1/RX 1 TX 3 TX 2/ E A 2 TX I D 5 TY E 2 BRAWN 2BRNV/IR7 2 CRAKE COR 137 20RCI LO ML/.FED - TA 1/k 1 lX 3 7A M 2 TX I TX 5 TI E CSIJ 950 ] HROWN HREEDMF3) 3 WINCE WRC/'RE) 38RIN/ARED 33R. /2R.D T%''. /A 1 n 1/;d S WFS II�D 7-BROWN 14 CRINGE - TX 'fR1I TN Pi'XI UPS BSC 5 BROUN 5 ORANGE SAME 10' -A GSM IBCO /Rx I 1N j I TX _ 2/W 2 R 7X 5 TM . 2 YEILtl0 YE/ ED - -. 3 LE BLUE / 1E) 2Y 42RED 2LO Vf TED GSII 95O 1 TA'ARX I Ex 1H 2j , x TX S IS 5 T' ' J YCL LNV YE RED 3 SAS ZRIJE I+ffl 1 Y.I/20 .L.E/2RD FITS 9 ] 1N / A 2 TRIG ' la /RX I I Th 11x 2 - L I uua es) r.._ ]� 19�� - 1 i ➢ - 6M 19118 _.. 1 rKK 1 ' TAI SETM ,M Fin I JA� 7X e 1x4 IY5 lY� rah 12Nn3I T, 7rEx I �I 211)/20 m>rjsaE: F �. NesO /'7 'i 1t > > - 3 lvE) 3 AD IS Dvrh6m DAD /2Rm :e'STA2Ra van DIVERS) p r 1C /Ra II TN2r +' T 1 N 75� H 1 H1 W319P 4'OLI 4WilE u e59 s /v e ,,,° ✓ �� 111 ul,!Le,�d.st ..i�r H �� :.__ �. L1MIfsD; T;' Dmv 1 ' 5 UT 5 MILE WD .. I N I NHEM ANTENNA LINES ARE DIP EAE) THE COLOR LODE OF Tr HICHES FFECLENCY FNEVALS L.E. UNITS OIPIEXE) MIr BIM SHOULD HAVE COLOR 4 BANDS). ARV' 35 " HE) G9 ` 1 111 APIA' 35T- 2C -[41 II 5, M ANTENNR AN) ANXVV4 CABLE PFAFF BE 9 RNDI ED By ER T ryN IN550. AND HON FE P( I - F 1 /. MRI : LED BU 4 (D) BISALM 3'r ARTENas NI CDM SENR. TF� h0 4r_ (QP J IJ NE C BU10 NG C 6 ,1 1 9 BuLDING 5 ! s PP10 - O PNCLKNT OF WON% POLE M)JNTS- THE C@IMC OR S' VEi F W1 '' � X FEE 343.8 ` THE iSJUri NN CIN-NSIONS SHCAN ON IT FIATS IWTCF AC UA BED CONDFIONS. <�I -_- I� D PAN 3=5 fas Nc GT U / I 'I - -. -z, I I, 7 EHIU IN k CC uDN2GmAL rJCIINEn1 _ } ALNwlr EABn THAT AJGIIAIEFr ATION COMIPh,Tll SIAL 11TIFJE 1 k1 L V _ "'� - r FONDS, SEC. FOR COMPLETE INSTALAT ON) AN ENV9S AND CABLES STOOD AND F St so = -2' As G REauIREO FDT A ccuPTrE n=EearN srs IN wccDF)sv WITH F v II 1� SIR ON s11N¢aRPS GQ q f II 4 -_ F y H. IN NO CASE SHAD T1.FE BE A NY MORE TIAIN TAO (i 37 TURNS ()' ❑JNT, III IALL '220 2% 1 1y� X v T - Lit d 9F GAA�OIN� ',, -� ANY COlTHU 5 LEN;M OF CONCLT 3TYEEi! PULL EDMES OR 9 IMIVA FFAILP jIT�S -< !J� PRCPERIYIIYE 1 I,V -- J S 7 ..r _7 }L'1 V4 F. ANTENNA COLDER SHALL IN" IV "LLEE FACTGFI-E14DE TABLE PAULA STEEPS AT F 1 4 r� -n ) TTT + dLL 1AV S HI DIRE'TpN ST P RADIER MAIL 3- IRS UINIMUN ARM ,POUND ITE 'r AND 1 6' MINIMUM BELOW CRDU6C, I I I I y] Il T - II r�IJ. I T I 1 I 1 1 10. CII SHALL BE 3 0 MINIMUA ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT WE 3 SCHEDULE 1 w _ MO PVC. AL EAPCS;7 CIRCLE ARDI; 9 ACE LFIEL 3PALL BE AMC OP R GD SAI VAM1IZED. AFL ENPOSEC CCM1PUT PR07 [lE] IY P METRIC OR ON A 4C11F SN9ll F ®° " - -- r i = "- - - - -' ' - " = RUBE 11 OR W STANMSO PAINTED S.iE)J E NO PVC. 1 - , IN H61 TPAFFC AREAS OP WFERE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DRACE CONTRACIOR SHALL E .. ' NVIO FOE CRI PVT 1 7 1 OVER COAIAL C ABLE W711 1 ON S 1AFk D is RUN DV N WA TLE WALL 9 7!A L AND CM IF LOTH i¢ GA 39!AANI2 D FORTED SHEET METAL (C SLI IER OR 'ra III 1IF L T = M UT l ERECTED BY ERIN580N NN 05TJUM IIAAA;EF. la NOTES: 11. vFRITT ROUTE AND UNnR OF CABLE PRIOR m cunND a3JJS1 AIDICAiEO ROUTE I n AS REQUIRED TO FAR 'E) EQUIPMENT AT WI LLI II I II I , � _ - - _ 0 " AND <nlLltt AOOITNG FOR PROPOSED AT &T SITE. pLL 13. s_MLRE 2 ALE SNaa Bmmo � : RV SH w EER M FD N> 1 5 ' REA CABLE OF I I � ml 1. ENURE CEVEIOPMENF SHOWN TO CLARITY ACCESS ROUTE OF I -s,M" cops _ L _ DEVELOPMENTS RI - HIS DRAWING OTHER THAN PEPPERING TO AT&T IS UNDER SPARATE PER VII - u.' +ERIFY WEE. uuaBERS OF rM1lENNas INrH ER {CON ANC sErmBES, - IWVEgAL AVENUE� i� - - —° F ELEVATION GRACES BASED OFF OF FUTURE SITE 15. THE CONTIN TOR BHALL PFOVDE TESTING OF ANTENNAS AND 914LL PRI 2. { ] 4 2 FIN( H E LE TI DEVELOPER. DOCUMENTATION - 0 HE ERNSSCN 813. PRQJ :cT NANDWER 16. GENERAL CJUTRaLIDF TO NERIl AF WOOL TCLRAND'S FER THE 4ANUFCTURERS SPELITCA AND RECCMMEN]ATICHS, SITE PLAN 5CA -E, GENERAL ANTENNA A CABLE NOTES 1 " =60' D r JRA ] Sor�JOepun P'mo uIN I'5 Napa t' :u au rss3 Phone 919) 60 au Foe, �91N 160 -M931 PROPRIETARY INFORNATIOM THE DIFORVAIION CON TED TO THIS SET OF DONSTRUCP)V EDOLMENTS IS PROPRIETARA' 3Y NA ANY LSE OR TIICSL R- "HEI THAN THAT Vii RELATES Q A LT MOST. T" IS STRICTLY PROH BTED, __... STARE ;J A �I zI &I A PREPARES FOR b w n= aW A�- 820 R od D6�, PleaeT i.n CaFI 94580 APPPDV9FS R.E. ENGNEER BATE SITE ADD & ZONING 14TE CFICSSON :M IAIE AT &T CIA )PIE OWNER APFRSAAF DATE FRCJE -T WE NOVEWER DRIVE PRO, C MI CH3242 —A RESULTS TAI CUF.RIINC LAUF:RNA 95314 SANTA CLARA C04 ORION DATES '2 /IarO9 PRO NINARf 7) FEVIEW (PI) Cfi /CH,rD9 DESIGN CHANGE (P2) 07/02,+30 FVAF 7D 'S (P3) I/ s 10 SITE R:IDOA 101 (P4) D1010 Em IDS (PS DD11 1 , 1 10 CLENT COMPEN S'P6) CLEM1T DMIAEN d Ifi iD R,INNINS Ill IEVT9 AFB OIL DMIlEM1 S TS) B 1,r1O EEL. ED ANTRIN4 COUNT ?I7) 7S MISION LEVEL to S1En TTLE SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLAN KEYNOTES -5 NOTE. rtENTAS AND SUPPORT ME BE PAINT) DIED, TO MATCH 0YIINE NEEDLES, PROPOSED 4T &T P E NI OF C -1111 -1111 CO U IXtl A 1191 PROPOSED A DRINNASi E o' \/ B IB HAVE NI OIq: R. 00 ROPOED VIENIIASI BE OETUL 3/4- AT&T .EZ5: AREA ' /1 ( I (X ON A CONCR3tTE ATkT PADDAGER EQUIPMENT G31VG1S MOLNIE) /` MONOPOLE DJIII-� 3 FARE (41 AT &T EOJ WAT CAIIN[TB, JJ2 DO _ TO J72�t� �� Q ( 4 PROPOSED AT&T CPS AMID] TO FcuPMENT CASNP. I TS. X4 - PP*A (2) PER 4" ! 6 O s PROPOSED AT&T HMR¢=HrAL OonNUL OI�,E RUN MOMN(D IO wnu 6 PROPOSED MEIERlMAIN EMERSON LOAD NTER AND II Ni WrnNCNPRDOE sk' N uu OUIa D ONTO e A.L 1iltE uNFmuJ . I 'r� 33Yfii-. ___2 Tp} F M PFOPOSm TEL "5 FlBtA MUN CABINET AND nIMN caeINE15 MOUNTED 19 4'- TO =1N WPL WF? DEADLINE. I / AT PANEL 7AhNNAfi - — "` A !� 1PIPIL ( PER SECTOR. 7 ) PDOP09ED TECH M: MT 1A0JEJED ON PRCPO9FC \ 60 SIXPED BAB CEHEBER H -'RME CELLE R42N, fi ANIENIVaS M HAD CENTER 65 ACL JJ2,5Jt T 6 11/11445 ® FAO CENTER 59' ACL B W4IE AALL MWNOH �R TE=H LIMTID BE I L_ n,\ PRGP=sfN VV cLADR MG TO MATCH DEBTS 3EILDNES I�. PITH ID PROPOSED 4-0 WCE SINGE: METAL IBC I ACS;'.'. CATE, I I' II PROPOSE 5 -0' WEE AT&T :NDERCROUID InFIR & LEE E)M=JI I �U. F DIAPMEE 3 5 -G:. r j ANTENNA PLAN VIEW TELCO COM SIIE 4" N E. SCH. e= =VC PNER CO KE 5 E T' dE SPECIE E" HE 7 CEO UIIIIY COP FNf'; 5 f DETPII. 1/P -F . FO? TER. P. TFENCh OEEPIL. ✓ '� '. 2 EXI;T4G CONCRETE CUR& Id ENI`lVC LPHALT PAVED PARKING. 18 ENkIVG ICE OF S.CFE. \ ' \` IS EN'.TV., ITT OF SLMP„ 16 EYI'TVS TREES AND BIRTH m RE RE -AM), e "P 17 ECISTVC TREES ANC EUSH.S, PROTECT N! PLACE I 1trA S R _ ' IB fq� I ' 9 CC P( I - V+ N NPLL - /� SE_ F a 19 SAN ND P ?CPe7P' LINE. x PROPOSED sr &rACe -ES cralR AND wAL (Wnr. E.% /./ 21 PROPOSED 4' - 0' 1 OF RELINING WALL 1 Q , 0!� ! ^T N C J \/ SCALE: CIA) FATECP IE EW4CE T MATF E) AEIR' ENT PLRFACE REMOVED FOR TREMCI BAND IALRNLL F,D% 'CREEK LI T44P TO 95% CONPS:.TI)V N A' LFES, ElG PF FOR 4L 'Al) ARF15 115E 1 SACK Up ENCASEMENT ,2 STOLE B;R GROUND FCW R F _E ER DR .NF/ '.EM CE S ZE P:R SEP.I NG MJIY COPPE RE=UREMETS. I 30225E FS, T 1. A L D dEVSOV_ EHO';IN A MINIMUM NOTES; — an. j 2. EL CTRL PL COIF ALTOR TO NCLUOE FEI101AL D- SPOILS, 1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHOWN TO CLARIFY ACCESS ROUTE AND UTIIJT' ROUTING FOR 'R 1 POSED AT &T STE. ALL I a" SCALE: De/ELCPMmTS IN THIS DaawmG OTHER THAN REFFERING TO I UTILITY TRENCH DETAIL NONE AT &T IS UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. ` 2. FINISH ELEVATION GRADES BASED OFF OF FUTURE SITE V DEVELCPNE1,TS BY DEVELOPER. 7 ! \l ¢I tl w ye:.J 4N sz (. l 3J2 R3 S FS U7 !Of V g I f F.C. 9' -0 TO IL 2' -C' ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE; e =r 0 ,' 2' 3. 1 J RA 10INTI Rome & A9SBNOh, Inc. ArcIXEtlun k Iee�emrtuM�oXens 5 Son doogllo Blom SO. IS' N �oB Becoh WINK N 9 NET 19491760 -3919 F h (949 760 3971 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE RE RBAT=N CONTA IN THIS EST BE CDNEORLCnW OBSCENE IS PR:'PIESID R' IIAILRE ANY US OR 0I5CiOSURE LIPER 7HAN - HAT AHICH REL:TE5 TO -TA•T MCEIMTf 5 �TNICTLI FNOHIBNE). FE c FREPMRCD EST N � r At 42B Rcsewo r. Pk tan, :dI E4E00 PPPFG`lALS -- 7. ENNEER DATE SEE ACC. & 704NG DATE ERICESN CM DATE r &T CM 047E BONER A'PFONAL — — D4 E TEDECT NAVE NOVEMBER DRIVE "'ECT NUMBER CN3242 -A RESULTS WA! CUPMETWO, WFORNN, 55014 SANTA C.0 MIND DRAMNIC DATES 02/ D /JS PR.MwNARr m REDLY (;p O6/=0he DESIGN CHANGE BEE) D /=Sh3 RIMY Z=S ILL) 01 /2E /1 ST� REFLOATED (P4 05/ M/7 ICON ZCS ('31 11/2" - - CUENI G=MMERS (Fe) 00/ DPI: ,FINE CLM TENTS (P7) IN/ 617 PIANNIB BERBERS 118) 119/27/1: CLIENT CCMIIEMS (P9) M/31 /T. REVS C ANTEVM COUNT (PID) RFOS BENS DR LEVEL 5 SHEET TIRE ENLARGED SITE PLAN 407 ENLARGED SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 1 ""'C 6' o FEO80O 'SEOUCIA ;Dip = _RRvi TO EE REMOVED. 11 ;r IM MU CS TO 3C TEUMMEG, r 1 aISI Nf TREYS ANC BUS-FS, PROTECT IN 'ACE. 3) =UM CONCF CAN, ( 4 MT" ASROLT PAAEU PARKING. 5 -`-1 TOE CE'.LUPE 6 DI TOP OF S.CP:, 17 _AISINC ELOCI( Mk. ( B ) rIISINf TRUTT) LINE V !J 7 flr>•"�� :Sx M:Nr J RA Jelfre( Rome 8 Aewfoles, Inc. lv:Mleo!un 8'vlseommunbolianv 3 ,P, B lr plat, S,Ne I55 NeAper Bvai, ColllorM 9tbW pw.: 9A9� 1W -3910 Fm; �9�° 1W -3931 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION R: IAFWTION CONTANEC IN 11= sa OF (CNnL;n)N DX.NENTS E PROPRIEIARY Ev PA ANY LSE MM 05g09URE OTHER Till T-OT W - I ". 3EIAT -S TC AT& MOBII71" IS STU LY DROHIBIIEO. STAMP 5p� PREPAREE FFCF 4,1'r aw AT RMS:noMe GPe Pleosarhn, Cd'ono 915BA A°PRWAL4 R,F -NO PEER CkE SITE ACE, R 70WI16 DA IRCSS N CJ 0A AT&T CM CA TER APPROVAL WE PRCJE7 NAME NOVEMBER DRIVE PROI:CT NUN3ER CN3242 -A FESULTS W C!PF9lVC, :AIIEO'.MA 9219 SRMA CLAT°1 EGLNIY OWN3 EATES -- 02/ID/09 PRUNIM t) IEVIEM IF OO/C8/09 9ESI,M. CHANCE IF]) DT /oyw MNAL iDS ,P3) 01/ ?6/10 SIZE REMril ;P4) O 10'10 loos iM5 (PM D 1, CLEN COMMENTS ',P5) D6lM /IM CLEN CMMENT 08 PLAANING COMIA IS ((M MR /23/10 CLEM .,7MMENTi OP9) 09/31/10 RE, E10 ANIENINA COUNT (P' SHE7 TTI= TREE REMOVAL PAN _. SALEaO O < �R�� REMOVAL PLAN 1 9 M 408 ELEVATION KEYNOTES `'.) PflPOS =U V &T (6 I! AH'E9N43 PER AECIUR 5 SELTOI 5) E%IEn4G BN. AEG. M�Pa=� ON A IF -OSEC RONOPINE ANTENNA TO TM PIKE NEEDIFS COVERS OVER EACH ANTENNA 1 PFC'DE =p AT &T '61 I! ANT 1111 PER EE:TCF, 7 sECi0R3j MOUNTED CN A PNCppsEO MON]P AE. 6 ESISNNS UINCSWINC. PRITECT h PLACE, IA) MOUNT N A (fil 12 ] 0 NA: PER R -ENT 7 SECTORS) YE V LICl171 ED ON A F = D$fD ROVWINE APRMW iC HAYE PINE NEEDLES CO'IERS OVER EACH ANRNRA, i PR CARRIER (91 ANTENNAS 2 PRYCSEO A - 4 - 610NCR1E AR{ DARA' DDIN' (I SECT SEGTG:. (. PER 7 SECTOR'S), I LL BOPJM CF PINE 3PPNCHES T STATER A 95 -0 A61 A EXI>(IVG BLOC N W41 (d P?PJiE) c -J° HIGH 111 SIT11:HT ENCLPSUP:, YATH AITJRE OTHER C4RFI� I ?) ANTENNAS (3 PER SEC - OF, ) SECTORS). IC CAN G TC MATCH FUTURE 9UILOINGS'.N GO-OR YLE 9) EXIERNG CONCRETE CURE. . <) PFYCGEO A - & CPS 'C'- TC "I CABIHEf v 10 PULP. CGNEREE CURB. ` OP ]e (N) AT&1 R'RNCPINE. Tana AG J. TCF .F IN) AT&T PNEN WS, sT.B - r sA�L _.. AT &T A7rENV II, 4 TICE De ( AT&T ANENIIA9, ROOK A0._ - CENTER OF UE) AT &T ANTENNAS. y � I gAA 9t'il .. n ,hMt ECRDN OF ( N) PONOPIME HELs. F 15,00 AC... A T AJ d I +� T C F C F (N) CHI ENCLOSURE E.DD AGL I R.2 571 FS m TOP OF .5. .'zGax r. r„ - cc ao A_ _ NRFE GRADE - 0 7;7.103 T ' TOP O 11 2 11B. CAN A.CL IXIMII'�(GRADE ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 PFC'DE =p AT &T '61 I! ANT 1111 PER EE:TCF, 7 sECi0R3j MOUNTED CN A PNCppsEO MON]P AE. EXISTING BUIU NO kNEM1M1A T7 HI FINE NI COVERS DgR EACH PUMPING, =UGE IA FRO =OSD AT&T '6)) II1 ANT: ; FETE SEpTCF, J SEGTOFE) MOUNTED ON A PiiCPO'.ED ANT;4 EXISTING IANDSCAPINO. PROLCT N I MONJEEP. TJ HSVE PINE NEED ES COVERS JVER EACH ANTf1UN4 FRO =OFUT Al &T UONOpME PATE FULe [URS). ?AAN I . CCII�6, AITJRE OTHER C4RFI� I ?) ANTENNAS (3 PER SEC - OF, ) SECTORS). IC P0TrU61 OF PIA BPAI,CHES PE STA' AT AG .L EXISTING LI WAL,. FFO =GS:D a' -0 Hpl CHU EQUIPMENT EAC, 05UFE, WITH LLASIINC TO PATCH FUTURE HUI DINGS IH COLOR EXISTING GGNLRE� C1RB PRC AT &T C'S MDUNIED R EG"IMENT CABINET. T PUJRE CONCRETE CURL. V TOP OE (N) AT&T IAJNJ' NE 71.00 AA,L iT OF ;N, AT &T ANTE' 6768 CENTER C� (N) AT &T AUT ENNAS, sm A.G.. TOP OF (N) AT &T AAr�NN4I DOVE AG.L, 1 ' CENER O; (V) A T&T NNT:NNA<, 530D A.C.L. f 1 IAs ER OF (N) MONOPIV NEEOL. i3OG ABL I I I "P, CPU EN: C91RE, I TOP OF HE OO q 4GL. TOE OF SITING CUI 23 A;._ NORTH ��EVATION s�ALE. SOUTN �Lf=VATION SCA:E, - - 3/16 " =1' -0 409 JRA Jmfrq In A hsaololos,1% P MI. k muelmPw L SPI —il PHx:, SIURI 195 ,P:R Beech, CaR h 91660 PhA"! (9a 760.A90 Foy'. `9191 11 -3971 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE HEJRMI CENTAhEC IN TiS S� DI COAERLCTiCN GCCIVEITS S PROPR-.,Y BY NAUIE. ANY LE OR 05GLGSCR: OTHER. T {4N THAT WHI.F FELITE9 T: A SIT M031_NY IS S7laY PROP BITED STAPF I, r, PREIPREC FOR alt Na..'.: atG R, od Drt�� APPROVALS -. R.F, :N INER DATE RE A 9. & AONINC OAR EPCSSOH OR OAR AT &T CIE DAR OWNER A "R)J)1 )I?: PRAT =CT NAVE NOVEMBER DRIVE PRGJEC NUVBEA CN32 &a -A REJLTS NAY CUPERTNO CAQ°EFh0. 95:14 SI CIARA COUNTY )FAWNc DA 011'0/O9 PRLJMIN44Y SO R." (P') Ofi /OG /D9 DESIGN CHANGE (P'!; 07/01 FlML DS l'3) 01/18,17 STE IF CCAIICM1 NPL) OS /IU�1U 1NDX 2O'S ,Ph) m /a (PP) 06 1 10/17 CUM7 c.MMB17s (P1) De, IS; MJ PuuHIND CO6ar_vrs P6, O6hAi10 [UUII GJNMENT5 IF]) OBfdl, 10 P.EASED ANTENNA CBdvi NP15 REM RPASCAI [EVEL 16 SHEL TR -E NORTH & SOU(H ELEVATIO Flwl i ELEVATION KEYNOTES 6 8 tliY n d S 01 PRCP08EC G &T IB) (2 AEN4' �ECIOASI nwEIlD If 6 :E 1 1ING LIMC4P NG, MINE CT !N PF42E. MCUNTEC OV 4 I.IONOPI A IR. I ," F IO N Ai A TO LAVE PINE NEEDL3 COVERS OVER EACH AI IW r "JTURE OTFER N11111 •) ANTEANAS 1A PRCFCEEf P &T IEI (2 WENIYS PER SECICE� 5 SECiOASj HI OV 4 � SO) NONOPIIIE. MI TO PAVE (3 PEF SEC "OR, 3 SECT RE). PINE MEET; COiEPS 0V'EN FACH AN B A'31NG BLOCK WALL, 2 PFOFGSI A'T MONOPINE WN1 M1 RMK 'FAR DING, WIT�1 GCTT01.1 OF PINE BFNlCHES TO START AT 25' -0" A.6L G EMSTFIG CONCP7E CLHE, 7 PRI 5 -O' HIGH CMI, EVEU11T :NCLOSURE. CBD FT 10 PATCH WERE UUILOINOS PI COLOR AND SnLE 10 FJTUt: CINCAEI: CJBB. 'RLFOE-0 AT &T GFS MIKE) 10 ;UJPMENT CACHE � I ,._ U PAOPESEC A[CESS yTAIR AND RETAFIG 44L. 5 EVINC PU LOING. �r ;T 1 , ( W 8 4 kx. _TOP OF �Ni AT &T NONDPINE. -- 74.07 AGL r0= GF (N) aT &i uam�Nas s9•ACL CENTER O (N ST &T ANrT , _..___�_�... 657 OP CI (1) AI &T ANIENNAS, 3.05 hGL CENTER OF (N) Q, *-ENN d ' . RA lelhry Roma d dsNxiol6f, Ina kF[Io.0 & ioNconmunlo:lu +s 3 Sa Iaapuln Far:, SPIN IS5 Newwl NO. CaW"I 91660 'hone. 1919' 111 -7"I 60 av: 9d9� i-197'' PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE FEE ORNA 'III CONTAINED N TNS SE IF CONSIRCEPON OUCUISd3 IS PROPRERRY EY NA E� AN" USE OR DEC!ME OTTER WIN THAT WHICH RELATS TO A.T &T NGEIL!TY IS STRIC PROHIGI - E0, HIPP — µ¢u TCk c,RF T A M. at &t 4,Z1 Rmc-d Deaa PI,osontan, Colifornio 94538 !8rRW4.S R ENG'NEEE OAT: STE A.C. & ECIIING DAT FcsS o8 CM CAT_ AT &T CM .. LA T6 %111 "'El. ndi' NOVEMBER DRIVE T AU'IBER CN3242 A RESULT WAY COPER9N0 CALEIRNN 35014 SANTA Cu 4 CIOTIE LEMI!NG WES 12/10/fS PREIMNARY ZO FE41EN (FI) CE /08/05 DESIGN .NAVGE (P2; C. /02 /CS FIAAL IDS (P3) [1 /2 /IC STE REMOVE I ") [5/10,/1[ INC. ID$ {P5) C5 /21 /IC .OEM COIINENTS'6) CE /10 /IC COENI GONNENIS IW) CB /16 /IC PANHNG CBMoIR ( [8/27/1[ TENT COHNENT ?9) [8;71/10 R S ANT : N9 COUNT (PIG) RAS P' VISION LTIEL 16 SHEa ITTLL EAST ELEVATION J 6 8 tliY m .•' � I ,._ 30NOU OF (N� MCNOP N_ N�CLq, \C i -. — _.........._ 45,IC A.G L Il i • I I I I r; I I , 3 4 Q I I l� t i i ' TOP OF ;N1 MU ENGLOSLFE ly +I i 13267165. - a' t - -; � - __ — _ _ � — _ - _ -[ FUTJRE T _ 1 � -_ _ 1 _ 00.00 ALL :�.,... 4 TORE cRAOE u .. m __ _ 3sz1:1 • � �� ... TOP IF "1 EK15RNG GRACE -SUNG CUNE, V % ELEVATION GRADES BASED OFF FUTURE SITE 'MPROVEMEMS BY DEVELOPER. FAST ELEVATION SCALE; n l n 3/) s " =V_O, RA lelhry Roma d dsNxiol6f, Ina kF[Io.0 & ioNconmunlo:lu +s 3 Sa Iaapuln Far:, SPIN IS5 Newwl NO. CaW"I 91660 'hone. 1919' 111 -7"I 60 av: 9d9� i-197'' PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE FEE ORNA 'III CONTAINED N TNS SE IF CONSIRCEPON OUCUISd3 IS PROPRERRY EY NA E� AN" USE OR DEC!ME OTTER WIN THAT WHICH RELATS TO A.T &T NGEIL!TY IS STRIC PROHIGI - E0, HIPP — µ¢u TCk c,RF T A M. at &t 4,Z1 Rmc-d Deaa PI,osontan, Colifornio 94538 !8rRW4.S R ENG'NEEE OAT: STE A.C. & ECIIING DAT FcsS o8 CM CAT_ AT &T CM .. LA T6 %111 "'El. ndi' NOVEMBER DRIVE T AU'IBER CN3242 A RESULT WAY COPER9N0 CALEIRNN 35014 SANTA Cu 4 CIOTIE LEMI!NG WES 12/10/fS PREIMNARY ZO FE41EN (FI) CE /08/05 DESIGN .NAVGE (P2; C. /02 /CS FIAAL IDS (P3) [1 /2 /IC STE REMOVE I ") [5/10,/1[ INC. ID$ {P5) C5 /21 /IC .OEM COIINENTS'6) CE /10 /IC COENI GONNENIS IW) CB /16 /IC PANHNG CBMoIR ( [8/27/1[ TENT COHNENT ?9) [8;71/10 R S ANT : N9 COUNT (PIG) RAS P' VISION LTIEL 16 SHEa ITTLL EAST ELEVATION J Title Report #1 ,'INS, RI'. TEST III FIGS "OP111 lorl o R14 1 s s Ili 1 1. 11 II Legal Description ; A j FS , F, N TO F ING IGNIA i'VA fm9nA A A 11 ;R NA OF G AA) IF )UPRISE AS ADJOIN P R C S I STI AA 14 N; C PRO LOT FIT 91 PECO 0SttV }4 AAASDDFOEI NN.' NOS S A NN ILR OES RRN TRO, w LIPS ITINI OAP YS n[. P u COOAICI IP11, 1 ,199NTELA4N Of NASAIr6 P 01AR Nor V r R 5 ISO IH EST OOMNI II 1 o c a -P '4 "' MIN RU ACT 1c [ IT OA r r F IF SAN i NNR SO n N Rr S NOT 1LIA' - [ MINIS ED AS AS. N N ' SR 3 04fEL S A if R[SIER "g IIME aA) - IORTiI OI OR RE 941Y IF I 'H 5GI 'AIR LALY SAN P TE OIIOS SE[E[ SAID Sill 652 TP - k -[ AFSTA IIII .N. N J AF51 R.1 f[l RPCE N Y d[ t OF N 11 LAN11 TNC[ IS1 SIT SISZ1N'Y N6 1 f 1 nE OP 1aS Rif [PRNR O fl, N SAIL 1 f f 1.01 T 1 C P LIST ]E fC GO PAR 0 ifff3 [PR P SAO PAif� E.,, A ON IPF 0J -. N 1 AI 4[91 k 0 TR I S C! 0 NN91c m': O R '011i K IS 2 Mr SP➢ N P PNEE A - - ANC Y "RE I;F o. f[OO II l PI.I PP OF 111 FuILO fAN'FI 1 L IZ S 9 0 1B IF NAPS AT _ 12 1,A 1A I Easements #1 q =IN YVEA]SAIIIT7 EWC IS IFOAN F A 47 1 91 2I A,L N4'S. PNI x IRLEI) 3 IJ AEI FOS aSE S3 E AGO 1IhI - I )� FO OO. IGG( 1 : AAES - 2 & � 3 OF AM ( 7' � f - N LC E AN, PfOD.1 r}rl RTE ae�esN a II ', v I.Ao I�- A A PAT IA' ! AN SOO 40 111 ., t:r ESCTT6 HR[111) Title Report #2 RE HO E. I AIIFRI :A. STO n"I'PAP N R1 Legal Description FILPOC N9E 1' OP(EPFR➢], CO - U LP [Alto A CWILA lax }R A AS SGISW III FAI H IP FAI _R MA INCA ON WAS III TOP RR00 PR F - SAN ' A FIT OF ChDISMA C4 -. F 01111 =1.11. Easements 17 E At IS POSIFIKS I PH P rF OI IF SFI[ TAE FRLPI p, Assessors Parcel Nos IS IS S] -A FAR A 3K I1 J, Geographic Coordinates at Proposed Monopine I D PATIOS: LIMIT ]1'19 dlR NACM1O l3E' I I , I, N FN 14 1 [ 11TGA w.. MSHOA A¢JT }A,TN1N 1 FIT O'W NAr HflfVIID I sx01M } FFFR APT dOL9N NII r N1..R Cau °r1 Fxmin9�; Is IF NNa NE um1N RERI Q '.I A OE61'n1IF MO IF m0 630 I O I[TI A 1N. 1= lIC]IY ,E nvl aeRCL III n TIEI wINI AND IU.ltvdl9w IN N rE I INCIfMG IT 'I T„FAST Basis of Bearings C EATSS I. W111IN - ISM I " N. !J). PG., Bench Mara lr SI TIJ, T+AnIM1 FR TOY LL.rFO4 5_1'9[(`1Y)OSi Date of Survey Lease Area Detail r.;c nllR ]lkT 11S N. FIT!, I a3rb:T i r SING xu l -s s I .,sP1a F A ) TI ' , 4 I�13"3TS _ ME 1I.99S p f i 9 I.R3I IN All ITS I u CIS PP �,I A1>RCPOSEO NONOPINE b I•r.rN GFOGAH�P�IC CDOMINS�E9 r;l MIMIC IT pS, A M F RRI Ar C, 11 -1 lO A IN I I IP. 2 IIR` A R,OU 0 A71Fh 0: THEN CAF SPUN AID Fr 641 j7A ASENOF II1 w —_. OA c51XNS ATOP. SSM fT itl, N L 1 1.1; [a6, lILN I ', NEII.E r ffiiP it !Ced�l - �a71ds 1319} I !�" la; rFII NPR h; 1 R P[6N I T I k9 lull .IS ifs Mdtl'WM IF 4 P SOFT) t T I<I A r IT N' A ORI 114 VIS 2 5 F17 DI Ei[T SIT OF FiE a dT ^ I � y951NP fmR 3 GI1R T F EC13[ V FF GNATTE I n I I 1 YSl AT 11 F.EF NFAC EPIT1111 )S OFF IN TO1 l I ,'J x A i llM i 6'4PwP 0 � Ir 5 I S bR 5 Se�Lease w 1 A 1 - PASS 17 IS G I WI � 1 1 n ].,us• 1 1 11 11 1 i 1 I v 0,,� LN.SV[A4ki I f0.�R 1P�� ,1 yd 6 1 ) 3 saA t MN:adr J 11, 1 P, 1 1 s apVgD.,� s,• w•�� z 1 x „N m — �f 9 — IF 1 � r.IrN.r = I ➢Slrt r - - - -- s 7t ��•�' '. ` ICI - I ,9IR4 hIS II Or Access Route 1 1I REM A 1117 h xcrr - 11 TAIR LRll AS 0IS VSO AOLS[) C - ITT I III ' _ ,•JNre —� ) lEV FOE[ 11 MI Ai REV II C. 0911 R lit NI11 A,ILN S GAP AS 1L0 r:P RR CU A TO Cr GO I '.r IF III SITER IF SAAA SIGN 11 IN Pi + %S IN I.CI ASS f TPYL A PAL 17 N DI RP S 14 120F 7D I )5f9C /// �___ L f' M Y L IL OF2 d NE OA Gt 4” I d A R AT FIN [SCJTF YCO3L A SA] PARCH SA1 IN rT9, 01, - 4rI111 PASS$Or 1[a RADIAL L.II 6 9S K ORE\ hEf RRV[Tiv I G q _______ P I , ! : A arunma - wu ul• IS 11G ITS P. A C11 L4141E IF 1 'I NO .1 — J 02, 'Ltl I I - 1 E NEIRE 3aN 14 I I11FKL S Di I IEI HILL III OILY ]1] IFF ➢JICr REST. SIrI doVFF - N cA Ill ifJ n - ILI " , P[ A OFT LV00 Y SI:F. I1 I A I' USf,PL IB3't ,d [ I 8.1111: y A y ^Id Lease Area a I L MIMIC IT pS, A M F RRI Ar C, 11 -1 lO A IN I I 2 IIR` A R,OU 0 A71Fh 0: THEN CAF SPUN AID Fr 641 j7A ASENOF II1 w —_. OA c51XNS ATOP. SSM fT itl, N L 1 1.1; [a6, lILN I ', NEII.E FPI M 114, n, 4.,NL" �a71ds 1319} I !�" la; 6cA IAU— 1 h; R Utility Route k9 lull .IS ifs Mdtl'WM IF 4 P SOFT) t T I<I A r IT N' A ORI 114 VIS 2 5 F17 DI Ei[T SIT OF FiE a I I - I fmR 3 GI1R T F EC13[ V FF GNATTE I n I I L ounA. —111 �r'S hSifC �L aOil7R; 11 YSl AT 11 F.EF NFAC EPIT1111 )S OFF IN TO1 l I ,'J x A i llM i 6'4PwP w 1. APd s1yt� mI I JOE I I I 1 J 11 i 1� , r 16[ Legend � Is PIGS 7 V XP AA,,gAE )AID KTSr1161iLX1 RAU �h • Tir °I�kyEAr A IRfE Fill !E d=d11TM "U <f Plx 1 IG� E EN r 1 WE , rLI I�S��A� t Y I CH h Mk xcI 4L 6 a nIS<rrwER s cL a nlrs �)� X 1.2 0 " o- u� r j AA ,, , GO or F SA C v , Is 5 RA T pP ' ar , L11 ERIA 1, :L'E nN' 1'ALNI J I IC O NO isIFROGFGN� Rao I I Im I a I 411 JRA FIR) ' k NOW tH 11, N�hlls�l rI 4 r11A.T 1J11I 7io l pl Pl SI IS Aua�'I 3 ] E If .76.0 P FAA: 191 ( 0 973 94 0 19.11 PROPRIETARY INFORIIATIOI IF =oSAl TO ECFNIFLE IN IFG SC 5 [9V T LCTON 0GN 1 S PROPTr. 7 R,T use OR IS LC CF THAI I V Vu 7 F T[ TO ATILT SD91L7 Is STRI PRO'] E CORSJUAR' CAL — SURVEYING INC. All W f U W IPJ99 ) - -•II ,A I S IS °4rLN Mw 00 o lei= E 9451 MfRfNI,_ R DATE W, 9012041' 7d6 L. RC5509 ',1'. 146 5T CN VIE CWV P A :ArE IN7JEE' FIVE NOV_M9ER ORIV- adml FLNIFR 3242 A "JP RP O 4 9'cI SAN1AWAMN, UST USTF CE FIP IV L'. 2 /10 P JNA Y AY PS 1 10 IIT RF R PAS _ /'I / O ALL SS F� IF ,T 1, CAT_ CAF SFF- T= TOPOCRA'FIC SUR's C-1 Boundary Detail K9r LIFT' j7A ASENOF II1 w —_. OA c51XNS L oa' u s oi:du I +r:' Y �a71ds 1319} I !�" la; 6cA IAU— 1 h; R k9 lull .IS ifs Mdtl'WM IF 4 P SOFT) t T I<I A r IT 1 a I I - I fmR . LePPI' L ounA. —111 �r'S hSifC �L aOil7R; 11 ax d OL'It I I AVENUE li' ya0 ¢v',,g97 "41 care sr '� �I� R,t �.PR. GRAPHIC SCALE w 1. APd s1yt� mI o ro [ Se�Lease w 1 OreaLDetall _ WI � 1 1 n ].,us• 1 1 11 11 1 i 1 I v 0,,� 1 1, 11 1P�� ,1 � P 1 11 E ) " 4'ROPO40 a71t s va; P , mwnuT4E A.rss sN.'¢ J 11, 1 P, 1 I 1 J 11 i 1� , r 16[ Legend � Is PIGS 7 V XP AA,,gAE )AID KTSr1161iLX1 RAU �h • Tir °I�kyEAr A IRfE Fill !E d=d11TM "U <f Plx 1 IG� E EN r 1 WE , rLI I�S��A� t Y I CH h Mk xcI 4L 6 a nIS<rrwER s cL a nlrs �)� X 1.2 0 " o- u� r j AA ,, , GO or F SA C v , Is 5 RA T pP ' ar , L11 ERIA 1, :L'E nN' 1'ALNI J I IC O NO isIFROGFGN� Rao I I Im I a I 411 JRA FIR) ' k NOW tH 11, N�hlls�l rI 4 r11A.T 1J11I 7io l pl Pl SI IS Aua�'I 3 ] E If .76.0 P FAA: 191 ( 0 973 94 0 19.11 PROPRIETARY INFORIIATIOI IF =oSAl TO ECFNIFLE IN IFG SC 5 [9V T LCTON 0GN 1 S PROPTr. 7 R,T use OR IS LC CF THAI I V Vu 7 F T[ TO ATILT SD91L7 Is STRI PRO'] E CORSJUAR' CAL — SURVEYING INC. All W f U W IPJ99 ) - -•II ,A I S IS °4rLN Mw 00 o lei= E 9451 MfRfNI,_ R DATE W, 9012041' 7d6 L. RC5509 ',1'. 146 5T CN VIE CWV P A :ArE IN7JEE' FIVE NOV_M9ER ORIV- adml FLNIFR 3242 A "JP RP O 4 9'cI SAN1AWAMN, UST USTF CE FIP IV L'. 2 /10 P JNA Y AY PS 1 10 IIT RF R PAS _ /'I / O ALL SS F� IF ,T 1, CAT_ CAF SFF- T= TOPOCRA'FIC SUR's C-1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3227 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Loan and Repayment Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action A. Redevelopment Agency action - Adopt Resolution No. 11 -01 B. City Council action - Adopt Resolution No. 11- Description Adopt corresponding resolutions authorizing the City and Agency to enter into the Agreement. Discussion In order to receive property taxes, State law requires that the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA) file an annual report showing the obligations of the RDA. RDA obligations consists of City advance funding of RDA expenditures, low and moderate income housing fund contributions, State payments, property taxes passed - through to local jurisdictions, and tax reassessments due back to taxpayers. The RDA can pay back the City after the property taxes are received. The RDA finances the Vallco project area's public improvements and administrative programs described in the redevelopment implementation plan. The implementation plan includes public infrastructure improvements such as construction and installation of street modifications, access ramps, drainage facilities, and street trees in the Vallco project area. Vallco Shopping Mall has not been able to move forward with the construction of these improvements due mainly to the economic recession. These infrastructure improvements are within the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency boundaries and meet redevelopment law criteria regarding funding of public infrastructure. In order to provide a potential catalyst to development in the Redevelopment area, the City and RDA could finance the public improvements at the Mall with the RDA reimbursing the City for any advancement of funds. Staff will provide a supplemental staff report to the Council regarding the infrastructure improvements by February 11, 2011. 412 The City General Fund will advance $650,000 toward public infrastructure improvements in 2010 -11 with the RDA reimbursing the General Fund once the taxes are received this fiscal year. The RDA has a $350,000 tax roll reassessment obligation which the General Fund can carry until the RDA receives and pays back the tax by next year. Lastly, RDA has $252,000 in 2010 -11 administrative costs (including contract and legal costs) that the General Fund is fronting and which the RDA will reimburse with taxes later this year. The total of these is $1,252,000. To formally document the arrangement, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency and the City execute a Loan and Repayment Agreement. Redevelopment counsel recommended this routine procedure to support annual reporting requirements. Fiscal Impact Executing the Agreement allows the RDA to receive $1,252,000 in property taxes in fiscal year 2010 -11. The City General Fund currently budgeted $500,000 for RDA advances, but can increase the advance to $1,252,000 using undesignated reserves. It is anticipated that the Agency will pay back the advances after the taxes are received. Prepared by: David Woo, Finance Director Reviewed by. Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager and RDA Executive Director Attachments: Redevelopment Agency Resolution City Council Resolution Loan and Repayment Agreement 413 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE A LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO (CITY) AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (AGENCY) WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and carrying out necessary redevelopment projects within the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "); and WHEREAS, to assist with the Agency's implementation of the redevelopment program in the Project Area, the Agency and the City desire to enter into a Loan and Repayment Agreement (the "Agreement ", on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary) in which the City agrees to provide staff services to the Agency, to construct improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under specified circumstances and to address tax roll reassessment liability issues, subject to reimbursement by the Agency as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law "), before the Agency can expend money for public improvements, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33445; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, the Agency is authorized, with the consent of the City Council to pay for part, or all, of the costs of public improvements that are of benefit to the Project Area; and WHEREAS, no other reasonable means of financing the estimated cost of the public improvements are available to the City or the community; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based. 394 \01 \942281.2 414 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency as follows: 1. In compliance with Section 33445 of the Law, the Agency hereby finds that: (a) the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned are of benefit to the Project Area by helping to eliminate blight within the Project Area or providing housing for low- or moderate - income persons; (b) no other reasonable means of financing the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned are available to the community; and (c) the appropriation and payment of funds by the Agency for the cost of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned is consistent with the Agency's current Implementation Plan. 2. The Agency hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the Agency Chairperson to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency, substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the Agency signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the Agency signatory. The Agency Executive Director is authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement. 3. The Agency hereby approves and appropriates (to the extent not already appropriated) the amounts necessary to fund the Agency's obligations under the Agreement as a lawful expenditure of Agency funds under the Law. The Agency's current fiscal year budget is hereby amended to the extent necessary to implement the foregoing appropriation. 4. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agency's obligations pursuant to this Resolution and the Agreement. 5. The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 2 394 \01 \942281.2 415 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Redevelopment Agency YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary, City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Chairperson, City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 394 \01 \942281.2 416 RESOLUTION NO. It- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO (CITY) AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (AGENCY) WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and carrying out necessary redevelopment projects within the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "); and WHEREAS, to assist with the Agency's implementation of the redevelopment program in the Project Area, the Agency and the City desire to enter into a Loan and Repayment Agreement (the "Agreement ", on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary) in which the City agrees to provide staff services to the Agency, to construct improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under specified circumstances and to address tax roll reassessment liability issues, subject to reimbursement by the Agency as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law "), before the Agency can expend money for public improvements, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33445; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, the Agency is authorized, with the consent of the City Council to pay for part, or all, of the costs of public improvements that are of benefit to the Project Area; and WHEREAS, no other reasonable means of financing the estimated cost of the public improvements are available to the City or the community; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based. 394 \01 \942280.2 417 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 1. In compliance with Section 33445 of the Law, the City hereby finds that: (a) the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned are of benefit to the Project Area by helping to eliminate blight within the Project Area or providing housing for low- or moderate - income persons; (b) no other reasonable means of financing the installation or construction of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned are available to the community; and (c) the appropriation and payment of funds by the Agency for the cost of the public improvements listed in the Agreement that are publicly owned is consistent with the Agency's current Implementation Plan. 2. The City hereby approves the Agreement, consents to the Agency's expenditures under the Agreement and authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the City, substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the City signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the City signatory. The City Manager is authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the City's obligations pursuant to this Resolution and the Agreement. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 2 394 \01 \942280.2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Cupertino 3 394 \01 \942280.2 419 ":• IW0 Mayor, City of Cupertino LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT The following is a Loan and Repayment Agreement, dated February 15, 2011, by and between the City of Cupertino (the "City ") and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency "). WITNESSETH A. WHEREAS, the City and the Agency caused the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan "); and B. WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility for formulating and carrying out necessary redevelopment projects within the City and implementing the Redevelopment Plan; and C. WHEREAS, the parties desire to contract for the City to provide staff services to the Agency and to construct improvements of benefit to the redevelopment program under specified circumstances, subject to reimbursement by the Agency as provided in this Agreement; and D. WHEREAS, the City and the Agency are each ready and willing to assume the relationship described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and the Agency, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained do agree as follows: PURPOSES The purposes of this Agreement are: a. To establish a mechanism for reimbursement of specified future administrative costs incurred by the City in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "), as more fully set forth in Section 3. b. To provide a mechanism for reimbursement of specified future public works improvement costs or other costs related to implementing the Redevelopment Plan incurred by the City in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Project Area or related to tax roll actions by the County, as more fully set forth in Section 4. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period beginning as of the date first above written and continuing until all repayment and reimbursement obligations of the Agency to the City are satisfied in full in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. c:Adocume —1 \graces \locals —1 \temp \loan and repayment agreement.docx 420 REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS The Agency agrees to reimburse the City for all administrative costs incurred by the City in furtherance of the redevelopment program for the Project Area (the "Administrative Costs "). Such Administrative Costs may include, but are not limited to, costs to the City for consulting services, legal services, City staff time and other related administrative expenses. The City and Agency shall, at the end of each fiscal year, set forth in a schedule to be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A the amount of such Administrative Costs incurred by the City for the applicable fiscal year. The Agency shall thereupon become indebted to reimburse the City for such Administrative Costs. This debt shall bear no interest, and shall be repayable as provided in Section 5. 4. REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER COSTS The City may incur costs for public improvements in the Project Area on behalf of the Agency. In addition, the City may incur costs for other activities related to implementation of the Redevelopment Plan or related to tax roll actions by the County. These costs shall become a debt of the Agency and shall be set forth in an Exhibit B , which shall be attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. These costs shall bear no interest, and shall be repayable as provided in Section 5. Such Exhibit B shall specify the date from which the Agency's reimbursement obligation to the City shall begin to bear interest. 5. REPAYMENT TERMS, SUBORDINATION Each repayment or reimbursement obligation of the Agency pursuant to this Agreement shall be repayable solely from tax increment funds, if any, generated within the Project Area. It is understood that if tax increment funds from the Project Area fail to yield sufficient revenue to pay the repayment or reimbursement obligations of the Agency under this Agreement, the Agency is under no obligation to make such repayment or reimbursement to the extent tax increment funds are insufficient. It is agreed by the parties hereto that all repayments and reimbursements to the City pursuant to this Agreement are hereby subordinated to any and all payments necessary to satisfy existing debt of the Agency and to any and all payments necessary to satisfy the Agency's obligations in connection with any existing or future bonded indebtedness or obligation which may be incurred by the Agency for the benefit of the redevelopment program or to the extent necessary for any bonded indebtedness for which the Agency has pledged as a security or source of repayment tax increment generated within the Project Area. 6. VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT If any provisions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, party, transaction, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to other persons, parties, transactions or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. 2 c:Adocume —1 \graces \locals —1 \temp \loan and repayment agreement.docx 421 CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IM Chairperson City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CITY OF CUPERTINO City Manager City of Cupertino Approved as to form: City Attorney c:Adocume —1 \graces \locals —1 \temp \loan and repayment agreement.docx 422 EXHIBIT A TO LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: LOAN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Fiscal Year Loan Proceeds Interest Due Payments Made Loan Balance 2010/11 252,000 - - 252,000 EXHIBIT B TO LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CUPERTINO AND CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: LOAN FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER COSTS Fiscal Year I Loan Proceeds I Purpose Interest Due Payments Made I Loan Balance Public 2010/11 650,000 Improvements - - 650,000 Tax roll 2010/11 350,000 reassessment 350,000 4 c:Adocume —1 \graces \locals —1 \temp \loan and repayment agreement.docx 423 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPERTIN CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 15, 2011 Subs ect Agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (Trust), the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the City of Cupertino (City) for the use of housing funds. Recommended Action Action of City of Cupertino RDA: 1. Adopt the Draft Resolution a. Approving an Agreement between the RDA and the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County to allocate $1,000,000 from RDA Housing set -aside funds. b. Directing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino RDA. 2. Increase RDA Housing set -aside fund expenditure budget by $1,000,000. Action of City of Cupertino: 1. Adopt the Draft Resolution a. Approving an Agreement between the City and the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County allocating $1,000,000. b. Directing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement between the the Housing Trust of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino RDA. Description Discuss an opportunity to fund the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County out of the RDA Housing Set - Aside. Discussion Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the City of Cupertino and Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA), 25% of the City of Cupertino's RDA tax increment must be set -aside for affordable housing. There is currently $1,005,000 in the housing set -aside fund available for affordable housing. To date, the RDA has not allocated any funding for affordable housing projects. The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County has requested funding from the City of Cupertino RDA to serve Cupertino residents. Money that is invested in the Housing Trust is highly leveraged. Over the past ten years, the City of Cupertino has granted the Trust $350,000 which 424 the Trust has reinvested in Cupertino by more than double. Since 2001, the Trust has invested $38 million and leveraged over $1 billion in County of Santa Clara housing projects and programs. Below are a list of just some of the programs that the Housing Trust offers to Cupertino residents and non - profit developers: • Developer Loans (i.e., Senior Housing Solutions, Habitat for Humanity, Maitri, etc.) • First Time Homebuyer Programs — including down payment assistance, equity share, or closing cost loans; and • Homeless Prevention — assistance to the local homeless population through agencies such as West Valley Community Services. Staff believes that investing the $1,000,000 with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County would not only be a multi -year investment that would benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of affordable housing throughout the City of Cupertino but would also leverage additional funds that could be spent in the community. Findings In order to utilize RDA funds outside of the Vallco project area the City and the RDA must make findings in the resolutions detailing why it is a hardship to provide affordable housing inside the project area. In the case of the Vallco Project Area, there are limited residential sites on which to provide affordable housing. There are only two existing vacant parcels in the redevelopment area. One of them does not have housing allowed as a use under the General Plan and was a subject of a referendum that has reversed City Council approval of a housing project. The other currently serves as parking for the existing Vallco Mall. For these reasons, it makes sense to provide the affordable housing outside the project area within the City, where sufficient residentially zoned land exists and is in relatively close proximity to the redevelopment area. Fiscal Impact The RDA currently has $1,890,000 in reserves, with $1,005,000 in the housing set -aside fund and $885,000 in redevelopment project area funds. The $1,000,000 would come from the housing set -aside fund. Prepared by. Vera Gil, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development; Carol Korade, City Attorney; David Woo, Finance Manager, Kelly Kline, Economic Development & Redevelopment Manager Approved for Submission by. David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: Draft agreement between the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Attachment B: Draft RDA Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement Attachment C: Draft City Council Resolution approving the Affordable Housing Agreement 425 ATTACHMENT A AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE CUPERTINO VALLCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA This Affordable Housing Agreement (the "Agreement ") is for purposes of funding affordable housing projects and programs to be developed and /or administered by the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the "Trust "), and is entered into as of February 15, 2011 by and among the Trust, the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (the "City ") and the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Agency "), on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: RECITALS A. Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et sec..; the "Redevelopment Law "), the City Council of the City has adopted and the Agency is responsible for implementing the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan ") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "). B. To assist in implementing the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has adopted a five (5) -year implementation plan (the "Implementation Plan ") pursuant to Section 33490 of the Redevelopment Law. C. The Agency and the City are parties to a Settlement Agreement, dated as of January 22, 2002, relative to Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CV793260, under which the Agency agreed to meet certain affordable housing obligations which are more stringent than otherwise required under the Redevelopment Law, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement "). D. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.2 and 33334.3 and the Settlement Agreement, the Agency has the obligation to establish a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund ") and to expend monies in the Housing Fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of housing available at affordable housing cost to low and moderate income households, lower income households, very low income households, and extremely low income households. E. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33125, the Agency has authority to execute contracts necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. F. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33220(e), the City is authorized to enter into this Agreement to assist the Agency in performing powers and obligations under the Redevelopment Law. 394\01\941447.4 426 G. The tasks the Trust has agreed to undertake under this Agreement support the Trust's corporate purposes and mission. H. The Agency desires to contract with the Trust to provide Housing Funds to the Trust for use by the Trust to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing in the Project Area or within the territorial jurisdiction of the City, consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Law, the Settlement Agreement, the Implementation Plan, and the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Cupertino (the "Housing Element "). I. The Housing Element includes an assessment of the existing and projected housing needs of the community, including the City's regional fair share allocation of the regional housing need. The housing needs assessment in the Housing Element in effect as of the date of this Agreement indicates a need in the City for 171 housing units affordable to extremely low income households, 148 housing units affordable to very low income households, 213 housing units affordable to lower income households, and 185 housing units affordable to moderate income households, after accounting for units approved for construction. J. The parties desire that the Agency will provide Housing Fund monies to the Trust for the Trust to utilize to finance Housing Fund - eligible activities to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the territorial jurisdiction of the City, consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Law, the Implementation Plan, the Settlement Agreement and the Housing Element, as they currently exist or as they may be amended from time to time. K. The parties have set forth in Exhibit B attached to and incorporated in this Agreement by this reference, a list of potential projects and programs that the Trust may undertake utilizing funds provided pursuant to this Agreement. Exhibit B in its entirety is referred to in this Agreement as the "Affordable Housing Plan" and the projects and programs listed in the Affordable Housing Plan from time to time are referred to individually as an "Affordable Housing Project" or "Affordable Housing Program ", as applicable, and collectively as the "Affordable Housing Projects and Programs." The Affordable Housing Plan set forth in Exhibit B is subject to modification as provided in Section 2.2. L. The Affordable Housing Projects and Programs are consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, the Settlement Agreement, the Housing Element and the Implementation Plan. Implementation of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs will benefit the Project Area and will assist in the elimination of blight in the Project Area and the provision of affordable housing in the community. The use of funds as provided in this Agreement is authorized by the Redevelopment Law, and the Agency and City Council have made all findings required under the Redevelopment Law for such use. M. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), 2 394\01\941447.4 427 because this Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism for various affordable housing projects and programs, but does not commit funds to any specific project or program, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed prior to the commencement of any Affordable Housing Project or Affordable Housing Program listed in the Affordable Housing Plan contained in Exhibit B . N. The City will provide on -going monitoring and provide all required reporting requirements to the State of California. O. By approving and entering into this Agreement, the Agency has pledged a portion of the tax increment revenue from the Project Area to fund the Affordable Housing Plan. The obligations set forth in this Agreement are contractual obligations that, if breached, will subject the parties to damages or other liabilities or remedies. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Trust, the City and the Agency agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 AGENCY GRANT Section 1.1 Agency Grant Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Agency hereby grants to the Trust, and the Trust hereby accepts from the Agency, a grant (the "Grant ") in an annual amount not to exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 1.2 (a) and (b) for the applicable fiscal year. The Trust shall use the Grant to complete the Affordable Housing Plan as further provided in Article 2. Section 1.2 Grant Source The sources of the Grant from the Agency to the Trust consist of: (a) All funds currently held by the Agency in the Housing Fund and not previously encumbered by binding contract for other activities, projects, or programs, in the amount One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for fiscal year 2010 -11 (the "Available Funds "); and (b) All future tax increment revenue allocated to, made available to, or otherwise received by the Agency or any Successor, to the extent such tax increment revenue (1) is or would be required pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, the Settlement Agreement and the Redevelopment Law in effect as of the date of this Agreement to be deposited in the Housing Fund, and (2) is available to the Agency or Successor after the Agency or Successor makes all necessary annual payments required to be made with Housing Fund monies with respect to then existing debt obligations of the Agency, including, without limitation, bonded indebtedness and written agreements with other persons or entities, if any, in an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) annually for the next fifteen (15) fiscal years commencing in fiscal year 2011 -12 (the "Pledged Funds "). 3 394\01\941447.4 As used in this Agreement, "tax increment revenue" means and includes taxes allocated to, or made available to, or otherwise received by the Agency or a Successor pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 et sec.. or other provision of the Redevelopment Law, or pursuant to any applicable constitutional provision, statute, or other provision of law now existing or adopted in the future to pay the debts and obligations of the Agency. As used in this Agreement, "Successor" includes any lawful successor of the Agency, and /or any lawful successor to any powers and rights of the Agency, pursuant to any applicable constitutional provision, statute or other provision of law now existing or adopted in the future. Section 1.3 Payment Procedure The Agency shall pay the Available Funds to the Trust within sixty (60) days of the date of this Agreement. The Agency shall pay the Pledged Funds to the Trust within sixty (60) days after receipt of each installment of tax increment revenue in an amount equal to the portion of such tax increment revenue constituting Pledged Funds. Until needed to fund an Affordable Housing Project or Affordable Housing Program, the Trust shall invest all Grant funds received from the Agency in an investment vehicle acceptable to all parties, and shall apply all interest earned thereon toward the cost of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs. Section 1.4 Indebtedness of the Agency The obligation of the Agency to pay the Grant funds from the sources set forth in Section 1.2 to the Trust pursuant to this Agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency incurred in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan and a pledge of tax increment revenue received by the Agency or Successor from the Project Area to repay such indebtedness under the provisions of Article XVI, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of California, the Redevelopment Law, and the Redevelopment Plan, or under any applicable constitutional provision, statute, or other provision of law now existing or adopted in the future. Section 1.5 Subordination The parties agree that the obligation of the Agency to make payments pursuant to this Agreement is subordinate to any obligation of the Agency to utilize Housing Fund monies to pay debt service on tax increment bonds, or any other loans or agreements, heretofore or hereafter issued and secured by a pledge of and a lien upon tax increment revenue generated by the Agency in the Project Area and required by Redevelopment Law and Settlement Agreement to be deposited in the Agency's Housing Fund. ARTICLE 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Section 2.1 Use of Grant and Term The Trust shall use the Grant exclusively for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of housing available at affordable housing cost to low and moderate income households, lower income households, very low income households, and extremely low income households in accordance with the requirements of the Redevelopment Law, the 4 394\01\941447.4 429 Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Trust shall use the Grant to pay any costs which are eligible Housing Fund costs pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 et seq. including without limitation eligible costs of the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs shown in the Affordable Housing Plan and reasonable staff, consultant and other administrative costs in connection therewith (provided that administrative expenses will not exceed three percent (3 %) annually unless modified pursuant to Section 2.4). In addition, the Trust understands and agrees that the Grant funds shall not pay for more than fifty percent (50 %) of the total development costs for any Affordable Housing Project. The Trust shall expend the Grant funds and undertake the Affordable Housing Plan in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, laws and regulations related to the permissible uses of Housing Fund monies, monitoring of housing assisted with Housing Funds, statutorily- required findings by the Agency Board and City Council, where applicable, prior to expenditures of Housing Funds, payment of prevailing wages (to the extent applicable), non - discrimination, and all applicable requirements of the Redevelopment Law, the Housing Element and the Settlement Agreement. The Trust further understands and agrees that each Affordable Housing Project funded with Grant proceeds must be subject to a restriction regulating certain of the units in the project to affordable housing cost for specified income levels, in a form to be provided and recorded by the Agency or its Successor, and effective for forty -five (45) years for ownership housing and fifty -five (55) years for rental housing. The Trust shall use the Grant funds for the various Affordable Housing Projects and Programs by not later than the earlier of (a) fifteen (15) years from the date of this Agreement, which date may be extended by written agreement of all the parties in the same manner as provided for modification of the Affordable Housing Plan as set forth in Section 2.2; and (b) the deadline for effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Effectiveness Deadline "), as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan (the "Term "). Within ninety (90) days following the City's fiscal year end (June 30 throughout the Term of this Agreement, the Trust agrees to provide the Agency and the City annual reports regarding the amount of Grant funds unused to date, interest earned on Grant funds during that preceding fiscal year and information on the use of the Grant funds to date with specific details as reasonably requested by the City as needed for any reports required under the Redevelopment Law or the Settlement Agreement. Section 2.2 Consultation; Modification of Improvement Plan The parties shall confer periodically to establish priorities and timing for funding and completion of the various Affordable Housing Projects and Programs, to review the scope and design of each Affordable Housing Project and Program, and to determine any mutually acceptable modifications in the cost estimates and budgets for the various Affordable Housing Projects and Programs. The parties may modify the Affordable Housing Plan from time to time: to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds; to account for unexpected revenues, whether greater or lesser; to modify, add, or delete an Affordable Housing Project or Program from the Affordable Housing Plan; to modify the cost estimate for individual Affordable Housing Projects and Programs; to maintain consistency with the City's General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan and the Settlement Agreement; or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances, including without limitation circumstances that may come to light as a result of subsequent environmental 5 394\01\941447.4 430 review required by CEQA, as further described in Section 2.3. The Affordable Housing Plan may be modified by the Executive Director on behalf of the Trust, the City Manager on behalf of the City and the Executive Director on behalf of the Agency; provided, however, in no event shall the total Grant to be paid by the Agency to the Trust exceed the Maximum Grant Amount without a formal amendment of this Agreement approved by the Trust's board of directors, the City Council and the Agency Board; and, provided further, however, that any addition of any Affordable Housing Project or Program to the Affordable Housing Plan shall be conditioned upon the making of all required Redevelopment Law findings and CEQA findings by the City Council and the Agency Board in their policy discretion. Section 2.3 CEQA Review Prior to the approval, use of Grant funds, and commencement of construction of any Affordable Housing Project or the implementation of any Affordable Housing Program (other than preliminary feasibility work that is exempt from the requirements of CEQA), all necessary environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed. All Affordable Housing Projects and Programs to be funded with Grant funds from the Agency pursuant to this Agreement must be consistent with CEQA. This Agreement in no way limits the discretion of the Planning Commission, the Agency, and City Council in completing environmental review of the Affordable Housing Projects. Section 2.4 Payment of Fees The City shall provide any ongoing monitoring of Affordable Housing Projects and the Trust's activities under this Agreement, consultations regarding the Affordable Housing Plan and Programs under this Agreement, and all reporting to the State of California as required under the Redevelopment Law for as long as required under the Redevelopment Law, or any successor provisions of law. The Trust shall pay the City an administration fee of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each of fiscal years 2011 -12 and 2012 -13 to cover these services. The Trust and the City may mutually agree in the future to additional administrative fees or other payments to be paid to the Trust or to the City, to the extent warranted at such times. Section 2.5 Ongoing Trust Obligations The Trust shall be responsible for ongoing administration of the Housing Funds comprising the Grant. The Agency's grant and the Trust's acceptance of the Grant shall not imply any ownership or responsibility for the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs by the Agency or the City. Section 2.6 Indemnity The Trust shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Agency, the City and their officers, board members, council members, agents, and employees, harmless against all claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, expenses, including without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, or liabilities made against them which arise out of, or in connection with the Affordable Housing Projects and Programs; provided, however, that this indemnity shall not extend to any claim arising solely from the Agency's or City's negligence or the Agency's or City's negligent failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 6 394\01\941447.4 431 ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 3.1 Notices, Demands and Communications Formal notices, demands, and communications among the parties shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless, dispatched by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by an express delivery service with a receipt showing date of delivery, or hand delivered with a receipt showing date of delivery, to the principal offices of the parties as follows: Agency: City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn: Executive Director City: City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn: City Manager Trust: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County 95 S. Market St, Suite 610 San Jose, CA 95113 Attn: Executive Director Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as the affected party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. Delivery shall be deemed to have occurred at the time indicated on the receipt for delivery or refusal of delivery. Section 3.2 Relationship of Parties Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be interpreted or understood by any of the parties, or by any third persons, as creating the relationship of employer and employee, principal and agent, limited or general partnership, or joint venture among the Agency, the City and the Trust or its agents, employees or contractors, and the Trust shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which it or its agents, or both, perform the services required of it by the terms of this Agreement. The Trust has and retains the right to exercise full control of employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons assisting in the performance of services under the Agreement. The Trust shall be solely responsible for all matters relating to payment of its employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding, and all other laws and regulations governing such matters, and shall be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its agents and employees. Section 3.3 No Claims Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or justify any claim against the Agency or the City by any person that the Trust may have 7 394\01\941447.4 432 employed or with whom the Trust may have contracted with respect to the Affordable Housing Projects. Section 3.4 Non - Liability of Officials No member, official, employee or agent of the Agency or the City shall be personally liable to the Trust or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Agency or City for any amount which may become due to the Trust or successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Agreement. Section 3.5 Actions of the Parties Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, whenever this Agreement calls for or permits a party's approval, consent, or waiver, the written approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency's Executive Director, the City's City Manager and the Trust's Executive Director (or their respective designees) shall constitute the approval, consent, or waiver of the Agency, City and the Trust, respectively, without further authorization required from the governing board of the party; provided, however, that the person vested with such authority may seek such further advice or authorization from the applicable governing board when she /he deems it appropriate. Section 3.6 Nondiscrimination (a) In Performance of Agreement The Trust and its contractors, subcontractors, agents, and employees shall not, because of the race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, age, or disability of any person, refuse to hire or employ the person, or refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment with respect to performance of this Agreement. (b) With Respect to Use of the Affordable Housing Projects The Trust covenants by and for itself and its successors and assigns that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, age, or disability in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Affordable Housing Projects and programs. Section 3.7 Discretion Retained The City's execution of this Agreement in no way limits the discretion of the City in the permit and approval process in connection with development of any Affordable Housing Project. In addition, the Agency retains the right to cease providing funding to the Trust from the source identified in Section 1.2(b) of this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other parties and provided the Trust shall not be required to return any funds previously paid to the Trust under this Agreement, except to the extent required by court order. 8 394\01\941447.4 433 Section 3.8 No Third Party Beneficiaries No person or entity other than the Agency, the City, the Trust and their permitted successors and assigns, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. Section 3.9 State Law This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 3.10 Records The Trust shall maintain complete and accurate financial accounts, documents and records with respect to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, and shall make same available to the Agency's or City's authorized agents for copying and auditing upon reasonable prior notice. Such accounts, documents and records shall be retained by the Trust for ten (10) years following completion of any applicable Affordable Housing Project. Section 3.11 Inspection of Documents During the regular office hours and upon reasonable prior notice, the City and the Agency, by their duly authorized representatives, shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any books, records or reports of the Trust pertaining to this Agreement. Section 3.12 Additional Acts The parties each agree to take such other and additional actions and execute and deliver such other and additional documents as may be reasonably requested by the other party for purposes of consummating the transactions contemplated in this Agreement. Section 3.13 Litigation Regarding Agreement Validity In the event litigation is initiated attacking the validity of this Agreement, each party shall in good faith defend and seek to uphold the Agreement. Section 3.14 Validity of Agreement If any provisions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, party, transaction, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to other persons, parties, transactions, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. Section 3.15 Entire Agreement; Modification and Amendment This Agreement contains all of the agreements and understandings of the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.2, this Agreement cannot be amended or modified except by written agreement of the parties. Section 3.16 Defaults and Remedies If any party breaches any other material provision of this Agreement, one of the other parties shall first notify the breaching party and the other party in writing of the purported breach or failure, giving the breaching party thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cure or, if cure cannot be accomplished within thirty (30) days, to commence to cure such breach, failure, or act. In the event the breaching party does not then so cure within such thirty (30) days, or if the breach or failure is of such a nature that it cannot be cured within thirty (30) days, 9 394\01\941447.4 434 the breaching party fails to commence to cure within such thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently complete such cure within a reasonable time thereafter but in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days, then the non - breaching parties shall be afforded all of their rights at law or in equity, by taking all or any of the following remedies: (a) terminating in writing this Agreement (provided, however, that the indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall survive such termination); (b) return of unused or improperly used Grant funds; and (c) prosecuting an action for damages or specific performance. Section 3.17 Binding Upon Successors This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest and assigns of each of the parties to this Agreement, whether by agreement or operation of law, and including, without limitation, any Successor to the Agency. Any reference in this Agreement to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, or under law. Section 3.18 Time Of The Essence Time is of the essence in the performance of all duties and obligations under this Agreement. 10 394\01\941447.4 435 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date set forth in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGECNY Approved as to Form Agency Counsel Chairperson CITY OF CUPERTINO Approved as to Form City Attorney , City Manager 394\01\941447.4 HOUSING TRUST OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY , Executive Director 11 436 EXHIBIT A Ust, ant 1 =401 InwNs AL kwhoull RdkvAAWM Avow Ups M"Mynne ad PM4 Or Au Pgaw WAVE, a d qQ AMA M* � � r eee mac, PA S,1 's'i' PAXg hdq sypMej AMA *1 'vwwow ' S #' Man$ 14L 1 AID by lit CA%q=;eQW0 iatl & =l1i - M. A" 1� mm. 1AMP& Adg*M w WA ja IM MOMM A -1 394\01\941447.4 437 %HUD"= PW ft. P?*U% vWx it bmem a WWIT" QAxamok Rwowspen top hmmmg pRd aNkla nrj*pgAMA Mika a4vwj'�W S • �e�1 V) � � � kRY dux 4"1 �!^� � ^4i nl�P 9�."'�`�[' Aomangm months; .gym lWavi ,V mWev 1k & AD ; , armho On MY ANA Wax 8§Wxt 110 1 Me mmus" "Atalev any 11 01MM54"na ,�y¢�• 5 T . 1P k . to ON fWANzag AWW;MW gWA k " AU M4 0110.1 1 nvao dw audit lady id4un rP to g area s A -2 394\01\941447.4 EMN 0 r WMAKWU SwWWO W WAIROW lumum A e tm vmov? buggammi- IRWWa 00' 1; Wh 6 mb& amelmis U ym" Om sum Ou ".& W% xf ft- 4994 �' kvmm k "' , - tir T=*mm N8 b} ' ;&AVOUVRx iU &&OAW RT AINO Jk CaAwk WX act Alloy WS unwiwa WE Tanaka 'mum w! AMW A -3 39401541447.4 439 2 1 t A�F .� 5 Ma to howm AMs MuM.MiF Mods &M to f*M&A W No rbu Jk R,a } 4 WWI 0*4 Own b4w�p up rum 04 AK govvmR 9 4M% My*5 f 0115004 ottoman; Wk Wyonny + � 5sym4ppry VT pudIng Tup ae Xmhw MOMI r a A -4 394\01\941447.4 1 n 00 -77A wi)wWAM Au alp AWN %any Akwqp OwnfoxvIN 0* left ` I sit yve,�,�;,i Yk e � T AU '��' .` F h El k �d „y{�}�sp� 'gip % .. P* nbol t 7� �7�1p7I f� o- x yF M .Yf'H' gPM M y " ra wp fit • I�S]lf} lUSC7d � $049W 1 a. 7��4w&* Onu � vaq AAM l n � � be 4g y AL 4 N OnNOWA1w W KNO NN , 14; Pow TOPSW of - V '@P�w a ftt VE • +nee bua'64 Ana 94 0A nay, *noo MMM& MCI , 4� A -5 394\01\941447.4 441 iw Ra t (0dkdm No"thpm&t &1E I1aquaw 0 014 Slav %*01 me kMIn ww6g M& dMA t AM40M IwaMM110v#h em u efAMA MAN SKr K pA IVAVA 41 Remy wa NANO: M& ROW= ��44 kw)kh� 5 IN > >� to } u� Ala 3v E 4Qab Wes! � 6 � S MIN19, jdap ax YEN gp4 A nn he Q to kJawx wx�a* WFFWUw =twltf!�" in nom m S 0 NM (�Q�''$qw Avott i 1 akoa -A DAM 1 M; amh bwx A IQ& APM11 WAX 9 brad! � nn to Wgmmej 4JAS wdw aEw 1.0q, O IL .�Ax+4QWMA. v 0czCFMM;r 8SAwn Qw1g; w4 he noww4f arm a �2t*mw -K MUM0, t• x A -6 39401541447.4 MV, ' GYP #F� � 101 riY �4frFY° AAPRiG' }W'+:°4'C:bdRi�Pl�T��4Ti� ' r bo*wk XPOU WAY IM, I m Q k mar PM CM DAMV AA04I M MM %J AMM 1404 400 01 t o i r *V i 394\01\941447.4 A -7 443 a x ` r a a w Av=m1ft4 5�tM*O� am z6a }1w L i 5 rti a llxlx5d% arA wmh ui i kit wovdam 4 iikw xkftodAme wpm�&w walk + 9KW4WIW= WOW, O m OZPR Y-a Kr dal *+Mss 74" Qr&m� 1 �: *fttw !A mmman b i le a J t� �a of Cr az� t gr we ImeM&�K%ftyAft mrpm w d{i.� wv&L rmww"t Awl 4xft-dm A -8 394\01\941447.4 M , i 1 �, 1 � i YLdl.dg. • Y. r 394\01\941447.4 A -9 445 y C O . a -1R .LT a x ' t { v 394\01\941447.4 A -10 446 EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN Affordable Housing Projects and Programs A. Types of Projects • Developer Loans for development of affordable rental housing • First Time Homebuyer Program consistent with Redevelopment Law — including down payment assistance, equity share or closing cost loans • Transitional Housing to assist with homeless prevention • Housing Rehabilitation consistent with Redevelopment Law B. Required Income Levels Pursuant to current Redevelopment Law and the Settlement Agreement, the Housing Fund monies provided to the Trust under this Agreement must be spent in the following percentages on the identified income levels, which percentages may be modified from time to time as the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations are modified: • 24% on Extremely Low Income Units • 21% on Very Low Income Units • 30% on Low Income Units • 16% on Moderate, Low, Very Low or Extremely Low Income Units B -1 394\01\941447.4 447 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino ( "City ") has adopted the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan ") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Proj ect Area "); and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") is engaged in various activities in its efforts to provide affordable housing and to remove the blighting conditions that still remain in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, in keeping with the goals of the Agency to eliminate blight and reduce physical and economic blight and to provide affordable housing in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and Agency's current Implementation Plan (the "Implementation Plan "), the City and Agency have been working cooperatively regarding the development of affordable housing and certain public improvements in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, due to the complexity of affordable housing projects with varying funding sources, the Agency and the City desire to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (the "Agreement ", a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and Agency Secretary), with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (the "Trust ") through which the Agency shall provide funding to the Trust from the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund "), the City shall provide monitoring and reports to the state and the Trust shall work with developers to develop and provide funding for projects to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the territorial jurisdiction of the City, and WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law "), before the Agency can expend money from its Housing Fund outside the area of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(g); and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), because the Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism for affordable housing projects, but does not commit funds to any specific affordable housing 394 \01 \941908.2 ii• project, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed prior to the commencement of any affordable housing project pursuant to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency as follows: 1. All the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein. 2. In compliance with Section 33334.2(g) of the Law, the Agency hereby finds that: assistance to affordable housing projects described in the Agreement and located outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Redevelopment Plan, in that there is essentially no residential property within the Project Area and providing the funds would be a multi -year investment that would benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of affordable housing throughout the City of Cupertino. This finding is further based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report incorporated in this Resolution. 3. The Agency agrees to make the Agency expenditures as called for in the Agreement for affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, subject to completion of any environmental review required by CEQA prior to the commencement of any project pursuant to the Agreement. 4. The Agency hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the Agency Chairperson to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency for the funding and completion of affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and the Agency Secretary, with such revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the Agency signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the Agency signatory. The Agency Executive Director is authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement. 2 394 \01 \941908.2 ii• 5. The Agency hereby approves and appropriates (to the extent not already appropriated) the amounts necessary to fund the Agency's obligations under the Agreement as a lawful expenditure of Agency funds under the Law. The Agency's current fiscal year budget is hereby amended to the extent necessary to implement the foregoing appropriation. 6. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file Notices of Exemption with respect to the Agreement in accordance with the applicable provisions of CEQA. 7. The Agency Executive Director is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agency's obligations pursuant to this Resolution and the Agreement. 8. The Agency Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: Vote YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: Members of the Agency Agency Secretary, City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 394 \01 \941908.2 ag e - ism Chairperson, City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 3 450 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino ( "City ") has adopted the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan ") for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (the "Proj ect Area "); and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") is engaged in various activities in its efforts to provide affordable housing and to remove the blighting conditions that still remain in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, in keeping with the goals of the Agency to eliminate blight and reduce physical and economic blight and to provide affordable housing in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and Agency's current Implementation Plan (the "Implementation Plan "), the City and Agency have been working cooperatively regarding the development of affordable housing and certain public improvements in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, due to the complexity of affordable housing projects with varying funding sources, the Agency and the City desire to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement (the "Agreement ", a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and Agency Secretary), with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (the "Trust ") through which the Agency shall provide funding to the Trust from the Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund "), the City shall provide monitoring and reports to the state and the Trust shall work with developers to develop and provide funding for projects to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing within the Project Area and the territorial jurisdiction of the City, and WHEREAS, implementation of the Agreement will assist the Agency to accomplish the stated goals in the Redevelopment Plan and its current Implementation Plan as described in the staff report accompanying this Resolution (the "Staff Report"); and WHEREAS, under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33100 et seq.; the "Law "), before the Agency can expend money from its Housing Fund outside the area of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the City must make specified findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2(g); and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), approval of the Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), because the Agreement consists of the creation of a governmental funding mechanism for affordable housing projects, but does not commit funds to any specific affordable housing 394 \01 \941901.2 451 project, in that environmental review required by CEQA shall be completed prior to the commencement of any affordable housing project pursuant to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report, the Redevelopment Plan, the report to City Council accompanying the Redevelopment Plan, and the Implementation Plan provide additional information upon which the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution are based. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 1. All the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein. 2. In compliance with Section 33334.2(g) of the Law, the City Council hereby finds that: assistance to affordable housing projects described in the Agreement and located outside the Project Area will be of benefit to the Redevelopment Plan, in that there is essentially no residential property within the Project Area and providing the funds would be a multi -year investment that would benefit Cupertino residents in the provision of affordable housing throughout the City of Cupertino. This finding is further based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report incorporated in this Resolution. 3. The City Council consents to the Agency expenditures as called for in the Agreement for the affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, subject to completion of any environmental review required by CEQA prior to the commencement of any project pursuant to the Agreement. 4. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the Agreement on behalf of the City for the funding and completion of affordable housing projects pursuant to the Agreement, substantially in the form on file with the Agency Secretary and the City Clerk, with such revisions as are reasonably determined necessary by the City signatory, such determination to be conclusively deemed to have been made by the execution of the Agreement by the City signatory. The City Manager is authorized to implement the Agreement and take all further actions and execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the Agreement. 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file Notices of Exemption with respect to the Agreement in accordance with the applicable provisions of CEQA. 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the City's obligations pursuant to this Resolution and the Agreement. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 8 . This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 2 394 \01 \941901.2 452 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of February, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Cupertino 3 394 \01 \941901.2 453 Mayor, City of Cupertino STAFF REPORT TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I 454 RDA RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I 455 COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I 456 AGREEMENT TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I 457 STAFF REPORT TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY I I 459