The URL can be used to link to this page

11-15-11 Searchable PacketèÛÚÐ×ÍÖùÍÎÈ×ÎÈÉ ûÕ×ÎØÛ éÈÇØÃÉ×ÉÉÓÍÎÍÎÛÊ×ËÇ×ÉÈÈÍ×ÎÈ×ÊÓÎÈÍÛÐÛÎØÐ×ÛÉ×ÛÈ òÍÐÐÃÏÛÎìÛÊÑÖÍÊÛÅÓÊ×Ð×ÉÉÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÉÖÛÙÓÐÓÈÃ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûåÓÊ×Ð×ÉÉùÍÏÏÇÎÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÉöÛÙÓÐÓÈÓ×ÉíÊØÓÎÛÎÙ× úìÛÊÑÉê×ÙÊ×ÛÈÓÍÎùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎïÓÎÇÈ×ÉØÛÈ×Ø ù÷ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕùÍÆ×ÊÛÕ×ïÛÌ øìÊÍÌÍÉ×ØùÍÆ×ÊÛÕ×ïÛÌ ÷ìÇÚÐÓÙùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ ê×ÙÍÕÎÓÂ×ÉÈÇØ×ÎÈÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ÓÊÆÍÐÇÎÈ××ÊÅÍÊÑÛÈéÓÐÓÙÍÎæÛÐÐ×Ã ñÍÊ×ÛÎéÙÔÍÍÐ îÍÅÊÓÈÈ×ÎÏÛÈ×ÊÓÛÐÉÓÎÌÛÙÑ×È îÍÆ×ÏÚ×ÊùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐÏÓÎÇÈ×É øÊÛÖÈïÓÎÇÈ×É ûÙÙÍÇÎÈÉìÛÃÛÚÐ×ÖÍÊÌ×ÊÓÍØ×ÎØÓÎÕíÙÈÍÚ×Ê øÊÛÖÈê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎ ûÙÙÍÇÎÈÉìÛÃÛÚÐ×ÖÍÊÌ×ÊÓÍØ×ÎØÓÎÕîÍÆ×ÏÚ×Ê øÊÛÖÈê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎ ùÓÈÓÂ×ÎÉíÌÈÓÍÎÖÍÊìÇÚÐÓÙéÛÖ×ÈÃùíìéÕÊÛÎÈÖÇÎØÓÎÕÊ×ËÇ×ÉÈ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ øÊÛÖÈê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎ ûØØêÍÈÔÍÌÈÓÍÎÈÍîÛÈÓÍÎÅÓØ×ø×Ö×ÊÊ×ØùÍÏÌ×ÎÉÛÈÓÍÎ ìÐÛÎ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ øÊÛÖÈê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎ ø×ÙÐÛÊ×Å××ØÉÛÎÇÓÉÛÎÙ×ÛÎØÉ×ÈÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕØÛÈ×ÍÖòÛÎÇÛÊÃ ÖÍÊÍÚÒ×ÙÈÓÍÎÉÈÍÌÊÍÌÍÉ×ØÊ×ÏÍÆÛÐ øÊÛÖÈê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÉ×ÈÈÓÎÕÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕØÛÈ× ûÐÙÍÔÍÐÓÙú×Æ×ÊÛÕ×ðÓÙ×ÎÉ×óéÇÉÔÓ éÈ×Æ×ÎÉùÊ××ÑúÐÆØ Î×ÛÊóÏÌ×ÊÓÛÐ ûÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÖÍÊûÐÙÍÔÍÐÓÙú×Æ×ÊÛÕ×ðÓÙ×ÎÉ× éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ øÍÎúÇÊÎ×ÈÈúÊÓØÕ×ÉÓÕÎÛÕ×ÛÎØØ×ØÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛËÇ× éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ è×ÙÔÎÓÙÛÐÛÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÉÛÎØÙÐÛÊÓÖÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÉÈÍõ×Î×ÊÛÐìÐÛÎðÛÎØ çÉ×ïÛÌâÍÎÓÎÕïÛÌÛÎØô×ÛÊÈÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃéÌ×ÙÓÖÓÙìÐÛÎ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûøÊÛÖÈÍÊØÓÎÛÎÙ×ÛÌÌÊÍÆÓÎÕâ úøÊÛÖÈÍÊØÓÎÛÎÙ×ÛÌÌÊÍÆÓÎÕéìû ùøÊÛÖÈÊ×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÛÌÌÊÍÆÓÎÕõìû øê×ØÐÓÎ×ØÙÔÛÎÕ×ÉÈÍ ô×ÛÊÈÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃéÌ×ÙÓÖÓÙ ìÐÛÎ ÷ðÓÉÈÍÖÌÊÍÌ×ÊÈÓ×ÉÚÃûÉÉ×ÉÉÍÊÉìÛÊÙ×ÐîÇÏÚ×ÊÉÛÎØ ÈÔ×ÓÊÛÉÉÍÙÓÛÈ×ØÂÍÎÓÎÕÓÎÈÔ×ô×ÛÊÈÍÖÈÔ×ùÓÈÃûÊ×Û ûÏ×ÎØÏ×ÎÈÍÖÛÎÛÌÌÊÍÆ×Ø ÐÍÈè×ÎÈÛÈÓÆ×ìÛÊÙ×ÐïÛÌÛÈ ðÓÎØÃðÛÎ× éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûìùê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎîÍ úìùéÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈØÛÈ×Ø ùìùê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎîÍ øùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐûÙÈÓÍÎð×ÈÈ×ÊØÛÈ×Ø ÷ûÌÌÐÓÙÛÎÈÉê×ËÇ×ÉÈð×ÈÈ×ÊØÛÈ×Ø öåÊÓÈÈ×ÎùÍÏÏ×ÎÈÍÎéÇÎÛÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎ õûÌÌÊÍÆ×Øè×ÎÈÛÈÓÆ×ïÛÌ ùÍÎÉÓØ×Ê×ÉÈÛÚÐÓÉÔÓÎÕÛÉÓÉÈ×ÊÙÓÈÃÊ×ÐÛÈÓÍÎÉÔÓÌÅÓÈÔñÇÎÉÔÛÎ ùÔÓÎÛ ñÇÎÉÔÛÎéÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ñÇÎÉÔÛÎê×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎ ùÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍéÓÉÈ×ÊùÓÈÃìÍÐÓÙÃ ûÏ×ÎØùÔÛÌÈ×ÊéÈÍÊÏÅÛÈ×ÊìÍÐÐÇÈÓÍÎìÊ×Æ×ÎÈÓÍÎÛÎØ åÛÈ×ÊÉÔ×ØìÊÍÈ×ÙÈÓÍÎÍÖÈÔ×ùÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍïÇÎÓÙÓÌÛÐùÍØ×ÈÍ ÉÌ×ÙÓÖÃÐ×ÕÛÐÛÇÈÔÍÊÓÈÃÛÎØÓÏÌÐ×Ï×ÎÈÊ×ËÇÓÊ×Ï×ÎÈÉÓÎÈÔ×ùÓÈÃªÉ ÉÈÍÊÏÅÛÈ×ÊÌ×ÊÏÓÈ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûøÊÛÖÈíÊØÓÎÛÎÙ× ùÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÊ×ËÇ×ÉÈÈÍÙÔÛÎÕ×ÈÔ×ÎÛÏ×ÍÖÈÔ×ùÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃèÊ×× ðÓÕÔÈÓÎÕ×Æ×ÎÈÈÍùÔÊÓÉÈÏÛÉèÊ××ðÓÕÔÈÓÎÕ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈû ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈú ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈù ùÍÎÉÓØ×ÊûèèÉÊ×ËÇ×ÉÈÈÍ×ÎÈ×ÊÓÎÈÍÛÐÛÎØÐ×ÛÉ×ÛÈòÍÐÐÃÏÛÎ ìÛÊÑÖÍÊÛÅÓÊ×Ð×ÉÉÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÙÛÈÓÍÎÉÖÛÙÓÐÓÈÃ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎÖÍÊê×ÙÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÍÖùÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍùÊÍÉÉÊÍÛØÉ ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈìÊÍÌÍÉÛÐ éÈÛÖÖê×ÌÍÊÈ ûøÊÛÖÈÊ×ÉÍÐÇÈÓÍÎÛÎØ÷ÄÔÓÚÓÈû úìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÏ××ÈÓÎÕÏÓÎÇÈ×ÉÖÊÍÏûÇÕÇÉÈ ùùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐûÙÈÓÍÎð×ÈÈ×ÊØÛÈ×Øé×ÌÈ×ÏÚ×Ê øùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐÏ××ÈÓÎÕÏÓÎÇÈ×ÉÖÊÍÏé×ÌÈ×ÏÚ×Ê ÷ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎÖÍÊê×ÙÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÖÊÍÏøÛÊÊ×ÐðÇÏØÛÈ×Ø é×ÌÈ×ÏÚ×Ê öûÌÌÐÓÙÛÎÈÉÊ×ÉÌÍÎÉ×Ð×ÈÈ×ÊÛÎØÛÉÉÍÙÓÛÈ×Ø×ÄÔÓÚÓÈÉ ØÛÈ×ØíÙÈÍÚ×Ê AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~SPECIALMEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:30PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL –5:30 PM STUDY SESSION 1.Subject:Study session on a request to enter into a land lease at Jollyman Park for a wireless communications facility Recommended Action:Conduct study session Description:Application: none; Location: Jollyman Park (Stelling Road near Highway 85) APNs: 359-25-049, 359-25-002, 359-25-024, 359-25-048 Staff Report A. Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance B. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes dated 12/2/10 C. Existing Coverage Map D. Proposed Coverage Map E. Public Comments Page:9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –6:45 PM ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION CEREMONIAL MATTERS –PRESENTATIONS 2.Subject:Recognize students for their volunteer work at Silicon Valley Korean School Recommended Action:Present Certificates of Appreciation No written materials in packet Page:No written materials in packet Tuesday, November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 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. 3.Subject:November 1 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft Minutes Page:31 4.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending October 28, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-185 Draft Resolution Page:41 5.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 4, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-186 Draft Resolution Page:49 6.Subject:Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant funding request Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-187 Staff Report Draft Resolution Page:59 7.Subject:Add Roth 457 option to Nationwide Deferred Compensation Plan Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-188 Staff Report Draft Resolution Page:61 Tuesday, November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 8.Subject:Declare weeds a nuisance and set hearing date of January 17 for objections to proposed removal Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-189 Draft Resolution setting hearing date Page:63 9.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, I Sushi, 21670 Stevens Creek Blvd(near Imperial) Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer & Wine Application for Alcoholic Beverage License Staff Report Page:65 10.Subject:Don Burnett Bridge signage and dedication plaque Recommended Action:Authorize staff to use proposed text and proceed with fabrication of two bridge signs and dedication plaque Staff Report Page:67 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR(above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.Subject:Technical amendments and clarifications to General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City Specific Plan Recommended Action:Approve project and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 11- 2086: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Zoning Map to specify boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and to refer to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the zoning designations”; and Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 11-2087: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Heart of the City Specific Plan to incorporate technical amendments, including clarifications to the language and moving the land use and zoning designations from the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map into maps into the Heart of the City Specific Plan”; and Adopt Resolution No. 11-190 specifying boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan Description:Applicant: City of Cupertino; Application No: SPA-2011-01, GPA-2011-04, Z- 2011-05; Location: Citywide; Description: Specific Plan Amendment for clarifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan,General Plan Amendment for clarifications to the City's Heart of the City Specific Plan, Re-Zoning of certain parcels within the City's Heart of the City Specific Plan area in accordance with the Specific Plan and General Plan amendments; environmental determination is exempt Staff Report A. Draft ordinance approving Z-2011-05 B. Draft ordinance approving SPA-2011-01 C. Draft resolution approving GPA-2011-04 D. Redlined changes to 2010 Heart of the City Specific Plan Tuesday, November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency E. List of properties by Assessor's Parcel Numbers and their associated zoning in the Heart of the City Area Page:69 12.Subject:Amendment of an approved 3-lot Tentative Parcel Map at 21989 Lindy Lane Recommended Action:Approve recommendation from the Planning Commission Description:Application: M-2011-06; Applicant: Frank Sun; Location: 21989 Lindy Lane; APN: 356-25-024; Environmental Declaration: Exempt; Amendment to an approved 3-lot Tentative Parcel Map (TM-2005-05) to modify development restrictions to reflect current R1-Zoning development standards Staff Report A. PC Resolution No. 6667 B. PC Staff Report dated 10/11/11 C. PC Resolution No. 6335 D. City Council Action Letter dated 12/8/05 E. Applicant's Request Letter dated 8/1/11 F. Written Comment on Sun application G. Approved Tentative Map Page:153 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 13.Subject:Consider establishing a sister city relationship with Kunshan, China. Recommended Action:Establish relationship Kunshan Staff Report Kunshan Resolution Cupertino Sister City Policy Page:177 14.Subject:Amend Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to specify legal authority and implement requirements in the City’s stormwater permit Recommended Action:Conduct first reading Ordinance No. 11-2088: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to specify the legal authority and implement the requirements in the City’s stormwater permit" Staff Report A-Draft Ordinance Page:185 Tuesday, November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 15.Subject:Consider a request to change the name of the "Community Tree Lighting" eventto "Christmas Tree Lighting" Recommended Action:Staff recommends that the City of Cupertino continue its community building efforts and retain the name "Community Tree Lighting" Staff Report Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Page:240 16.Subject:Consider AT&T's request to enter into a land lease at Jollyman Park for a wireless communications facility Recommended Action:Consider whether or not to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and/or execute a lease with AT&T to construct a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park. Description:Application: none; Lessee's Representative: Misako Hill for Cortel, LLC and AT&T; Location: Jollyman Park (Stelling Road near Highway 85) APN: 359-25-049, 359- 25-002, 359-25-024, 359-25-048. Staff Report Page:245 17.Subject:Petition for Reconsideration of Cupertino Crossroads Development Proposal Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-191 upholding approval of project Description:Applicant: Mark Creedon (Byer Properties); Appelant: Darryl Lum; Permit Nos: ASA-2011-12, DP-2011-03, EXC-2011-10, TR-2011-30; Location: 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino Crossroads); APN: 359-08-006, 359-08-013, 359-08-020; Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration (EA-2011-10); Descriptions: a. Architectural and Site approval for two new retail building pads and associated site improvements, including, but not limited to, parking lot re-orientation, lighting, landscaping and street frontage improvements consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. b. Development Permit to allow the construction of two new retail building pads; 8,136 square feet and 5,086 square feet respectively and demolition of an existing 4,930 square foot restaurant building, for a net square footage increase of 8,292 square feet. c. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 26 foot front setback for a new 5,086 retail building pad, where a 35 foot front setback is required. d. Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of seventy nine trees within an existing shopping center parking lot in conjunction with the proposed new development Staff Report A. Draft resolution and Exhibit A B. Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 9, 2011 C. City Council Action Letter dated September 8, 2011 D. City Council meeting minutes from September 6, 2011 E. Petition for Reconsideration from Darrel Lum dated September 15, 2011 F. Applicant's response letter and associated exhibits dated October 31, 2011 Page:247 Tuesday, November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. 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 DisabilitiesAct (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 inCouncil packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Study session on arequest to enter into a land lease at Jollyman Park for a wireless communications facility. Recommended Action Conduct study session. Description Application: none Location: Jollyman Park (Stelling Road near Highway 85) APNs: 359-25-049, 359-25-002, 359- 25-024, 359-25-048 Discussion Background Ms. Misako Hill, Coretel, LLC, representing AT&T, has filed a request for the City to consider entering into a lease with AT&T in order to construct a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park. Please note that AT&T’s request is not for a regulatory action to construct a wireless communications facility. Rather, it is a request to enter into a private contract between the lessor, the City of Cupertino, and the lessee, AT&T, to lease a portion of a property. OnFebruary 3,2009, the City Council approved amendments to the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinanceto facilitate the improvement and development of a wireless communications infrastructure in areas of the City that have historically had poor to nonexistent cellular coverage. TheWireless Communications Facilities Ordinance allowswireless facilities on all utility poles and towers, RHS-zoned lands, common-interest lands of residential developments, and public parks (Attachment A).To this end, the City has recently allowed wireless facilities on utility poles (Blaney Avenue & Bubb Road), RHS-zoned lands(Regnart Canyon Drive), common-interest lands of residential developments (Rancho Deep Cliff and the Forum), and public parks (Memorial Park).The Parks and Recreation Commission has also supported theconcept of allowing wireless facilities in parks and created development and maintenance guidelines for wireless facilities in City parks on December 2, 2010 (Attachment B). The applicant has expressed aninterest in erecting a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park, particularly in the southwestern portion of the park that has good proximity to Highway 85 and South Stelling Road, a major arterial in the City. The park is surrounded by single-family residences on all sides and a church on a northern portion. ïÙùð÷ððûîêø ïÙùð÷ððûîêø McClellan Road åûã Hwy 85 ùíêã øê èíïñóùè San Jose Jollyman Park N Stelling Road Location Map Wireless Communications Coverage Attachments C&Ddepict AT&T’s existing coverage and proposed coverage with a cell facility at Jollyman Park. “Green” areas depict areas with good in-building, in-transit and outdoor service.“Yellow” areas have acceptable in-transit and outdoor service but poor in-building service. “Blue” areas have only outdoor service if any service at all. The attachments also depict the locations and coverage areas of AT&T’s existing nearby facilities: Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard & De Anza Boulevard Southeast corner of Highway 85 and S. De Anza Boulevard (in San Jose) AT&T’s wirelessfacility at Results Way ispresently under construction. Itslocation and coverage are not depicted on the coverage map. Thefacility is not expected to cover the area around Jollyman Park. The area around Jollyman Park has beenconsidered a coverage gap bymost wireless carriers. In addition to AT&T, staff has been approached by the following wireless carriers about siting a wirelessfacility in the vicinity: T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Sprint-Nextel and Clearwire. There are no wireless facilitiesin the area. Two previous applications in the area were either withdrawn or not built. CarrierYearLocationStatus Sprint2004940 S. Stelling RoadCross-tower facility denied by Planning Redeemer Lutheran Commission. Appeal was withdrawn by Churchapplicant/Church. Clearwire201020900 McClellan RoadApproved roof-mounted facility was not built by Church of the Nazarenecarrier. There were significant construction issues. Public Comments Noticing of the hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of Jollyman Park. Staff received three email comments from neighbors.The comments are attached (Attachment E). Fiscal Impact A lease of a portion of Jollyman Park to erect a wireless communications facility will have a positive impact on City revenues. Anyfuture collocation of facilities from another wireless carrier will add additional ongoing, lease income. There are four wireless communication facilities on City properties: One light pole/monopole at Memorial Park, One monopole at the Service Center, One monopine at the Service Center,and One light pole/monopole on Bollinger Roadright-of-way, near Blaney Avenue. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Mark Linder, Director, Parks & Recreation Reviewed by:Mark Linder, Director, Parks & Recreation Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A.Ordinance No. 09-2038-Wireless Communications Facilities B.Parks & Recreation Commission Approved Minutes for 12/2/10 meeting C.Existing Coverage Map D.Proposed Coverage Map E.Public Comments ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ ß ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Þ ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ý ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ü ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Û CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:November 15, 2011 Subject:Recognize students for their volunteer work at Silicon Valley Korean School. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 1, 2011 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wongcalled 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, Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang (7:01 p.m.). Absent:None. CLOSED SESSION -None CEREMONIAL MATTERS –PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Presentation from the Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County in appreciation for adopting a smoke-free recreational areas ordinance Recommended Action: Receive presentation Carol Baker, Vice-Chairman of the Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County, thanked the Council for their outstanding leadership in supporting strong tobacco prevention policies. Mayor Wong thanked Ms. Baker and other groups and non-profits for their support and hard work in achieving a tobacco free environment. 2.Subject: Presentation from the Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association Recommended Action: Receive presentation Angela Chen, President of the Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association, noted that a 28 member delegation from Hsinchu was here for a week. The delegation was made up of high school and middle school students, a teacher, a principal and a city official. They were all staying with host families and they were learning about our school system as well as our culture. A Hsinchu school principal, Ms. Shou Fung Huang,speaking through an interpreter, noted that Cupertino and Hsinchu had been sister cities for 15 years and the student exchange program had been in place for 7 years. On behalf of the Hsinchu city government she wanted to thank the host families and all involved in the sister city program. They had visited an elementary and middle school and had learned quite a bit about Cupertino’s education system November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 2 including standards for teacher evaluations. They would bring this new knowledge back to their officials. Angela Chen stated that this was a very successful sister city program and she thanked the Council and staff for their support of this important educational and cultural exchange. In response to an inquiry from Council, she noted that this delegation was larger than those in the past. Students in Hsinchu were very eager to come to Cupertino to learn about itsschools so the number of chaperones had been decreased and the number of students increased. 3.Subject: Presentation from Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister City Recommended Action: Receive presentation Asif Kauser, President of the Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister City Committee, commented that 2011 was a challenging year for Japan after the earthquake. With assistance from the community including the schools they were able to send $28,500 to victims of the earthquake and tsunami. Because of concerns about radiation a delegation did not go to Toyokawa this year but arrangements have been made so that the delegation next year would be double its usual size. In September a delegation of 16 students came here from Toyokawa and was hosted by Hyde Middle School. The chaperones went to the local schools and thanked them for their fundraising efforts. The annual cherry blossom festival was very successful with about 45,000 attending. This year someexhibits were in the Senior Center instead of the Quinlan Center. It appeared to be a preferred location and next year they hoped to expand the area available for the event at the Senior Center. He thanked the Council for its continued support of the Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister City Program. POSTPONEMENTS City Clerk Kimberly Smith stated that the applicant for Item 8,Cupertino Village development approval extensions, had requested a postponement to the December 20th, 2011 City Council meeting. Applicant David Jamison stated that they were ready to present Item 8 to the Council and withdrew the request for postponement. The City Council concurred to hear the item later in the meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS City Clerk Kimberly Smith distributed the following written items: Cupertino Village development approval extensions (Item 8) A copy of the staff PowerPoint presentation, A copy of the Community Benefit Matrix Second reading and enactment of Municipal Code amendments to Zoning Ordinance Item 12) Email from Keith Murphy asking for a continuance on this item, and asking Council not to limit public notices or apply punitive fines Letter from Paula Davis, President of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, expressing support for the streamlining process. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael Gottwald thanked Council for their support of tobacco prevention policies. The adoption of a smoke-free recreational areas ordinance was important legislation. Cathy Helgerson said that Apple was installing a heating and ventilation system at their 10475 Bandley Drive location. She didnot believe this system should be allowed due to environmental concerns. She also wanted Council to name Lehigh and Stevens Creek Quarry superfund sites and stop the pollution in the valley. CONSENT CALENDAR Wang moved and Santoro seconded to adopt the items on the Consent Calendar as presented, with the exception of item No. 5 which was pulled for discussion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council members Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4.Subject: October 18 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes 6.Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending October 14, 2011 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-183 7.Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending October 21, 2011 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-184 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5.Subject: Treasurer’s Investment and Budget Report for Quarter Ending September 2011 Recommended Action: Accept the report Council memberSantoro had questions about page 18 and the statements made by HighMark, which was investing money for retirement benefits for the city in the amount of about $9 million. Santoro asked why the numbers were not adding up in the report. Director of Administrative Services Carol Atwood agreed that this statement by HighMark was misleading and not accurate. HighMark had been contacted by staff to present a report that was more clear and correct in the information it contained. Finance Director David Woo noted that they could put this matter on an audit committee agenda for January. At that time there could be more detailed discussion on where the investments were, the rate of return to expectations, and the best method of presenting the information to the Council in the future. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 4 Santoro moved and Chang seconded to accept the Treasurer’s Report, except for the table on page 18, titled HighMark Capital Management, which will be brought back before the Audit Committee. Chang moved and Santoro seconded to re-order the agenda to take item Nos. 11 and 12 next. The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES 11.Subject: Second reading and enactment of ordinances for Home of Christ Expansion Proposal Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 11-2083: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, which repeals certain conditions referenced in Ordinance No. 360: #13, #14, #15, and #19 found in Planning Commission Resolution No. 406 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 409 in its entirety; and modifies Exhibit “C” by adding: ancillary general commercial uses as a permitted use; technical colleges & existing churches approved with a conditional use permit as conditional uses; and daycare centers, schools, convalescent centers & other sensitive receptors as prohibited uses; and amends Chapter 19.60 (Light Industrial (ML) Zones) of the Cupertino Municipal Code, related to the streamlining and codification of the ML-rc (West Valley Light Industrial) Zoning regulations” and; Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 11-2084: “An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council rezoning a parcel of 1.612 acres and its fronting half-street of 0.189 acre located at 10340 Bubb Road, APN 357-20-019” Description: Applicant: Kevin Chiang (Home of Christ Church); Applications: MCA-2011- 01 & Z-2011-01; Locations: 10340 Bubb Road & West Valley Industrial Park; Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration (EA-2011-02) Jennifer Griffin stated that at the second reading of an ordinancethere should be an introduction of the item so that people knew what was being discussed. In this case she supported the Home of Christ Church but was concerned that this was putting a church in a technical park area and this action had required a general plan amendment. Wang moved and Changseconded to read Ordinance No. 11-2083 by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, andWong. Noes: None. Absent: None. Wang moved and Changseconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2083. The motion carried unanimously. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. Wangmoved and Mahoney seconded to read Ordinance No. 11-2084by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 5 Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2084. The motion carried unanimously. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12.Subject: Second reading and enactment of Municipal Code amendments to Zoning Ordinance Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 11-2085: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending various chapters including Title 19, and the addition of up to four chapters to simplify the Development Permit Process and improve readability" Description: Municipal Code Amendments to various chapters including Title 19, and the addition of up to four chapters to simplify the development permit process and improve readability. Jennifer Griffin reiterated her comments made during the previous item that for second readings information should be presented regarding what the item was about. For this item she was disturbed about these changes and wanted to know specificallywhat theCouncil was voting on.These changes were based on the comments of a matrix group about which she knew nothing. She believed total transparency was needed and did not trust many of these proposed changes. Keith Murphy suggested that even if a matter did not go to Council,but was heard at a different level,the decision should be made available for the public. He recommended that all agendaitems be posted on the city’s website so that the community couldknow what was going on. Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava explained that administrative and legislative fees were not the issue in this case,but rather the process. Staff was asked if Council Members and Planning Commissioners had to pay the fee if they appealed a decision. TheCommunity Development Director stated that staffwould research this question and bring the information back to Council at a later date. Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to read Ordinance No. 11-2085by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2085. The motion carried unanimously. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent: None. Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to direct staff to post agendas and decisions for administrativehearings on the Cupertino website. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.Subject: Cupertino Village development approval extensions Recommended Action: Consider the Applicant’s request to postpone the item. The applicant th is requesting that the item be postponed tothe December 20, 2011 City Council meeting OR Consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny Modification Applications: M-2011-03–Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (U-2007-06); and M-2011- 04–Modification to a previously approved Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-10); and M-2011-05–Modification to a previously approved Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2008-04) Description: Applicant: David Jamieson (Kimco Realty); Application Nos.: M-2011-03, M- 2011-04, M-2011-05; Location: 10825-10983 North Wolfe Road; APN’s: 316 05 050, 51, 52; Descriptions: Modification to a previously approved Architectural and Site application (ASA-2008-04) to extend the expiration date for three years; Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (U-2007-06) to extend the expiration date for three years; Modification to an approved Architectural and Site application (ASA-2007-10) to extend the expiration date for three years; environmental determination exempt Assistant Planner SimonVuong stated that the applicant was requesting a three-year extension due to current economic conditions. This project had been approved in 2008 and had received a one-year extension in 2010. In 2011 the request for extension was received. Staff had recommended approval but the Planning Commission had voted 2-2 resulting in a failed vote. Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava explained the 2-2 vote of the Planning Commission, which had expressed concerns about the parking and community benefits. She saidthat the permits expired on August 11, 2011 and the request for extension had been received August 8, 2011. She also noted that there were no changes to the original application. City Attorney Carol Korade stated that the request for extensions had been made prior to the deadline. The permit was still in place as staff was taking the matter through the administrative process. She explained that it was actually a modification of a permit,as opposed to an extension. Mayor Wong asked staff to look into a policy whereby an applicant would need to apply for extensions six months prior to the expiration date. Dave Jamison, Director of Asset Managementfor Kimco Realty, stated that they were requesting an extension due to economic conditions. There was now renewed activity and they were looking forward to moving ahead with the project. Their tentative schedule for the next three years was currently being defined. Therewas no change to the parking plans in the original application, and they were stillplanning to enhance the existing parking at Cupertino Village. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 7 Bill Brown, head of construction for Kimco Realty, West Coast Region,saidthat it had taken them a year and a halfto get the original plans done,with $350,000inconsulting time. The ground contamination issues would not affect their plans and were being addressed as part of the original application. He clarified the parking on the project site,noting that they would work on short-term agreements with the adjacent property owners. Michael Gottwald asked if any retail was going to be removed and was told no, it would not be removed. He also received clarification of where the parking structure was going to be located. He suggested that Oktoberfestbe brought back to the Cupertino Village site and that a German Hofbrau house be located there. Jennifer Griffin stated her support of the request for a three-year extension for this project. Cupertino Village was a vibrant area that was doing very well. Kimco Realty had done a very good job since they had taken over the project. In addition it was an important entrance to Cupertino and an area that had increased in property value since Apple had taken over the Hewlett Packard land across the street. Cathy Helgerson did not support the extension. She believed Council should take a stronger stand with developers and in this case the developers should come back when they were ready. In addition she believed that an environmental determination should have been done for this site and the pollution inthe soil needed to be corrected. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded approve the extension for two years from November 1, 2011, including the following conditions. The motion carried unanimously. Remove the parallel parkingon the main driveway going to Cupertino Village from Pruneridge across from Bank of the West Convert the egress into an appropriate ingress-egress driveway immediately northof the Duke of Edinburg along Wolfe Road, and reduce the retail square footage accordingly but maintain same width of existing driveway. Increase themonetary contribution to the “Welcome to Cupertino” sign from $10,000 to $35,000 Increase the monetary contribution to a traffic signal modification improvements from $75,000 to $85,000 at the intersection of Homestead Road and Wolf Road UNFINISHED BUSINESS- None RECESS Council was in recess from 8:35 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 8 NEW BUSINESS 9.Subject: Consider drafting a Tobacco Retail License ordinance for the City of Cupertino Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff on whether to proceed with the development of a Tobacco Retail License ordinance and propose process and timeline for the development and adoption of the ordinance. Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Linder stated that Cupertino was part of a county- wide grant program. The focus of this program was to reduce second hand smoke and to encourage youths not to use tobacco products. There were three components to this grant program: 1) a smoke free recreational area ordinance which the Council adopted in May; 2) a conference organized for and by youth on developing messages that would be effective in urging youth to be tobacco free; and 3) consideration of adopting a tobacco retail license ordinance. The ordinance would not allow retailers to sell tobacco products to under age youth. San Jose and the County of Santa Clara had adopted such an ordinance. It could also be pointed out that there were already state and federal regulations in place, the sheriff’s department conducted decoy operations to make sure retailers were complying with these regulations and such a city ordinance would add additional fees to those the retailers already had to pay. Staff was asking Council for direction on whether or not to prepare such an ordinance for Council consideration at a future meeting. Dave Schalker, owner of the Valero gas station at DeAnza/Stevens Creek, stated that there were already state and federal legislation in place and he did not believe this city ordinance would make any difference. The fines were severe if one wasfound not to be in compliance. He was providing a service to his customers and he wanted to keep the revenue in the community. Tom Robinson, President of Robinson Oil, stated that they owned andoperated the Rotten Robbie stations and the one in Cupertino had been there for forty years. He did not support such an ordinance and stated that the one passed in San Jose had been based on misleading statistics. Carol Baker, Honorary Life Member of theCalifornia Division of the Board of Directors of the American Cancer Society, supported adoption of the tobacco retail license ordinance. She stated that 68 communities in California had supported strong tobacco licensing. Cathy Helgerson recommended using the grant money to provide educational programs and clinics for the youth on the importance of a tobacco free environment. She did not think the ordinance was the answer and questioned who would enforce it. Judy Hui stated that she was a 25-year businesswoman in Cupertino. She did not support the ordinance and did not believe it would be effective. She commented on the requirement that tobacco products would have to be out of sight and noted that space was often limited and this could be a problem. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 9 Sharlamaine Hayes, representing the Tobacco Free Coalition in Santa Clara County, did not want to be unfair to local businesses,but felt this was a health and safety issue. She said that children will always experiment,and it would make a big difference if the tobacco products were put in a place where they could not see them. Council discussed this issue and they all supported taking steps toward a tobacco free environment,but at the same time wanted toconsider the impact on local retailers. It was noted that legislation was already in place and the sheriff’s department monitored conformance with thatlegislation. Councilagreed that they wanted more information on the effectiveness of such an ordinance,and askedstaff to work with the Chamber of Commerce on the possibility of establishing a voluntary program. Council Member Chang stated that he wanted to move forward at this meeting on the tobacco retail license ordinance. He supported the local retailers but was strongly against the sale of tobacco products to under age youth and believed this ordinance would be an additional help in seeing that such sales did not happen.Council Member Chang moved to have staff draft a tobacco retail license ordinance for Council consideration at the next council meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Council directed staff to research effectiveness of tobacco retail license ordinances and advise Council through the city manager’s weekly notes; and encouraged staff to work with the Chamber of Commerce to provideoutreach to businesses in the community for a possible voluntary program. 10.Subject: Council meeting of December 20 Recommended Action: Consider cancelling meeting Mahoney moved and Santoro seconded to cancel the December 20, 2011 and January 3, 2012 Council meetings. Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Chang absent. STAFF REPORTS City Manager David Knapp reported that the traveling Viet Nam Memorial Wall was scheduled th to be in Cupertino November 9 –13. On the 10there would be a dedication ceremony and on th the 11there would be the annual Veterans Day events at Memorial Park. COUNCIL REPORTS Council Member Mahoney reported that earlier in the day he had attended two luncheons: Supervisor Liz Kniss’ Asian American Heroes Luncheon and the Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Luncheon. Council Member Kris Wang noted that former President Bill Clinton had been the keynote speaker at a high tech convention in October at the Santa Clara County Convention Center. Mayor Gilbert Wong commented that he had attended the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. where he attended a White House briefing on the President’s jobs bill as well as other issues. One issue of particular interest to the Mayors and Council Members present was the Community Development Block Grant funding. Mayor Wong noted that it was a privilege to meet the President and other White House officials. November 1, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 10 ADJOURNMENT At 9:48 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. ____________________________ Kimberly Smith, City Clerk Staffreports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience atwww.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. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:November 15, 2011 SubjectCitizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant Recommended ActionAdopt Resolution to approve the 2011-12COPSgrant fundingrequest. Description The U.S. Department of Justice/Office of Community Oriented Policing Services announced on October 3, 2011 that more than $243 million in grants would be awarded nationwide to 238 law enforcement agencies and municipalities for the hiring of new officers and deputies. Thisoffice is a federal agency responsible for advancing community policing nationwide. In total, California citieswill receive slightly less than $72 million. Cupertino’s share for 2011-12is $100,000for the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant. Cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services. This can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs. The funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. Captain Carl Neuselhas requested that the $100,000 be used to partially fund a second School Resource Officer for the 2011-12school year. The Fremont Union High School District and Cupertino Union School District have each contributed $10,000 to cover additionalhoursforthe second officer for the 2011-12fiscal year. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Liz Nunez Reviewed by: Carol Atwood Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments:Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO: 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING REQUEST FROM SHERIFF FOR USE OF THE CITIZENS’ OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM FUNDS OF $100,000 WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice/Office of CommunityOriented Policing Servicesestimates a total of $243million revenues will be available to 238 law enforcement agencies and municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s per capita share for the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant is $100,000for fiscal year 2011-12;and WHEREAS, the COPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of ensuring public safety; and WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services which can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs; and WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city; and WHEREAS, the Captain of the Sheriff’s Office, West Valley Division, in his role as Chief of Police, has requested that the COPS funds be used to partially fund a second School Resource Officer; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the Chiefof Police’srequest for the expenditures of Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th Cupertino this15day of November 2011, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: /s/Kimberly Smith/s/Gilbert Wong ____________________________________________ City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:November 15, 2011 Subject Add a Roth 457 Option to the Nationwide Deferred Compensation Plan. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 11- Description Add an option to the existing Nationwide Retirement Solutions 457 GovernmentalDeferred Compensation Plan and Trust (the Plan) that will offer Roth 457 features such as after-tax contributions and tax-free withdrawals. Discussion City employees may set-aside a portion of their salaries and wages in a deferred compensation plan. The plan currently allows contributions on a before-tax (non-taxable) basis with the amounts and investment growth taxed upon withdrawal. New federal law in 2010 allowed Roth 457 provisionsto be optionally added to the Plan. Similar to Roth IRAs, these provisions feature contributions made on an after-tax (i.e. after taxes paid) basis, withthe amounts and growth not taxed upon withdrawal. The Roth Plan will be optional for employees; their current accounts and tax treatments will continue to operate separately from thenon-Roth accounts. The City offers three providers of deferred compensation plans to its employees. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. isthe second provider to establish and allow the Roth option. By adopting the enclosed resolution, the Council will add the Roth provision to the existing Nationwide plan document. Staff will bring one additional action to the Council whenCalPERS establishes its own Roth plan. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact as the City does not contribute to the plans nor will the plan charge fees for this option. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Maria Jimenez, Human Resource Technician Reviewed by: Carol A. Atwood, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Draft Resolution RESOLUTION 11-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS 457DEFERRED COMPENSATIONROTH ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has established and offers 457 deferred compensation plansforitsemployees that serves the interest of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable retirement security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS,the City of Cupertino has determined that the continuance of the deferred compensation plan will serve these objectives. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby amends and restates the deferred compensation planoffered byNationwide,in the form ofthe Nationwide Retirement Solutions457 Governmental Deferred Compensation Plan & Trust(the Plan), to include the associated Roth amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the assets of the amended Planshall be held in trust, with the City of Cupertino serving as trustee, for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets shall not be diverted to any other purpose. The Trustee’s beneficial ownership of Plan assets shall be held for the further exclusive benefit of the Plan participants and their beneficiaries; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City hereby agrees to serve as Trustee under the amended Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTEDat a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino th this 15day of November, 2011by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: /s/Kimberly Smith/s/Gilbert Wong ____________________________________________ City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL DECLARING WEEDS ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED REMOVAL WHEREAS, weeds are growing in the City of Cupertino upon certainstreets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property; and WHEREAS, said weeds may attain such growth as to become a fire menace or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous; and WHEREAS, said weeds constitute a public nuisance; NOW, THEREFORE, BEIT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 1.That said weeds do now constitute a public nuisance; 2.That said nuisance exists upon all of the streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property more particularly described by common names or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area, and parcel number on the report prepared by the Agricultural Commissioner and attached hereto; 3.That the 17th day of January, 2012, at the hour of 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter asthe matter can be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Community Hall, City of Cupertino, is hereby set as the time and place where all property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of such weeds may be heard; 4.That the Agricultural Commissioner is hereby designated and ordered as the person to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the manner and form provided in Sections 9.08.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Resolution No. 11-Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the city Councilof the City of Cupertino this 15thday of November, 2011, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ______________________________________________________ Kimberly Smith, City ClerkGilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Alcoholic Beverage License,I Sushi,21670 Stevens Creek Blvd(near Imperial) Recommended Action Approveapplicationfor On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place. Description Name of Business:I Sushi Location:21670 Stevens Creek Blvd Type of Business:Restaurant Type of License:On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41) Reason for Application:Annual Fee, Person-to-Person Transfer, State & Federal Fingerprints Discussion There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption onthepremises where sold. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Don Burnett Bridge Signage and Dedication Plaque. Recommended Action Authorize staff to use the proposed text and proceed with the fabrication of the two bridge signs and the dedication plaque. Discussion In July 2011,the California State Legislature adopteda resolution to renamethe Mary Avenue Bridge to the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge. On September 20, 2011, Councilapproved an appropriation of $4,000 to match contributions of at least $4,000 from the Friends of Don Burnett to cover the dedication ceremonyandsignage costs.Councilasked staff to return with the proposed text for thesigns and dedication plaque. Staff worked closely with Dick Blaine and members of the Don Burnett family to produce the proposedtext. If approved, the text will be etched onto a stainlesssteel plaque, located near the entry plaza at the end of Mary Avenue in Cupertino. The proposed text for the two bridge signs is as follows: DON BURNETT BICYCLE –PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE These signs will be attached to each end of the bridge. The proposed text for the dedication plaque is as follows: Award-Winning DON BURNETT BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE In the early 1990’s, Cupertino City Councilman Don Burnett, an avid cyclist and environmental enthusiast, envisioned a bridge that would provide a safe route across Interstate 280 for student, commuter, and recreational use. His vision became a reality with this award-winning structure. Completed and dedicated in April 2009 as the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge, the span was officially renamed in his memory by a California Legislative Resolution introduced by Senator Joe Simitian, on July 6, 2011. Fiscal Impact City costs will not exceed $4,000. ___________________________________ Preparedby: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Technical amendmentsand clarifications to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City Specific Plan. Recommended Action Approve the following and conduct first readings ofordinances: 1.Ordinance No. 11-________: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Zoning Map to specify boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and to refer to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the zoning designations”(See Attachment A)(File Z-2011-05); and 2.Ordinance No. 11-________:”An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Heart of the City Specific Planto incorporate technical amendments, including clarifications to the language and moving the land use and zoning designations from the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map into maps into the Heart of the City Specific Plan”(See Attachment B)(File SPA-2011-01). 3.Resolution No. 11-_____: ”A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Land Use Map of the General Plan to specify the boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and to refer solely to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the land use designations” (See Attachment C)(File GPA-2011-04); The proposed amendments are technical in nature. Description Application: GPA-2011-04, Z-2011-05, and SPA-2011-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Heart of the City Specific Plan area Application Summary: Technical amendments for clarification to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City Specific Plan. The proposed amendments will move the General Plan land use and Zoning designations into a land use/zoning mapin the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Background On March 16, 2010, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend the Heart of the City Specific Planwhich includedexpandingthe boundaries to reflectthe Heart of the City area prior to the 2005 General Plan update, changes and clarifications to the land use and development standards, and creationof new land use and streetscape concept maps. On April 6, 2010, the City Council amended the General Plan to incorporate the modifications that were made to the amended Heart of the City Specific Plan in March 2010. Discussion The purpose of this item is to make technical amendments to the Specific Plan to clarifythe land use/zoning designations of particular siteswithin the Heart of the City area. With the adoption of the ordinance approving the 2010 amended Heart of the City Specific Plan, the land use/zoning designations of all properties within the Heart of the City area became “P” for Mixed Use Planned Development, with only two types of uses specified, either commercial uses in accordance with the CG (General Commercial) zoning district with particular requirements for the types of commercial allowed on ground floor spaces facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, and residential uses in accordance with the location and maximum density allowance of 25 units per acre and 35 units per acre in the South Vallco area. Additionally, language was added to allow the continuance of church uses on two particular sites along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the “P” zone. However, some sites such as De Anza College, Memorial Park, the Oaks, City Center, Vallco Shopping Center, etc. were not called out as having land uses that were different from the Mixed Use Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council clarifythe land use/zoning for these particular properties. Without these clarifications, current development on these properties may remain non- conforming, and it could be difficult for these properties to make ancillary improvements or additions in the future.These technical amendments do not make any substantive changes or differences tothe Council’s original intent for the Specific Plan. List of Sites Proposed for Clarification Regarding Land Use and Zoning Designations It should be noted that the recommended land use and zoning designations are consistent with the previous zoning for these sites. Where the zoning for sitesdoes not correspond to specific zoning districts, staff is recommending a simpler labeling method that corresponds to zoning designations in the zoning ordinance: Glenbrook Apartments 1.(10100 Mary Avenue behind the Oaks Shopping Center) –land use/zoning clarified asR3, Multiple Family Residential, with a land use density of 10-20 units per acre. Oaks Shopping Center 2.(north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of Highway 85)– land use/zoning clarified asP(CG), Planned Development General Commercial. Memorial Park/Quinlan Center 3.(located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of N. Stelling Road) –land use/zoning clarified asPR, Public Park/Recreation Zone. Commons of Cupertino 4.(residential surrounded by Memorial Park and the Quinlan Center) -land use/zoning clarified asP(Res), Planned Development Residential. De Anza College 5.(located at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard) -land use/zoning clarified as BA, Public Building. City Center 6.(located onthe southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and S. De Anza Boulevard). The City Center area is defined by the General Plan and extends along the east side of S. De Anza Boulevard from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Pacifica Drive) In this area the zoning designations varied between developments because the zoning designations included all of the land uses that were approved as part of each development. The recommendations provided below for this area are consistent with zoning district designations and the uses intended for these areas: City Center Area north a.(this area is north of the apartments in the City Center area and the green space west of Torre Avenue)–land use/zoning clarified asP(CG, OP, Res), Planned Development (General Commercial, Planned Office, Residential). This area was originally zoned P(Res, Com, Off, Ind, Hotel) which does not correspond to any zoning designations and also repeats uses already allowed in the CG zone, such as office and hotel uses. Additionally, the industrial usespermitted in this area were intended for research and development and laboratories, which are allowed in the OP zone.The proposed zoning designationwill allow all existing uses that are currently on these sites. City Hall/Adjacent park lot b.(bounded by Torre Avenue to the east). Land use/zoning clarified asP(BA), Planned Development Public Building. This area had a combination of P(BA) and BA previously. McAdam Lane Residential Area ( 7.residential area east of the City Center north area along – McAdam Lane)land use/zoning clarified asP(Res 5-10), Planned Development (Residential, 5-10 units per acre). Vallco Shopping Mall/Sears 8.(north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Perimeter – Road and Wolfe Road)land use/zoning clarified asP(Regional Shopping). This area was previously zoned P(CG), Planned Development General Commercial. The revision brings the property into consistency with the rest of the Vallco Mall area which is zoned P(Regional Shopping). Main StreetProject Area - 9.(located to the north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of the – Metropolitan mixed use project and west of North Tantau Avenue)land use/zoning clarified asP(CG, OP, Res), Planned Development (General Commercial, Planned Office, Residential). The area was previously zonedP(CG, O, ML, Hotel, Res). Similar to City Center Area north, the ML (industrial uses) in this area were intended for research and development and laboratory use, which are allowed in the OP zone, while hotel and office uses are already allowed in the CG zone. Rosebowl 10.(located on the southeast corner of Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway)–land use/zoning clarified asP(CG, OP, Res), Planned (General Commercial, Planned Office, Residential). The area was previously zoned P(CG, ML, O, Hotel, Regional Shopping, Res), Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Office, Hotel, Regional Shopping, Residential) which had repetitions of uses already allowed in the CG zone and did not correspond to a specific zoning designation. Menlo Equities/Metropolitan 11.(located on the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road) –land use/zoning clarified as P(CG, OP, Res), Planned (General Commercial, Planned Office, Residential). The area was previously zoned P(Comm, Off, Res) which hadrepetitions of uses already allowed in the CG zones and did not correspond to a specific zoning designation. S. De Anza Boulevard 12.(west side of S. De Anza Boulevard, south of Scofield Drive) –land use/zoning clarified asP(CG), Planned Development (General Commercial). Portion of Residential Development along Cartwright Way 13.(located north of Stevens Creek Boulevard on the west side of Vista Drive) –land use/zoning clarified asP(R1C), Planned Development, Single Family Residential Cluster. Part of this residential development falls within the Heart of the City area. Office Complex on S. De Anza Boulevard and Pacifica Drive 14.(located on the east side of S. De Anza Boulevard, north of Pacifica Drive and west of Torre Avenue) –land use/zoning clarified asP(OP), Planned Development Planned Office. Planned Industrial Zone Area 15.(located on the north side of Vallco Parkway, east of Vallco Shopping Mall and west of N. Tantau Avenue) –land use/zoning clarified asP(MP), Planned Development Planned Industrial Zone. Staffwould like to highlight two additional sites that require further clarification by the Council: Biltmore Apartments 1.(10159 S. Blaney)–Staff would like the Council to clarify whether the area should be zoned P(CG, Res)to correspond to the mixed use zoning for the Heart of the City Specific Plan area or should be clarified to have the original zoning designation of P(R3) or Planned Development (Multiple Family Residential). Abundant Life Church 2.(10100 N. Stelling Road) –Staff recommends keeping the P (CG, Res) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Residential) zoning for this site and providing protections for existing churches, similar to the other two church sites in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. Language Clarifications(See redlines in AttachmentD.and new language intheclean copy of the proposed Heart of the City Specific Plan in Attachment B) In order to clarify the land use and zoning for the abovementioned sites, staff is recommending the following changes to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. In addition, staff is proposing referencing the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, where applicable in order to reduce repetition and inconsistencies: 1.The new Heart of the City Specific Plan land use/zoning maps have been incorporated (See Figures 1 through 3in Attachment B) and language has been modified accordingly to reference the new maps. 2.The section on Land Use –Permitted and Conditional Uses (Section 1.01.020) has been modified to indicate that land use and zoning for the sites arenoted on the Heart of the City Specific Plan land use/zoning maps.Additionally, it is clarified that existingchurch (quasi- public)uses approved by the City with a conditional use permit in existence prior to April 16, 2010 (the effective date of the last updated Heart of the City Specific Plan) are permitted. All three churches have approved use permits. This is consistent with the language that was recently adopted for achurch use in the ML-rc zoneon Bubb Road. 3.The section on Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation (Section1.01.030) has been clarified to referencethe General Plan. 4.The sections on Application Requirements and Approval Authority and Exception Process have been modified to reference the Zoning Ordinance. 5.On Page 5 under Policy Framework, the sentence in policy three (3) has been modified (see new underlined text) to the following: 3. Subdivision of commercial and mixed use parcels is stronglydiscouraged. This is added to more strongly clarifyCouncil’s policy on discouraging subdivision of parcels in the City’s key commercial and mixed-use areas. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps(seeExhibits inAttachments AandC) The proposed technical amendments include designating one color for the entire Heart of the City Specific Plan area.Thespecific land use and zoning would be providedinthe Heart of the City Specific Plan. This wouldeliminate the necessity for multiple maps with various land use/zoning designations and the possibility for future inconsistencies related to this area. Project Notification to Council Additionally, staff would like to note that project descriptionswill specifically call out that the project is in the Heart of the City Area. This will provide additional clarification to Council and the public onagendas and decisions related to projectsthat are in the Heart of the City Area. Environmental Review Because this project involves only technical amendments for clarifications to the General Plan Land Use map, Zoning Map and Heart of the City Specific Plan related only to the Heart of the City area, the project is considered categorically exempt per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the activity is covered by the general rule with certaintythatthere is nopossibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect upon the environment. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments:A.Draft Ordinance approving Z-2011-05 B.Draft Ordinance approving SPA-2011-01 C.Draft Resolution approving GPA-2011-04 D.Redlined changes to the2010Heart of the City Specific Plan(clean copy is Exhibit A in Attachment B) E.List of propertiesby Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and their associated zoning in the Heart of the City Area Attachment A ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÒÑòïïó ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ßÒ ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÝËÐÛÎÌ×ÒÑ ßÓÛÒÜ×ÒÙ ÌØÛ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÓßÐ ÌÑ ÍÐÛÝ×ÚÇ ÞÑËÒÜßÎ×ÛÍ ÑÚ ÌØÛ ØÛßÎÌ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÐÔßÒ ßÎÛß ßÒÜ ÌÑ ÎÛÚÛÎ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ØÛßÎÌ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÐÔßÒ ÚÑÎ ÌØÛ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÜÛÍ×ÙÒßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ·²·¬·¿¬»¼ ¿² ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² øÆóîðïïóðë÷ ¬± ³¿µ» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Æ±²·²¹ ³¿° ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ¬± °»½·º§ ¾±«²¼¿®·» ±º ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ¬± ®»º»® ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² º±® ¬¸» ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿®»¿å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Æ±²·²¹ ³¿° ©·´´ ¾» ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ù Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ´¿²¼ «» ³¿°ô °®±°±»¼ «» ¿²¼ «®®±«²¼·²¹ «»ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿²å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Æ±²·²¹ ³¿° ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ½¿¬»¹±®·½¿´´§ »¨»³°¬ «²¼»® ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ ®«´» °»® Í»½¬·±² ïëðêïø¾÷øí÷ ±º ¬¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ï«¿´·¬§ ß½¬ øÝÛÏß÷ ©·¬¸ ½»®¬¿·²¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» · ²± °±·¾·´·¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·² ¯«»¬·±² ³¿§ ¸¿ª» ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ »ºº»½¬ «°±² ¬¸» »²ª·®±²³»²¬å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô «°±² ¼«» ²±¬·½»ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¸¿ ¸»´¼ ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ±²» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Æ±²·²¹ ³¿° ¾» ¹®¿²¬»¼å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ Æ±²·²¹ ³¿° · ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸»®»¬± ¿ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ßô ¿ ¿ °®±°±»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ó¿¬»® Æ±²·²¹ Ó¿° ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²±å ¿²¼ ÒÑÉô ÌØÛÎÛÚÑÎÛô ÞÛ ×Ì ÑÎÜß×ÒÛÜ ßÍ ÚÑÔÔÑÉÍæ Í»½¬·±² ïò Ì¸¿¬ ¬¸» Æ±²·²¹ Ó¿° ¸¿ ¾»»² ¿³»²¼»¼ ¬± °»½·º§ ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®·» ±º ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿²¼ ¬± ®»º»® ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² º±® ¬¸» ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ô ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ß ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸»®»¬± · ³¿¼» °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ó¿¬»® Æ±²·²¹ Ó¿° ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²±å ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² îò Ì¸· ±®¼·²¿²½» ¸¿´´ ¬¿µ» »ºº»½¬ ¿²¼ ¾» ·² º±®½» ¬¸·®¬§ øíð÷ ¼¿§ ¿º¬»® ·¬ °¿¿¹»ò ×ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÛÜ ¿¬ ¿ ®»¹«´¿® ¿¼¶±«®²»¼ ³»»¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ¬¸» ïë¬¸ ¼¿§ ±º Ò±ª»³¾»®ô îðïï ¿²¼ ÛÒßÝÌÛÜ ¿¬ ¿ ®»¹«´¿® ³»»¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ¬¸» ÁÁÁÁ¼¿§ ±º ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁô îðïïô ¾§ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ª±¬»æ Ê±¬»æ Ó»³¾»® ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´æ ßÇÛÍæ ÒÑÛÍæ ßÞÍÛÒÌæ ßÞÍÌß×Òæ ßÌÌÛÍÌæ ßÐÐÎÑÊÛÜæ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ý·¬§ Ý´»®µ Ó¿§±®ô Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ÙæÄÐ´¿²²·²¹ÄÐÜÎ»°±®¬ÄÑÎÜÄÆóîðïïóðë ±®¼ò¼±½ Exhibit A ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Þ ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÒÑò ïïó ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ßÒ ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÝËÐÛÎÌ×ÒÑ ßÓÛÒÜ×ÒÙ ÌØÛ ØÛßÎÌ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÐÔßÒ ÌÑ ×ÒÝÑÎÐÑÎßÌÛ ÌÛÝØÒ×ÝßÔ ßÓÛÒÜÓÛÒÌÍô ×ÒÝÔËÜ×ÒÙ ÝÔßÎ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÌÑ ÌØÛ ÔßÒÙËßÙÛ ßÒÜ ÓÑÊ×ÒÙ ÌØÛ ÔßÒÜ ËÍÛ ßÒÜ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÜÛÍ×ÙÒßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÚÎÑÓ ÌØÛ ÙÛÒÛÎßÔ ÐÔßÒ ÔßÒÜ ËÍÛ ÓßÐ ßÒÜ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÓßÐ ×ÒÌÑ ÓßÐÍ ×Ò ÌØÛ ØÛßÎÌ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×Ý ÐÔßÒ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ·²·¬·¿¬»¼ ¿² ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² øÍÐßóîðïïóðï÷ ¬± ³¿µ» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¬± ½´¿®·º§ ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ Æ±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² º±® ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿®»¿ô ³±ª» ¬¸» °»½·º·½ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²¬± ³¿° ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¬± º«²½¬·±² ¿ ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ ³¿°ô ¿²¼ ½´¿®·º§ ´¿²¹«¿¹» ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿²å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ©·´´ ¾» ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ù Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ´¿²¼ «» ³¿° ¿²¼ Æ±²·²¹ ³¿°å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ½¿¬»¹±®·½¿´´§ »¨»³°¬ «²¼»® ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ ®«´» °»® Í»½¬·±² ïëðêïø¾÷øí÷ ±º ¬¸» Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ï«¿´·¬§ ß½¬ øÝÛÏß÷ ©·¬¸ ½»®¬¿·²¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» · ²± °±·¾·´·¬§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·² ¯«»¬·±² ³¿§ ¸¿ª» ¿ ·¹²·º·½¿²¬ »ºº»½¬ «°±² ¬¸» »²ª·®±²³»²¬å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô «°±² ¼«» ²±¬·½»ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¸¿ ¸»´¼ ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ±²» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¾» ¹®¿²¬»¼å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ · ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸»®»¬± ¿ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ßå ¿²¼ ÒÑÉô ÌØÛÎÛÚÑÎÛô ÞÛ ×Ì ÑÎÜß×ÒÛÜ ßÍ ÚÑÔÔÑÉÍæ Í»½¬·±² ïò Ì¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¸¿ ¾»»² ¿³»²¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ½´¿®·º§ ¬¸» »¨·¬·²¹ Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ Æ±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² º±® ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¿®»¿ô ³±ª» ¬¸» °»½·º·½ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ·²¬± ³¿° ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ¬± º«²½¬·±² ¿ ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ ³¿°ô ¿²¼ ½´¿®·º§ ´¿²¹«¿¹» ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿²ô ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ Û¨¸·¾·¬ ß ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸»®»¬± · ¿³»²¼»¼ ¿ ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿²å ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² îò Ì¸· ±®¼·²¿²½» ¸¿´´ ¬¿µ» »ºº»½¬ ¿²¼ ¾» ·² º±®½» ¬¸·®¬§ øíð÷ ¼¿§ ¿º¬»® ·¬ °¿¿¹»ò ×ÒÌÎÑÜËÝÛÜ ¿¬ ¿ ®»¹«´¿® ¿¼¶±«®²»¼ ³»»¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ¬¸» ïë¬¸ ¼¿§ ±º Ò±ª»³¾»®ô îðïï ¿²¼ ÛÒßÝÌÛÜ ¿¬ ¿ ®»¹«´¿® ³»»¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ¬¸» ÁÁÁÁ¼¿§ ±º ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁô îðïïô ¾§ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ª±¬»æ Ê±¬»æ Ó»³¾»® ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´æ ßÇÛÍæ ÒÑÛÍæ ßÞÍÛÒÌæ ßÞÍÌß×Òæ ßÌÌÛÍÌæ ßÐÐÎÑÊÛÜæ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ý·¬§ Ý´»®µ Ó¿§±®ô Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ÙæÄÐ´¿²²·²¹ÄÐÜÎ»°±®¬ÄÑÎÜÄÍÐßóîðïïóðï ±®¼ò¼±½ ÛÈØ×Þ×Ì ß ½ ¬ ½¬ ½· ¶¬¬µ ·· ¬ » ¹½½½ ±½ ½²½²½ µ±½½² µ¬½ ¬²±µ¬ ½· ²¬ ´³³¹ Attachment C RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDINGTHELAND USE MAP OF THEGENERAL PLANTO SPECIFYTHE BOUNDARIES OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN AREAAND TO REFER SOLELY TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino hasinitiatedanapplication for a General Plan Amendment as described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices were given in accordance with the procedure ordinance of the City of Cupertino and the City Council has held at least one public hearing on the matter; and WHEREAS, the Application No.: GPA-2011-04,involves a request to make technical amendments tothe land use map of the General Planto specify the boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and to refer solely to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the land use designations in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area;and WHEREAS, the technical amendments to the land use map of the General Plan are considered categorically exempt under the general rule per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect upon the environment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment, application no. GPA-2011-04is hereby approved in the General Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of November2011, by the following voteto become effective simultaneously with the effective date of Ordinance No. 11-____ for Z-2011-01 and Ordinance No. 11 -_____ for SPA-2011-01: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN ATTEST:APPROVED: City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit A Attachment D Redlined Text Changes to the Heart of the City Specific Plan On Page 5: Policy Framework (Policies) Policies 3. Subdivision of commercial and mixed use parcels is strongly discouraged. On Page 6: Land UseArea and Special CentersMap This Heart of the City PlanArea and Special Centers Map(Figure 1)defines theboundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and the Special Centers within these boundaries.This map also identifies the primary and supportingland usesforeach Special Center in accordance with the CupertinoGeneral Plan,anda variety of land use opportunities of well planned and designed commercial, office and residential development, enhanced activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transportation between activity centers that help focus and support activity in the centers. West Stevens Creek Boulevard Educational/Public/Park District Primary Use: Quasi-Public/Public Facilities Supporting Use: Mixed Commercial/Residential (Residential may be located behind Primary Uses and above the ground level) Crossroads Area Commercial Shopping District Primary Use: Commercial/Retail Secondary Use: Commercial Office above the ground level Supporting Use: Limited Residential (Residential may be located behind Primary Uses and above the ground level) Central Stevens Creek Boulevard Primary Use: Commercial/Commercial Office Secondary Use: Office above ground level Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Uses City Center Sub-Area Primary Use: Office/Residential/Hotel/Public Facilities/Commercial Retail/Mixed Uses East Stevens Creek Boulevard Regional Commercial District Primary Use: Retail/Commercial/Commercial Office Secondary Use: Office above ground level Supporting Use: Residential/Residential Mixed Use On Page 7 (Figure 1), the note at the bottom of the map: *Properties with frontage exclusively on South De Anza Boulevard (not including City Center north) are not required to install Heart of the City streetscape features. For these properties, the setback shall be consistent with the South De Anza Conceptual Plan. On Page 8 (Figures 2 and 3), please see thenew Heart of the City Zoning Maps). On Pages14and 15: evelopment Standards and Design Guidelines D Background The Development Standards and Design Guidelines contained in this Element provide regulatory support for the Specific Plan’s land use policies. They are intended to promote high-quality private-sector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. Development Standards 1.01.010 Description A variety of different types ofcommercial development, from stand-alone single-tenant buildings to small convenience centers, office buildings and large shopping centers may be proposed. Properties with frontage exclusively on South De Anza Boulevard in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area are required to conform to the architectural and site design guidelines of the Specific Plan. 1.01.020 Land Useand Zoning –Permitted and Conditional Uses The zoning and land usesfor properties shall comply with the land use and zoning maps in Figures 2 and 3. Development regulations for properties will be as follows: A. Commercial –All Permitted and Conditional Uses in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance regulations of the City’s General Commercial (CG) zoning district.per Sections 19.56.030 through 19.56.040 with the following additional limitations Uses such as professional, general, administrative, business offices, business services, such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic services, and communication equipment buildings, vocational and specialized schools, dance and music studios, gymnasiums and health clubs and child care centers and other uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall be limited to occupy no more than 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and/or 50% of the rear of the building. B. Residential –at a maximum density of twenty five (25) units per acre, except that in the South Vallco Master Plan area the density is thirty five (35) units per acre.exceptwhere otherwise indicated on the land use and zoning mapsand in the General Plan.For mixed residential and commercial excluding parking and/or land developments, residential development shall be based on net density, areas devoted to the commercial portion of the development. The following is an illustration of how net density is calculated: Gross lot = 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft) Commercial building area = 8,000 sq. ft. Surface parking area for commercial area = 6,120 sq. ft. (40 uni-size spaces @ 1/250 sq. ft.) Allowance for outdoor open/landscaping area (10% of commercial building and parking area) = 1,412 sq. ft. Total area for commercial portion of development = 15,532 sq. ft. Remainder area = 28,028 sq. ft. =10.643 acres Units allowable on remainder area = 0.643 * 25 = 16 units In mixed residential and commercial developments, the preferred location for residential units shall be behind primary street-fronting retail/commercial uses. Secondarily, residential units may be located above the ground level on multi-story buildings. The amount of building space devoted to retail/commercial uses shall be such that the retail/commercial uses shall have a viable and substantial retail component. C.Existing churchuses approved by the City with a conditional use permit in existence prior to April 16, 2010. D.Development regulations for all other zones shall comply with the specific zoning districts in the Zoning Ordinance. On Pages 15 and 16: 1.01.030 Building Height, Setbacks and Orientation A. Height –as measured from sidewalk to top of cornice, parapet, or eave line of a peaked roof shall be as follows: 1. Maximum –Forty five (45) feet, except where regulated bythe Cupertino General Plan– Maximum Building Heights. 2. The primary bulk ofbuilding shall be maintained below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial street curb line or lines in all areas subject to the Heart of the City standards except for the Crossroads areaand the Vallco area. SeetheCrossroads Streetscape Plan and the Maximum Building Heights diagramin the Cupertino General Planfor details. 3.Mechanical equipment and utility structures: a. Rooftop mechanical equipment may exceed height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. b. Shall be screened from public view. c. Shall be provided with measures where possible with reasonable efforts to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses. B. Front Setbacks 1. Minimum Setback –for new development shall be 35 feetfrom the edge of curb (nine (9) feet from the required Boulevard Landscape Easement; see section 1.01.040(D)). New development shall be defined as a twenty five per cent (25%) or greater increase in floor area or a 25% or greater change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural and site approval within twelve (12) months. Properties with frontage exclusively on South De Anza Boulevard (not including City Center north) are not required to install Heart of the City streetscape features. Forthese properties, the setback shall be consistent with the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan.See the note in the Land Use Map for the South De Anza Special Center Area.See the note in the Land Use Map for the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan area. On Page 20: Application Requirements and Approval Authority ò Refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.12, AdministrationA. Prior to the erection of a new building or structure in the Plan Area, or prior to the enlargement or modification of an existing building, structure or site (including landscaping and lighting) in the Plan Area, the applicant for a building permit must obtain a development permit(s) in a manner consistent with the requirements specified in Chapters 19.48, 19.124 and 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. If the building square footage is less than five thousand square feet, the Planning Commission may grant a development permit(s). If the building square footage is five thousand square feet or greater, the development permit may only be issued by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. B. Minor architectural modifications, including changes in materials and colors, shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development as specified in Chapter 19.132or 2.90 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. If an application is diverted to the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission, the application will be agendized for a Design Review Committee or Planning Commission meeting as an architectural and site application. Exception Process for Development Standards In order to provide design flexibility in situations when small lot size, unusually shaped parcels, or unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and where all efforts to meet the standards have been exhausted, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards. The possibility of lot consolidation, if an exception is needed for a substandard parcel, shall be evaluated. The exception process shall not be used to increase land use intensity or change permitted land uses. A. An exception for development standards can be approved if the final approval authority for a project makes all of the following findings: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City’s General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan and meets one or more of the criteria described above. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be refundable, to the applicant. Upon receipt of an application for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application in conjunction with the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 19.136.060.C. An exception which has not been used within two years following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance. An exception permit shall be deemed to have been used in the event of the erection of a structure or structures when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. ß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Û Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ Ì¸» º±´´±©·²¹ · ¿ ©®·¬¬»² ¼»½®·°¬·±² ±º ¿´´ ¬¸¿¬ ®»¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ·¬«¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ý±«²¬§ ±º Í¿²¬¿ Ý´¿®¿ô Í¬¿¬» ±º Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ô ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ¬¸¿¬ · ®»¦±²»¼ º®±³ Ð Ó·¨»¼ Ë» Ð´¿²²»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±² ´·¬»¼ ¾»´±©ò Ì¸»» ½«®®»²¬ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® øßÐÒ÷ ¸¿´´ ¸»®»·² ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ®»º»®»²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ¼»·¹²¿¬·±²ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿²§ º«¬«®» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸»» ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»®ò ÐÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ßÍÍÛÍÍÑÎÍ ÐßÎÝÛÔ ÒËÓÞÛÎ Þß íëç ðï ððî Þß íëç ðï ððì ÐøÞß÷ íêç íï ðíí ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ððí ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðïê ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ððï ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðêð ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ððî ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðìé ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðïë ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðïì ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ððë ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ððì ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ðîí ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðìì ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïé ðïç ÐøÝÙ÷ íëç ïð ðìí ÐøÝÙ÷ íîê îé ðíë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðéè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðèë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðèê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ççç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðíé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðéç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê îð ðíè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ïç ðêï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðíë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðêë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ççç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ççç Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ççç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ççè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðïç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ððï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ðï ðîí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðë Ð¿¹» î ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðëç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðêí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðéë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïî Ð¿¹» í ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðìð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðíî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðîê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðçî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïïî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïïð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïïï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ïðï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðèè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ððç Ð¿¹» ì ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐô Î»÷ íïê ìç ðïð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïëç Ð¿¹» ë ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ððï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðîê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðïê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðíç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëî Ð¿¹» ê ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðìî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïîì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðë Ð¿¹» é ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïçç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí îðé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðêî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðëì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðçð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèç Ð¿¹» è ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïðì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðèð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ðéç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïïî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïíç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïìç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïêí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéë ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéî ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéï ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèë Ð¿¹» ç ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèê ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèé ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèè ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïéç ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèì ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèð ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèí ÐøÝÙô ÑÐôÎ»÷ íêç ëí ïèï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðéï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðéì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ççë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïî Ð¿¹» ïð ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðé ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îï ðèç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìï ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïè Ð¿¹» ïï ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðéí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðéî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðê ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðìè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îê ðçé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îê ðçê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îï ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðï ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îð ðèí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ççê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðêë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïë Ð¿¹» ïî ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îë ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìï ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððë Ð¿¹» ïí ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðêì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îì ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ðêð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðï ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðï ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðîê Ð¿¹» ïì ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ççê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îì ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îë ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðé ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îì ðêð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððé Ð¿¹» ïë ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îê ðçë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îë ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îê ðçì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðë ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðë ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðçí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðêé Ð¿¹» ïê ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìí ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðéï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îï ðèè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íï ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ççë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íï ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðíð Ð¿¹» ïé ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îë ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðç ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðë ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðçë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íì ðêê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðë ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îï ðçð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ççê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îê ðçð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðîç Ð¿¹» ïè ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðçê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðêð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íî ðëí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ççè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðè ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðí ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðë ðïð Ð¿¹» ïç ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îí ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íîê íï ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìç ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìè ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ïï ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îï ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðìè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìð ðëì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íëç ðé ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìé ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëï ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìë ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ìê ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðï ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðê ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðê ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðï ðîí Ð¿¹» îð ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ççç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðê ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê îì ðëç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ðî ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëð ççé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððì Ð¿¹» îï ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðëï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðëð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîì Ð¿¹» îî ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëì ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëð Ð¿¹» îí ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðèï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðèî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðîç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêç Ð¿¹» îì ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðèí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðíë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðêè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðèð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðìç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðëï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëë ðéì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íéë ðî ðíë Ð¿¹» îë ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ððï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïç ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðîð ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïé ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðîï ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðîî ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïë ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðîí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íêç ëê ðïí ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðîì ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðìê ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíè ÐøÝÙôÎ»÷ íïê ìè ðíç ÐøÓÐ÷ íïê îð ðéï ÐøÓÐ÷ íïê îð ðéë ÐøÓÐ÷ íïê îð ðéì ÐøÓÐ÷ íïê îð ðéê ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîè ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîê ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîé ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðïï ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðïî ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîì ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðïç ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðïè Ð¿¹» îê ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîç ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîï ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîî ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðíï ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðíð ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ððç ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðïì ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîë ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðíî ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîð ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ççç ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ðîí ÐøÑÐ÷ íêç ìð ððè ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïê ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïë ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïè ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïì ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïé ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ðïí ÐøÎïÝ÷ íïê ìî ççç ÐøÎóí÷ïðóîð íêç ðí ððè ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðê ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðì ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðé ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðçç ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðð ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðçì ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðçë ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðèð ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðèî ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðèï ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðë ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðí ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðçî ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ðèè ÐøÎ»¹·±²¿´ Í¸±°°·²¹÷ íïê îð ïðï ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìë ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìé ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëð ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëê Ð¿¹» îé ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìî ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìï ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìì ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëì ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëë ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìê ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðçç ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìç ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìè ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëç ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðêð ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðíè ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëï ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëî ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìí ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ççé ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðìð ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëí ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðêï ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëé ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðëè ÐøÎ» ëóïð÷ íêç ðï ðíç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìë ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíë ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîë ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíì ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëì Ð¿¹» îè ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïì ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððì ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððí ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððë ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðêð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëë ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìì ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ððè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ççç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíê ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîç ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðìé ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïî ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîð ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðïë Ð¿¹» îç ±º íð Ô·¬ ±º Ð®±°»®¬·» ¾§ ß»±® Ð¿®½»´ Ò«³¾»® ©·¬¸ ¬¸»·® °®±°±»¼ ½±®®»°±²¼·²¹ Æ±²·²¹ Ü»·¹²¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» Ø»¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Í°»½·º·½ Ð´¿² ß®»¿ ø½±²¬¼ò÷ ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðëè ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðíï ÐøÎ»÷ íîê ëí ðîì ÐÎ íîê îç ðîî ÐÎ íîê ëì ðìï ÐÎ íîê îç ððê Îóíøïðóîð÷ íîê îé ðíê Îóíøïðóîð÷ íîê îé ðíé Îóíøïðóîð÷ íîê îé ðíí Ð¿¹» íð ±º íð COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Amendment of an approved 3-lot Tentative Parcel Map at 21989 Lindy Lane Recommended Action The Planning Commissionrecommendedon a 5-0 votethat the City Council approvethe: Modification (file no. M-2011-06) to a previously approved tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-05)to make itmore consistent with the R1 zoning standards per the Planning Commission resolution (Attachment A). Description Application:M-2011-06 Applicant:Frank Sun Property Owner:Frank Sun Location:21989 Lindy Lane(APNs356-25-031,-032 and -033) Application Summary The applicant is proposing a modification toapreviouslyapproved 3-lot Tentative Parcel Map (TM-2005-05) to modifyconditions number 2 and number 8 requiring the future homes to meet either the Single Family Residential (R1) ordinance or the Hillside Residential (RHS) Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive;and a maximum 3,000 square foot house limit on Lot 1. The proposed modifications reflect the current R1-zoning development standards. Project Data: Lot No.ZoningNet Lot AreaAverage Slope (SquareFeet) 1R1-2022,38935.5% 2R1-2027,31225.5% 3R1-2041,434*38.3% * Area of flag lot access deducted to determine net lot area. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) and Attachments C thru G for thedetailed project background. Discussion Planning Commission On October 11, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed modification M-2011-06to the previously approved 3-lot tentative parcel map (TM-2005-05)to remove conditionsnumber 2 and number 8 as discussed previously. The Commissioners wanted to ensure that the requested modifications would make the development conditions consistent with other R1-20 zoned lots. Public Comments To date, one emailed commenthas been received (Attachment F)and two residents testified at the Planning Commission hearing.Public comments are summarized as follows (staff comments in italicsbelow): One resident asked about themaximum house size that could be builton Lot #1. Under the R1 zoning standards, the maximum potential residential building areafor Lot #1 will be 10,075 square feet.Achieving thismaximum potential house size will be challenging sincethemaximum buildablefootprint of the house as established by the property line building setbacksis triangular in shape.Anew residence is subject to the standard review process for sloped lots as outlined in the Single-Family (R1)Ordinancesince most of the buildable portion of the lot has a slope of greater than 20%. Another resident supported the project, but also inquired about how Lot #3 could be developed. A likely development footprinton Lot #3is depicted on the approved tentative parcel map with the building site accessed via a flag lot driveway that comes off a private driveway.The maximum potential home size on Lots #2 and #3 is 12,290 and 18,645, respectively. However, the practical house sizes are expected to be smaller given the various existing physical site constraints and considerations (i.e., tree protection, grading limitations, building setbacks and geological/storm water protection). The review and approval process for developments on Lot #2 and #3will beconsistent with the Single-Family (R1) Ordinance including the section that applies to sloped lotsif the sloped portions of these lots are developed. Athirdresident noted that theapplicant had agreed in 2005 to limit house sizes on the three properties and expressed concern that he is now seeking to change the rules. The applicant seeks to change the previously approved development conditionsto be consistent with the current R1-20standards as applied to all sloped lots in the single family residential districts. _____________________________________ 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: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6667 B:Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 11, 2011 C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6335 D: City Council Action Letter dated December 8, 2005 E: Applicant’s Request Letter dated August 1, 2011 F: Written comment G: Approved Tentative Map G: Planning/PDREPORT/CC/2011/M-2011-06 CC.doc Óóîðïïóðê Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÝËÐÛÎÌ×ÒÑ ïðíðð Ì±®®» ßª»²«» Ý«°»®¬·²±ô Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ çëðïì ÎÛÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒ ÒÑò êêêé ÑÚ ÌØÛ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌØÛ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÝËÐÛÎÌ×ÒÑ ÎÛÝÑÓÓÛÒÜ×ÒÙ ßÐÐÎÑÊßÔ ÑÚ ß ÓÑÜ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÌÑ ß ÐÎÛÊ×ÑËÍÔÇóßÐÐÎÑÊÛÜ ÌÛÒÌßÌ×ÊÛ ÐßÎÝÛÔ ÓßÐ øÌÓóîðïïóðê÷ ÌÑ ÓßÕÛ ×Ì ÓÑÎÛ ÝÑÒÍ×ÍÌÛÒÌ É×ÌØ ÌØÛ Îï ÆÑÒ×ÒÙ ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ ßÌ îïçèç Ô×ÒÜÇ ÔßÒÛ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² Ò±òæ Óóîðïïóðê ß°°´·½¿²¬æ Ú®¿²µ Í«² Ô±½¿¬·±²æ îïçèç Ô·²¼§ Ô¿²» øßÐÒ íëêóîëóðíïô óðíîô óðíí÷ ÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ××æ Ú×ÒÜ×ÒÙÍ ÚÑÎ ÓÑÜ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²± ®»½»·ª»¼ ¿² ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² º±® ¿ Ó±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ¿ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿° ¿ ¼»½®·¾»¼ ·² Í»½¬·±² ×× ±º ¬¸· Î»±´«¬·±²å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ²»½»¿®§ °«¾´·½ ²±¬·½» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¹·ª»² ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ð®±½»¼«®¿´ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²±ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ¸¿ ¸»´¼ ±²» ±® ³±®» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ±² ¬¸· ³¿¬¬»®å ¿²¼ ÉØÛÎÛßÍô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ¸¿ ³»¬ ¬¸» ¾«®¼»² ±º °®±±º ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± «°°±®¬ ¿·¼ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²å ¿²¼ ¸¿ ¿¬·º·»¼ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬æ ï÷ Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ «»ô ¿¬ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ´±½¿¬·±²ô ©·´´ ²±¬ ¾» ¼»¬®·³»²¬¿´ ±® ·²¶«®·±« ¬± °®±°»®¬§ ±® ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» ª·½·²·¬§ô ¿²¼ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¾» ¼»¬®·³»²¬¿´ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿´¬¸ô ¿º»¬§ô ¹»²»®¿´ ©»´º¿®»ô ±® ½±²ª»²·»²½»å î÷ Ì¸» °®±°±»¼ «» ©·´´ ¾» ´±½¿¬»¼ ¿²¼ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ·² ¿ ³¿²²»® ·² ¿½½±®¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý«°»®¬·²± Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ù»²»®¿´ Ð´¿² ¿²¼ Ý«°»®¬·²± Æ±²·²¹ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» °«®°±» ±º ¬¸· ¬·¬´»ò ÒÑÉô ÌØÛÎÛÚÑÎÛô ÞÛ ×Ì ÎÛÍÑÔÊÛÜæ Ì¸¿¬ ¿º¬»® ½¿®»º«´ ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ±º ³¿°ô º¿½¬ô »¨¸·¾·¬ô ¬»¬·³±²§ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® »ª·¼»²½» «¾³·¬¬»¼ ·² ¬¸· ³¿¬¬»®ô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² º±® Ó±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ð¿®½»´ Ó¿° ¿°°®±ª¿´ · ¸»®»¾§ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ º±® ¿°°®±ª¿´ô «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ½±²¼·¬·±² ©¸·½¸ ¿®» »²«³»®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸· Î»±´«¬·±² ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ±² Ð¿¹» î ¬¸»®»±ºå ¿²¼ Ì¸¿¬ ¬¸» «¾½±²½´«·±² «°±² ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º·²¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±² °»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸· ®»±´«¬·±² ¿®» ¾¿»¼ ¿²¼ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ®»½±®¼ ½±²½»®²·²¹ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² Ò±ò Óóîðïïóðêô ¿ »¬ º±®¬¸ ·² ¬¸» Ó·²«¬» ±º ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² Ó»»¬·²¹ ±º Ñ½¬±¾»® ïïô îðïïô ¿²¼ ¿®» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¾§ ®»º»®»²½» ¬¸±«¹¸ º«´´§ »¬ º±®¬¸ ¸»®»·²ò Î»±´«¬·±² Ò±ò Óóîðïïóðé Ñ½¬±¾»® ïïô îðïï Ð¿¹»óó ÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ×××æ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ßÜÓ×Ò×ÍÌÛÎÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÜÛÐßÎÌÓÛÒÌ ïòßÐÐÎÑÊÛÜ ÛÈØ×Þ×ÌÍ Ì¸» ¿°°®±ª¿´ · ¾¿»¼ ±² ¿² Û¨¸·¾·¬ ¬·¬´»¼ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿°ñÔ¿²¼ ±º Ü®ò Èò Í«²ñîïçèç Ô·²¼§ Ô¿²»ô Ý«°»®¬·²±ô ¾§ É»¬º¿´´ Û²¹·²»»®ô ×²½òô ¼¿¬»¼ Ñ½¬±¾»® îððëô ¿²¼ ½±²·¬·²¹ ±º ±²» ¸»»¬ ´¿¾»´»¼ ï ±º ïô »¨½»°¬ ¿ ³¿§ ¾» ¿³»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±²¼·¬·±² ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ·² ¬¸· ®»±´«¬·±²ò îòÓÑÜ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ÌÓóîððëóðë ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ Ì¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ¿°°®±ª¿´ ¿®» ¸»®»¾§ ¼»´»¬»¼ ·² ¬¸»·® »²¬·®»¬§ º®±³ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ß½¬·±² Ô»¬¬»® ¼¿¬»¼ Ü»½»³¾»® èô îððë º±® º·´» ²±ò ÌÓóîððëóðëæ Ý±²¼·¬·±² Ò±ò î ¬·¬´»¼æ ÜÛÛÜ ÎÛÍÌÎ×ÝÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒ ÔÑÌ ýï ÞË×ÔÜ×ÒÙ ÚÔÑÑÎ ßÎÛßå Ý±²¼·¬·±² Ò±ò è ¬·¬´»¼æ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜÍå ß²¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ½±²¼·¬·±²æ Ì¸» °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»® ¿¹®»» ¬± ¿ ¸±³» ²± ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² íððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ò íòÒÑÌ×ÝÛ ÑÚ ÚÛÛÍô ÜÛÜ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍô ÎÛÍÛÎÊßÌ×ÑÒÍ ÑÎ ÑÌØÛÎ ÛÈßÝÌ×ÑÒÍ Ì¸» Ý±²¼·¬·±² ±º Ð®±¶»½¬ ß°°®±ª¿´ »¬ º±®¬¸ ¸»®»·² ³¿§ ·²½´«¼» ½»®¬¿·² º»»ô ¼»¼·½¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô ®»»®ª¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® »¨¿½¬·±²ò Ð«®«¿²¬ ¬± Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ Ý±¼» Í»½¬·±² êêðîðø¼÷ øï÷ô ¬¸»» Ý±²¼·¬·±² ½±²¬·¬«¬» ©®·¬¬»² ²±¬·½» ±º ¿ ¬¿¬»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º «½¸ º»»ô ¿²¼ ¿ ¼»½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼»¼·½¿¬·±²ô ®»»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® »¨¿½¬·±²ò Ç±« ¿®» ¸»®»¾§ º«®¬¸»® ²±¬·º·»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» çðó¼¿§ ¿°°®±ª¿´ °»®·±¼ ·² ©¸·½¸ §±« ³¿§ °®±¬»¬ ¬¸»» º»»ô ¼»¼·½¿¬·±²ô ®»»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® »¨¿½¬·±²ô °«®«¿²¬ ¬± Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ Ý±¼» Í»½¬·±² êêðîðø¿÷ô ¸¿ ¾»¹«²ò ×º §±« º¿·´ ¬± º·´» ¿ °®±¬»¬ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸· çðó¼¿§ °»®·±¼ ½±³°´§·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¿´´ ±º ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ±º Í»½¬·±² êêðîðô §±« ©·´´ ¾» ´»¹¿´´§ ¾¿®®»¼ º®±³ ´¿¬»® ½¸¿´´»²¹·²¹ «½¸ »¨¿½¬·±²ò ÍÛÝÌ×ÑÒ ×Êæ ÝÑÒÜ×Ì×ÑÒÍ ßÜÓ×Ò×ÍÌÛÎÛÜ ÞÇ ÌØÛ ÐËÞÔ×Ý ÉÑÎÕÍ ÜÛÐßÎÌÓÛÒÌ ìò ÎÛÓÑÊßÔ ÑÚ ÎÛÝÑÎÜÛÜ ÎÛÍÌÎ×ÝÌ×ÊÛ ÝÑÊÛÒßÒÌÍ ßÒÜ ßÓÛÒÜÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ Ú×ÒßÔ ÐßÎÝÛÔ ÓßÐ ×² ®»º»®»²½» ¬± Óóîðïïóðê Ý±²¼·¬·±² Ò±ò î ®»º»®»²½»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ¸¿´´ °®±½» ¿² ¿³»²¼»¼ Ú·²¿´ Ð¿®½»´ Ó¿° ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ð«¾´·½ É±®µ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ò Ì¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ¸¿´´ ¿´± «¾³·¬ ½±ª»²¿²¬ô º±® ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ß¬¬±®²»§ô ¬¸¿¬ ®»½·²¼ ¬¸» °®»ª·±«´§ ®»½±®¼»¼ ½±ª»²¿²¬ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± Ý±²¼·¬·±² Ò±ò î ¿¾±ª»ò Ì¸» ½±ª»²¿²¬ ¸¿´´ ¾» ®»½±®¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿³»²¼»¼ Ú·²¿´ Ð¿®½»´ Ó¿°ò ÐßÍÍÛÜ ßÒÜ ßÜÑÐÌÛÜ ¬¸· ïï¬¸ ¼¿§ ±º Ñ½¬±¾»® îðïïô ¿¬ ¿ Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»¬·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ý«°»®¬·²±ô Í¬¿¬» ±º Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ô ¾§ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ®±´´ ½¿´´ ª±¬»æ ßÇÛÍæ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÛÎÍæ Ý¸¿·® Ô»»ô Ê·½» Ý¸¿·® Ó·´´»®ô Þ®±°¸§ô Þ®±©²´»§ô Í«² ÒÑÛÍæ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÛÎÍæ ²±²» ßÞÍÌß×Òæ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÛÎÍæ ²±²» ßÞÍÛÒÌæ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒÛÎÍæ ²±²» ßÌÌÛÍÌæ ßÐÐÎÑÊÛÜæ ññß¿®¬· Í¸®·ª¿¬¿ª¿ ññ É·²²·» Ô»» ß¿®¬· Í¸®·ª¿¬¿ª¿ É·²²·» Ô»»ô Ý¸¿·® Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Þ ÑÚÚ×ÝÛ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ Ý×ÌÇ ØßÔÔ ÝËÐÛÎÌ×ÒÑô Ýß çëðïìóíîëë øìðè÷ éééóó°´¿²²·²¹à½«°»®¬·²±ò±®¹ ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÍÌßÚÚ ÎÛÐÑÎÌ ß¹»²¼¿ ×¬»³ Ò±ò ß¹»²¼¿ Ü¿¬»æ Ñ½¬±¾»® ïïô îðïï Óóîðïïóðê ß°°´·½¿¬·±²æ Ú®¿²µ Í«² ß°°´·½¿²¬æ Ú®¿²µ Í«² Ð®±°»®¬§ Ñ©²»®æ îïçèç Ô·²¼§ Ô¿²» ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ßÐÒ íëêóîëóðíïô óðíî ¿²¼ óðíí÷ Ô±½¿¬·±²æ ß°°´·½¿¬·±² Í«³³¿®§æ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¿² ¿°°®±ª»¼ íó´±¬ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ð¿®½»´ Ó¿° øÌÓóîððëóðë÷ ¬± ³±¼·º§ ½»®¬¿·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ®»¬®·½¬·±² ¬± ®»º´»½¬ ½«®®»²¬ Îïó¦±²·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Í¬¿ºº ®»½±³³»²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ®»½±³³»²¼ ÎÛÝÑÓÓÛÒÜßÌ×ÑÒæ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ °»® ¬¸» ¼®¿º¬ ®»±´«¬·±² øß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬ ï÷ò ÐÎÑÖÛÝÌ ÜßÌßæ Îïóîð Æ±²·²¹æ Ð¿®½»´ Í·¦»æ Ô±¬ Ò±òÒ»¬ Ô±¬ ß®»¿ øÍ¯«¿®» Ú»»¬÷ ï îîôíèç î îéôíïî í ìïôìíìö ö ß®»¿ ±º º´¿¹ ´±¬ ¿½½» ¼»¼«½¬»¼ ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ²»¬ ´±¬ ¿®»¿ò Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÎï÷ ±® Ø·´´·¼» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÎØÍ÷ô Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Î»¹«´¿¬·±²æ ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ³±®» ®»¬®·½¬·ª» øÔ±¬ ï · ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ íôððð ¯«¿®» º±±¬ ¼©»´´·²¹÷ ÞßÝÕÙÎÑËÒÜæ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿° ß°°®±ª¿´ Ñ² Ò±ª»³¾»® èô îððëô ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿ ¬»²¬¿¬·ª» °¿®½»´ ³¿° øº·´» ²±ò ÌÓóîððëóðë÷ ¬± «¾¼·ª·¼» ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ îòêó¿½®» ´±¬ ·²¬± ¬¸®»» ´±¬ øß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬ î÷ò Ñ² Ü»½»³¾»® êô îððëô ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª¿´ ©¿ ¿°°»¿´»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» «®®±«²¼·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®ò Ì¸» ½±²½»®² ©»®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Îï ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ©»®» ²±¬ «ºº·½·»²¬ ·² ¼»¿´·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ·²½» ·¬ ©¿ ´±½¿¬»¼ ·² ¿² ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» ´±°» ±º ¿¾±«¬ îëû ±® ¹®»¿¬»®ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ «°¸»´¼ ¬¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±²ù ¼»½··±² ©·¬¸ ¿¼¼·¬·±² ±® ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¿ º»© ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±²¼·¬·±² øß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬ í÷ò Ì¸» Óóîðïïóðê Ô¿²¼ ±º Í«² ÌóÓ¿° ß³»²¼³»²¬ Ñ½¬±¾»® ïïô îðïï Ý±«²½·´ ¿¼¼»¼ ±²» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¬± Ý±²¼·¬·±² ýî ¬± ¿¼¼®» ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±® ½±²½»®²ò Ì¸» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ±º Ý±²¼·¬·±² ýî ®»¼«½»¼ ¬¸» ¸±«» ·¦» ±² Ô±¬ ýï »ª»² º«®¬¸»®ô º®±³ íôîðð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ ¬± íôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ò Ì¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ½±²»²¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸· ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿¬ ¬¸» ¬·³»ò Ñ¬¸»® ¿¼¼»¼ Ý±«²½·´ ½±²¼·¬·±² °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °®±¬»½¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» ±²·¬» ±¿µ ¬®»»ò Ñ²» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ¿°°®±ª¿´ ¬¸¿¬ ©¿ »²¼±®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ±² ¬¸» ¼»²·¿´ ±º ¬¸» ¿°°»¿´ ©¿ Ý±²¼·¬·±² ýèô ©¸·½¸ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¬®·½¬»® ±º »·¬¸»® ¬¸» Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ Ø·´´·¼» øÎØÍ÷ ±®¬¸» Í·²¹´» Ú¿³·´§ Î»·¼»²¬·¿´ øÎï÷ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ ©¸»² »ª¿´«¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò Îï Ø·´´·¼» Î«´» ×² îððéô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ²»© ¸·´´·¼» ¦±²·²¹ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ïè ´±°»¼ô ·²¹´»ó º¿³·´§ ¦±²»¼ ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ´±¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ °®±°»®¬§ô ·² ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ²±®¬¸ ±º Ô·²¼§ Ô¿²»ò ×² îðïïô Ý±«²½·´ º«®¬¸»® ¿³»²¼»¼ ¬¸» Îóï ¦±²·²¹ ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ¬± ·²½´«¼» ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±®¿´´ Îï ´±¬ ©·¬¸ ´±°» ±º îðû ±® ¹®»¿¬»® ·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ß ¿ ®»«´¬ ±º ¬¸»» ®»½»²¬ Îï Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ß³»²¼³»²¬ô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ô Ú®¿²µ Í«²ô · ®»¯«»¬·²¹ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¬± Ý±²¼·¬·±² î ¿²¼ è ±º ¸· °®·±® ¬»²¬¿¬·ª» ³¿° ¿°°®±ª¿´ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ¾»³±®» ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ²»© Îï ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ò Ü×ÍÝËÍÍ×ÑÒæ Ì¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ù ®»¯«»¬ ¿®» ±«¬´·²»¼ ¾»´±©æ ßòÜ»´»¬» Ý±²¼·¬·±² ýî ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý±«²½·´ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²±² ¬¸» º´±±® ¿®»¿ ®»¬®·½¬·±² ±² Ô±¬ ïò Ì¸» ½±²¼·¬·±² ¬¿¬»æ ÜÛÛÜ ÎÛÍÌÎ×ÝÌ×ÑÒ ÑÒ ÔÑÌ ýï ÞË×ÔÜ×ÒÙ ÚÔÑÑÎ ßÎÛß ×² ½±²¶«²½¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ³¿° ¿°°®±ª¿´ô ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ ¸¿´´ ®»½±®¼ ¿ ½±ª»²¿²¬ ±² Ô±¬ ýï ®»¬®·½¬·²¹ ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ¯«¿®» º±±¬¿¹» ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿®»¿ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¹¿®¿¹» ¿²¼ ¿²§ ¿½½»±®§ ¬®«½¬«®» ¬± ²± ³±®» ¬¸¿² íôîðð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ ß¬¬±®²»§ ¸¿´´ ®»ª·»© ¿²¼ ¿°°®±ª» ¬¸» º±®³ ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ®»¬®·½¬·±² °®·±® ¬± ®»½±®¼¿¬·±²ò Ì¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±² ¬± ¬¸· ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»® ½±²»²¬ ¬± º«®¬¸»® ®»¼«½» ¬¸» ¸±³» ¬± íôððð ¯«¿®» º»»¬ ±® ´»ò ×¬ ¬¿¬»æ Ì¸» °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»® ¿¹®»» ¬± ¿ ¸±³» ²± ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² íððð ¯«¿®»º»»¬ò ÞòÜ»´»¬» Ý±²¼·¬·±² ýè º®±³ ¬¸» Ý±«²½·´ ß½¬·±² Ô»¬¬»® ¼¿¬»¼ Ü»½»³¾»® èô îððëò Ì¸» ½±²¼·¬·±² ¬¿¬»æ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜÍ Ì¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ º«¬«®» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¸¿´´ ¿¼¸»®» ¬± ¬¸» ÎØÍ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ±® ¬¸» Îï Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® °»½·º·½ ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ·² »¿½¸ ±®¼·²¿²½» · ³±®» ®»¬®·½¬·ª»ò Ü»´»¬·²¹ ¬¸» ½±²¼·¬·±² ®»º»®»²½»¼ ¿¾±ª» ©·´´ ¸¿ª» ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ »ºº»½¬ ±² ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ¬¸» ¿¾±ª» ®»º»®»²½»¼ °®±°»®¬·»æ Óóîðïïóðê Ô¿²¼ ±º Í«² ÌóÓ¿° ß³»²¼³»²¬ Ñ½¬±¾»® ïïô îðïï Û¨·¬·²¹ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Î»¹«´¿¬·±²Ð®±°±»¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Î»¹«´¿¬·±² Ô±¬ ýï ³¿¨·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿®»¿ ±º íôðððìëû º´±±® ¿®»¿ ®¿¬·± øÎï ¬¿²¼¿®¼÷ò ¯«¿®» º»»¬ Ó¿¨·³«³ ¸±«» ·¦» ±² Ô±¬ ï ïðôðéë ¯«¿®» º»»¬ò Îóï ±® ÎØÍ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²ô ©¸·½¸»ª»® · ³±®» Îóï ¦±²·²¹ ®»¹«´¿¬·±² ø·²½´«¼·²¹ ®»¬®·½¬·ª»ò ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»¹«´¿¬·±² º±® ¾«·´¼·²¹ ±² ´±°» ±º îðû ±® ¹®»¿¬»®÷ò Í¬¿ºº «°°±®¬ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿²¬ù ®»¯«»¬ ·²½» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ¸¿ ¿´®»¿¼§ ³¿¼» ¿ °±´·½§ ¼»½··±² ¬± ¬®»¿¬ ¿´´ Îóï ¦±²»¼ °®±°»®¬·» ©·¬¸ ´±°» ±º îðû ±® ¹®»¿¬»® ·² ¿ ·³·´¿® ³¿²²»®ò ß²§ º«¬«®» ®»·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±°±¿´ ©·´´ ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¬± »²«®» ¬¸¿¬ ¹»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ô ´¿²¼½¿°·²¹ô ¿²¼ ¬±®³©¿¬»® ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ½«®®»²¬ ±®¼·²¿²½» ©·´´ ¾» º±´´±©»¼ò Ð®»°¿®»¼ ¾§æ Ý±´·² Ö«²¹ô ß×ÝÐô Í»²·±® Ð´¿²²»® Î»ª·»©»¼ ¾§æ ß°°®±ª»¼ ¾§æ ññÙ¿®§ Ý¸¿± ññß¿®¬· Í¸®·ª¿¬¿ª¿ ò Ù¿®§ Ý¸¿± ß¿®¬· Í¸®·ª¿¬¿ª¿ Ý·¬§ Ð´¿²²»® Ý±³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ü·®»½¬±® ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌÍæ ïòÜ®¿º¬ Î»±´«¬·±²ó Óóîðïïóðê îòÐ´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² Î»±´«¬·±² Ò±ò êííë íòÝ·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ß½¬·±² Ô»¬¬»® ¼¿¬»¼ Ü»½»³¾»® èô îððë ìòß°°´·½¿²¬ Î»¯«»¬ Ô»¬¬»® ¼¿¬»¼ ß«¹«¬ ïô îðïï ëòß°°®±ª»¼ Ì»²¬¿¬·ª» Ó¿° Ùæ°´¿²²·²¹ñ°¼®»°±®¬ñ°½ Ó ®»°±®¬ñîðïïñÓóîðïïóðê ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ý ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ü ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Û ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ú Ù OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:November 15, 2011 Subject Consider establishing a sister city relationship with Kunshan,China, and endorse thecreation of aKunshanSister City Committee. Recommended Action: Establish a sister city relationship with Kunshan, China, and endorse thecreation of a Kunshan Sister City Committee so this committee and its members may develop an organization that fully meets the sister guidelines of the City of Cupertino. Description: Over the past few years community members in Cupertino and Kunshan, China, have visited one another. Through this exchange members of their respective communities have developed a mutual interest in establishing sister city relations. The attached resolution affirms the City Council of Cupertino's intention to create and maintain a sister city relationship with Kunshan, China. As has been the historical policy and practice of the city of Cupertinothat sister city relationships are maintained by community members. Working through their respective sister city committees, our communitydirects, organizesand raisesfunds for sister city related activities. Discussion Community members in Cupertino working with residents, businesses and government officials from Kunshan, understand the requirementsof the Sister City Guidelines of the City of Cupertinoand appearto be able to successfully implement, and more importantly, to sustain a meaningful level of activity for this sister city relationship. Committees in both cities are comprised of volunteers drawn from all sectors of society. Both cities enjoy strong support from local governments and public-private partnerships. Both cities have a strong commitment among volunteers and committees. Both communities have an interest in deepening understanding of each others’ culture. Both committees have the commitmentof corporate partners to support activities. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Rick Kitson, Public and Environmental Affairs Director Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment A:A Resolution ofthe City Council of the City of Cupertino Establishing a Sister City relationship Between Kunshan, China, and the City of Cupertino, and Sister City Committee to Identify, Manage, Coordinate and Implement Activities relating Thereto. Attachment B:Sister City Guidelines for the City of Cupertino, Adopted September 20, 2005. RESOLUTION NO. 11- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KUNSHAN, CHINAAND THE CITY OF CUPERTINOAND A SISTER CITY COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY, MANAGE, COORDINATE AND IMPLEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the CupertinoCity Council is dedicated to pursuing regional, national and international relations which produce broad community benefit; and WHEREAS, the CupertinoCity Council is interested in creating an atmosphere in which international economic development and trade can be developed, implemented and strengthened; and WHEREAS, the CupertinoCity Council is interested in fostering an environment in which communitypartnerships can be established in order to creatively learn, work and solve problems together; and WHEREAS, the CupertinoCity Council is committed to creating, in addition to economic and business opportunities, cultural and educational experiences for the citizens of Cupertinothrough long term municipal partnerships. WHEREAS, Kunshan, China,shares numerous characteristics with Cupertino including a strong educational community and houses numerous high-technology companies;and WHEREAS, Cupertino and Kunshaninclude large numbers of citizens and organizations currently engaging one another in educational, technical, economic and cultural ideas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, The City of Cupertino does hereby establish a sister city relationship with Kunshan, China, and endorse the creation of a KunshanSister City Committee so this committee and its members may develop an organization that fully meets the sister guidelines of the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino will support the program as described in the Policies and Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Councilof the City of Cupertino, this 16thday of August,2011by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ____________________________________________________ Kimberly Smith, City ClerkGilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:November 15, 2011 Subject An Ordinance amending Chapter 9.18(Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection)of the Cupertino Municipal Code to specify the legal authorityand implement the requirements in the City’s stormwater permit. Recommended Action Conduct first reading of the Ordinance. Discussion On October 14, 2009, the City was issued a new, five-year Municipal Stormwater National PollutantDischarge Elimination System(NPDES)permit, referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).TheMRP,issued to the 77 agencies that discharge stormwater to San Francisco Bay,replacedtheprevious Santa Clara Valley NPDES permit issuedby the Regional Water Quality Control Boardin 2001 and amended in 2003. This permit includes newand expanded requirements for the control, treatment and management of stormwateron private and public property and specifies compliance dates for each requirement. The City isspecifically required by the MRP to have this authority. Revisionsrecommended for Chapter 9.18of the Cupertino Municipal Codeare summarized as follows: Administrative Language is replaced or added tocomply withMRPrequirements for developers of new or redevelopedproperties to manage stormwater runoff from their site, by providing treatment, implementing best management practices, andcontrolling stormwater dischargesso that such discharges do not threaten the environmental healthof local natural water bodies orthe public. Languageis added whichprovidesfor the enforcement of stormwater discharge regulationsthrough the City’s administrative citation process, as well as other enforcement mechanisms. Litter Reduction Amajor component of the City’s permit to discharge stormwater to local creeksis the requirement of the City to submit a 40% litter reduction plan to the State Water Board by February 1, 2012 and thereafter to demonstrate the control and decrease of litter and debris by 40% as of July 1,2014 and 70% in 2017. All litter generated within the City that could potentially reach the City’s stormwater drainage system or local creeks is now mandated to be the City’s responsibility to control, manage and (by 2022) to eradicate (at a100% reduction level).The City must demonstrate this compliance through the timely implementation of management measures and controls.(MRP Provision C.10.) One of theproposed ordinance changes (CMC 9.18.115) wouldrequire privatedevelopment to install trash capturedevices at the siteto intercept and contain trash before it reaches the City’sstormwater drainagesystem. The MRPdoesnotspecifically require new development to install thesedevices; however,it does require the City to achieve these litter reduction targets.For this reason,the requirement that developers install trash capture devices instorm drain inlets on private commercial property if theyconnect to the City’s storm drainage systemis recommended as one component ofthe City’s planto achieve itslitter reduction percentageby the required deadlines.Additionaltrash and litterreduction measures will be necessary if the Cityis to meetitsfirst 40% reduction oflitter by July 1, 2014. Sustainability Impact The new MRP requirements mandate the reductionor elimination ofrunoff from new and redevelopedsitesby infiltrating stormwaterinto thegroundor capturing rainwater for reuse. The premise is that undisturbed,permeable land absorbsand infiltrates stormwater, providing treatment and preventing high-flowdamage to natural creeks.Bycontrast, impermeable surfaces such as buildings, roads, walkways, drivewaysand other hardscapegenerally prevent the natural, cleansing rainwater infiltration process which recharges our groundwater. Impermeable surfaces contribute to potentially unmanageable amounts ofpollutant-carrying stormwater to run off to local creeks and the Baywithoutany treatment and potentially causing flooding and damage to creeks. Fiscal Impact New and expanded requirements areexpected to cost developers no more than2%of overall project costs. City capital projects are held to the same permit criteria and cost impacts are expected to be the same. The primary impact of the expandedrequirements for treatment and retention of stormwater onsite atsmaller projects (5,000 sq ft of impervious surfaceadded or replaced for special land use categories, i.e. auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurantsand uncovered parking lots,which lowerstheprevious threshold of 10,000 sq ft)willbe on new development and capital improvement projects.Developers and local governmentshave been workingwith mostof these requirements since the first set of regulations wentinto effect in 2003.Since the new MRP, which wasissued jointly to all Bay Area counties,has introducedstandards and consistencybetween the cities,developers and contractors will be aware that the requirements do not changefrom county to countyamongthe 77 agencies that are permitted by the State to discharge stormwater to San Francisco Bay. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A-Draft Ordinance Redline Version ÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÒÑòïïóÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.18 (STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WATERSHED PROTECTION) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFYTHE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY’S STORMWATER PERMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.. Code AmendmentChapter 9.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ¿ º±´´±© ·² Û¨¸·¾·¬ ß ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼ ¸»®»¬±å is hereby amended to read Section 2. Effective Date.This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937; and; Section 3. Certification.The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the _15day of November, 2011 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the _____day of ___________by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________ Kimberly Smith, City ClerkGilbert Wong, Mayor City of Cupertino ï ÛÈØ×Þ×Ì ß ÝØßÐÌÛÎ çòïèæ ÍÌÑÎÓÉßÌÛÎ ÐÑÔÔËÌ×ÑÒ ÐÎÛÊÛÒÌ×ÑÒ ßÒÜ ÉßÌÛÎÍØÛÜ ÐÎÑÌÛÝÌ×ÑÒ 9.18.010Purpose of Chapter. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified urban storm water runoff as the leading cause of water pollution in the United States.Furthermore, both federal and state agencies have identified storm water runoff as a major source of pollution adversely impacting the beneficial uses of the South San Francisco Bay. As a result, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, has issued the City of Cupertino a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.The NPDES permit requires that the City of Cupertino implement a Storm Water Management Program to control storm water runoff so that it does not cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality standards of South San Francisco Bay. The purpose of this Chapter is, therefore, to protect health, life, resources and property by providing minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City of Cupertino's storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CA0029718.Enactment of this Chapter falls within the scope of the City of Cupertino police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.Nothing in this Chapter is intended to preclude more stringent federal or state regulation of any activity covered by this Chapter. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified urban stormwater runoff as the leading cause of water pollution in the United States.Section 402(p) of the federal Clean WaterAct, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity (including construction activities), and designated stormwater discharges, which are considered significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States. As a result, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge NPDES permit to the City of Cupertino and to seventy-sixother agencies and entities that discharge stormwater runoff to San Francisco Bay. This Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit requires that the City of Cupertino implement a Stormwater Management Program to prevent exceedances of water quality objectives and ensure that discharges do not cause, threaten to cause, or contribute to water quality impairment of watersof the State, specifically local waterways and San Francisco Bay. The purpose of this chapter isto provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit issued to the City of Cupertino on October 14, 2009 (Effective December 1, 2009),and to ensure ongoing compliance with î the most recent version of the City of Cupertino’s NPDES permitregarding municipal stormwater and urban runoff requirements. This chapter shall apply to all water entering the storm drainsystem generated on any private, public, developed and undeveloped lands lying within the City. This chapter shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Act and any applicable implementing regulations, as they exist at the time of enactment or as later amended. Enactment of this chapter falls within the goals stated in the City’s General Plan, sections 5-32 through 5-37 (Urban Runoff Pollution) and the scope of the City of Cupertino police powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.Nothing in this chapter is intended to preclude more stringent federal or state regulation of any activity covered by this chapter. 9.18.015Administration. This chapter shall be administered by the Director of Public Works. Any powers granted to or duties imposed upon this individual to administer, implement and enforce the provisions of this chapter may be delegated to other City personnel. 9.18.020Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise. Words and phrases not defined in this chapter shall have the definitions set forth in the Municipal Regional Permit or by the regulations implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Clean Water Act Section 402, and Division 7 of the California Water Code, as they currentlyexist or may be amended. 1.“Applicant.”Any person, firm, or governmental agency who executes the necessary forms to procure official approval of a project or a permit to carry out construction of a project. 2."Applicable site."Any site that could reasonably be considered to cause or contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. This definition includes but it not limited to pollutant sources associated with outdoor process and manufacturing areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor waste storage anddisposal areas, outdoor vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance areas, outdoor parking areas and access roads, outdoor wash areas, outdoor drainage from indoor areas, rooftop equipment, contaminated and erodible surface areas, and other sources determined to have a reasonable potential to contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. 3.“Authorized enforcement official.”The director of public works or the director’s designees. í 4.“Best management practice.” (“BMP”)Astructural device, measure, facility, or activity that helps to achieve stormwater management control objectives at a Regulated Project or applicable site. BMPs include, but are not limited to the following: secondary containment for storage receptacles; rock entrances at construction site exits; timers on sprinklers and berms and filter fabrics protecting storm drain inlets.“Maintenance of a best management practice or stormwater treatment system.”Periodic action taken to maintain the as-designed performance of best management practice or stormwater treatment system, and includes, but is not limited to, repairs as necessary and replacement of the best management practice or stormwater treatment system by an equally effective or more effective best management practice or stormwater treatment system. 2.Best management practices (BMP)” A structural device or nonstructural practice designed to temporarily store and/or treat stormwater runoff in order to reduce pollution, mitigate flooding and provide other amenities. 5."Bio-retention area."Landscaping features adapted to treat stormwater runoff on a development site. Surface runoff is directed into shallow, landscaped depressions. These depressions are designed with soil mixtures and vegetation that incorporate many of the pollutant removalsystems that operate in a natural ecosystem. If the subsurface soils will not allow for natural infiltration (e.g., heavy clay soil), the filtered runoff may be collected in a perforated underdrain in the area and returned to the storm drain collection systems. 6."CASQA."California Stormwater Quality Association. 7."CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook."The four-volume set of handbooks for New and Redevelopment, Construction, Industrial and Commercial, and Municipal operations produced byCASQA and available at www.casqa.org. 3.8.“City.”All the territory lying within the municipal boundaries of the City of Cupertino, as presently existing, plus all territory which may be added thereto during the effective term of the ordinance codified in this chapter. 9.“Conditionally Exempt Discharge.” A categorization of non-stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content that may be discharged upon adequate assurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances ofwater quality standards. 10.“Construction.”Constructing, clearing, grading, or excavation that results in soil disturbance. Construction also includes structure demolition. Construction does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of a facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety, ì interior remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or construction waste tostormwater or mechanical permit work. 4.“Commercial vehicle washing facility.”A commercial facility where vehicle washing is a primary business activity.Commercial vehicle washing facilities include, but are not limited to, mobile washing rigs. 5.11.“Cooling system.”The pipes, heat exchangers and other appurtenances used to convey cooling water in cooling towers, direct contact cooling systems and similar fixed cooling systems.Multiple units of a cooling water system serving a building or piece of equipment are considered as one system if the cooling water distribution system units are physically connected. 6.12.“Deemed complete.” The City reviews development applications within 30 days of submittal to determine whether all the required information has been provided and the application can be “deemed complete” and accepted.If the application submittal is incomplete, staff sends a letter to the applicant indicating that the application is “deemed incomplete” and lists the items needed to complete the application.If the Planning Division's written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, under State Law, it is deemed “complete” and staff proceeds with processing the application. 13."Detached single-family home project."The building of one single new house or addition and/or replacement of impervious surface to one single existing house, which is not part of a larger plan of development. 14.“Detention.”The temporary storage of storm runoff in a manner that controls peak discharge rates and provides some gravity settling of pollutants. 15.“Development.”Any construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment or reconstruction of any public or private project, or mass grading for anticipated construction. Development does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity or original purpose of a facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to protect immediately public health and safety. 7. “Development.”A land developmentor land development project. 16."Diligently pursuinga project" or "diligent pursuance of a project.”Any action taken by the project applicant to obtain the necessary approvals from the City, which may be demonstrated by the project applicant’s submittal of supplemental information to the original project application, plans, or other documents required for any necessary approvals. 17.8.“Director of Public Works.” The Director of Public Works and his or her duly authorized agents and representatives. ë 9.“Director of Community Development.” The Director of Community Development and his or her duly authorized agents and representatives. 18.“Discharge.”When used as a verb, means to allow pollutants to directly or indirectly enterstormwater, or to allowstormwater or non-stormwater to directly or indirectly enter the storm drain system from an activity or operation. When used as a noun, “discharge” means the pollutants,stormwater or non-stormwater,that aredischarged. 19.“Discharger.”Any person or entity engaged in activities or operations or owning facilities, which will or may result in pollutants enteringstormwater or the storm drain system. Discharger also means the owners of real property on which such activities, operations or facilities are located; provided, however, that a local government or public authority is not a discharger as to activities conducted by others in public rights-of-way. 20.10.“Easement.” A grant or reservation by the owner of land for the use of such land by others for a specific purpose or purposes, and which must be included in the conveyance of land affected by such easement. 21.“Enforcement Notice.” A notice provided to the responsible party and/or property owner to warn of impending or current enforcement actions imposed by the City for violations or threatened violations of the Municipal NPDES Stormwater Discharge permit or other provisions of this chapter. Enforcement notices include but are not limited to a notice of violation (NOV), a pre-citation warning notice, a pre-citation letter, or an administrative citation fine. 22."Enforcement Response Plan." A plan established, maintained and revised as necessary by the Director of Public Works which contains guidelines and criteria for implementing consistent and escalating enforcement for repeated violations of the same type from the same source. 23.“Engineer-of-Record.” The California Registered Professional Engineer who designs the stormwater treatment measures and develops the Stormwater Management Plan for a Regulated Project, as required by the Municipal Regional Permit. 11.“Erosion and sedimentation control plan.”A plan designed to minimize the accelerated erosion and sediment runoff at a site during land disturbance activities. 24.12“Existing conditions.” Refers to the conditions that exist on a site before the commencement of a land development project and at the time the City of Cupertino approves plans for the land development of a site. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing conditions are considered those at the time before the first item being approved or permitted. ê 13.“Fleet washing facility.”A facility for washing vehicles at a location where a business maintains six or more vehicles. 25.14.“Food service facility.” Any nonresidential establishment that uses or generates grease when preparing food. Food service facility does not include any facility that prepares food for off-site cooking and consumption, or any facility that does not use, generate, or dispose of grease in cooking or preparing food. 26."Full trash capture" or a "full capture system or device."Any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area and as approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2. 27.“General permit.”An NPDES permit issued under Code of Federal Regulations Section 122.28 (40 CFR 122.28) authorizing a category of discharges under the Clean Water Act within a geographical area. 28.15.“Grease” Includes fats, oils, waxes, or other related constituents. Grease may be of vegetable or animal origin, including butter, lard, margarine, vegetable fats and oils, and fats in meats, cereals, seeds, nuts and certain fruits. Grease may also be of mineral origin, including kerosene, lubricating oil, and road oil. 29.16.“Grease removal device.” An interceptor, trap or other mechanical device designed, constructed and intended to remove, hold or otherwise prevent the passage of grease to the sanitary sewer. 17.“Group 1 project.”Per the definition in the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit, any private land development or redevelopment project or 2 any public roadway project creating or replacing 43,560 ft(one acre) or more of impervious surface.The following types of projects are exempt from the Group 1 Project requirements. a.single-family homes not part of a larger common plan of development; b.sidewalks; c.bicycle lanes; d.trails; e.bridge accessories; f.guardrails; g.landscape features; é h.interior remodels; and i.routine maintenance or repair including roof or exterior surface replacement, pavement resurfacing, repaving and road pavementstructural section rehabilitation within the existing footprint, and any other reconstruction work within a public street or road right-of-way where both sides of that right-of-way are developed. 18.“Group 2A project.”Per the definition in theCity's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit, the same as the Group 1 Project definition, except that the size threshold of impervious area for new and Significant Redevelopment projects is 2 reduced from 43,560 ft(one acre) to 10,000 square feet and the project is one of the following land use categories: a.Gas stations; b.Auto wrecking yards; c.Loading docks and surface parking lots containing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area; and d.Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas (including washing and repair), outdoor handling or storage of waste or hazardous materials, outdoor manufacturing area(s), outdoor food handling or processing, outdoor animal care, outdoor horticultural activities, and various other industrial and commercial uses where potential pollutant loading cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through other post-construction source control and site design practices. 18-1.“Group 2B project.”Per the definition in the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit, the same as the Group 1 Project definition, except that the size threshold of impervious area for new and Significant Redevelopment projects is 2 reduced from 43,560 ft(one acre) to 10,000 square feet. 19.30.“Hazardous material.”Any material, which because of its quantity, concentration, toxicity, corrosiveness, mutagenicity, flammability or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or serious, irreversible or incapacitating illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged.Any material so designated ø»» ÝÓÝ çòîðòðíð Úò÷ by Chapter 101 of this code. 20.31.“Hydromodification.”Changes to the storm water runoff characteristics of a watershed caused by changes in land use. Hydromodification can increase the velocity, volume, and duration of storm water runoff and intensify sediment transport.These changes increase the erosion potentialof the receiving watercourse. Problems resulting from hydromodification include channel scouring, bank undercutting, and channel widening and deepening, all of which adversely impact downstream habitats. è 32.“Hydromodification management” (“HM”).The requirements for Regulated Projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface and are not specifically excluded in the requirements of Provision C.3.g.ii and Attachment F for the Santa Clara County permittees, as adopted in the Municipal RegionalPermit. A project that does not increase impervious surface area over the pre-project condition does not qualify as an HM project. The HM is designed to manage increases in the magnitude, volume and duration of runoff from new development and significant redevelopment projects in order to protect streams from increased potential for erosion or other adverse impacts. The HM contains management standards and performance criteria for subject development which are incorporated into this chapter. 21.“ Hydromodification management BMPS.”Any combination of on-site, off-site, and in-stream control measures incorporated into specified development and redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition, in accordance with the City's NDPES Municipal Storm Water Discharge permit and the SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan. 22.“Hydromodification management plan (HMP).”A comprehensive plan to control hydromodification by maintaining the pre-project stream erosion potential.The HMP is required by the City's NDPES Municipal Storm Water Discharge permit.The HMP contains thresholds for project applicability and guidance on selecting and designing best management practices to control hydromodification. 23.“Illicit connection.”The unauthorized connection of a wastewater stream to storm sewers. 33.“Illegal connection.”The connection of an unauthorized discharge conduit to a storm sewer or watercourse through or by which an illicit discharge may be discharged. 34.“Illicit discharge.”Any discharge to a storm drain system that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges pursuant to an NPDES permit, including categorically allowed discharges and conditionally exempted discharges noted in Provision C.15 of the Municipal Regional Permit. 24.35.“Impervious surface.” A surface composed of any material that significantly impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into soil.Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, buildings, streets and roads, and anyconcrete or asphalt surfaces. 36“Impervious surface area.”The ground area covered or sheltered by an impervious surface, measured as if from directly above. 37“Infiltration.”The process of percolatingstormwater or non-stormwater into the subsoil. ç 38.“Infiltration device."Any structure deeper than wide, with no underdrain,designed primarily to infiltrate (percolate) water into the subsurface and bypass the natural groundwater protection afforded by surface soil. The definition of stormwater infiltration device does not include any septic system or other waste water disposal system, any infiltration of water other than stormwater, Santa Clara Valley Water District percolation ponds, lined sumps and basins, or any naturally occurring body of surfacewater. (1)Examples of best management practices that are stormwater infiltration devices include, but are not limited to: A.Infiltration basins and trenches (including French drains); B.Infiltration and exfiltration trenches; C.Unlined retention basins (i.e., basins with no outlets); D.Unlined or open-bottomed vaults or boxes installed below grade that store stormwater allowing infiltration into subsurface soils; E.Dry wells; and F.Injection wells. (2)The definition of infiltration device does not apply to the following best management practices that treat stormwater and then release it into a storm drain system: A.Media filtration devices. B.Underground detention system; C.Hydrodynamic devices; D.Water quality inlet filters; E.Contained and flow-through planter boxes; F.Roof gardens; G.Extended detentionbasin; H.Any device with an impermeable liner and underdrain/outfall to the storm drain. 39."In-lieu fees."The monetary amount necessary to provide both hydraulically- sized treatment in accordance with numeric sizing (MRP Provision C.3.d) and ïð LID treatment measures of an equivalent quantity of stormwater runoff and pollutant loading and a proportional share of the operation and maintenance costs of the Regulated Project. 40.“Irrigationor landscape irrigation.”The artificial application of water to the land, landscaping or soil,used to assist in establishing vegetation, maintenance of landscape(e.g. watering of lawn), growing of agricultural crops and revegetation of disturbed soils in dry areas and during periods of inadequate rainfall. 25.41.“Land development activities.” Those actions or activities that comprise, facilitate,or result in land development. 42.“Land disturbance activity.”Any activity that moves soils or substantially alters the pre-existing vegetated or man-made cover of any land including, but not limited to, grading, digging, cutting scraping, stockpiling or excavating of soil; placement of fill materials; paving, pavement removal, exterior construction; substantial removal of vegetation where soils are disturbed including, but not limited to, removal by clearing or grubbing or any activity which bares soil or rock or involves streambed alterations or diversion or piping of any watercourse. Land disturbance activity does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or the original purpose of the facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to protect public health and safety. 43.“Land owner” or “Property Owner.”The holder of legal title to the land, and other persons or entities who exercise control over a land development project pursuant to rights granted in a purchase agreement, joint venture agreement, development agreement, or long-term lease 44.“Landscape.”As it is used in this chapter, landscapemay be, butisnot limited to, garden areas,lawn, turf, trees, hedges, vegetated areas,planting areas, rain gardens, native vegetation, existing wildland,and open spaces with permeable ground. 26.“Loading dock.”The area of a facility intended for the loading and unloading of trucks, plus an additional radius of ten feet. 45.“Low Impact Development” (“LID”).An approach to new and redevelopment designs to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover, and promoting infiltration,storage,detainment, evapotranspiration, and/or the harvesting of stormwater runoff close to its source. LID techniques include both source control and site design measures and employ principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing imperviousness. LID stormwater control measures include, but are not limited to, rain barrels, cisterns, green roofs, permeable pavement, and preserving undeveloped open space. LID principles treat stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product that must be removed from the site. ïï 46.“Maximum extent practicable.”Astandard for implementation of stormwater management programs to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent possible, taking into account equitable considerations and competing facts including, but not limited to the seriousness of the problem,public health risks, environmental benefits, pollutant removal effectiveness, regulatory compliance, cost and technical feasibility. 27.“Maximum extent practicable.”The maximum degree of pollution reduction that is achievable by applying best management practices, taking into account the best available technology, cost effectiveness and other competing issues such as human safety and welfare, endangered and threatened resources, historic properties and geographic features. 47."Micro-detention." A series of multiple small stormwater detention areas that absorb or detain some or all of the stormwater runoff in a development site,by temporarily storing stormwater near where it falls as precipitation. Micro-detention is one of several Best Management Practices that can be used to treat or infiltrate stormwater or collect it for reuse at a development site and can include common landscaping features such as small garden areas, tree grates, perimeter hedges, and bio-retention areas such as rain gardens; it may also include non-vegetated areas such as sub- surface storage areas with regulated out-flow. 48.“Mobile Businesses.”Service providing businessesthat operate by travelling to customers or customer’s sites, rather than operating froma permanently fixed facility. Examples of mobile businesses with a potential to discharge non-stormwater discharges are, but are not limited to, automobile washing, vehicle oil changing, power washing, steam cleaning, and carpet cleaning. 49.“Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.” The Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, also termed the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). All requirements in the Municipal Regional Permitare required and enforceable by the City. 27.“Maximum extent practicable.”The maximum degree of pollution reduction that is achievable by applying best management practices, taking into account the best available technology, cost effectiveness and other competing issues such as human safety and welfare, endangered and threatened resources, historic properties and geographic features. 50.“New development.”A land development activity on a previously undeveloped site. 51."Non-stormwater."Any discharge that is not composed entirely of stormwater. ïî 52."Notice of Violation" ("NOV").An official written notice of noncompliance, issued to a discharger from the Directorof Public Works, which provides notification that a violation of this chapter has occurred, consistent with an Enforcement Response Plan writtenin accordance with permit requirements. 53.“NPDES.” As authorized by the Clean WaterAct (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program whichcontrols water pollution by regulating sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The State Water Board establishes policies and regulations that help protect and restore the water quality in California,coordinates with and supports Regional Water Board efforts, and reviews Regional Water Board actions. The Regional Water Boards monitor and enforce theplans, policies, and regulationsandissue the vast majority of NPDES permits,typically for a five-year term. 29.“NPDES municipal stormwater discharge permit.”A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the City of Cupertinoby the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 30.“Numeric BMP sizing criteria.”Requirements for designing stormwater treatment BMPs that are included in the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit and more specifically described in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's “Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects.” 31.“Oil/water separator.”A receptacle designed and constructed to intercept, separate, and prevent the passage of oils and sediments into the sewer system. 32.“On-site stormwater treatment facility.”A stormwater treatment facility located within the boundaries of the site. 33.54.“Operation and maintenance agreement.”A written agreement providing for the long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment measures management facilities and practices onata site or with respect to a land development project, which when properlyrecorded in the deed records constitutes a restriction on the title to a site or other land involved in a land development project. 34.55.“Owner.”The legal or beneficial owner of a site, including but not limited to, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of the site. 56."Permeable or Pervious surfaces."Surfaces such aspervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and/or granular materials that allow water to infiltrate into subsurface soil. 35.57.“Permit.”The permit issued by the City of Cupertino to the applicant required for undertaking any land development activity. ïí 3658.“Person.” Any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, joint venture, corporation or company, and includes the United States, the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, special purpose districts and any officer or agency thereof. 37.“Post-development.”Refers to the time period, or the conditions that may reasonably be expected or anticipated to exist, after completion of the land development activity on a site as the context may require. 59.“Pollutant of Concern.” As described in theMunicipalRegional Permit, pollutants of concern are, but are not limited to, sewage, industrial wastes, heavy metals, sediments from active or inactive construction sites, vehicle fluids, chlorine and chlorine compounds (including pool and spa water), synthetic organics (pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs), paints, solvents, trash, litter, cardboard, debris, rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes. 60.“Redevelopment.”Anyland-disturbing activitythat results in the creation, addition, or replacement of exterior impervious surface area on a site on which some past development has occurred. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to the expansion of a building footprint; addition or replacement of a structure; replacement of impervious surface area that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities related to structural or impervious surfaces. Excluded are interior remodels; routine maintenance or repair, such as roof or exterior wall surface replacement; and pavement maintenance resurfacing within the existing footprint. 38.“Redevelopment.”A land development project on a previously developed site, excluding ordinary maintenance activities, interior remodeling of existing buildings, resurfacing of paved areas, and exterior changes or improvements which do not materially increase or concentrate stormwater runoff, or cause additional stormwater runoff pollution. 61."Regional project."Aregional or municipal project with sufficient capacity or credit to protect or enhance water quality and/or beneficial uses in a manner equivalent to or greater than the stormwater benefits that would have been provided from the installation of the required treatment measures at the subject project site. A regional project must discharge to or address the same receiving waters as the subject project site and must meet other Municipal Regional Permit conditions, such as requirements for the project completion date. 29.62.“Regulated Project.” Any project fitting a category description listed in Provision C.3.b. of the Municipal Regional Permit. 63."Riparian areas."An ecosystem that is the interface between dry land and a water body such as a creek, stream, river, lake, or marsh. Vegetation in riparian areas is characterized by a predominance of hydrophilic plants. ïì 39.64.“Runoff.”Stormwater runoff.The water from rain or irrigation that flows over the land surface and is not absorbed into the ground, instead flowing into streams or other surface waters or land depressions. 40.65.“Runon.”Stormwater flowWaterentering a specific location from elsewhere on or off theasite. 41.66.“Sanitary sewage or sewage.”Water-carried wastes from residences, business property, institutions and industrial property excluding ground water, surface water, and storm waters. 42.67.“Santa Clara ValleyUrban RunoffPollution Prevention Program.” (“SCVURPPP”)The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program is an association of thirteen cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.Program participants, referred to as Co-permittees, share a common Municipal Regional Permitto discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. 43.68.“Secondary containment.”The level of containment external to and separate from the primary containment,designed as the first levelof protection against accidental discharges or overflows from the primary containment. 44.69.“Sewer system or sanitary sewer system.”All sewers and other facilities for carrying, collecting, treating, and disposing of sanitary sewage. 45.70.“Site.”Any tract, lot or parcel of land or combination of tracts, lots, or parcels of land, which are in one ownership, or are contiguous and in diverse ownership where a development is to be performed as part of a unit, subdivision, or project. 71.“Site design measures.”Techniques designed to reduce the amount of runoff by decreasing the amount of impervious surface, infiltrating runoff into the soil and/or temporary detention. Examples of site design measures include directing runoff to landscaped areas, limiting the amount of impervious surface, and using permeable pavement. 46.“Site design BMPS.”Nonstructural techniques designed to reduce the amount of runoff by decreasing the amount of impervious surface, infiltrating runoff into the soil and/or temporary detention.Examples of site design BMPs include narrower streets, permeable pavement, and shared driveways. 72.“Source control measure.”ny schedule of activities, prohibitions of practices, ß maintenance procedures, managerial practices or operational practices that aim to prevent stormwater pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution.Structural measures or nonstructural practices used to eliminate contact between rainfall and potential source of contamination. Examples include covered materials handling and vehicle washing areas, parking lot sweeping, and sewer clean-outs installed adjacent to new swimming pools. ïë 47.“Source control BMPS.”Structural measures or nonstructural practices used to eliminate contact between rainfall and potential source of contamination.Examples include covered materials handling areas, parking lots sweeping, and sewer clean-outs installed adjacent to new swimming pools. 73. "Special land use categories."Regulated Projects in the categories of (i) auto service facilities described in Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532, 5734 and 7536 through 7539; (ii) retail gasoline outlets; (iii) restaurants (5812); or (iv) uncovered parking lots that stand alone or are part of any development project, including the top uncovered portion of parking structures, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer. 74.“Storm drain system.”The conveyance or systemof conveyances, including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains owned or operated by the City and used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting, or disposing ofrunoff. 48.“Storm drain.”Any pipe, conduit or sewer of the city designed or used for the disposal of storm and surface waters and drainage including unpolluted cooling water and unpolluted industrial process water, but excluding any community sanitary sewer system. 75.“Stormwater.”Surface runoff and drainage associated with storm events. 49.76.“Stormwater discharge.”Any discharge from land that results or probably will result in a discharge into watercourses.The discharges represent a process whereby pollutants, debris and chemicals generated from various land uses accumulate on streets, construction sites, parking lots and other exposed surfaces and are washed off and carried away by stormwater runoff into watercourses. The major pollutants of concern in these discharges are heavy metals, sediments, petroleum hydrocarbons, organochlorine, pesticides and toxics. 50.“Stormwater management.”The collection, conveyance, storage, treatment and disposal of stormwater runoff in a manner intended to prevent increased flood damage, streambank channel erosion, habitat degradation and water quality degradation, and to enhance and promote the public health, safety and general welfare. 51.“Stormwater management facility.”Any infrastructure that controls, treats or conveys stormwater runoff. 52.“Stormwater management plan.”A document describing how existing runoff characteristics will be affected by a land development project and containing measures for complying with the provisions of this ordinance. 77. “Stormwater Management Plan.”A document describing how existing runoff characteristics will be affected by a land development project and containing measures for preventing increased flood damage, streambank channel erosion andhabitat and water ïê quality degradation, while enhancing and promoting public health, safety and general welfare, in compliancewith the provisions of this chapter. 53.“Stormwater treatment BMPS.”Structural measures designed to reduce stormwater pollution by capturing and treating runoff.Examples include detention basins, vegetated swales and media filters. 54.“Stormwater pollution prevention plan.” A document identifying potential stormwater pollutant sources at a construction site, the stormwater source control BMPs to be used to reduce these pollutants during and after construction and a description of required BMP monitoring.Generally applies to construction projects disturbing one or more acres. 78. “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.” (“SWPPP”) A document identifying potential stormwater pollutant sources at a construction or industrial site, the best management practices to be used to reduce these pollutants during and after construction and a description of required BMP monitoring. 55.“Stormwater runoff.”Water from rain, landscape irrigation, or other sources that flows over the land surface without entering the soil. 79.“Stormwater Treatment” or “StormwaterTreatmentMeasure.” A constructed treatment system, or nonstructural practice designed to temporarily retain, infiltrate or otherwise store and/or treat stormwater runoff in order to remove pollutants, mitigate flooding, protect habitat, and provide other amenities. Stormwater treatment measures include site design, source control, low impact development controlmeasures and hydromodification management controls. Such processes include, but are not limited to filtration, gravity settling, media absorption, biodegradation, biological uptake, chemical oxidation and ultraviolet (UV) radiation. 80. “Threatened Discharge.”Acondition creating a reasonable probability that a discharge would contact or wouldeventually be transported to the storm drain system, guttersor surface waters, including flood plain areas. 56.81.“Unpolluted water.”Water to which no constituent has been added, either intentionally,oraccidentally,or through erosion,that would render the water unacceptable for disposal to storm or natural drainages or directly to surface waters. 5782.“Vehicle fluid.”A liquid used in or drainedfrom a motor vehicle.Vehicle fluids include, but are not limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, brake fluid, radiator fluid, hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, windshield wiper fluid, and coolant. 58.83.“Vehicle service facility.” Acommercial or industrial facility that conducts one or more of the following operations with respect to vehicles or components of vehicles: vehicle repair, fuel dispensing, vehicle fluid replacement, engine and parts cleaning, body repair, vehicle salvagingand wrecking, or vehicle washing. ïé 59.84.“Waste.”Sewage and soil from erosion and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing,manufacturing or processing operation of whatever nature, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. 60.85.“Watercourse.”Any natural or artificial stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culvert, drain, waterway, gully, ravine or wash, in and including any adjacent area that is subject to inundation from overflow or flood water. 61.86.“Water quality impact.” Any deleterious effect on waters or wetlands, including their quality, quantity, surface area, species composition, aesthetics or usefulness for human or natural uses that are or may potentially be harmful or injurious to human health, welfare, safety or property, to biological productivity, diversity, or stability or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor recreation. 87.“Water Waste.” Outdoor water intended for landscape irrigation or other beneficial uses, which due to overwatering, overspray, broken equipment, or any other inefficiency or malfunction, flows to adjacent impervious surfaces (walks, roadways, parking lots or other structures that prohibit ground infiltration) and is wasted as runoff. 88. “Wet Waste Business". A business that produces food, organic and/or liquid wastes (collectively “wet waste”) which, if left out in the open as opposed to in a secured container, could create a public nuisance as well as a stormwater violation, is a wet waste business. Such businesses include, but are not limited to restaurants, grocery stores, produce markets and florists. 9.18.030Limitations on Point of Discharge. No person shall discharge any substance directly into a manhole or other opening in a City storm drain systemother than through a Ccityapproved storm drain connection. 9.18.040Discharge into the Storm Drain Prohibited. A.Itis unlawfulto cause, allow, or permit to be discharged, any discharge not composed entirely of stormwaterto the storm drain systemor to surface waters or toany location whereitwould contact or eventually be transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas,unless specifically called outin the Municipal Regional Permitas an exempt or conditionally exemptdischarge. A.It shall be unlawful to discharge, or cause, allow, or permit to be discharged into any storm drain or natural outlet or channel all waste, including but not restricted to, sewage, industrial wastes, petroleum products, coal tar or any refuse substancearising from the manufacture of gas from coal or petroleum, chemicals, detergents, solvents, ïè paints, contaminated or chlorinated swimming pool water, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. B.Itis unlawful to cause or allow discharges including, but not limited to pool water, carwash water, ongoing and large-volume landscape irrigation water, sediment, stockpiled material, rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, solid wastes or hazardous materials to bedeposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge into storm drains, gutters, or watercourses. B.It is unlawful to cause hazardous materials, domestic waste or industrial waste to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge into storm drains, gutters, creeks or San Francisco Bay.A “threatened discharge” is a condition creating a substantial probability of harm, when the probability and potential extent of harm make it reasonably necessary to take immediate action to prevent, reduce or mitigate damages to persons, property or natural resources.Domestic or industrial wastes that are no longer contained in a pipe, tank or other container are considered to be threatened dischargesunless they are actively being cleaned up. C.It is unlawful to throw, deposit, leave, abandon, maintain or keep materials or wastes on public or private lands in a manner and place where they may result in a “threatened discharge” or an illicit discharge. C.D. The Director of Public Works may require that unpolluted cooling water or other unpolluted water be discharged into a natural outlet.However, Allowable discharges to the storm drain system shall not cause any impairment in the beneficial uses or quality of water of the state as defined in the California Water Code or any special requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region or to injure or interfere with the operation of the State's watercourses.City may, from time to time, by resolution of the City Council adopt supplementary policies,rules and regulations on discharge into any storm drain or watercourse natural outlet or channel which shall have the same force and effect as if set forth herein and for which the remedies herein for violation shall be applicable. E.Separately Permitted Discharges regulated under a valid facility-specific NPDES permit or facility-specific Regional Water Quality Control Board waste discharge requirements permit,not including a state general permit, shall be regulated exclusively by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this chapter, provided compliance with all relevant permit conditions is maintained to the satisfaction of the Board. Stormwater discharges at a facility with a facility specific permit which only addresses process discharges or non-stormwater discharges are not exempted. F.Categorically Allowed Discharges. The following unpolluted discharges ïç are exempt from prohibitions of non-stormwater discharges: (1)Flows from riparian habitats or wetlands; (2)Diverted stream flows; (3)Flows from natural springs; (4)Rising ground waters; (5)Uncontaminated and unpolluted groundwater infiltration; (6)Pumped groundwater from drinking water aquifers; and (7)NPDES permitted discharges (individual or general permits). G.Conditionally Exempted Discharges. The discharges identified in the Municipal RegionalPermit (Provision C.15.b, Conditionally Exempted Non- Stormwater Discharges)are conditionally exempt from the discharge prohibitions established by this chapter if dischargers develop and implement appropriate control measures to eliminate adverse impacts of such sources in accordance with the tasks and implementation levels of each category of Provision C.15.b.i-viii. H.Exemptions Not Absolute. Any dischargecategory (exempt or conditionally exempt)that is a significant source of pollutant to waters of the United States shall be prohibited from entering the storm drain system, or shall be subjected to a requirement to implement additional best management practices to reduce pollutants in the discharge to the maximum extent practicable. Such prohibitions shall be effective on a schedule specified by an authorized enforcement official in a written notice to the discharger. The schedule may take into account the nature and severity of any effects caused by the discharge; and the time required to design, engineer, fund, procure, construct and make appropriate best management practices operational. I.Non-Stormwater Discharge. Thisprohibition shall not apply to any non- stormwater discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered by the state of California under the authority of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations. The authorized enforcement official may exempt in writing other non-stormwater discharges which are not a source of pollutants to the storm drain system upon approval by the Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. îð 9.18.050Public Nuisance. The discharge of unscreened garbage, fruit, vegetable, animal or other solid industrial wastes into any storm drain or natural outlet or channel, in violation of any provision of this Chapter, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be handled in the same manner as provided in Chapter 1.09 of this Code. (Ord. 1982, § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1967, § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 1922, § 1 (part), 2003; Ord. 1598, § 1 (part), 1992) 9.18.060 Protection of Storm Drain from Accidental Discharge. Each person shall provide protection from accidental discharge of non-stormwater prohibited materials or other wastes regulated by this Chapterinto any storm drain or watercourse.natural outlet or channel.FacilitiesMeasures to prevent accidental discharge of prohibited materials shall be provided and maintained at the user'sor property owner’sexpense. 9.18.070Accidental Discharge–Notification of Discharge. All persons shall notify the Director of Public Works by telephoneimmediately upon accidentally discharging pollutants of concern wastes to enable countermeasures to be taken by the City to minimize damage to storm drains and the receiving waters.Initial notification shall be followed, within five (5) business ten (10)days of the date of occurrence, by a detailed written statement describing the causes of the accidental discharge and the measures being taken to prevent future occurrences. Such notification will not relieve persons of liability for violations of this chapter or for any fines imposed on the Ccity on account thereof under Section 13350 of the California Water Code, or for violation of Section 5650 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, or any other applicable provisions of State or Federal laws. 9.18.080Permitted Discharges Pursuant to Industrial and Construction Stormwater NPDES General Permits.Discharge Permitted Pursuant to NPDES Permit. A.The provisions of this chaptershall not prohibit any discharge in compliance with a valid NPDES permitissued to the discharger,provided compliance with all relevant permit conditions is maintained to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. B. Any person subject to a State Industrial or Construction Stormwater NPDES General permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance shall be required in a form acceptable to the authorized enforcement officialprior to, or as a condition of, the approval of a subdivision map, site plan, building permit, development permit, grading permit or improvement plan, upon inspection of the facility and/or during any enforcement action. îï 9.18.090Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). A stormwater Storm waterpollution prevention plans(SWPPPs) shall be prepared and made available at any constructionproject that is subject to the State Construction Stormwater NPDES General permit. The SWPPP shall be written by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, as definedin the current State NPDES Stormwater Construction General permit. At minimum, the SWPPP shall address the following six BMP categories to implement year-round, seasonally appropriate control measures:(1) erosion control, (2) run-on and runoff control, (3) sediment control, (4) active treatment systems, (5) good site management, and (6) non-stormwater management.sites for all projects disturbing a soil area of one (1) or more acres.Preparation of the SWPPP shall be in accordance with the most recent versions of the “Guidelines for Construction Projects,” published by the San Francisco Bay Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California BMP Handbooks, and the City of Cupertino “Construction BMP Selection Matrix.” 9.18.100Permanent StormwWaterPollution PreventionMeasures RequiredFor Development and Redevelopment Projects. A.All applicants forpermits pertaining to the planning, design, and construction of new development and redevelopment projects shall design and incorporate treatment measures to minimize both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollution and to prevent increases in runoff flows for the life of the project. Projects incorporating these permanent stormwater treatment measures (BMPs) shall utilize guidance and standards from the current SCVURPPP C.3. Stormwater Handbook. Permanent treatment measures (BMPs) shall be designed according to the numeric sizing criteria in Provision C.3.d of the Permit. Any new and redevelopment projects that are subject to the City’s review and approval shall meet all requirements in Provision C.3. of the City’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. B.A.Site Design and Source Control BMPRequirements.All development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent site design and source controlBMPsin order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for the life of the project. C.B.Stormwater Treatment BMPRequirementsfor Regulated Development and Redevelopment Projects. 1.In addition to site design and source control BMPs, Group 1 and Group 2A/2B RegulatedProjects are required to design and implement permanent stormwater treatment measures(BMPs)sufficient to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for the life of the project. 2.Land development activities that are smaller than the minimum applicability criteria set forth in this Ordinance for Group 1 and Group 2A/2BRegulatedPprojectsare required to design and implement stormwater treatment BMPs, if such activities are part of a larger common plan of development, even though multiple, separate and distinct land development activities may take place at different times on different schedules. îî 3.Group 2A projects for which an application to the City has been “deemed complete” by the Director of Community Development as of October 19, 2005 are not required to implement stormwater treatment BMPs. 4.Group 2B projects for which an application to the City has been “deemed complete” by the Director of Community Development as of August 15, 2006 are not required to implement stormwater treatment BMPs. 3.Regulated Development projects are all new development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site, including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (e.g., detached single-family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions such as townhomes, condominiums and apartments), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public or private land that fall under the planning and building authority of the City. 4.Regulated Redevelopment projects are those that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site, including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (e.g., detached single-family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions such as townhomes, condominiums and apartments), mixed-use, and public projects. Redevelopment is any land-disturbing activity that results in the creation, addition, or replacement of exterior impervious surface areas on a site on which some past development has occurred. This category includes redevelopment projects on public or private land that falls under the planning and building authority of the City. 5.Alterations exceeding 50%. Where a development project results in an alteration of more than 50% of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not previously subject to the requirements of the prior NPDES Stormwater Permit (effective from 2002-2009), the entire project consisting of all existing, new and/or replacedimpervious surfaces must be included in the treatment system design so that the stormwater treatment systems are designed and sized to treat stormwater from the entireredevelopment project. 6.Alterations equal to or lessthan 50%. Where a development project results in an alteration equal to or lessthan 50% of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not subject tothe requirements of the prior NPDES Stormwater Permit (effective from 2002-2009), only the new and/or replaced impervious surface of the project must be included in the treatment design system so that the stormwater treatment systems are designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the new and/or replaced impervious surface of the project. 7.Exclusions. A detached single family home project that is not part of a larger plan of development, that incorporates appropriate pollutant source control and design measures and useslandscaping to treat runoff from roof and house associated impervious surfaces is specifically excluded from the requirements of this section. Other exclusionsare: interior remodels and routine maintenance or repair (such as îí roof or exterior wall surface replacement or pavement resurfacing within the existing footprint). 8.Effective December 1, 2012, all development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued from the City, and which create and/or replace more than 2500 square ft, but less than10,000 square ft of impervious surface, and detached single- family home projects, which create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface, must install one or more of the following site design measures (MRP Provision C.3.i): Direct roof runoffinto cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 9, Special land use categories—Regulated Projects a.Effective December 1, 2011, for projects that fall into one of the categories below, the impervious surface threshold (for classification as a Regulated Project subject to Provision C.3.) will be decreased from the current 10,000 square ft to 5,000 square ft. This change applies to new and redevelopment projects onpublic and private land that fall underthe jurisdiction of the planning and building authority of the City ofCupertino. These special land use categories represent land use types that may contribute more polluted stormwater runoffthan other projects.Regulation of these special land use categories at the lower impervious threshold of 5,000 square feet is considered the maximum extent practicable and is consistent with State Board guidance, court decisions, and other Water Board requirements. i.Auto service facilities, described by the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539; ii.Retail gasoline outlets; iii.Restaurants (SIC Code 5812); or iv.Uncovered parking lots that are stand-alone or part of any other development project. This category includes the top uncovered portion of parking structures unless drainage from the uncovered îì portion is connected to the sanitary sewer along with the covered portions of the parking structure. b.For redevelopment projectsin the categories specified in Provision C.3.b.ii.(1)(a)(i)-(iv), specific exclusions are: i.Interior remodels; or ii.Routine maintenance or repair such as roof or exterior wall replacement or pavement resurfacing within the existing footprint of the structures. c.Alteration exceeding 50%. Where Regulated Project result in an alteration of more than 50% of the impervious surface of a previously existing developmentthat was not previously subject to the requirements of the prior NPDES Stormwater Permit (effective from 2002-2009), the entire project, consisting of all existing, new and/or replacedimpervious surfaces, must be included in the treatment system to be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire redevelopment project. d.Alteration equal to or less than 50%. Where a redevelopment project that is a special land use category results in an alteration is equal to or less than 50% of the impervioussurface of a previously existing development that was not previously subject to the requirements of the prior NPDES Stormwater Permit (effective from 2002-2009), only the new and/or replaced impervious surface of the project must be included in the treatment system design so that stormwater treatment systems are designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the new and/or replaced impervious surface of the project. e.Private projectsdeemed complete before December 1, 2009. For any private development project described in the special land use categories listed in CMC 9.18.100 C.9.a.,forwhich a planning application has been deemed complete before December 1, 2009, the lower 5,000 square feet impervious surface threshold for classification as a Regulated Project shall not apply, so long as the applicant is diligently pursuing the project.Diligent pursuance may be demonstrated by the project applicant's submittal of information to the original application, plans, or other document required for any approvals of the project by the City. If, during the time period between December 1, 2009 and December 1, 2011 for the 5,000 square feet threshold implementation date, the project applicant has not taken the actions needed to obtain the necessary approvals from the City, then the project will be subject to the lower 5,000 square îë feet threshold. f.Private project application deemed complete after December 1, 2009, but before December 1, 2011. For any private project in the categories specified in CMC 9.18.100 C. 9.a.with an application deemed complete as of December 1, 2009, the lower 5,000 square feet impervious surfacethreshold for definition as a Regulated Project shall not apply if the project applicant has received final discretionary approval for the project before December 1, 2011. g.Public projects. For public projects for which funding hasbeen committed and construction is scheduled to begin by December 1, 2012, the lower 5,000 square feet of impervious surface threshold for classification as a Regulated Project shall not apply. 10.Regulated Road Projects. Any of the following types of road projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of newly constructed contiguous impervious surface and that fall under the building and planning authority ofthe City are Regulated Projects: a.Construction of new streets or roads, including sidewalks and bicycle lanes built as part of the new streets or roads. b.Widening of existing streets or roads with additional traffic lanes. i.Where the addition of traffic lanes results in an alteration of more than 50% of the existing street or road that was not subject to CMC chapter 9.18, only the new and/or replaced impervious surface of the project must be included in the treatment system design so that the stormwater treatment systems are designed and sized to treat stormwater from only the new traffic lanes. However, if the stormwater runoff from the existing traffic lanes and the added traffic lanes cannot be separated, any onsite treatment system must be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire street. c.Construction of impervious trails that are greater than 10 feet wide or are creekside (within 50 feet of the top of bank). d.Specific exclusions to CMC Section 9.18.100 C.10 a-c.are: i.Sidewalks built as part of new streets or roads and built to direct stormwater to adjacent vegetated areas. ii.Bicycle lanes that are built as part of new streets or roads, but are not hydraulically connected to new streets or roads and that direct stormwater to adjacent vegetated areas. îê iii.Impervious trails built to direct stormwater runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or non-erodible permeable areas, preferably away from creeks or toward the outboard sides of levees. iv.Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or trails constructed with permeable surfaces such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. v.Caltrans highway projects and associated facilities. e.For any private road or trail project described in CMC Section 9.18.100 C.10 b or c for which a planning application wasdeemed complete before December 1, 2009, the requirements of this section shall not apply so long as the project applicant is diligently pursuing the project. Diligent pursuance may be demonstrated by the project applicant's submittal of supplemental information to the original application, plans, or other documents required for any necessary approvals of the project by the City. If the project applicant has not taken any action to obtain the necessary approvals from the Cityprior toDecember 1, 2011, the project will then be classified as a Regulated Project under this chapter. f.For any private road or trail project with an application deemed complete after December 1, 2009, the requirements of this section to classify the project as a Regulated Project under this chapter shall not apply if the project applicant has received final discretionary approval for the project before December 1, 2011. g.For any public road or trail project for which funding has been committed and construction is scheduled to begin by December 1, 2012, the requirements of this section to classify the project as a Regulated Project shall not apply. C.D.Hydromodification Management BMP(HM)Requirements. 1.Requirement. Stormwater discharges from any HM project shall be designed and maintained so they shall not cause an increase (over the pre-project existing condition) in the erosion potential of the stream into which they flow. Increases in runoff flow and volume shall be managed so that post-project runoff shall not exceed estimated pre- project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. All applicants are required to comply with the standards and performance criteria and requirements set forth in the HM requirements for Santa Clara Permittees as described in Provision C.3.g Hydromodification Management and Attachment F as adopted in the Municipal Regional îé Permit. A copy of the HM requirements may be obtained from the City’s Public Works Department. 2.Applicability. All new and redevelopment projects that create or replace one (1) acre or more of impervious surface shall implement the hydromodification management controls and standards per Provision C.3.g. of the Municipal Regional Permit. The following projects are exempt from HM compliance: a.Projects that do not create an increase in impervious surface over pre-project conditions. b.Projects located within areas that drain to non-earthen stream channels that are hardened on three sides and extend continuously upstream from the tidally influenced area. c.Projects that demonstrate, upon completion of stream-specific and modeling studies that are consistent with the method identified in the HM requirements in provision C.3.g and Attachment F of the Municipal Regional Permit and its supporting technical documents, that there will be no increase in potential for erosion or other adverse impact to beneficial uses to any state waters. d.Projects less than 1 acre and that are located in the HM applicable areas as depicted in the City’s HM maps are encouraged,but not required, to implement HM Requirements above. 1.In accordance with the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit, all Group 1 Projects are required to implement permanent hydromodficationmanagement BMPs except for the following projects: a.Projects that do not create an increase in impervious surface over pre-project conditions. b.Transit-oriented developments located within a one-half mile radius of existing or planned transit stations and/or major transfer points. c.Projects located in subwatershed areas that are 90% or more built-out and have more than 65% impervious surface. d.Projects that are less than 50 acres in total project size that are located in subwatershed areas that are 90% or more built-out and have less than 65% impervious surface. e.Projects that demonstrate, through City-approved stream-specific modeling studies consistent with the HMP that there will be no increase in erosion potential or other adverse impact to the beneficial uses to any waters of the State. îè 2.Determination of Impracticability.Meeting the HMP requirements will be considered impracticable if the combined construction cost of both required stormwater 1 treatment and hydromodification management BMPsexceeds 2% of the project construction cost (excluding land costs).If a developer demonstrates that the cost to fully comply with the HMP and other C.3. treatment requirements will exceed this cost threshold, a determination may be made by the Director of Public Works that the project shall comply with the HMP requirements by implementing hydromodification management controls on-site to the maximum extent practicable and contributing to an in-streamor off-site solution, if available, up to a maximum cost for all controls of 2% of the project cost. D.Group 1 and Group 2A/2B projects that result in an increase of, or replacement of, more than fifty (50) percent of the impervious surface of a previously existing development shall include permanent BMPs sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.These permanent BMPs shall include site design, source control, stormwater treatment measures, and if applicable, hydromodification management measures. E.Group 1 and Group 2A/2B projects that result in an increase of, or replacement of fifty (50) percent or less of the impervious surface of a previously existing development shall include permanent BMPs sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the increased or replaced portion of the site for the life of the project.These permanent BMPs shall include site design, source control, stormwater treatment measures, and if applicable, hydromodification management measures. C.E.Site design measures for non-Regulated Projects.All new development and redevelopment projects subject to planning, building, development, or other comparable reviews by the City, butnot meeting the definition of Regulated Project are encouraged to useadequate site design measures that include minimizing land disturbance and impervious surfaces. These may include clustering of structures and pavement; directing roof runoff to vegetated areas, use of micro-detention, distribution oflandscape-based stormwater detention, preservation of open space and/or restoration of riparian areas as project amenities FNo final building or occupancy permit shall be issued without the writtenapproval certificationof theDirector of Public Works confirmingthat the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. Note 1: Costs of control measures shall not include land costs, soil disposal fees, hauling, contaminated soil testing, mitigation, disposal, or other normal site enhancement costs such as landscaping or grading that are required for other development purposes. 9.18.110Design StandardsforPermanent Stormwater Treatment Measures.and Selection of Best Management Practices. îç Treatment best management practices for Regulated Projects must meet at least one of the following hydraulic sizing design criteria: 1.Volume Hydraulic Design Basis –Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to: A.The maximized stormwater capture volume for the area, on the basis of historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175–178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or B.The volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Section 5 of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment (2003), using local rainfall data 2.Flow Hydraulic Design Basis –Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity shall be sized to treat: A.10 percent of the 50-year peak flow rate; B.The flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or C.The flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity 3.Combination Flow and Volume Design Basis –Treatment systems that use a combination of flow and volume capacity shall be sized to treat at least 80 percent of the total runoff over the life of the project, using local rainfall data. 4.Infiltration Treatment Measures. In order to protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff, treatment measuresthat function primarily as stormwater infiltration devices, with no underdrain, must meet, at a minimum, the followingstandards: A.Pollution prevention and source control best management practices shall be implemented at a level appropriate to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration devices are to be used. This standardincludes a minimum of 2 feet of suitable soil toachieve a maximum of 5 inches per hour infiltration rate for the infiltration system. íð Infiltration devices shall not be placed in the vicinity of known B. contamination sites unless it has been demonstrated that increased infiltration will not: 1)increase leaching of contaminants from soil, 2) alter flow conditions affecting contaminant migration in groundwater,or 3)adversely affect remedial activities . C.Use of infiltration devices shall not cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater quality at applicable sites or of groundwater quality objectives. D.Infiltration devices shall be adequately maintained to maximize pollutant removal capabilities. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the E. seasonal high groundwatermark shall be at least10 feet, except that as to infiltration devices concerning land disturbance activities. A greater separation from the high groundwater mark may be required in accordance with best management practices. In locations which are characterized by highly porous soils and/or a high groundwater table, thebest management practices approvals will be subject to a higher level of analysis (e.g., considering the potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, the level of pretreatment tobe achieved, and similar factors in the overall analysis of groundwater safety) . Unless stormwater is first treated by a means other than F. infiltration, infiltration devices shall not be employed for:areas of industrial orlight industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traffic (defined as25,000 or greater average daily traffic on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops;car washes; fleet storage areas (e.g., bus, truck); nurseries; and other high threat to water quality land uses and activities as designated by the City. G.Infiltration Devices shall be located a minimum of250feetfrom any water supply wells and 100 feet from any septic systems or underground storage tanks with hazardous materials. In locations which are characterized by highly porous soils and/or a high groundwater table, best management practice approvals will be subject to a higher level of analysis that considers the potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, the level of pretreatment to be achieved, and similar factors in the overall analysis of groundwater safety. íï A.Stormwater pollution prevention best management practices shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following documents. 1.City of Cupertino BMP Selection Matrices (Construction and Post-Construction); 2.Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) “Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;” 3.NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; 4.California BMP Handbooks; 5.“Start at the Source” Design Guidance Manual; 6.Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality -A Companion Document to Start at the Source”; 7.SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan; and 8.City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard. B.Numeric sizing criteria used to design stormwater treatment BMPs shall be in accordance with the City's current NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit. 1.Stormwater treatment BMPs depending on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to: a.The maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfallrecords, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g. approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or b.The volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (2003), using local rainfall data. 2.Stormwater treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat: íî a.10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; or b.The flow of runoff produced by rain equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall; or c.The flow of runoff resulting from rain equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity. (Ord. 1982, § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1967, § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 1922, § 1 (part), 2003) 9.18.115Trash Load Reductions to Storm Drain Collection System. A.All Regulated Projects mustinstall full trash capture devices to collect litter and debris from their project site, prior to connecting to the City'sstorm drain collection system.Full trash capture devices that have been approved as meeting the standards set by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board will be deemed as satisfactory for meeting this requirement. A list of approved devices and their manufacturers is available from the Public Works Department. B.Installed full capture trash devices mustbe maintained by the property owner for the life of the project, following the manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance. C.It is a violation of this chapterfor any land owner to fail to properly operate and maintain any full capture trash device installed onthe owner’s property. 9.18.120Stormwater Management Plan Required for Group 1 and Group 2ARegulatedProjects. A.Development Permit Application Requirements.Applications for Group 1 or Group 2A/2B projects must be accompanied by a StormwaterManagement Plan, as required by this ordinance.The Stormwater Management Plan shall detail how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the activity will be controlled or managed. B.Building Permit Requirements.No building,grading, or erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. C.Exemptions.Group 2A projects for which an application to the City has been “deemed complete” by the Director of Community Development as of October 19, 2005 and Group 2B projects for which an application to the City has been “deemed complete” íí by the Director of Community Development as of August 15, 2006 are exempt from the Storm Water Management Plan requirements of this Ordinance. (Ord. 1982, § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1967, § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 1922, § 1 (part), 2003) A.Development Permit Application Requirements. Development permit applications for all Regulated Projects must be accompanied by a Stormwater Management Plan and a completed City of Cupertino Regulated Development Project Checklist, as required by this chapter. The Stormwater Management Plan shall detail how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting from the activity will be controlled or managed. B.City Permit Requirements. Building, grading, and encroachment permits for Regulated Projects shall not be issued until the required Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. C.Stormwater Management Plan Contents. Stormwater Management Plansshall include sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of affected areas, the potential impacts of the proposed development on water resources, and the effectiveness and acceptability of control measures proposed for managing stormwater runoff. The minimum information submitted to support a Stormwater Management Plan shall be in accordance with theMunicipal Regional Permitand thecurrent City of Cupertino Regulated Development Project Checklist. D.Preparation of the Stormwater Management Plan. Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of California.Depending on the specific project, the Director of Public Works may allow a stormwater management plan to be prepared by a Landscape Architect licensed by the State of California. E.Certification of Adherence to Numeric Sizing Design Criteria. The developer shall provide a signed certification from an approvedthird party reviewer selected from the SCVURPPPList of Qualified Consultants for Design, Review and/or Certification of Stormwater Treatment Best Management Practices and Hydromodification Flow Control Facilities,to determine that the plan for proposed stormwater treatmentmeasures, including hydromodification management controls (if applicable), meets the requirements of this chapter and established numeric sizing criteria in the Municipal Regional Permit. Any consultant hired to design and/or construct a stormwater treatment system for a Regulated Project shall not be the certifying person for the project. F.As-Built Certification. Upon completion of construction, the Engineer-of- Record for a Regulated Project shall provide the City with a stamped and signed certification that all constructed stormwater treatment measures have been installed according to the approved plans and specifications. íì G. Revised Stormwater Management Plan Required. The City may require the owner of a Regulated Project who has previously received approval of a Stormwater Management Plan, to prepare and submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan for approval if the stormwater treatment measures are inadequate or are not being adequately maintained; or if the facility or activity at issue becomes a significant source of contaminants to the storm drain system or damages a downstream watercourse despite compliance with thischapter. Any owner required to submit and toobtain approval of a revised plan shall install, implement and maintain the stormwater treatment measures specified in the approved revised plan. 9.18.130Stormwater Management Plan Contents. A.General Requirements for All Group 1 and Group 2A/2B Projects.Applicants for all Group 1 and Group 2A/2B projects are responsible for submitting a Stormwater Management Plan that meets the requirements of this Ordinance.The plan shall include sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of affected areas, the potential impacts of the proposed development on water resources, and the effectiveness and acceptability of measures proposed for managing stormwater runoff. The minimum information submitted for support of a StormwaterManagement Plan shall be as follows: 1.Common address, parcel number and legal description of the site; 2.Contact information for all persons having a legal interest in the property; 3.Vicinity map; 4.A brief narrative description of the project; 5.Geotechnicial investigations including soil maps, borings, site-specific recommendations, and any additional information necessary for the proposed stormwater management design; 6.Written or graphic inventory of natural resources existing at the site and in the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, watercourses, wetlands, and native vegetative areas; 7.Data for total site area, disturbed area, new and/or replaced impervious surface area, and total impervious surface area; 8.Topographic survey information showing existing and proposed contours, including all areas necessary for the post-development hydraulic analyses of proposed stormwater management facilities; 9.Erosion and sediment control plan, as required by City Code Section 16.08, Excavation, Grading and Retaining Walls; íë 10.A list of any other applicable environmental permits that will be required for the project and the responsible agencies (examples:Santa Clara Valley Water District, State Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board); 11.Hydrologic computations, including drainage area maps depicting existing and post-development runoff flow paths and land use; 12.Hydraulic computations for existing and post-development conditions; 13.A list of all stormwater management facilities and practices to be employed at the site; 14.A list of any regular on-site cleaning activities to be usedas stormwater pollutant source controls (example: pavement sweeping) and the schedules for these cleaning activities; 15.Numeric sizing criteria computations for stormwater treatment BMPs according to the SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;” 16.Structural and construction details for all components of the proposed drainage system or systems and stormwater management facilities; 17.Landscaping plan showing disposition of existing vegetation and any vegetative site stabilization and/or landscape-based storm water management measures; 18.Cost estimates for all proposed on-site stormwater management facilities for the purpose of calculating the amount of any required performance bonds and determining BMP practicability; 19.BMP operation and maintenance procedures, including maintenance tasks, inspection and maintenance schedule, the parties responsible for BMP operation and maintenance, funding mechanismsfor on-going operation and maintenance and access and safety issues; 20.Certification by the owner/developer that all stormwater management construction will be done according to this Stormwater Management Plan; 21.An as-built certification signature block to be executed by the responsible registered civil engineer after project completion; and 22.Any other information as may be required by the Director of Public Works. B.HMP-Related Requirements.The following mustbe included in the Storm Water Management Plan for any Group 1 project that may be subject to HMP requirements (as discussed in Provision 9.18.100of this Ordinance). íê 1.An explanation of the applicability of hydromodification management requirements based on the “Applicability and Requirements Flow Chart” of the HMP. 2.Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for any hydromodification management BMPs with an explanation of how these BMPs will function as the required flow controls. 3.If the applicant is applying for an exemption from HMP requirements, hydraulic calculations and construction cost data must be submitted as justification.This information shall be prepared by a qualified professional civil engineer registered in the State of California. (Ord. 1982, § 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 1967, § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 1922, § 1 (part), 2003) 9.18.130Stormwater Management Plan ContentsLowImpact Development (LID) Requirements. The goal of low impact development requirementsis to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by implementing specific practices to control sources of potential pollution and site design strategies to treat stormwater. All Regulated Projectsshall implement the following LID requirements: AAll Regulated Projectsshall implement source control measures onsite that at a minimumshall include the following: 1.Source control measures on site to address the following potential discharges and minimize stormwater pollutants of concern may include plumbing the following discharges to sanitary sewer lines, pending approval by Cupertino Sanitary District and the City of San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant; a. Discharges from floor mat, equipment, hood filter wash racks or covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants; b.Drips from covered trash dumpsters, food waste containers, and compactor enclosures; c. Discharges from covered outdoor wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories; d.Swimming pool, spa, hot tub, or water feature discharges if discharged on site to vegetated areas is not a feasible option; e. Fire sprinkler test water, if on site discharge to vegetated areas is not a feasible option; 2.Include properly designed covers, drains, and storage íé precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair or maintenance bays and fueling areas; 3.Include properly designed trash storage areas that are covered with any drains in the area connected to the sanitary sewer lines, pending approval by the City; 4.Include landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates sustainable landscaping practices; 5.Include efficient irrigation systems; and 6.Include storm drain stenciling or signage that includes the message “No Dumping-Flows to Bay” or equivalent. B. Each Regulated Projectshall, at a minimum,implement the following design strategies onsite: 1.Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems, minimize compaction of highly permeable soils, protect slopes and channels, minimize impacts from stormwater and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies; 2.Conserve natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils; 3.Minimize impervious surfaces; 4.Minimize disturbances to natural drainages; and 5.Minimize stormwater runoff by implementing one or more of the following site design measures: a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. b.Direct roof runoff into vegetated areas. c. Direct roof runoff from sidewalks, walkways and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d.Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f.Construct driveways, bike lanes, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. íè C.Effective December 1, 2011, all Regulated Projectsare required to treat 100% of the amount of runoff using the numeric sizing criteria identified in Provision C.3.d of the Municipal Regional Permitfor the Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite or with LID treatment measures at a joint stormwater treatment facility. 1.LID treatment measures are defined as stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. 2.A properly engineered and maintained biotreatment system may be considered only if it is infeasible to implement stormwaterharvesting and re- use, infiltration, or evapotraspiration at a project site. 3.Infeasibility to implement stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, or evapotraspiration at a project site may result from conditions including the following: a.Locations where seasonal high groundwater would be within 10 feet of the base of the LID treatment measure. b.Locations within 100 feet of a groundwater well used for drinking water. c.Development sites where pollutant mobilization in the soil or groundwater is a documented concern. d.Locations with potential geotechnical hazards. e.Smart growth and infill or redevelopment sites where the density and/or nature of the project would create significant difficulty for compliance with the onsite volume retention requirement. f.Locations with tight clay soils that significantly limit the infiltration of stormwater. 4.Criteria and procedures to determine when stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, or evapotranspirationare feasible or infeasible at Regulated Project sites will be identified and incorporated into the SCVURPPP C.3. Stormwater Handbook, as revised. 5.Biotreatment systems shall be designed to have a surface area no smaller than what is required to accommodate a 5 inches per hour stormwater runoff surface loading rate. The planting and soil media for biotreatment systems shall be designed to sustain plant growth and maximize stormwater runoff retention and pollutant removal. A set of model biotreatment and soil media specificationsand soil infiltration testing methods to verify a long-term infiltration rate of 5 to 10 inches per hour, once approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, will be incorporated into the latest version of the íç SCVURPPP C.3.Stormwater Handbook. Biotreatment systems approved after Regional Water Quality Control Board approval of the model specifications will need to comply with these minimum specifications and soil infiltration testing methods. 6.Green roofs may be considered biotreatment systems if they meet certain minimum specifications. The minimum specifications, once approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, will be incorporated into the SCVURPPP C.3. Stormwater Handbook, as revised. Green roof systems approved after Regional Water Quality Control Board approval of the minimum specifications will need to comply with these requirements. 7.Full implementation of the LID requirements in this chapter is required as of December 1, 2011, except as otherwise stated.For private development projects approved on or before December 1, 2009, the requirements ofCMC 9.18.130 shall not apply so long as the project applicant is diligently pursuing the project. 8.Private development projects with an application deemed complete after December 1, 2009 and which have received final discretionary approval (e.g., building permits) for the project before December 1, 2011, the requirements of CMC 9.18.130 shall not apply. 9.Public projects for which funding has been committed and construction scheduled to begin before December 1, 2012, the requirements of CMC 9.18.130 shall not apply. 9.18.150Stormwater Treatment Measure BMPOperation and Maintenance Responsibility. A.For the life of the project, all on-site stormwater treatment measures management facilitiesshall be operated, conducted,and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired by the property owner(s), an Owners' or Homeowners' Association orother legal entity approved by the City. B.Any repairs or restoration and maintenance shall be in accordance with City- approved plans. C.The property owner(s) ofRegulated ProjectsGroup 1 and Group 2A/2B projects shall develop a maintenance schedule for the life of any stormwater control measures management facilityand shall describe the maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and the person who will shall perform the maintenance.The stormwater treatment measures Thismaintenance schedulesshall be included with the project's approved Stormwater Management Plan. ìð 9.18.160Agreement to Maintain Stormwater Treatment Systems and Best Management PracticesBMP Operation and MaintenanceAgreement. A.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for aRegulated Project, Group 1 or Group 2A/2B project,the owner(s) of the site shall enter into a formal written Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation and Maintenance Agreement stormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreementwith the City. The City shall record this agreement, against the property or properties involved, with the County of Santa Clara and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the stormwater treatment systems and best management practices. management treatment BMPs. B.The Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation and Maintenance Agreement stormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreement shall require that the stormwater treatment system(s) orHM Control (if any) BMPs not be modified and that BMP maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facilitytreatment system or HM Control (if any) from its original design unless approved by theCitythe Public WorksDirectorhas provided written certification that the requirements of this chapter have been satisfiedprior to the commencement of the proposed modification or maintenance activity. C.The Stormwater Treatment Systems Operation and Maintenance Agreement stormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreementshall provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater treatment management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety, the City shall have the authority to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner. D.The owner shall provide the City with three signed copies of the recorded Stormwater Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Agreement.stormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreement. E.The agreement shall provide access to the extent allowableby law for representatives of City, the local vector control district, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, strictly for the purposes of performing operation and maintenance inspections of the installed stormwater treatment systems and/or HM controls (if any). F.Any property owner party to a Stormwater Treatment SystemsOperation and Maintenance Agreementshall, upon transferring ownership of such property, provide the new owner(s) with a current copy of this chapter, and shall inform the new owners in writing of their obligation to properly operate and maintain such facilities. 9.18.170Stormwater Treatment Systems andBMPInspectionand VerificationResponsibility.(C.3.h) A.The property owner(s) of Regulated Projects Group 1 and Group 2A/2B projects shall be responsible for having all stormwatermanagementtreatment systems and HM control (if any)facilitiesinspected for condition and function by a knowledgeable party. ìï The property owner shall agree in writing to properly maintain any HM control, stormwater structural control, treatment measure, and/or best management practices according to the approved plans forthe project. B.Unless otherwise required by the City, the property owner’s stormwater treatment system or HM control (if any) facilityinspections shall be donewithin 45 days of the completed installation of any control or treatment systems; after thatat least once twice per year, once in fall,in preparation for the wet season., and once in winter. Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information: 1.Site addressName and address of the Regulated Project; 2.Date and time of inspectionSpecific description of the location (or a map showing the location) of the installed stormwater treatment system(s) and HM control(s)(if any); 3.Name of the person conducting the inspectionDate(s) that the treatment system(s) and HM controls (if any) is/are installed; 4.List of stormwater facilities inspectedDescription of the type and size of the treatment system(s) and HM control(s) (if any)installed; 5.Condition of each stormwater facility inspectedResponsible operator(s) of each treatment system and HM control (if any); 6.Description of any needed maintenance or repairsDates and findings ofall inspections of the treatment system(s) and HM control(s) (if any); and 7.As applicable, the need for site reinspectionAny problems and corrective actions taken. 9.18.180Records of Maintenance andInspection Activitiesand Submission of Revised Stormwater Management Plan. On or before April 15th of each year, the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of on-site stormwater management facilities Group 1 or Group 2A/2B projects shall provide the City with records of all inspections, maintenance and repairs. th A.On or before June 30of each year, the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of on-site stormwater treatment system(s) and HM Control(s) (if any)at Regulated Projects shall provide the City of Cupertino’s Director of Public Works with documentation ofthe information required in Section 9.18.140. B. 1-7 regarding installation, location, inspections, maintenance and repairs: ìî B.The Director of Public Worksmay require a discharger who has previously received approval of a Stormwater Management Plan, to prepare and submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan for approval if any of the following occurs: 1.the project was not constructed according to the approved plans; or 2.the plan as constructed is not adequate for the site; or 3.the site is not adequately maintained; or 4.the site is a significant source of contaminants to the storm drain system. C.The revised Stormwater Management Plan shall identify the stormwater treatment controls, best management practices, and/or HM controls that will be used by the discharger to prevent or control pollution of stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. D.If the activity at issue is a construction or land disturbance activity, therevised plan submitted to the City shall at a minimum meet the requirements of the Statewide NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ. E.Whenever submission of a stormwater management plan or a revised stormwater management plan is required pursuant to this chapter, any authorized enforcement staff may use the, SCVURPPP C.3. Stormwater Handbook or the CASQA BMP Handbooks to assess the adequacy of the proposed plan. 9.18.190Failure to Maintain. A.If the responsible party fails or refuses to meet the requirements of the Stormwater Treatment SystemsOperation and Maintenance Agreementstormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreement, without an acceptable rationale, the City, after thirty (30) days written notice, may correct a violation of the design standards or maintenance requirements by performing the necessary work to place the facility or practice in proper working condition. B.In the event the City determines that theviolation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public safety, 24 hours written notice from the City shall be sufficient. ìí C.The City may assess the owner(s) of the property for the cost of repair work and any penalties, in accordance with Sections 1.10 and 1.12 of this Municipal Code.This may be accomplished by placing a lien on the property, which may be placed on the tax bill for such property and collected in the ordinary manner for such taxes. 9.18.195Inspections by City As required by the Municipal Regional Permit, City inspectors will inspect construction sites, industrial, and commercial businesses and respond to reports of discharges and threatened discharges to the stormwater system. Compliance with all provisions of a City-issued enforcement notice will be required within the amount of time given by the inspectorand before the next anticipated rain, but not more than ten (10) business days after a violation is first noted. 9.18.200Inspectionand Maintenance Easement. A.The City shall have access to all on-site stormwater treatment systemsfacilities for the purpose of inspection and repair.This includes the right to enter a property when the City has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this ordinance is occurring or has occurred and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of this ordinance. B.Prior to the issuance of a building or gradingpermit for aRegulatedProject, Group 1 or Group 2A/2B project,the applicant/owner shall secure the necessary inspection and maintenance easement(s) on a permanent basis.The terms of the inspection and maintenance easement shall allow the City to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection and repair. C.The inspection and maintenance easement will be recorded by the City with the Stormwater Treatment SystemOperation and Maintenance Agreementstormwater BMP operation and maintenance agreementand will remain in effect even with transfer of title to the property. D.The owner shall provide the City with three signed copies of the recorded inspection and maintenance easement. E. Whenever necessary to perform Operations and Maintenance verification inspections of installed stormwater treatment system(s) and HM control(s)(if any), all Regulated Projects shall grant site access to all representatives of the authorized enforcement official, local mosquito and vector control agency staff, and Water Board staff. 9.18.210Stormwater Pollutant Source ControlsandBMPs. 1.Best management practices atallfacilities, whether staffed or unstaffed, must be inspectedand maintainedby the dischargeraccording to manufacturer ìì specifications and/or the CASQA Stormwater BMP Handbooks. These best management practices must be maintained so that they continue to function as designed. Best management practices which fail must be repaired as soon as it is safe to do so. If the failure of a best management practice indicates that the best management practices in use are inappropriate or inadequate to the circumstances, the practices must be modified or upgraded to prevent any further failure in the same or similar circumstances. All construction sites mustimplement effective erosion control, run-on 2. and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment systems (as appropriate), good site management, and non-stormwater management through all phases of construction (including but not limited to site grading, building and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. All sites are encouraged to include adequate source 3.Regulated Project control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge and runoff. These source control measures are i. dentified in Section 9.18.130 4.All dischargers must implement and maintain minimum best management practices. The Directorof Public Worksmay require submission of information to evaluate the implementation and/or require the implementation of BMPs to prevent pollutant sources from entering the City's storm drain collection system associated with outdoor process and manufacturing areas, outdoor material storage areas, outdoor waste storage and disposal areas, outdoor vehicle and equipment storage and maintenance areas, outdoor parking and access roads, outdoor wash areas, outdoor drainage from indoor areas, rooftop equipment, contaminated and erodible surfaces, or other sources determined by the director to have a reasonable potential to contribute to pollution of stormwater runoff. Minimum BMPsand source control measures for all dischargersinclude, but are not limited to the following: A.Storm Drain Inlet Labeling.Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping -Flows to Bay,” or equivalent, as approved by the Director of Public Works. B.Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and water runoff, promote surface infiltration, minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers,incorporate native plants, grasses and trees (which are resistant to local pests and diseases),employ appropriate sustainable landscaping practices such asdesigns withhydrozonestoprevent over-irrigation, follow the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines or other landscaping guidelines with similar goals and practices. ìë C.Water Waste Prevention. Water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation shall be prevented. Runoff from irrigation shall beprohibited fromleaving the targeted landscape due to low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. Repeat violations or uncorrected violations will result in an administrative citation fine according to chapter 1.10 of theMunicipal Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65596, restrictionsregarding overspray and runoff may be modified if: 1.The landscape area is adjacent to permeable surfacing and no runoff occurs; or 2.The adjacent non-permeable surfaces are designed and constructed to drain entirely to landscaping. D.B.Drains and Drain Lines. 1.Interior floor drains shallmustnot be connected to the storm drain system. 2.Exterior drains within the following areas shallmustnot be connected to the storm drain: a.Equipment or vehicle washing areas; b.Areas where chemicals, hazardous materials,or other uncontained materials are used and/or stored unless secondary containment is provided; c.Equipment or vehicle fueling areas or fluid changing areas;and d.Loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or wasteproducts are handled. 3.Roof runoff shall be directed to rain barrels, cisterns, or similar rainwater collection system, or to landscaped areas unless deemed infeasible by the Director of Public Works.Upon approval of the Director of Public Works, projects located in hillside areas may be exempt from these requirements. 4.Nonresidential facilities shall either: (a)a.Pprovide secondary containment for all roof-mounted equipment, tanks, and piping containing liquids other than potable water; or (b)b.Cconnect all roof drains and equipment discharge lines to the sanitary sewer. 5.Boiler drain lines shall be connected to the sewer system and may not be discharged to the storm drain system.Fire Sprinkler Tests and Water Pipe ìê Flushing: Discharges from fire sprinkler tests and water pipe flushing: shall be conducted in accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit. a. Dischargeswhich are listed as conditionally allowed in the current municipal NPDES permitare to be directed to onsite vegetated areas, or discharged to the sanitary sewer with the permission of Cupertino Sanitary District, or if this is not a feasible option, with BMPs that will ensure compliance with the municipal NPDES permit. b.For new or remodeled facilitieswhere it is infeasible to direct fire sprinkler safety test water discharges tolandscaped areas, a sewer clean out shall be installed,in a readily accessible areato capture potable water discharged during fire safety sprinkler tests.The installation must first be approved by the Cupertino Sanitary District. 6.Cooling systems shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 7.Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. E.C.Pool and Spa Discharges 1.It shall beisunlawful to discharge water from pools and spas to the storm drainsystem. 2.De-chlorinated pool spa discharges shall be directed to landscaped areas, providing this does not generate runoff to the storm drain system. If runoff will be generated to the storm drain, pool and spa water shall be disposed to the sanitary sewer. The discharger shall contact the City Public Works Department regarding coordination with the Sanitary Sewer District. 3. For new or remodeled swimming pools where it is infeasible to direct discharges tolandscaped areas, a sewer clean out shall be installed in a readily accessible area,withinten (10) feet of the pool edge, if possible. 2.When draining a pool, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sewer (not storm drain system) clean out. 3.For swimming pools, a sewer clean out shall be installed in a readily accessible area, within ten (10) feet of the pool edge, if possible. 4.De-chlorinated spa discharges may be directed to landscaped areas, providing this does not generate runoff to the storm drain system. ìé F.D.Vehicle andEquipment Fueling Facilities.Vehicle or equipment fueling facilities shall bedesignedin accordance with the CaliforniaStormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Industrial Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooksto prevent the runon of stormwaterand runoff of spills.At minimum tThis shall be accomplished by: 1.Paving the fueling area with concrete or other impervious surface; 2.Covering the fueling area and extending the cover a minimum of ten (10) feet beyond the fuel pumps in the directions of vehicle or equipment access and egress; and 3.Grading the area (sloped inward) or installing a bermor curb around the perimeter of the fueling area.Storm drains shall be prohibited in these fueling areas. G.E.Vehicle Service Facilities. 1.It is unlawful for anyNo person shalltodispose of, nor permit the disposal or runoff, directly or indirectly, of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinsewater from parts cleaning operations into storm drains. 2.All owners and operators of vehicle service facilities shall ensure that any vehicle fluid, hazardous material, or rinsewater from parts cleaning operations that comes into contact with any floor, pavement or ground surface is cleaned up immediately from such surface. 3.It is unlawful Noto usetanks, containers or sinks usedfor vehicularparts cleaning or rinsing shall bewhich areconnected to the storm drain system. 4.It is unlawful for anyNoperson shalltoperform vehicle fluid removal outside a building, nor on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. 5.Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drainedfrom the vehicle immediatelyto protect the storm drain system. 6.It is unlawful for anyNoperson shalltoleave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area of secondary containment. 7.It is unlawful for anyNoperson shalltodischarge wastewashwater from vehicle washing operations or wash racks to a storm drain, or ontotheimperviousground surface. ìè 8.No person shall discharge water from vehicle washing operations into the storm drain, except that used for rinsing of vehicle exterior surfaces with water to remove only atmospheric dust deposited on a vehicle when not in use.This exception does not apply to commercial vehicle washing facilities or fleet washing. 98.Vehicle service facilities shall be cleaned using only those methods of cleaning that ensure that no materials are discharged to the storm drain. 109.All owners and operators of vehicle service facilities shall ensure that spill prevention and clean-up equipment and absorbent materials are kept in stock at all times and are readily available for use. 110.It is unlawful Noto storeacid-containing batteriesor any material that is deemed by an enforcement official as a threat to the storm drain system, shall be stored except within secondary containment. 1211.All owners and operators of vehicle service facilities shall postlabel or cause to be posted signs onall storm drains located on the property of the facility notifyinga reminder to persons that the discharge of wasteanythingother than rain waterinto the storm drain isprohibitedillegal. H.F.Food Service Facilities. 1.Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease removal device and the sanitary sewer. The sink or cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment that requires cleaning at the facility.to be cleaned. 2.AllNnew buildings constructed to house food service facilitiesand all existing buildings constructed to house food service facilitieswhich are subject to City review and approval for changes or modificationsshall include a covered area for adumpsters. The area shall be designedto prevent water runon tothe area and runoff from the area.Dumpster storage areas shall be designed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Guidelines for Non-Residential Building Trash & Recycling Enclosures.Retrofits to existing facilities shall be revamped to the maximumextent practicable and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 3.Drains that are installed beneath dumpsters serving food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device upstream of the connection to the sanitary sewer. I.G.Parking Garages. 1.If installed, parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be not be connected to the storm drain, but to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. ìç 2.Parking garage oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. 3.The parking garage oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every twelve months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or as required by the Cityor other regulatory agency. HJ.Root control chemicals.It is unlawful for anyNopersonshalltodischarge, dispose or add to the storm drain system any substance to control roots. K.I.Dumpsters. 1.AllNnew buildings,except for single-family and duplex residences, all new "wet waste" businesses and all existing "wet waste" businesses which are subject to City review and approval for changes or modifications, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster(s) designed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Guidelines for Non-Residential Building Trash & Recycling Enclosures.Retrofits to existing facilities shall be revamped to the maximum extent practicable and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 2.The area shall be designed to prevent water runon to the area and runoff from the area. 3.Dumpsters serving food service facilities shall be designed in accordance with Section 9.18.2109.18.200F, above. L.J.Multi-Family Residential Vehicle Washing Facilities. 1.New residential buildings with 25 or more units shall provide a covered, bermed area for occupants to wash their vehicles. 2.The vehicle washing area shall be designed to prevent water runon to the area and runoff from the area. 3.Adrain shall be installed to capture all vehicle washwaters and shall be connected toan oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.Discharge to the sanitary sewer must first be approved by Cupertino Sanitary District. 4.Vehicle washing area oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. ëð 5.The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the superintendent. M.K.Copper Rroofing and Architectural Mmaterials. 1.Copper metal roofing, copper granule-containing asphalt shingles and copper guttersshall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial buildingfor which a building permitis required. 2.Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from thisprohibition 3.Discharges to the storm drain collection system of wastewater generated during the installation, cleaning, treating, and washing of copper architectural features, including copper roofs are prohibited. Discharges to landscaping or to the sanitary sewer system (with approvals from Cupertino Sanitary District and the City of San Jose’s Water Pollution Control Plant) are allowed. 4.Discharges of water from pools (including connection for filter backwash), spas, fountains and water features that contain copper based chemicalsare prohibited. N.Pesticide Storage at Commercial Facilities. 1.Pesticides shall be stored in labeled containers andshall not be stored where they can be exposed to rain or irrigation water and be allowed to runoff to storm drains or creeks. 2.Secondary containment shall be required for containment of pesticides, unless they are stored in an indoor storage unit. Storage of pesticides shall follow guidance from the local fire department and/or the Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner. 3.Employees who use pesticides must be trained to clean up spills. Spill kits shall be provided and stored near pesticides. O.Mobile Businesses. 1.Mobile businesses shall be required to use best management practices and source control measuresthat comply with Municipal Regional Permit. 9.18.220Violation. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in chapter1.12of this Code. 9.18.230Civil Penalty for Violation–Payment of Funds to Account. ëï Any person who violates any provision of this Cchapter or any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this Cchapter shall be civilly liable to the Ccityin a sum not to exceed the amounts provided for in Government Code §§ 54740 and/or 54740.5. The City may petition the Superior Court pursuant to Government Code § 54740 to impose, assess and recover such sums. The civil penalty provided in this section iscumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under State and Federal law and local ordinances. Funds collected pursuant to this Section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. 9.18.240Civil Penalty for Illicit Discharges–Payment of Funds to Account. Any person who discharges pollutants, in violation of this Cchapter, by the use of illicit connections shall be civilly liable to the City in a sum not to exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) per day per violation for each day in which such violation occurs. The City may petition the Superior Court pursuant to Government Code § 54740 to impose, assess and recover such sums. The civil penalty provided in this section is cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under State and Federal law and local ordinances.Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. 9.18.250 Notice of Violation. Unless the Director of Public Works finds that the severity of the violation warrants immediate action under Sections 9.18.220,9.18.230or 9.18.240above, or permit revocation or suspension, he/she shall issue a notice of violation which: (1)1.Enumerates the violations found; and (2)2.Orders compliance in any manner authorized by and consistent with the City’s Enforcement Response Plan and the provisions of chapter 1.10 of this Code. 9.18.260Administrative Penalties–Payment of Funds to Account. Whenever the City Manager or his/her designee finds that any person has violated any notice, of violation requiring compliance with any provision of this Cchapter, or has violated any provision of this Cchapter, he may assess an administrative penalty in a sum not to exceed the amounts provided in Government Code § 54740.5. The remedy provided in this Section is cumulative and not exclusive, and shall be in addition to all other remedies available to the City under State and Federal law and local ordinances. Funds collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to City's Environmental Storm Management Account. 9.18.270Severability. ëî If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Cchapter is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or invalid, by any court of competent jurisdiction the validity of the remaining portion of this Cchapter shall not be affected thereby. ëí PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð çì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Consider a request to change the name of the event Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City of Cupertino continue its community building efforts and retain Description Cupertino has conducted a Community Tree Lighting event since 1992. The purpose of the Community Tree Lighting is to kick off the holiday season and bring the community together. Santa Claus also makes an appearance. On September 6, 2011, Dr. Lothar Bandermann asked the Council to change the name to a Christmas Tree Lighting event and the Council asked that Attachment A to this report. Discussion Community building is one of the important functions of a local government. Cupertino has a history of community building. In 1996, then City Manager Don Brown, asked the Public Dialogue Consortium to facilitate an extended community building process to address the ics. Ten years ago, City Manager David Knapp launched the Cupertino Block Leader program to focus on community building in Cupertino neighborhoods. There are over 350 Block Leaders covering close to 25% of the City. The City Council sponsors community building events such as the Cherry Blossom Festival, the Diwali Club are reflective of the diversity of Cupertino. Peter Block, in his book Community, writes there are two aspects of community a sense of and calls for us to acknowledge our interdependence. To belong is to act as an investor, owner, and creator of this place. To be welcome even if we are Bowling Alone, also writes of community as a sense of belonging. Both authors write that creating and sustaining community is an intentional act. It does not just happen. It is in this spirit of community building and celebration of diversity that Cupertino hosts the Community Tree Lighting event. A diverse cross-section of Cupertino residents participate in this event which begins outdoors in front of Quinlan Community Center. A local middle school choir lead those present in singing of holiday songs. When the mayor throws the switch, the tree lights come on, and the crowd applauds. Santa Claus arrives in a fire truck and enters Quinlan where the families are met with snowflakes, treats, and a chance for children to visit with Santa. The families attending this event leave with a positive and more connected to Cupertino feeling. Staff feels is contrary to all the work Cupertino elected officials, staff, and community leaders have done since 1996. A review of surrounding cities reveals that those cities funding a tree lighting event use a nonsectarian name. Those cities, and the title of their tree lighting events, are found on Attachment B. This attachment also includes the names of various non-profit tree lighting events. If the Council decides to c would take effect in December 2012. The announcement of the 2011 Community Tree event is already published in the Fall Parks and Recreation quarterly brochure. The notice is Attachment C in this report. Sustainability Impact N/A Fiscal Impact There will be no fiscal impact if the name of the event is changed. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Mark Linder, Director, Parks and Recreation Reviewed by: Teresa Zueger, Legal Services Manager Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Consider AT&T's request to enter into a land lease at Jollyman Park for a wireless communications facility. Recommended Action Consider whether or not to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and/or execute alease with AT&T to construct a wireless communications facility at Jollyman Park. Description Application: none Lessee’s Representative: Misako Hill for Cortel, LLC and AT&T Location: Jollyman Park (Stelling Road near Highway 85) APNs: 359-25-049, 359-25-002, 359- 25-024, 359-25-048 Discussion Please note that AT&T’s request is not for a regulatory action to construct a wireless communications facility. Rather, it is a request to enter into a private contract between the lessor, the City of Cupertino, and the lessee, AT&T, to lease a portion of a propertyto construct a wireless communications facility. The City Council is scheduled to conducta public study session on AT&T’s request earlier in today’s meeting. Backgroundinformation andpublic commentsreceived on this issue have been providedin tonight’sstudy session staff report. Options forCouncil and Next Steps The following is a list of options that the Council may consider: If the Council does not wish to move forward with the lease, the Council does not need to take any action on the item. If the Council wishes to review the final agreement, the Council can authorize the City Manager to negotiate a lease and bring it back to the Council for review at a future date. Ifthe Council desires to give parameters to the City Manager regarding the terms of agreement, the Council can authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute thelease subject to the terms provided by the Council. It is important to note that this particular action is being taken by the City as a private land owner. Even if the lease goes forward, the applicant will be required to submit a separate planning application for review by the Planning Commission at a subsequent hearing. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Mark Linder, Director, Parks & Recreation Reviewed by:Mark Linder, Director, Parks & Recreation Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: See attachments provided forItem 1 on tonight’s agenda -Study Session Staff Reportrelated to a review of arequest to enter into a land lease at Jollyman Park for a wireless communications facility(dated November 15, 2011). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ùóèãôûðð èíêê÷ûæ÷îç÷§ùçì÷êèóîíùû è÷ð÷ìôíî÷ ÅÅÅÙÇÌ×ÊÈÓÎÍÍÊÕ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: November 15, 2011 Subject Reconsideration of Cupertino Crossroads Development Proposal. Recommended Action Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council’s approval of the Heart of the City front setback exception associated with one of the two new building pads at the Crossroads Shopping Center located at 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Adopt Resolution No.11-______,denying the petition of Darrel Lumseeking Council reconsideration of its decision to approve theHeart of the City front setback exception associated with one of thetwo new building pads at the Crossroads Shopping Center (Attachment A), and thus approve the project. Description Petition to reconsider a City Council decision to approve anException to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (EXC-2011-10) to allow a 30-footfront setback for a new 5,086 retail pad building where a 35-foot front setback is required. The Exception was in conjunction with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2011-10), Development Permit (DP-2011-03),Architectural and Site approval (ASA-2011-12), and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2011-30) for the project. Petitioner:Dr. Darrel Lum Applicant: Mark Creedon (Byer Properties) Location: 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APNs 359-08-020, 359-08-021, 359-08-022, 359-08-006, 359-08-013) Discussion Background The following is a summary of the events that occurred regarding this project leading up to the reconsideration request: Aug. 9, 2011:The Planning Commission recommended approval of the projecton a 4-0- 1vote(see Attachment B for meeting minutes) with the following key stipulations in theresolutions: Limit the percentage of restaurants in the shopping center to 13.5% or 24,062 square feet (assuming 50% of Building E and 100% of Building F are restaurant uses and the other existing restaurant tenants stay constant). Clarified language in the resolution related to the architectural details. Remove the covenant requirement for the Building E’s main entrances to face the street. Sep. 6, 2011:The City Councilapproved the projecton a 5-0vote (see AttachmentC and D)with the following key changesto the conditions of approval: Parking to be reviewed a year after completion of the two new building pads. Address preserving the large Oak behind Pizza Hut by removing parking spaces near the tree roots, assuming no violation to the lease. Front setback for Building F to be 30 feet from the street curb. Allow restaurants to comprise 15% of the shopping center (includes square footage of existing restaurants and 100% of Buildings E and F). Sep.15, 2011:PetitionerDarrel Lumfiles petition for reconsideration (Attachment E). 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 reconsiderationshall 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 reconsiderationare 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 submitted by Dr. Lum (Attachment E) consists of sixpages contesting the approval of the Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2011-10) for Building F’s reduced front setback. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City.As stated in the petition, the petitioner has made claims for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #2, #3, #5b and #5c.The City’s findings of fact and responses on each of these criteria are set forth below. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing: Finding: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previouslyexcluded by the City Council. PetitionResponse In regard to Building F and its Parking was a prominent discussion topic at the Planning associated parcel, the petitioner Commission and City Council hearings. Bothstaff reports alleges that the City Council noted that the project providesless parking than required by and Planning Commission the City’s Parking Ordinance. However,the ordinanceallows failed to discuss and answer his foralternative parking considerationsthrough a parking study questions on itsparking prepared by a professionaltraffic/parking engineersince its requirement, the adequacy of parking requirements do not fully capture the dynamic needs of the parcel to provide the a multi-use shopping center. Consequently, the parking study required supply, and the completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. seating capacity for Islands analyzed the comprehensive parking demand ofthe entire Restaurant.shopping center, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The approved parking supply rate for the shopping center exceeded therate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)for similarly-sized shopping centersand also from field parking surveys of local shopping centers with similar tenant mixes. Both rates were based on the highest surveyed rate and adjusted to account for the specific percentage of restaurants in the shopping center (15%). These rates are based on the square footage of the entire shoppingcenter, not on parking requirements for individual uses.It is acknowledged thatsome parcels in the shopping center are not self-sufficient in terms of parking, as is common in other multi-parcel shopping centers. Sufficient parking supply is provided byreciprocal access parking easements throughout every parcel.Moreover, the parking layout in the shopping center allows for sharing of parking between uses, such as patronizing a restaurant and retail store while parked in the same parking space.To remove any doubtas to the accuracy of the study, the property owner will be required to fund a parking demand survey a year after completion of the two new building pads for the City Council’s review. The petitioner alleges that The approval in question was for the core and shell of the Islands Restaurants have building pads and the floor plan provided by the applicant did separate bars and therefore not indicate a separate bar, as it was yet to be finalized bythe require parking based on 1 future Islands tenant. If Islands requests aseparate barwithin space for every 3 seats plus 1 the restaurant, then they would be required to apply fora space for each employee.Conditional Use Permit, which would bereviewedby the Planning Commissionat a future publichearing.Regarding the parking ratio, theCity typically requires1space/3 seats for bar seats only; not the entire restaurant. Restaurant seats require a parking ratio of 1 space/4 seats. As stated previously, the plans did not indicate a separate bar;therefore a bar seat parking calculation was not identified in the parking study. Furthermore, it should be noted thatsince the parking survey was based on restaurants of all types and the Council approved an alternative parking calculationbased on shopping center square footage, the bar area would not be subject to a parking requirementbased on each individual use.However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to require additional stalls through such means asrestripingin other areas of the shopping center(assuming no violation to leases). 3.Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction: Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. PetitionResponse The petitioner alleges that the The Heart of the Specific City Plan allows the Planning City Council proceeded Commission and City Council to approve exceptions to its without, or in excess of its development standards.The City followed the prescribed jurisdiction in its approval of procedures for an exception, including notifying the public the Heart of the City within 300 feet of the site and vetting the exception request Exception.through two public hearings.Therefore, the City did not act without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: 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. Finding: 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. PetitionResponse The petitioner alleges that the The project was approved in accordance with the required findings needed for a Heart of the City Specific Plan Exception: City Council did not make the necessary findings required for 1.The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the an exception to theHeart of the City’s General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan City Specific Plan. and meets one or more of the criteria described above. The development is otherwise consistent with the City’s General Plan and the specific plan.The projectwill help instill a“sense of place” by creating community gathering places with appealing architecture and pedestrian-oriented streetscape features.Thelocation of the building was proposed afterall effortswere exhaustedto meet the prescriptive development standards in the specific planand to maximize parking for the development. 2.The proposed development will not beinjurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. The developmentwill not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3.The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian vehicular traffic. The development will not create hazardous conditions for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 4.The proposed development has legalaccess to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The development has legal access to public streets and public services are available. 5. The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. The strict application of the front setback requirement does not allow for the most efficient parking layoutand maximized parking supply. In addition, thebuildable area of thelot is constrained by a grade difference andthe location of a large oak tree. The intent of the specific plan is addressed with the building positioned to promote an active streetscape. Furthermore, the City Council required the building to be setback an additional four feet to 30 feet. The petitioner assertsthat an This is not a ground for reconsideration.Also, the City Council exception should not be based the approval of the exception on the merits of the approved based on an application. exception for other projects. The petitioner alleges that the The project providesan unobstructed 26 foot wide landscape 26 foot wide landscape easement, similar to other recently approved developments easement is not consistent with within the Heart of the City, such as Peet’s/Panera and Whole the Heart of the City Specific Foods.The frontage will help create a pedestrian-friendly Plan.environment along Stevens Creek Boulevard.Building E’s frontage is limited from providing the prescribed landscape easement dimensions due to the presence of mature trees and a VTA bus duckout.The proposed landscape treatment was discussed and approved by the Council at the September 6, 2011 hearing. The petitioner alleges that noThe City does not require alternative plans to be submitted for alternative plans have been exception applications.However,various setback alternatives submitted to the Planning were discussed at the Council hearing and the Council finally Commission or City Council.adopted a revised setback of 30 feet for Building F. The petitioner alleges thatthere At the September 6, 2011 City Council hearing, the petitioner are no physical constraints on allegedthat there were no physical constraints on the Building the Building F parcel to F parcel that would prevent it from being setback 35 feet. At prevent it from being setback the hearing, thepetitioner did not provide thesespecific 35 feet from the curb as suggestionsto meet the setback requirement.The City Council required by the Heart of the can only act on the facts and evidence on hand when its City Specific Plan.The decision is rendered.The Council considered the petitioner’s petitioner suggests relocating a testimonyas provided but chose to approve the project with a retaining wall and adjusting the setback of 30 feet for Building F. lot line to gain an additional four foot setback. Applicant’s Response Please see Attachment Ffor the applicant’s response letterand exhibitsto the petitioner’s petition for reconsideration. ____________________________________ Prepared by:George Schroeder,AssistantPlanner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director. Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A.City Council ResolutionNo.11-______and Exhibit A B.Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 9, 2011 C.City Council Action Letter dated September 8, 2011 D.City Council meeting minutes from September 6, 2011 E.Petition for Reconsideration from Darrel Lum dated September 15, 2011 F.Applicant’s response letter and associated exhibits dated October 31, 2011 ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ ß RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF DARREL LUM SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO APPROVE A HEART OF THE CITY EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FOR A NEW 5,086 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PAD BUILDING WHERE A 35 FOOT FRONT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AT 20750 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing approved on a 5-0 vote applications DP-2011-03, ASA-2011- 12, EXC-2011-10, and TR-2011-30 for two new retail building pads at the Crossroads Shopping Center at 20730 Stevens Creek Boulevard. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Darrel Lum 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 November 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 did not provide new relevant evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1)). 3.The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2)). 4.The petitioner has failed to provide proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3)). 5.The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) 6.The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by not proceeding in a manner required by law; rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the City Council determines that: a.The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit A. b.The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7.The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of September 6, 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 th Cupertino this 15 day of November 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ _______________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: 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 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 The petition for reconsideration submitted by Dr. Lum consists of six pages contesting the approval of the Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2011- setback. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. As stated in the petition, the petitioner has made claims for reconsideration under the of these criteria are set forth below. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing: Finding: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. Petition Response In regard to Building F and its Parking was a prominent discussion topic at the Planning associated parcel, the petitioner Commission and City Council hearings. Both staff reports alleges that the City Council noted that the project provides less parking than required by and Planning Commission allows failed to discuss and answer his for alternative parking considerations through a parking study questions on its parking prepared by a professional traffic/parking engineer since its requirement, the adequacy of parking requirements do not fully capture the dynamic needs the parcel to provide the of a multi-use shopping center. Consequently, the parking required supply, and the study completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. seating capacity for Islands analyzed the comprehensive parking demand of the entire Restaurant. shopping center, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The approved parking supply rate for the shopping center exceeded the rate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for similarly-sized shopping centers and also from field parking surveys of local shopping centers with similar tenant mixes. Both rates were based on the highest surveyed rate and adjusted to account for the specific percentage of restaurants in the shopping center (15%). These rates are based on the square footage of the entire shopping center, not on parking requirements for individual uses. It is acknowledged that some parcels in the shopping center are not self-sufficient in terms of parking, as is common in other multi-parcel shopping centers. Sufficient parking supply is provided by reciprocal access parking easements throughout every parcel. Moreover, the parking layout in the shopping center allows for sharing of parking between uses, such as patronizing a restaurant and retail store while parked in the same parking space. To remove any doubt as to the accuracy of the study, the property owner will be required to fund a parking demand survey a year after completion of the two new The petitioner alleges that The approval in question was for the core and shell of the Islands Restaurants have building pads and the floor plan provided by the applicant did separate bars and therefore not indicate a separate bar, as it was yet to be finalized by the require parking based on 1 future Islands tenant. If Islands requests a separate bar within space for every 3 seats plus 1 the restaurant, then they would be required to apply for a space for each employee. Conditional Use Permit, which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a future public hearing. Regarding the parking ratio, the City typically requires 1 space/3 seats for bar seats only; not the entire restaurant. Restaurant seats require a parking ratio of 1 space/4 seats. As stated previously, the plans did not indicate a separate bar; therefore a bar seat parking calculation was not identified in the parking study. Furthermore, it should be noted that since the parking survey was based on restaurants of all types and the Council approved an alternative parking calculation based on shopping center square footage, the bar area would not be subject to a parking requirement based on each individual use. However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to require additional stalls through such means as restriping in other areas of the shopping center (assuming no violation to leases). 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction: Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that the The Heart of the Specific City Plan allows the Planning City Council proceeded Commission and City Council to approve exceptions to its without, or in excess of its development standards. The City followed the prescribed jurisdiction in its approval of procedures for an exception, including notifying the public the Heart of the City within 300 feet of the site and vetting the exception request Exception. through two public hearings. Therefore, the City did not act without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: 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. Finding: 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 the The project was approved in accordance with the required City Council did not make the findings needed for a Heart of the City Specific Plan necessary findings required for Exception: an exception to the Heart of the 1.The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City Specific Plan. and meets one or more of the criteria described above. General Plan and the specific plan. The project will help instill with appealing architecture and pedestrian-oriented streetscape features. The location of the building was proposed after all efforts were exhausted to meet the prescriptive development standards in the specific plan and to maximize parking for the development. 2.The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. The development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3.The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian vehicular traffic. The development will not create hazardous conditions for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 4.The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The development has legal access to public streets and public services are available. 5.The proposed development requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. The strict application of the front setback requirement does not allow for the most efficient parking layout and maximized parking supply. In addition, the buildable area of the lot is constrained by a grade difference and the location of a large oak tree. The intent of the specific plan is addressed with the building positioned to promote an active streetscape. Furthermore, the City Council required the building to be setback an additional four feet to 30 feet. The petitioner asserts that an This is not a ground for reconsideration. Also, the City Council exception should not be based the approval of the exception on the merits of the approved based on an application. exception for other projects. The petitioner alleges that the The project provides an unobstructed 26 foot wide landscape 26 foot wide landscape easement, similar to other recently approved developments easement is not consistent with within the Heart of the Heart of the City Specific Foods. The frontage will help create a pedestrian-friendly Plan. frontage is limited from providing the prescribed landscape easement dimensions due to the presence of mature trees and a VTA bus duckout. The proposed landscape treatment was discussed and approved by the Council at the September 6, 2011 hearing. The petitioner alleges that no The City does not require alternative plans to be submitted for alternative plans have been exception applications. However, various setback alternatives submitted to the Planning were discussed at the Council hearing and the Council finally Commission or City Council. adopted a revised setback of 30 feet for Building F. The petitioner alleges that there At the September 6, 2011 City Council hearing, the petitioner are no physical constraints on alleged that there were no physical constraints on the Building the Building F parcel to F parcel that would prevent it from being set back 35 feet. At prevent it from being setback the hearing, the petitioner did not provide these specific 35 feet from the curb as suggestions to meet the setback requirement. The City Council required by the Heart of the can only act on the facts and evidence on hand when its City Specific Plan. The petitioner suggests relocating a testimony as provided but chose to approve the project with a retaining wall and adjusting the setback of 30 feet for Building F. lot line to gain an additional four foot setback. ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Þ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. August 9, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Don Sun Staff present: City Planner: Gary Chao Senior Planner: Colin Jung Assistant Planner: George Schroeder PUBLIC HEARING 2. DP-2011-03, ASA-2011-12, Development Permit to allow the construction of two new EXC-2011-10, TR-2011-30 retail building pads, 8,136 sq. ft. and 5,086 sq. ft. respectively Mark Creedon (Byer and demolition of an existing 4,930 sq. ft. restaurant building Properties) 20750 Stevens for a net square footage increase of 8,292 sq. ft. Architectural Creek Blvd. and Site Approval for two new retail building pads and associated site improvements, including, but not limited to parking lot reorientation, lighting, landscaping and street frontage improvements consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 26 foot setback for a new Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacements of 79 trees within an existing shopping center parking lot in conjunction with the proposed new development. Tentative City Council date: September 6, 2011 George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: Reviewed the application and project summary, as outlined in the staff report; which included demolition of the Marie Callenders restaurant, and addition of two new retail buildings, sidewalk, landscaping, lighting and frontage enhancements to the site, parking lot improvements, etc. He reviewed the information relative to site improvements, architectural review, Heart of the City front setback exception, parking, tree removal and replacement, public outreach meetings held, lot mergers, delivery, and signage as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council in accordance with the model resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Staff answered questions about the application. Gary Chao: Said that although it is useful to compare shopping centers as the consultant did, sometimes you have to also consider the percent of restaurant; the ratio that it is being locked in at, because it makes a big difference. Com. Brophy: Said he was concerned about the parking; the application is 80 spaces below the zoning ordinance; the alternate solution offered developers is to allow them consultant to evaluate the site, to recommend appropriate parking, which has been done with many centers in town. The developer would provide his site plan and the traffic consultant would evaluate what the demand is and compare that to the number of spaces that developers propose. He asked if Hexagon had ever come in with a number that did not meet the He said staff provided him with copies of other studies done by Hexagon for his review, and he found that they use different methodologies for different projects. Gary Chao: they have had situations in the past where after the first round of analysis, the consultant would prompt issues and concerns which gave them reasons or abilities to discuss issues with the developer, to either provide more parking or reduce the intensity to meet the demand. Com. Brophy: Said he reviewed other studies by Hexagon and was concerned that they appeared to use different methodologies; in the Cupertino Village study they talked about the need to 15 or 20 spaces per 1,000 feet of restaurant; but in this project they are looking at 11 to 13 being adequate. Given that this site barely meets their number, the concern is that given the proposal Asked staff to clarify why they feel the zoning ordinance is the one to use. Gary Chao: It is difficult to set on one particular ratio or formula that would work and when it happens, (we) return to the ordinance that has one rate that treats every type of restaurant, shopping center here is; therefore staff relies on the consultants to provide more insight; actually going out, measuring and establishing baselines based on other examples. Com. Brophy: Said it was stated that there are centers in town that have a surplus of parking spaces, but he was at a loss to think of any successful centers with a large surplus of parking spaces and assumed they planned to add a condition regarding what tenants the developer should lease to. He questioned if there was an example that shows that the zoning ordinance is not sufficient as a guide for parking. Gary Chao: Said he did not have a good answer in terms of how to determine the factor of success. The consultant attempts to measure other shopping centers with similar makeup and tenant mix so that is their best estimate in terms of projecting a ratio to consider. on the Cothey cannot discuss the issue with the applicant about looking at the ratio of restaurant that they are comfortable with, or looking at ways where the city has opportunities in the near future to let the tenants go in and see if there are at least additional adjustments down the road. Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Com. Brophy: Commented that once you build it, it is difficult to talk about adjustments. Mark Creedon, Project Architect, Representing Byer Properties: Said they supported the resolution in principle; and would discuss some items for the Commission to examine and discuss. Items 14, 15, 16, relating to some design latitude for building E; adding a cap or light bar. Said they disagreed with the recommendation, felt it was garish, and would like to have some latitude with doing something different. Said they would prefer to use wood around the entrances as it presented a warmer look and would complement what was there. Other two items, substantially opening up and adding doors all the way to grade which would be ideal in most instances and is done on the other pad building. They currently have booth seating on the front of Stevens Creek although they do have some additional overflow, public seating in the front of the building and they have regulated seating part restaurant on the side of a pedestrian plaza towards the Heritage Oak. bring doors all the way to grade, since it could not be open because health code requires screens in front of those doors. He asked that the requirement be relaxed so they could have their windows as shown. Signage, Items 14 & 16: They endorse the idea of having site signage in front of Building E on a low wall. If required to have a low project site sign, they would like to move the landmark sign to the median adjacent to it. Item 15: A recommendation was made that the owner of the property file a covenant with the city requiring that Building E entrance on Stevens Creek. They endorse the idea of entrance on Stevens Creek and have designed the building so it has entry on both sides as staff mentioned; also have accommodated a plaza on the front as well, but feel it is over-stepping and highly restricting the owner to enter into a covenant when he is trying to get tenants for the building and negotiating on getting leases. He requested that the covenant requirement be stricken. Clarified on Item 14 there was a recommendation of a light cap, a light bar on the top of the t stricken; would prefer to use wooden trellises around the entrances. No. 15 Have designed the project with doors on that side; and have two end cap tenants which will have doors on all three sides of Building E. Commented on discussion of parking; asked many of the same questions and responded much of the same way. When ordinances are made, they are created to address a stand alone building as well as a mix of those in a shopping center. The requirements of a stand alone building are different; there are complementary uses in many shopping centers, where a consumer will go to different stores in the same center but park in only one space. Gary Chao commented on the conditions: Relative to the conditions about the architectural consultant recommendations, he said staff generally agrees with the applicant. The language of the condition gives the applicant latitude in terms of flexibility in allowing staff to make variations from the list, understanding that ultimately it has to fit the program and demand of the particular tenant. Said some of the items listed are good, and cited an example of the cap end on the top of the light bar; noting that if they are looking at architecture, the intent is to ensure it is a nice finish to the edges, but not necessarily a light bar; it could be another method. That is the reason why the conditions read as such; it is not locked in stone. He said he was not encouraging deleting it from the list, but to allow staff to work it out with the applicant with assurance that they will work with them to meet their criteria. With regards to the entrances condition, the goal of the Heart of the City is to promote an activation of the street frontage so the idea is not to have any back of house service oriented activities facing Stevens Creek. Given that this is a new building there is no excuse to create Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 that sort of situation; and they can live without the covenant requirement, and leaving it as a condition would be fine. Staff would have some concerns if it was taken out because that was expressed to the applicant the first day and it was thought to be agreed upon. The covenant is not needed; the condition speaks for itself. Regarding the signage and its relevancy to the Crossroads existing landmark sign, he said it would require an exception to move the Crossroads landmark sign. The ordinance that Council recently adopted which preserves the ability for property owners to upkeep the landmark signs are exactly just that; it is dilapidating or you need to keep it up. The low wall sign is a mere suggestion, it could be a traditional ground sign or not have a sign there; not locked in stone, it is something to be worked out later depending on the requirements and criteria. Relative to Building F, the French doors when closed serve as a wall so that on nice sunny days they can be opened up and activity can spill out; the intent is to facilitate that type of environment. Given the fact they are asking for a setback average of 31 feet, the justification behind that is that area is a unique intimate setting where people can sit out and flow in and out. The reason why staff did not consider what was going on inside is because they were not given the floor plan to review; that is a comment about having the interior booth or other functionality inside, as required by the tenant; staff was not privy to that information. Staff can work with the applicant; no one wants to violate any health codes or ABC licensing codes because if alcohol is served, you need to have fencing or gates to separate the public space from the private space. Staff can be flexible in terms of working with the applicant and making sure he meets all the rules, including state and county rules. Said the Director of Community Development reviews the sign program. Chair Lee opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: Said she felt the site was one of the most important centers in Cupertino and welcomed new stores to regenerate shopping in the area. Relative to the Heart of the City exception being requested, it has been established that most of the city wants to have the same look and feel from one end of the city to the other along Stevens Creek Boulevard and that means a full 35 foot setback; which has been tested time and again. Said her main issue with the project is the request for the Heart of the City exception because she was not very familiar with the Panera project from about 2005, and did not know much about that area, although she always felt that Panera was too close to the street. The request for the exception was 26 feet; but at 26 feet there is almost 100 feet of public right of way along Stevens Creek Boulevard that is affected. There is dining furniture in the public right of way; a building at 26 feet, and parking stalls. Said she felt it would be a successful restaurant, but it was important to pull it back, get it out of the public right of way which is the reason for the Heart of the City. With the sensitive design of the building, it can be pulled back 35 feet and still have a successful establishment, but respect Heart of the City. Darren Lum, Cupertino resident: Thanked Byer Properties for bringing the project to Cupertino; Said he had concerns about the exception to the Heart of the City; Referred to Page 4, para. 6 of staff report, regarding constraints of the project site; he said he felt the are due to the siting of Building F and also with the adjustment of the lot line between the Marie Callender site and the parking lot. It is creating a parcel that is over 40,000 sq. ft. for a building that is 5,000 sq. ft. which represents 12% of the total. The developer wants to put the new building up against Stevens Creek; he said he felt there are other possibilities of siting that new building. At the end of the paragraph, it says that the project is the 26 foot landscaping easement and is consistent with commercial district; however, the 26 foot setback is not consistent with the Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Heart of the City Specific Plan which has a 26 foot boulevard easement and then a 9 foot setback for the building which equals 35 feet. Most of the parcels are sufficiently deep in depth that you can move the buildings back and not impinge on the easements. He questioned why none of the proposed projects adhere to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. It would be a great opportunity for the city and the developer to create the boulevard they are trying to achieve with Heart of the City. He noted some discrepancies in the staff repo setback, one says 35 feet and the staff report says 35 feet to the east and 492 feet to the west the staff report says 320 feet. While the consolidated Marie Callender parcel has sufficient space to meet the parking requirements of Building F; no where in the report does it state what the parking requirements are for Building F; it appears that there are 40 parking spaces for the new building, whereas the Marie Callender building has 50. Chair Lee closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: Some of the constraints regarding the site that Dr. Lum discussed is not just the fact that the building has to be located in the front; there is a grade difference between the front half of the lot to the rear half. The parking lot that Com. Miller was referring to west of the TJ Maxx building, is sitting at a higher level and there is a slight retaining wall that separates the west parking lot from the parking lot from Pizza Hut and also Marie Callenders; naturally you only have the front area to work with. Said they always try to encourage new development, especially restaurants, to be located as far away from residential as possible. Not only does this plan achieve this, it also satisfies the activation goal of having a nice architectural presentation in front of the street as opposed to the sea of parking. With all those considered, given the first preservation of the oak tree, the constraint of the grade differences that exists, also the fact that this is the plan that will give you the maximum number of parking stalls, given the concern about the parking; staff is comfortable supporting the exception. It is also important to note that the 26 foot minimum landscaping easement discussed, the look and feel of the Heart of the City is not compromised. The 26 foot minimum landscaping easement prescribed by the Heart of the City is intact and that allows for a park strip sidewalk and another park strip; in this case given this section of the crossroad section of the Heart of the City, that details more urban, similar to Peets, Panera and Whole Foods. When stating the project is consistent with the Heart of the City, it is referring to those features, the landscaping features. Staff will answer some of the setback questions. George Schroeder: Relative tosetbacks, he said there were discrepancies between the plans and staff report due to being measured from different places. The setbacks were measured to the rear property line of the parcel, and the setback measurements in the plans were to incorrect location of the property line; the ones for Building E were measured for the large shopping center parcel and also to one of the current sliver parcels and the ones for Building F were measured to their own parcels. Com. Brownley: Said he was excited about the new restaurant and shops, including the sidewalk landscaping, street furniture and enhancement, everything elating to activating Stevens Creek and making it walkable and friendly. Staff will work with the applicant on concerns regarding storage of shipping containers, delivery trucks, lighting, odor, and traffic to make them conditions for approval. The remaining issues are parking and the exception for the Heart of the City, but Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 based on the discussion, there was a traffic study done that says based on the similar projects in the city with similar parking characteristics, the parking around this area will be adequate. To a certain degree the parking issue has been discussed and addressed. The exception for the Heart of the City: There are constraints on all sides on things that they are trying to do that make this an appropriate location for the building; in addition to that there is the precedent of having the exceptions in the past, and for those reasons that is how he is looking at some of the problems seen on this project. Com. Brophy: After looking at the issue on the Heart of the City exception, while we prefer not to do that, the need to connect that building and connect the pedestrian connection towards the Pizza Hut and to try to preserve the Oak tree there, this may be an acceptable solution. A single building with an average of 31 feet is not the end of the world because while looking for a boulevard approach, this is the most heavily commercial section of Stevens Creek Boulevard and concerned as there are already a number of pre-existing buildings that are closer than that. Said he was still concerned about parking and there were still unanswered questions remaining. The Hexagon study uses unconvincing examples, the Homestead Shopping Center is the weakest large center in the community; even before P W Super shut down it had a very large store with low volume, and an oversized Rite Aid, so the traffic was never large. The other examples used in the survey 18 months ago in Mountain View and Santa Clara were not comparable to this center; which negates that as a reason for supporting it. Said he did not view it as a theoretical issue, but looked at the work that has been done at other successful centers in town; look at the parking analysis, at Cupertino village which on Sundays does not have enough parking there; and look at Market Place and its not quite overcrowded but close. In zoning ordinance says, this is what will work. He said it was not the sort of thing that provided confidence when reading the study that is supposed to reassure us that this will barely work with any spaces less than required. staurant standards are too light; if you want to look at a stand alone restaurant, look a emphasizes, if anything, restaurant uses in the ordinance are insufficiently strict and since this is a proposal to add additional entire restaurant space, he felt he could not support it the way it was. He asked the Commissioners if anyone else agreed with him, that it appeared the alternatives are either to not allow Building E or to allow Building E along with Building F but to require that it not be food uses. According to his calculations, that would bring it back to He said he was presenting it as two alternatives to approving a project that he felt did not have enough parking to support it. Vice Chair Miller: Staff has already agreed to eliminate the covenant on Condition 15; he supports the concept of giving the applicant the latitude to make some changes to the light bar, to substitute wood for metal trellises, and also to discuss the signing with staff. He said he was not opposed to bringing any further issues to the DRC if staff and the applicant cannot work it out together. Said he was concerned about the Heart of the City exception; however the most positive thing is the activation of the street front. He referred to the success of the Peets and Panera Breads outdoor seating in front of the buildings and said there was value in that to make the exception. Most of the high demand parking seems to be generated by successful restaurant traffic, and when comparing the Market Place to this center, there are at least 7 or 8 restaurants in the Market Place, and only two in the subject center. The current use would support this ratio; however, if the remaining Commissioners were interested in having a covenant that said if they Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 were going to come in for more restaurant parking, it would be reasonable that the Planning Commission would have to review it. Com. Brophy: Said that part of the situation with the center now is there are vast amounts of vacant space and there are a number of other low traffic generating uses that are occupied. He was concerned that using the formulas they have, that given what would be expected for these spaces, once those spaces are filled, they may find that is not the case. It is well below what the zoning ordinance requires and barely meets what he thought were pushing the numbers. Vice Chair Miller: Said he understood the concern; 10 or 20 years ago, when all the spaces were filled, it was difficult to remember a time when the center was underparked. It is a judgment call and he would be more concerned if there were more restaurants on the site because restaurants do tend to overflow parking. He said he did not see a problem with having some restriction that they Gary Chao: Staff is proposing in the condition that any additional intensification, i.e., more restaurants being proposed than what they are showing, require additional review by staff. Currently the proposal is for the entire Building E to be restaurants. It is the worst case scenario and not realistic; what you can do is back that number down a little; what if it is 2/3, or 50%; that is something you can consider as opposed to just all retail. Com. Brophy: Said it is already included in Condition 11 that if the parking is not working, they use valet parking for the restaurant space. He said BJs had that as an alternative, although not ideal; and he viewed BJs as a parking failure, not a success; and should not be used as a model. An option would be to limit the amount of food use because of the dramatic difference in parking demand between food and non-food use. As a compromise, suggest limit Building E to 50% food; it was suggested Building E be a non-food building because that would get us just about down to what the zoning ordinance requires in terms of parking. If there is a desire to try to work something, he said he would rather see Building E be no more than half food with the option that the applicant could come back, if and when the center is fully built out. If there is surplus parking, if he wanted to then convert either the remaining space in Building E or space in the main building then it could be done at that time when there is actual evidence that there is not a problem. Gary Chao: Said a possible example to consider is the way that Market Place set up their condition, locking in a percent of maximum restaurant for the center; when Building E is 50% occupied, staff would have to come back with another assessment to demonstrate at that time the parking demand on the ground. Com. Brophy: Said if looking for a compromise solution, he would rather look at 50% with the option of the owner coming back at a future time when the center is fully leased out and if there is surplus parking. Gary Chao: Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Relative to size of parking spaces, he said the Planning Code requires uniform stall size; with no option of compact size; that is the current ordinance. The applicant indicated they were using the medium size parking space. Mark Creedon: Explained how the number of parking spaces is arrived at, what the parking analysis takes into account, and factors to make sure there is some cushion. Will the center always have ample parking anytime someone wants to arrive around the holiday season; probably not; 85% of the time there will be parking available for them. Com. Brophy: Said he was not concerned about holidays, but when he saw centers in town built on the advice of the traffic consultant that they could safely ignore the zoning code; and they were crowded every weekend, it struck him that a mistake was made, not that it should be business as usual. Vice Chair Miller: We are talking about some kind of limitation on use of the space in Building E; is that workable from your standpoint? Mark Creedon: Said they would prefer to look at it over the entire center; which the staff report reflects, because it provides flexibility for the owner to not have dark spaces. If there is a vacancy in one part of the center, or if the amount of retail or restaurant/food use is limited, they may not want to move to another part of the center; they may prefer that building; it is a better location for food use. It is flexibility for the whole center, and he said they are in agreement with limiting it, and Staff quoted 15% over the whole center for food use; they could never exceed that and would have to come back with a request to do that. Vice Chair Miller: Asked where they were at in terms of the percentage of food space for the total center. Gary Chao: 15%, assuming you are leasing Building E completely to restaurants. Com. Brophy: Said he could support 10%; suggested that Building E be a maximum of 50% food. Vice Chair Miller: Suggested that in the interest of giving the owner flexibility, they use that number to come out with a percentage for the entire center. It works out to the most he can fill Building E with now. Com. Brophy: Suggested that the number not exceed existing restaurant uses plus Building F plus half of Building E. Gary Chao: staurant; they can if they demonstrate with evidence once everybody is situated and open and fully or significantly leased. Cupertino Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Com.Brophy: . Gary Chao: Asked if the Commission agreed with about the window; to work with the applicant but not violate state laws regarding the French door condition. Vice Chair Miller: Said he was not in favor of limiting the indoor restaurant seating space. The applicant said there was a separate door for the service to go in and out easily without interfering with the patron traffic going in and out the front door; therefore, he was opposed to reducing the functionality of the restaurant. Gary Chao: Suggested if that was the general concern, rom being able to logistically operate their interior floor layout. They would like the window to come down further so that it looks like a storefront as opposed to a half wall; at least visually it looks retail friendly or more activated so there is more visibility in and out. He felt they could work out a condition that gives them the flexibility to work with the applicant to the maximum extent they might consider just working another window design so it is stretched further down toward the ground to give it that look. Vice Chair Miller: Said he agreed; it would be a lot less convenient for people to eat outside if they had to go out the main entrance. Com. Brownley: Said he agreed with the discussion about opening up the space; but in the event it needs to be curtailed, there is an extra entrance, and bring the windows down to make it more friendly. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brophy, and unanimously carried 4-0-0, Com. Sun absent, to approve Application DP-2011-03, ASA-2011-12, EXC-2011-10, TR-2011-30 with the changes discussed Chair Lee declared a short recess. ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ý ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ü MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 6, 2011 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:46 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, Orrin Mahoney, and Kris Wang. Absent: none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Subject: Cupertino Crossroads Development Proposal Recommended Action: Approve project Description: Applicant: Mark Creedon (Byer Properties); Permit Nos: ASA-2011-12, DP- 2011-03, EXC-2011-10, TR-2011-30; Location: 20750 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino Crossroads); APN: 359-08-006, 359-08-013, 359-08-020; Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration (EA-2011-10); Descriptions: a. Architectural and Site approval for two new retail building pads and associated site improvements, including, but not limited to, parking lot re-orientation, lighting, landscaping and street frontage improvements consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. b. Development Permit to allow the construction of two new retail building pads; 8,136 square feet and 5,086 square feet respectively and demolition of an existing 4,930 square foot restaurant building, for a net square footage increase of 8,292 square feet. c. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 26 foot front setback for a new 5,086 retail building pad, where a 35 foot front setback is required. d. Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of seventy nine trees within an existing shopping center parking lot in conjunction with the proposed new development Written communications for this item included staff PowerPoint slides. Assistant Planner George Schroeder reviewed the staff report. Applicant Charles Kahn, Architect, introduced Project Manager Mark Creedon who was there to answer any questions. Mr. Kahn uses at the street to keep the shopping center alive, noting that people like to shop and then have a meal. He also noted that the plan is to include fountains to create an ambience for people to stay and enjoy their September 6, 2011 Cupertino City Council meal. He said they expect there to be cross-fertilization between the businesses which would only require one parking space rather than two. At 9:02 p.m. Mayor Wong opened the public hearing. Darryl Lum, also speaking for Ned Britt and Robert McKibbinn, said that the whole area should be under a master plan. He noted that is in another parcel and Staples is in two parcels showing an example of piece-meal planning. He said that no criteria were met for the project to warrant a Heart of the City (HOC) Exception, and that only 18% of Bldg. F complies with the HOC Master Plan. He compared the street. that number. Jennifer Griffin said that this is an important parcel for Cupertino because of its historical value. She noted that the City has a Heart of the City Master Plan and no exceptions should be granted, making sure there remains a 35-foot setback in that area. Mark Matsumoto from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce said that the Chamber promotes and enhances businesses in Cupertino and they support this project. He noted that the developer has won awards for being innovative on previous developments. At 9:18 p.m. Mayor Wong closed the public hearing. Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion carried unanimously. Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded and Council unanimously approved the following exceptions: Parking to be reviewed a year after completion of the two new building pads Address preserving the large Oak behind Pizza Hut by removing parking spaces near the tree roots, assuming no violation to the lease Front setback for Building F to be 30 feet from the street curb Allow restaurants to comprise 15% of the shopping center (includes square footage of existing restaurants and 100% of Buildings E and F) Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the applications for the project. The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 9:57 p.m. to 10:06 p.m. ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Û ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌ Ú íÙÈÍÚ×Ê ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍ¯õÊÍÇÎØÖÍÊÊ×ÙÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎìÊÍÍÖÍÖöÛÙÈÉ® ê×ËÇÓÊ×ØùÊÓÈ×ÊÓÛûÐÐÈÔ×Ê×ËÇÓÊ×ØÙÊÓÈ×ÊÓÛÅ×Ê×Ï×ÈèÔ×ÌÊ×É×ÎÙ×ÍÖÈÔ×Ô×ÊÓÈÛÕ×ÍÛÑÛÉÛÎÍÚÇÓÐØÂÍÎ× ÙÍÎÉÈÓÈÇÈ×ÉÛÇÎÓËÇ×ÉÇÊÊÍÇÎØÓÎÕÐÛÎØÇÉ×Ê×ØÇÙ×ÉÈÔ×ÚÇÓÐØÛÚÐ×ÛÊ×ÛÉÓÕÎÓÖÓÙÛÎÈÐÃÊ×ÉÇÐÈÓÎÕÓÎÛÉÏÛÐÐ×ÊÐÍÈ ÉÓÂ×ÛÎØÛÎÇÎÇÉÇÛÐÐÃÉÔÛÌ×ØÚÇÓÐØÛÚÐ×ÌÛÊÙ×ÐÛÊ×ÛèÔ×ÌÊ×É×ÎÙ×ÍÖÈÔ×íÛÑÅÛÉÈÔ×ÉÈÛÈ×ØÊ×ÛÉÍÎÖÍÊÈÔ× ×ÄÙ×ÌÈÓÍÎÊ×ËÇ×ÉÈÓÎÈÔ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕõÓÆ×ÎÈÔÛÈÈÔ×ÎÍÚÇÓÐØÂÍÎ×ÓÉ ÉËÇÛÊ×Ö××ÈÈÔ×Ê×ËÇ×ÉÈÖÍÊÛ ÉËÇÛÊ×ÖÍÍÈ×ÎÙÊÍÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈÓÎÈÍÈÔ×É×ÈÚÛÙÑÉ××ÏÉÛÏÍØ×ÉÈÛÎØÊ×ÛÉÍÎÛÚÐ×ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈÓÍÎÍÖÈÔ×É×ØÓÖÖÓÙÇÐÈ ÇÎÇÉÇÛÐÉÓÈ×ÙÍÎØÓÈÓÍÎÉé××ÛÈÈÛÙÔ×Ø÷ÄÔÓÚÓÈ¯û® ûÐÈ×ÊÎÛÈÓÆ×ìÐÛÎÉèÔ×ÛÊÙÔÓÈ×ÙÈ×ÄÌÐÍÊ×ØÎÇÏ×ÊÍÇÉÉÓÈ×ÌÐÛÎÙÍÎÖÓÕÇÊÛÈÓÍÎÉÈÍÚ×ÉÈÏ××ÈÈÔ×ÙÓÈÃ¬ÉÌÛÊÑÓÎÕ Ê×ËÇÓÊ×Ï×ÎÈÉÛÎØÌÊÍÆÓØ×ÛÈÍÌÖÐÓÕÔÈØ×ÉÓÕÎÖÍÊÈÔ×ÙÓÈÃèÔ×Ê×ÓÉÎÍÊ×ËÇÓÊ×Ï×ÎÈÈÔÛÈÛÐÈ×ÊÎÛÈÓÆ×ÌÐÛÎÉÚ× ÉÇÚÏÓÈÈ×ØÛÉÌÛÊÈÍÖÈÔ×ÛÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎûÉÛÙÍÇÊÈ×ÉÃÈÍÈÔ×Ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎ×ÊÅ×ÛÊ×ÌÊÍÆÓØÓÎÕÛÎÛÐÈ×ÊÎÛÈ×ÈÔÛÈ ÍÚÉ×ÊÆ×ÉÈÔ×É×ÈÚÛÙÑÊ×ËÇÓÊ×Ï×ÎÈÛÉÌÛÊÈÍÖÈÔÓÉÊ×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍÙÐ×ÛÊÐÃÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈ×ÅÔÃÈÔÛÈÌÛÈÔÅÛÉÎÍÈÌÇÊÉÇ×Ø é××ÛÈÈÛÙÔ×Ø÷ÄÔÓÚÓÈ¯ú® ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍ ÖÖ×ÊÍÖÊ×Ð×ÆÛÎÈ×ÆÓØ×ÎÙ×ÅÔÓÙÔÅÛÉÓÏÌÊÍÌ×ÊÐÃ ×ÄÙÐÇØ×ØÛÈÛÎÃÌÊÓÍÊÙÓÈÃÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕ® îÍÎ×ÍÖÈÔ×ÓÈ×ÏÉÍÇÈÐÓÎ×ØÚÃÈÔ×Ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎ×ÊÅ×Ê×ÓÏÌÊÍÌ×ÊÐÃ×ÄÙÐÇØ×ØûÐÐÊ×Ð×ÆÛÎÈÖÛÙÈÉÅ×Ê×ÛØØÊ×ÉÉ×ØÛÉ ÌÛÊÈÍÖÈÔ×ÛÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎûÐÐÙÍÎÙ×ÊÎÉÛØØÊ×ÉÉ×ØÓÎÈÔ×Ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎ×Ê¬ÉÙÍÏÌÐÛÓÎÈÊ×Ö×ÊÈÍóÉÐÛÎØ¬ÉÍÌ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎÛÐÓÉÉÇ×É ÍÊÓÎØÓÆÓØÇÛÐÌÛÊÑÓÎÕÛÊ×ÛÉèÔ×É×ÛÊ×ÎÍÈÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ×ÙÍÎÙ×ÊÎÉÖÍÊÈÔÓÉØ×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈÛÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎ èÔÓÉÛÌÌÊÍÆÛÐÓÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ÉÔ×ÐÐÚÇÓÐØÓÎÕÉÍÎÐÃÛÎØØÍ×ÉÎÍÈÛØØÊ×ÉÉÛÎÃÌÊÍÉÌ×ÙÈÓÆ×È×ÎÛÎÈÉÍÈÔ×ÊÈÔÛÎ Õ×Î×ÊÓÙÛÐÐÃÛÉÛÖÍÍØÇÉ×ûÎÃÊ×ÉÈÛÇÊÛÎÈÅÓÈÔÛÚÛÊÓÉÊ×ËÇÓÊ×ØÈÍÉÇÚÏÓÈÖÍÊÛÉ×ÌÛÊÛÈ×ùçìÅÔÓÙÔÅÓÐÐÚ× Ê×ÆÓ×Å×ØÚÃÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÛÈÛÉ×ÌÛÊÛÈ×ÌÇÚÐÓÙÔ×ÛÊÓÎÕèÔ×Ê×ËÇÓÊ×ØÌÛÊÑÓÎÕÖÍÊÈÔÛÈÇÉ×ÅÓÐÐÚ× ÛØØÊ×ÉÉ×ØÛÉÌÛÊÈÍÖÈÔÛÈùçìÛÌÌÐÓÙÛÈÓÍÎå×ÇÎØ×ÊÉÈÛÎØÈÔÛÈÈÔ×ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÔÛÉÈÔ×ØÓÉÙÊ×ÈÓÍÎÈÍ Ê×ËÇÓÊ×ÛØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐÉÈÛÐÐÉÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÉÇÙÔÏ×ÛÎÉÛÉÊ×ÉÈÊÓÌÓÎÕÓÎÍÈÔ×ÊÛÊ×ÛÉÍÖÈÔ×ÉÔÍÌÌÓÎÕÙ×ÎÈ×ÊÛÉÉÇÏÓÎÕÎÍ ÆÓÍÐÛÈÓÍÎÈÍ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕÍÊÌÊÍÌÍÉ×ØÐ×ÛÉ×ÉÛÎØ ÍÊÈÔÊÍÇÕÔÙÍÏÌÛÙÈÉÌÛÙ×É ê×ÉÌÍÎÉ×ÈÍ ¯õÊÍÇÎØÖÍÊê×ÙÍÎÉÓØ×ÊÛÈÓÍÎìÊÍÍÖÍÖöÛÙÈÉ¹ÈÔ×ùÓÈÃùÍÇÎÙÓÐûÚÇÉ×ØÓÈÉøÓÉÙÊ×ÈÓÍÎ¹® óÉÉÇ×ÉÊÛÓÉ×ØÚÃÈÔ×Ì×ÈÓÈÓÍÎ×ÊÊ×ÐÛÈÓÆ×ÈÍØ×È×ÊÏÓÎÛÈÓÍÎÍÖÏÓÎÍÊÌÛÊÙ×ÐÉÓÂ× ÚÍÇÎØÛÊÃËÇ×ÉÈÓÍÎÉÔÛÆ×ÎÍ Ú×ÛÊÓÎÕÍÎÈÔ×Ø×ÙÓÉÓÍÎ ê×ÕÛÊØÓÎÕÌÛÊÑÓÎÕÎ×ÛÊÈÔ×ðÛÊÕ×íÛÑèÔ×ÌÐÛÎÛÉÉÇÚÏÓÈÈ×ØÔÛØÛÐÊ×ÛØÃÚ××ÎÊ×ÆÓÉ×ØÈÍÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈ×ÈÔ× ÉÈÛÈ×ØÛÊÚÍÊÓÉÈ¬ÉÙÍÎÙ×ÊÎóÎØ××ØÈÔ×ÛÊÙÔÓÈ×ÙÈÍÖÖ×Ê×ØÛÎØÈÔ×ÙÍÇÎÙÓÐÛÙÙ×ÌÈ×ØÛÉÛÙÍÎØÓÈÓÍÎÍÖÛÌÌÊÍÆÛÐ ÖÇÊÈÔ×Ê×ÄÈ×ÎÉÓÍÎÍÖÈÔ×ÎÍÚÇÓÐØÂÍÎ×ÈÍÈÔ×Å×ÉÈÓÖÎÍÈÐÓÏÓÈ×ØÚÃÐ×ÛÉ×Ê×ÉÈÊÓÙÈÓÍÎÉ èÔÛÎÑÃÍÇ ùÔÛÊÐ×ÉñÛÔÎ ÉÓÄÈÔÉÈÊ××ÈÚ×ÊÑ×Ð×ÃÙÛ È×Ð ÖÛÄ ÑÛÔÎØ×ÉÓÕÎÛÉÉÍÙÓÛÈ×ÉÙÍÏ