1-17-12 Searchable Packet
Table of Contents
Agenda4
Conference with real property negotiator (Government Code
54956.8); Property: Abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive,
Cupertino, CA, 95014; APN 326-41-114; Negotiating Parties:
Director of Public Works; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of
sale
No written materials in packet11
Proclamation recognizing Angela Zhang, the Monta Vista high
school student who won a $100,000 scholarship
No written materials in packet12
Proclamation recognizing the Homestead High School Band for
their hard work and dedication to the community
No written materials in packet13
November 15 City Council minutes
Draft minutes14
December 6 City Council minutes
Draft minutes25
Alcoholic Beverage License, Marukai Market, 19750 Stevens
Creek Boulevard (Marketplace Shopping Center)
Staff Report31
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License32
Alcoholic Beverage License, Tatami Sushi & Seafood Buffet,
10123 N Wolfe Rd, Ste 2001 (in Vallco)
Staff Report36
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License37
City year-end financial reports for 2010-11
Staff Report39
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report41
Redevelopment Agency Financial Statements172
Auditor's Report to City Council198
Independent Accountant Report on City's Investment
Policy208
Appropriations Limit Report212
Development Impact Fee Report216
Municipal Improvements, Verona Apartments, 20488 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Staff Report218
A - Map219
City Project, Energy Savings Performance Contract with
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc
Staff Report220
Amend July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 terms and
conditions of employment for the Cupertino Unrepresented
(Management and Confidential) Employees
Staff Report221
Draft Resolution223
1
Attachment A-1224
Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 Amend
design services agreement
Staff Report250
A - Draft Resolution252
B - Area Map253
Tract Map, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley, a California No
-Profit Organization, 20630 Cleo Avenue
Staff Report254
A - Draft Resolution255
B - Area Map256
C - Tract Map257
Resignation of Library Commissioner Ron Miller
Staff Report259
A. Resignation Email260
Seventh Amendment to the Agreement between Santa Clara
County and the City of Cupertino for Abatement of Weeds
Staff Report261
Draft Resolution262
Ordinance amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution
Prevention and Watershed Protection)
Staff Report263
Draft Ordinance265
Ordinance regarding technical amendments and clarifications to
General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City
Specific Plan
City Council Report306
A. Ordinance 11-2086, Amendments to the Zoning Map309
B. Ordinance No. 11-2087, Amendments to the Heart of
the City Specific Plan312
C. Resolution No. 11-190, Amendments to the General
Plan Land Use Map350
D. November 15, 2011 City Council Report353
E. Redlined Text Changes359
F. List of Properties by Assessor's Parcel Numbers364
Rezoning from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) and R1-10
(Single-Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential)
of a 0.775-acre lot and its half street
Staff Report394
A. PC Resolution No. 6680397
B. PC Staff Report dated 11/7/2011401
C. Draft PC Meeting Minutes dated 11/7/2011404
D. Zoning Plat Map407
E. Site Plan408
F. Negative Declaration, ERC Recommendation, Initial
Study409
G. Re-zoning Ordinance425
2
Abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions
of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No.
11-189
Staff Report428
A. Draft Resolution430
B. Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report432
C. Notice to Destroy Weeds442
D. Letter to Property Owners from County443
E. Cupertino Weed Abatement Program Schedule449
F. Approved Resolution No. 11-189450
Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to
Bicycle Lanes
Staff Report452
Draft Ordinance454
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
Staff Report455
A. Draft Resolution457
B. AI458
Citys surplus property on Greenleaf Drive
Staff Report580
A - Draft Resolution582
B - Map of Well Site583
Authorize City Manager to conduct a Request for Qualification
process for tennis services at the Cupertino Sports Center
Staff Report584
A. RFQ586
Council assignments for local and regional organizations and
agencies
No written materials in packet589
3
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
6:00PM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
–6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject:Conference with real property negotiator (Government Code 54956.8); Property:
Abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, CA, 95014; APN 326-41-114;
Negotiating Parties: Director of Public Works; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of sale
Recommended Action:Provide direction to negotiator
No written materials in packet
Page:No written materials in packet
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
–6:45 PM
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS ANDPRESENTATIONS
2.Subject:Proclamation recognizing Angela Zhang, the Monta Vista high school student who
won a $100,000 scholarship
Recommended Action:Present proclamation
No written materials in packet
Page:No written materials in packet
3.Subject:Proclamation recognizing the Homestead High School Band for their hard work and
dedication to the community
Recommended Action:Present proclamation
No written materials in packet
Page:No written materials in packet
POSTPONEMENTS
4
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
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.
4.Subject:November 15 City Council minutes
Recommended Action:Approve minutes
Draft minutes
Page:14
5.Subject:December 6 City Council minutes
Recommended Action:Approve minutes
Draft minutes
Page:25
6.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Marukai Market, 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard
(Marketplace Shopping Center)
Recommended Action:Approve application for Off-Sale General (21)
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:31
7.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Tatami Sushi & Seafood Buffet, 10123 N Wolfe Rd,
Ste 2001 (in Vallco)
Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide
Public Eating Place
Staff Report
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
Page:36
8.Subject:City year-end financial reports for 2010-11
Recommended Action:Accept the reports
Staff Report
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Redevelopment Agency Financial Statements
Auditor's Report to City Council
Independent Accountant Report on City's Investment Policy
Appropriations Limit Report
Development Impact Fee Report
Page:39
5
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
9.Subject:Municipal Improvements, Verona Apartments, 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements
Description:The work included sidewalk, curb & gutter, and driveway approach
improvements in the City right-of-way
Staff Report
A-Map
Page:218
10.Subject:City Project, Energy Savings Performance Contract with Siemens Building
Technologies, Inc
Recommended Action:Accept City project
Description:The completed project included the induction retrofit of 2,913 street lights and
92 irrigation controllers
Staff Report
Page:220
11.Subject:Amend July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 terms and conditions of employment for
the Cupertino Unrepresented (Management and Confidential) Employees
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-002
Description:Delete the classification of City Architect and add the classification of Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Manager
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
Attachment A-1
Page:221
12.Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 –Amend design services
agreement
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-003, authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate and execute an amendment to the agreement with SSA Landscape Architects for
design services for Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project 9134
Staff Report
A-Draft Resolution
B-Area Map
Page:250
6
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
13.Subject:Tract Map, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley, a California Non-Profit
Organization, 20630Cleo Avenue
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-004
Description:A resolution approving a Tract Map that subdivides an approximately 13,213
square foot parcel into six parcels consisting of 4 residential lots and two common lots,
rangingin size from 1,432 to 5,234 square feet in area
Staff Report
A-Draft Resolution
B-Area Map
C-Tract Map
Page:254
14.Subject:Resignation of Library Commissioner Ron Miller
Recommended Action:Accept resignation and direct staff to set the following deadlines:
Application deadline: Friday, January 27, 4:30 p.m., in the City Clerk’s Office; Interviews:
Tuesday, February 7, 5:30 p.m., Conference Room A
Staff Report
A. Resignation Email
Page:259
15.Subject:Seventh Amendment to the Agreement between Santa Clara County and the City of
Cupertino for Abatement of Weeds
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-005
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
Page:261
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
16.Subject:Ordinance amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed
Protection)
Recommended Action:Conduct second reading and enact 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
Draft Ordinance
Page:263
17.Subject:Ordinance regarding technical amendments and clarifications to General Plan Land
Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City Specific Plan
Recommended Action:Conduct secondreading and enact Ordinance Nos. 11-2086 and 11-
2087. 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”; Ordinance
No. 11-2087: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Heart
7
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
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”
Description:Applicant: City of Cupertino; Application No: SPA-2011-01; Location:
Citywide; Description: Specific Plan Amendment for clarifications to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan
City Council Report
A. Ordinance 11-2086, Amendments to the Zoning Map
B. Ordinance No. 11-2087, Amendments to the Heartof the City Specific Plan
C. Resolution No. 11-190,Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map
D. November 15, 2011 City Council Report
E. Redlined Text Changes
F. List of Properties by Assessor's Parcel Numbers
Page:306
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18.Subject:Rezoning from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) and R1-10 (Single-Family
Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) of a 0.775-acre lot and its half street
Recommended Action:Adopt Negative Declaration (EA-2011-13) and conduct first reading
of Ordinance No. 12-2090approving rezoning (Z-2011-04): "An Ordinance of the Cupertino
City Council rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre from A1-
43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and the remaining portion
of the lot and its fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to
R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026"
Description:Applications: Z-2011-04, EA-2011-13; Applicant: Daryl Fazekas (Isaac Segal);
Location: 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN356-26-026; Environmental Determination:
Negative Declaration; Description: Rezoning application to rezone approximately 0.456 acre
from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and
approximately 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family
Residential)
Staff Report
A. PC Resolution No. 6680
B. PC Staff Report dated 11/7/2011
C. Draft PC Meeting Minutes dated 11/7/2011
D. Zoning Plat Map
E. Site Plan
F. Negative Declaration, ERC Recommendation, Initial Study
G. Re-zoning Ordinance
Page:394
8
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS
19.Subject:Abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Cupertino
Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No. 11-189
Recommended Action:Note objections and adopt Resolution No. 12-006
Staff Report
A. Draft Resolution
B. Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report
C. Notice to Destroy Weeds
D. Letter to Property Owners from County
E. Cupertino Weed Abatement Program Schedule
F. Approved Resolution No. 11-189
Page:428
20.Subject:Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Bicycle Lanes
Recommended Action:Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 12-2091: “An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 11.08.250 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code Relating to Bicycle Lanes--Designated; Rodrigues Avenue between De Anza
Boulevard and Blaney Avenue”
Staff Report
Draft Ordinance
Page:452
21.Subject:Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-007approving the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and directing staff to forward the AI to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be placed on file
Staff Report
A. Draft Resolution
B. AI
Page:455
22.Subject:City’s surplus property on Greenleaf Drive
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-008authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate and execute a contract to sell an abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive to the
property owners on the adjoining property at 10500 Castine Avenue
Staff Report
A-Draft Resolution
B-Map of Well Site
Page:580
9
Tuesday, January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
23.Subject:Authorize City Manager to conduct a Request for Qualification process for tennis
services at the Cupertino Sports Center
Recommended Action:Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager
to conduct a Request for Qualifications process for the provision of tennis instruction at the
Cupertino Sports Center
Staff Report
A. RFQ
Page:584
24.Subject:Council assignments for local and regional organizations and agencies
Recommended Action:Select assignments
No written materials in packet
Page:No written materials in packet
REPORTSBY COUNCIL AND STAFF
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to Monday, January 23 at 6:00 p.m. for Commission interviews, City Hall Conference
Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.
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 Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300
Torre Avenue, duringnormal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
10
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject:Conference with real property negotiator (Government Code 54956.8); Property:
Abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, CA, 95014; APN 326-41-114; Negotiating
Parties: Director of Public Works; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of sale
NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET
11
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject:Proclamation recognizing Angela Zhang, the Monta Vista high school student who won
a $100,000 scholarship.
NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET
12
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject:Proclamation recognizing the Homestead High School Band for their hard work and
dedication to the community.
NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET
13
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
November 15, 2011
ROLL CALL
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wongcalled the specialmeeting to order in the Council Chamber,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice-Mayor Mark Santoro, and Council members Barry Chang,
Orrin Mahoney. Absent:Kris Wang (recused herself from the study session itemsince her
residence is within 500 feet of the area being discussed).
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
Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder reviewed the staff report.
City Attorney Carol Koradeclarified that thisitem isfor Council to discuss whether or not to
enter into a private property transaction to lease Jollyman Park. If Council decides yes, then
the wireless communication carrier would then come back to the Planning Commission for a
regulatory decision.
Public Safety Commission Chair Tamara Pow said that the Public Safety Commission is
concernedaboutthelack of ability for Cupertino residents to call 911 from acell phone or for
sheriff's deputies to receive calls while patrolling,andthatincreasing AT&T coverage is
necessary.
Capt. Carl Neusel said that he supports additional cell coverage in Cupertino and explained
that sheriff’s deputies rely on cell phones to developleads for all sorts of crimes and it’s
important to protect identities of victims and witnesses that can't be broadcast over the radio.
He noted that efforts duringtheLehigh shooting using mobile identification units didn't work
well due tolack of coverage.
14
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 2
Technology, Information, and Communications Commissioner Peter Friedland referred to the
Wireless Communication Facilities ordinance which speaks to potential site locationsin the
City and noted that Jollyman Park is one area that has poor coverage. He said he thought that
othercarriers had better coverage than AT&T.
Santa Clara County Senior Emergency Services CoordinatorMiguel Gray said that this is a
way toimprove bandwidth and overall cell phone coverage in the City’s Emergency
Operation Center (EOC) and to help members of the public make a 911 call. He mentioned
that a recent report from the Congressional Research Service pointedout that in the future,
the SCCAlert System woulduse a system called Personalized Local Alerting Network
(PLAN) that would allow governmentofficials the ability to communicate via text through
cell towers.
Mathur Vinjamurysaid hewasan AT&T subscriber. Heshowed apicture of the tower cupola
near Bollinger and Miller and noted that it wasn’t very attractive. He said he was concerned
about both aesthetics and health issues of cell tower antennas.
Ardith West said that Cupertino can be a candidate for a cell tower, but that this isn’t the
right location. She noted that Jollyman Park residents are impacted already by Highway 85
and they don’t need more pollution in that area. She said that something closer to the hills
would be better.
Koyi Chu said that she is an AT&T customer and hasno problem using her cell phone in that
area. She explained that an area next to a playground wouldn’t be a good location but rather
somewhere near Lincoln, Kennedy, or Monta Vista, or in the hills would be better.
Peggy Fangsaid shelives oneblock from Jollyman Park and that it's a small, busy park with
lots of children and dogs. She said she doesn't want atower of that height in Jollyman Park.
JudyKuo distributed a petitionof 173 signaturesto stop thepermits and land use for Cortel,
LLC andAT&T to useJollyman Park. She noted that the issue of a cell tower at that location
was already talked about and she asked whyit was being brought upagain. She said that cell
towers cause health hazards and that it would be an eyesore at the park. She said a better
location would be at a commercial location or on top of a hill.
Pallavi Topranisaid that she is a resident of Jollyman Park and agreed with the sentiments of
other speakers. She explained that there is a need for acell tower but disagreeswiththe
location. She said that a 60-foot towerwould beahindranceand that AT&T would need to
do maintenance on the tower either during day when kids, etc. are at the park,or at night
usingbright lights.
Susan Peters said that hermain concern is long-term studies have notbeendoneregarding
health issueswith cell towers.She also said that a tower would be aestheticallyugly and that
trucks would be coming in and out to domaintenance.She urged Council to find a different
location.
15
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 3
Mark Matsumoto from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce referred to the 2007 survey
done by the Technology Commission (TICC) which found that the Kennedy/Monta Vista
area hadpoor cell phone reception. He explained that he didn’t want to dismiss any safety or
aesthetic concerns but wanted the Chamber toremain apositive resource to help answer
questions for those who have concerns about health and aesthetics. He said that improving
cell phone coveragehelps with public safety concerns but also helps the business community
have access to voice and data which is important in day to day operations and expanding their
business He said the Chamber supports expanded coverage in this area but had no comment
onsupporting the lease.
Charlie Hansonsaid he lives next to Jollyman Park and urged Council to not enter into a
lease agreement because it's premature to talk about a lease without details. AT&T has other
alternatives if coverageis needed.He suggested that AT&T approach the school and college
districts.
Chris Jang and two of hisfamily members (Vera Cheng and Paul Cheng) urged Council to
deny entering into a lease agreement for the following reasons: AT&T has not shown a gap in
coverage; Jollyman Park is not the most optimal site; a60-feet tall cell phone towerisnot
compatible with the area. He showed a cell coverage map ofthe area from
www.wireless.AT&T.comand explained that according to theirwebsite AT&T hasperfect
coverage in the area. Healso noted that Jollyman Park is not directly themiddle point and
that De Anza Collegewould be a better site.
John Hom said helives near Jollyman Park. He urged Council to vote no on the lease because
acell tower at the park would expose children to health hazards.
Cecil Coesaid that the Cityshould put arequirement for all cell phone operators to work
together to try and find a solution for cell phone coverage issues. He urged Council to vote no
on the lease.
Tasha Skinner from AT&T said that she was present at the meeting onlyto observeand
answer questions since currently there is no zoning application until the City expresses
interest in moving forward with a lease. She noted she would get back to staff to explainwhy
a coverage map shown by a resident this evening is different than what is on the AT&T
website. She also noted that Misako Hill, consultant from Cortel, LLC,and Randy Okamora,
Community Liaison for AT&T Internal Affairs,were present to answer any questions.
Council discussed the issue and the comments included: AT&T wouldn’t be investigating a
site if there weren’t a need to satisfy customers; theywant to wait until there is a full Council
since Wang recused herself and the new Council member hasn’t been sworn in yet; if this
location has already been deniedand there is perfect coverage in that area,then why is AT&T
coming back; a cell tower would put additional pollution in the area; they want to wait and
see what theResults Waytower would look like and how the coverage works; they haven’t
seen any good studies currently regarding proof of cell towers being a safety problem; they do
see a safety issue when emergency responders can't get to people or residents call out for 911;
and before this item comes back before Council, staff should work with the cell provider to
16
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 4
do outreach to community to try tomitigate as many concerns as possible ahead of time; the
Council was infavor of a postponement.
RECESS
Council was in recess from 6:50p.m. to 6:57p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:57p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong reconvenedthe specialmeeting 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.
CLOSED SESSION
-None
Mayor Wong recognized newly-elected Council member Rod Sinks.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS –PRESENTATIONS
2.Subject:Recognize students for their volunteer work at Silicon Valley Korean School
Recommended Action:Present Certificates of Appreciation
Mayor Wong handed out the certificates to the students.
POSTPONEMENTS
Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded to postponeitem number 16to a meeting in February.
City Attorney Carol Korade clarified that the decision on this item could be based on anything,
including coverage, health, aesthetics, etc. since this is a private land owner agreement and it's
not a regulatory action on an actual tower. Council has no obligation to lease any property but if
Council does decide on a lease, then any subsequent action is subject to all therules and
regulations about approving or denying a cell tower application. The motion carried with Wang
abstaining.
Wang moved and Chang secondedto postpone itemnumber 13.The motion failed with Chang
and Wang voting yes.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt distributed copies of the following items:
17
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 5
Personal wireless service facility approvals, staff PowerPoint presentation for item
number 1, petition to stop permits and land use approved to Cortel, LLC and AT&T at
Jollyman Park, Jollyman Park wireless communication facility study session
Email from Ned and Rusty Britt, revised Attachment E, revised Attachment D, chart of
minor amendments to zoning designations, staff PowerPoint presentationfor item number
11, Heart of the City Specific Plan
Email from Chi-I Lang, slope lot regulations, staff PowerPointpresentationfor item
number 12, tentative parcel map on Lindy Lane
PowerPoint presentation for item number 13, Kunshan Sister City
Email from Mary Ellen Hennig for item number 15, community tree
Emails from Bhavini and Vijay Kamarshi, Ardith West, and objections from 3 properties
on Elderwood Ct. for item number 16, Jollyman Park wireless communication facility
Email from Keith Murphy, letter from Paula Davis at Chamber of Commerce, responses
from Darrel Lum, staff PowerPoint presentation for item number 17, petition for
reconsideration
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Michael Gottwald welcomed back Gilbert Wong to the City Council, thanked Kris Wang for her
years of service and welcomed new Council member Rod Sinks.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mahoneymoved and Wang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
recommended.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None.
3.Subject:November 1 City Council minutes
Recommended Action:Approve minutes
4. Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending October 28, 2011
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-185
5.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 4, 2011
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-186
6.Subject:Citizens’Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant funding request
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-187
7.Subject:Add Roth 457 option to Nationwide Deferred Compensation Plan
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 11-188
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
9.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, I Sushi, 21670 Stevens Creek Blvd (near Imperial)
18
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 6
Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer & Wine
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
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR(above)
-None
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
Senior Planner Aki Honda Snelling reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Wong opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
Jennifer Griffin said that she wants to make sure the look and feel of Cupertino’s east side is
maintained all the way to the Monta Vista area. She was concerned that there had never
before been mention of having the property near Vallco Parkway be rezoned to retail. She
said she wanted to keep it industrial/high tech.
Jason Lundgaard representing Apple said the main concern was to be sure that the Apple
buildings on the north side of Vallco Parkway remain as conforming uses to keep it as
planned industrial and to add commercial zoning.
Keith Murphy askedif there would be an administrative reviewand approvalprocess
regarding exceptions, if those would be posted on the website, and was also concerned that
there was no sunset to permits granted after two years.
19
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 7
Mayor Wong closedthe public hearingat 8:08p.m.
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to approve the projectwith the changes listed below.
The motion carried unanimously.
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of Ord. No. 11-2086to include the changes
listed below.Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and
that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None.
Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 11-190 with the changes listed
below. The motion carried unanimously.
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of Ord. No. 11-2087to include the changes
listed below. Mahoney moved and Wang seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and
that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Mahoney, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None.
The following changes apply to Ord. No. 11-2086, 11-2087, and Resolution No. 11-190:
In the section on exception process for development standards, add “Refer to Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 19.12, Administration”
Biltmore Apartmentssite –zone as P(R3) 10-20
Abundant Life Church site –zone as P(CG, RES) and clarify that existing churches with
a use permit are permitted
City Center north site –zone as P(CG, OP, RES)
Sears/Vallco Mall –zone as P(CG)
Rosebowl and Mainstreet sites –zone as P(CG, ML, RES)
Apple sites on Vallco Parkway –zone as P(MP, CG)
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
Council member Mark Santoro recused himself because his residence is within 500 feet of
the project,and left the dais.
Senior Planner ColinJungreviewedthe staff report.
Applicant Frank Sun reviewed the project and asked for approval.
Mayor Wong opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
John James said he supported theamendment.
20
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 8
Marie Lin said she wanted the hillside to remain stable,and she supported theamendment.
Patrick Kwok said he supported thestaff's recommendation to approve the amendment.
Mayor Wong closed the public hearing at 9:12 p.m.
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to approve the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and approve the amendment. The motion carried with Santoro absent from the
dais.
Council recessed from 9:15 p.m. to 9:27 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
13.Subject:Consider establishing a sister city relationship with Kunshan, China.
Recommended Action:Establish relationship
City Manager Dave Knapp reviewed the staff report.
Don Sun made a PowerPoint presentation.
The following individuals were in support of establishing a sister city relationship with
Kunshan, China:
Vicky Tsai
Rayne Lin
Jenny Cheung
Bonnie Zhang
Mark Matsumoto speaking for Ken McClellan
Qi Wang
Patrick Kwok
Dr. Frank Sun
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to send a letter of intent to the Cupertino Committee
and Kunshan that Council would like to see the process move forward, hoping to build a
long-term relationship in the future and wouldlike to hear more detail from the Cupertino
Committee regarding its activities and how Kunshanenvisions a relationship with Cupertino.
The motion carried with Wong voting no.
Council recessed from 10:40 p.m. to 10:50 p.m.
21
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 9
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 Cupertinoamending 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"
Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report.
Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Wang moved and Mahoney
seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would
constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Wang and Wong. Noes:
None.
15.Subject:Consider a request to change the name of the "Community Tree Lighting" event to
"Christmas Tree Lighting"
Recommended Action:Staff recommends that the City of Cupertino continue its community
buildingefforts and retain the name "Community Tree Lighting"
Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder reviewed the staff report.
The following individuals were in support ofadding the word Christmas somewhere in the
name of the event.
Dr. Frank Sun
Donene Harrison
Mary Ellen Hennig
Dan Morris
Suzanne Ford
Patrick Kwok
Mahoney moved tochange the name of the ceremony to “Holiday Tree Lighting” beginning
in 2012. The motion died for lack of a second. Wang moved and Mahoney seconded to call
the ceremony “Tree Lighting.” Wang amended the motion to call the ceremony “Christmas
Tree Lighting”. Mahoney didn’t accept it as a friendly amendment, but Chang seconded the
motion. Wang withdrew her motion and offered a new motion to call the ceremony “Tree
Lighting.” Mahoney seconded the motion. The motion carried with Wong and Chang voting
no.
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 ornot to authorize the City Manager to negotiate
and/or execute a lease with AT&T to construct a wireless communications facility at
Jollyman Park.
22
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 10
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.
Under Postponements, this item was postponed to a Council meeting in February.
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 withthe proposed new development
Assistant Planner George Schroeder reviewed the staff reportand explained the grounds for
reconsideration as specified in the City’s Municipal Code.
Dr.DarrylLum reviewed hisPetition for Reconsiderationin detail.He concludedthat the
three apparent constraints (oak tree, parking lot, and grade difference) are not valid, unique
surrounding land uses that make it difficult to adhere to the development standards and
therefore,the findings for anException to the Heart of the City Specific Plan don’t meet the
criteria.He asked Council to reconsider the exception and to approve his Petition for
Reconsideration.
Architect Charles Kahn noted that David Taxinwas also presentto represent the ownership
of the property. Mr.Kahn explained thathe wouldn't be asking for anyexceptionsif he didn't
think they were necessary, andhe doesn't think thiswouldset precedencefor future
exceptions.
Mayor Wong read comments from speaker cards of individualswho weren’t able to stayto
speak,including Marolyn Chow, Norm Hackford, Dennis Whittaker, and Michael Gottwald.
The first threeindividuals noted that they supportedthe Petition for Reconsideration, and Mr.
Gottwald noted that he supported the restaurant and success for the shopping Center.
Mark Matsumoto said that the Chamber of Commerce supportedthe project as approved and
asked Council to deny the Petition for Reconsideration.
23
November 15, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 11
Keith Murphy said that he supported the development project but that Council needs to
follow the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan. He noted that the Petition for
Reconsideration was compelling.
Steve Scharf said that Council granted the exception disregarding theevidence and chose to
not abide by the Heart of the City plan inits action. He said he supported the Petition for
Reconsideration and asked Council to go back and examine the facts.
Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt ResolutionNo. 11-191 upholding approval of
the project. Chang added that he wants to emphasize keepingthe tree. The motion carried
with Santoro voting no.
ORDINANCES
-None
STAFF REPORTS
Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder asked Council for direction on whether to negotiate a
new contract withLifetime Tennis for tennis lessons or send outa Request for Qualifications
(RFQ)to other contractors. Council directed staff to come back with an RFQ.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:55a.m., on Wednesday, November 16, the meeting was adjourned.
____________________________
Grace Schmidt, DeputyCity 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.
24
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Adjourned Meeting
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wongcalled the regularadjournedmeeting 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.
Mayor Wong acknowledged several dignitaries in attendance including Supervisor Liz Kniss,
Sheriff Laurie Smith, former Sunnyvale Mayor John Howe, Cupertino School Board Trustee Ben
Liao, Cupertino School Board Trustee Anjali Kausar, Former Cupertino Mayor Dolly Sandoval,
former Cupertino Mayor Sandy James and former Cupertino Mayor Nick Szabo.
Mayor Wong introduced members of the staff: David Knapp, City Manager; Carol Korade, City
Attorney; Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services; Mark Linder, Director of Parks
and Recreation; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development; Timm Borden,
Director of Public Works; Kimberly Smith, City Clerk; Rick Kitson, Director of Public
Information and Environmental Services; Carl Neusel, Cupertino Sheriff Captain; and Terry
Calderone, former Cupertino Sheriff Captain.
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation(Government Code 54957)-City Attorney
Recommended Action: Conduct review
Mayor Wong announced that the City Council conducted the review, and no action was
taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Leslie Fowler stated her opposition to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s action to add
fluoride to the water supply. She noted that 29 communities in the past year had discontinued
25
Tuesday, December 6, 2011Cupertino City Council
adding fluoride to their water supplies. Additionally she commentedthat it would cost between 4
½ and 9 ½ million dollars to start up a water fluorination program. In her opinion this did not
make any sense. Recent studies showed that the dangers of over-exposure to fluoride outweighed
any benefits and she would like to see the Council add this matter to the next Council agenda.
Michael Gottwald thanked Kris Wang for her years of service and for being an outstanding leader
in the community. He also thanked Supervisor Liz Kniss for her leadership and contributions to
the community.
ELECTION RESULTS
2.Subject: Receive declaration of election results for the General Municipal Election held on
November 8, 2011
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 11-192
City Clerk Kimberly Smith announced the results of the Canvass of Votes, and said that a
total of 10,306 ballots were cast in the election. Measure C, Transient Occupancy Tax, passed
with 8,088 votes in favor and 1,717 votes opposed. For the two City Council seats, the two
people who received the most votes were Gilbert Wong, who received 4,022 votes, and Rod
Sinks, who received 3,879 votes.
The City Clerk asked the City Council to adopt Resolution No. 11-192 receiving the
declaration of election results and declaring the adoption of Ordinance No. 11-2089.
Wang moved and Santoro seconded to adopt resolution No. 11-192. The motion carried
unanimously.
RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBER
3.Subject:Council members and audience members were invited to say farewell to Council
member Kris Wang.
The City Channel showed a video retrospective of Kris Wang’s eight years on the City
Council.
Mayor Wong presented Kris Wang with a “memory box” full of mementoes of her time on
the City Council.
City Manager David Knapp thanked Kris Wang for her years of serviceon the City Council.
He stated that it had been a pleasure to work with her and commended her energy and tireless
efforts on behalf of the community.
The Council members stated their thanks for all of the contributions Kris Wang had made
while on the Council. They commended her dedication, sense of fairness, willingness to
listen,and sense of humor.
26
Tuesday, December 6, 2011Cupertino City Council
Kris Wang stated that it had been a privilege and an honor to serve Cupertino. She noted that
Cupertino was an incredible community not only as the home ofmajor technological
companies and excellent schools but also because of its energetic volunteers, dedicated
teachers and excellent staff and committee/commission members. She considered herself
lucky to have served Cupertino. She thanked her family and the residents for their support
and she thanked her fellow Council members for their friendship. She wished Cupertino the
best in the future and noted that she looked forward to continuing to work in the community.
The following individuals thanked Kris Wang for her years of service on the City Council
and wished her well in her future endeavors:
Laurie Smith, Santa Clara County Sheriff, presented a plaque to Kris Wang on behalf
of the Sheriff’s Department
Liz Kniss, Board of Supervisors, presenteda plaque to Kris Wang on behalf of the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Sherman Wong, son
Michael Gottwald, Cupertino resident
Ann Stevenson, Cupertino Library Commissioner
Fari Aberg, Cupertino resident
Angela Chen, President of the Cupertino Hsinchu Sister City Association
Dave Fung, Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Kuo-Lon Soong, Cupertino resident
John Zirelli, President –Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, presented Kris Wang with
a bouquet of flowers
Johnny Wang, representing acupuncture association
Sandy James, former Cupertino Council member and Mayor
OATH OF OFFICE
3.Subject:Oath of Office is given to the newly-elected Council members.
Gilbert Wong and Rod Sinks introduced their family members.
Supervisor Liz Kniss administered the Oath of Office to Council member Gilbert Wong, and
City Clerk Kimberly Smith administered the Oath of Office to Council member Rod Sinks.
MAYOR AND VICE-MAYOR
5.Subject:Election of Mayor and Vice-Mayor.
Mahoney moved and Wong seconded to select Mark Santoro as Mayor. The motion carried
unanimously with Council Member Chang abstaining.
Wong moved and Santoro seconded to select Orrin Mahoney as Vice-Mayor. The motion
carried unanimously with Council member Chang abstaining.
27
Tuesday, December 6, 2011Cupertino City Council
OATH OF OFFICE
6.Subject:Oath of Office is given to the newly-elected Mayor and Vice-Mayor.
Supervisor Liz Kniss administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Mark Santoro, and City Clerk
Kimberly Smith administered the Oath of Office to Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney.
Mayor Santoropresented a gavel plaque to Gilbert Wong in recognition of his service as
Mayor and City Manager David Knapp gave Council member Wong a picture of Blackberry
Farm on behalf of the City employees.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
7.Subject: Comments by Council members and new Mayor.
Vice-Mayor Mahoney congratulated Rod Sinks on his election and Mark Santoro on his new
role as Mayor. He was looking forward to a great year. Council member Chang congratulated
Rod Sinks. Council member Wong stated that it had been an honor to serve Cupertino as
Mayor. He thanked Kris Wang for her years of service and congratulated Rod Sinks on his
election to the Council. He also thanked Liz Kniss for swearing him in and congratulated
MarkSantoroand OrrinMahoneyon their new roles asMayor and Vice-Mayor. Council
member Sinks thanked his family and supporters and stated he was looking forward to
working with the Council and staff. He considered it an honor to serve on the Council and he
was looking forward to hearing from the residents on issues important to the community.
Mayor Santoro welcomed RodSinksto the Council and stated that he was looking forward to
working with him. He thanked Kris Wang for her years of service, the Council for selecting
him as Mayor and Supervisor Liz Kniss for swearing him in. He also thanked the staff for
their assistance and the residents for their support. He said that of great importance to him in
the coming year was a fair, open and transparent government and toward that end he was
going to start a new program called Meet the Mayor. Once amonth on the Wednesday after
the first Council meeting he would be available in the former City Council chambers from
4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to meet with the public to answer questions and discuss topics of
interest. In addition he was returning to the three-minute time limit for public speakers at a
meeting. As was now the current practice if there were five or more speakers on any one item
that issue would be moved to later on the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
8.Subject:Members of the audience were invited to speak.
Liz Kniss, Board of Supervisors, presented a plaque to former Mayor Gilbert Wong
from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Michael Gottwald, Cupertino resident, welcomed Mark Santoro and OrrinMahoney
and Mayor and Vice-Mayor and thanked Gilbert Wong for his contributions as Mayor
and continued role on the Council
28
Tuesday, December 6, 2011Cupertino City Council
John Zirelli, President –Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, thanked Gilbert Wong for
his support and presented him with a bouquet of flowers
Marty Miller, Cupertino Planning Commissioner, thanked Gilbert Wong for his hard
work and leadership on the Planning Commission and on the Council. He also
commended Mark Santoro for his dedication and for his appointment as Mayor,
welcomed Orrin Mahoney back as Vice-Mayor and congratulated Rod Sinks on his
election to the Council
Johnny Wang, Acupuncture Association, stated he was looking forward to working
with the Mayor and Council and their continued support of the Acupuncture
Association both in Cupertino and statewide
Larry Dean, President –Cupertino Rotary, congratulated Mark Santoro and Orrin
Mahoney on their appointments as the new Mayor and Vice-Mayor, Gilbert Wong on
his re-election to the Council and Rod Sinks on his election to the Council. They
were part of a great team serving the City and he wished them good luck
Ben Liao, Cupertino School Board, commented that Cupertino had great schools but
the schools needed a great community and good government to make it all work. He
was looking forward to a continued great relationship with the City. He congratulated
all involved
RaziMohiuddin, local small business owner and Board Member of the West Valley
Muslim Association, thanked Gilbert Wong for his support. He also welcomed Mark
Santoro and OrrinMahoneyas the new Mayor and Vice-Mayor and congratulated
Rod Sinks on his election to the Council
Daniel Nguyen, Member –Public Safety Commission, congratulated MarkSantoro
and OrrinMahoneyon their appointments as Mayor and Vice-Mayor, Rod Sinks on
his election to the Council and Gilbert Wong onhis re-election to the Council
Sandy James, former Cupertino Council member and Mayor and also representing the
Organization of Special Needs Families and the Cupertino Veterans Memorial,
thanked Gilbert Wong for his hard work and service as Mayor. She also congratulated
Mark Santoro on his appointment as Mayor, Orrin Mahoney on his appointment as
Vice-Mayor, Gilbert Wongon his re-election to the Council and Rod Sinks on his
election to the Council. She was looking forward to working with the Council on
issues important to the community
John Zirelli, President –Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, congratulated Mark
Santoroand Orrin Mahoney on their appointments as Mayor and Vice-Mayor and
Rod Sinks onhis election to the Council. He was looking forward to working together
Angela Chen, President –Cupertino Hsinchu Sister City Association, thanked Gilbert
Wong for his support of the sister city program and his friendship and congratulated
him on his re-election. She also congratulated Mark Santoro and Orrin Mahoney on
their appointments as Mayor and Vice-Mayor and Rod Sinks on his election to the
Council. She looked forward to working together
29
Tuesday, December 6, 2011Cupertino City Council
ADJOURNMENT
9.Subject:The public was invited to attend the reception in the lobby. At 8:20 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.
30
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License,Marukai Market,19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard(Marketplace
Shopping Center).
Recommended Action
Approveapplicationfor Off-Sale General (21).
Description
Name of Business:Marukai Market
Location:19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business:Market
Type of License:Off-Sale General(21)
Reason for Application:Annual Fee& Person-to-Person Transfer
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 21authorizes the sale of alcohol
for consumption off the premises 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
31
32
33
34
35
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License,Tatami Sushi & Seafood Buffet, 10123 N Wolfe Rd, Ste 2001 (in
Vallco)
Recommended Action
Approveapplicationfor On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business:Tatami Sushi & Seafood Buffet
Location:10123 North Wolfe Road, Suite 2001
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
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 on thepremises 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
36
37
38
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
City year-endfinancial reports for 2010-11
Recommended Action
Accept the reports
Description
Staff is pleased to present to the City Council the following financial reports for thefiscal year
ended June 30, 2011:
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Redevelopment Agency Financial Statements
Auditor’s Report to the City Council
Independent Accountant’s Report on the City’s Investment Policy
Appropriations Limit Report
Development Impact Fee Report
Except for the last item, the above were either audited or issued by the City’s certified public
accountants and all reports were discussed with the Audit Committee. The auditors have given a
clean opinion on the financial statements and the controls associated with producing the
information. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report hasbeensubmitted for the Certificate
of Achievement Award.
Fiscal Impact
Acceptance of the reports has no fiscal impact. The reports themselves describe the City’s
financial status as of June 30, 2011.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Woo, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A.Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
B.Redevelopment Agency Financial Statements
C.Auditor’s Report to the City Council
39
D.Independent Accountant’s Report on the City’s Investment Policy
E.Appropriations Limit Report
F.Development Impact Fee Report
40
41
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2011
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FINANCE DIVISION
42
NOTES
43
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Page
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. i
Letter of Transmittal ........................................................................................................................................... iii
Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................................ viii
City Council and Directory of City Officials ..................................................................................................... ix
Commissions and Committees ............................................................................................................................ x
Certificate of Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting ............................................................................. xi
FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report
......................................................................................................................... 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
................................................................................... 3
Basic Financial Statements:
Government-wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Assets ................................................................................................................... 19
Statement of Activities ..................................................................................................................... 20
Fund Financial Statements:
Governmental Funds:
Balance Sheet .................................................................................................................................... 21
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to the
Statement of Net Assets - Governmental Activities ........................................................................ 22
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ............................................. 23
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the
Statement of Activities - Governmental Activities ......................................................................... 24
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances –
Budget to Actual - General Fund .................................................................................................... 25
Proprietary Funds:
Statement of Fund Net Assets ........................................................................................................... 26
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets ................................................ 27
Statement of Cash Flows ................................................................................................................... 28
Fiduciary Funds:
Statement of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities ................................................................................... 29
Notes to Basic Financial Statements ..................................................................................................... 31
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited):
Schedules of Funding Progress ........................................................................................................... 63
44
i
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Table of Contents
FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued)
Page
Other Supplementary Information:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance –
Budget and Actual - Public Facilities Corporation Debt Service Fund ............................................ 66
Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet ................................................................................................................. 68
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances .............................................................................................................. 70
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual ............................................................................ 72
Internal Service Funds:
Combining Statement of Net Assets ................................................................................................. 76
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Fund Net Assets ........................................................................................................... 77
Combining Statement of Cash Flows ................................................................................................ 78
Agency Fund:
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – Special Assessment District ................................ 80
STATISTICAL SECTION
Financial Trends:
Net Assets by Component – Last Nine Fiscal Years ................................................................................ 83
Changes in Net Assets – Last Nine Fiscal Years ...................................................................................... 84
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds – Last Nine Fiscal Years ........................................................... 86
Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds – Last Nine Fiscal Years ......................................... 87
Revenue Capacity:
Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property – Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................. 88
Property Tax Rates – All Overlapping Governments – Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................... 89
Principal Property Taxpayers – Current Year and Nine Years Ago ........................................................ 90
Property Tax Levies and Collections – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................. 91
Debt Capacity:
Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................... 92
Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ...................................................................................................... 93
Legal Debt Margin Information – Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................................................... 94
Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding – Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................... 95
Demographic and Economic Information:
Demographic and Economic Statistics – Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................................................. 96
Principal Employers – Current Year and Nine Years Ago ....................................................................... 97
Operating Information:
Full-Time Equivalent City Employees by Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal Years .......................... 98
Operating Indicators by Function/Program – Last Seven Fiscal Years ................................................... 99
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................. 100
COMMUNITY PROFILE
45
ii
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
46
NOTES
47
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE ¤ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3202
(408) 777-CITY ¤ WWW.CUPERTINO.ORG
November 10, 2011
To the Citizens of Cupertino, Honorable Mayor,
Members of the City Council, and City Manager
It is our pleasure to submit the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the City of
Cupertino (the City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. The report is prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB). The report presents City information on an entity-wide basis and on a more detailed fund level
basis. The fund-level reports emphasize the CityÓs major funds. A Management Discussion and Analysis
(MD&A) presents a comparative analysis of current and prior year results, changes in financial position, a
comparison of actual versus budget, financial highlights, trends, and disclosure of any known significant
events or decisions that affect the financial condition of the City. This transmittal letter is designed to
complement the MD&A, and should therefore be read in conjunction with it. The MD&A is required
supplementary information and is found in the Financial Section of the CAFR.
The accuracy of the data presented and the completeness and fairness of the presentations, including all
disclosures, are the responsibility of the management of the Cit
making these representations, management has established a comprehensive internal control framework
that is designed to protect the CityÓs assets and provide sufficient, reliable information for the proper
preparation of these financial statements. We believe the data is accurate in all material respects and is
presented in a manner that fairly sets forth the CityÓs financial position. Furthermore, we believe that all
disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the CityÓs financial activity have
been included.
REPORTING ENTITY
This CAFR includes all component units and funds of the City. It reports all activities for which the City
is considered to be financially accountable. The general governmental funds support a full range of
services, including law enforcement, community development, recreation, public works, public and
environmental affairs, and general administration. This financial report incorporates data for the Ci
Cupertino and its component units, the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation and the Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency.
The City operates under a Council-City Manager form of government. There are five council members,
including the Mayor, who serve staggered four-year terms. The City Council appoints the City Manager
who is responsible for the daily administration of City affairs. The City Council also appoints the City
Attorney and the City Treasurer. All other employees are appoin
48
iii
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The City of Cupertino is located in Santa Clara County at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay
Peninsula. The City is comprised of 13 square miles and is bordered by the cities of San Jose, Saratoga,
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Los Altos. It has a residential population of 58,302 and a daytime workforce
of 99,623.
Situated at the west end of Silicon Valley, Cupertino has
earned the reputation of a balanced community with a
healthy climate for business and well maintained
residential neighborhoods, community parks and public
facilities. The excellent reputation of CupertinoÓs schools
has been a major attraction for families wishing to settle in
close proximity to jobs in Silicon Valley. The City
recognizes the importance of quality school facilities and
programs to all Cupertino residents, and works in
partnership with the schools in many programs affecting
education and youth. National surveys rank the City high
in education levels, median household incomes, and
registered patent numbers.
Cupertino is the corporate headquarters of almost twenty
companies including Apple, Seagate Technology, Verigy,
Durect Corporation, and ArcSight, and houses sixty high-
tech firms. Other major employers include DeAnza
College, one of the largest single-campus community
colleges in the country, the Fremont Union High School District,
With Hewlett-Packard, a primary employer, leaving the City in 2012, Apple purchased their properties as
part of 155 acres acquired for a major expansion between Interstate 280, Homestead Road, Wolfe Road
and Tantau Avenue. Apple has submitted plans for a new circular-shaped research building at the site that
will accommodate 12,000 people. In 2011, ten million square feet of office and research and development
space existed with vacancy rates of 10.7% for office and 8.1% for research and development. The CityÓs
unemployment rate of 7.3% falls below the statewide rate of 12.2
City retail space encompasses 3.6 million square feet, with over 160 eating establishments. The 1.2
million square feet Vallco Shopping Mall comprises most of the CityÓs redevelopment agency area and
features two levels of enclosed shopping, three anchor stores, a 16-screen AMC theatre, a bowling center,
ice rink, and international food court. A new Western Athletic Health Club is being built within the
existing Sears store at the mall. In spite of earlier additions and remodel, the shopping center continues to
underperform. MacyÓs, JCPenney, Target, Sears, and Whole Foods Market are leading City retailers. A
local restaurant association promotes the City as a regional din
The assessed value of properties in the City grew by 1.87% from 2010 to 2011, a reversal of the 0.36%
decline experienced from 2009 to 2010. Cupertino ranked seventh in this percentage change out of the
sixteen cities and unincorporated area in the county. The number of City properties receiving a reduction
in assessed value increased from 2,901 to 2,934, but the dollar cost of the reductions fell from $530
million to $510 million, as the county continues to adjust tax rolls based on home prices. Moreover, the
cost of living index adjustment for all assessed values experienced a 0.753% increase for 2011 compared
to a 0.237% cut for 2010. The CityÓs popular school districts and high median income levels allowed it to
avoid the steep property value declines suffered in other regions during the housing recession. Apple is
the leading assessed value property owner in the City and is in the top twenty-five, county-wide, for
49
iv
business personal property assessment. The WW DASC Owner LLC off
ranked sixth in the county for 2011-12 assessed value growth due to ownership change. Looking forward,
cities in the county are seeing increases in assessed value due to changes in ownership and higher
assessed values per new building permit.
Cupertino has a high 73% of its sales taxes coming from business-to-business commerce, compared to
California and San Francisco Bay Area averages of 18% and 21% respectively. Three companies
comprise a large part of that sector and one of those companies, Hewlett-Packard is leaving the City.
Conversely, the City is not as diversified into retail, food products, and transportation as the state and Bay
Area. The CityÓs fiscal strategic plan, part of the CityÓs adopted budget, supports the redevelopment of the
Vallco Shopping Mall and recommends that quality retail components be incorporated into future
developments. The following chart shows City sales tax variations over the past ten years, reflecting two
recessions and the volatility of the business-to-business and co
Sales Tax Trend
Commercial development activity picked up in 2011 led by initial plan submittals for the expanded Apple
campus along with tenant improvement work in various office buildings. Homestead Square and
Cupertino Crossroads retail center improvement projects and the new 123-room Hyatt Place hotel are
undergoing development or building review. On the other hand, continuing postponement of major
commercial or residential projects approved in recent years, such as the mixed-use Main Street Cupertino
complex, the 24,455 sq. ft. retail expansion of Cupertino Village, the 10,582 sq. ft. retail building at
Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd., the 51,000 sq. ft. mixed-
Oaks Shopping Center, the 19.8 acre One Results Way office campus redevelopment, and the Rose Bowl
mixed-use project, has deferred potential construction, permit, park, and housing fees.
The CityÓs pension and retiree medical unfunded actuarial accrue
the Basic Financial Statements. The City must pay CalPERS, the stateÓs government pension system,
annually to reduce this long-term liability. CupertinoÓs pension actuarial valuation report of June 2009
reports a pension unfunded liability of $17,021,000 with annual payments to CalPERS of $2,089,000 in
2010-11 and $2,657,000 in 2011-12, with ongoing increases after
losses and changes to the assumptions used in their actuarial studies. Most Bay Area Peninsula cities,
including Cupertino, have agreed to work toward reducing pension benefits for new hires to address the
long-term rising costs. As of the January 2011 health cost actuarial valuation report, the City has a retiree
medical unfunded liability of $13,431,000 that requires an annual contribution of $1.9 million in 2010-11
and 2011-12 in order to fund it. The City has been setting aside monies annually for health costs since
2004, accumulating $9 million in an irrevocable trust and $840,000 in City reserves as of June 30, 2011.
50
v
Regarding other fiscal strategies, because the City contracts out police services to the County Sheriff and
because fire protection is handled by a special district, the City avoids the high pension, capital, and
operating costs of a City-operated public safety function. The City caps its contributions to employee
health insurance premiums and works with its bargaining units to come up with labor agreements tha
benefit both the City and employees. A build-up of operating reserves from strong revenue years, such as
2010-11, along with a traditional under-spending of budgets, enables the City to withstand the weak
revenue years that periodically occur, such as in 2009-10.
ECONOMIC INITIATIVES
The recessions and the departure of a major company, Hewlett-Packard, demonstrates the need for
diversification of the CityÓs revenue base and a long-term balance of revenues and expenditures as
described in the CityÓs Fiscal Strategic Plan. The City needs to find other revenues to mitigate the
fluctuating nature of sales taxes, hotel taxes, user fees, and state grabs of local taxes in times of budget
distress. It needs to reduce the concentration of sales taxes among its top companies and top economic
sector, the volatile business-to-business area. Legislation raising the CityÓs property tax share, the
opening of a regional sales office of a major technology provider, and the update of the utility user tax are
successes of the strategic plan. Voters approved a two percent increase in the transient occupancy tax rate
this month. The City is studying further increases of the proper
increase to eliminate the General Fund subsidy, and looking at the value of its water system ownership.
Nevertheless, other tax or fee initiatives in the plan have incurred opposition to their implementation. The
CityÓs Community Development department strives to generate revenues by recruiting and retaining
retail, by finding office tenants, facilitating development, branding and outreaching to new business,
revising policies, coordinating with regional organizations, and promoting economic vitality.
The City has taken advantage of stimulus opportunities from grant programs for streets, parks, energy
efficiency, housing improvements, and emergency preparedness. The City has installed streetlight and
irrigation systems that save utility costs and energy. As part o
streamlining initiative, Cupertino has digitized documents and restructured the agenda for City Council
meetings. Plans to enhance building and planning permit usage on the Internet will bring City Hall closer
to the customer at reduced cost. The fiscal strategic plan promotes the streamlining and repositioning of
the workforce as opportunities arise along with decreasing expen
that developers maintain new open space associated with their projects and that private and public capital
projects be added only if ongoing maintenance is funded.
State budget deficits continue to pressure City resources. Despite a state law that prevents raids and
borrowings of city taxes, the state proposed an elimination of all city redevelopment agencies unless they
paid a large share of their taxes to schools and special districts. While the courts review an appeal of the
proposal, CupertinoÓs redevelopment agency has opted to continue its existence and pay the taxes.
ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETARY CONTROL
In developing and evaluating the CityÓs accounting system, consideration is given to the adequacy of
internal accounting controls. The CityÓs controls are designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute,
assurance regarding the safeguarding of assets against losses from unauthorized use or disposition and the
reliability of financial records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability of assets.
The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the costs of a control should not exceed the benefits
likely to be derived and that the evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by
management.
The CityÓs budget is a detailed operating plan that identifies estimated costs and results in relation to
estimated revenues. The budget includes 1) the programs, projec
51
vi
during the fiscal year; 2) estimated revenue available to finance the operating plan; and 3) the estimated
spending requirements of the operating plan. The budget represents a process through which policy
decisions are made, implemented and controlled.
INDEPENDENT AUDIT
City ordinance requires an annual audit of the financial records by an independent certified public
accounting firm selected by the City Council and its audit commi
audited the CityÓs Basic Financial Statements, and their opinion thereon is included in the Financial
Section of this report.
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Cupertino for its CAFR
for the year ended June 30, 2010. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit
must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR. This report must satisfy both GAAP
and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that the current report
continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement ProgramÓs requi
GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate.
Respectfully submitted,
David Woo
Finance Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to the City employees, C
City Council for their interest in conducting the financial operations of the City in a responsible manner.
Special thanks go to Tina Mao, Yulia Rumalean, and Richard Wong of the Finance staff for their
continued support and dedication. Special recognition goes to Jennifer Chang, Liz Nunez, and David
Woo for their efforts in the preparation and production of this
Reviewed by,
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
52
vii
viii
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Fiscal Year 2010-11
CITY COUNCIL
Gilbert Wong Mark Santoro
Orrin Mahoney
Mayor Vice Mayor
Councilmember
Barry Chang
Kris Wang
Councilmember
Councilmember
DIRECTORY OF CITY OFFICIALS
David W. Knapp - City Manager
Carol Korade – City Attorney
Carol Atwood – Director of Administrative Services
Timm Borden – Director of Public Works
Mark Linder – Director of Parks and Recreation
Aarti Shrivastava - Director of Community Development
54
ix
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Fiscal Year 2010/11
COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
AUDIT COMMITTEEPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Myoung Kang David Fung
Mark Santoro David Greenstein
Stanley Stemkoski David Lee
Garrett Wade Darcy Paul
Barry Chang Marcia St. Clair
HOUSING COMMISSIONLIBRARY COMMISSION
Harvey Barnett Rose Grymes
Jimmy Chien Adrian Kolb
Radha Kulkarni Ronald Miller
Nicole Maroko Ann Stevenson
Rajeev Raman Susanna Tsai
FINE ARTS COMMISSIONPLANNING COMMISSION
KC Chandratreya Paul Brophy
Jessi Kaur Clinton Brownley
Russell Leong Winnie Lee
Rajeswari Mahaliagan Marty Miller
Marvin Spielman Don Sun
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONBICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Nina Daruwalla William Chan
Andy Huang Mark Fantozzi
Craig Lee Ashish Kolli
Daniel Nguyen Jill Mitsch
Tamara Pow Alan Takahashi
TEEN COMMISSIONECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jacqueline Do Sanika Puranik Carol Atwood David Knapp
Ashley Ding Hadar Sachs Paul Brophy Orrin Mahoney
Anand Hemmady Kailash Sundaram Timm Borden Aarti Shrivastava
Dana Lujack Madeline Yip Paula Davis Kris Wang
Greg Pommier Mike Foulkes John Zirelli
TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION & FISCAL STRATEGIC COMMITTEE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Peter Friedland Gilbert Wong Julia Lamy
Wallace Iimura Mark Santoro Aarti Shrivastava
Jitendra Jadhav Carol Atwood David Woo
Rod Livingood Roger Lee
Reena Nadkarni
55
x
xi
56
NOTES
57
FINANCIAL SECTION
58
NOTES
59
City Council
City of Cupertino, California
Independent Auditor’s Report
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Cupertino,
California (the City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the City’s
basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the City’s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial
statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration
of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in
the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's
internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as
well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinions.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund,
and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Cupertino, California as of June 30, 2011,
and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof, and the
respective budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then ended in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
As discussed in Note 1(l) to the basic financial statements, effective July 1, 2010, the City adopted the
provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance
Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions.
As discussed in note 9(e) to the basic financial statements, the California State Legislature has enacted
legislation that is intended to provide for the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State of
California. The effects of this legislation are uncertain pending the result of certain lawsuits that have
been initiated to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation.
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis and the schedules of funding progress, as listed in the table of contents, be
presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic
financial statements, is required by GASB, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting
for placing the basic financial statements in the appropriate operational, economic, or historical context.
60
1
We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of
management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for
consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other
knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion
or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City’s financial statements as a whole. The introductory, other supplementary information,
statistical , and community profile sections are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a
required part of the financial statements. The other supplementary information is the responsibility of
management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying auditing procedures applied in
the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and
reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the
financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion,
the information is stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole. The
introductory, statistical, and community profile sections have not been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express no
opinion or provide any assurance on them.
Walnut Creek, California
November 10, 2011
61
2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
This describes the City of Cupertino’s financial performance for the year. Please read it in conjunction
with the accompanying Transmittal Letter and Basic Financial Statements.
2010-11 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Governmental activity revenues were $49,552,000, up significantly from $46,152,000 in 2009-10.
Governmental activity expenses were $48,105,000 in 2010-11, up from $46,223,000 in the prior year.
Revenues from business-type activities were $6,433,000 in current year, down from $6,575,000 in the
prior year.
Expenses of business-type activities were $5,728,000 in current year, down slightly from $5,808,000
in the prior year.
Governmental net assets increased $1,447,000 while business-type net assets rose $705,000.
General Fund revenues of $43,195,000 represented a large increase of $7,617,000 from the prior year;
General Fund expenditures increased $706,000 to $33,662,000 in 2010-11.
The General Fund incurred expenditure budget savings of $3,529,000 with revenues surpassing
budget by $2,542,000.
Including proceeds from sale of capital assets and transfers, the General Fund balance grew by
$3,876,000 to end the year at $19,807,000.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Basic Financial Statements comprise the City-wide Financial Statements and the Fund Financial
Statements; these two sets of financial statements provide two different views of the City’s financial
activities and position.
The City-Wide Financial Statements
provide a long-term view of the City’s activities as a whole, and
comprise the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities. These statements are prepared on
the accrual basis, which means they measure the flow of all economic resources of the City as a whole.
The accrual basis of accounting is similar to the accounting used by most private sector companies. The
Statement of Net Assets provides information about the financial position of the City as a whole,
including all its capital assets and long-term liabilities. The Statement of Activities provides information
about all the City’s revenues and all its expenses, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues or
expenses for each of the City’s programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net
Assets for the year. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets can be indicators of whether the
financial condition of the City is improving or deteriorating.
All of the City’s activities are grouped into Governmental activities and Business-type activities, as
explained below. The Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities provide a summary of
these two types of activities for the City as a whole.
Governmental activities
—Most of the City’s basic services are considered to be governmental
activities, including public works, law enforcement, community development, recreation, public &
environmental affairs, and general administration. These services are supported by general City
revenues such as property, sales and other taxes, and by specific program revenues such as developer
fees and grants.
The City’s governmental activities include the activities of a separate legal entity, the Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency, because the City is considered to be financially accountable for the Agency.
The Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation, from which the City leases its major facilities through
the payment of long-term debt, is also included as a component unit.
62
3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Business-type activities
—All the City’s enterprises are reported here, including solid waste
management and some of the City’s recreational operations. Unlike governmental services, these
services are supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of the service they use.
The Fund Financial Statements
report the City’s operations in more detail than the government-wide
statements and focus primarily on the short-term activities of the City’s General Fund and other major
funds. The Fund Financial Statements measure only current revenues, expenditures, assets, and
liabilities; they exclude long-term assets and liabilities. Because these statements focus on the near-term
inflows and outflows of spendable resources, such information may be useful in evaluating near-term
financing requirements.
The Fund Financial Statements provide detailed information about each of the City’s most significant
funds, called major funds. Cupertino’s Fund Financial Statements include governmental, enterprise and
internal service funds as discussed below. Each major fund is presented individually, with all non-major
funds summarized and presented only in a single column. Subordinate schedules, which follow the Notes
to Basic Financial Statements, present the detail of these nonmajor funds. Major funds present the
significant activities of the City for the year, and may change from year to year as a result of changes in
the pattern of City’s activities and public interest. For example, the Capital Improvement Projects Fund
may or may not appear as a major fund depending on the volume of construction activity in a certain year.
Governmental Fund
financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis, which means they
measure only current financial resources and uses. They present essentially the same functions reported
as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, capital assets and
other long-lived assets, along with long-term liabilities, are not presented in the Governmental Fund
financial statements. Reconciliations are provided to facilitate a comparison between governmental funds
and governmental activities statements to allow a better understanding of the long-term impact of the
government’s near-term financial decisions.
Enterprise and Internal Service Fund
financial statements are prepared on the full accrual basis and
include all their assets and liabilities, current and long-term. Enterprise funds are used to report the same
functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements, and in more
detail in the fund financial statements.
Since the City’s Internal Service Funds provide goods and services only to the City’s governmental and
business-type activities, their activities are reported only in total at the fund level. Internal Service Funds
may not be major funds because their revenues are derived from other City funds. These revenues are
eliminated in the City-wide financial statements and any related profits or losses are returned to the
activities which created them, along with any residual net assets of the Internal Service Funds. For this
City, internal service activities predominantly benefit governmental rather than business-type functions,
and are therefore included within governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements.
Comparisons of budget and actual financial information are included in the Basic Financial Statements for
the General Fund and other major Special Revenue Funds. Since none of the City’s Special Revenue
Funds are considered major funds, budgetary comparison schedules for these funds are included in this
document as supplemental information only.
Fiduciary Fund
statements provide financial information about the activity of an assessment district.
The City acts strictly as an agent for the district holding amounts collected from property owners, prior to
transferring the money to the districts’ bond trustees. The City’s fiduciary activities are reported in the
separate Statement of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities and the Agency Funds Statement of Changes in
Assets and Liabilities. These activities are excluded from the City’s other financial statements because
the City cannot use these assets to finance its own operations.
63
4
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
The Notes to Basic Financial Statements
provide additional detail that is essential to a full
understanding of the information provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements.
CITY-WIDE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
This analysis focuses on the net assets and changes in net assets of the City’s Governmental Activities
(Tables 1 and 2) and Business-Type Activities (Tables 3 and 4) presented in the City-wide Statement of
Net Assets and Statement of Activities that follow. The Change in Net Asset Tables 2 and 4 show activity
from a revenue and expense perspective.
Governmental Activities
Table 1
Condensed Statement of Net Assets at June 30
(in thousands)
Governmental Activities
20112010
Assets:
Cash and investments43,353$ 41,700$
Other assets11,685 10,391
Capital assets164,734 165,915
Total assets219,772 218,006
Liabilities:
Long term debt44,010 45,510
Other liabilities14,130 12,311
Total liabilities58,140 57,821
Net assets:
Invested in capital assets, net of debt120,724 120,405
Restricted7,779 8,692
Unrestricted33,129 31,088
Total net assets161,632$ 160,185$
The City’s net assets from governmental activities rose 1% from the prior year. The following significant
changes within asset, liability, and net asset categories occurred:
Tax receipts and proceeds from the sale of the City’s equity share in the City Manager’s
residence, net of capital project spending and retiree health trust contributions, were the primarily
cause of the cash and investments increase.
The trust contribution and higher revenue accruals increased other assets. Increase in accounts
payable and development permit deposits increased other liabilities.
Scheduled principal payments on the 2002 certificates of participation lowered long-term debt by
$1,500,000.
64
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
As the Sources of Revenue chart above shows, property and sales taxes make up more than half of
governmental revenue. The Functional Expenses chart below includes only current year expenses with
Public Works action on streets, facilities, parks and storm drains comprising the largest activity. The chart
does not include capital outlays or principal payments on debt. Capital outlays are instead shown as
additions to capital assets and principal payments are reported as long-term liability reductions.
Functional Expenses, Governmental Activities 2010-11
Administration
Interest
4%
4%
Law Enforcement
18%
Public & Environmental
Affairs
Public
3%
Works
Administrative
41%
Services
8%
Recreation
Services
9%
Community
Development
13%
65
6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
The Statement of Activities presents program revenues, expenses, and general revenues. These are all
elements of the Changes in Governmental Net Assets summarized in the next table.
Table 2
Condensed Changes in Net Assets For The Year Ended June 30
(in thousands)
Governmental Activities
20112010
Expenses:
Administration 1,860$ 1,912$
Law enforcement 8,435 8,385
Public and environmental affairs1,626 1,653
Administrative services3,994 4,080
Recreation services4,529 4,445
Community development 5,962 4,351
Public works19,667 19,320
Interest on long term debt2,032 2,077
Total expenses48,105 46,223
Revenues
Program revenues:
Charges for services6,533 5,631
Operating contributions and grants2,351 2,043
Capital grants and contributions1,973 5,511
Total program revenues10,857 13,185
General revenues:
Taxes:
Property tax7,297 7,489
Property tax in lieu of motor vehicle fee4,405 4,421
Incremental property tax1,252 1,323
Sales tax14,539 9,931
Transient occupancy tax2,537 2,142
Utility user tax3,228 3,271
Franchise tax2,841 2,598
Other taxes1,491 1,212
Intergovernmental, unrestricted
Motor vehicle license fee259 166
Investment earnings259 295
Gain on sale of capital assets497 -
Miscellaneous90 119
Total general revenues38,695 32,967
Total revenues49,552 46,152
Change in net assets1,447 (71)
Beginning net assets, as previously reported160,185 143,293
Prior period adjustment for easements- 16,963
Beginning net assets, as restated160,185 160,256
Ending net assets161,632$ 160,185$
66
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
City-wide Governmental Revenues
Table 2 shows that total governmental revenues climbed $3,400,000 or 7% over of last year, finishing at
$49,552,000.
Sales taxes improved $4,608,000 or 46% over last year to finish up at $14,539,000. Quarterly tax
collections all exceeded the prior year, with growth in the business-to-business sector, led by Apple, Inc.,
driving the increase. Business-to-business, historically a volatile sector, comprised 73% of sales taxes, far
exceeding San Francisco Bay Area and State averages. The City’s sales tax per capita of $294 tops other
County cities. The timing of a sales tax consulting agreement that is payable out of a percentage of
revenues also partially effected the variance. Positive revenue growth in the first quarter of this fiscal year
was offset by a tax liability increase for the agreement in the last quarter of the prior fiscal year.
All property taxes, including incremental taxes for the Redevelopment Agency, fell $279,000 or 2% from
last year. As allowed by recent State law, the City Council passed an ordinance on September 20, 2011
electing to continue the Agency’s existence with payments of $529,000 to schools and special districts in
2011-12 and approximately $134,000 per year after that.
Grants and contributions, both operating and capital related, decreased a combined $3,230,000 or 43%
from 2009-10. The current year grants received includes an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant, a Stevens Creek Corridor Park Roberti-Z’berg Harris grant, Homeland Security Department grant
and easement contributions. Last year included Stevens Creek, pavement resurfacing and Don Burnett
Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge (formerly Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge) grants from federal, state, and
local sources such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, SAFETEA-LU, Proposition 1B
bonds, Park Bond Act, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
Gain on sale of capital assets of $497,000 for 2010-11 represents gain from the sale of the City’s equity
share in the City Manager’s residence.
Charges for services increased $902,000 or 16% reflecting building and development application growth
including Apple Inc.’s new corporate headquarters and several tenant improvements.
City-wide Governmental Expenses
City-wide governmental expenses in Table 2 rose $1,882,000 or 4% above 2009-10. Community
Development and Public Works rose. Administration, Law Enforcement, Administrative Services, Public
& Environmental Affairs, Recreation Services, Administrative Services, and Interest on Long Term Debt
were relatively stable.
Administration decreased $52,000 or 3% this year. Lower accrued leave, internal service, and
depreciation costs offset higher community grant, support and outreach costs.
Administrative Services declined 2% or $86,000 because of lower internal service costs.
Community Development expenses rose $1,611,000 or 37% because of new Redevelopment Agency
outlays, including a $1 million contribution to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust, and additional
Community Development Block Grants for affordable housing, such as those for Senior Housing
Solutions’ Price Avenue and for Maitri transitional housing.
Public Works expenses went up $347,000 or 2% over the prior year reflecting higher depreciation
expenses from completed projects and budgeted increases for maintenance, repair and engineering.
67
8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Annual interest on the 2002 certificates of participation decreased $45,000 or 2% according to its debt
service schedule.
Change in Net Assets
City-wide governmental revenues in excess of expenses and accompanying net asset increase of
$1,447,000 significantly outperformed the $71,000 decrease of last year, mostly due to the revenue rise.
Business Type Activities
Business-type activities in the City-wide Financial Statements include the City’s four enterprise funds.
Enterprise funds are used to account for recreational and solid waste management operations that are
financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent is that the costs
of providing services and facilities to the general public on a continuing basis can be financed or
recovered primarily through user fees. The major proprietary funds section of this report provides more
information on business-type results.
Business-type net assets totaled $10,557,000 at June 30, 2011, an increase of $705,000 from the prior
year with unrestricted net assets rising $715,000 and capital assets decreasing by $10,000.
Overall revenues of $6,433,000 this year were $142,000 or 2% lower than last year with Blackberry Farm
and Resources Recovery revenue declines partially offset by Sports Center and Recreation Programs
revenue growth.
Expenses for all business-type activities were essentially flat at $5,728,000. A $705,000 net asset increase
fell below the $767,000 increase of 2009-10, with lower operating incomes from the Sports Center and
Blackberry Farm countered by improved operating margins from the Resources Recovery and Recreation
Program enterprises.
68
9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
General Fund
General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenues of $43,195,000 ended up $2,542,000 or 6% above the final budget and $2,653,000
above the original budget for the year ended June 30, 2011. This was $7,617,000 or 21% above last year.
Except for utility taxes, fines and forfeitures, and other, all categories exceeded the prior year, with sales
taxes and property taxes accounting for $5,819,000 of the increase. Similarly, sales taxes accounted for
$2,421,000 of the amount exceeding budget. Table 5 displays year-to-year variations, while Table 6
shows budget versus actual differences.
Property taxes ended the year at $11,650,000, up 12% or $1,211,000 from last year. However, it fell
under the final and original budget by $426,000. Revenues were up because last year’s result includes a
deferral of $1,419,000 in property taxes that was borrowed by the State under Proposition 1A. If that
deferral is excluded, then current year receipts were up $208,000 from last year. Proposition 1A requires
that the State repay the taxes to the City by June 30, 2013 with 2% annual interest; accordingly, this loan
is carried as a receivable and deferred revenue. Higher tax receipts this year resulted from cost of living
and property assessment increases allowed per State statute. Weakness in residential and commercial real
estate markets affected these trends, but because of the City’s popular local school districts and healthy
business occupancy rates, assessed values have been impacted less severely relative to other cities in the
County.
69
10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Sales taxes jumped $4,608,000 or 46% above last year to finish at $14,539,000. It exceeded the final
budget by $2,421,000 or 20%, with the original budget similar to the final. Quarterly tax collections all
exceeded the prior year, with growth in the business-to-business sector, led by Apple, Inc., driving the
increase. Business-to-business, historically a volatile sector, comprised 73% of sales taxes, far exceeding
San Francisco Bay Area and State averages. The City’s sales tax per capita of $294 tops other County
cities. The timing of a sales tax consulting agreement that is payable out of a percentage of revenues also
partially effected the variance. Positive revenue growth in the first quarter of this fiscal year was offset by
a tax liability increase for the agreement in last quarter of the prior fiscal year. Future revenues will be
impacted when Hewlett-Packard, a major sales tax provider, leaves the City in 2012.
The City’s four hotels paid $2,537,000 in transient occupancy taxes this year; $395,000 or 18% over last
year’s performance. It was 21% or $443,000 better than the final and original budget. Average revenue
per available room for all four hotels rose from $85 to $101 reflecting the pickup in business travel to
companies located in the City. The City has placed on the November 2011 election ballot a measure to
increase the City’s transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 12% of the room charge.
The City’s 2.4% utility user tax on telecommunication, gas, and electric services dropped 1% from last
year. This $3,228,000 in revenues was $205,000 or 6% under the original and final budget as wireless and
energy receipts fell in the second half of the year.
Franchise taxes of $2,841,000 from electric, gas, water, solid waste, and cable utilities rose 9% from last
year and 7% from original and final budget due to new public access cable fees and a new solid waste
franchise agreement.
Other taxes include business license, construction, and property transfer taxes. The County assesses the
transfer tax, at $1.10 per $1,000 in sales price, upon recording the ownership change, and gives the City
one-half of the tax. The sale of the Hewlett-Packard property to Apple, Inc. for the latter’s new corporate
campus caused other taxes to grow 20% or $230,000 from 2009-10 figures and 13% or $157,000 higher
than the final and original budget.
Licenses and permits finished at $2,902,000, rising 12% or $319,000 from 2009-10. It was 11% or
$292,000 above the final and original budget. Tenant improvement activity picked up in the last quarter of
the year for retail projects.
Zoning, planning, and engineering review fees comprise three-quarters of the charges for services
category, with non-enterprise recreational programs encompassing the rest. The category improved from
$1,334,000 last year to $1,945,000 this year, a 46% rise. It finished $293,000 or 18% over the final and
original budget. Initial entitlement fees for Apple’s new corporate headquarters were received in June.
Intergovernmental revenues of $689,000 rose 10% or $63,000 from last year, exceeding the final budget
by 18% or $107,000. Additional motor vehicle license fees partially offset by lower grant revenues caused
the year-to-year fluctuations while higher than expected Association of Bay Area Government grants, State
mandated cost reimbursements, and vehicle license fees caused the budget variance. The final budget
increased $29,000 from the original amount because of a new grant to reduce smoking.
General Fund cash is invested as part of the City’s pooled investment portfolio. Investment returns of the
pool are allocated to the Fund based on the Fund’s monthly cash balance. These returns plus the renting
of City facilities comprise use of money and property revenues that rose 6% from 2009-10, to finish at
$728,000. However, current results were $460,000 or 39% under budget expectations. Rent income rose
9% over last year from increased recreational and public facility usage. The continued low interest rate
environment and the portfolio’s concentration in safe short-term Treasuries because of market turmoil and
credit risk, has kept investment returns at a steady, but relatively low amount for the last two years. Since
interest rates did not increase as anticipated and purchases of traditional, higher-yielding instruments such
70
11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
as Federal agencies and the Local Agency Investment Fund did not occur as proposed, the interest income
fell below budget. A further explanation of the investment picture for the year is in Note 2 of the Basic
Financial Statements.
Fines and forfeitures fell 5% or $40,000 off of prior year and $224,000 or 24% below budget; to complete
the year at $696,000 due to lower fine assessments by courts.
Proceeds from sale of capital assets represents proceeds received from the sale of the City’s equity share
in the City Manager’s residence that is not budgeted for current year.
Transfers into the General Fund dropped 31% from $487,000 last year to $337,000 this year. There were
fewer surplus dollars returned to the General Fund from project savings in the Capital Project
Improvement Fund. The budget for transfers was adjusted accordingly depending on project savings
realized during the year.
Table 5
Revenue Changes
General Fund, Fiscal 2011 vs. 2010
(in thousands)
Increase/(Decrease)
Fiscal 2011From Fiscal 2010
Revenue by SourceAmount% of TotalAmountPercent
Taxes:
Property11,650$ 27%1,211$ 12%
Sales14,539 34%4,608 46%
Transient occupancy2,537 6%395 18%
Utility user3,228 7%(43) -1%
Franchise 2,841 7%243 9%
Other 1,381 3%230 20%
Use of money & property728 2%42 6%
Intergovernmental689 2%63 10%
Licenses and permits2,902 7%319 12%
Charges for services1,945 5%611 46%
Fines and forfeitures696 2%(40) -5%
Other59 0%(22) -27%
Total revenues $ 43,195 100% $ 7,617 21%
Other financing sources:
Proceeds from sale of capital assets $ 1,055 76% $ 1,055 100%
Transfers in 337 24% (150)-31%
Total other financing sources $ 1,392 100% $ 905 186%
71
12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
General Fund Expenditures
Fiscal 2010-11 overall expenditures, at $33,662,000, were $706,000 or 2% higher than last year’s total of
$32,956,000. However, this result came in 9% or $3,529,000 under the final budget and $2,405,000
below the original budget. Year-to-year and budget versus actual results by General Fund department are
described below and in Tables 7 and 8.
Administration expenditures of $1,528,000 rose 4% or $59,000 over last year while finishing $83,000 or
5% under final budget. The increase reflected more community grants, support, and outreach over last
year.
Law Enforcement sheriff contract costs of $8,435,000 were under the final budget by $450,000 or 5%.
The budget contains dollars for anticipated service levels and unexpected events or incidences. By the end
of the year, the actual rate of general law enforcement, service requests, emergency calls, patrol, and
investigations may bring budget savings as it did in 2010-11. Having the Sheriff contract helps the City
contain public safety costs as reflected in the steadiness of the expenditures with the previous year. Funds
for school traffic safety was carried over from the previous year and added to the original budget.
Public and Environmental Affairs expenditures of $1,497,000 were flat on a budget and year-to-year
basis.
Administrative Services outlays were comparatively unchanged from a year ago and finished 15% or
$640,000 under final budget. Most of the budget savings were realized in finance, city clerk, human
resources and insurance. The final budget was $131,000 higher than the original budget due to the new
transient occupancy tax ballot measure, new legislative and grants assistance, and leadership program,
litigation, and code enforcement budgets carried over from the prior year.
72
13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Non-enterprise Recreation expenditures ended up $363,000 or 8% below final budget, but exceeded last
year’s spending by $113,000 or 3%. The year-to-year rise was in line with the budgetary increase. Most
operational areas realized budget savings but, in particular, the senior travel program and Blackberry
Farm comprised 70% of the savings. The travel program’s cost of trips sold came in under budget.
Blackberry Farm had staff vacancy and contract service cost savings.
Community Development costs of $3,238,000 were $612,000 or 16% below the final budget due to
personnel savings in current planning and building code enforcement divisions and contract service
savings in mid and long-term planning. Costs grew 6% or $169,000 from last year in order to process
more planning and building applications. Increases for municipal code changes, regional housing need
studies, and economic development made the final budget 5% higher than the original.
Public Works maintenance, repair, and engineering expenditures of $11,152,000 rose 3% or $343,000
over the prior year. It was $1,381,000 or 11% under final budget due to staff vacancies, lower-than-
expected maintenance costs on traffic signals, parks, and City Hall and lower engineering design & traffic
study costs. Outstanding purchase and job orders and a school traffic safety budget carried over from last
year comprised the $594,000 increase from original to final budget.
Transfers out of the General Fund dropped from $9,375,000 in 2009-10 to $7,049,000 in 2010-11, as
finally budgeted, with $3,533,000 for ongoing debt service, $1,500,000 for ongoing retiree health
obligations, $750,000 for ongoing road maintenance, $432,000 for capital project reserves, $225,000 for
ongoing accrued leave payouts, $474,000 for new information technology and equipment, including a
new permitting system, and a $135,000 subsidy for storm drain improvement. The decrease from 2009-10
resulted primarily from lower capital project and retiree health funding. The transfers budget increased
during the fiscal year for the permitting system and capital project reserves.
73
14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
General Fund Balance
At June 30, 2011, the General Fund reported a total ending fund balance of $19,807,000, up 24% or
$3,876,000 from the prior year. The City assigns $12,500,000 of this for general economic uncertainty,
$1,400,000 for state budget actions that impact City revenues, $534,000 for capital projects funded by
utility user taxes, and $306,000 of purchase orders. $1,024,000 represents non-spendable rehabilitation
and employee housing loan receivables and prepaid expenses. $663,000 is restricted for public access
programming. Finally, $3,380,000 is unassigned as of June 30, 2011, but intended for future budget
actions and capital projects.
The fund balance rise resulted from revenues exceeding expenditures by $9,533,000 and proceeds from
sale of capital assets of $1,055,000 offset by a net transfer out of $6,712,000. The unassigned fund
balance benefitted from most of the increase jumping from $207,000 a year ago to $3,380,000 at June 30,
2011. The fund balance growth allowed the City to increase to $1,400,000 for the amount set-aside for
State takeaways of City taxes. The utility user tax balance was drawn down by $382,000 during the year
for capital project use. Loan payoffs reduced loan receivables by $252,000. Encumbrance decreased by
$130,000 when compared to prior year. Public access programming funds increased $69,000. Fund
balance comparisons reflect the new classifications required by accounting guidance.
Public Facilities Corporation
This fund accounts for the payments of principal and interest on the 2002 certificates of participation,
which refinanced the long-term debt that funded many of the City’s major parks and facilities. As in
previous years, General Fund transfers into the fund cover the debt service payments of $3,533,000.
Capital Improvement Projects
All of the City’s non-enterprise capital projects are in this fund, except for the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park, which is a separate major fund, and the Don Burnett Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge, which is a part of
Other Governmental Funds. Outlays for park, facility, traffic, and energy efficiency projects rose from
$1,359,000 in 2009-10 to $2,609,000 in 2010-11, as streetlight and irrigation energy retrofits, Scenic
74
15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Circle access, Garden Gate Safe Routes to Schools, Community Hall audio visual upgrades, and traffic
signal battery backups were new projects worked on this year.
A $439,000 Federal stimulus grant for the energy retrofits was received this year, more than the $116,000
in smaller grants earned last year. The General Fund, Stevens Creek Corridor Park, and Recreation
Programs provided $929,000 in funding this year compared to $2,482,000 the previous year to finance
projects that may occur over multiple years. Completed project cost savings of $537,000 were returned to
the General Fund and Recreation Programs compared to $487,000 last year. As of June 30, 2011, the
Capital Improvement Fund has $3,547,000 assigned to capital projects including $495,000 in purchase
orders, $1,000,000 for infrastructure reserves, and $1,354,000 for capital project reserves.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
This fund contains three capital projects. The $13,577,000 Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase One
segment to completely re-design the picnic grounds at Blackberry Farm, re-align and restore the natural
habitat of the creek, renovate the swimming pool facilities, and build the creek trail, completed major
construction and re-opened to the public on July 4, 2009. Outlays for this segment fell to $160,000 during
2010-11 compared to $923,000 the previous year as this year’s work consisted of providing additional
improvements to the area facilities. The Corridor Park’s Phase Two, with an initial $200,000 budget for
designing a trail extension to Stevens Creek Boulevard, began with $37,000 in expenditures for 2009-10
and $88,000 in 2010-11. A third project, the $685,000 Blackberry Farm infrastructure upgrade, kicked off
with $33,000 spent in 2009-10 and $78,000 in 2010-11 for design.
The General Fund, the Recreation Programs fund, Park Dedication fund, and State and local grants
finance the projects. Reflecting the winding-down of the project, the City recorded fewer Phase One cost-
reimbursement grant receipts, with $349,000 received this year compared to $2,294,000 the prior year.
To help fund their respective budgets, the infrastructure upgrade project received a $303,000 transfer
from the General Fund and Phase Two received a $200,000 transfer from the Park Dedication fund last
year. With Phase One nearly completed and Blackberry Farm infrastructure design underway, $172,000
in realized budget savings from both projects were transferred into Capital Improvement Project Fund
reserves this year whereupon they will be re-budgeted into 2011-12 Phase Two work. Another $125,000
from the Blackberry Farm project was temporarily transferred to the Scenic Circle project within the
Capital Improvement Project fund, with reserves restoring the money to Blackberry Farm in 2011-12. The
transfers out caused much of the 2010-11 assigned project fund balance decrease of $274,000 and the
unrestricted cash decrease of $312,000.
Other assets and liabilities decreased by $400,000 from a year ago due to grant revenues recognized from
the subsequent receipt of a prior year receivable and due to the release of contract retentions held in
escrow.
MAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS
Resources Recovery
The City renewed its Recology solid waste franchise agreement for five years commencing in November
2010 with a minor revenue rate increase and a restructuring of how the City and franchisee share revenues
and costs. Accordingly, this solid waste enterprise fund experienced a 9% comparative yearly decrease in
residential and commercial pickup revenues, offset by 12% lower contract expenses for collection,
landfill disposal, and recycling. Operating income improved from $93,000 last year to $129,000 this year.
With interest earnings, net assets increased by $172,000, outperforming the $134,000 growth of last year,
to end the year with a $6,003,000 unrestricted balance.
75
16
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Blackberry Farm
City employees, with a teaching professional on contract, staff the City-owned Blackberry Farm golf
course and pro shop. Golfing green fees declined to a higher degree that the previous year, as the older
demographics of golf course users continued to negatively impact rounds played and purchases of group
packages prior to this year’s fee increase impacted early current year sales. Operating revenues of
$448,000 in 2010-11 represented a 21% or $121,000 fall from the prior year. Expenses were unchanged
at $457,000 this year with minimal staffing levels maintained at the course and water costs kept steady
until a capital project can get underway that will look at cost-saving irrigation alternatives. $400,000
transferred from Recreation Programs during the year will finance the project. With lower revenues, the
golf course incurred a $9,000 operating loss compared to $112,000 in operating income last year. Offset
with the $406,000 coming from transfers and interest income, net assets increased $397,000, an
improvement over the $115,000 of last year. At June 30, 2011, unrestricted net assets were $910,000.
Cupertino Sports Center
Tennis lesson, membership, fitness class and rent revenues of $1,723,000 rose by $145,000 or 9% over
last year, resulting from more lesson revenues generated by the private tennis program operator. With
contract instructor, facility support, and maintenance costs growing by $239,000 or 16%, operating
income fell to $6,000 in 2010-11, off of the $100,000 produced in 2009-10. After adding-in interest
earnings, the increase in net assets of $10,000 brought ending unrestricted net assets to $369,000 by year-
end. The Sports Center completed a tennis court resurfacing project during the fiscal year.
Recreation Programs
Cultural events, youth and teen programs, sports, dance and fitness classes generated $2,260,000 in
revenues, which was flat compared to last year, for this enterprise operating out of the Quinlan
Community Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, McClellan Ranch, Creekside Park building, eight
school sites, and various parks. Ongoing program expenses, including full-time administrative and
programming staff, part-time activity leaders, and class instructors on contract decreased $102,000 or 5%
from 2009-10. The Quinlan Center interior upgrade project began in 2010-11 with $29,000 in design
costs. Operating income improved to $507,000 compared to $395,000 a year ago. The fund transferred
$400,000 to the Blackberry Farm fund’s golf course irrigation project. A $200,000 transfer to the Capital
Improvement Project fund for an environmental education facility was returned after the project was re-
prioritized and wrapped into next year’s McClellan Ranch master plan. After adding interest earnings and
net transfers out, the fund ended up with an increase in net assets of $126,000 and an unrestricted net
asset balance of $2,497,000 that is intended for future capital, equipment, insurance, and reserve needs.
CAPITAL ASSETS
At June 30, 2011 the City had $165,512,000, net of depreciation, invested in a broad range of capital
assets used in governmental and business-type activities, as shown in Table 9 and in Note 6 to the Basic
Financial Statements. While the City’s capital asset total was relatively unchanged, current year major
capital additions includes streetlight retrofits, storm water easement, and street and pedestrian projects.
The sale of the City’s equity share in the City Manager residence and overall depreciation offset the
additions.
76
17
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
DEBT ADMINISTRATION
The City’s only long-term debt liability comes from $56,640,000 in Certificates of Participation (COPs)
issued in 2002 by the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation. The certificates refunded previously issued
COPs that financed the Wilson Park, Blackberry Farm, and Fremont Older site, the Memorial Park
expansion, the Quinlan Community Center construction, and the City Hall remodel. It provided capital for
the new library opened in 2004. The serial, fixed interest rate debt ranging from 2% to 5% requires annual
debt payments of $3,532,000 that are covered by the General Fund. The June 30, 2011 outstanding
principal of $44,010,000 is due to be paid off by 2030. More information can be found in Note 7 to the
Basic Financial Statements.
CONTACTING THE CITY’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is intended to provide a general overview of the City’s
finances. Further information can be provided by the City of Cupertino Finance Department, 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014, phone (408) 777-3220, or by the City website at www.cupertino.org.
77
18
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Statement of Net Assets
June 30, 2011
GovernmentalBusiness-Type
ActivitiesActivitiesTotal
Assets:
Cash and investments$ 40,837,507$ 10,394,377$ 51,231,884
Restricted cash and investments 2,515,072 - 2,515,072
Receivables:
Accounts 3,195,082 370,865 3,565,947
Interest 68,473 18,074 86,547
Intergovernmental - State Proposition 1A 1,419,497 - 1,419,497
Loans 1,728,904 - 1,728,904
Prepaid items and other assets 92,712 - 92,712
Land held for housing development 615,000 - 615,000
Net OPEB assets 4,565,406 - 4,565,406
Capital assets:
Nondepreciable 79,576,112 - 79,576,112
Depreciable, net of accumulated depreciation 85,158,093 777,521 85,935,614
Total assets 219,771,858 11,560,837 231,332,695
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals 6,694,247 315,521 7,009,768
Accrued payroll and benefits 579,244 49,067 628,311
Deposits 1,993,988 - 1,993,988
Unearned revenue 482,571 594,552 1,077,123
Compensated absences:
Due in one year 34,927 - 34,927
Due in more than one year 2,692,858 45,089 2,737,947
Claims payable:
Due in one year 388,594 - 388,594
Due in more than one year 1,263,359 - 1,263,359
Long-term debt:
Due in one year 1,545,000 - 1,545,000
Due in more than one year 42,465,000 - 42,465,000
Total liabilities 58,139,788 1,004,229 59,144,017
Net Assets:
Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 120,724,205 777,521 121,501,726
Restricted for:
Special revenue projects 4,046,498 - 4,046,498
Affordable housing 3,010,648 - 3,010,648
Public access television 663,254 - 663,254
Debt service 58,213 - 58,213
Total restricted net assets 7,778,613 - 7,778,613
Unrestricted 33,129,252 9,779,087 42,908,339
Total net assets $161,632,070 $ 10,556,608 $172,188,678
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
78
19
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Statement of Activitie
s
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Net (Expense) Revenue an
d
Program RevenueChanges in Net Asset
ss
OperatinCapital
g
Charges foGrants and Grants anGovernmental Business-typ
rde
Functions/ProgramExpensesServiceContributionsContributionsActivitieActivitieTotal
ssss
Governmental Activities
:
Administratio
n
$ 15,8011,860,451$ 91,788$ -$ (1,752,862)$ -$ (1,752,862)$
Law enforcemen
t
797,7578,434,885 125,090 - (7,512,038) - (7,512,038)
Public and environmental affair
s
-1,625,876 - - (1,625,876) - (1,625,876)
Administrative service
s
-3,993,654 - - (3,993,654) - (3,993,654)
Recreation service
s
1,020,1594,528,968 - - (3,508,809) - (3,508,809)
Community developmen
t
4,149,6205,961,774 695,929 - (1,116,225) - (1,116,225)
Public works
549,06519,666,598 1,438,480 1,972,951 (15,706,102) - (15,706,102)
Interest on long - term debt
-2,032,464 - - (2,032,464) - (2,032,464)
Total governmental activities
6,532,40248,104,670 2,351,287 1,972,951 (37,248,030) - (37,248,030)
Business-type activities:
Resource recovery
1,931,0761,801,599 - - - 129,477 129,477
Blackberry far
m
447,797457,065 - - - (9,268) (9,268)
Cupertino sports cente
r
1,722,7001,716,741 - - - 5,959 5,959
Recreation program
s
2,260,2961,753,156 - - - 507,140 507,140
Total business-type activitie
s
6,361,8695,728,561 - - - 633,308 633,308
Total53,833,231$ 12,894,271$2,351,287$ 1,972,951$ (37,248,030) 633,308 (36,614,722)
General revenues
:
Taxes:
Property taxes
-7,296,970 7,296,970
Property tax in lieu of motor vehicle fee
-4,404,795 4,404,795
Incremental property tax
-1,251,777 1,251,777
Sales taxes
-14,539,243 14,539,243
Transient occupancy tax
-2,536,501 2,536,501
Utility user ta
x
-3,227,942 3,227,942
Franchise ta
x
-2,841,344 2,841,344
Other taxe
s
-1,491,316 1,491,316
Intergovernmental, unrestricted
Motor vehicle license fe
e
-259,289 259,289
Investment earning
s
71,486259,217 330,703
Gain on sale of capital asset
s
-497,385 497,385
Miscellaneou
s
-88,980 88,980
Transfers
(15)15 -
Total general revenue 38,694,774 71,471 38,766,245
s
Change in net asset 704,7791,446,744 2,151,523
s
Net assets, beginning of year
9,851,829160,185,326 170,037,155
Net assets, end of year$10,556,608161,632,070$ 172,188,678$
See accompanying notes to basic financial statement
s
79
20
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Governmental Funds
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2011
Stevens
PublicCapitalCreeOthe
kr
FacilitiesImprovemenCorridoGovernmental
tr
GeneralCorporationProjectsParFundsTotal
k
Assets:
Cash and investments23,173,690$ 58,213$ 33,487,6335,769,660$
$ $3,788,060$ 698,010
Restricted cash and investments -
-2,515,072 - -2,515,072
Receivables:
Accounts 2,604,2213,186,082
- 233,100 - 348,761
Interest47,18355,466
- - - 8,283
Intergovernmental - State Proposition 1A
1,419,497
- - - -1,419,497
Loans953,0701,728,904
- - - 775,834
Prepaid items70,88070,880
- - - -
Land held for housing developmen615,000
t
- - - - 615,000
Other assets3,8843,884
- - - -
Tota assets 2,573,28528,272,4254,021,160698,010 43,082,4187,517,538
l$$$$$$
Liabilities and Fund Balances:
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals3,541,911$6,670,849
$ $2,515,072$ 241,374$ 7,076$ 365,416
Accrued payroll and benefits523,084551,858
- - - 28,774
Deposits 1,993,988
- - - -1,993,988
Advance from other funds504,497504,497
- - - -
Unearned revenue482,571482,571
- - - -
Deferred revenue 1,419,4971,838,850
- 233,100 - 186,253
Total liabilities 8,465,548 474,4742,515,07212,042,613
7,076 580,443
Fund balances:
Nonspendable 1,023,9501,638,950
- - - 615,000
Restricte663,2546,977,360
d
58,213 - - 6,255,893
Assigne14,739,394 690,934
d
-3,546,686 66,20219,043,216
Unassigne3,380,279
d
- - - -3,380,279
Total fund balances 19,806,877 690,93431,039,805
58,2133,546,686 6,937,095
Totaates anunaances28,272,425 2,573,2854,021,160698,010 43,082,4187,517,538
llibiliidfdbl$$$$$$
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
80
21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet of Governmental Funds to
the Statement of Net Assets - Governmental Activities
June 30, 2011
Total fund balances reported on the overnmental funds balance sheet31,039,805$
g
Amounts reported for overnmental activities in the statement of net assets
g
are different from those reported in the overnmental funds above because
g
of the followin:
g
Capital assets:
Capital assets used in overnmental activities are not current assets or financial
g
resources and therefore are not reported in the overnmental funds.163,801,518
g
Allocation of internal service funds net assets:
Internal service funds are used b manaement to chare the costs of activities
ygg
such as information technolo, insurance, equipment acquisition and
gy
maintenance, and certain emploees' benefits to overnmental funds. The
yg
assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are therefore included in
overnmental activities in the statement of net assets.11,604,782
g
Receivables not available
:
Certain receivables are not available to pa for current period expenditures
y
and therefore are deferred in the overnmental funds. 1,838,850
g
Lon-term liabilities:
g
The liabilities below are not due and paable in the current period and therefore
y
are not reported in the overnmental funds:
g
Certifications of participation(44,010,000)
Compensated absence (2,642,885)
s
et assets of governmental activities161,632,070$
N
See accompanin notes to basic financial statements.
yg
81
22
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Governmental Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Stevens
PublicCapitalCreekOther
FacilitiesImprovementCorridorGovernmental
GeneralCorporationProjectsParkFundsTotal
Revenues:
Taxes$ 36,176,232$ -$ -$ -$ 1,406,067$ 37,582,299
Use of money and property
727,983 - - - 64,052 792,035
Intergovernmental
689,239 - 439,640 349,165 2,065,597 3,543,641
Licenses and permits
2,901,944 - - - - 2,901,944
Charges for services
1,944,609 - - - 366,607 2,311,216
Fines and forfeitures
695,666 - - - - 695,666
Other
58,881 - - - 15,000 73,881
Total revenues 43,194,554 - 439,640 349,165 3,917,323 47,900,682
Expenditure:
Current:
Administration
1,528,070 - - - - 1,528,070
Law enforcement
8,434,885 - - - - 8,434,885
Public and environmental affairs
1,497,263 - - - - 1,497,263
Administrative services
3,695,076 - - - - 3,695,076
Recreation services
4,117,477 - - - - 4,117,477
Community development
3,237,643 - - - 2,455,898 5,693,541
Public works
11,152,029 - - - 1,082,697 12,234,726
Capital outlay
- - 2,608,597 326,103 2,347,227 5,281,927
Debt service:
Principal - 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000
Interest and fiscal charges - 2,032,464 - - - 2,032,464
Total expenditures 33,662,443 3,532,464 2,608,597 326,103 5,885,822 46,015,429
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 9,532,111 (3,532,464) (2,168,957) 23,062 (1,968,499) 1,885,253
Other financing sources (uses)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets
1,055,449 - - - - 1,055,449
Transfers in
337,482 3,533,000 929,000 - 885,000 5,684,482
Transfers out
(7,049,283) - (537,467) (297,000) - (7,883,750)
Total other financing sources (uses)
(5,656,352) 3,533,000 391,533 (297,000) 885,000 (1,143,819)
Change in fund balances 3,875,759 536 (1,777,424) (273,938) (1,083,499) 741,434
Fund balances, beginning of year 15,931,118 57,677 5,324,110 964,872 8,020,594 30,298,371
Fund balances, end of year$ 19,806,877$ 58,213$ 3,546,686$ 690,934$ 6,937,095$ 31,039,805
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
82
23
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities - Governmental Activities
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds$ 741,434
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities
are different because of the following:
Capital assets transactions:
Governmental Funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of
activities, the cost of those assets is capitalized and allocated over their estimated useful
lives and reported as depreciation expense.
Expenditures for capital assets reported as:
Capital outlay 5,281,927
Public works 326,460
Easement received during the year 1,166,398
Less current year depreciation (7,325,562)
Net effect of sales/disposal of capital assets (558,064)
Long term debt transactions:
Repayment of bond principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but in the
statement of net assets the repayment reduces long-term liabilities. 1,500,000
Accrual of noncurrent items:
The amounts below included in the statement of activities do not provide or (require)
the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as revenues or
expenditures in governmental funds (net change):
Change in compensated absences (194,746)
Change in deferred revenue (69,450)
Allocation of internal service funds' activities:
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of activities, such
as information technology, insurance, equipment acquisition and maintenance, and
employees' benefits to individual funds. The portion of the net revenue (expense)
of these Internal Service Funds arising out of their transactions with governmental
funds is reported with governmental activities.
Change in net assets - internal service funds 578,347
Change in net assets of governmental activities$ 1,446,744
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
83
24
CITY OF CUPERTINO
General Fun
d
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actua
l
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Variance wit
h
Budgeted AmountsFinal Budge
t
ActualPositive
OriginalFinalAmount(Negative)
s
Revenues:
Taxes33,519,000$ 33,600,875$ 36,176,232$ 2,575,357$
Use of money and propert 1,188,0001,188,000 727,983 (460,017)
y
Intergovernmenta 582,000553,000 689,239 107,239
l
Licenses and permits2,610,000 2,610,000 2,901,944 291,944
Charges for services1,652,000 1,652,000 1,944,609 292,609
Fines and forfeitures920,000 920,000 695,666 (224,334)
Othe 100,000100,000 58,881 (41,119)
r
Amounts available for appropriation40,542,000 40,652,875 43,194,554 2,541,679
Charges for appropriation (outflows):
Current:
Administratio 1,611,1391,608,502 1,528,070 83,069
n
Law enforcemen 8,884,3968,784,597 8,434,885 449,511
t
Public and environmental affairs1,436,734 1,497,263 1,497,263 -
Administrative service 4,335,4914,204,559 3,695,076 640,415
s
Recreation services4,426,903 4,480,147 4,117,477 362,670
Community developmen 3,850,0003,666,722 3,237,643 612,357
t
Public works11,939,167 12,533,314 11,152,029 1,381,285
Total charges for appropriations36,067,184 37,191,750 33,662,443 3,529,307
Excess of revenues over expenditures4,474,816 3,461,125 9,532,111 6,070,986
Other financing sources (uses)
Proceeds from sale of capital assets- - 1,055,449 1,055,449
Transfers in265,000 337,482 337,482 -
Transfers out(6,725,000) (7,049,283) (7,049,283) -
Total other financing sources (uses)(6,460,000) (6,711,801) (5,656,352) 1,055,449
Change in fund balance(1,985,184)$ (3,250,676)$ 3,875,759 7,126,435$
Fund balance, beginning of yea15,931,118
r
Fund balance, end of yea$19,806,877
r
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
84
25
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Fund Net Asset
s
June 30, 2011
Business-type Activities-Enterprise FundGovernmenta
sl
Cupertino Activities -
Resources Blackberry Sports Recreation Internal Servic
e
RecoverFarCenteProgramsTotalsFunds
ymr
Assets:
Current assets:
Cash and investment$ 943,7895,861,492$ 628,819$ 2,960,277$10,394,377$ 7,349,874$
s
Accounts receivable 257,546 113 67 113,139 370,865 9,000
Interest receivable 10,394 1,672 1,115 4,893 18,074 13,007
Prepaid items- - - - - 17,948
Total current assets6,129,432 945,574 630,001 3,078,309 10,783,316 7,389,829
oncurrent assets:
N
Advances to other funds- - - - - 504,497
et OPEB assets- - - - - 4,565,406
N
Capital assets:
Depreciable, net of
accumulated depreciation37,186 25,864 113,044 601,427 777,521 932,687
Total noncurrent assets37,186 25,864 113,044 601,427 777,521 6,002,590
Total assets6,166,618 971,438 743,045 3,679,736 11,560,837 13,392,419
Liabilities:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals117,277 8,470 149,017 40,757 315,521 23,398
Accrued payroll and benefits6,119 4,282 9,857 28,809 49,067 27,386
Compensated absences- - - - - 34,927
Claims payable- - - - - 388,594
Unearned revenue- - 83,163 511,389 594,552 -
Total current liabilities123,396 12,752 242,037 580,955 959,140 474,305
oncurrent liabilities:
N
Compensated absences, net
of current portion3,225 23,065 18,799 - 45,089 49,973
Claims payable, net of current portion- - - - - 1,263,359
Total liabilities126,621 35,817 260,836 580,955 1,004,229 1,787,637
et assets:
N
Invested in capital assets37,186 25,864 113,044 601,427 777,521 932,687
Unrestricted6,002,811 909,757 369,165 2,497,354 9,779,087 10,672,095
Total net assets 6,039,997$ 935,621$ 482,209$ 3,098,781$10,556,608$ 11,604,782$
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
85
26
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Asset
s
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Business-type Activities-Enterprise FundGovernmenta
sl
Cupertino Activities-
Resources Blackberry Sports Recreation Internal Service
RecoverFarCenteProgramsTotalsFunds
ymr
Operating revenues:
Charges for services1,916,054$ 432,646$ 1,720,521$2,260,296$6,329,517$ 2,840,201$
Othe 15,15115,022 2,179 - 32,352 -
r
Total operating revenues1,931,076 447,797 1,722,700 2,260,296 6,361,869 2,840,201
Operating expenses:
Salaries and benefits184,756 136,393 314,476 441,414 1,077,039 2,888,894
Materials and supplies 6,547 79,576 208,753 164,957 459,833 387,323
Contractual services1,606,945 240,158 1,166,505 1,064,539 4,078,147 452,612
Insurance claims and premiu -- - - - 367,029
m
Depreciation3,351 938 27,007 82,246 113,542 421,663
Total operating expenses1,801,599 457,065 1,716,741 1,753,156 5,728,561 4,517,521
Operating income (loss)129,477 (9,268) 5,959 507,140 633,308 (1,677,320)
onoperating revenues:
N
Investment incom 6,16442,497 3,627 19,198 71,486 56,384
e
Income (loss) before transfers171,974 (3,104) 9,586 526,338 704,794 (1,620,936)
Transfers in- 400,000 - 199,985 599,985 2,199,283
Transfers out- - - (600,000) (600,000) -
Change in net assets171,974 396,896 9,586 126,323 704,779 578,347
et assets, beginning of yea 538,7255,868,023 472,623 2,972,458 9,851,829 11,026,435
Nr
et assets, end of yea$ 935,6216,039,997$ 482,209$ 3,098,781$10,556,608$ 11,604,782$
Nr
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
86
27
CITY OF CUPERTIN
O
Proprietary Funds
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Business-type Activities-Enterprise FundsGovernmenta
l
Cupertino Activities-
Resources Blackberry Sports RecreatioInternal Servic
ne
RecoverFarmCenteProgramsTotalsFunds
yr
Cash flows from operating activites:
Cash received from customer$ 447,6842,008,231$ 1,718,854$ 2,210,447$ 6,385,216$ 2,831,201$
s
Cash payments to suppliers for goods and service (327,683)(1,654,393) (1,381,032)(1,274,833)(4,637,941) (869,075)
s
Cash payments for employee (132,827)(184,305) (309,908) (438,657) (1,065,697) (3,679,046)
s
Cash payments for judgment and claims- - - - - (351,034)
Net cash provided by (used in)
operating activities169,533 (12,826) 27,914 496,957 681,578 (2,067,954)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfers in- 400,000 - 199,985 599,985 2,199,283
Transfers ou -- - (600,000) (600,000) -
t
Cash flows provided by (used in)
noncapital financing activities- 400,000 - (400,015) (15) 2,199,283
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Acquisition of capital assets- (22,504) (13,900) (66,446) (102,850) (349,419)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest receive 4,49232,103 2,512 14,305 53,412 43,377
d
Net change in cash and cash equivalents201,636 369,162 16,526 44,801 632,125 (174,713)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of yea 574,6275,659,856 612,293 2,915,476 9,762,252 7,524,587
r
$ 5,861,492 $ 943,789 $ 628,819 $ 2,960,277 $ 10,394,377 $ 7,349,874
Cash and cash equivalents, end of yea
r
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Operating income (loss)129,477$ (9,268)$ 5,959$ 507,140$ 633,308$ (1,677,320)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to
net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciatio 9383,351 27,007 82,246 113,542 421,663
n
Contributions to an irrevocable trust for
current year's annual OPEB cost- - - - - -
Change in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable77,155 (113) 652 (100,831) (23,137) (9,000)
Prepaid items- - - - - 1,149
Net OPEB assets- - - - - (818,723)
Accounts payable and accruals(40,901) (7,949) (5,774) (45,337) (99,961) (32,304)
Accrued payroll and benefits965 624 2,045 2,757 6,391 3,244
Unearned revenu -- (4,498) 50,982 46,484 -
e
Compensated absence 2,942(514) 2,523 - 4,951 25,327
s
Claims payable- - - - - 18,010
Net cash provided by (used in)
$ 169,533 $ (12,826)$ 27,914 $ 496,957 $ 681,578 $ (2,067,954)
operating activities
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
87
28
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Statement of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilitie
s
June 30, 2011
Agenc
y
Fun
d
Assets:
Cash and investment$ 81,403
s
Total assets81,403$
Liabilities:
Deposits81,403$
Total liabilities81,403$
See accompanying notes to basic financial statements.
88
29
This page left intentionally blank.
89
30
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
(a) Reporting Entity
The City of Cupertino, California (the City) was incorporated on October 3, 1955, under the laws of the
State of California. The City operates under a Council - City Manager form of government and provides
services through the following departments: Administrative Services, Community Development, City
Manager, Parks and Recreation, Public and Environmental Affairs, and Public Works/Engineering. Fire
services are provided by the Santa Clara County Fire District, and the City contracts with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff’s Department for police services, and with Recology for garbage and recycling
services.
The accompanying basic financial statements include all funds and boards and commissions that are
controlled by the City Council. The basic financial statements include the City’s blended component
units, entities for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. A blended component unit,
although a legally separate entity, is in substance, part of the City’s operations and so data from this unit
is combined with the City.
Blended component units - The Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation (the Corporation) was
incorporated in May 1986, under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law of the State of
California. The Corporation was organized as a nonprofit corporation for the purpose of assisting the
City in the acquisition, construction, and financing of public improvements which are of public benefit
to the City. The Corporation, after acquiring certain properties from the City, leases these back to the
City. The lease money provides the funds for the debt service for the Certificates of Participation issued
by the Corporation to acquire the properties.
The Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) was formed in 2000 under the California Health &
Safety Code to assist in the elimination of areas considered to be in a blighted condition. The City
Council acts as the Board of Directors of the Corporation and the Agency. The Mayor and Vice Mayor
of the City have been elected President and Vice President, respectively, of the Corporation. The City
Clerk has been elected Secretary, and the City’s Director of Administrative Services has been appointed
Treasurer of both entities.
The Corporation does not issue separate financial statements, since it is reported separately in the City’s
basic financial statements. The Agency’s separate report is available from the City of Cupertino’s
website at www.cupertino.org.
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation
The City’s basic financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the
acknowledged standard setting body for establishing accounting and financial reporting standards
followed by governmental entities in the United States.
90
31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation (Continued)
Government-wide Statements -
The Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities display
information about the primary government (the City) and its component units. These statements include
the financial activities of the overall City government, except for fiduciary activities. These statements
distinguish between the governmental and business-type activities of the City. Governmental activities
generally are financed through taxes, intergovernmental revenues, and other nonexchange transactions.
Business-type activities are financed in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties.
The Statement of Activities presents a comparison between expenses and program revenues for each
segment of the business-type activities of the City and for each function of the City’s governmental
activities. Expenses include direct and indirect types. Direct expenses are those that are specifically
associated with a program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a particular function.
Indirect expenses such as depreciation, information technology, insurance and equipment replacement
are included in expenses for individual activities and functions. Program revenues include (a) charges
paid by the recipients of goods or services offered by the programs and (b) grants and contributions that
are restricted to meeting the operational or capital needs of a particular program. Revenues that are not
classified as program revenues, including taxes, are presented as general revenues. Program revenues
and direct expenses related to interfund services are included and indirect expenses funded by interfund
transfers are excluded from the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net Assets eliminates
interfund balances between governmental funds and interfund balances between proprietary funds.
Fund Financial Statements -
The fund financial statements provide information about the City’s
funds, including fiduciary funds and blended component units. Separate statements for each fund
category – governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary – are presented. The emphasis of fund financial
statements is on major individual governmental and enterprise funds, each of which is displayed in a
separate column. All remaining governmental funds are aggregated and reported as nonmajor funds.
Proprietary fund operating revenues, such as charges for services, result from exchange transactions
associated with the principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions are those in which each party
receives and gives up essentially equal values. Nonoperating revenues, such as subsidies and
investment earnings, result from nonexchange transactions or ancillary activities.
Major Funds
-
The City’s major governmental and enterprise funds are identified and presented
separately in the fund financial statements. All other funds, called nonmajor funds, are combined and
reported in a single column, regardless of their fund type.
Major funds are defined as funds, which have either assets, liabilities, revenues or expenditures in
excess of ten percent of their fund-type total and five percent of the aggregate total for both
governmental funds and enterprise funds. The General Fund is always a major fund. The City may
select other funds it believes should be presented as major funds.
91
32
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation (Continued)
The City reported the following major governmental funds in the accompanying financial statements:
TheGeneral Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial
resources except those that are required to be accounted for in another fund.
ThePublic Facilities Corporation Debt Service Fund accounts for the payments of principal and
interest on certificates of participation issued to provide for the financing of City Hall, Library, Wilson
Park, Memorial Park, and other City facilities.
TheCapital Improvement Projects Fund accounts for activities related to the acquisition or
construction of major capital facilities.
TheStevens Creek Corridor Park Capital Projects Fund accounts for the design and construction of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park projects.
The City reports all its enterprise funds as major funds in the accompanying financial statements:
TheResources Recovery Fund accounts for activity related to the collection, disposal, and recycling of
solid waste. A private company has been issued an exclusive franchise to perform these services.
TheBlackberry Farm Fund accounts for activities related to the municipal golf course.
TheCupertino Sports Center Fund accounts for the operation and maintenance of the Cupertino
Sports Center.
TheRecreation Programs Fund accounts for activities of the City’s community centers and park
facilities.
The City also reports the following fund types:
Internal Service Funds.
These funds account for workers’ compensation, management information
systems maintenance and replacement, equipment maintenance and replacement, retiree health costs,
accrued leave payouts, and long-term disability coverage; all of which are provided to other departments
on a cost-reimbursement basis.
Fiduciary Fund
. The City acts as an agent for repayment of certain special assessment debt described
in Note 7. This fund accounts for the tax assessments used for bond payments.
Basis of Accounting
-
The government-wide and proprietary financial statements are reported using the
economic resources measurement focus and the full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded
whenearned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the
related cash flows take place.
92
33
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Basis of Presentation (Continued)
Governmental funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the
modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable
and available. The City considers all revenues reported in the governmental funds to be available if the
revenues are collected within sixty days after year-end. Expenditures are recorded when the related
fund liability is incurred, except for principal and interest on long-term debt which are recognized as
expenditures to the extent the City has provided financial resources to a debt service fund for payment
of these liabilities that mature early in the following year. General capital asset acquisitions are reported
asexpenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds from long-term debt and acquisitions under capital
leases are reported as other financing sources.
Unearned revenues are considered on a full accrual basis, while deferred revenues are based on the
modified accrual measure.
Fiduciary financial statements consisting of agency funds, report only assets and liabilities, and
therefore have no measurement focus. They recognize receivables and payables on a full accrual basis.
Property taxes, transient occupancy taxes, utility taxes, franchise taxes, interest and special assessments
are susceptible to accrual. Other receipts and taxes are recognized as revenue when the cash is received.
Sales taxes collected and held by the state at year end on behalf of the City are also recognized as
revenue. Sales taxes consulting payments which are contingent on revenues collected are netted against
the related revenues.
Under the terms of grant agreements, the City may fund certain programs with a combination of cost-
reimbursement grants, categorical block grants, and general revenue. The City’s policy is to first apply
restricted grant resources to such programs, followed by general revenues if necessary. Grant revenues
are recognized after eligibility and billing occurs, but may be deferred if not received within sixty days
of year-end. Because of the cost-reimbursement and recognition nature of some grants, certain capital
project funds may carry deficit fund balances until billing and receipt of grants. The City may also front
the capital outlays with cash advances from other funds.
Non-exchange transactions, in which the City gives or receives value without directly receiving or
giving equal value in exchange, include property taxes, grants, entitlements, and donations. On the
accrual basis, revenue from property taxes is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied
or assessed. Revenue from grants is recognized as described above. Entitlement and donation revenues
are recognized when cash is received.
Private-sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989,
generally are followed in both the government-wide statements for the business-type activities and
proprietary fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict
guidance of GASB. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private-sector guidance
for business-type activities and enterprise funds, subject to the same limitation. The City has elected not
to follow subsequent private-sector guidance.
93
34
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(c) Budgetary Practices
The budget of the City is a detailed operating plan which identifies estimated costs and results in
relation to estimated revenues. The budget includes (1) the programs, projects, services and activities to
be provided during the fiscal year; (2) estimated revenue available to finance the operating plan; and (3)
the estimated spending requirements of the operating plan. The budget represents a process through
which policy decisions are made, implemented and controlled. The City prohibits expending funds for
which there is no legal appropriation. Operating appropriations lapse at fiscal year end.
In May of each year, the City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed budget for the fiscal year
beginning July 1. Public hearings on the proposed budget are held during the month of June and the
budgets for all fund types are legally adopted by Resolution prior to June 30. Original budget amounts
are presented on the accompanying budgetary statements include these legally adopted amounts.
The City’s legal level of budgetary control is at the functional level. The City Manager is responsible
for controlling the City’s expenditures in accordance with the adopted budget. The City Manager is
authorized to transfer appropriations within functional expenditure classifications. Any revision which
requires transfers between functional expenditure classifications or increases total appropriations must
be approved by the City Council. Requests for additional personnel or capital outlay also require the
approval of the City Council.
Budgets for governmental funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles. Budget information is presented for the general, special revenue and debt service funds only.
Capital projects funds are budgeted on a long-term project-by-project basis and, hence, budgets for these
funds are not presented in the basic financial statements.
(d) Cash and Investments
The City pools its cash resources, consisting of cash and investments, of all funds for investment except
for restricted funds generally held by an outside fiscal agent. Cash amounts are reported net of
outstanding warrants. Investments are stated at fair value.
(e) Capital Assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated
capital assets are recorded at their estimated fair value on the date donated. Public domain
(infrastructure) capital assets consisting of roads, bridges, curbs, gutters, medians, sidewalks, drainage
and lighting systems have been capitalized and depreciated. Capital assets are defined as assets with an
initial individual cost of more than $5,000 for general capital assets and $100,000 for intangible assets.
94
35
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(e) Capital Assets (Continued)
Depreciation is recorded using the straight-line method over the following useful lives:
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. For
enterprise funds, interest incurred during the construction phase is reflected in the capitalized value of
the asset constructed, net of interest earned on the invested proceeds over the same period. Some capital
assets may be acquired using federal and state grant funds, or they may be contributed by developers or
other governments. These contributions are accounted for as revenues at the time the capital assets are
contributed.
(f) Land Held for Redevelopment
Land held for redevelopment of $615,000 at June 30, 2011 is stated at the lowest of historical cost, net
realizable value determined upon the execution of disposition and development agreement, or agreed-
upon sales price. The land was purchased using federal grant funds for housing activities.
(g) Claims Payable
Claims and judgments payable are accrued when the liability is incurred and the amount can be
reasonably estimated. Claims and judgments payable are recorded in an internal service fund for
workers’ compensation and long-term disability, and other claims and judgments are recorded in the
General Fund or enterprise funds, as appropriate.
(h) Compensated Absences
Compensated absences comprise vested accumulated vacation and sick leave. The City’s liability for
compensated absences is recorded in governmental or business-type activities as appropriate. The
liability for compensated absences is determined annually. For all governmental funds, amounts
expected to be “permanently liquidated,” such as what is due to be paid because of a realized
employment action, are recorded as fund liabilities; the long-term portion is recorded in the Statement of
Net Assets.
95
36
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(h) Compensated Absences (Continued)
Compensated absences are liquidated by the fund that has recorded the liability. The long-term portion
of governmental activities compensated absences are liquidated primarily by the General Fund, using
the Compensated Absences and the Long-Term Disability internal service fund to account for
termination payouts.
The changes in compensated absences for the year ended June 30, 2011 were as follows:
(i) Property Tax Calendar
All property taxes are levied and collected by the County of Santa Clara. Secured taxes are levied on
July 1, are due in two installments on November 1 and February 1 and become delinquent after
December 10 and April 10. Unsecured taxes are levied on July 1 and become delinquent on August 31.
The lien date for secured and unsecured property taxes is January 1.
The City, in fiscal year 1993-94, adopted an alternative method of property tax distribution (the “Teeter
Plan”). Under this method, the City receives 100% of its secured property tax levied in exchange for
foregoing any interest and penalties collected on delinquent taxes. The City receives remittances as a
series of advances made by the County during the year.
(j) Interfund Transactions
Interfund loans and balances related to unsettled service transactions are reported as receivables and
payables as appropriate, and are subject to elimination upon consolidation of similar fund types, and are
referred to as either “due to/from other funds” (i.e., the current portion of inter-fund loans and unsettled
service transactions) or “advances to/from other funds” (i.e., the non-current portion of interfund loans).
Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and the business-type activities
are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances”.
Services provided or used, deemed to be at market or near market rates, are treated as revenues and
expenditures or expenses. Transactions constituting reimbursements to a fund for
expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as
expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund
that is reimbursed. All other interfund transactions are treated as transfers. Transfers between
governmental or proprietary funds are netted as part of the reconciliation to the government-wide
presentation.
96
37
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(k) Statement of Cash Flows
For purposes of reporting cash flows for the City’s proprietary funds, pooled cash and investments are
considered cash equivalents as the proprietary funds can access pooled cash and investments in a
manner similar to a demand deposit account.
(l) Effects of New Pronouncements
During the year ended June 30, 2011, the City implemented the following GASB Statement:
In March 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type
Definitions. The objective to this Statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by
providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the
existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes fund balance classifications
that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe
constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. The initial
distinction in reporting fund balance information is identifying amounts that are considered
nonspendable, such as fund balance associated with prepaid items. This Statement provides for
additional classification as restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned based on the relative strength
of the constraints that control how specific amounts can be spent. The details for the governmental fund
balance classifications prescribed under this Statement are separately discussed in Note 8.
The City is currently analyzing its accounting practices to determine the potential impact on the
financial statements for the following GASB Statements:
In December 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service
Concession Arrangements. This Statement addresses how to account for and report service concession
arrangements (SCAs), a type of public-private or public-public partnership that state and local
governments are increasingly entering into. Common examples of SCAs include long-term
arrangements between a transferor (a government) and an operator (governmental or nongovernmental
entity) in which the transferor conveys to an operator the right and related obligation to provide services
through the use of infrastructure or another public asset in exchange for significant consideration and
the operator collects and is compensated by fees from third parties. Application of this Statement is
effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2013.
In December 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus. GASB
Statement No. 61 is designed to improve financial reporting for governmental entities by amending the
requirements of GASB Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, and GASB Statement No. 34,
Basic Financial Statements-and Management’s Discussion and Analysis-for State and Local
Governments, to better meet the needs of users and address reporting entity issues that have come to
light since these statements were issued in 1991 and 1999, respectively. GASB Statement No. 61
improves the information presented about the financial reporting entity, which is comprised of a primary
government and related entities (component units) and amends the criteria for blending – reporting
component units as if they were part of the primary government – in certain circumstances. Application
of this Statement is effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2013.
97
38
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
(l) Effects of New Pronouncements (Continued)
In December 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial
Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. The
objective of this Statement is to incorporate into the GASB’s authoritative literature certain accounting
and financial reporting guidance that is included in the following pronouncements issued on or before
November 30, 1989, which does not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. This Statement
also supersedes Statement No. 20, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Proprietary Funds and
Other Governmental Entities That Use Proprietary Fund Accounting. The requirements of this
Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2013.
In June 2011, GASB issued Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources,
Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position. This Statement provides financial reporting guidance
for deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources. This Statement also amends the net
asset reporting requirements in Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s
Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, and other pronouncements by
incorporating deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources into the definitions of the
required components of the residual measure and by renaming that measure as net position, rather than
net assets. The requirements of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending
June 30, 2013.
In June 2011, GASB issued Statement No. 64, Derivatives Instruments: Application of Hedge
Accounting Termination Provisions – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 53. The objective of this
Statement is to clarify whether an effective hedging relationship continues after the replacement of a
swap counterparty or a swap counterparty’s credit support provider. This Statement sets forth criteria
that establish when the effective hedging relationship continues and hedge accounting should continue
to be applied. The requirements of this Statement are effective for the City’s fiscal year ending
June 30, 2013.
(m) Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect
certain amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
98
39
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS
The City’s pooled idle funds are invested pursuant to investment policy guidelines adopted by the City
Council. The objectives of the policy are to invest funds to the fullest extent possible and to invest in
accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code with the priority of safety, liquidity and
yield. The policy addresses the safekeeping of securities, types of investment instruments, diversification,
maturities, reporting requirements, and internal control. The City maintains a cash and investment pool that
is available for use by all funds. Each fund type’s portion of this pool is displayed on the financial
statements as “cash and investments.”
(a) Policies
California law requires banks and savings and loan institutions to pledge government securities with a
market value of 110% of the City’s cash on deposit, or first trust deed mortgage notes with a market value
of 150% of the deposit, as collateral for these deposits. Under California law, this collateral is held in a
separate investment pool by another institution in the City’s name and places the City ahead of general
creditors of the institution.
The City and its fiscal agents invest in individual investments and in investment pools. Individual
investments are evidenced by specific identifiable securities instruments, or by an electronic entry
registering the owner in the records of the institution issuing the security, called the book entry system.
Security instruments owned by the City are held in safekeeping by a third party custodian acting as agent
for the City under the terms of a custody agreement.
The City’s investments are carried at fair value. The City adjusts the carrying value of its investments to
reflect their fair value at each fiscal year end, and it includes the effects of these adjustments in investment
income for that fiscal year.
(b) Classification
The City's total cash and investments, at fair value, are presented on the accompanying financial
statements in the following allocation:
PrimaryAgency
GovernmentFundsTotal
Cash and investments51,231,884$ 81,403$ 51,313,287$
Restricted cash and investments:
Held by Fiscal Agent for bond repayments2,515,072 - 2,515,072
Total cash and investments53,746,956$ 81,403$ 53,828,359$
99
40
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
(c) Authorized Investments by the City
The City’s Investment Policy and the California Government Code allow the City to invest its pooled
idle funds in the following, under limits and provisions that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and
concentration of credit risk. This does not include the City’s investments of debt proceeds held by fiscal
agents that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City.
MinimumMaximumMaximum
MaximumCreditPercentage ofInvestment in
Authorized Investment TypeMaturityQualityPortfolioOne Issuer
U.S. Treasury Obligations
5 yearsN/ANoneNone
U.S. Agency Securities *5 yearsN/ANoneNone
California Local Agency InvestmentUp to $50
N/AN/ANone
million
Fund (LAIF)
Non-negotiable Certificates of 10% of portfolio;
5 yearsN/A30% ***
Deposits (time deposits)5% of issuer's net worth. **
State of California registered state
5 yearsN/ANoneNone
warrants, treasury notes, or bonds
California local agency bonds, notes,
5 yearsN/ANoneNone
warrants, or other obligations
Bond issued by the local agency5 yearsN/ANoneNone
Bankers' Acceptances180 daysN/A40%None
10% of portfolio;
Commercial Paper270 daysA-1+/P-125%5% of issuer's net worth;
10% of outstanding paper of issuer. **
10% of portfolio;
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit5 yearsN/A30%
5% of issuer's net worth. **
10% of portfolio;
Repurchase Agreements1 yearN/ANone
5% of issuer's net worth. **
10% of portfolio;
Medium Term Corporate Notes5 yearsA or better30%
5% of issuer's net worth. **
Money market mutual funds investing
in U.S. Treasury, Government
Agency securities or repurchase
5 yearsAaa/AAA20%None
agreements collaterized by
U.S. Treasury or Government
Agency securities
*SecuritiesissuedbyagenciesofthefederalgovernmentsuchastheGovernmentNationalMortgageAssociation(GNMA),theFederal
FarmCreditSystem(FFCB),theFederalHomeLoanBank(FHLB),theFederalNationalMortgageAssociation(FNMA),theStudent
Loan Marketing Association (SLMA), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC).
**Represents restriction in which the City’s investment policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code.
***30% maximum % of portfolio if using a private sector entity to assist in the placement of the time deposits. No maximum for others.
100
41
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
(d) Authorized Investments by Debt Agreements
The City must maintain required amounts of cash and investments with trustees or fiscal agents under
the terms of certain debt issues. These funds are unexpended bond proceeds or are pledged reserves to
be used if the City fails to meet its obligations under these debt issues. The California Government
Code requires these funds to be invested in accordance with City ordinances, bond indentures or State
statutes. The City’s Investment Policy allows investments of bond proceeds to be governed by
provisions of the related bond indentures. The following identifies the investment types that are
authorized for investments held by fiscal agents under the terms of the bond indentures of the related
debt issue:
MinimumMaximum
MaximumCreditPercentage of
Authorized Investment TypeMaturityQualityPortfolio
U.S. Treasury obligations
N/AN/ANone
Federal agencies obligations which represent full faith
N/AN/ANone
and credit of the U.S.
Direct federal agencies obligations which are not fully
N/AN/ANone
guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
U.S. dollar denominated deposit accounts, federal funds and
360 daysP-1, A-1+, A-1None
bankers' acceptances with domestic commercial banks
Commercial Paper270 daysP-1, A-1None
Money market fundsN/AAaam or AAAm-GNone
Pre-refunded municipal obligations that are not callable
Highest rating
prior to maturity or as to which irrevocable instructionsN/ANone
category
have been given to call on the date specified in the notice
General obligations of states
N/AA2, ANone
Investment agreements or other forms of investments,
including repurchase agreements, approved by the N/AN/ANone
financial guaranty insurance carrier.
California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)N/AN/AUp to $50 million
Shares in a California common law trust established pursuant
to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California Government
Code which invests exclusively in investments permitted by N/AN/ANone
Section 53635 of Title 5, Division 2, Chapter of the California
Government Code, as it may be amended.
101
42
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
(e) Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an
investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair
value to changes in market interest rates.
Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the City’s investments (including investments held
by bond trustees) to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the
distribution of the City’s investments by maturity or earliest call date:
The City is a participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California
Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. The
Local Investment Advisory Board (Board) has oversight responsibility for LAIF. The Board consists of
five members as designated by State Statute. The City reports its investment in LAIF at the fair value
amount provided by LAIF, which is the same as the value of the pool share. The balance is available for
withdrawal on demand, and is based on the accounting records maintained by LAIF, which are recorded
on an amortized cost basis. Included in LAIF’s investment portfolio are U.S. Treasuries, Federal
Agency obligations, time deposits, negotiable certificates of deposits, commercial paper, corporate
bonds, and security loans. As of June 30, 2011, the total amount recorded by all participating public
agencies in LAIF was approximately $24.0 billion. Of that amount, 94.99% was invested in non-
derivative financial products and 5.01% in structured notes and asset backed securities. These
investments had weighted average maturity of 237 days.
Money market mutual funds are available for withdrawal on demand. At June 30, 2011, money market
mutual funds in the pooled investment and held by fiscal agent had weighted average maturity of
approximately 48 days and 19 days, respectively.
102
43
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 2 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
(f) Credit Risk
Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the
investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating
organization. Presented below is the actual rating as of June 30, 2011 for each investment type,
including those with fiscal agents, as provided by Moody’s ratings:
(g) Concentration of Credit Risk
The City’s investment policy contains certain limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one
issuer. In certain categories, these limitations are more restrictive than those required by California
Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Excluding those issued or explicitly guaranteed by the U.S.
government and investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund and mutual funds, the City did not
have investments that represent 5% or more of total City-wide investments at June 30, 2011.
NOTE 3 – PROPOSITION 1A BORROWING BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Under the provisions of Proposition 1A and as part of the 200910 budget package passed by the
California state legislature on July 28, 2009, the State of California borrowed 8% of the amount of
property tax revenue, including those property taxes associated with the inlieu motor vehicle license
fee, the triple flip in lieu sales tax, and supplemental property tax, apportioned to cities, counties and
special districts (excluding redevelopment agencies). The State of California is required to repay this
borrowing plus interest by June 30, 2013. The amount of this borrowing pertaining to the City was
$1,419,497.
This borrowing by the State of California was recognized as a receivable in the accompanying basic
financial statements. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, the borrowed tax revenues are not
permitted to be recognized as revenue in the governmental fund financial statements until the tax
revenues are received from the State of California (expected to be fiscal year 201213). In the
governmentwide financial statements, the tax revenues were recognized in the fiscal year for which
they were levied (fiscal year 200910).
103
44
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 4 – LOANS RECEIVABLE
(a) Related Party Loans
In conjunction with the City’s executive housing assistance program, loans totaling $849,360 have been
th
provided to two executive managers. These 40-year loans bear an interest rate equal to the 11 District
Cost of Funds at the time of the loan, and require bi-weekly principal and interest payments. In
addition, there is a two percent deferral on the interest rate for the first five years of the loan, at which
th
time the interest rate may be adjusted to the current 11 District Cost of Funds for the remainder of the
loan. During the year ended June 30, 2011, one of the loans was repaid and the balance remaining on
the outstanding loan was $464,914 at June 30, 2011.
(b) Housing Program Loans
On June 30, 1995, the City loaned $821,000 to Community Housing Developers, a California nonprofit
public benefit corporation. The note bears interest at three percent per annum, compounded annually,
payable to the extent of surplus cash, and all unpaid principal and interest due June 30, 2035. At
June 30, 2011, the balance remaining on the loan was $821,000.
On June 6, 1996, the City loaned $320,000 to Cupertino Community Services, a California nonprofit
public benefit corporation. The note bears interest at three percent per annum and due on July 14, 2026.
At June 30, 2011, the balance on the loan was $251,069.
In addition to these loans, the City has $191,921 in housing and other loans receivable at June 30, 2011.
These loans bear interest at 3 to 6 percent and are due by June 30, 2025.
104
45
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 5 - INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
Transfers between funds during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 were as follows:
The reasons for these transfers are set forth below:
(A)
For annual lease payment related to the 2002 Certificates of Participation debt issue.
(B)
To fund various capital improvements projects.
(C)
To fund operating expenditures of the Environmental Management Special Revenue Fund
($135,000) and street maintenance expenditures ($750,000).
(D)
To fund management information systems, equipment, compensated absences, and retiree medical
expenses.
(E)
To return capital projects savings back to General Fund.
(F)
To provide and return funds for the environmental education facility project.
(G)
To fund golf course irrigation project.
Internal Balances
– The government wide financial statements had no net interfund receivables and
payable remaining after the elimination of all such balances within governmental and business-type
activities.
Advance to and advance from other funds
During fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the Equipment Internal Service Fund loaned the General Fund
$504,497 for payment of the Prop 1A borrowing by the State of California. The General Fund is
expected to repay the funds upon receipt of the repayment from the State of California during fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.
105
46
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS
A summary of changes in capital assets is as follows:
Balance,Balance,
July 1, 2010AdditionsRetirementsJune 30, 2011
Governmental activities
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land 60,806,081$ -$ (335,112)$ 60,470,969$
Easements17,938,745 1,166,398 - 19,105,143
Total capital assets, not being depreciated78,744,826 1,166,398 (335,112) 79,576,112
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings40,998,928 143,239 (393,870) 40,748,297
Improvements other than buildings39,684,798 782,866 - 40,467,664
Machinery and equipment7,576,532 349,419 (57,547) 7,868,404
Roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians and bridges121,612,009 2,834,755 - 124,446,764
Streetlights6,596,456 1,697,633 - 8,294,089
Storm drain structure and mains31,799,233 117,227 - 31,916,460
Traffic signals6,034,208 32,667 - 6,066,875
Total capital assets, being depreciated254,302,164 5,957,806 (451,417) 259,808,553
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings(15,410,360) (1,548,043) 170,918 (16,787,485)
Improvements other than buildings(21,668,745) (1,756,695) - (23,425,440)
Machinery and equipment(6,199,057) (531,448) 57,547 (6,672,958)
Roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians and bridges(86,936,007) (2,999,682) - (89,935,689)
Streetlights(6,511,832) (4,823) - (6,516,655)
Storm drain structure and mains(25,817,840) (794,981) - (26,612,821)
Traffic signals(4,587,859) (111,553) - (4,699,412)
Total accumulated depreciation(167,131,700) (7,747,225) 228,465 (174,650,460)
Total capital assets, being depreciated, net87,170,464 (1,789,419) (222,952) 85,158,093
Governmental activities, capital assets, net$ (623,021)165,915,290$ (558,064)$ 164,734,205$
Business-type activities
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings293,372$ -$ -$ 293,372$
Improvements other than buildings389,511 102,850 - 492,361
Machinery and equipment272,088- - 272,088
Total capital assets, being depreciated954,971 102,850 - 1,057,821
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings(8,813) (27,753) - (36,566)
Improvements other than buildings(2,089) (55,346) - (57,435)
Machinery and equipment(155,856) (30,443) - (186,299)
Total accumulated depreciation(166,758)(113,542) - (280,300)
Total capital assets, being depreciated, net788,213(10,692) - 777,521
Business-type activities, capital assets, net788,213$ (10,692)$ -$ 777,521$
106
47
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 6 - CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)
Depreciation expense was charged to functions and programs based on their usage of the related assets.
Depreciation expense was charged to governmental activities as follows:
Administration282,072$
Public and environmental affairs10,829
Administration services26,551
Recreation service86,604
Public works6,919,506
Amount reported in the internal service funds421,663
Total depreciation expense - governmental activities7,747,225$
Depreciation expense was charged to the business-type activities as follows:
107
48
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 7 - LONG-TERM DEBT
(a) Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation Certificates of Participation
Amount
OriginalBalanceBalanceDue
Issue July 1,June 30,Within
Amount2010Retirements2011One Year
Governmental activities debt:
2002 Refinancing and Capital Improvement
Project, 2.00 - 5.00%, due 07/01/203056,640,000$ 45,510,000$ (1,500,000)$ 44,010,000$ 1,545,000$
The Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation issued Certificates of Participation to provide financing for
the construction of the Community Center, improvements of the City Hall and the Library in July 1986;
purchase of Wilson Park in 1989; finance the Memorial Park Expansion in 1990; and purchase the
Blackberry Farm and Fremont Older site in 1991. The Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation, as
lessor, leased real property to the City (under the Lease Agreement with the lessee) and assigned the
base rental payments to the trustee for the benefit of the owners of the certificates of participation. The
rental payments are scheduled to be sufficient in both time and amount, when the principal and interest
of the certificates are due.
On October 1, 2002, $56,640,000 principal amount of 2002 Refinancing and Capital Improvement Project
Certificates of Participation (2002 COPs), were issued to finance the costs of acquiring and constructing a
new public library and to refund the 1992A COPs, the 1992B COPS and the 1993A COPs (“Prior
COPS”). Payment of the principal and interest are insured by a financial guaranty insurance policy issued
by Ambac Assurance Corporation (Ambac). The reserve fund required for the 2002 COPs is funded
with a reserve fund surety bond issued by Ambac.
The 2002 COPs are payable by a pledge of revenues from the lease payments payable by the City
pursuant to the Lease Agreement between the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation and the City for
the use and possession of the Site and Facility as described in the Lease Agreement. The City also
covenanted in the Lease Agreement to include all lease payments in its annual budget. In the event that
insufficient funds are available to make the lease payments, payments will be made from an
apportionment of moneys to which the City is entitled from the Motor Vehicle Licenses Fee Account in
the Transportation Fund of the State of California. Total debt service payments remaining on the 2002
COPs is $67,121,456 payable through July 1, 2030. For the year-ended June 30, 2011, principal and
interest paid totaled $1,500,000 and $2,030,144, respectively, while total Motor Vehicle Licenses Fee
revenues received by the City totaled $4,664,084.
Annual debt service requirements for the 2002 COPs are shown below:
For the YearGovernmental Activities
Ending June 30,PrincipalInterest
20121,545,000$ 1,985,144$
20131,600,0001,934,931
20141,660,0001,870,931
20151,730,0001,804,531
20161,795,0001,735,331
2017-202110,250,0007,415,456
2022-202612,830,0004,834,444
2027-203012,600,0001,530,688
$ 23,111,45644,010,000$
108
49
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 7 - LONG-TERM DEBT (Continued)
(b) 1915 Act Bonds Without City Commitment
The City acts as agent for the property owners of parcels upon which assessments were made for local
improvements. The City collects the assessments and forwards the collections to bond holders. The
City is not directly liable for the repayment of special assessment district bonds as such bonds and
interest payable are secured by fixed lien assessments on real property; however, the City has
determined that it is not probable that the government would assume responsibility for all or part of the
debt in the event of default. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the City paid off the remaining
balance of the bonds in the amount of $35,000.
(c) Conduit Debt
On October 1, 2001, the City authorized the issuance of the Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds in an
amount up to $1.6 million to assist a developer in financing the cost of site acquisition and construction
of a 24 unit multi-family rental housing project. The bonds are payable solely out of loan repayments
received from the developer. The principal balance outstanding of the bonds and any accrued and
unpaid interest is due and payable on October 1, 2031. The City has no legal or moral liability with
respect to the payment of this debt. The amount of outstanding conduit debt principal at June 30, 2011
was $798,153.
NOTE 8 - NET ASSETS AND FUND BALANCES
Net Assets are measured on the full accrual basis while Fund Balance is measured on the modified accrual
basis.
Net Assets
– The government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements utilize a net assets
presentation. Net assets are categorized as follows:
Invested in Capital Assets, net of related debt – This category groups all capital assets including,
infrastructure, into one component of net assets. Accumulated depreciation and outstanding balances of
debt that are attributable to the acquisition, construction or improvement of these assets reduce the balance
in this category.
Restricted – This category represents net assets that have external restrictions imposed by creditors,
grantors, contributors or laws or regulations of other governments and restrictions imposed by law
through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. At June 30, 2011, the government-wide
statement of net assets reported restricted assets of $7,778,613 in governmental activities, of which,
$258,390 are restricted by enabling legislation.
Unrestricted – This category represents net assets of the City that do not meet the definition of “invested
in capital assets, net of related debt” or “restricted.”
109
50
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 8 - NET ASSETS AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
Fund Balances
– As prescribed by GASB Statement No. 54, governmental funds report fund balance in
classifications based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the
specific purposes for which amounts in the funds can be spent. Fund balances for governmental funds
are made up of the followings:
Nonspendable Fund Balance – includes amounts that are (a) not in spendable form, or (b) legally or
contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that
are not expected to be converted to cash, for example: prepaid items, land held for redevelopment and
long-term notes receivable.
Restricted Fund Balance – includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated
by external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation. Restrictions may
effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.
Committed Fund Balance – includes amounts that can only be used for the specific purposes determined
by a formal action of the City’s highest level of decision-making authority, the City Council.
Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the City taking the same formal action that imposed the
constraint originally (for example: resolution and ordinance). At June 30, 2011, the City did not have
fund balance classified as committed.
Assigned Fund Balance – comprises amounts intended to be used by the City for specific purposes that
are neither restricted nor committed. Intent is expressed by the City Council or official to which the City
Council has delegated the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes.
Unassigned Fund Balance – is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all amounts
not contained in the other classifications. Unassigned amounts are technically available for any purpose.
In circumstances when an expenditure may be made for which amounts are available in multiple fund
balance classifications, the fund balance in General Fund will generally be used in the order of
restricted, unassigned, and then assigned reserves. In other governmental funds, the order will generally
be restricted and then assigned.
The City Council has established reserve policy levels for various capital and contingency purposes.
These balances are reported as part of the governmental funds’ assigned fund balance as follows:
110
51
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 8 - NET ASSETS AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)
Fund balances for all major and nonmajor governmental funds as of June 30, 2011, were classified as
follows:
111
52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
(a) Federal and State Grant
The City participates in a number of federal and state grant programs subject to financial and
compliance audits by the grantors or their representatives. Audits of certain grant programs, including
those for the year ended June 30, 2011, have yet to be conducted. The amount, if any, of expenditures
that may be disallowed by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. Management
believes that such disallowances, if any, would not have a material effect on the financial statements.
(b) Encumbrances
The City uses encumbrances to control expenditure commitments for the year. Encumbrances represent
commitments related to executed contracts not yet performed and purchase orders not yet filled.
Commitments for such expenditure of monies are encumbered to allocate a portion of applicable
appropriations. Encumbrances still open at year end are not accounted for as expenditures and
liabilities, but as restricted or assigned fund balance. As of June 30, 2011, the City had the following
encumbrances outstanding:
(c) Lease Agreement with County of Santa Clara
The City has an agreement, expiring in 2019, to lease a building to the County of Santa Clara for the
purpose of providing library service to the City’s residents. The lease requires a minimum annual
payment of $120,000 adjusted for Cupertino’s portion of book circulation and increase of assessed
valuation. This is an operating lease with a renewable option. At June 30, 2011, the cost and carrying
value of the building which opened in October 2004, is $21,935,325 and $16,668,443 respectively, with
$5,266,882 in accumulated depreciation.
(d) Consulting Agreement for Sales Taxes
The City entered into agreements with two companies to provide services consisting of the assessment
and creation of new sales and use tax revenue sources for the City. The City agreed to pay the two
companies based on a sliding scale payment schedule dependent on the level of new sales tax revenue
realized by the City as defined in the consulting agreements. The agreement with one of the companies
expired on June 30, 2011 while the agreement with the other company will expire by June 30, 2012.
112
53
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
(e) Continuation of the Redevelopment Agency
In June 2011, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1x 26 (“AB1x 26” or the “Dissolution
Bill”) and Assembly Bill 1x 27 (“AB1x 27” or the “Continuation Bill”). The Dissolution Bill
immediately suspends all new redevelopment activities and incurrence of indebtedness, and dissolves
redevelopment agencies effective October 1, 2011. However, the Continuation Bill allows
redevelopment agencies to avoid dissolution by “opting” into an alternative voluntary redevelopment
program (“Voluntary Program”), requiring substantial annual contributions to local school and special
districts. On September 20, 2011, City Council adopted an ordinance to “opt into the Voluntary
Program” and will be required to make a contribution of $528,802 by January 15, 2012 for fiscal year
2011-12. Ongoing contributions of a lesser magnitude will be required going forward.
On July 18, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities, along
with certain other petitioners, filed a lawsuit asking the California Supreme Court to overturn AB1x 26
and AB1x 27 as they violate the Constitution of California. The California Supreme Court announced it
would hear the lawsuit and issued a partial stay suspending the effectiveness of AB1x 26 and AB1x 27
until it can rule on the constitutionality of these two bills. The Court allowed the Dissolution Bill to
remain in effect insofar as it precludes existing redevelopment agencies from incurring new
indebtedness, transferring assets, acquiring real property, entering into new contracts or modifying
existing contracts, entering into new partnerships, adopting or amending redevelopment plans, etc., but
it stayed enforcement of both statutes in all other respects.The Court also states in its order that “the
briefing schedule is designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision
before January 15, 2012,” which is the date that the Voluntary Program contributions are due. At this
time, due to the Court’s involvement, redevelopment operations are effectively placed on hold pending
the outcome of the litigation, including whether or not the City will make the contribution required
under the Voluntary Program.
(f) Housing Trust
Under Health & Safety Code Section 33334.3, the Agency is obligated to expend monies in the
Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
preserving the community supply of housing available at affordable housing cost to low and moderate
income households, lower income households, very low income households, and extremely low income
household. Under Health & Safety Code Section 33220, The Agency is authorized to enter into
agreements to assist the Agency in performing powers and obligations under the California
Redevelopment Law.
On February 15, 2011, the City and Agency entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (Trust). The
City and the Agency agreed to contribute $1,000,000 to the Trust from the Agency’s Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 and an amount not to exceed $250,000
annually for the next fifteen subsequent years. The Trust shall use the funds received exclusively for
eligible costs pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law while the City and the Agency will provide
on-going monitoring and complete all required reporting requirements to the State of California. For the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the Agency transferred $1,000,000 into the Trust and the expenditure is
recorded as part of community development expenditures in the basic financial statements.
113
54
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 10 - LIABILITIES UNDER SELF-INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT
(a) General and Property Liability
The City is self-insured for the first $250,000 of general and property liability for each occurrence, and
the excess (up to $10,000,000 for each occurrence and annual aggregate) is covered through the City’s
participation in the Association of Bay Area Governments Pooled Liability Assurance Network (ABAG
PLAN). The risk pool consists of 31 agencies within the San Francisco Bay Area. The stated purpose
of the ABAG PLAN is to provide certain levels of liability insurance coverage, claims management, risk
management services, and legal defense to its participating members. ABAG PLAN is governed by a
Board of Directors, which comprises officials appointed by each participating member. Premiums paid
to ABAG are subject to possible refund based on the results of actuarial studies and approval by the
Board of Directors. Complete financial statements for ABAG PLAN may be obtained from their offices
at the following address: ABAG PLAN, Finance Department, P.O. Box 2050, Oakland, CA 94604.
Premiums are revised each year based on the City’s claims experience and risk exposure. For the year
ended June 30, 2011, the City paid ABAG PLAN premiums of $182,583.
(b) Workers’ Compensation Liability
The City belongs to the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), a joint power authority which
provides excess workers’ compensation liability claims coverage above the City’s self-insured retention
of $500,000 per occurrence. Losses above the self-insured retention are pooled with excess reinsurance
purchased to a $50,000,000 statutory limit. EIA was established in 1979 for the purpose of creating a risk
management pool for all California public entities. EIA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of
representatives of its member public entities. Complete financial statements for EIA may be obtained
from their offices at the following address: CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, Finance Department,
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 200, Folsom, CA 95630. For the year ended June 30, 2011, the City paid
premiums of $50,033 to EIA.
It is the City’s practice to obtain biennial actuarial studies for the self-insured workers’ compensation
liability. The claims liabilities included in the workers’ compensation internal service fund is based on
the results of actuarial studies and include amounts for claims incurred but not reported and loss
adjustment expenses. Claim liabilities are calculated considering the effects of inflation, recent claim
settlement trends, including frequency and amount of payouts, and other economic and social factors.
Inflation of 2.5%, annual rate of return of 3%, claim severity increase at 2.5% were assumed. In the
current year, management used actuarial estimates based on an 80% confidence level.
Settlements have not exceeded insurance coverage in the past three years.
Changes in the balances of workers’ compensation claims liabilities during the years ended
June 30, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:
114
55
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN
(a) Plan Description
Substantially all City employees are eligible to participate in pension plans offered by California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), an agent multiple employer defined benefit pension plan
which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers.
CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death
benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. The City’s employees
participate in the Miscellaneous Employee Plan (Plan). Benefit provisions under the Plan are
established by State statute and City resolution. Benefits are based on years of credited service and
compensation. Audited annual financial statements are available from CalPERS at www.calpers.ca.gov.
(b) Funding Policy
The contribution requirements of plan members and the City are established and may be amended by
CalPERS. The City is required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate. Based on the
June 30, 2008 actuarial report, the Plan’s provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2011, are
summarized as follows:
The City covered 75% of the employees’ required payroll contributions for fiscal year 2011. The City
uses the actuarially determined percentages of payroll to calculate and pay 100% of the required
contributions to CalPERS. This results in no net pension obligations or unpaid contributions.
(c) Annual Pension Cost
The required contribution was determined as part of June 30, 2008 actuarial valuations using the entry
age normal method. The actuarial assumptions included (a) 7.75% investment rate of return (net of
administrative expenses), (b) projected annual salary increases ranging from 3.25% to 14.45% and (c)
3.25% per year cost-of-living adjustments. Both (a) and (b) included an inflation component of 3.0%.
The actuarial value of CalPERS assets was determined using techniques that smooth the effects of short-
term volatility in the market value of investments over a fifteen-year period. The excess of the total
actuarial accrued liability over the actuarial value of plan assets is called the unfunded actuarial accrued
liability. Funding requirements are determined by adding the normal cost and an amortization of the
unfunded liability as a level percentage of assumed future payrolls. Initial unfunded liabilities are
amortized over a closed period that depends on the plan’s date of entry into CalPERS. Subsequent plan
amendments are amortized as a level percentage of pay over a closed 20-year period. Gains and losses
that occur in the operation of the plan are amortized over a 30-year rolling period, which results in an
amortization of about 6% of unamortized gains or losses each year.
115
56
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN (Continued)
Recent Annual Pension Costs, which equal the Annual Required Contribution to CALPERS, were as
follows:
AnnualPercent of
Pension CostAPC
Fiscal Year(APC)Contributed
06/30/20091,835,521$ 100%
06/30/20101,841,350 100%
06/30/20112,088,898 100%
(d) Funded Status and Funding Progress
The CalPERS’ Board of Administration adopted updated actuarial assumptions to be used beginning
with the June 30, 2009 valuation. Nearly all of the demographic assumptions have changed, including
salary increase assumptions (3.55% to 14.45% depending on Age, Service, and type of employment)
and rates for mortality, disability, termination and retirement. As of the June 30, 2009 actuarial
valuation, the change in assumptions resulted in a $3.5 million increase in the unfunded actuarial
accrued liability for the City to be amortized over a closed 20-year period.
In June 2009, the CalPERS’ Board adopted changes to the asset smoothing method as well as changes to
the Board policy on the amortization of gains and losses in order to phase in over a three year period the
impact of the 24% investment loss experienced by CalPERS in fiscal year 2008-2009. The following
changes were adopted:
Increase the corridor limits for the actuarial value of assets from 80%-120% of market value to
60%-140% of market value on June 30, 2009.
Reduce the corridor limits for the actuarial value of assets to 70%-130% of market value on
June 30, 2010.
Return to the 80%-120% of market value corridor limits for the actuarial value of assets on June 30,
2011 and thereafter.
Isolate and amortize all gains and losses during fiscal year 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011
over fixed and declining 30-year periods (as opposed to the current rolling 30-year amortization).
As of the June 30, 2009 actuarial valuation, the change in “special” investment assumptions resulted in a
$2.7 million increase in the unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities for the City that will be amortized over
fixed and declining 30 year periods.
116
57
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 11 - DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN (Continued)
(e) Funded Status and Funding Progress (Continued)
The other significant actuarial assumptions used to prepare the City’s June 30, 2009 actuarial valuation
include the following:
CalPERS’ latest available actuarial data and funding progress are set forth below at their actuarial
valuation date as of June 30, 2009.
Actuarial valuations of an on-going plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and
assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Amounts determined
regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contribution of the City are subject to
continual revision as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made
about the future. The schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplementary information
following the notes to the financial statements, presents multi-year trend information about whether the
actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued
liabilities for benefits.
117
58
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 12 - OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)
(a) Plan Description
Permanent employees who retire under the City’s CalPERS retirement plan are, pursuant to their
respective collective bargaining agreements, eligible to have their medical insurance premiums paid by
the City. Retirees receive the amount necessary to pay the cost of his/her enrollment, including the
enrollment of his/her family members, in a health benefit plan provided by CalPERS up to the
maximum received by active employees in their respective bargaining unit.
The City contracts with CalPERS for this insured-benefit plan established under the state Public
Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The plan offers employees and retirees three
CalPERS’ self-funded options, setup as insurance risk pools, or offers various third-party insured health
plans. The plan’s medical benefits and premium rates are established by CalPERS and the insurance
providers. The City contribution is established by City resolution. Retirees and active employees pay
the difference between the premium rate and the City’s contribution. Premiums and City contributions
are based on the plan and coverage selected by actives and retirees, with the City’s potential
contribution ranging from zero to $1,326 per month per employee or retiree. The responsibility for
benefit payments has transferred to the insurers and the City does not guarantee the benefits in the event
of default by the insurers. A comprehensive annual financial report of CalPERS, inclusive of their
benefit plans, is available at www.calpers.ca.gov.
The City participates in the Public Agency Retirement System (PARS) Public Agencies Post Retirement
Health Care Plan Trust Program (PARS Trust), an agent-multiple employer irrevocable trust established
to fund other postemployment benefits. The PARS Trust is approved by the Internal Revenue Code
Section 115 and invests funds in equity, bond, and money market mutual funds. Copies of PARS Trust
annual financial report may be obtained from PARS at 4350 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Newport
Beach, CA 92660. A separate report for the City’s portion of the PARS Trust is available at the City’s
Finance Department.
An employee is eligible for lifetime medical benefits under the OPEB Plan, along with his/her spouse or
declared domestic partner at the time of retirement, if all criteria listed below are met:
The employee was hired or the City Council member was elected prior to August 1, 2004, and the
employee has five or more full-time years of service and the City Council member has five or more
years of elected service with the City of Cupertino; or
The employee was hired or the City Council member was elected on or after August 1, 2004, and
the employee has ten or more full-time and/or elected years of CalPERS service, five years of which
must be from the City of Cupertino; and
The employee is eligible for retirement as defined under the CalPERS retirement system; and
The employee retires from the City of Cupertino.
In addition, the eligible employee’s dependent children at the time of retirement who are under 23 years
old are eligible for medical benefits. In addition to extending the eligibility of dependents from age 23
to age 26 in accordance with the recent healthcare reform act, effective July 1, 2010, employees that
retire or resign from service with the City of Cupertino and who are not eligible for retiree medical
benefits can continue on the City’s medical and dental plans provided that they pay the premiums in full.
118
59
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 12 - OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) (Continued)
(b) Funding Policy
The contribution requirements to the OPEB Plan are established through budget adoption and may be
amended by the City Council. The cost of the benefits provided by the OPEB Plan is currently being
paid by the City on a fully pre-funded basis. The City has expressed intent to fully fund the annual
required contribution (ARC) each year. Based on the actuarial valuation date of January 1, 2011, the
annual required contribution rate is 14.20% of annual covered payroll. For the year ended June 30,
2011, the City contributed $2,000,000 to the PARS Trust and paid $688,723 in healthcare premium
payments to fully pre-fund OPEB Plan.
(c) Annual OPEB Cost
Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and
assumptions about the probability of occurrence of certain events far into the future. Examples include
assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined
regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions of the employer are subject
to continual revision as actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made
about the future.
The other significant actuarial assumptions used to prepare the City’s January 1, 2011 actuarial
valuation include the following:
119
60
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 12 - OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) (Continued)
(c) Annual OPEB Cost (Continued)
In addition, PEMHCA is a community-rated plan, where the same premiums apply for all plan
participants regardless of the presence or number of active employees. There is no implicit rate subsidy
in the premiums for pre-Medicare retirees.
The City’s annual OPEB cost and actual contributions to the OPEB Plan for the past three years are as
follows:
The City’s Net OPEB asset is recorded in the Retiree Medical Internal Service Fund and is calculated as
of June 30, 2011 as follows:
(d) Funded Status and Funding Progress
The latest available actuarial data and funding progress are set forth below at their actuarial valuation
date of January 1, 2011.
120
61
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 12 - OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) (Continued)
(d) Funded Status and Funding Progress (Continued)
Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as
understood by the employer and the plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the
time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and
plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are
designed to reduce effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value
of assets, consistent with long-term perspective of the calculations.
The schedule of funding progress, presented as required supplemental information following the notes
to basic financial statements, presents multi-year trend information about whether the actuarial value of
plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for benefits.
NOTE 13 – CONCENTRATION RISK
The City has an economic dependency on revenues generated directly or indirectly from one major
taxpayer. For the year ended June 30, 2011, more than 10% of the City General Fund’s total revenues
are derived from one taxpayer. The City’s operations would be adversely impacted if there are any
significant declines in revenues received from the taxpayer.
NOTE 14 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
(a) Land Held for Redevelopment
On July 1, 2010, the City entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with a
developer. In accordance with the DDA, the City will transfer the land held for redevelopment in the
amount of $615,000 to the developer at no cost for the purpose of developing four single-family
detached homes at an affordable price to very low income homebuyers. At September 13, 2011, the
City transferred the property to the developer.
(b) Credit Ratings Downgrade
On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s lowered its long-term credit rating on debt of the United States
government from AAA to AA+. That action affected Standard & Poor’s view of United States public
finance debt instruments that are directly or indirectly backed by the United States government. These
credit downgrades impact the credit risk associated with the City’s investments in U.S. Treasury
securities.
121
62
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Schedules of Funding Progress
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Schedule of Funding Progress – CalPERS Defined Benefit Retirement Miscellaneous Plan:
ActuarialActuarialAccruedAccruedPercentage
ValuationAssetLiability-Liability –FundedCoveredof Covered
DateValueEntry AgeUAALRatioPayrollPayroll
6/30/200750,157,077$ 59,241,300$ 9,084,223$ 84.7%10,751,350$ 84.5%
6/30/200854,571,233 65,337,134 10,765,901 83.5%11,009,984 97.8%
6/30/200957,934,851 74,955,504 17,020,653 77.3%11,668,964 145.9%
Schedule of Funding Progress –Defined Benefit Other Post Employment Benefits Plan:
UnfundedUAAL
ActuarialActuarialas
ActuarialActuarialAccruedAccruedPercentage
Asset
ValuationLiability-Liability –FundedCoveredof Covered
DateValueEntry AgeUAALRatioPayrollPayroll
1/1/2007-$ 21,981,544$ 21,981,544$ 0.0%11,118,000$ 197.7%
1/1/2009- 18,069,366 18,069,366 0.0%11,892,000 151.9%
1/1/20117,438,341 20,869,058 13,430,717 35.6%105.6%
12,724,000
122
63
This page left intentionally blank.
123
64
MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OTHER THAN THE
GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
This section is provided for the presentation of Budget-to-Actual Statements for the Public Facilities
Corporation Debt Service Fund. Although the fund is considered to be a major government fund, GASB
Statement 34 states that budget-to-actual information in the basic financial statements should be limited to
the General Fund and major Special Revenue Funds. All other major governmental fund schedules with
such information should be included as Supplementary Information.
Public Facilities Corporation Debt Service Fund - Accounts for the accumulation of resources for and the
payments of principal and interest on certificates of participation issued in 2002 to advance refund debt
that was previously issued to finance the City Hall, Library, Wilson Park and Memorial Park projects.
124
65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Public Facilities Corporation Debt Service Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Variance
Positive
BudgeActual(Negative)
t
Revenues:
Use of money and propert$ -2,000$ (2,000)$
y
Total revenues2,000 - (2,000)
Expenditures:
Debt service:
Principal 1,500,000 1,500,000 -
Interest and fiscal charges2,034,964 2,032,464 2,500
Total expenditures3,534,964 3,532,464 2,500
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures(3,532,964) (3,532,464) 500
Other financing sources:
Transfers i 3,533,0003,533,000 -
n
Change in fund balance36$ 536 500$
Fund balance, beginning of yea57,677
r
Fund balance, end of yea$58,213
r
125
66
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
All funds not considered as major funds on the Fund Financial Statements are consolidated in one column
entitled “Other Governmental Funds.” These nonmajor funds are identified and included in this
supplementary section and includes all of the City’s Special Revenue Funds and one Capital Project Fund.
The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are
legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes.
Storm DrainImprovement - Accounts for the construction and maintenance of storm drain
facilities including drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. Revenues were collected from
developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage sewer system.
Park Dedication - Accounts for the activity granted by the business and professions code of the
State of California in accordance with the open space and conservation element of the City’s
General Plan. Revenues of this fund are restricted for the acquisition, improvement, expansion
and implementation of the City’s parks and recreation facilities.
Environmental Management/Clean Creeks - Accounts for all activities related to operating the
non-point source pollution program.
Transportation - Accounts for the City's gas tax, sales tax and grant revenues and expenditures
related to the maintenance and construction of City streets. All revenue in this fund is restricted
exclusively for street and road purposes including related engineering and administrative
expenditures.
Housing Development - Accounts for the Federal Housing and Community Development Grant
Program activities administered through the County. Monies collected from developers that
mitigate the impact of housing needs are also included. Monies in this fund are governed by the
program’s rules.
Redevelopment Agency – Accounts for the Vallco project area and low and moderate income
housing funds.
Capital Projects Funds account for the financial resources committed to the acquisition or construction of
major capital facilities.
Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge – Formerly known as the Mary Avenue Bicycle
Footbridge. Accounts for the design and construction of a bicycle footbridge extension of Mary
Avenue over Interstate 280. It includes gateways, paths, residential buffering elements, and
landscaping.
126
67
CITY OF CUPERTINO
onmajor Governmental Funds
N
Combining Balance Shee
t
June 30, 2011
Special Revenue Funds
StormEnvironment
Housing
DrainPark Management/
TransportationDevelopmen
t
ImprovementDedicationClean Creeks
Assets:
Cash and investments 869,286$ 560,894$ 265,639$ 1,330,713$ 1,483,407$
Accounts receivable- - - 144,661 204,100
Intergovernmental receivable1,541 995 472 2,359 2,631
Loans receivable- - - - 775,834
Land held for housing development- - - - 615,000
Total assets870,827$ 561,889$ 266,111$ 1,477,733$ 3,080,972$
Liabilities and fund balances:
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals-$ -$ 2,805$ 126,192$ 229,120$
Accrued payroll and benefits1,380 - 4,916 11,363 5,119
Deferred revenue- - - 56,651 129,602
Total liabilities1,380 - 7,721 194,206 363,841
Fund balances:
Nonspendable- - - - 615,000
Restricted 561,889869,447 258,390 1,283,527 2,102,131
Assigned -- - - -
Total fund balances869,447 561,889 258,390 1,283,527 2,717,131
Total liabilities and fund balances870,827$ 561,889$ 266,111$ 1,477,733$ 3,080,972$
127
68
SpecialCapital
Revenue FundsProjects Fund
Don Burnett
RedevelopmentBicycle-
Total
AgencyPedestrian Bridge
$ 67,8941,191,827$ 5,769,660$
-- 348,761
-285 8,283
-- 775,834
-- 615,000
$ 67,8941,192,112$ 7,517,538$
$ 1,6925,607$ 365,416$
-5,996 28,774
-- 186,253
1,69211,603 580,443
-- 615,000
-1,180,509 6,255,893
66,202- 66,202
66,2021,180,509 6,937,095
$ 67,8941,192,112$ 7,517,538$
128
69
CITY OF CUPERTINO
onmajor Governmental Funds
N
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
s
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Special Revenue Funds
StormEnvironment
Housing
DrainPark Management
/
TransportationDevelopmen
ImprovemenDedicationClean Creeks
t t
Revenues:
Taxes20,101$ 110,250$ -$ -$ 23,939$
Use of money and propert 4,0306,350 738 11,017 28,892
y
Intergovernmenta -- - 1,427,463 638,134
l
Charges for services- 2,860 363,747 - -
Othe -- - - 15,000
r
Total revenues26,451 117,140 364,485 1,438,480 705,965
Expenditures:
Current:
Community developmen
-- - - 905,918
t
Public works82,142 - 394,680 605,858 -
Capital outla -35,087 - 2,258,515 -
y
Total expenditures117,229 - 394,680 2,864,373 905,918
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures(90,778) 117,140 (30,195) (1,425,893) (199,953)
Other financing sources:
Transfers in- - 135,000 750,000 -
Change in fund balances(90,778) 117,140 104,805 (675,893) (199,953)
Fund balances, beginning of yea 444,749960,225 153,585 1,959,420 2,917,084
r
Fund balances, end of yea 561,889869,447 258,390 1,283,527 2,717,131
r$$$$$
129
70
SpecialCapital
Revenue FundsProjects Fund
Don Burnett
RedevelopmenBicycle-
t
Total
AgencPedestrian Bridge
y
$ -1,251,777$ 1,406,067$
-13,025 64,052
-- 2,065,597
-- 366,607
-- 15,000
-1,264,802 3,917,323
-1,549,980 2,455,898
17- 1,082,697
53,625- 2,347,227
53,6421,549,980 5,885,822
(53,642)(285,178) (1,968,499)
-- 885,000
(53,642)(285,178) (1,083,499)
119,8441,465,687 8,020,594
66,2021,180,509 6,937,095
$$$
130
71
CITY OF CUPERTINO
onmajor Governmental Funds - Special Revenue Funds
N
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances -
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Storm Drain ImprovementPark Dedication
VarianceVariance
PositivePositive
BudgetActual(Negative)BudgetActual(Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes50,000$ 20,101$ (29,899)$ 1,500,000$110,250$ (1,389,750)$
Use of money and propert 6,35034,000 (27,650) 20,000 4,030 (15,970)
y
Intergovernmental- - - - - -
Charges for services- - - - 2,860 2,860
Othe -- - - - -
r
Total revenues84,000 26,451 (57,549) 1,520,000 117,140 (1,402,860)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development- - - - - -
Public works82,424 82,142 282 - - -
Capital outla 35,087982,701 947,614 - - -
y
Total expenditures1,065,125 117,229 947,896 - - -
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures(981,125) (90,778) 890,347 1,520,000 117,140 (1,402,860)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in- - - - - -
Transfers out- - - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)- - - - - -
Change in fund balances(981,125)$ (90,778) 890,347$ 1,520,000$117,140 (1,402,860)$
Fund balances, beginning of yea 444,749960,225
r
Fund balances, end of yea$ 561,889869,447$
r
131
72
Environmental Management / Clean CreeksTransportationHousing Development
VarianceVarianceVariance
PositivePositivePositive
BudgetActual(Negative)BudgetActual(Negative)BudgetActual(Negative)
$ --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ 23,939$ (46,061)$
7382,000 (1,262) 30,000 11,017 (18,983) 120,000 28,892 (91,108)
-- - 2,280,000 1,427,463 (852,537) 724,640 638,134 (86,506)
363,747365,000 (1,253) - - - - - -
-- - - - - - 15,000 15,000
364,485367,000 (2,515) 2,310,000 1,438,480 (871,520) 914,640 705,965 (208,675)
-- - - - - 1,463,281905,918 557,363
394,680529,115 134,435 726,808 605,858 120,950 - - -
-- - 3,696,004 2,258,515 1,437,489 - - -
394,680529,115 134,435 4,422,812 2,864,373 1,558,439 1,463,281905,918 557,363
(30,195)(162,115) 131,920 (2,112,812) (1,425,893)686,919 (548,641) (199,953) 348,688
135,000135,000 - 750,000 750,000 - - - -
-- - - - - - - -
135,000135,000 - 750,000 750,000 - - - -
$ 104,805(27,115) 131,920$ (1,362,812)$ (675,893) 686,919$ (548,641)$ (199,953) 348,688$
1,959,420153,585 2,917,084
$ 1,283,527258,390$2,717,131$
(Continued)
132
73
CITY OF CUPERTINO
onmajor Governmental Funds - Special Revenue Funds
N
Statements of Revenues, Expenditrues and Changes in Fund Balances -
Budget and Actual
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Redevelopment Agenc
y
Variance
Positive
BudgetActual(Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes1,256,000$ 1,251,777$ (4,223)$
Use of money and propert 13,02530,000 (16,975)
y
Intergovernmental- - -
Charges for services- - -
Othe -- -
r
Total revenues1,286,000 1,264,802 (21,198)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development2,249,849 1,549,980 699,869
Public works- - -
Capital outla -- -
y
Total expenditures2,249,849 1,549,980 699,869
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures(963,849) (285,178) 678,671
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in- - -
Transfers out- - -
Total other financing sources (uses)- - -
Change in fund balances(963,849)$ (285,178) 678,671$
Fund balances, beginning of yea1,465,687
r
Fund balances, end of yea$ 1,180,509
r
133
74
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
The Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one
department to other departments of the City on a cost reimbursement basis.
The concept of major funds does not extend to internal service funds because they do not do business with
outside parties. For the Statement of Activities, the net revenues and expenses of each internal service
fund are eliminated by netting them against the operations of the City departments that generated them.
The remaining balance sheet items are consolidated with these same funds in the Statement of Net Assets.
However, internal service funds are still presented separately in the Fund Financial Statements.
Information Technology - Accounts for the activities related to the maintenance and replacement
of the City’s technology infrastructure.
Workers’ Compensation - Accounts for the activities in support of the self-insured workers’
compensation program.
Equipment- Accounts for the activities related to the maintenance and replacement of the City's
vehicle fleet.
Compensated Absences and Long-Term Disability - Accounts for the activities related to the
City’s program for compensated absences payouts and long-term disability.
Retiree Medical - Contains funds set aside for other post employment retirement benefits.
134
75
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Net Asset
s
June 30, 2011
Compensate
d
Absences an
d
Information Workers'Long-Term Retiree
TechnologyCompensatioEquipmenDisabilitMedicalTotal
nty
Assets:
Current assets:
Cash and investments 2,675,622$ 1,941,121$ 1,694,075$ 198,748$ 840,308$ 7,349,874$
Accounts receivable- 9,000 - - - 9,000
Interest receivable4,744 3,418 3,004 352 1,489 13,007
Prepaid items17,948 - - - - 17,948
Total current assets2,698,314 1,953,539 1,697,079 199,100 841,797 7,389,829
oncurrent assets:
N
Advances to other funds- - 504,497 - - 504,497
et OPEB assets- - - - 4,565,406 4,565,406
N
Capital assets:
Depreciable, net of
accumulated depreciation297,357 - 635,330 - - 932,687
Total noncurrent assets297,357 - 1,139,827 - 4,565,406 6,002,590
Total assets2,995,671 1,953,539 2,836,906 199,100 5,407,203 13,392,419
Liabilities:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accruals17,893 - 5,505 - - 23,398
Accrued payroll and benefits16,888 769 9,729 - - 27,386
Compensated absences- - - 34,927 - 34,927
Claims payable- 388,594 - - - 388,594
Total current liabilities34,781 389,363 15,234 34,927 - 474,305
oncurrent liabilities:
N
Compensated absences,
net of current portion37,966 - 12,007 - - 49,973
Claims payable, net of
currrent portion- 1,263,359 - - - 1,263,359
Total liabilities72,747 1,652,722 27,241 34,927 - 1,787,637
et assets:
N
Invested in capital assets297,357 - 635,330 - - 932,687
Unrestricted2,625,567 300,817 2,174,335 164,173 5,407,203 10,672,095
Total net assets2,922,924$ 300,817$ 2,809,665$ 164,173$ 5,407,203$ 11,604,782$
135
76
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Internal Service Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Compensate
d
Absences and
Information Workers'Long-Term Retiree
TechnologCompensatioEquipmenDisabilityMedicalTotal
ynt
Operating reveneus:
Charges for service$ 412,5471,268,800$ 1,091,000$ 67,854$ -$ 2,840,201$
s
Operating expenses:
Salaries and related expenses504,206 23,554 368,328 122,806 1,870,000 2,888,894
Materials and supplies126,958 - 260,365 - - 387,323
Contractual services295,848 2,250 144,514 - 10,000 452,612
Insurance claims and premiu 294,890- - 72,139 - 367,029
m
Depreciatio -235,267 186,396 - - 421,663
n
Total operating expenses1,162,279 320,694 959,603 194,945 1,880,000 4,517,521
Operating income (loss)106,521 91,853 131,397 (127,091) (1,880,000) (1,677,320)
onoperating revenues:
N
Investment incom 13,44417,666 12,331 1,246 11,697 56,384
e
Income (loss) before transfer 105,297124,187 143,728 (125,845) (1,868,303) (1,620,936)
s
Transfers i -474,283 - 225,000 1,500,000 2,199,283
n
Change in net assets598,470 105,297 143,728 99,155 (368,303) 578,347
et assets, beginning of yea 195,5202,324,454 2,665,937 65,018 5,775,506 11,026,435
Nr
et assets, end of yea$ 300,8172,922,924$ 2,809,665$ 164,173$ 5,407,203$ 11,604,782$
Nr
136
77
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Internal Service Funds
Combinin Statement of Cash Flows
g
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
Comensate
pd
Absences an
d
Information Workers'Lon-TerRetiree
gm
TechnoloComensationEuimentDisabilitMedicalTotal
gypqpy
Cash flows from oeratin activities:
pg
Cash received from customer$ 403,5471,268,800$ 1,091,000$67,854$ -$ 2,831,201$
s
Cashaments to suliers for oods and services428,7782,250 -428,047 10,000869,075
pyppg()()()()()
Cashaments for emloee495,63323,436366,691104,563 2,688,7233,679,046
pypys()()()()()()
Cashaments for udment and claim- -278,895 -72,139351,034
pyjgs()()()
Cash flows rovided bused in
py()
oeratin activities344,389 98,966 296,262108,848 2,698,7232,067,954
pg()()()
Cash flows from noncaital financin activities:
pg
Transfers i -474,283 - 225,000 1,500,000 2,199,283
n
Cash flows rovided b noncaital
pyp
financin activities474,283 - - 225,000 1,500,000 2,199,283
g
Cash flows from caital and related financin activities:
pg
Acuisition of caital assets -161,969 -187,450 -349,419
qp()()()
Cash flows from investin activities:
g
Interest receive 10,02612,922 9,327 894 10,208 43,377
d
Net chane in cash and cash euivalents669,625 108,992 118,139 117,046 1,188,515174,713
gq()()
Cash and cash euivalents, beinnin of ear2,005,997 1,832,129 1,575,936 81,702 2,028,823 7,524,587
qggy
$ 2,675,622 $ 1,941,121 $ 1,694,075 $ 198,748 $ 840,308 $ 7,349,874
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year
Reconciliation of oeratin income loss to net cash
pg()
flowsrovided bused in oeratin activities:
py()pg
Oeratin income loss$ 91,853106,521$ 131,397$$127,091$1,880,000$1,677,320
pg()()()()
Adustments to reconcile oeratin income loss
jpg()
to net cash rovided bused in oeratin activities:
py()pg
Dereciation235,267 - 186,396 - - 421,663
p
Chane in assets and liabilities:
g
Accounts receivable- -9,000 - -9,000
()()
Preaid items1,149 - - - - 1,149
p
Net OPEB assets- - - - 818,723818,723
()()
Accountsaable and accruals7,1212,015 -23,168 -32,304
py()()()()
Accruedaroll and benefits2,644 118 482 - - 3,244
py
Comensated absences5,929 - 1,155 18,243 - 25,327
p
Claimsaabl 18,010- - - - 18,010
pye
Cash flows rovided bused in
py()
operating activities344,389$ 98,966$ 296,262$ (108,848)$ (2,698,723)$ (2,067,954)$
137
78
AGENCY FUNDS
All Agency Funds, representing all fiduciary funds of the City, are custodial in nature and do not involve
measurement of results of operations. Such funds have no equity since any assets are due to individuals
or other entities at some future time.
These funds are presented separately from the Governmental and Proprietary Fund Financial Statements.
Special district assessments held by the City, acting as an agent for bond debt service payments, comprise
City Agency funds. The City is not liable for the debt payments.
138
79
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Special Assessment District Agency Fun
d
Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilitie
s
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
BalanceBalance
July 1, 2010AdditionsDeletionsJune 30, 2011
Assets:
Cash and investment$ -118,241$ (36,838)$ 81,403$
s
Liabilities:
Deposits118,241$ -$ (36,838)$ 81,403$
139
80
STATISTICAL SECTION
140
NOTES
141
STATISTICAL SECTION
This part of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information as a context
for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required
supplementary information says about the City’s overall financial health. In contrast to the financial section,
the statistical section information is not subject to independent audit.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City’s financial
performance and well being have changed over time:
1.Net Assets by Component
2.Changes in Net Assets
3.Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
4.Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City’s most significant own-source
revenues, property tax:
1.Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property
2.Property Tax Rates – All Overlapping Governments
3.Principal Property Taxpayers
4.Property Tax Levies and Collections
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City’s current levels of
outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in the future:
1.Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type
2.Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt
3.Legal Debt Margin Information
4.Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment
within which the City’s financial activities take place:
1.Demographic and Economic Statistics
2.Principal Employers
Operating Information
These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in
the City’s financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs:
1.Full-Time Equivalent City Employees by Function/Programs
2.Operating Indicators by Function/Program
3.Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Sources
Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Reports for the relevant year. The City implemented GASB Statement 34 in 2002-03;
schedules presenting government-wide information include information beginning in that year.
142
81
This page intentionally left blank.
143
82
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt
June 30, 2011
(Unaudited)
2010-11 Assessed Valuation
$13,495,632,397
Less: Redevelopment Incremental Valuation
(119,068,401)
Adjusted Assessed Valuation
$13,376,563,996
Total Debt%City’s Share of
Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt:
6/30/2011Applicable (1)Debt 6/30/11
Santa Clara County334,900,000$ 5.042%16,885,658$
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone W-1405,000 5.272%21,352
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District650,224,288 13.812%89,808,979
West Valley Community College District213,049,346 0.644%1,372,038
Santa Clara Unified School District252,260,000 2.060%5,196,556
Fremont Union High School District265,975,108 29.730%79,074,400
Cupertino Union School District122,899,991 48.968%60,181,668
El Camino Hospital District143,805,000 1.392%2,001,766
Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefit Assessment143,160,000 5.042%7,218,127
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt2,126,678,733 261,760,544
Ratios to 2010-11 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt1.94%
Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt
Overlapping Debt:
Santa Clara County General Fund Obligations786,980,000 5.042%39,679,532
Santa Clara County Pension Obligations386,024,822 5.042%19,463,372
Santa Clara County Board of Education COP12,580,000 5.042%634,284
Foothill-De Anza Community College District COP21,215,000 13.812%2,930,216
West Valley-Mission Community College District General Fund Obligations56,120,000 0.644%361,413
Santa Clara Unified School District COP12,980,000 2.060%267,388
Santa Clara County Vector Control District COP3,800,000 5.042%191,596
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Park District COP131,003,031 7.743%10,143,565
Subtotal Overlapping General Fund Debt1,410,702,853 73,671,366
City of Cupertino Certificates of Participation
Direct Debt: 100.000%44,010,00044,010,000
Total Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt1,454,712,853 117,681,366
(2)
Combined Total Debt3,581,391,586$ 379,441,910$
Ratios to Adjusted Assessed Valuation:
Total Direct Debt ($44,010,000)0.33%
Combined Total Debt2.84%
State School Building Aid Repayable as of 6/30/11:
$-
Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city.
(1)
Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and (2)
non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Services
154
93
COMMUNITY PROFILE
162
NOTES
163
Cupertino owes its name and earliest mention in recorded history to the 1776 expedition led by the Spaniard, Don Juan
Bautista de Anza, from Sonora, Mexico to the Port of San Francisco to found the presidio of St. Francis.
Leaving the majority of the party of men, women, and children
in Monterey to rest from their travels, deAnza, his diarist and
cartographer, Petrus Font, and 18 other men pressed on through
the Santa Clara Valley in late March to their San Francisco
destination.
With the expedition encamped in what is now Cupertino, Font
christened the creek next to the encampment the Arroyo San
Joseph Cupertino in honor of his patron, San Guiseppe (San
Joseph) of Cupertino, Italy. The arroyo is now known as
Stevens Creek.
The village of Cupertino sprang up at the crossroads of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (now DeAnza Boulevard) and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. It was first known as West Side; but by 1898 the post office at the Crossroads needed a new
name to distinguish it from other similarly named towns. John T. Doyle, a San Francisco lawyer and historian, had given
the name Cupertino to his winery in recognition of the name bestowed on the nearby creek by Petrus Font. In 1904 the
name was applied to the Crossroads and to the post office when the Home Union Store incorporated under the name, The
Cupertino Stores, Inc.
Many of Cupertino’s pioneer European settlers planted their
land in grapes. Vineyards and wineries proliferated on
Montebello Ridge, on the lower foothills, and on the flat
lands below.
After 1906 a lot more than grape growing was going on in
Cupertino. Orchards were thriving and new businesses were
being started. In the late 1940’s Cupertino was swept up in
Santa Clara Valley’s postwar population explosion.
Concerned by unplanned development, higher taxes, and
piecemeal annexation to adjacent cities, Cupertino’s
community leaders began a drive in 1954 for incorporation.
Cupertino rancher Norman Nathanson, the Cupertino –
Monta Vista Improvement Association, and the Fact Finding
Committee played important roles in this movement.
th
Incorporation was approved in the September 27, 1955 election. Cupertino officially became Santa Clara County’s 13
City on October 10, 1955.
A major milestone in Cupertino’s development was the creation by some of the city’s largest landowners of Vallco
Business and Industrial Park in the early 1960’s. Of the 25 property owners, 17 decided to pool their land to form Vallco
Park, six sold to Varian Associates, a thriving young electronics firm, founded by Russell Varian, and two opted for
transplanting to farms elsewhere. The name Vallco was derived from the names of the principal developers: Varian
Associates and the Leonard, Lester, Craft, and Orlando families.
164
101
Cupertino, with a population of 58,302 and city limits stretching across 13 square miles, is considered to be one of the San
Francisco Bay Area’s most prestigious cities in which to live and work.
Economic health is an essential component to maintaining a balanced city, which provides high-level opportunities, and
services that create and help sustain a sense of community and quality of life. Public and private interests must be mutual
so that our success as a partnership is a direct reflection of our success as a community. The cornerstone of this
partnership is a cooperative and responsive government that fosters business and residential prosperity and strengthens
working relationships among all sectors of the community.
Our economic development strategies are tailored to address the specific needs of Cupertino. Because this is a mature,
and 90% built-out city, the focus is on business retention and revitalization. Business recruitment is site specific and
targeted to industries that enhance, rather than draw from, our existing business base.
Cupertino is home to many well-known high-tech companies, and offers a dynamic and exciting business climate. Apple
Inc., Verigy, Durect Corporation, and Seagate are headquartered in the city. DeAnza College, one of the largest single-
campus community colleges in the country, is another major employer.
The City’s proactive economic development efforts have resulted in a number of innovative, mutually beneficial
partnerships with local companies. The City strives to retain and attract local companies through active outreach and an
entitlement process that is responsive and customer oriented.
The Vallco shopping center includes Macy’s, JCPenney, and Sears as anchors and features many exciting entertainment
and eating venues. Shoppers can enjoy the latest shows at the AMC 16-screen theater, skating at the mall’s full-size ice
rink, and bowling at the chic and upscale Bowl Mor Lanes. They can begin or top off the evening with fine dining at the
critically-acclaimed Alexander’s Steakhouse or enjoy more casual cuisine at TGI Friday’s, Benihana’s, Dynasty Seafood
Restaurant, Fresh Choice, and the international food court. The city features many other stores and over 160 restaurants to
serve the local workforce and residents.
Four hotels occupy the city: Hilton Garden Inn, Marriott Courtyard, Cupertino Inn and the Cypress Hotel, operated by
the Kimpton Group. A fifth hotel with 123 rooms is ready to break ground on DeAnza Boulevard.
The City of Cupertino has a history of providing high-level municipal services to complement the sense of community
and quality of life enjoyed by our constituents. The City will continue to enhance and promote a strong local economy to
provide municipal services that make Cupertino a place that people are proud to call home.
165
102
The City of Cupertino operates as a general law city with a City Council-City Manager form of government. Five council
members serve four year, overlapping terms, with elections held every two years. The council meets twice a month on the
first and third Tuesday at 6:45 p.m. in the Community Hall.
The City has 163 authorized full-time benefited employee positions. City departments include Administration (City
Council, commissions, city manager, city attorney); Administrative Services (finance, human resources, information
technology, city clerk, neighborhood watch, emergency preparedness, code enforcement); Community Development
(planning, building, and economic development); Parks and Recreation; Public Works (engineering, maintenance,
transportation, solid waste, and storm drain management); and Public and Environmental Affairs. Police service is
provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, and fire service is provided through the Santa Clara County
Fire District.
Assisting the City Council are several citizen advisory commissions/committees which include housing,
telecommunications, fine arts, library, planning, audit, parks and recreation, bicycle and pedestrian, teen, economic
development, strategic planning, and public safety. Members of the volunteer boards are appointed by the City Council
and vacancies are announced so that interested residents may apply for the positions. Residents are kept informed about
city services and programs through the Cupertino Scene, a monthly newsletter; The City Channel, Cupertino’s
government access cable TV channel; and the city’s website.
HousingTax Rates and Government Services
The average sales price of an existing single-family home is Residential, commercial, and industrial property is
$1,000,324 as of 2011. appraised at full market value, as it existed on March 1,
1975, with increases limited to a maximum of 2% annually.
Community Health Care Facilities
Property created or sold since March 1, 1975 will bear full
Cupertino is served by the Cupertino Medical Clinic,
cash value as of the time created or sold, plus the 2%
NovaCare Occupational Health Services. Nearby hospitals
annual increase. The basic tax rate is $1.00 per $100 full
include Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Santa Clara,
cash value plus any tax levied to cover bonded
El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, O’Connor Hospital
indebtedness for county, city, school, or other taxing
in San Jose, Community Hospital of Los Gatos, Stanford
agencies. Assessed valuations and tax rates are published
Hospital in Palo Alto, and the Saratoga Walk-in Clinic in
annually after July 1.
Saratoga.
Retail Sales Tax: Santa Clara County: 1.25%; City: 1%;
Utilities
State General Fund: 5%; State Local Public Safety Fund:
Gas & Electric – Pacific Gas and Electric, 800-743-5000.
0.50%; State Local Revenue Fund: 0.25%; County
Phone – AT&T, residential service, 800-894-2355;
Transportation Fund: 0.25%. Total: 8.25%.
business service, 800-750-2355.
Cable – Comcast, 800- 945-2288. Assessed Valuation: (Secured and Unsecured)
Solid Waste & Recycling – Recology, 408-725-0420. Cupertino: $13,747,541,573 (7/1/11)
Water – San Jose Water Company, 408-279-7900 and County: $299,096,733,565 (7/1/11)
California Water, 650-917-0152.
Transportation
Sewer Service – Cupertino Sanitary District, 408-253-7071
Rail – CalTrain service to Gilroy and San Francisco, with
local station four miles north of city; Amtrak station is 10
miles south.
Air –Mineta San Jose International Airport 11 miles south;
San Francisco International Airport 30 miles north.
Bus – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
Highways – Interstate Route 280, State Route 85.
166
103
Facts and Figures
Population in City Limits 58,302
Median Household Income $131,517
Median Age 39
Sales Tax Rate 8.25%
Registered Voters 26,658
Democrats 10,023
Republicans 5,829
American Independent 366
Other 320
Decline to State 10,120
Top 40 Sales Tax Producers
First Quarter 2011
(In Alphabetical Order)
ArcSight Hewlett-Packard Sears
Alexander’s Steakhouse Insight Direct Shane Diamond Jewelers
Aeroflex High Speed JC Penney Shell Service Station
Apple Inc. Joy Luck Place Staples
Argonaut Window & Door Macy’s Symantec
Benihana of Tokyo Marina Foods Target
BJ’s Bar & Grill Michael’s Arts & Crafts TJ Maxx
California Dental Arts Mirapath TGI Friday’s
Chevron Service Stations Outback Steakhouse Union 76 Service Station
CVS Pharmacy Ricoh Valero Service Station
DeAnza College Campus Center Rohde & Schwarz Verigy
Dynasty Restaurant Rotten Robbie Service Station Verizon Wireless
Elephant Bar Ranch 99 Market Whole Foods
Scandinavian Designs
Demographic Information
Asian 63.3%
White, non-Hispanic 31.3%
Hispanic or Latino 3.6%
Black or African American 0.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 0.1%
Islander
Other.6%
167
104
Blackberry Farm
Blackberry Farm has been upgraded and restored to
improve the natural habitat for native trees, animals, and
fish. Improvements to the park include construction of a
new ticket kiosk, re-plastered pools, a new water slide,
bocce ball, horseshoe courts, and numerous upgrades to
the west bank picnic area. The park is located at 21979
San Fernando Avenue. Telephone: 408-777-3140.
The Blackberry Farm golf course is located at 22100
Stevens Creek Boulevard. Telephone: 408-253-9200.
The Quinlan Community Center Civic Center and Library
The City of Cupertino’s Quinlan Community Center is a The complex has a 6,000 square foot Community Hall,
27,000 square foot facility that provides a variety of plaza with fountain, trees and seating areas. City Council
recreational opportunities. meetings are held in the Community Hall as well as
Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation
Most prominent is the Cupertino Room - a multi-
Commission sessions.
purpose room that can accommodate 300 people in a
banquet format. Telephone: 408-777-3120. The 54,000 square foot library continues to be one of the
busiest in the Santa Clara County Library system. For
Cupertino Sports Center
more information call 408-446-1677.
The Sports Center is a great place to meet friends. The
McClellan Ranch Park
facility features 17 tennis courts, complete locker room
facilities, and a fully equipped fitness center featuring A horse ranch during the 1930’and 40’s, this 18-acre park
free weights, Cybex, and cardio equipment. A teen has the appearance of a working ranch. Preserved on the
center is also included as well as a child watch center. property are the original ranch house, milk barn, livestock
The center is located at the corner of Stevens Creek barn, and two historic buildings: Baer’s Blacksmith Shop,
Boulevard and Stelling Road. Telephone: 408-777-originally located at DeAnza and Stevens Creek, and the
3160. old water tower from the Parish Ranch, now the site of
Memorial Park. Rolling Hills 4-H Club members raise
Cupertino Senior Center
rabbits, chickens, sheep, swine, and cattle and a Junior
Nature Museum, which features small live animal exhibits
The Senior Center provides a welcome and friendly
and dispenses information about bird, animal, and plant
environment for adults over age 50. There is a full
species of the area. McClellan Ranch is located at 22221
calendar of opportunities for learning, volunteering, and
McClellan Road. Telephone: 408-777-3120.
enjoying life. There are exercise classes, a computer lab
and classes, language instruction including English as a
second language, and cultural and special interest
classes. The center also coordinates trips and socials.
The Senior Center is located at 21251 Stevens Creek
Boulevard and is open Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to
5 p.m. Telephone: 408-777-3150.
168
105
Winner of numerous state and national awards for excellence, our city’s schools are
widely acknowledged to be models of quality instruction.
Cupertino Union School District serves 18,000 students in a 26 square mile area
that includes Cupertino and portions of five other cities. The district has 20
elementary schools and five middle schools, including several choice programs.
Eighteen schools have received state and/or national awards for educational
excellence.
Student achievement is exceptionally high. Historically, district test scores place Cupertino among the premier public
school districts in California. The district is a leader in the development of a standards-based system of education and is
nationally recognized for leadership in the use of technology as an effective tool for learning. Quality teaching and parent
involvement are the keys to the district’s success.
The Fremont Union High School District serves 10,000 students in a 42 square mile area covering all of Cupertino, most
of Sunnyvale and portions of San Jose, Los Altos, Saratoga, and Santa Clara. The five high schools of the district have
garnered many awards and recognition based on both the achievement of students and the programs designed to support
student achievement. Four of five high schools in the district exceeded their state established achievement targets for the
2009 Academic Performance Index. District students are encouraged to volunteer and/or provide service to organizations
within the community. During their senior year, if students complete 80 hours of service to a non-profit community
organization, they are recognized with a “Community Service Award” medal that may be worn during their graduation
ceremonies.
Building on its tradition of excellence and innovation, DeAnza
Cupertino is served by two local
College challenges students of every background to develop their
institutions of higher education:
intellect, character and abilities; to achieve their educational goals;
DeAnza College and the University
and to serve their community in a diverse and changing world.
of San Francisco. In addition to
DeAnza College offers a wide range of quality programs and
these schools, Cupertino’s location
services to meet the work force development needs of our region.
offers easy access to Stanford
The college prepares current and future employees of Silicon
University, Santa Clara University
Valley in traditional classroom settings and through customized
training arranged by employers. Several DeAnza programs
and San Jose State University
.
encourage economic development through college credit courses,
short-term programs, services for manufacturers, technical
assistance, and/or recruitment and retention services.
169
106
Euphrat Museum of Art
The highly regarded Euphrat Museum of Art, at its new location next to the new Visual Arts and Performance Center at
DeAnza College, traditionally presents one-of-a-kind exhibitions, publications and events reflecting the rich diverse
heritage of our area. The Museum prides itself on its changing exhibitions of national and international stature,
emphasizing Bay Area artists. Museum hours are 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Telephone: 408-864-
8836.
Fujitsu Planetarium
Stargazers will have a Cupertino facility catering to their interests, the Fujitsu Planetarium on the DeAnza College
campus. It will host a variety of planetarium shows and events, including educational programs for school groups and
family astronomy evenings when it reopens for Saturday evening shows on September 25, 2010. For more information,
visit the website at www.deanza.edu/planetarium or call 408-864-8814.
Flint Center
The cultural life of the Peninsula and South Bay is enhanced by programs presented at the Flint Center for Performing
Arts located at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard at DeAnza College campus. The center opened in 1971 and was named in
honor of Calvin C. Flint, the first chancellor of the Foothill-DeAnza Community College District. The box office is open
10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Tuesday through Friday and one and one half hours prior to any performance. Box office: 408-864-
8816; administrative office: 408-864-8820.
Cupertino Historical Society
On May 2, 1966, the Cupertino Historical Society was founded as a non-profit organization by a group of 177 longtime
residents concerned about the rapid growth in the area and its impact on the quickly vanishing Cupertino heritage. On
March 30, 1990, the Society opened the Cupertino Historical Museum dedicated to the preservation and exhibition of the
city’s history. Through its exhibits the museum attempts to develop and expand the learning opportunities that it offers to
the ethnically diverse community of the City of Cupertino. The Society continues to build partnerships with the local
school districts to ensure that the history of Cupertino is offered as part of the educational curriculum. The Society is
located at the Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road. Telephone: 408-973-1495.
Farmers’ Market
Residents and visitors can visit the farmers’ market every
Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Vallco Shopping
Center parking lot next to Sears.
California History Center
The California History Center and Foundation is located on the DeAnza College campus. The center has published 37
volumes on California history and has a changing exhibit program. The center’s Stocklmeir Library Archives boasts a
large collection of books, a pamphlet file, oral history tapes, videotapes and a couple thousand student research papers.
The library’s collection is for reference only. Heritage events focusing on California’s cultural or natural history are
offered by the center each quarter. For more information, call 408-864-8987. The center is open September through June
9:30 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday.
170
107
NOTES
171
108
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Independent Auditor’s Reports,
Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and
Basic Financial Statements
For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
172
CITY OF CUPETINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report
................................................................................................................... 1
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
.............................................................................. 3
Basic Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Assets and Governmental Funds Balance Sheet ....................................................... 7
Statement of Activities and Governmental Funds Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ................................................................... 8
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balance - Budget and Actual:
Vallco Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................. 9
Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund ..................................................... 10
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ............................................................................................. 11
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of
Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
...................... 19
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance of California
Redevelopment Agencies and on Internal Control over Compliance
.............................................. 21
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations
........................................................................................ 23
173
Members of the Governing Board of
The City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Cupertino, California
Independent Auditor’s Report
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and each major
fund of the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (the Agency), a component unit of the City of
Cupertino (the City), California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise
the Agency’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Agency’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States
of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for
designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting related to the
Agency. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Agency as of June
30, 2011, and the respective changes in financial position thereof, and the respective budgetary
comparison for the Vallco Redevelopment and the Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue
Funds for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
As discussed in Note 1(g) to the basic financial statements, effective July 1, 2010, the Agency adopted the
provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance
Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions.
As discussed in Note 4(f) to the basic financial statements, the California State Legislature has enacted
legislation that is intended to provide for the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the State of
California. The effects of this legislation are uncertain pending the result of certain lawsuits that have
been initiated to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation.
174
1
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
November 10, 2011, on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting related to
the Agency and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grant agreements and other matters for the year ended June 30, 2011. The purpose of that report is to
describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the
results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on
compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis as listed in the table of contents be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by GASB,
who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in
an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures
to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our
inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic
financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because
the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any
assurance.
Walnut Creek, California
November 10, 2011
175
2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
This discusses the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency’s (Agency) financial performance. Please
read this document in conjunction with the accompanying Agency’s Basic Financial Statements.
As a component unit of the City of Cupertino (City), the Agency’s purpose is to eliminate blight in the
Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area), while ensuring an adequate stock of low and
moderate income housing in the City. The Project Area encompasses the Vallco Shopping Mall and the
“Rose Bowl” site south of the mall. The Agency can issue debt payable out of the property tax growth
expected to result from the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Agency may enter into development
agreements with developers and others to further its purposes. Twenty-five percent of the incremental
property taxes generated are earmarked for low and moderate income housing.
2010-11 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The Agency’s total net assets and fund balances stood at $1,180,509 as of June 30, 2011, a
decrease of $285,178 from the $1,465,687 of the prior year.
Total revenues of $1,264,802 were 5% less than the $1,329,358 results of last year.
Agency-wide expenses of $1,549,980 exceeded last year’s $617,006 expenses by 251%.
OVERVIEW OF THE BASIC COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
This report is in two parts:
1)Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and
2)The Basic Financial Statements along with the notes to the statements.
The Basic Financial Statements
The Basic Financial Statements comprise the Agency-wide and Fund perspectives. These two
perspectives provide different views of the Agency’s financial activities and financial position—long-
term and short-term.
Agency-wide Financial Statements
The Agency-wide Financial Statements provide a long-term view of the Agency’s activities as a whole,
and comprise the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net Assets
provides information about the financial position of the Agency, including all its capital assets and long-
term liabilities on the full accrual basis, similar to that used by private enterprises. The Statement of
Activities provides information about all the Agency’s revenues and all its expenses, also on the full
accrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues or expenses of each of the Agency’s
programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net Assets for the year.
All of the Agency’s services are considered to be governmental activities, consisting of community
development services. General Agency revenues such as incremental property tax increments support
these services.
176
3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
Fund Financial Statements
The Fund Financial Statements report the Agency’s operations in more detail than the Agency-wide
statements and focus on the short-term activities of the Agency’s major funds. The Fund Financial
Statements are on the modified accrual basis, which means they measure only current financial resources
and uses such as current revenues and expenditures, current assets, current liabilities and fund balances.
They exclude capital and other long-lived assets, long-term debt and other long-term liabilities.
The Agency’s Vallco Redevelopment Fund and the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are both
considered major funds. The funds are discussed further in the Analysis of Major Funds section.
Comparisons of budget and actual information are also presented as part of the Basic Financial
Statements.
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE AGENCY AS A WHOLE
This analysis focuses on the net assets and changes in net assets of the Agency as a whole, as presented in
the Agency-wide Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Activities.
Governmental Activities
Table 1 shows that the Agency decreased its net assets from $1,465,687 to $1,180,509. Incremental
property tax revenues decrease from $1,322,925 in 2009-10 to $1,251,777 in 2010-11.
The Vallco Redevelopment Fund’s cash balance grew from $628,166 to $1,028,197, while the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Funds cash balance decreased from $842,707 to $163,630.
Table 1
Governmental Net Assets at June 30
2011 2010
Cash and investments $ 1,191,827 $ 1,470,873
Interest receivable 285 -
Total assets 1,192,1121,470,873
Accounts payable 5,607-
Accrued payroll and benefits 5,9965,186
Total liabilities 11,6035,186
Net assets:
Restricted for low and moderate income housing redevelopment projects 163,915842,707
Unrestricted 1,016,594622,980
Total net assets $1,180,509$ 1,465,687
177
4
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
As shown in Table 2, the Agency has experienced a decrease in net assets in 2010-11 and increase in net
assets in 2009-10. The increase in community development expenses was mainly due to a $1 million
contribution to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust made during 2010-11 as discussed in Note 4(c) to
the basic financial statements.
Table 2
Governmental Activities
Change in Governmental Net Assets
2010-11 2009-10
Expenses
Community development $ 1,549,980 $ 617,006
Total expenses 1,549,980 617,006
Revenues
General revenues:
Taxes:
Incremental property tax 1,251,777 1,322,925
Investment income 13,025 6,433
Total general revenues 1,264,802 1,329,358
Total revenues 1,264,802 1,329,358
Increase/(Decrease) in net assets (285,178) 712,352
Beginning net assets 1,465,687 753,335
Ending net assets $ 1,180,509 $ 1,465,687
THE AGENCY’S FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The activities and balances at the total governmental funds level mirror the Agency-wide results.
Analyses of Major Funds
Vallco Redevelopment Fund
This fund accounts for incremental property tax revenue allocated to the Vallco Redevelopment Project
Area that was established in August 2000. It serves as the general fund for the Project Area, with
expenditures for the ongoing management and oversight of overall project area activities. The fund’s
name comes from the Vallco Shopping Mall that comprises most of the Project Area.
Excluding the 25% that is set-aside for low and moderate income housing purposes, current year tax
increment revenues decreased 5% to $938,833 compared to the $992,194 received in the prior year.
Supplemental taxes from propery value growth were earned last year.
Expenditures decreased 11% over last year, ending up at $549,980 for 2010-11. The statutorily required
pass-through of taxes to special districts, schools, and the County of Santa Clara decreased to $196,827
compared to $356,153 last year.
Because tax revenues exceeded community development expenditures, the Project Area’s redevelopment
fund balance increased by $393,614.
178
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
Due to a 2002 legal settlement, the Agency sets aside 25% of the tax increment revenue for future low
and moderate income housing projects sponsored by the Agency. This is higher than the state mandated
20% minimum.
In fiscal 2010-11, the Agency’s property taxes receipts for low and moderate income housing purposes
totaled $312,944 compared to $330,731 for the prior fiscal year, which is proportional to the decline in
overall taxes. The Agency made a $1 million contribution to the Santa Clara County Housing Trust
during 2010-11. The housing fund balance decreased from $842,707 to $163,915.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND MAJOR INITIATIVES
The financial prospects and future activities of the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency significantly
changed with State legislation in late June 2011 that suspended most redevelopment agency spending and
commitments statewide and called for the eventual elimination of such agencies. Agencies could only
continue if cities passed an ordinance directing annual payments of agency taxes to schools and special
districts. Cupertino passed such an ordinance on September 20, 2011. The Agency is due to pay $528,802
in fiscal 2011-12 and approximately one-quarter of that amount in subsequent years. However the state
legislation has been challenged in court by other organizations and agencies with a decision expected in
January 2012. Note 4f to the Basic Financial Statements supplies more information.
In February 2011, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
agreed that the Agency will contribute $1 million in 2010-11 and up to $250,000 per year for fifteen
subsequent years toward the Trust’s low and moderate income housing programs. Also in February 2011,
the Agency agreed to encumber up to $635,000 in redevelopment funds through 2014 to the Vallco
Shopping Mall for street and storm drain improvements if such funds are necessary to complete the
projects. Both agreements will continue to be honored in the event of Agency dissolution using property
taxes previously obligated to the agreements.
CONTACTING THE AGENCY’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This report is intended to provide a general overview of the Agency’s finances. Further information can
be obtained from the City of Cupertino’s Finance Department, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA
95014-3202, phone (408) 777-3220, or by visiting the City’s website at www.cupertino.org.
179
6
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Statement of Net Assets and
Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
June 30, 2011
Low and
ModerateTotal
VallcoIncomeGovernmentalStatement of
RedevelopmentHousing FundsAdjustmentsNet Assets
Assets:
Cash and investments1,028,197$ 163,630$ 1,191,827$ -$ 1,191,827$
Interest receivable- 285 285 - 285
Total assets1,028,197$ 163,915$ 1,192,112$ - 1,192,112
Liabilities:
Accounts payable5,607$ -$ 5,607$ - 5,607
Accrued payroll and benefits5,996 - 5,996 - 5,996
Total liabilities11,603 - 11,603 - 11,603
Fund balances/net assets:
Fund balances:
Restricted for low and moderate
income housing- 163,915 163,915 (163,915) -
Assigned for redevelopment
and other purposes1,016,594 - 1,016,594 (1,016,594) -
Total fund balances1,016,594 163,915 1,180,509 (1,180,509) -
Total liabilities and fund balances1,028,197$ 163,915$ 1,192,112$
Net assets:
Restricted for:
Low and moderate income housing
redevelopment projects163,915 163,915
Unrestricted1,016,594 1,016,594
Total net assets1,180,509$ 1,180,509$
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
180
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Statement of Activities and
Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
Low and
ModerateTotal
VallcoIncomeGovernmentalStatement of
RedevelopmentHousing FundsAdjustmentsActivities
Expenditures/expenses:
Community development:
Salaries and benefits196,081$ -$ 196,081$ -$ 196,081$
Materials and supplies226,466 - 226,466 - 226,466
Professional services127,433 1,000,000 1,127,433 - 1,127,433
Total expenditures/expenses549,980 1,000,000 1,549,980 - 1,549,980
General revenues:
Incremental property taxes938,833 312,944 1,251,777 - 1,251,777
Use of money and property4,761 8,264 13,025 - 13,025
Total general revenues943,594 321,208 1,264,802 - 1,264,802
Change in fund balances/net assets393,614 (678,792) (285,178) - (285,178)
Fund balances/net assets,
Beginning of year622,980 842,707 1,465,687 - 1,465,687
End of year$ 163,9151,016,594$ 1,180,509$ -$ 1,180,509$
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
181
8
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Vallco Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
Variance with
Budgeted AmountsFinal Budget
ActualPositive
OriginalFinalAmounts(Negative)
Revenues:
Incremental property taxes1,005,000$ 1,005,000$ 938,833$ (66,167)$
Use of money and property- - 4,761 4,761
Total revenues1,005,000 1,005,000 943,594 (61,406)
Expenditures:
Community development:
Salaries and benefits191,704 191,704 196,081 (4,377)
Materials and Supplies365,401 269,976 226,466 43,510
Professional Services57,745 788,169 127,433 660,736
Total expenditures614,850 1,249,849 549,980 699,869
Net change in fund balances390,150$ (244,849)$ 393,614 638,463$
Fund balance, beginning of year622,980
Fund balance, end of year$1,016,594
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
182
9
CITY OF CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
Variance with
Budgeted AmountsFinal Budget
ActualPositive
OriginalFinalAmounts(Negative)
Revenues:
Incremental property taxes251,000$ 251,000$ 312,944$ 61,944$
Use of money and property30,000 30,000 8,264 (21,736)
Total revenues281,000 281,000 321,208 40,208
Expenditures:
Community development:
Professional Services- 1,000,000 1,000,000 -
Total expenditures- 1,000,000 1,000,000 -
Net change in fund balances281,000$ 1,281,000$ (678,792) 40,208$
Fund balances beginning of year842,707
Fund balances end of yea$163,915
r
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
183
10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
(a) Financial Reporting Entity
The City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (Agency) was created under the provisions of the
California Health and Safety Code for the purpose of conducting economic development and
redevelopment activities, and rehabilitating property considered to be in a blighted condition. On
August 21, 2000, the City Council enacted and passed Ordinance 1850, establishing the
Redevelopment Plan for the Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). The
Project Area encompasses the Vallco (formerly named Cupertino Square) Shopping Mall and the
“Rose Bowl” site.
The Agency is a separate legal entity governed by the City Council sitting in a separate capacity as
the Redevelopment Agency Board (Board). City staff performs all administrative, accounting,
management, and budgeting functions. Since the City exercises significant control over the
Agency’s operations, the Agency is considered a blended component unit of the City and is included
in the City’s basic financial statements.
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Financial Statement Presentation
The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of
activities) report information on the Agency’s activities. For the most part, the effect of interfund
activity has been removed from these statements. The Agency is only engaged in governmental
activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues.
The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function
or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with
a specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants
who purchase, use or directly benefit from goods, services or privileges provided by a given function
or segment and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital
requirements of a particular function or segment. The Agency did not have program revenues for the
year ended June 30, 2011. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported
instead as general revenues.
The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement
focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are
recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of cash flows. Property taxes are
recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are
recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have been met.
Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources
measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon
as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available if they are
collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal year. Expenditures generally are recorded
when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures are
recorded only when payment is due.
184
11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
(b) Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued)
Property taxes and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered being
susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. All other
revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when the Agency receives cash.
The Agency may fund programs with a combination of cost-reimbursement grants, categorical block
grants, and general revenues. Thus, both restricted and unrestricted net assets may be available to
finance program expenditures. The Agency’s policy is to first apply restricted grant resources to
such programs, followed by general revenues if necessary.
The Agency reports the following two major governmental funds:
TheVallco Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund is used to account for tax increment revenues
and other sources and expenditures related to the development of the Project Area.
TheLow and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund is used to account for 25%
portion of the Agency’s tax increment revenues and other sources that are required to be set-
aside for low and moderate income housing and related expenditures.
(c)Budgetary Practices
The Agency follows the budgetary process of the City. Annually, the Board adopts a budget
effective July 1 for the ensuing fiscal year. From the effective date of the budget, the amounts stated
therein as proposed expenditures become appropriations. The Board may amend the budget by
resolution during the fiscal year. Encumbrance accounting is employed as an extension of the
budgetary process. Under encumbrance accounting, purchase orders, contracts, and other
commitments for expenditures are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable
appropriation. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are recorded as restriction or commitment of
fund balance because they do not constitute expenditures or liabilities, and are automatically
reappropriated to the following year. Unencumbered and unexpended appropriations lapse at year
end. Additional disclosures and information regarding the City’s budgetary practices is presented in
the notes to the City’s basic financial statements.
(d) Cash and Investments
The Agency’s cash and investments are pooled with the City’s cash and investment pool. The City’s
investment policy authorizes the City to invest in the State of California Local Agency Investment
Fund, federal agencies securities, U.S. treasury notes and bills, securities of the U.S. and other
government issues, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, negotiable and non-negotiable
certificates of deposit, repurchase agreements, medium-term corporate notes, and money market
mutual funds as permitted by City’s investment policy. Investments are stated at fair value. The fair
value of investments is determined annually and is based on current market prices. Investment
income earned by the cash and investment pool is allocated monthly among the funds based upon the
ending monthly balance of cash maintained by each fund.
185
12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
(e) Property Tax Increment Revenues
Incremental property tax revenues represent taxes collected on the Project Area from the excess
of taxes levied and collected over that amount which was levied and collected in the base year
(the year of the Project Area inception) property tax assessment.
The County of Santa Clara (County) assesses properties and bills for and collects property taxes
as follows:
SecuredUnsecured
Valuation/lien datesJanuary 1January 1
Levy datesOn or before November 1July 1
Due dates (delinquent after)50% on November 1 (December 10)July 1 (August 31)
50% on February 1 (April 10)
The term “unsecured” refers to taxes on personal property other than land and buildings. Secured
taxes are secured by liens on the property being taxed. The County bills and collects property
taxes and remits to the Agency its share of the amount levied less administrative fees.
(f) Net Assets
The government-wide financial statements utilize a net assets presentation. Net assets are
categorized as restricted and unrestricted.
Restricted Net Assets – This category presents external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors,
contributors or laws or regulations of other governments and restrictions imposed by law through
constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.
Unrestricted Net Assets – This category represents net assets of the Agency, not restricted for any
project or other purpose.
(g) Fund Balances
During the year ended June 30, 2011, the Agency implemented GASB Statement No. 54, Fund
Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. The objective to this Statement is
to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance
classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental
fund type definitions. This Statement establishes fund balance classifications that comprise a
hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints
imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds.
186
13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
At June 30, 2011, the Agency’s governmental funds’ fund balances include the following
classifications:
Restricted Fund Balance – includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes
stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or through enabling legislation.
Restrictions may effectively be changed or lifted only with the consent of resource providers.
Assigned Fund Balance – comprises amounts intended to be used by the Agency for specific
purposes that are neither restricted nor committed. Intent is expressed by the Board of Directors
or a official to which the Board of Directors has delegated the authority to assign amounts to be
used for specific purposes.
The fund balance of the Vallco Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund consists solely of funds
assigned to project area redevelopment and other purposes while the fund balance of the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund is entirely restricted to affordable housing purpose.
(h) Estimates
The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from
those estimates.
NOTE 2 – Cash and Investments
Investments in City’s Cash and Investment Pool
The City’s pooled investment account possesses the characteristics of a demand deposit account,
and consists of investments in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund, U.S.
treasury notes and bills, and money market funds as permitted by City’s investment policy. At
June 30, 2011, the Agency invested $1,191,827 in the City’s cash and investment pool.
As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising from rising interest rates, the
City’s investment policy limits investments in any security to a maximum remaining maturity of
five years at the time of purchase. At June 30, 2011, the City’s cash and investment pool has a
weighted average to maturity of 264 days and is unrated. Additional information regarding
custodial credit risk, interest rate risk and concentration of credit risk of the City’s pooled cash
and investments is presented in the City’s basic financial statements.
187
14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 3 – Risk Management
The Agency is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage and destruction of
assets, errors and omissions, and natural disasters. The Agency, as a component unit of the City,
was covered with respect to certain risks from the City’s commercial insurance policies.
Additional disclosures and information regarding the City’s insurance is presented in the notes to
the City’s basic financial statements.
NOTE 4 - Commitments and Contingencies
(a) Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
Under California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3), redevelopment
agencies are required to deposit a minimum of twenty percent of incremental property taxes
received into a distinct fund to set-aside funds for low and moderate income housing and related
expenditures. On January 22, 2002, the Agency settled a lawsuit challenging the formation of the
Project Area. Pursuant to the settlement, the Agency is required to set aside twenty-five percent
of incremental property taxes for low and moderate income housing activities. For the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2011, the Agency received $1,251,777 in incremental property taxes, of which
twenty-five percent, or $312,944, was deposited into the Agency’s Low and Moderate Income
Housing Special Revenue Fund.
(b) Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund Excess Surplus Calculation
Health & Safety Code Section 33334.12(g)(1) defines excess surplus to mean any unexpended
and unencumbered amount in an agency’s low and moderate income housing fund that exceeds
greater
the of $1,000,000 or the aggregate amount deposited into the low and moderate income
housing fund during the preceding 4 fiscal years.
As of June 30, 2011, the Agency does not have an excess surplus as computed as follows:
188
15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 4 - Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)
(c) Housing Trust
Under Health & Safety Code Section 33334.3, the Agency is obligated to expend monies in the
Agency’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund for the purposes of
increasing, improving, and preserving the community supply of housing available at affordable
housing cost to low and moderate income households, lower income households, very low
income households, and extremely low income household. Under Health & Safety Code
Section 33220, the Agency is authorized to enter into agreements to assist the Agency in
performing powers and obligations under the California Redevelopment Law.
On February 15, 2011, the City and the Agency entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement
with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
(the Trust). The City and Agency agreed to contribute $1,000,000 to the Trust from the Agency’s
Low and Moderate Income Housing Special Revenue Fund for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2011 and an amount not to exceed $250,000 annually for the next fifteen subsequent
years. The Trust shall use the funds received exclusively for eligible costs pursuant to the
California Redevelopment Law while the City and the Agency will provide on-going monitoring
and all required reporting requirements to the State of California. For the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2011, the Agency transferred $1,000,000 per agreement into the Trust and the
expenditure is recorded as part of the professional services on the Agency’s financial statements.
(d)Pass-Through Payments
Under the California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5), the Agency
is obligated to pass-through twenty percent of the gross tax increment received from the Project
Area to jurisdictions within the Project Area. In addition, the Agency is obligated to pass-through
an additional amount of tax increment as basic aid payments pursuant to California
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33676). For the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2011, the Agency recorded $196,826 in pass-through and basic aid payments to the
affected jurisdictions as part of the material and supplies expenditures on the financial statements.
(e) Encumbrances
The Agency uses encumbrances to control expenditure commitments for the year. Encumbrances
represent commitments related to executor contracts not yet performed and purchase orders not
yet filled. Commitments for such expenditure of monies are encumbered to reserve a portion of
applicable appropriations. Encumbrances still open at year end are not accounted for as
expenditures and liabilities, but as assigned fund balance. As of June 30, 2011, the Vallco
Redevelopment Special Revenue Fund had $635,000 in outstanding encumbrances for capital
projects related professional services.
189
16
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Notes to the Basic Financial Statements
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
NOTE 4 - Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)
(f) Continuation of the Redevelopment Agency
In June 2011, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1x 26 (“AB1x 26” or the
“Dissolution Bill”) and Assembly Bill 1x 27 (“AB1x 27” or the “Continuation Bill”). The
Dissolution Bill immediately suspends all new redevelopment activities and incurrence of
indebtedness, and dissolves redevelopment agencies effective October 1, 2011. However, the
Continuation Bill allows redevelopment agencies to avoid dissolution by “opting” into an
alternative voluntary redevelopment program (“Voluntary Program”), requiring substantial annual
contributions to local school and special districts. On September 20, 2011, City Council adopted
an ordinance to “opt into the Voluntary Program” and will be required to make a contribution of
$528,802 by January 15, 2012 for fiscal year 2011-12. Ongoing contributions of a lesser
magnitude will be required going forward.
On July 18, 2011, the California Redevelopment Association and the League of California Cities,
along with certain other petitioners, filed a lawsuit asking the California Supreme Court to
overturn AB1x 26 and AB1x 27 as they violate the Constitution of California. The California
Supreme Court announced it would hear the lawsuit and issued a partial stay suspending the
effectiveness of AB1x 26 and AB1x 27 until it can rule on the constitutionality of these two bills.
The Court allowed the Dissolution Bill to remain in effect insofar as it precludes existing
redevelopment agencies from incurring new indebtedness, transferring assets, acquiring real
property, entering into new contracts or modifying existing contracts, entering into new
partnerships, adopting or amending redevelopment plans, etc., but it stayed enforcement of both
statutes in all other respects.The Court also states in its order that “the briefing schedule is
designed to facilitate oral argument as early as possible in 2011, and a decision before
January 15, 2012,” which is the date that the Voluntary Program contributions are due. At this
time, due to the Court’s involvement, redevelopment operations are effectively placed on hold
pending the outcome of the litigation, including whether or not the City will make the
contribution required under the Voluntary Program.
190
17
This page left intentionally blank.
191
18
Members of the Governing Board of
The City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Cupertino, California
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of the City
of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (Agency), a component unit of the City of Cupertino, California, as
of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Agency’s basic financial
statements, and have issued our report thereon dated November 10, 2011. Our report includes an
explanatory paragraph indicating that the Agency adopted the provisions of Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions
and an emphasis of a matter regarding an uncertainty related to a recently passed State legislation. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management of the Agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City’s internal control over
financial reporting related to the Agency as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose
of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting related to the Agency.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over
financial reporting related to the Agency.
Adeficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or
detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the Agency’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the
first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control over
financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not
identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material
weaknesses, as defined above.
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Agency’s financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
192
19
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Governing Board of the Agency,
management, pass-through entities, and the State Controller’s Office and is not intended to be and should
not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 10, 2011
193
20
Members of the Governing Board of
The City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Cupertino, California
Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance of
California Redevelopment Agencies and on
Internal Control over Compliance
Compliance
We have audited the City of Cupertino Redevelopment Agency’s (Agency) compliance with the
requirements specified in the State of California’s Guidelines for Compliance Audits of California
Redevelopment Agencies issued by the State Controller’s Office, applicable to the Agency’s statutory
requirements identified below for the year ended June 30, 2011. Compliance with the requirements
referred to above is the responsibility of the Agency’s management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the Agency’s compliance based on our audit.
We conducted our compliance audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the State of California’s
Guidelines for Compliance Audits of California Redevelopment Agencies (Guidelines), issued by the State
Controller’s Office, as interpreted in the Auditing Procedures for Accomplishing Compliance Audits of
California Redevelopment Agencies, August 2011, issued by the Governmental Accounting and Auditing
Committee of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards and the Guidelines
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance
with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a material effect on the statutory
requirements listed below occurred. An audit includes examining on a test basis, evidence about the
Agency’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
audit does not provide a legal determination of the Agency’s compliance with those requirements.
In connection with the audit referred to above, we selected and tested transactions and records to
determine the Agency’s compliance with the state laws and regulations applicable to Financial Disclosure
and Reporting; Affordable Housing; Five-Year Implementation Plans; Redevelopment Plans; Public
Notification; and Conflict of Interest identified in the Guidelines.
The results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance in which the Agency did not
file a complete fiscal statement as required by Health and Safety Code Sections 33080.1 and 33080.5 and
complete a Five-Year Implementation Plan (Plan) within five years from the adoption of the Agency’s
last Plan which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and recommendations as items
2011-A and 2011-B.
In our opinion, except for the noncompliance described in the preceding paragraph, the Agency complied,
in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that are applicable to the
statutory requirements of the Agency for the year ended June 30, 2011.
194
21
Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the Agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance and with the compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our
audit, we considered the Agency’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures
for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on
the effectiveness of the Agency’s internal control over compliance.
Adeficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent
or detect and correct noncompliance on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over
compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that
there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a compliance requirement will not be
prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be
deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control over compliance. We did
not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material
weaknesses, as defined above.
The Agency’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying
schedule of findings and recommendations. We did not audit the Agency’s responses and, accordingly,
we express no opinion on the responses.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Governing Board of the Agency,
management, and the State Controller’s Office and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
November 10, 2011
195
22
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
2011-A Noncompliance with Health and Safety Code – Fiscal Statement
Criteria
The California Health and Safety Code Sections 33080.1 and 33080.5 require redevelopment agencies to
file a fiscal statement to its legislative body within six months of the end of the agency’s fiscal year. The
fiscal statement should include the financial transactions report required pursuant to Section 53891 of the
Government Code.
Condition
The Agency did not include the financial transactions report required pursuant to Section 53891 of the
Government Code in the fiscal statement submitted to its governing board on December 7, 2010.
Cause
The Agency was not aware of the specific compliance requirement to include the financial transactions
report in the fiscal statement submission in addition to its annual financial statements.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Agency review the State of California’s Guidelines for Compliance Audits of
California Redevelopment Agencies issued by the State Controller’s Office dated June 2011 and prepare
and file all required reports and statements by the due dates.
Management Response
The Agency will include the financial transactions report in the Agency’s fiscal year 2011 fiscal statement
submission to the Board.
196
23
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Schedule of Findings and Recommendations
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
2011-B Noncompliance with Health and Safety Code – Implementation Plan
Criteria
The California Health and Safety Code Sections 33490 and 33413(b) require redevelopment agencies to
produce implementation plans for each project area every five years and have the first plan adopted by
December 31, 1994, or within five years following the adoption of the redevelopment plan in cases under
which the redevelopment plans were adopted on or after January 1, 1994. Redevelopment agencies are
required to adopt an implementation plan each five years thereafter.
Condition
The Agency most recently adopted its Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Agency Implementation Plan on
December 6, 2006. A new implementation plan was due by December 5, 2010, but had not been
completed to date.
Cause
The Agency was aware of the compliance requirement but did not prepare nor adopt a new 5-year
implementation plan due to the uncertainty of the State’s budget.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Agency prepare and adopt a new 5-year implementation plan in order to be in
compliance with the California Health and Safety Code regarding implementation plans.
Management Response
The Agency prepared a draft 5-year implementation plan in fiscal year 2011. As a result, we disagree
with this recommendation based on direction from Agency legal counsel to postpone adoption of the new
plan until the courts decide on the constitutionality of the new laws regarding the elimination or
continuation of redevelopment agencies.
197
24
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying
Agreed-Upon Procedures Related to
the Article XIII-B Appropriations Limit
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
212
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Cupertino, California
Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying
Agreed-Upon Procedures Related to
the Article XIII-B Appropriations Limit
We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying Appropriations Limit
Worksheet of the City of Cupertino, California (City), for the year ended June 30, 2011. These procedures,
which were agreed to by the City and the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication
entitledAgreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B
of the California Constitution), were performed solely to assist the City in meeting the requirements of
Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. The City’s management is responsible for the
Appropriations Limit Worksheet. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance
with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The
sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report.
Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below
either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
The procedures performed and our findings were as follows:
1.We obtained the completed worksheets setting forth the calculations necessary to establish the
City’s appropriations limit and compared the limit and annual adjustment factors included in
those worksheets to the limit and annual adjustment factors that were adopted by resolution of the
City Council. We also compared the population and inflation options included in the
aforementioned worksheets to those that were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
2.For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet, we added last year’s limit to total
adjustments, and compared the resulting amount to this year’s limit.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
3.We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit
Worksheet to the worksheets described in No. 1 above.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
4.We compared the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations
Limit Worksheet to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council.
Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.
213
We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the
expression of an opinion on the Appropriations Limit Worksheet. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that
would have been reported to you. No procedures have been performed with respect to the determination
of the appropriations limit for the base year, as defined by Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor, City Council, and City’s
management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Walnut Creek, California
August 15, 2011
214
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Appropriations Limit Worksheet
For the Year Ended June 30, 2011
215
CITY OF CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2011
1. Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation fee
(A) Description and Amount: An in-lieu fee collected on new resi
hotel, and retail development in order to address impact on af
Fee was $2.67 per sq ft on residential, $5.08 per sq ft on off
and retail, and $2.54/sq ft in the Planned Industrial Zone for
(B) Fees collected in FY 10/1123,939
BMR settlement received15,000
(C) Beginning of year balance668,699
End of year balance527,541
(D) Interest earned4,319
(E) Expenditures: $184,416 including Santa Clara County Housing
legal and professional services 25k, staff and administrat
WVCS affordable housing placement 75k, and Project Sentine
2. Park Dedication fee
(A) Description: Fee collected on new residential developments f
improvement, and maintenance of parks and recreation facili
(B) Fees collected in FY 10/11110,250
(C) Beginning of year balance440,912
End of year balance555,156
(D) Interest earned3,994
(E) Expenditures: no expenditure currrent fiscal year.
3. N.Stelling/I-280 bridge pedestrian lighting & upgrades
(A) Description: Developer contribution for City to enhance pede
along North Stelling Road bridge.
(B) Amount collected during year----
(C) Beginning and end of year balances -
From Villa Serra 25,000
From Las Palmas 25,000
(D) No expenditures. Project on hold until sufficient funding fo
216
CITY OF CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2011
4. DeAnza/McClellan /Pacifica signal modification
(A) Description: Reconfigurate the intersection to address effic
and traffic flow.
(B) Amount collected during year----
(C) Beginning and end of year balance:
From Cupertino Town Center 145,700
(D) No expenditures. Project on hold until sufficient funding fo
217
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Municipal Improvements, Verona Apartments, 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN369-01-
029.
Recommended Action
Accept Municipal Improvements.
Discussion
The applicant hascompleted City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including
sidewalk, curb & gutter, and driveway approachas required by the improvement agreement with
the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by:Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A-Map
218
20271
20270
20261
ATTACHMENTA
20260
20251
10020
20250
20301
20425
10002
20401
20279
20311
20269
20245
20490
20488
20300
10050
20400
20350
20450
10199
10201
10203
10205
10200
10207
10209
20380
10211
10213
10227
10229
10231
10233
10235
10237
10239
10241
10247
20323
20285
10249
10251
20283
20321
10253
10255
10257
10259
10261
20304
20290
10201
20328
20310
20326
20312
10251
10275
10301
Subject:MunicipalImprovements,VeronaApartments,20488StevensCreekBoulevard.
2038020370
2043020410
10285
0311
RecommendedAction:AcceptMunicipalImprovements
10295
¯
219
10305
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
City Project, Energy Savings Performance Contractwith Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.
Recommended Action
Accept City project.
Discussion
The City’s contractor, Siemens, has completed work on the Energy Savings Performance
Contract. The original project provided for the induction retrofit of up to 2,950 City owned street
lights and up to 111 irrigation controllers. Actual inventory of street lights and irrigation
controllers was less –2,913 and 92, respectively. This resulted in the contract amount being
reduced by over $153,000. This project was substantially completed by Siemens in May 2011.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has verified the completed work and is in the process of
reconciling the inventories of street lights prior to this project and calculating the retroactive
credit for energy savings that have accrued since the installation. PG&E has committed to
reconciling any prior billing discrepancies and to credit the City savings for each streetlight
retrofitted to induction lighting from the month of the install date. Streetlight retrofit installation
occurred in the months of December 2010 through May 2011.
___________________________________
Preparedby: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works
Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
220
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
AmendJuly 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 terms and conditions of employment for the
Cupertino Unrepresented (Management and Confidential) Employees.
Recommended Action
AdoptResolution.
Description
Delete the classification of City Architectand add the classification of Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Manager.
Discussion
The City currently has two year agreements in place with the Cupertino Employees
Association (CEA),the association representing clerical, technical and professional
employees,Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (OE3), the bargaining
unit representing public works maintenance employees, Unrepresented (Management and
Confidential) Employees and City Attorney Employees. The negotiated packages expire
on June 30,2012.
Anamendmentisproposed that affectsthe Cupertino Unrepresented (Management and
Confidential) Employee group only, which is to change the title for the position of City
Architectto that of Capital Improvement Program (CIP)Manager. The unrepresented
group is not a bargaining unit so it is not necessary to formally discuss this proposed
change. This change will more appropriately reflect the current job duties of this position
which is to deliver a large and varied range of smaller capital projects. In our recent past,
the City Architect title was necessary to day to day technical expertise in delivering large
capital projects such as the library, Community Hall, and the Mary Avenue Bridge.If
these architectural services are needed in our future, it is expected that the CIP manager
would contract to that temporary need.
Our survey of other cities indicate that this title change will not affect the salary scale and
no proposal is being made to change salary or benefits asa result of this title change, with
the exception being todelete the car allowance, which has been our recent practice for
non-Department Head positions as they become vacant.
221
The following resolutionisrecommended to implement the above terms and conditions
of employment:
a.Amending the Unrepresented (Management and Confidential) Employees’
Compensation Program,Resolution No. 12-.
Prepared by:Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services
Timm Borden,Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A: Draft Resolution Amending Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program
A-1: Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program
2
222
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION 12-______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10-127,
UNREPRESENTED (MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL) EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Unrepresented Employees’Compensation
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Unrepresented Compensation Program be
amended as shown in Attachment “A-1” which is incorporated in this resolution by this
reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
th
this17day of January2012by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
__________________________________________________
Grace Schmidt,Acting City ClerkMark Santoro,Mayor
223
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 1
PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY
It is City of Cupertino policy that those certain persons holding positions hereinafter
defined and designated either as management or confidential positions shall be eligible for
participation under the Unrepresented Employees Compensation Program as hereby adopted by
action of the City Council and as same may be amended or as otherwise modified from time to
time.
It is thestated purpose of this Compensation Program to give recognition to and to
differentiate those eligible employees from represented employees who achieve economic gain
and other conditions of employment through negotiation. It is the intent that through this policy
and those which are adopted or as may be modified or rescinded from time to time such
recognition may be given.
Eligibility for inclusion with this Compensation program is limited to persons holding
positions as management or confidential employees as defined under section 2.52.290 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code. These are as designated by the Appointing Authority and may be
modified as circumstances warrant.
Although subject to change in accordance with provision of the Personnel Code, the
positions in the following classifications have been designated as unrepresented.
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS:
Classification Title
AccountantDirector of Administrative Services
Accounting TechnicianDirector of Community Development
Administrative AssistantDirector of Parks and Recreation
Asst. Director of Public Works –EngineeringDirector of Public Works
Asst. Director of Public Works -MaintenanceEnvironmental Affairs Coordinator
Building OfficialEnvironmental Programs Manager
City ArchitectExecutive Assistant to the City Manager
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager Finance Director
City ClerkGIS Coordinator
City ManagerHuman Resources Analyst
City PlannerHuman Resources Director
Community Relations CoordinatorHuman Resources Technician
Deputy City AttorneyInformation Technology Manager
Deputy City Clerk
1
224
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS (Continued)
Legal Services Manager
Network Specialist
Park Planner
Public and Environmental Affairs Director
Public Works Projects Manager
Public Works Supervisor
Recreation Supervisor
Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager
Senior Civil Engineer
Senior Recreation Supervisor
Web Specialist
In the event of any inconsistency between the Compensation Program and any Employment
Contracts, the provisions of the Employment Contract and any amendments thereto control.
Adopted by Action of the
City Council, April 1, 1974
Revised 10/74, 3/78, 6/81, 6/82, 7/85, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90, 4/91, 5/91,
7/92, 6/95, 6/96, 7/99, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 04/07, 7/10, 6/11
2
225
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 2
SALARY SCHEDULE
AND OTHER SALARY RATES
It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall
be compensated for services rendered to and on behalf of the City on the basis of equitably of pay
for duties and responsibilities assigned, meritorious service and comparability with similar work
in other public and private employment in the same labor market; all of which is contingent upon
the City’s ability to pay consistent with its fiscal policies.
As rates of pay are developed through meet and confer processes subject to the underlying
provisions of the Pay Plan for administration purposes, so are those rates of pay included herein
as a part of this Compensation program. The inclusion herein of said rates and schedules does
not affect any effective dates or otherwise reflect on the approval processes required but is shown
as an integral part of this Program for completeness of record.
Adopted by Action
of the City Council
April 1, 1974
Revised 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 7/92, 6/95
3
226
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 3
TRAINING AND CONFERENCES
I. POLICY
A.Management Personnel
It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall be
reimbursed or receive advances in accordance with the schedules, terms and conditions as set
forth herein for attendance at conferences, meetings and training sessions as defined below
for each. It is the intent of this policy to encourage the continuing education and awareness
of said persons in the technical improvements and innovations in their fields of endeavor as
they apply to the City or to implement a City approved strategy for attracting and retaining
businesses in the City. One means of implementing this encouragement is through a formal
reimbursement and advanceschedule for authorized attendance at such conferences, meetings
and training sessions.
B.Non-Management Personnel
When authorized by theirsupervisor, a non-management person may attend a conference,
meeting or training session subject to the stated terms and conditions included herein for each
with payment toward or reimbursement of certain expenses incurred as defined below for
each.
IIDEFINITIONS
A.Conferences
A conference is an annual meeting of a work related organization the membership of which
may be held in the name of the City orthe individual.
B.Local Area
The local area is defined to be within Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties and within a 40-
mile distance from Cupertino when traveling to Alameda County.
C.Meetings
A “meeting” shall mean a convention, conference, seminar, workshop, meal, or like assembly
having to do with municipal government operations. An employee serving on a panel for
interviews of job applicants shall not come under this definition.
4
227
D.Training Session
A training session is anytype of seminar or workshop the attendance at which is for the
purpose of obtaining information of a work related nature to benefit the City’s operations or
to enhance the attendee’s capabilities in the discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities.
IIIREIMBURSEMENT AND ADVANCE PAYMENTSCHEDULE
A. Intent
This schedule is written with the intent that the employee will make every effort to find the
lowest possible cost to the City for traveling on City business. For example, if paying for
parking at the airport is less expensive that paying for a taxi or airport shuttle, then the
employee should drive their car and park at the airport; or if renting a car is lower than taking
taxis at the out-of-town location, then a car should be rented; or air reservations should be
booked in advance to obtain discounted fares. The following procedures apply whether the
expense is being paid through a reimbursement or a direct advance.
B.Registration
Registration fees for authorized attendance at a meeting or training session will be paid by the
City.
C.Transportation
The City will pay transportation costs on the basis of the lowest cost intent stated in
paragraph A. Eligible transportation costs include airfare (with coach fare being the
maximum), van or taxiservice to and from the attendee’s home and airport, destination or
airport parking charges, taxi and shuttle services at the out-of-town location, trains, tolls, or
rental cars. Use of a personal automobile for City business shall be reimbursed or advanced at
the rate per mile in effect for such use, except in no case shall it exceed air coach fare if the
vehicle is being used for getting to the destination. Government or group rates offered by a
provider of transportation must be used when available.
Reimbursement or advancesfor use of a personal automobile on City business within a local
area will not be made so as to supplement that already being paid to those persons receiving a
monthly mileage allowance.
D.Lodging
Hotel or lodging expenses of theemployee resulting from the authorized event or activity
defined in this policy will be reimbursed or advanced if the lodging and event occurs outside
of the local area. Not covered will be lodging expenses related to person(s) who are
accompanying the City member, but who themselves are not on City business. In this
instance, for example, the difference between single and multiple occupancy rates for a room
will not be reimbursed.
5
228
Where the lodging is in connection with a conference or other organized educational activity,
City-paid lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the
conference or activity sponsor, providing that lodging at the group rate is available at the time
of booking. If the group rate at the conference hotel isnot available, then the non-conference
lodging policy described in the next paragraph should be followed to find another comparable
hotel.
Where lodging is necessary for an activity that is not related to a conference or other
organized educational activity, reimbursement or advances shall be limited to the actual cost
of the room at a group or government rate. In the event that a group or government rate is not
available, lodging rates that do not exceed the median price for lodging for that area andtime
period listed on travel websites like www.hotels.com,www.expedia.comor an equivalent
service shall be eligible for reimbursement or advancement.
E.Meals
1.With No Conference
Payments toward or reimbursement of meals related to authorized activities or events
shall be at the Internal Revenue Service per diem rate for meals and incidental expenses
for a given location, as stated by IRS publications 463 and 1542 and by the U.S. General
Services Administration. The per diem shall be split among meals as reasonably desired
and reduced accordingly for less than full travel days. If per diem is claimed, no receipts
are necessary. Alternatively, the actual cost of a meal can be claimed, within a standard of
reasonableness, but receipts must be kept and submitted for the expense incurred.
2.As Part of a Conference
When City personnel are attending a conference or other organized educational activity,
they shall be reimbursed or advanced for meals not provided by the activity, on a per
diem or actual cost basis. The per diem and actual cost rate shall follow the rules
described in the meals with no conference paragraph.
F.Other Expenses
Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses at such functions shall be limited to the
actual costs consistent with the application of reasonable standards.
Other reasonable expenses related to business purposes shall be paid consistent with this
policy.
No payments shall be made unless, where available, receipts are kept and submitted for all
expenses incurred. When receipts are not available, qualifying expenditures shall be
reimbursed upon signing of an affidavit of expenditure.
No payment shall be made for any expenses incurred which are of a personal nature or not
within a standard of reasonableness for the situation as may be defined by the Finance
Department.
6
229
G.Non-Reimbursable Expenses
not
The City will reimburseor advance payment toward expenses including, but not limited
to:
1.The personal portion of any trip;
2.Political or charitable contributions or events;
3.Family expenses, including those of a partner when accompanying the employee on City-
related business, as well as child or pet-related expenses;
4.Entertainment expenses, including theatre, shows, movies, sporting events, golf, spa
treatments, etc.
5.Gifts of any kind for any purpose;
6.Service club meals;of those besides economic development staff;
7.Alcoholic beverages;
8.Non-mileage personal automobile expenses including repairs, insurance, gasoline, traffic
citations; and
9.Personal losses incurred while on City business.
IVATTENDANCE AUTHORIZATION
A.Budgetary Limitations
Notwithstanding any attendance authorization contained herein, reimbursement or advances
for expenses relative to conferences, meeting or training sessions shall not exceed the
budgetary limitations.
B.Conference Attendance
Attendance at conferences or seminars by employees must be approved by their supervisor.
C.Meetings
Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a meeting when authorized by
their supervisor.
D.Training Sessions
Any employee, management or non-management, may attend a training session when
authorized by their supervisor.
7
230
V.FUNDING
A.Appropriation Policy
It shall be the policy of the City to appropriate funds subject to availability of resources.
B.Training Sessions
Payments toward or reimbursement of expenses incurred in attendance at training sessions,
will be appropriated annually through the budget process.
VI. DIRECT CASH ADVANCE POLICY
From time to time, it may be necessary for a City employee to request a direct cash advance
to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business on the City’s behalf. Such
request for an advance should be submitted to their supervisor no less than seven days prior
to the need for the advance with the following information: 1) Purpose of the expenditure; 2)
The anticipated amount of the expenditure (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, and
transportation expenses); and 3) The dates of the expenditure. An accounting of expenses
and return of any unused advance must be reported to the City within 30 calendar days of the
employee’s return on the expense report described in Section VII.
VII. EXPENSE REPORT REQUIREMENTS
All expense reimbursement requests or final accounting of advances received must be
approved by their supervisor, on forms determined by the Finance Department, within 30
calendar days of an expense incurred, and accompaniedby a business purpose for all
expenditures and a receipt for each non-per diem item.
Revised 7/83, 7/85, 7/87, 7/88, 7/91, 7/92, 12/07,7/10
8
231
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 4
AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCES AND
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS
It is City of Cupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall
be compensated fairly for the use of personal automotive vehicles on City business. In many
instances the use of personal vehicles is a condition of employment due to the absence of
sufficient City owned vehicles for general transportation purposes. It is not intended, however,
that such a condition of employment should work an undue hardship. For this reason, the
following policies shall apply for mileage reimbursements.
Those persons who occasionally are required to use their personal automobiles for City
business shall be reimbursed for such use at an appropriate rate established by the City Council.
Submission of reimbursement requests must be approved by the Department Head.
Employees in the following classifications shall be paid on a monthly basis the following
automobile allowance:
ClassificationAllowance
City Manager$350.00
Director of Administrative Services 300.00
Director of Community Development300.00
Director of Parks and Recreation300.00
Director of Public Works300.00
Assistant Director of Public Works250.00
City Clerk250.00
Public &Environmental Affairs Director250.00
City Architect250.00
Traffic Engineer250.00
Recreation Supervisor200.00
Legal Services Manager200.00*
Employees receiving automobile allowance shall be eligible for reimbursement for travel
that exceeds two hundred miles round trip.
*This allowance will be eliminated once the current employee is no longer in this
position.
Adopted by Action of the City Council
April 1, 1974
Revised
7/74, 5/79, 6/80, 7/81, 8/84, 7/87, 1/89, 7/90,
7/92, 6/96, 8/99, 6/00, 9/01, 1/02, 6/02, 10/07, 7/10, 1/11, 6/11, 7/11
9
232
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 5
ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS AND
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
It is City ofCupertino policy that eligible persons under this Compensation Program shall
be entitled to City sponsored association memberships as well as receiving subscriptions to
professional and technical publications. Such sponsorship, however, shall be conditioned upon
the several factors as set forth below.
Each association for which membership is claimed must be directly related to the field of
endeavor of the person to be benefited. Each claim for City sponsored membership shall be
submitted by or throughthe Department Head with their concurrence to the City Manager for
approval.
Subscriptions to or purchase of professional and technical publications may be provided
at City expense when such have been authorized by the Department Head providing the subject
matter and material generally contained therein are related to municipal governmental operations.
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
April 1, 1974
Revised
7/92
10
233
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 6
OVERTIME WORKED
Management and non-represented professional employees are ineligible for overtime
payments for time worked in excess of what otherwise would be considered as a normal work
day or work week for other employees. However, no deduction from leave balances are made
when such an employee is absent for less than a regular work day as long as the employee has
his/her supervisor’s approval.Nothing in this policy precludes the alternative work schedule,
which may include an absenceof a full eight hour day, when forty hours have been worked in the
same seven day work period.
Adopted by Action of the City Council
April 1, 1974
Revised
6/80, 7/91, 7/92, 6/96, 7/97, 4/07
11
234
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 7
HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN -EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide group hospital and medical insurance
under which employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be
covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees and
their families through comprehensive health plans available only through employer sponsorship.
Although the premium cost for the insurance provided remains the ultimate responsibility
of the employee in these positions, the City shall contribute the amounts listed below towards the
premium or pay the full cost of the premium if less than the stated amounts. If the premium
amounts for any employee covered by this policy are less than the amounts listed below per
month, the difference between the premium amount and the stated amounts will be included in
the employee’s gross pay. The City will no longer pay medical insurance cash back (excess of
the monthly premium less the cost of the medical coverage) for new employees hired after July 1,
2005.
Medical Insurance Coverage LevelCity Contribution
Employee702.00
Employee + 1762.00
Employee +2802.00
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
September 16, 1974
Revised
7/75, 7/76, 7/77, 8/78, 7/79, 6/80, 6/81, 7/81, 6/82, 7/83, 7/84,
7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/97, 7/99, 6/00, 6/02, 7/04, 6/05, 4/07
12
235
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 8
FLEXIBLE HOLIDAYS
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to recognize days of historical and national
significance as holidays of the City without loss of pay or benefits. Recognizing the desirable
times throughout the year, it is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide days off in lieu of
holidays for management and confidential employees at such times as are convenient for each
employee and supervisor, when such policy is compatible with the workload and schedule of the
City.
Employees occupying these positions shall be provided 20 hours per calendar year as
non-work time with full pay and benefits. Employees may accumulate flexible holiday hours up
to two times their annual accrual.
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
July 7, 1975
Revised 6/80, 6/89, 7/92, 7/99
13
236
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 9
LIFE AND LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to make available group insurance for
Management and Confidential employees that will mitigate the personal and family financial
hardships resulting from continuing disability that prevents an employee from performing
gainfully in his or her occupation. It is further the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide life
insurance benefits in an amount of two and one half times the employee’s annual salary to a
maximum of $250,000.00.
Employees occupying unrepresented positions may enroll in the disability income
program and the life insurance program offered if eligible under the contract provisions of the
policy and the personnel rules of the City. The full cost of premiums for these programs shall be
paid by the City for such employees.
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
September 16, 1976
Revised 7/76, 6/80, 6/81. 6/82, 6/92
14
237
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 10
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide equitable current compensation and
reasonable retirement security for management and confidential employees for services
performed for the City. The City participates in the California Public Employees’ Retirement
System (PERS) and deferred compensation plans have been established. Boththe employee and
employer may make contributions from current earnings to these plans. The purpose of this
policy is to promote means by which compensation may be provided in such manner and form to
best meet the requirements of the City and the needs ofindividual employees, thereby increasing
the ability, to attract and retain competent management and confidential employees.
The City shall maintain and administer means by which employees in these positions may
defer portions of their current earningsfor future utilization. Usage of such plans shall be subject
to such agreements, rules and procedures as are necessary to properly administer each plan.
Employee contributions to such plans may be made in such amounts as felt proper and necessary
to theemployee. Employer contributions shall be as determined by the City Council.
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
July 7, 1975
Revised 6/80, 7/87, 7/92, 7/99
15
238
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 11
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION
At the beginning of the pay period in which 2.7% @ 55 becomes effective, the City
agrees to pay the employee’s contribution rate to CalPERS not to exceed 6.0% of applicable
salary and each employee agrees to pay 2.0% of applicable salary. The City agrees to pay the
employer’s contribution rate to the Public Employees Retirement System
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
June, 1981
Revised 6/87, 6/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/03, 7/04, 4/07, 7/10
16
239
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 12
DENTAL INSURANCE -EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide dental insurance under which
employees in Management and Confidential positions and their dependents may be covered. The
purpose of this program is to promote and preserve the health of employees.
The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $77.26per
month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall
be in accordance with Personnel Rules of the City and the provisions of the contract for such
insurance between the City and carrier or carriers.
Adopted by Action of
City Council
July 1, 1983
Revised 7/87, 7/88, 7/89, 7/90, 7/91, 7/92, 6/95, 7/99, 4/07
17
240
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 13
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
The City Managerand department heads shall receive forty (40) hours of administrative
leave with pay per year. Unrepresented employees exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act shall receive twenty-four (24) hours of administrative leave with pay per year.
Employees may accumulate administrative leave hours up to their annual accrual.
Employees shall be eligible to convert administrative leave hours to pay one time each
calendar year.
Adopted by Action of
the City Council
July, 1988
Revised
7/92, 7/97, 7/99, 7/10
18
241
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 14
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide an Employee Assistance Program for
the benefit of Management and Confidential employees and their eligible dependents. The
purpose of this program is to provide professional assistance and counseling concerning
financial, legal, pre-retirement, and other matters of a personal nature.
Adopted by Action of the City Council
June 17, 1996
19
242
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 15
PUBLIC SERVICE CREDIT –VACATION ACCUMULATION
The City Manager and department heads shall earn vacation hours under the same
vacation accumulation schedule as all other employees. Credit shall be provided for previous
public sector service time on a year-for-year basis as to annual vacation accumulation. Credit
shall only be given for completed years of service. Public service credit shall not apply to any
other supplemental benefit. Employee(s) affected by this policy will have the responsibility of
providing certification as to previous public sector service.
Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 7, 1997
Revised 6/99, 7/10
20
243
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 16
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Housing assistance maybe offeredto the department heads pursuant to Resolution No.
99-070 as amended.
Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 7, 1997
Revised 7/99, 7/10
21
244
City of Cupertino
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Policy No. 17
VISION INSURANCE –EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION
It is the policy of the City of Cupertino to provide vision insurance under which
employees and their dependents may be covered. The purpose of this program is to promote and
preserve the health of employees.
The premium cost for the insurance provided by the City shall not exceed $14.36per
month per employee. Enrollment in the plan or plans made available pursuant to this policy shall
be in accordance with the provisions of the contract between the City andcarrier or carriers
providing vision insurance coverage,
Adopted by Action of the City Council
July 1997
Revised 7/99, 6/02, 6/03, 7/10
22
245
City of Cupertino
Listing of Unrepresented Classifications by
Salary Rate or Pay Grades
City Council
and
Planning Commission
Compensation
Effective July 1, 2010
23
246
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CLASSES AND POSITIONS/CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010
The salaries, wages or rates of pay for those officers and employees whose positions are exempt
under the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, and members of the City Council and
Planning Commission, are set forth below. Only the City Council can modify these rates.
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
City Manager$18,795
Director of Administrative Services$12,286$12,901$13,546$14,223$14,934
Director of Community Development$11,549$12,127$12,733$13,370$14,038
Director of Parks and Recreation$11,549$12,127$12,733$13,370$14,038
Director of Public Works$12,536$13,163$13,821$14,513$15,238
Members of the City Council$730.24/month
Members of the Planning Commission$50.00/meeting (maximum $200.00/month)
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
City Manager$18,983
Director of Administrative Services$12,409$13,030$13,681$14,365$15,084
Director of Community Development$11,665$12,248$12,860$13,503$14,179
Director of Parks and Recreation$11,665$12,248$12,860$13,503$14,179
Director of Public Works$12,662$13,295$13,960$14,658$15,391
Members of the City Council$730.24/month
Members of the Planning Commission$50.00/meeting (maximum $200.00/month)
24
247
CITYOF CUPERTINO
CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE
MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
Assistant Director of Public Works -Eng$9,967$10,465$10,988$11,538$12,115
Assistant Director of Public Works-Mtc$9,514$9,989$10,489$11,013$11,564
Building Official$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
City Architect$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
City Clerk$7,716$8,102$8,507$8,932$9,379
City Planner$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Environmental Affairs Coordinator$7,601$7,981$8,380$8,799$9,239
Environmental Programs Manager$7,601$7,981$8,380$8,799$9,239
Finance Director$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Human Resources Director$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Information Technology Manager$8,802$9,243$9,704$10,190$10,699
Park Planner$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Public and Environmental Affairs Director$8,802$9,243$9,704$10,190$10,699
Public Works Project Manager$7,716$8,102$8,507$8,932$9,379
Public Works Supervisor$6,943$7,290$7,655$8,037$8,439
Recreation Supervisor$6,785$7,124$7,480$7,854$8,247
Redevelopment/Economic Development Mgr$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Senior Civil Engineer$9,099$9,554$10,032$10,534$11,060
Senior Recreation Supervisor$7,480$7,854$8,247$8,659$9,092
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
Assistant Director of Public Works -Eng$10,066$10,570$11,098$11,653$12,236
Assistant Director of Public Works -Mtc$9,609$10,089$10,594$11,124$11,680
Building Official$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
City Architect$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
City Clerk$7,793$8,183$8,592$9,021$9,472
City Planner$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Environmental Affairs Coordinator$7,677$8,061$8,464$8,887$9,332
Environmental Programs Manager$7,677$8,061$8,464$8,887$9,332
Finance Director$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Human Resources Director$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Information Technology Manager$8,890$9,335$9,802$10,291$10,806
Park Planner$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Public and Environmental Affairs Director$8,890$9,335$9,802$10,291$10,806
Public Works Project Manager$7,793$8,183$8,592$9,021$9,472
Public Works Supervisor$7,012$7,363$7,731$8,118$8,524
Recreation Supervisor$6,852$7,195$7,555$7,933$8,329
Redevelopment/Economic Development Mgr$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Senior Civil Engineer$9,190$9,650$10,132$10,639$11,171
Senior Recreation Supervisor$7,555$7,933$8,329$8,746$9,183
25
248
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CLASSES AND POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE
CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
Accountant$6,076$6,380$6,699$7,034$7,386
Accounting Technician$5,638$5,920$6,216$6,527$6,853
Administrative Assistant$5,062$5,315$5,581$5,860$6,153
Community Relations Coordinator$5,842$6,134$6,441$6,763$7,101
Deputy City Clerk$5,062$5,315$5,581$5,860$6,153
Executive Assistant to the City Attorney$5,538$5,815$6,106$6,411$6,731
Executive Assistant to the City Manager$5,538$5,815$6,106$6,411$6,731
GIS Coordinator$5,841$6,133$6,440$6,762$7,100
Human Resources Analyst$6,076$6,380$6,699$7,034$7,386
Human Resources Technician$5,638$5,920$6,216$6,527$6,853
I.T. Assistant$4,623$4,854$5,097$5,352$5,620
Network Specialist$5,842$6,134$6,441$6,763$7,101
Web Specialist$5,841$6,133$6,440$6,762$7,100
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011
ClassificationStep 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5
Accountant$6,137$6,444$6,766$7,104$7,460
Accounting Technician$5,695$5,979$6,278$6,592$6,922
Administrative Assistant$5,113$5,368$5,637$5,919$6,215
Community Relations Coordinator$5,900$6,195$6,505$6,830$7,172
Deputy City Clerk$5,113$5,368$5,637$5,919$6,215
Legal Services Manager$5,593$5,873$6,167$6,475$6,799
Executive Assistant to the City Manager$5,593$5,873$6,167$6,475$6,799
GIS Coordinator$5,899$6,194$6,504$6,829$7,171
Human Resources Analyst$6,137$6,444$6,766$7,104$7,460
Human Resources Technician$5,695$5,979$6,278$6,592$6,922
I.T. Assistant$4,669$4,903$5,148$5,405$5,676
Network Specialist$5,900$6,195$6,505$6,830$7,172
Web Specialist$5,899$6,194$6,504$6,829$7,171
26
249
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 –Amenddesign services agreement.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolutionauthorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the
agreement with SSA Landscape Architects for design services for Stevens Creek Corridor Park
and Restoration Phase 2, Project 9134.
Discussion
The City Council reviewed designelements,funding and authorized grant applications for
Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 in January,March, Apriland May2011.
The City Council authorized proceeding with design work on January 18, 2011and authorized a
design services agreement with SSA Landscape Architects(SSA)not to exceed $200,000. On
May 17, 2011the City Council authorized design work to continue.
In June 2011, as part of the 2011-12 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved a
project budget of $1,400,000for the design phase. The balance of the overall project budget and
construction funding is plannedfor inclusionin the 2012-13capital program.
From early 2010 throughspring 2011, preliminary work by SSA’s team totaling $80,000 was
completed. This work addressed initial concepts, grant-related design and evaluation of creek
restoration alternatives. A new agreement was initiated in summer 2011 based on the reviews
and actions noted above. Schematic designunder the current agreementis now completefor fees
totalingapproximately$110,000.This amount included a significant portion for subconsultant
hydrologic support and for development and analysis of several alignment alternatives.
Staff recommends amending the current design services agreement to add scope and funding for
the remaining design work to continuetobid phase.The design team’s tasks includelandscape
architectural and civil, hydrological,electricaland geotechnical engineeringservices. Staff
recommendsthat the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the
existing agreement. The amendment will addwork scope for remaining design phase tasks,for a
totalcontract fee not to exceed $380,000(inclusive of the schematic design cost) plusan
additional services allowance not to exceed $38,000. The fee is deemed appropriate for the
services to be provided.
250
Sustainability Impact
Design and implementation of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 project
will support the city’s sustainability goals.
Fiscal Impact:
Funding is available in theStevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration, Phase 2, Project
budget.
_____________________________________
Prepared by:Gail Seeds, Park Restoration and Improvement Manager
Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments
A–Resolution
B–Area Map
251
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENTBETWEEN THE CITY AND
SSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR PARK AND RESTORATION PHASE 2PROJECT
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2011 the City Council authorized execution of anagreement
between the City of Cupertino and SSA Landscape Architects for professional design services for
Stevens Creek Corridor Parkand Restoration Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 to the agreement will allow continuation of landscape
architectural and engineering design and the completion of bid documentsfor the Stevens Creek
Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 Project, extend the term of the current agreement dated
August 24, 2011 to June 30, 2013, provide additional funding for design and engineeringservices
fora new total not to exceed $380,000, and providean additional amount of $38,000 for
additional services which may be approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a
total contract amount not to exceed $418,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of
Cupertino hereby authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 1 tothe
agreement with SSA Landscape Architects.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regularmeeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 17thday of January, 2012,by the following vote:
VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
Grace Schmidt,Acting City ClerkMark Santoro,Mayor
252
& RESTORATION PHASE 2
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
on-street parking
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Tract Map, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley, a California Non-Profit Organization, 20630
Cleo Avenue.
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution.
Description
A resolution approving a Tract Map that subdivides an approximately 13,213 square foot parcel
into six parcels consisting of 4 residential lots and two common lots, ranging in size from 1,432
to 5,234square feet in area.
Discussion
The subject parcel is located at the eastern end of CleoAvenue, APN 362-31-004.
On July 5, 2011, the tentative map forthe Habitatfor Humanity –Cleo Avenue subdivision was
presented to the City Council and was approved unanimously. The tract map being presented
substantially conforms to the approvedtentative map.
Subdivision improvements includeconstruction of a new driveway approach on Cleo Avenue
and allnewutility services to the property be installed underground. Onsite storm water
improvements have been required, and consist of grass swales and a dry well. These facilities
will allow for a portion of the onsite storm water to infiltrate into the ground, andthus reduce
potential impacts from storm drainage runoff to the City storm drain system.The two common
lots withinthe subdivision consist of a private parking area in the front, and an outdoor lawn area
in the rear.
____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by:Timm D. Borden, Directorof Public Works
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A–Draft Resolution
B–Area Map
C–Tract Map
254
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TRACTMAP, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,SILICON VALLEY,
,
A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION20630 CLEOAVENUE,
APN 362-31-004
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for
authorization to record tractmap located at 20630 CleoAvenue,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
a.Said tract map is hereby approved.
b.The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said
tractmap.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Councilof the City
of Cupertino this 17thday January, 2012, by the following vote:
VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________________________________
Grace Schmidt, Acting City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor
255
ATTACHMENTB
1177
1168
7371
7367
7375
7381
7363
7328
7326
7322
¯
Subject:TractMap,HabitatforHumanity,SiliconValley,aCaliforniaNon-ProfitOrganization,20630CleoAvenue.
7320
RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.12-______.
7318
7316
7312
256
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Resignationof Library Commissioner Ron Miller
Recommended Action
Accept resignationanddirect staff to set the following deadlines:
Application deadline: Friday, January 27, 4:30 p.m., in the City Clerk’s Office
Interviews: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30p.m., Conference Room A
Discussion
Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048states that unscheduled vacancies shall be handled in the
following manner:
The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor
later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before
appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City
Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in other places
designated by the City Clerk
The vacancy noticewasposted onJanuary 9and must remain posted for at least 10 working
days. This does not leave enough time to post and accept applications to include candidates in
the Annual Commission interviewsalready scheduled for Jan. 23 and 24.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, Acting City Clerk
Reviewed by: Carol Atwood, Administrative Services Director
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
Staff report
A. Resignation email
259
260
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Seventh Amendment to the Agreement between Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino
for Abatement of Weeds.
Recommended Action
Adopt the draft resolution authorizing execution of the agreement.
Discussion
The Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner provides hazardous vegetation management
services (weed abatement) to local jurisdictions in order to address the issue of public fire safety
in a cost-effective manner. Chapter 9.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code requires property
owners to remove or destroy weeds on their property. The weed abatement process is in place to
notify the property owners of this responsibility, authorize the County to remove the weeds if the
property owner doesn’t, and allow the County torecover the costs of abatementby putting a lien
assessment on the respective properties to allow the County to recover the cost of weed
abatement.
In December of each calendar year, the County gives the City a list of all the fees and costs
associated with the weed abatement program. This Seventh Amendment allows the County to
recover all fees and costs associated with weed abatement services unless the City holds a
hearing within 60 days of receipt of the list declining to accept any fee or cost in the itemized
report. If the City chooses to not accept any fee or cost in the list, the County will be relieved of
all obligations to perform the services under the agreement for that particular weed abatement
season.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, Acting City Clerk
Reviewed by:Carol Atwood, Administrative Services Director
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
Staff Report
A. Draft Resolution
B. Seventh Amendment
261
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SEVENTHAMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FOR
ABATEMENT OF WEEDS
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed Seventh
Amendment to the Agreement between Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino for the
abatement of weeds; and
WHEREAS, the terms, conditions and provisions of the agreement have been reviewed
and approved by the Director of Administrative Services and the City Attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves the aforementioned agreement and authorizes the City Managerto execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 17thday of January, 2012, by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
___________________________________________________________
Grace Schmidt, Acting City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor, City of Cupertino
262
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Ordinance amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection).
Recommended Action
Conduct second reading and enact 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."
Discussion
All aspects of the proposed Cupertino Municipal Code Section 9.18were approved by Council
during the firstreading on November 15, 2011.
The following summarizesrevisions to Chapters 9.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code:
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 todischarge 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.)
(CMC 9.18.115)
One of theproposed ordinance changes wouldrequire privatedevelopment
to install trash capturedevices at the siteto intercept and contain trash before it reaches the
263
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.By contrast, 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)will be 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 11-2088
264
ATTACHMENT A
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
PROVIDE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AND IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS
INTHE 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 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9.18:STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND
WATERSHED PROTECTION
9.18.010Purpose of Chapter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified urban stormwater runoff as
theleading cause of water pollution in the United States.Section 402(p) of the federal
Clean Water Act, 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 agenciesand entitiesthat
discharge stormwater runoff to San Francisco Bay. This MunicipalRegionalStormwater
NPDESPermitrequires that the City of Cupertino implement a Stormwater Management
Program to prevent exceedances of water quality objectives and ensure that discharges do
not cause, threatento cause,or contribute to water quality impairmentof 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
themost recentversion of the City of Cupertino’s NPDES permitregarding municipal
stormwater and urban runoff requirements. This chapter shall apply to all water entering
the storm drain system 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 thegoals stated inthe City’s General Plan,
sections5-32 through 5-37 (Urban Runoff Pollution) and the scope of the City of
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy1
265
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 currently exist 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 and disposal 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.
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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy2
266
practice or stormwater treatment system by an equally effective or more effective
best management practice or stormwater treatment system.
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 withsoil mixtures and vegetation
that incorporate many of the pollutant removal systems 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 by CASQA and available at
www.casqa.org.
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 of water
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,
interior remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or
construction waste tostormwater or mechanical permit work.
11. “Cooling system.”Thepipes, 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.
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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy3
267
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 buildingof 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.
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.“Director of Public Works.” The Director of Public Works 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 are discharged.
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.“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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy4
268
22."Enforcement Response Plan."A plan established, maintained and revised as
necessary by the Director of Public Works which contains guidelinesand criteriafor
implementing consistent and escalating enforcementfor 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.
24.“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.
25.“Food service facility.” Any nonresidential establishment that uses or generates
grease when 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.“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.“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.
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.
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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy5
269
from hydromodification include channel scouring, bank undercutting, and channel
widening and deepening, all of which adversely impact downstream habitats.
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 Regional Permit. 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 performancecriteria
for subject development which are incorporated into this chapter.
33.“Illegalconnection.”The connection of an unauthorized discharge conduit to a
storm sewer or watercoursethrough 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.
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 concrete 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.
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
surface water.
(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;
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy6
270
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 intosubsurface
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 detention basin;
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
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. wateringof lawn), growing of agricultural crops and revegetation of
disturbed soils in dry areas and during periods of inadequate rainfall.
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,
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy7
271
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, landscape may be, but is not limited to,
gardenareas,lawn, turf, trees, hedges, vegetated areas,planting areas, rain gardens,
native vegetation, existing wildland,and open spaces with permeable ground.
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.
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.
47."Micro-detention."Aseries 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 travellingto
customers or customer’s sites, rather than operating froma permanently fixed facility.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy8
272
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 Permit are required and enforceable by the
City.
50.“New development.”A land development activity on a previously undeveloped site.
51."Non-stormwater."Any discharge that is not composed entirely of stormwater.
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
written in accordance with permit requirements.
53.“NPDES.”As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program which controls 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 enforcethe plans, policies, and regulationsand issue the vast
majority of NPDES permits,typically for a five-year term.
54.“Operation and maintenance agreement.”A written agreement providing for the
long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment measures at a site or with
respect to a land development project, which when recorded in the deed records
constitutes a restriction on the title to a site or other land involved in a land development
project.
55. “Owner.”The legal or beneficialowner 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 as pervious concrete, porous
asphalt, unit pavers, and/or granular materials that allow water to infiltrate into
subsurface soil.
57.“Permit.”The permit issued by the City of Cupertino to the applicant required for
undertaking any land development activity.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy9
273
58.“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.
59.“Pollutant of Concern.” As described in theMunicipalRegionalPermit, 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.”Any land-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.
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.
62.“Regulated Project.” Any project fitting a category description listed inProvision
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.
64.“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.
65.“Runon.”Water entering a specific location from elsewhere on or off a site.
66. “Sanitary sewage or sewage.”Water-carried wastes from residences, business
property, institutions and industrial property excluding ground water, surface water, and
storm waters.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy10
274
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 Permit to discharge stormwater to South
San Francisco Bay.
68.“Secondary containment.”The level of containment external to and separate from the
primary containment,designed as the first level of protection against accidental
discharges or overflows from the primary containment.
69.“Sewer system or sanitary sewer system.”All sewers and other facilities for carrying,
collecting, treating, and disposing of sanitary sewage.
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.
72.“Source control measure.”ny schedule of activities, prohibitions of practices,
A
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.
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, unlessdrainage from the uncovered portion is
connected to the sanitary sewer.
74.“Storm drainsystem.”The conveyance or system of 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 of runoff.
75.“Stormwater.”Surface runoff and drainage associated with storm events.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy11
275
76. “Stormwater discharge.”Any discharge fromland 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.
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 and habitat and water
quality degradation, while enhancing and promoting public health, safety and general
welfare, in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
78.“Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.”(“SWPPP”)A document identifying
potential stormwater pollutant sources at a constructionor industrial site, the best
management practices to be used to reduce these pollutants during and after construction
and a description of required BMP monitoring.
79.“Stormwater Treatment”or “Stormwater TreatmentMeasure.” 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, sourcecontrol, low impact development control measures 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 floodplain areas.
81.“Unpolluted water.”Water to which no constituent has been added, either
intentionally, accidentally, or through erosion, that would render the water unacceptable
for disposal to storm or natural drainages or directly to surface waters.
82.“Vehicle fluid.”A liquid used in or drained from 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.
83.“Vehicle service facility.” A commercial 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy12
276
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.
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.
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.”Outdoorwater intended for landscape irrigationor other beneficial
uses,whichdue to overwatering, overspray,broken equipment,or any other inefficiency
or malfunction,flowstoadjacentimpervious surfaces (walks, roadways, parking lots or
other structures that prohibit ground infiltration) and is wastedasrunoff.
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 drainsystemother than through a City approved storm drain connection.
9.18.040Discharge into the Storm Drain Prohibited.
A.It is unlawful to cause, allow, or permit to be discharged, any discharge
not composed entirely of stormwaterto the storm drain systemor to surface
waters or to any location whereitwould contact or eventually be transported to
surface waters, including flood plain areas,unless specifically called out in the
Municipal Regional Permit as an exempt or conditionally exempt discharge.
B.It is unlawful to causeor allow discharges including, but not limited to pool
water, carwash water, ongoing and large-volumelandscape irrigation water, sediment,
stockpiled material,rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust,solid wastesorhazardous materials to
be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge into
storm drains, gutters, or watercourses.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy13
277
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.
D. 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 which shall have
the same force and effect as ifset forth herein and for which the remedies herein for
violation shall be applicable.
E.Separately Permitted Dischargesregulated 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 conditionsis 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
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 dischargesidentified in the
Municipal Regional Permit (Provision C.15.b, Conditionally Exempted Non-
Stormwater Discharges)are conditionally exempt from the discharge prohibitions
established by this chapterif dischargers develop and implement appropriate
control measures to eliminate adverse impacts of such sources inaccordance with
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy14
278
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 ona 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.
9.18.060 Protection of Storm Drain from Accidental Discharge.
Each person shall provide protection from accidental discharge of non-stormwaterinto
any storm drain or watercourse. Measures 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 immediately upon accidentally
discharging pollutants of concern toenable 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) businessdays 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 City 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy15
279
9.18.080Permitted Discharges Pursuant to Industrial and Construction
Stormwater NPDES General Permits.
A. The provisions of this chaptershall not prohibit any discharge with a valid
NPDES permit issued 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.
9.18.090Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP).
A stormwaterpollution prevention plan (SWPPP) 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-onand runoff
control, (3) sediment control, (4) active treatment systems, (5) good site management,
and (6) non-stormwater management.
9.18.100Permanent Stormwater Measures RequiredFor Development
and Redevelopment Projects.
A.All applicants for permits 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 accordingto 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.Site Design and Source Control BMP Requirements.All development and
redevelopment projects shall include permanent site design and source control BMPs
in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for
the life of the project.
C.Stormwater Treatment Requirementsfor Regulated Development and
Redevelopment Projects.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy16
280
1.In addition to site design and source control BMPs,Regulated Projects 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 RegulatedProjects arerequiredto 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.
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.Alterationsexceeding 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 replaced impervious surfaces must be included in the treatment system
design so that the stormwater treatment systems are designed and sized to treat
stormwater from the entire redevelopment project.
6.Alterations equal to or less than 50%. Where a development project results in an
alteration equal to or less than 50% of the impervious surface of a previously
existing development that was not 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 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy17
281
Other exclusions are: interior remodels and routine maintenance or repair (such as
roof or exterior wall surface replacement or pavement resurfacing within the
existing footprint).
8.Effective December 1, 2012, all development projectsthat require approvals and/or
permits issued from the City,and which create and/or replace more than2500
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, mustinstall one or more of the following site design measures
(MRP Provision C.3.i):
Direct roof runoff into 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 on publicand private land that fall under the jurisdiction of the
planning and building authority of the City of Cupertino. 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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy18
282
portion of parking structures unless drainage from the uncovered
portion is connected to the sanitary sewer along with the covered
portions of the parking structure.
b.For redevelopment projects in 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 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 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 impervious surface of a previously existing
development that was not previously subject to the requirementsof
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 stormwaterrunoff
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.,for which 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. Diligentpursuance 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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy19
283
the City, then the project will be subject to the lower 5,000 square
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 has been
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 Cityare 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 toCMC
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.10a-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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy20
284
stormwater to adjacent vegetated areas.
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 was deemed
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 City prior to December 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.
D.Hydromodification Management (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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy21
285
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.
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 use adequate 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 of landscape-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
of theDirector of Public Works confirming that the requirements of this chapter have
been satisfied.
9.18.110Design StandardsforPermanent Stormwater Treatment
Measures.
Treatment best management practices for Regulated Projects must meet at least one of
the following hydraulic sizing design criteria:
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy22
286
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 standard includes a
minimum of 2 feet of suitable soil to achieve a maximumof 5 inches per
hour infiltration rate for the infiltration system.
Infiltration devices shall not be placed in the vicinity of known
B.
contamination sites unless it has been demonstrated that increased
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy23
287
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 groundwater mark shall be at least10 feet, except that as to
infiltration devicesconcerning land disturbance activities. A greater
separation from the high groundwater mark may be required in accordance
with best management practices. In locations whichare 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 to be achieved, and similar factors in the overall
analysis of groundwater safety)
.
Unlessstormwater 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 storageareas (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.
9.18.115Trash Load Reductions to Storm Drain Collection System.
A.All Regulated Projects must install full trash capture devices to
collect litter and debris from their project site, prior to connecting to the
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy24
288
City's storm 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 must be 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 chapter for 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 Regulated Projects.
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 Permit and 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 SizingDesign Criteria. The developer
shall provide a signed certification from an approvedthird party reviewer selected from
theSCVURPPPList of Qualified Consultants for Design, Review and/or Certification of
Stormwater Treatment Best Management Practices and Hydromodification Flow Control
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy25
289
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.
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 to obtain approval of a
revised plan shall install, implement and maintain the stormwater treatment measures
specified in the approved revised plan.
9.18.130Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements.
The goal of low impact development requirements is 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 Projects shall implement the following LID requirements:
AAll Regulated Projects shall 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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy26
290
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
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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy27
291
e.Construct sidewalks, walkways and/or patios with
permeable surfaces.
f.Construct driveways, bike lanes, and/or uncovered
parking lots with permeable surfaces.
C.Effective December 1, 2011, all Regulated Projects are 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 andre-
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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy28
292
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 specifications and 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 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 WaterQuality 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 Operation and Maintenance
Responsibility.
A.For the life of the project, all on-site stormwater treatment measures shallbe
operated, conducted,and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired by the
property owner(s), an Owners' or Homeowners' Association or other legal entity
approved by the City.
B.Any repairs or restoration and maintenance shall be inaccordance with City-
approved plans.
C.The property owner(s) ofRegulated Projectsshall develop a maintenance
schedule for the life of any stormwater control measures and shall describe the
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy29
293
maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and the person who will
perform the maintenance.The stormwater treatment measures maintenance schedules
shall be included with the project's approved Stormwater Management Plan.
9.18.160Agreement to Maintain Stormwater Treatment Systemsand Best
Management Practices.
A.Prior to the issuance of any building permit for aRegulated Project, the
owner(s) of the site shall enter into a formal written Stormwater Treatment Systems
Operation and Maintenance Agreement with 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 systemsand best management practices.
B.The Stormwater Treatment SystemsOperation and Maintenance Agreement
shall require that the stormwater treatment system(s)or HM Control (if any)BMPs not be
modified and that maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility
treatment systemor HM Control (if any) from its original design unless the Public
Works Director has 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 SystemsOperation and Maintenance Agreement
shall provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater
treatment 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 SystemOperation and Maintenance Agreement.
E.The agreement shall provide access to the extent allowable by 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 theinstalled 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 TreatmentSystemsandBMP Inspectionand
VerificationResponsibility.(C.3.h)
A.The property owner(s) of Regulated Projects shall be responsible for having all
stormwatermanagementtreatment systemsand HM control (if any)inspected for
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy30
294
condition and function by a knowledgeable party. 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 for the
project.
B.Unless otherwise required by the City, the property owner’s stormwater
treatment systemor HM control (if any)inspections shall be donewithin 45 days of the
completed installation of any control or treatment systems;and after thatat least once per
yearin preparation for the wet season.Written records shall be kept of all inspections and
shall include, at minimum, the following information:
1.Name and address of the Regulated Project;
2.Specific description of the location (or a map showing the location) of the
installed stormwater treatment system(s) and HM control(s)(if any);
3.Date(s) that the treatment system(s) and HM controls (if any) is/are installed;
4.Description of the type and size of the treatment system(s) and HM control(s) (if
any)installed;
5.Responsible operator(s) of each treatment system and HM control (if any);
6.Dates and findings of all inspections of the treatment system(s) and HM
control(s) (if any); and
7.Any problems and corrective actions taken.
9.18.180Records of Maintenance and Inspection Activitiesand
Submission of Revised Stormwater Management Plan.
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:
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 constructedaccording to the approved
plans; or
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy31
295
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 Agreement,withoutan
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 the violation constitutes an immediate
danger to public health or public safety, 24 hours written notice from the City shall be
sufficient.
C.The City may assess the owner(s) of the property for the cost of repair work and
any penalties, in accordance with Sections1.10 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.
9.18.195 Inspections 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 ofa City-issued enforcement notice will be required within the amount of time
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy32
296
given by the inspectorand before the next anticipated rain, but not more than ten (10)
business days after a violation is first noted.
9.18.200Inspection and Maintenance Easement.
A.The City shall have access to all on-site stormwater treatment systemsfor 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 ordinanceis 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 grading permit for aRegulated 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 Agreement and 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 atall facilities, whetherstaffed or unstaffed,
must be inspected and maintained by the discharger according to manufacturer
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 must implement 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
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy33
297
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. TheDirectorof 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 BMPs and 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 asdesignswithhydrozonesto prevent
over-irrigation,followthe Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines or other landscaping
guidelines with similar goals and practices.
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, restrictions regarding 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy34
298
D.Drains and Drain Lines.
1.Interior floor drains mustnot be connected to the storm drain system.
2.Exterior drains within the following areas must not be connected to the storm
drain:
a.Equipment or vehicle washing areas;
b.Areas where chemicals, hazardous materials,or other uncontained
materialsare 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 waste
products 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.Provide secondary containment for all roof-mounted equipment, tanks,
and piping containing liquids; or
b.Connect all roof drains and equipment discharge lines to the sanitary
sewer.
5.FireSprinkler Tests and Water Pipe Flushing: Discharges from fire sprinkler
tests and water pipe flushing: shall be conducted in accordance with the
Municipal Regional Permit.
a.Discharges which are listed as conditionally allowed in the current
municipal NPDES permit are 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 facilities where it is infeasible to direct fire sprinkler
safety test water discharges to landscaped 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy35
299
E.Pool and Spa Discharges
1.It is unlawful to discharge water from pools and spas to the storm drain
system.
2.De-chlorinated pool spa discharges shall be directed to landscaped areas,
providing thisdoes not generate runoff to the storm drain system. Ifrunoff
will be generated to the storm drain, pool and spa water shall be disposed to
the sanitary sewer. The discharger shall contact the CityPublic Works
Department regarding coordination with the Sanitary SewerDistrict.
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.
F.Vehicle andEquipment Fueling Facilities.Vehicle or equipment fueling
facilities shall be designed in accordance with the California Stormwater
Quality Association (CASQA) Industrial Stormwater Best Management
Practices Handbooks to prevent the runon of stormwaterand runoff of spills.At
minimumthis 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 berm or curb around the
perimeter of the fueling area.Storm drains shall be prohibited in these
fueling areas.
G.Vehicle Service Facilities.
1.It is unlawful for any person to dispose of, or permit the disposalor 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 to use tanks, containers or sinks for parts cleaning or rinsing
which are connected to the storm drain system.
4.It is unlawful for any person toperform vehicle fluid removal outside a
building, or 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy36
300
6.It is unlawful for any person to leave unattended drip parts orother open
containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in
secondary containment.
7.It is unlawful for any person to discharge washwater from vehicle washing
operations or wash racks to a storm drain, or onto imperviousgroundsurface.
8.Vehicle service facilities shall be cleaned using only those methods of
cleaning that ensure that no materials are discharged to the storm drain.
9.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.
10.It is unlawful to store acid-containing batteriesor any materialthat isdeemed
by an enforcement officialas a threat to the storm drain system,except
within secondary containment.
11.All owners and operators of vehicle service facilities shall labelall storm
drains located on the property of the facility a reminder to persons that the
discharge of anythingother than rain water into the storm drain isprohibited.
H.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 thesanitary sewer. The sink or cleaning area shall be large enough to
clean the largest mat or piece of equipmentthat requires cleaning at the
facility.
2.All new 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 dumpstersto prevent water runon to the 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 maximum extent 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 beconnected to a grease removal deviceupstream of the connection to
the sanitary sewer.
I.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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy37
301
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.
J.Root control chemicals.It is unlawful for any personto discharge, dispose or
add to the storm drain system any substance to control roots.
K.Dumpsters.
1.All new 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 forNon-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 Section9.18.210.
L.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.A drain 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.
5.The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every
six monthsor more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the
superintendent.
M.Copper Roofing and Architectural Materials.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy38
302
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 permit is required.
2.Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are
exempt from this prohibition
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 frompools (including connection for filter backwash), spas,
fountains and water features that contain copper based chemicals are prohibited.
N.Pesticide Storage at Commercial Facilities.
1.Pesticides shall be stored in labeled containers and shall not bestored 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/orthe 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 measures that 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.
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter or any provision of any permit
issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be civilly liable to the City in 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 sectionis 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.
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy39
303
9.18.240Civil Penalty for Illicit Discharges–Payment of Funds to Account.
Any person who discharges pollutants, in violation of this Chapter, 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.
9.18.250Notice 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 violationwhich:
1.Enumerates the violations found; and
2.Orders compliancein 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 Chapter, or has
violated any provision of this Chapter, 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.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Chapter 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 Chapter shall not be
affected thereby.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the _15 day of
_November and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15
day of _November 2011 by the following vote:
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy40
304
VoteMembers of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
________________________
Grace Schmidt, Acting City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor
Ordinance_9-18_Clean Copy41
305
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
Technical amendments and clarificationsto the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map and
Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Recommended Action
Conduct secondreading and adopt Ordinance No. 11-2086(Attachment A) amending the City of
Cupertino Zoning Map and Ordinance No. 11-2087 (Attachment B) amending the Heart of the
City Specific Plan.
This includes amending the zoning for the Rosebowl, Main Street and Four Corners properties
from Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential) or P(CG, ML,
Res) per the Council directionat the first reading to Planned Development (General Commercial,
Planned Office, Light Industrial,Residential) or P(CG, OP, ML, Res). Additional information
on this amendment is provided later in the staff report.
Description
Application: Z-2011-05, SPA-2011-01 and GPA-2011-04
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Application Summary: Technical amendmentsand clarificationsto the General Plan Land Use
Map, Zoning Map and Heart of the City Specific Planrelated solely to the Heart of the City area.
The proposed amendments move the General Plan land use and zoning designations into a land
use/zoning map in the Heart of the City Specific Plan.
Discussion
On November 15, 2011, the City Council conducted the first readingsof OrdinanceNo. 11-2086
and Ordinance No. 11-2087 for amendments solely related to the Heart of the City area. The
Council also adopted Resolution No. 11-190 amending the General Plan Land Use Map 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.The amendment to the General Plan Land
Use Map does not require a second reading, but will become effective simultaneously with the
effective date of the amendments to the City of Cupertino Zoning Map and Heart of the City
Specific Plan.
306
The Council’s changes includedadding a reference to Chapter 19.12(Administration chapter of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance)ontheException Process for Development Standards and
clarifications to theland use/zoning designations to the following properties located in the Heart
of the City Specific Planarea:
1.Biltmore Apartments –zone as P(R3) 10-20
2.Abundant Life Church –zone as P(CG, Res) and clarify that existing churches with ause
permit are permitted
3.City Center North –zone as P(CG, OP, Res)
4.Sears/Vallco Mall –zone as P(CG)
5.Rosebowl and Main Street –zone as P(CG, ML, Res)
6.Apple sites on Vallco Parkway –zone as P(MP, CG)
These changes have been incorporated into Exhibit A of Attachment B, Ordinance No. 11-2087.
Main Street/Rosebowl/Stevens Creek and N. Tantausites
The City has recently received requestsby the ownersof Main Street and the Rosebowl project
sites (Sand Hill Property Companyand KCR Development, respectively) to addthe Planned
Office(OP)zoningto the proposed land use/zoning designation.This will allow themto retain
the “O” or “office” use designationunder the current zoning.The zoning for the Rosebowl site
is currently P(CG, ML, O, Hotel, Regional Shopping, Res). The zoning for the Main Street and
sites east is P(CG, O, ML, Hotel, Res). Staff had previously recommended a zoning of P(CG,
OP, Res) for both sites. However, the Council after further consideration chose to rezone the site
P(CG, ML, Res) to retain the ML or Light Industrial zoningat the first reading on November 15,
2011. The Council staff report for the first reading dated November 15, 2011 (Attachment D)
provides adetailed discussionon the current and recommended zoning.
The Planned Office (OP) zone allows: professional offices, executive administrative offices,
medical and allied laboratories, research and development (with no product for final
consumption). The General Commercial (CG) zone allows professional and administrative
offices and the Light Industrial (ML) zone allows laboratories, which include medical, and
research and development laboratories. However, the applicants believe that the OP zone will
give better clarity to their ability to build office uses on the site.
Staff supports the requestof adding the OP designationto these sites as recommended at the
November 15, 2011 City Council meeting. This change could be considered minor and is
consistent with the staff recommendation that was considered by the City Council at the first
reading on November 15, 2011. Therefore, this change could be included as part of the second
reading, and a new first reading is not required.
_____________________________________
307
Prepared by:Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:Gary Chao, City Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
Attachment A:Ordinance No. 11-2086 for Z-2011-05
Attachment B:Ordinance No. 11-2087 for SPA-2011-01
Attachment C: Resolution No. 11-190 for GPA-2011-04
Attachment D: November 15, 2011 City Council Report
Attachment E:Updated redlined text changes in the Specific Plan
Attachment F:List of properties within the Heart of the City Area
308
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 11-2086
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCILOF 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
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated an application(Z-2011-05) to make technical amendments
to the Zoning map of the City of Cupertino 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 of the Heart of the
City Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the technical amendments to the Zoning mapwill be consistent with the City's General
Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the technical amendments to the Zoning map 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
WHEREAS, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one public hearing that the amendment
to the Zoning map be granted; and
WHEREAS, the amended Zoningmap is attachedhereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed amendment to the
Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.That the Zoning Map has been amended to specify the boundaries of the Heart of
the City Specific Plan and to refer to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the zoning designations of
the Heart of the City Specific Plan area, andthat Exhibit A attached hereto ismade part of the Master
Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and
Section2.This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
309
Ordinance No. 11-2086
INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15th
day of November, 2011and ENACTED at aregular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the ____day of __________, 2012, by the following vote:
Vote:Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________________________________
Grace Schmidt,Acting CityClerkMark Santoro,Mayor, City of Cupertino
Page 2 of 2
310
Exhibit A
311
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 11- 2087
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCILOF 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 IN THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
312
313
EXHIBIT A EXHIBITA
314
315
TABLE OF CONTENTS
316
INTRODUCTION
Overview
important commercial corridor in the City of
guide the future development and redevelop-
ment of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in
a manner that creates a greater sense of place
and community identity in Cupertino. The overall
goal is to develop a Heart of the City, comprising
a collection of pedestrian-inclusive gathering
places that will create a positive and memorable
experience for residents and visitors in Cupertino.
Currently, the boundaries of the Heart of the City
area encompass approximately 635 acres.
317
POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policies
318
Area and Special CentersMap
West Stevens Central
Creek Boulevard
Stevens Creek
Educational/
Boulevard
Public/Park
Primary Use: Commercial/
District
Primary Use: Quasi-Public/
Secondary Use:
Public Facilities
Supporting Use: Mixed
Supporting Use:
Commercial/Residential
Residential/
Residential Mixed Uses
(Residential may be located behind Primary Uses and above
the ground level)
Crossroads Area
City Center Sub-
Commercial
Area
Shopping District
Primary Use:
Primary Use: Commercial/
Residential/Hotel/
Public Facilities/Commercial
Retail
Retail/Mixed Uses
Secondary Use: Commercial
level
S upporting Use: Limited Residential (Residential may be
located behind Primary Uses and above the ground level)
East Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Regional
Commercial
District
Primary Use: Retail/
Commercial/Commercial
Secondary Use:
Supporting Use: Residential/
Residential Mixed Use
319
320
321
STREETSCAPE DESIGN
Background and Purpose
Streetscape Design Principles
322
Design Concept
323
Frontage Conditions for Renovation
of Existing Buildings
324
Street Furnishings
325
Streetscape Concept
Principles:
Unify Visual Appearance of Street with Orchard/Grove Street Tre
and Civic Landmarks.
Improve Pedestrian Environment Along Street Frontage with Plant
Allow Flexibility to Address Access and Visibility Needs of Adj
Accommodate Options for Implementing Streetscape Improvements:
Existing Development, Standards for New Development.
Create a Unique Pedestrian-Oriented Activity Center at the Cros
85
280
Crossroads
West Stevens Creek Blvd:Central Stevens Creek Blvd:East Stevens Creek Blvd:
Oak GroveFlowering OrchardAsh Grove
Informal Arrangement of Native Formal Grid of Flowering Trees Semi-Formal Arrangement of
Trees and Wild Flowers Along andLow-Growing Ground CoverLarge Shade Trees,Low-Growing
Frontage and in Median.Along Frontage and in Median.Ground Cover, and Flowering Shrubs
Consider Removing Curbs and Walks Focuses Character of City Center, Along Frontage and in Median.
and Replacing with Crushed Granite Target, Office Buildings. Focuses Character of Vallco,
Surface.Marketplace Center, Wolfe Road.
Focuses Character of De Anza
College, Memorial Park, Oaks Center.
326
1.01.020
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Land Use and Zoning Permitted and
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Conditional Uses
Background
Development Standards
...........
Description
327
............
Building Height, Setbacks
and Orientation
328
............
Site Development and Parking
329
330
331
Single-Family Residential
Development Standards
.............
Description
332
Application Requirements
Exception Process for
and Approval Authority
Development Standards
333
Design Guidelines
2.01.010
Description
334
Site Improvements and
Landscaping Guidelines
............
Description
335
336
INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Background
Transportation
Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Energy Facilities
337
IMPLEMENTATION
Streetscape Improvements
Regulatory Framework
Background
Phase I: Median and Landmarks
Phase II: Landscape Easement Installation
338
Phase III: Remainder of Improvements
Civic Landmarks
Cali Mill Plaza
339
APPENDIX A
Estimated Construction Costs
340
APPENDIX B
General Plan Policies related to the
Heart of the City Plan Area
341
342
343
344
345
346
Acknowledgements
Update 2010:
1995:
347
Amendments by City Council
As of November 15, 2011
348
City of Cupertino
349
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 11-190
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 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 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. 11-2086for Z-2011-01 and Ordinance
No. 11-2087for SPA-2011-01:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:Wong, Santoro, Chang, Mahoney, Wang
NOES:None
ABSENT:None
ABSTAIN:None
350
ATTEST:APPROVED:
/s/Kimberly Smith/s/Gilbert Wong
Kimberly Smith, City ClerkGilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino
351
Exhibit A
352
ATTACHMENTD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
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.
353
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.
354
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
355
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
356
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
357
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
358
Attachment E(Revised to include CC
changes from 11/15/11)
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).
359
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 Figures1,2
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
developments, residential development shall be based on net density,excluding parking and/or land
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
360
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 bulkof building 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 feet from 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. For these 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.
361
On Page 20:
Application Requirements and Approval Authority
.
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 ofthe 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 permitmay 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 19.132 or 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 followingfindings:
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. Refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.12, Administration, for approval authority of an Exception
Process.
362
B. An application for exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of
Community Development. The applicationshall 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.
363
Attachment F(Revised 11/15/11 including
property addresses)
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designations in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
The following is a written description of all that real propertyanta Clara, State
of California, in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area identified by Assessthat is
rezoned from P Mixed Use Planned Development to the corresponding zoning designation listed
below.These current Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) shall herein be incorporated by reference with
their corresponding zoning designation, including any future ame
Numbers.
ASSESSORS PARCEL
PROPOSED ZONINGNUMBERPROPERTY ADDRESS
21250 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BA359 01 002
21250 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BA359 01 004
10300 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
10350 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(BA)369 31 03310800 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG)359 17 00310311 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 01620565 SUNRISE DR
P(CG)359 17 00110251 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 06010211 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 17 00210301 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 04720559 RODRIGUES AVE
P(CG)359 10 01510133 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 01420556 SCOFIELD DR
P(CG)359 17 00510381 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 17 00410321 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 17 02310495 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 04410201 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 17 01910385 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG)359 10 04320556 SUNRISE DR
21255 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG)326 27 035
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 078
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 085
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 08610080 N WOLFE RD
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 99919507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 037
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 079
P(CG, OP, Res)316 20 038
10100 N TANTAU AVE
P(CG, OP, Res)316 19 061
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 03510200 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 02620380 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 022
364
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 06510050 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 99920490 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 99920490 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 99920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 02120350 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 02720450 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 02820400 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 998
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 01920300 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 02020330 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 00110100 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG, OP,Res)369 01 023
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 128
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT130
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 131
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 129
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 121
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 125
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 127
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 123
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 258
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 259
P(CG, OP, Res)31649 04419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 201
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 257
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 203
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 202
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 231
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 229
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 221
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 225
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 227
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 223
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 359
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 301
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 358
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 357
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 303
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 302
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 308
P(CG,OP, Res)316 49 08319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 309
Page 2 of 30
365
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 351
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 338
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 339
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 311
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 312
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 337
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 315
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 336
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 208
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 209
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 251
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 238
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 239
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 211
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 212
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 237
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 215
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 236
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 217
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 235
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 218
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 219
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 233
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 220
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 05919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 226
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 228
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 06319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 230
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 267
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 265
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 263
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 07519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 261
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00819507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 205
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00519507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 201
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 159
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 101
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 158
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00419507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 105
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00319507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 103
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00219507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 102
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00119507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 101
Page 3 of 30
366
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 157
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 103
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 102
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 105
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 04019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 155
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 153
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 107
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 108
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 151
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 138
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 139
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 111
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 112
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03519503 STEVENSCREEK BLVD UNIT 137
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 115
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 136
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 117
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 135
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 118
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 03219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 133
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 120
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 02619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 126
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 319
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 333
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09019503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 320
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09419503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 326
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09619503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 328
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 330
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09919503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 331
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 329
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 321
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09319503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 325
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09519503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 327
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 09219503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 323
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 11219501 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STE 105
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 11019501 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STE 101
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 11119501 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STE 103
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08719503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 317
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 10119503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 335
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 08819503 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 318
Page 4 of 30
367
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00719507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 203
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00619507 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 202
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 00919505 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 101
P(CG, OP, Res)316 49 01019505 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 103
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1115
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1116
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2105
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2117
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2106
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2111
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2115
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2113
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1117
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1118
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2107
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2114
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2112
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1119
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1120
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2116
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2110
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2109
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2108
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1110
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2104
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1503
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1501
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1513
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1514
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1515
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1516
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1517
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1518
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1519
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1520
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1610
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1609
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1608
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1606
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1604
Page 5 of 30
368
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1611
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1602
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 15920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1612
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1607
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1605
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1603
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1601
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1613
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1614
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1718
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1810
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1809
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1210
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1209
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1208
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1206
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1204
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06120488 STEVENSCREEK BLVD UNIT 1211
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1109
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1108
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1106
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1104
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1111
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1102
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1112
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2101
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1107
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1105
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1103
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1101
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 00120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2102
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 02620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1113
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 01620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2103
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1114
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1201
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2202
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1213
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2203
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1214
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 03920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2204
Page 6 of 30
369
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1215
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1216
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVDUNIT 2205
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2217
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2206
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2211
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2215
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2213
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1217
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1218
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2207
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2214
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2212
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1219
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1220
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2216
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2210
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2209
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 04220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2208
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1412
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1407
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1405
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1403
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1401
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1413
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1414
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1415
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1416
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1417
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1418
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1419
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 12420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1420
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1511
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1502
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1808
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1806
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1804
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1811
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1802
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1812
Page 7 of 30
370
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1807
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1805
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1803
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1801
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1813
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1814
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1815
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1816
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 19920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1817
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1818
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1510
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1509
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1508
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1506
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1504
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 20720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STE 2010
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1202
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 06220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1212
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 05420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2201
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1207
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1205
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1203
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1310
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1309
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1308
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1306
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1304
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1311
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1302
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1312
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2301
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1307
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1305
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1303
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1301
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2302
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1313
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 09020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2303
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1314
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2304
Page 8 of 30
371
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1315
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1316
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2305
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2317
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2306
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2311
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2315
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2313
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1317
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1318
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2307
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2314
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2312
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1319
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 10420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1320
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2316
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2310
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 08020488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2309
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 07920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 2308
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1410
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1409
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1408
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1406
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1404
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1411
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 11220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1402
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 13920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1512
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1507
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 14920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1505
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1615
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1616
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1617
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1618
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 16320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1620
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1710
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1709
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1708
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1706
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17220488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1704
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1711
Page 9 of 30
372
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG, OP,Res)369 5317120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1702
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1712
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18520488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1707
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18620488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1705
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18720488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1703
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18820488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1701
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 17920488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1713
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18420488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1714
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18020488 STEVENS CREEKBLVD UNIT 1715
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18320488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1716
P(CG, OP,Res)369 53 18120488 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 1717
P(CG,Res)326 34 04710125 BANDLEY DR
P(CG,Res)326 34 07110101 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 48 01110229 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02510247 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01510198 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)326 34 07410001 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 45 01519930 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 48 00910225 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01210208 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 01019940 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 03019962 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 02919954 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 02719950 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 03 00420030 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 01320750 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 48 99919999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 23 03320021 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 07 02610030 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 46 01819870 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 01319882 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 47 00120332 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03320271 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 00310246 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00210199 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00110197 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)359 07 00620950 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 07 00521000 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 45 03519956 PORTALPLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 00119982 PORTAL PLZ
Page 10 of 30
373
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 49 995
P(CG,Res)369 51 02010167 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01210170 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 00610244 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 01620302 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 02610249 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01310233 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 00110227 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)359 08 02120600 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 01910023 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 02220568 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 01810041 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 51 998
P(CG,Res)369 48 00810240 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 02220290 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 49 998
P(CG,Res)369 50 00810241 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01410204 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 07 00110121 MILLER AVE
P(CG,Res)369 49 01610200 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 43 00919960 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 00219985 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 00119995 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 998
P(CG,Res)316 21 08919925 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 01820298 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 01720300 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03820281 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 01610239 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 40 998
P(CG,Res)369 49 01910226 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 03620277 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03520275 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 02420286 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 04620331 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 41 00410250 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 02320288 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 03010257 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02710251 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 04120321 PINNTAGE PKWY
Page 11 of 30
374
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 48 01410235 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02010268 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01810272 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01710270 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01810232 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 01610230 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00310201 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 46 02619861 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00419893 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03819801 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 07 01910092 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)369 06 01110055 MILLER AVE
P(CG,Res)369 43 00519955 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 46 02419852 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 08 02720830 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 46 01119892 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00819910 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 07 03010051 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)359 07 02810050 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 46 04219810 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 04319802 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 11 07318900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 46 04419800 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 11 07219030 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 06 00519200 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 11 04810010 BRET AVE
P(CG,Res)316 26 09710120 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 26 09610110 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 21 03119875 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 55 99920500 TOWN CENTER LN
P(CG,Res)375 01 01419480 STEVENSCREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 06 00719550 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 04420327 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 01010227 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 998
P(CG,Res)316 20 08319805 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 050
P(CG,Res)369 40 056
10251 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)369 40 996
P(CG,Res)369 40 997
Page 12 of 30
375
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)326 34 06510050 BANDLEY DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 03210261 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 01520304 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 40 03810420 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 43 00619945 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 03 00520010 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 23 02520085 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 32 05220813 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 49 02210224 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 01020314 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 00920316 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03020270 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 46 02019832 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 01519872 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 02119830 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 43 01119980 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 01219990 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 47 04320325 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03720279 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 54 99910280 PARK GREEN LN
P(CG,Res)369 46 999
P(CG,Res)369 45 00519974 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 00719970 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 01219936 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 00919942 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 08 006
P(CG,Res)316 25 04220289 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 46 01219900 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 07 01710061 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)369 46 00719912 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 07 00410025 S TANTAU AVE
P(CG,Res)369 41 00510201 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)369 45 01419932 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 50 00610237 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)326 34 04420563 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 32 05120807 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 48 02910255 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 03110259 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01610162 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02610201 NILE DR
Page 13 of 30
376
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 46 02819851 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 07 04510033 JUDY AVE
P(CG,Res)369 46 00519891 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 02719853 PORTALPLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 02019920 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)326 32 05620755 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 34 06420573 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 32 04110073 SAICH WAY
P(CG,Res)369 40 046
P(CG,Res)369 40 052
P(CG,Res)369 40 047
20215 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 24 005
P(CG,Res)375 07 00319110 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 07 06019140 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 01 01819300 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 07 00119160 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 45 02419944 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 07 04619050 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 01 02219450 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 999
P(CG,Res)369 47 02820274 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 02720276 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 51 00910172 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)359 07 02510010 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 48 999
P(CG,Res)369 49 01310202 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 03 00320060 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 50 02510199 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01110206 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 00910240 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 997
P(CG,Res)369 45 02119914 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 03119964 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 03219966 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 51 02310173 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 999
P(CG,Res)369 43 00819950 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 45 02619948 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03219843 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00119871 PORTAL PLZ
Page 14 of 30
377
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 46 00219873 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00319881 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 02 026
P(CG,Res)369 50 02210214 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 01910216 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02010218 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 01710220 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 03210213 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01010174 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 01120312 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 997
P(CG,Res)369 51 00810182 DANUBEDR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00710180 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00210194 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00110192 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 43 00719940 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 45 01619928 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 50 01310232 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 997
P(CG,Res)369 50 00510235 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)359 07 00210066 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 49 996
P(CG,Res)369 48 00410248 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02810205 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 46 03419821 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 48 998
P(CG,Res)369 47 01920296 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 00220330 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 00210252 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)359 08 02420900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 07 02220940 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 03910430 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 51 01310164 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 00510242 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)316 24 04720195 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 25 03920311 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 02020700 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 07 00510039 S TANTAU AVE
P(CG,Res)326 32 04210057 SAICH WAY
P(CG,Res)369 46 02519863 PORTAL PLZ
Page 15 of 30
378
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)359 07 02710040 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)316 24 06020235 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 50 00710239 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00610186 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00510184 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00410203 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 02410220 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01210231 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 02520280 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)316 26 09510002 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 25 04320245 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 46 02219842 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 02319850 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)316 23 02720149 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 26 09420425 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 049
P(CG,Res)369 40 055
P(CG,Res)369 45 02519946 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 47 00320328 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 45 02219916 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 02319918 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 06 00519541 RICHWOOD DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 02110169 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01110168 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 03110211 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 46 03919812 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 01919840 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 06 00210025 E ESTATES DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00610207 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 03 00220100 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 56 99920128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 07 02110040 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03220269 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 46 01019890 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 05 00819960 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 05 00719990 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 23 09320009 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 04020285 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 50 01410234 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 46 01619860 PORTAL PLZ
Page 16 of 30
379
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 49 00810211 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 01010242 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)326 34 06720541 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 49 01010212 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 02120292 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 45 01819924 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 48 00710238 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 999
P(CG,Res)369 50 01110236 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 00419976 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 01719926 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 06 00819750 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 43 01019970 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 00419965 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)369 43 00319975 BRENDA CT
P(CG,Res)326 32 05520745 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)36949 00910210 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 40 998
P(CG,Res)369 47 04520329 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 49 02010228 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01510237 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 03920283 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 02210264 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 00310231 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 01319934 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 01119938 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 01419880 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)359 07 020
P(CG,Res)359 07 032
P(CG,Res)359 07 02410020 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 06 01019620 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 11 07119028 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 21 08810055 N PORTAL AVE
P(CG,Res)326 31 01910100 N STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 40 03610271 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)369 40 00310300 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 044
P(CG,Res)369 40 045
P(CG,Res)369 40 051
P(CG,Res)369 40 995
Page 17 of 30
380
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)326 31 02220955 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 50 01810222 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 03010209 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 04220323 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 46 04019820PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00919902 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 04119822 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 49 00710209 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 00410233 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 02 03120230 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 07 01010092 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)316 23 02620111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 23 01710020 RANDY LN
P(CG,Res)316 25 03820301 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 00420326 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)359 09 01710105 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 05 00919930 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 50 02710203 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01710161 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 01510160 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 00319978 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 50 02910207 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 00820318 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 00720320 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 00620322 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 00520324 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 02 03010000 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)316 23 09520045 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 47 01220310 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)326 34 04310145 N DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 34 06610122 BANDLEY DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 02920272 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 51 01910165 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 05 03819900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 21 09019989 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 51 01410166 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 996
P(CG,Res)369 50 00210229 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)316 26 09020379 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 32 05020883 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Page 18 of 30
381
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)375 02 02119330 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 51 997
P(CG,Res)369 02 029
P(CG,Res)375 11 04610038 BRET AVE
P(CG,Res)375 11 01910037 BRET AVE
P(CG,Res)375 11 01410038 JUDY AVE
P(CG,Res)316 23 09620065 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)326 32 05420735 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 05920370 TOWN CENTER LN
P(CG,Res)369 40 06020430 TOWN CENTER LN
P(CG,Res)369 40 00410260 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 45 03419958 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 03319960 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 02819952 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 00219980 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 02919831 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03019833 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03119841 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 03 007
P(CG,Res)369 51 02210171 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02310208 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02410210 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 02110212 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 01710230 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 50 01510228 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 00510205 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)359 07 00110088 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)326 32 03410115 SAICH WAY
P(CG,Res)369 51 00410190 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 00310188 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 00819968 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 47 03420273 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)326 32 05320833 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 46 03719803 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 47 02020294 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 50 998
P(CG,Res)359 08 00520770 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)359 08 026
P(CG,Res)359 08 02520840 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 51 02410175 DANUBE DR
Page 19 of 30
382
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 50 01210238 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 03 00610041 S BLANEY AVE
P(CG,Res)369 05 01019936 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)316 23 03610041 N BLANEY AVE
P(CG,Res)326 31 02120999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 49 02310218 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02810253 NILE DR
P(CG,Res)369 49 02110222 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02410260 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 01910266 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02310258 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 48 02110262 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 47 02620278 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 01420306 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 47 01320308 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 48 00110250 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 51 999
P(CG,Res)369 06 00310075 E ESTATES DR
P(CG,Res)369 46 03319813 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 00619883 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 45 01919922 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03619811 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 03519823 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 06 004
P(CG,Res)375 11 04710024 BRET AVE
P(CG,Res)359 07 03110053 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)359 07 02910060 S STELLING RD
P(CG,Res)369 02 03210100 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)316 21 03219855 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 40 053
P(CG,Res)369 40 048
P(CG,Res)369 40 054
P(CG,Res)359 07 03410069 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)359 07 035
P(CG,Res)359 07 03310067 BIANCHI WAY
P(CG,Res)369 47 03120267 PINNTAGE PKWY
P(CG,Res)369 51 01810163 DANUBE DR
P(CG,Res)369 45 00619972 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)369 46 01719862 PORTAL PLZ
P(CG,Res)375 01 02110062 MILLER AVE
Page 20 of 30
383
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)375 06 00719220 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 06 00619240 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)375 01 02319400 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 50 999
19624 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P(CG,Res)369 06 009
P(CG,Res)316 24 05910104 VISTA DR
10150 TORRE
P(CG,Res)369 02 027
P(CG,Res)369 50 997
P(CG,Res)375 02 02910063 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02810061 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03310087 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02510053 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03010079 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03410089 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 04010073 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02410051 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03810093 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02210069 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02310067 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03710095 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03910075 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)316 48 00519999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 106
P(CG,Res)316 48 00119999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 101
P(CG,Res)316 48 00619999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 107
P(CG,Res)316 48 00819999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 109
P(CG,Res)316 48 00719999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 108
P(CG,Res)316 48 00919999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 110
P(CG,Res)316 48 01519999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 119
P(CG,Res)316 48 01019999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 111
P(CG,Res)316 48 01619999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 120
P(CG,Res)316 48 01719999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 201
P(CG,Res)316 48 02119999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 206
P(CG,Res)316 48 02219999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 207
P(CG,Res)316 48 02519999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 210
P(CG,Res)316 48 02319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 208
P(CG,Res)316 48 02619999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 211
P(CG,Res)316 48 02719999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 212
P(CG,Res)316 48 03419999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 301
P(CG,Res)316 48 03519999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 302
P(CG,Res)316 48 04019999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 308
Page 21 of 30
384
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)316 48 04119999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 309
P(CG,Res)316 48 00219999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 102
P(CG,Res)316 48 00419999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 105
P(CG,Res)316 48 00319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 103
P(CG,Res)316 48 01319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 117
P(CG,Res)316 48 02919999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 216
P(CG,Res)316 48 01119999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 112
P(CG,Res)316 48 01419999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 118
P(CG,Res)316 48 01219999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 115
P(CG,Res)316 48 02019999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 205
P(CG,Res)316 48 01819999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 202
P(CG,Res)316 48 03219999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 219
P(CG,Res)316 48 01919999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 203
P(CG,Res)316 48 02819999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 215
P(CG,Res)316 48 03319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 220
P(CG,Res)316 48 03019999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 217
P(CG,Res)316 48 03719999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 305
P(CG,Res)316 48 03119999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 218
P(CG,Res)316 48 04519999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 315
P(CG,Res)316 48 03619999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 303
P(CG,Res)316 48 04219999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 310
P(CG,Res)316 48 04319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 311
P(CG,Res)316 48 04419999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 312
P(CG,Res)375 02 03210085 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02710059 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 02610057 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03110081 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)369 54 01810281 TORRE AVE UNIT 818
P(CG,Res)369 54 02210281 TORRE AVE UNIT 822
P(CG,Res)369 54 04710280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 847
P(CG,Res)369 54 05110280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 851
P(CG,Res)369 54 01710281 TORRE AVE UNIT 817
P(CG,Res)369 54 02310281 TORRE AVE UNIT 823
P(CG,Res)369 54 04610280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 846
P(CG,Res)369 54 01610281 TORRE AVE UNIT 816
P(CG,Res)369 54 01510281 TORRE AVE UNIT 815
P(CG,Res)369 54 01910281 TORRE AVE UNIT 819
P(CG,Res)369 54 02010281 TORRE AVE UNIT 820
P(CG,Res)369 54 02110281 TORRE AVE UNIT 821
P(CG,Res)369 54 04810280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 848
Page 22 of 30
385
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 54 04910280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 849
P(CG,Res)369 54 05010280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 850
P(CG,Res)369 54 02410281 TORRE AVE UNIT 824
P(CG,Res)369 54 04510280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 845
P(CG,Res)369 54 02710281 TORRE AVE UNIT 827
P(CG,Res)369 54 02610281 TORRE AVE UNIT 826
P(CG,Res)369 54 04310280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 843
P(CG,Res)369 54 02510281 TORRE AVE UNIT 825
P(CG,Res)369 54 04210280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 842
P(CG,Res)369 54 04110280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 841
P(CG,Res)369 54 04010280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 840
P(CG,Res)369 54 04410280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 844
P(CG,Res)369 54 01410281 TORRE AVE UNIT 814
P(CG,Res)369 54 00310281 TORRE AVE UNIT 803
P(CG,Res)369 54 03510280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 835
P(CG,Res)369 54 00110281 TORRE AVE UNIT 801
P(CG,Res)369 54 00210281 TORRE AVE UNIT 802
P(CG,Res)369 54 03610280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 836
P(CG,Res)369 54 03710280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 837
P(CG,Res)369 54 03810280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 838
P(CG,Res)369 54 03910280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 839
P(CG,Res)369 54 00410281 TORRE AVE UNIT 804
P(CG,Res)369 54 01310281 TORRE AVE UNIT 813
P(CG,Res)369 54 03410280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 834
P(CG,Res)369 54 01210281 TORRE AVE UNIT 812
P(CG,Res)369 54 00520320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 805
P(CG,Res)369 54 03320320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 833
P(CG,Res)369 54 00720320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 807
P(CG,Res)369 54 03120320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 831
P(CG,Res)369 54 00620320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 806
P(CG,Res)369 54 03020320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 830
P(CG,Res)369 54 02920320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 829
P(CG,Res)36954 02810280 PARK GREEN LN UNIT 828
P(CG,Res)369 54 00820320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 808
P(CG,Res)369 54 03220320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 832
P(CG,Res)369 54 01120320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 811
P(CG,Res)369 54 01020320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 810
P(CG,Res)369 54 00920320 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 809
P(CG,Res)369 55 01120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 172
P(CG,Res)369 55 01620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 178
Page 23 of 30
386
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 55 01420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 176
P(CG,Res)369 55 04520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 272
P(CG,Res)369 55 05020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 278
P(CG,Res)369 55 04820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 276
P(CG,Res)369 55 08120380 TORRE AVE
P(CG,Res)369 55 01820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 180
P(CG,Res)369 55 01920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 181
P(CG,Res)369 5502020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 182
P(CG,Res)369 55 02120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 183
P(CG,Res)369 55 02320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 186
P(CG,Res)369 55 02220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 185
P(CG,Res)369 55 02420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 187
P(CG,Res)369 55 02520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 188
P(CG,Res)369 55 02620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 189
P(CG,Res)369 55 02720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 191
P(CG,Res)369 55 05220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 280
P(CG,Res)369 55 05320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 281
P(CG,Res)369 55 05420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 282
P(CG,Res)369 55 05520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 283
P(CG,Res)369 55 05720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 286
P(CG,Res)369 55 05620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 285
P(CG,Res)369 55 05820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 287
P(CG,Res)369 55 05920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 288
P(CG,Res)369 55 06020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 289
P(CG,Res)369 55 06120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 291
P(CG,Res)369 55 08220550 TOWN CENTER LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 03120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 196
P(CG,Res)369 55 03320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 198
P(CG,Res)369 55 02820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 192
P(CG,Res)369 55 03220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 197
P(CG,Res)369 55 03020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 195
P(CG,Res)369 55 02920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 193
P(CG,Res)369 55 06520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 296
P(CG,Res)369 55 06720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 298
P(CG,Res)369 55 06220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 292
P(CG,Res)369 55 06620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 297
P(CG,Res)369 55 06420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 295
P(CG,Res)369 55 06320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 293
P(CG,Res)369 55 07310289 PARK GREEN LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07210287 PARK GREEN LN
Page 24 of 30
387
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 55 07110285 PARK GREEN LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07010283 PARK GREEN LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 06910281 PARK GREENLN
P(CG,Res)369 55 083
P(CG,Res)369 55 00820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 169
P(CG,Res)369 55 00620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 167
P(CG,Res)369 55 00720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 168
P(CG,Res)369 55 00420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 165
P(CG,Res)369 55 00520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 166
P(CG,Res)369 55 00320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 163
P(CG,Res)369 55 00220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 162
P(CG,Res)369 55 00120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 161
P(CG,Res)369 55 03420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 199
P(CG,Res)369 5504220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 269
P(CG,Res)369 55 04020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 267
P(CG,Res)369 55 04120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 268
P(CG,Res)369 55 03820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 265
P(CG,Res)369 55 03920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 266
P(CG,Res)369 55 03720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 263
P(CG,Res)369 55 03620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 262
P(CG,Res)369 55 03520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 261
P(CG,Res)369 55 06820500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 299
P(CG,Res)369 55 07520179 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07620181 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07720183 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07820185 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 07920187 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 08020189 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)369 55 00920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 170
P(CG,Res)369 55 01020500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 171
P(CG,Res)369 55 01220500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 173
P(CG,Res)369 55 01320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 175
P(CG,Res)369 55 01520500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 177
P(CG,Res)369 55 01720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 179
P(CG,Res)369 55 04320500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 270
P(CG,Res)369 55 04420500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 271
P(CG,Res)369 55 04620500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 273
P(CG,Res)369 55 04720500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 275
P(CG,Res)369 55 04920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 277
P(CG,Res)369 55 05120500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 279
Page 25 of 30
388
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(CG,Res)369 55 07420177 CIVIC PARK LN
P(CG,Res)375 02 03610099 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)375 02 03510097 CRAFT DR
P(CG,Res)369 56 00820128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 107
P(CG,Res)369 56 00720128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 106
P(CG,Res)369 56 00920128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 108
P(CG,Res)369 56 00620128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 105
P(CG,Res)369 56 01020128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 109
P(CG,Res)369 56 00520128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 104
P(CG,Res)369 56 01120128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 110
P(CG,Res)369 56 00420128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 103
P(CG,Res)369 56 01220128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 111
P(CG,Res)369 56 00320128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 102
P(CG,Res)369 56 02420128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 212
P(CG,Res)369 56 00220128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 101
P(CG,Res)369 56 00120128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 207
P(CG,Res)369 56 01920128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 206
P(CG,Res)369 56 01820128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 208
P(CG,Res)369 56 02020128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 205
P(CG,Res)369 56 01720128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 209
P(CG,Res)369 56 02120128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 204
P(CG,Res)369 56 01620128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 210
P(CG,Res)369 56 02220128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 203
P(CG,Res)369 56 01520128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 211
P(CG,Res)369 56 02320128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 202
P(CG,Res)369 56 01420128 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 201
P(CG,Res)369 56 01319999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 209
P(CG,Res)316 48 02419999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 316
P(CG,Res)316 48 04619999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 306
P(CG,Res)316 48 03819999 STEVENS CREEK BLVD UNIT 307
P(CG,Res)316 48 03920500 TOWN CENTER LN UNIT 169
P(MP)316 20 071
P(MP)316 20 07519333 VALLCO PKWY
P(MP)31620 07419191 VALLCO PKWY
P(MP)316 20 07619333 VALLCO PKWY
P(OP)369 40 028
P(OP)369 40 026
P(OP)369 40 027
P(OP)369 40 01120431 PACIFICA DR
P(OP)369 40 01220455 PACIFICA DR
Page 26 of 30
389
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(OP)369 40 024
P(OP)369 40 01910393 TORRE AVE
P(OP)369 40 01810353 TORRE AVE
P(OP)369 40 029
P(OP)369 40 021
P(OP)369 40 022
P(OP)369 40 031
P(OP)369 40 030
P(OP)369 40 00910455 TORRE AVE
P(OP)369 40 01410480 S DE ANZA BLVD
P(OP)369 40 025
P(OP)369 40 032
P(OP)369 40 02010363 TORRE AVE
P(OP)369 40 99920395 PACIFICA DR
P(OP)369 40 023
P(OP)369 40 00810413 TORRE AVE
P(R1C)316 42 01620250 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 01520251 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 01820270 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 01420261 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 01720260 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 01320271 REINELL PL
P(R1C)316 42 999
P(R-3)10-20369 03 00820080 RODRIGUES AVE
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 106
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10410343 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10710123 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 09910330 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10010123 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 09410150 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 095
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 08010101 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)31620 082
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 08110123 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10510123 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10310123 N WOLFE RD
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 092
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 088
P(Regional Shopping)316 20 10110333 N WOLFE RD
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04510176 MACADAM LN
Page 27 of 30
390
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04710170 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05010160 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05610171 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04210186 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04110188 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04410180 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05410161 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05510163 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04610174 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 099
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04910164 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04810168 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05910189 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 06010193 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 03810198 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05110158 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05210152 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04310184 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 997
P(Res 5-10)369 01 04010190 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05310159 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 06110197 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05710181 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 05810185 MACADAM LN
P(Res 5-10)369 01 03910194 MACADAM LN
P(Res)326 53 05321083 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 01610081 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 05010083 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 04010105 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 04510104 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 03510144 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 03321135 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 02521035 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 03021085 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 02310140 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 03221125 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 00221152 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 00121162 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 03410134 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 03710135 CONGRESS PL
Page 28 of 30
391
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(Res)326 53 02210130 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 05121063 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 05421103 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 01410101 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 01110102 SENATE WAY
P(Res)32653 04810103 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 00710062 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 01710080 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 02721055 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 04910093 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 01010092 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 05621123 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 00421132 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 05921153 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 01310111 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 00910082 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 04210085 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 04310084 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 02110120 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 03810125 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 02621045 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 00321142 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 00521122 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 02821065 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 06021163 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 05521113 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 05721133 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 03910115 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 04610114 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 04110095 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 04410094 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 01910100 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 00610052 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 00810072 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 05221073 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 999
P(Res)326 53 03610145 CONGRESS PL
P(Res)326 53 02921075 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 04710113 SENATE WAY
P(Res)326 53 01210112 SENATE WAY
Page 29 of 30
392
List of Properties by Assessors Parcel Numbers
with their proposed corresponding Zoning Designationsin the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
(contd.)
P(Res)326 53 02010110 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 01810090 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 01510091 UNITED PL
P(Res)326 53 05821143 PATRIOT WAY
P(Res)326 53 03121115 FREEDOM DR
P(Res)326 53 02421025 FREEDOM DR
PR326 29 02221111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
PR326 54 04110185 N STELLING RD
PR326 29 00621251 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
R-3(10-20)326 27 03621316 GLEN PL
R-3(10-20)326 27 03710205 PARKWOOD DR
R-3(10-20)326 27 033
Page 30 of 30
393
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
Rezoning from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) and R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20
(Single Family Residential) of a 0.775 acre lot and its half-street
Recommended Action
The Planning Commissionrecommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council approvethe
Rezoning (Attachment A).
Approve project and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 12-____: “An Ordinance of the
Cupertino City Council rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre
from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and the remaining
portion of the lot and its fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family
Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN
356-26-026”.
Description
Applications:Z-2011-04(EA-2011-13)
Applicant:Daryl Fazekas
Property Owner:Isaac Segal
Location:11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026
Application Summary:
Rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural
Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential), and the remaining portion of the lot and its
fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single
Family Residential) located at 11215 Mount Crest Place.
394
Project Data Summary:
Property FeatureSquare Existing Proposed
Footage
Lot Area30,274SameSame
Fronting half-street3,483SameSame
General Plan Land Use Designation33,757Low Density Res. Low Density Res.
(1-5 du/gr. Ac.)(1-5 du/gr. Ac.)
Residential Density33,7571.3 du/gr. Ac.1.3 du/gr. Ac.
Zoning: northern portion of lot & half-13,886R1-10 (Single R1-20 (Single
streetFamily Family
Residential)Residential)
Zoning: southern portion of lot & half-19,871A1-43R1-20 (Single
street(Agricultural Family
Residential)Residential)
Discussion
Planning Commission
On November 7, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended
approval of the rezoning proposal for 11215 Mount Crest Place. Background information is in
the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) and the attachments (Attachments C –G).
The Commissioners noted that the surroundings were very hilly and having a consistent zoning
designation that addresses development on steeper topography was appropriate. One
Commissioner asked if there were other agricultural-residential properties that needed rezoning.
Staff noted that the A1 zoning district was a legitimate zone in the City and it was possible to
develop residential uses under this zone. The subject proposal was for a rather unique
circumstance where the property had two different residential zoning districts with two different
sets of development regulations. The present property owner found it too difficult to add onto
his residence under such circumstance. Because rezoning requires a legislative action by the
City, staff did not have an administrative remedy for this problem.
Public Comments
A member of the public asked why the applicant was seeking the rezoning and how it would
affect the development regulations for the property. Staff stated the applicant was seeking a
rezoning to R-1 to facilitate his remodeling and addition plans for the house, which involves
small one-story additions on the level portions of the property. The rezoning from A1-43toR-1
changes the side building setback from a minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of5 feetfor a one-
story addition.No additional comments were brought up at the meeting.
_____________________________________
395
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. 6680
B:Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 7, 2011
C: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 7, 2011
D: Zoning Plat Map
E: Site Plan
F: Negative Declaration, ERC Recommendation and Initial Study
G: Ordinance No. 12-____
396
ATTACHMENTA
397
398
399
400
ATTACHMENTB
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777--planning@cupertino.org
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 7, 2011
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:
Z-2011-04 (EA-2011-13)
Application:
Daryl Fazekas (for Isaac Segal)
Applicant:
Rezoning of approximately 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural
Application Summary:
Residential) to R1-20 (Single-Family Residential), and approximately 0.319 acre from R1-
10 (Single-Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single-Family Residential) for property located at
11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
A Negative Declaration for the project (EA-2011-13); and
Z-2011-04 per the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Property FeatureSquare ExistingProposed
Footage
Lot Area30,274SameSame
Fronting half-street3,483SameSame
General Plan Land Use Designation33,757Low Density Low Density
Res. (1-5 du/gr. Res. (1-5 du/gr.
Ac.)Ac.)
Residential Density33,7571.3 du/gr. Ac.1.3 du/gr. Ac.
Zoning: northern portion of lot & 13,886R1-10 (Single R1-20 (Single
half-streetFamily Family
Residential)Residential)
Zoning: southern portion of lot & 19,871A1-43R1-20 (Single
half-street(Agricultural Family
Residential)Residential)
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Daryl Fazekas, representing the property owner, requests the rezoning of a
single family residential parcel from A1-43/R1-10 to R1-20. The project property is a
401
Z-2011-04(EA-2011-13) 11215 Mount Crest PlaceNovember 7, 2011
sloped lot developedwith a single-family residence.The property is surrounding by
other single-family residences on sloped lots.
11130
11141
11140
11151
11150
11161
11160
11180
11205
11190
1120411191
11206
11208
11219
11245
11210
11233
11247
11255
21830
11249
11261
11275
21849
11289
22071
22101
11305
21731
21949
21947
22061
22081
*Project parcel delineated in red.
Originally,the subject property was two separate lotswith different zoning designations
and subdivided under different owners. In the 1970s, the lots weremerged tocreate a
more buildable lotin order to constructa single-family residence. At the time, the
property was not rezoned to bring the merged property into one zoning designation.
The current property owner is planning an addition to the existing residence and would
like to rezone the property to be consistent with the predominant neighboring R1-20
zoning designations andapply a consistent set of development standards to the project.
DISCUSSION:
The existing residence meets the building setbacks for the R1-20 and A1-43 zoned portions
of the property. Attachment 2 depicts the property and the two different zoning
boundaries. Attachment 3 depicts the location of the residence othe
402
Z-2011-04(EA-2011-13) 11215 Mount Crest PlaceNovember 7, 2011
proposedone-storyadditions.It should be noted that the proposed additions are not part
of this zoning consideration and will be reviewed and approved with a building
Staff supports rezoning the entire property to R1-20 since the Agricultural-Residential
(A1-43) zoning does not have anyprovisions to address sloped developments and the R1-
20 development standards are consistent with the predominant neighboringproperties.
Environmental Review
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) supports the request and recommended a
Negative Declaration for the project (Attachment 4).
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City PlannerCommunity Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Draft resolution for Z-2011-04
Attachment 2:Zoning Plat Map
Attachment 3: Site Plan
Attachment 4: ERC Recommendation, Initial Study
G:planning/PDREPORTS/Z reports/2011/Z-2011-04.docx
403
ATTACHMENTC
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45P.M. November 7, 2011 MONDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting ofNovember 7, 2011was called to orderat 6:45 p.m.
in Room 100 (EOC) 10300 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
Commissioner:Don Sun
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planner:Colin Jung
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Rick Row, Ecology Action, representing Energy Upgrade California:
Discussed briefly a new state initiative to encourage homeowners to improve the energy
efficiency of their homes. Asuccessful workshop hosted by the City of Cupertino, was held
last week in Cupertino for homeowners to provide information about the program which
includes rebates up to $4,000 from PG&E. The series of the workshops ends tomorrow
evening in Los Altos at 7 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.Z-2011-04,(EA-2011-03)
Rezoning application to rezone approximately 0.456acre
Daryl Fazekas (for Isaac
from Agricultural Residential (A1-43) to Single Family
Segal) 1215 Mount Crest Pl.
Residential (R1-20) and approximately 0.319 acrefrom
R1-10 to R1-20.Tentative City Council date: December
20, 2011
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for rezoning of approximately 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural
404
Cupertino Planning Commission2November 7, 2011
Residential) to R1-20 (Single-Family Residential) and approximately 0.319 acre from R1-10
(Single-Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single-Family Residential) for property located at 1215
Mount Crest Place, as outlined in the staff report.
He reviewed an aerial photo showing the location of the property, and a zoning plat map. The
rezoning request is consistent with the General Plan land use designation which is low density
residential (1 to 5 dwelling units per acre); the proposal is to rezone it to R1which has hillside
development standards, whereas the R1-43 does not. The R1-20 standards are appropriate for
the subject parcel and are consistent with the other neighboring properties on the hill. The
R1-20 standards accommodate the applicant’s desired home addition plan.
Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration, and recommends approval of the
rezoning in accordance with the draft resolution.
Daryl Fazekas Applicant:
Said that the house is the current building and sits on both zones, split in the middle, unrelated
to the addition.
Com. Brownley:
Said he visited the propertyrecently; and commented that all the property along the Mount
Crest Place sectionis a steep slope. He said he felt the main point of having R1-20zoning
being able to address lots with slopes and the agricultural zoning not being able to, wasan
important point of the property havingsteep slopes along the roadway; having zoning that
provides regulations and addresses those concerns is important. He also felt it was a good idea
to have consistent zoning across the property and SAID it is important that the ERC
recommend a negative declaration.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the zoning was a legislative action and there was no way to avoid going to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Chair Lee openedthe public hearing.
Neighbor (Name not given):
Said he receivedthe notice in the mail; and questioned what the homogenous zoning would
do, and what the new owner was trying to accomplish.
Colin Jung:
Explained that there were building plans on file with the Planning Department, and the
applicant was waiting for the rezoning action to go through. The rezoning would facilitate the
proposed additions shown; the lower half of the property is zoned Agriculture Residential;
there is a 20 foot side yard setbackand if it were to change to R1 zoning, the setback could be
as little as 5 feet on one sidebut the additions themselves are proposed on the flat part of the
property. The applicant proposes to do an interior remodel of the house with a one story
addition and addition of a master bath, as well as the addition of two bedrooms.
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said he supported approval of the application as it was a minor change to the zoning to
accommodate Mr. Segal’s building plans.
Com. Sun:
Said he did not see any problems and supported the application.
405
Cupertino Planning Commission3November 7, 2011
Chair Lee:
Said she supported the application; Mr. Segal is attempting to get the zoning of his house
under one zoning that complements the other properties and he would also like to make a
minor addition to his house.
Motion:Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 to approve Application Z-2011-04 (EA-2011-13)
The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to City Council at adate yet to be
determined.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE:
No Meeting
HOUSING COMMISSION:
No meeting
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
No meeting
MAYOR’S MONTHLY MEETING:
No meeting.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Written report submitted.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission
meeting scheduled forNovember 22, 2011at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:____________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
406
ATTACHMENTD
407
ATTACHMENTE
408
ATTACHMENTF
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
ATTACHMENTG
ORDINANCE NO. 12- ____
An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council rezoning a portion of
half-street of 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family
Residential) and the remaining portion of the lot andits fronting half-street of 0.319 acre
from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at
11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026
WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no-2011-04) for the
rezoning of a property from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) and R1-10 (Single-Family
Residential)toR1-20 (Single-Family Residential); and
WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planni
recommended to the City Council that therezoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, amap of the subject property isattached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed
amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.That the property described in attached Exhibits A & B, arehereby rezoned
to:R1-20 (Single-Family Residential); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part
of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and
Section 2.This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) day
passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of
the 17th day of January 2012 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino the ____day of __________, 2012, by the following vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _____________________________
Grace Schmidt, ActingCity Clerk Mark Santoro, Mayor, City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDReport\ORD\Z-2011-04 ord.doc
425
426
427
OFFICEOFTHE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
1010300TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408)777-3223www.cupertino.org
CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Abatement ofa public nuisance(weeds) pursuantto provisions ofCupertino MunicipalCode
Chapter 9.08 andResolutionNo. 11-189.
RecommendedAction
Note objectionsandadoptthe draftresolution orderingabatement ofa public nuisance(weeds).
Discussion
Chapter9.08oftheCupertinoMunicipalCoderequirespropertyownerstoremoveordestroy
weedsontheirproperty.Theweedabatement processisinplacetonotifythepropertyownersof
thisresponsibility,authorizetheCountytoremovetheweedsifthepropertyownerdoesn’t,and
allowtheCountytorecoverthecostsofabatement.Theprocessconsistsofeightstepsthatbegin
inNovemberandgothroughAugust ofeachyear.Atthistime,the processisatStep 4.
1.Countypreparesalistofallpropertiesthathavebeennon-compliantinremovingweeds
inthelastthreeyearsand providesthatlisttotheCity(Nov).
2.CityCounciladoptsaresolutiondeclaringweedsanuisanceandsettingahearingdateto
hear objectionsby property ownersto havingtheir name on thelist(Nov-Dec).
3.Countysendsnoticetothepropertyownersonthelistnotifyingthemofthehearingdate
andexplainingthattheymustremoveweedsbytheabatementdeadlineofApril30orit
willbedoneforthem,andthecostoftheabatementplusadministrativecostsassessedto
their property(Dec).
4.CityCouncilholdsthehearingtoconsiderobjectionsbypropertyownersandadoptsa
resolution orderingabatement(Jan).
5.Countysendsacourtesylettertopropertyownersonthelistnotifyingthemagainofthe
abatementdeadlineandnotingthattheywillworkwiththepropertyownertobesurethe
weedsareremoved(Jan).
6.AfterApril30,thepropertiesareinspectedbytheCountytoverifythatweedswere
removedandproceedswithabatementiftheinspectionfails.Countymakesalistofall
costsassociatedwiththeabatementandprovidesthatlisttotheCity(June-July).
428
7.CityCounciladoptsaresolutionsettingahearingdatetohearobjectionsbyproperty
ownersfortheassessedcosts ofweedabatement(July).
8.City notifiestheproperty owners on theassessmentlist notifyingthem ofthe hearing
date.(July-Aug).
9.CityCouncil holdsa hearing, notesany disputes,andadoptsaresolution puttingalien
assessment on the propertiestoallowtheCountytorecoverthecost ofweedabatement
(July-Aug).
_____________________________________
Preparedby:GraceSchmidt,ActingCityClerk
Reviewedby:CarolAtwood,AdministrativeServicesDirector
ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager
Attachments:
StaffReport
A.DraftResolution
B. 2012 WeedAbatementProgramCommencementReport
C.NoticetoDestroyWeeds
D.Letterto property ownersfromCounty
E.CityofCupertinoWeedAbatementProgramSchedule
F.ApprovedResolutionNo. 11-189
429
RESOLUTIONNO.12-
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO
ORDERINGABATEMENTOFPUBLICNUISANCEPURSUANTTO
PROVISIONSOFCUPERTINOMUNICIPALCODECHAPTER 9.08AND
RESOLUTIONNO. 11-189
WHEREAS,theCityCouncilhasdeclaredthatthegrowthofweeds,the
accumulationofgardenrefuse,cuttingsandothercombustibletrashupontheprivate
propertiesasdescribedinResolutionNo.11-189adoptedNovember15,2011,tobea
public nuisance;and
WHEREAS,afterduenotice,ahearingthereonwasheldattheregularmeeting of
theCityCouncil on January 17, 2012;and
WHEREAS,fromtheevidencepresented,bothoralandwritten,itappearstobe
inthe bestinterests oftheCitytoacquirejurisdiction overandabate saidnuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED:
1.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerisherebyorderedtoabatesuch
nuisanceorcausethesametobeabatedbyhavingtheweedsreferredtodestroyedor
removedbycutting,discing,chemicalsprayingoranyothermethoddeterminedbyhim;
thatall debris,whetherin piles or scattered, be hauledaway;
2.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerandhisdeputies,assistants,
employees,contractingagentsorotherrepresentativesshallhaveexpressauthorizationto
enteruponsaidprivatepropertiesforthepurposeofcausingsaidpublicnuisancetobe
abated;and
3.Thatanyaffectedpropertyownersshallhavetherighttodestroyor
removesuchweedsor debrishimselforherself orhavethesame destroyedorremovedat
his/herownexpenseprovidedthatsuchdestructionorremovalshallhave beencompleted
priortothearrivaloftheAgriculturalCommissionerorhisauthorizedrepresentativeto
destroyorremovethem bytheParcelAbatementDeadline ofApril 30, 2012.
BEITFURTHERRESOLVED:
1.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionershallkeepaccountofabatingsaid
nuisanceandembodysuchaccountinareportandassessmentlisttotheCityCouncil,
which shall befiledwiththeCityClerk.
2.Saidreportsofcosts,hearingandcollectionproceduresinvolvedshallbe
providedas statedinChapter 9.08.
430
ResolutionNo. 12-Page 2
PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof
Cupertino on the 17th dayofJanuary 2012, bythefollowing vote:
VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_______________________________________________________
GraceSchmidtMarkSantoro, MayorCityofCupertino
ActingCityClerk
431
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
RESOLUTION NO. 11-189
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECUPERTINOCITYCOUNCILDECLARING WEEDS
ONCERTAINDESCRIBEDPROPERTYTOBEAPUBLICNUISANCEAND
SETTINGAHEARINGFOROBJECTIONSTOPROPOSEDREMOVAL
WHEREAS,weedsaregrowingintheCityofCupertinouponcertainstreets,
sidewalks, highways,roadsand private property;and
WHEREAS,saidweedsmayattainsuchgrowthastobecomeafiremenaceor
whichare otherwise noxious or dangerous;and
WHEREAS, saidweedsconstitutea public nuisance;
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDbytheCityCounciloftheCityof
Cupertinoasfollows:
1.That saidweeds do nowconstitutea public nuisance;
2.Thatsaidnuisanceexistsuponallofthestreets,sidewalks,highways,roadsand
privatepropertymoreparticularlydescribedbycommonnamesorbyreferenceto
thetract,block,lot,codearea,andparcelnumberonthereportpreparedbythe
AgriculturalCommissionerandattached hereto;
3.Thatthe17thdayofJanuary,2012,atthehourof6:45p.m.,orassoonthereafter
asthemattercanbeheard,intheCouncilChamberintheCommunityHall,City
ofCupertino,isherebysetasthetimeandplacewhereallpropertyownershaving
any objectionstothe proposedremoval of suchweedsmay be heard;
4.ThattheAgriculturalCommissionerisherebydesignatedandorderedasthe
persontocausenoticeoftheadoptionofthisresolutiontobegiveninthemanner
andform providedinSections 9.08.040 oftheCupertino MunicipalCode.
450
ResolutionNo. 11-189Page 2
PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingofthecityCounciloftheCityof
Cupertinothis 15thday ofNovember, 2011, bythefollowing vote:
VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil
AYES:Wong,Santoro,Chang, Mahoney,Santoro
NOES:None
ABSENT:None
ABSTAIN:None
ATTEST:APPROVED:
/s/KimberlySmith/s/GilbertWong
______________________________________________________
KimberlySmith,CityClerkGilbertWong, Mayor,City ofCupertino
451
PUBLICWORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408)777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
AnOrdinanceAmendingtheCupertino MunicipalCodeRelatingtoBicycleLanes.
RecommendedAction
ConductfirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.2012-_____:“AnOrdinanceoftheCityCouncilofthe
CityofCupertinoAmendingSection11.08.250oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeRelatingto
BicycleLanes-Designated;RodriguesAvenuebetweenDeAnzaBoulevardandBlaney
Avenue.”
Discussion
RodriguesAvenue,betweenDeAnzaBoulevardandBlaneyAvenue,isatwo-lanelocal
roadwaywhichprovidesdirectaccesstoCityHall,theSantaClaraCountylibrary,WilsonPark,
andnumerouscommercialandresidentialproperties.Theentiresegmentiscurrentlydesignated
asabikeroute.ParkingisprohibitedalongbothsidesofRodriguesAvenuebetweenDeAnza
BoulevardandTorreAvenue.BetweenTorreAvenueandBlaneyAvenue,parkingisallowed
within325feetofTorreAvenueonthesouthsideofthestreetinfrontofCityHall,andwithin
approximately700feetofBlaneyAvenueonbothsidesofthestreet(parkingallowedonly8
p.m.to 7 a.m. on the south side).
OnMay3,2011,theCityCouncilunanimouslyapprovedtheadoptionofthe2011Cupertino
BicycleTransportationPlan.Withintheplan,seventeenbikewaysareproposed,including
Bikeway14,whichproposesacontinuousbikewayalongRodriguesAvenue,continuingthrough
andpastWilsonPark,CreeksidePark,andontoPhilLaneandBarnhartAvenue.Included
withinthe“WorktobeDone”forBikeway14isthestatement,“Considerinstallingbikelanes
onRodriguesAvenuebetweenDeAnzaBoulevardandBlaneyAvenue.”
ThefollowingmodificationstothestripingalongRodriguesAvenuewillbenecessaryto
accommodate bikelanes:
Removalofthecentertwo-wayleft-turnlaneandreplacementwithasinglecenterline
stripe,fromTorreAvenuetoapproximately600feeteast ofTorreAvenueisnecessaryto
maintainon-streetparkinginfrontofCityHall.Uptoelevenon-streetparkingspaces
will beadded on the south side ofRodriguesAvenue.
Removalofthewestbounddedicatedleft-turnlaneatTorreAvenue.Thiswillhave
minimalimpact on traffic operationsattheintersection.
452
Removalofthewestbounddedicatedright-turn-laneatDeAnzaBoulevard,tobe
replaced byanine-foot-widebikelane.Thereisaheavyright-turnvehiclevolumeatthis
intersection;however,anine-footbikelaneiswideenoughtoaccommodateright-turning
vehicles so therewill beminimalimpacttotraffic operations.
Therewillbenolossofon-streetparkingresultingfromtheinstallationofbikelanes.Onthe
southsideofRodriguesAvenuefromBlaneyAvenuetoabout700feettothewest,parkingis
restrictedtothehoursbetween8p.m.and7a.m.Alongthissegment,onlyapart-timebikelane
willbeavailableonthe southsidebecausethereisinsufficientroomtoaccommodateabikelane
separatefromtheparkinglane.AsimilarsituationcurrentlyexistsonBlaneyAvenuenorthof
StevensCreekBoulevard,wherea7.5-footlaneissharedbetweenbicyclistsduringthedayand
parkedvehiclesatnight.FortheremainderofRodriguesAvenue,afull-timebikelanewillbe
provided.
TheBicyclePedestrianCommissionhasrecommendedthatCouncilapprovetheinstallationof
bikelanes on RodriguesAvenue betweenDeAnzaBoulevardandBlaneyAvenue.
FiscalImpact
ThecostofsigningandstripingisincorporatedintotheannualoperationalbudgetofPublic
Worksstaff.ThecostofrestripingRodriguesAvenuetoaccommodatebikelanesisestimatedat
$16,500andwillbeperformedbyanoutsidecontractor.SignagewillbecompletedbyCity
staff. Thereis no additionalfiscalimpactforthiswork.
_____________________________________
Preparedby:DavidStillman,SeniorCivil Engineer
Reviewedby: TimmBorden,Director ofPublicWorks
ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager
Attachments:
A – DraftOrdinance
453
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCENO.2012-
ANORDINANCEOF THECITYCOUNCILOF THECITYOFCUPERTINO
AMENDINGSECTION 11.08.250 OF THECUPERTINO MUNICIPALCODE
RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENTOFBICYCLELANES;
RODRIGUESAVENUEBETWEENDEANZABOULEVARDANDBLANEYAVENUE
TheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinodoesherebyordainthatSection11.08.250be
amendedtoincludethefollowing:
Section 11.08.250BicycleLanes-Designated.
StreetDescriptionSide
RodriguesAvenueDeAnzaBoulevardtoBlaneyAvenueBoth
INTRODUCEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCityCouncilthe_17_dayof
January,2012andENACTEDataregularmeetingoftheCupertinoCityCouncilthis___dayof
____________, 2012 bythefollowing vote:
VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
________________________
GraceSchmidt,ActingCityClerkMarkSantoro, Mayor
454
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408)777-3308www.cupertino.org
CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
Analysis ofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI)
RecommendedAction
AdoptResolutionNo. 12-ApprovingtheAnalysis ofImpedimentstoFairHousing
Choice(AI)and directing stafftoforwardtheAItotheU.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrban
Development(HUD)tobe placed onfile.
Discussion
TheDepartment ofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentrequiresjurisdictions, suchasCupertino,that
receivefederalCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant(CDBG)fundsto updatetheirAI documents
everythreetofiveyears.Cupertino’slastAIwascompletedin 2003 whenwe becamean
entitlementjurisdiction.
ThecurrentAIwas preparedbyBAEincollaborationwith othercitiesintheCounty.As part ofthe
analysisBAEprovidedCupertinoandeachcityintheCountywith detaileddemographic data. The
documentevaluates potential barrierstofair housingchoiceanddescribesactionstheCitywilltake
toaddressidentifiedimpediments.Amongtheitemsanalyzedarethe homeless population,lowand
very-lowincomelevels,housingaffordability,fair housing services offered,fair housingcomplaint
trendsandaccomplishmentsforthe previousAI.TheAIisintendedasaguideforjurisdictionsto
usein developing policiesandimplementingactivitiesrelatedto oraffectingfair housingchoice.
TheAIexamines housing-related policiesand practicesthatmaylimitanindividual’s or household’s
accessto housing duetounlawful discriminationwhetherintentional orinadvertent,andproposes
actionstoeliminate orminimizethose barriers. TheU.S.Department ofHousingandUrban
Development(HUD) definesimpedimentstofair housingchoiceas:
•Anyactions, omissions or decisionstaken because ofrace,color,religion, sex, disability,
familial status or national originwhichrestrict housingchoices ortheavailability of housing
choices; or
•Anyactions, omissions or decisionsthat havetheeffect ofrestricting housingchoices on the
basis ofrace,color,religion, sex, disability,familial status or national origin.
Pages 92-94 oftheAIreportlistrecommendedactionsfortheCity. TheCitycurrentlycomplies
withalltheserecommendationsandwillcontinueto supportfair housingactivitiestoalleviate
impedimentstofair housingchoiceasrequiredbyfederalregulations.
455
FiscalImpact
TheCityrequiresanAIapprovedbytheCouncilin ordertocontinuetoreceiveCommunity
DevelopmentBlockGrant(CDBG)fundinginthefuture. TheCity’sannualfundingis
approximately $350,000.
Preparedby:VeraGil,SeniorPlanner
Reviewedby:AartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager
Attachments:
A:DraftResolution
B:Analysis ofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI)
456
AttachmentA
RESOLUTIONNO. 12-
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOF THECITYOFCUPERTINOAPPROVINGTHE
ANALYSISOFIMPEDIMENTS TOFAIRHOUSINGCHOICE 2010-2015AND
AUTHORIZINGSTAFF TOSUBMITSAIDPLAN TOHUD
WHEREAS,theHousingandCommunityDevelopmentActof1974providesthatfundsbe
madeavailablefortheCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant(CDBG)ProgramthroughtheUnited
StatesDepartment ofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD);and
WHEREAS,theCityofCupertinoparticipatesintheCDBGPrograminordertoprovide
affordable housing opportunitiesfor very-lowandlowincome personsandfamilies;and
WHEREAS,theCityofCupertinoisrequiredtocertifythatitwillaffirmativelyfurtherfair
housingin ordertocontinuereceivingCDBGfunding;and
WHEREAS,theCityofCupertinomustsubmitsaidAnalysisofImpedimentstoFair
HousingChoiceto demonstrateitisaffirmativelyfurtheringfair housing;
NOW,THEREFOREBEITRESOLVEDthattheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertino
herebyapprovestheAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice2010-2015authorizedstaffto
submitthe documentstotheDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentto be placed onfile.
PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCity ofCupertino
this dayofJanuary 2012 bythefollowing vote:
VOTEMEMBERSOF THECITYCOUNCIL
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attest:Approved:
GraceSchmidtMarkSantoro
ActingCityClerkMayor,City ofCupertino
457
AttachmentB
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair HousingChoice
2010-2015
City ofCupertino
July2011
458
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table of Contents
1Executive Summary..................................................................................................i
1.1Definition of Fair Housing Choice..............................................................................i
1.2Study Approach and Methodology..............................................................................i
1.3Public Outreach...........................................................................................................ii
1.4Key Findings...............................................................................................................ii
1.5Recommendations to Support Fair Housing.............................................................vii
2Introduction...........................................................................................................10
2.1Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing........................................10
2.2Methodology and Community Participation.............................................................11
2.3Organization of the AI..............................................................................................11
2.4Definitions................................................................................................................12
2.52004 AI Accomplishments.......................................................................................12
3Background Data...................................................................................................14
3.1Demographic Profile.................................................................................................14
3.2Housing Profile.........................................................................................................27
3.3Housing Affordability...............................................................................................30
3.4Assisted Housing......................................................................................................42
3.5Existing Fair Housing Services.................................................................................50
3.6Linkages between Housing and Employment Centers.............................................50
4Fair Housing Processes and Trends....................................................................57
4.1Fair Housing Complaint Process..............................................................................57
4.2Fair Housing Complaints..........................................................................................58
4.3Fair Housing Testing................................................................................................61
5Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice........................................63
5.1Public Sector.............................................................................................................63
5.2Private Sector............................................................................................................69
5.3Public and Private Sector..........................................................................................84
6Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities.........................85
6.1Programs and Activities that Promote Fair Housing................................................85
6.2Problems Related to Current Fair Housing Programs...............................................87
7Findings and Recommendations..........................................................................88
459
DRAFT 1/9/2012
7.1Key Findings.............................................................................................................88
7.2Recommendations to Support Fair Housing.............................................................92
8Appendix A: Community Workshop Attendees...................................................95
9Appendix B: Needs Assessment Data Sources..................................................98
10Appendix C: Detailed Maps of Minority and Poverty Concentration...100
11Appendix D: Maximum Affordable Sales Price Calculation.................103
12Appendix E: Special Needs and Homeless Services............................106
460
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Index of Tables and Figures
Table 3.1: Population and Household Growth, 2000-2009..............................................................15
Table 3.2: Household Composition and Size, 2009..........................................................................15
Table 3.3: Age Distribution, 2009....................................................................................................16
Table 3.4: Race and Ethnicity, 2009.................................................................................................17
Table 3.5: Household Income, 2009.................................................................................................20
Table 3.6: Percent Low-and Very Low-Income Households, 2000...............................................21
Table 3.7: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000.................................................22
Table 3.8: Poverty Status, 2009........................................................................................................22
Table 3.9: Persons with Disabilities by Employment.......................................................................26
Table 3.10: Disabilities by Type and Age, 2000..............................................................................27
Table 3.11: Housing Unit Type, 2009..............................................................................................28
Table 3.12: Tenure Distribution, 2009..............................................................................................28
Table 3.13: Age of Housing Stock, 2000..........................................................................................29
Table 3.14: Housing Conditions, 2000.............................................................................................29
Table 3.15: Residential Building Permits Issued, 2000-2009...........................................................30
Table 3.16: Median Sales Price, 2009..............................................................................................33
th
Table 3.17: Rental Market Characteristics, 4
Quarter 2009...........................................................34
Table 3.18: Affordability of For-Sale Housing, Cupertino...............................................................36
Table 3.19: Affordability of Market Rate Rent in Cupertino...........................................................38
Table 3.20: Housing Overpayment, Cupertino, 2000.......................................................................39
Table 3.21: Overcrowding, 2000......................................................................................................40
Table 3.22: Housing Problems by Income and Race, Cupertino, 2000............................................41
Table 3.23: Foreclosure Filings, Q3 2008 and Q3 2009...................................................................42
Table 3.24: Project and Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers..............................................................43
Table 3.25: Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units.............................................................45
Table 3.26: Licensed Community Care Facilities, 2009...................................................................48
Table 3.27: Major Employers in Santa Clara County, 2009.............................................................52
Table 3.28: ABAG Job Projections, Santa Clara County, 2005-2035..............................................54
Table 4.1: Fair Housing Complaints, 2004-YTD 2009....................................................................59
Table 4.2: Fair Housing Complaints by Bases, Cupertino, 2004-YTD 2009...................................59
Table 4.3: Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution, Cupertino, 2004-YTD 2009...........................60
Table 5.1: Fees and Exactions..........................................................................................................67
Table 5.2: Disposition of Home Purchase Loans, 2007....................................................................71
Table 5.3: Disposition of Home Purchase Loans by Race and Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2007.............72
Figure 3.1: Concentrations of Population by Race/Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2009...............................18
461
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Figure 3.2: Low-and Moderate-Income Census Tracts, Cupertino, 2009.......................................24
Figure3.3: Median Sales Price, Cupertino, 1988-209......................................................................31
Figure 3.4: Sales Volume, Cupertino, 1988-2009............................................................................32
Figure 3.5: Subsidized Housing and Race/Ethnicity, Cupertino......................................................46
Figure 3.6: Licensed Community Care Facilities, Cupertino...........................................................49
Figure 3.7: Major Employers, Santa Clara County...........................................................................53
Figure 3.8: Cupertino Public Transportation....................................................................................56
Figure 5.1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs.........................................................75
462
DRAFT 1/9/2012
1Executive Summary
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for Cupertino examines policies and
practices that may limit the ability of individuals or households to choose housing in an
environment free from discrimination. The AI assembles fair housing information, identifies any
existing barriers that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to overcome those barriers. The
AI has been prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE) for Cupertino in collaboration with City
Staff.
1.1Definition of Fair Housing Choice
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines impediments to fair
housing choice as:
Any actions, omissions or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of
housing choices; or
Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices on
thebasis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove
impediments to fair housing choice. HUD interprets a jurisdiction’s obligations to include the
following:
Analyze and eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction;
Promote fair housing choice for all persons;
Provide opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy;
Promote housing that is physically accessible to and usable by all persons, and particularly
for persons with disabilities; and
Foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
1.2Study Approach and Methodology
Cupertino’s AI incorporates some of the data and information from the regional collaboration in
addition to its own local data. This document will serve as a resource for local practitioners and
service providers looking to understand fair housing needs within the City, and where relevant and
applicable, on a regional scale. To identify additional variables that could indicate barriers to fair
housing, data was analyzed on variables such as population, household, and race and ethnicity
trends, age, household income, concentration of minority populations, housing affordability
i
463
DRAFT 1/9/2012
indicators, overcrowding, and the geographic distribution of affordable housing and employment
centers. The AI incorporates numerous sources including the U.S. Census, the State of California
Department of Finance, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and Claritas, Inc., a private
demographic data provider.
Complaints about fair housing are one indicator of the presence of impediments to fair housing
choice. Data on fair housing complaints and cases from 2004 to 2009 from the HUD Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) was obtained and analyzed. In addition, BAE spoke to
City staff and local fair housing service providers about fair housing issues in the City of Cupertino
and in Santa Clara County.
Lastly, city planning documents, housing elements, policies, and ordinances were reviewed to
determine any direct or indirect impact on fair housing.
1.3Public Outreach
Community input for developing the AI was obtained through a variety of sources. The City
participated in three countywide workshops held in September2009 to engage the public and local
stakeholders in the Consolidated Plan process. Fair Housing providers and advocates, other social
service organizations, and members of the public attended the workshops. A total of 105
individuals participated in thefour Workshops. In addition, BAE conducted more focused
interviews with local fair housing organizations to gain their “on the ground” perspective.
1.4Key Findings
Demographic Profile
Cupertino had an estimated population of 55,800 residents in 2009, representing
approximately three percent of Santa Clara County’s population.
Population growth in the
City has matched countywide growth between 2000 and 2009. During this time period,
Cupertino’s population grew by just under 11 percent.
Cupertino has aslightly higher proportion of family households compared to Santa Clara
County.
In 2009, approximately 75 percent of Cupertino households were family households,
defined as two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. By
comparison, 70 percent of Santa Clara County households were families.
The City has a majority Asian population, with Asian residents representing 57 percent of the
total population.
Non-Hispanic White persons were the second largest racial group in Cupertino,
ii
464
DRAFT 1/9/2012
comprising 36 percent of the population. The City has a smaller population of Hispanic or Latino
residents compared to Santa Clara County. Asian persons comprise over 55percent of the
population in the majority of Census block groups in the City. Portions of western Cupertino have
a majority White population. There are no areas in the City where Hispanic residents comprise the
majority.
Cupertino households are more affluent than Santa Clara County households as a whole.
The median household income was $119,000 in the City of Cupertino in 2009, compared to
$88,400 in Santa Clara County. The City also has a lower share of households living below the
federal poverty threshold relative to the County. Approximately 3.9 percent of Cupertino
householdshad incomes below the poverty threshold, compared to 5.7 percent in the County. The
City has nine Census block groups that meet the CDBG program definition of targeted low-and
moderate-income areas with at least 27.4 percent of residents falling within these income
categories. These areas are primarily concentrated in the eastern portion of Cupertino, east of
Highway 85.
Housing Profile
The median sales price for single-family homes in Cupertino increased dramatically between
2000 and 2007 before falling during the current economic downturn.
The median sales price
for single-family homes rose by 42 percent from $825,000 to $1,175,000 between 2000 and 2008.
Since the 2007 peak, the median sales price has decreased by 16 percent. During 2009 (January
through May), the median home sales price for single-family homes was $986,500. It should be
noted that Cupertino’s housing market has remained more stable than the County’s as a whole.
Thedecline in median sales prices in the County was more than twice as high as in the City
between 2008 and 2009 for both single-family homes and condominiums.
Ownership housing in Cupertino is largely unaffordable to lower-income households.
The
maximum affordable sales price for a low-income, four-person householdseeking to purchase a
1
single-family home is $280,300.
In Cupertino, less than three percent of three-bedroom homes
sold on the market between June 28, 2009 and December 31, 2009 were under this price point.
Additionally, only four percent of three-andfour-bedroom condominiums sold in Cupertino during
the same time period were affordable to low-income households.
In terms of rental housing, the average market rent in Cupertino far exceeds the maximum
1
This assumes conventional financing terms and a maximum payment of 30 percent of gross income on
mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance.
iii
465
DRAFT 1/9/2012
2
affordable rent for very low-and extremely low-income households.
These households would
need to spend substantially more than 30 percent of their gross income to afford market rate rental
housing.
3
Approximately 28 percent of Cupertino households were “cost-burdened” in 2000.
The
incidence of overpayment was higher for renters than owners in Cupertino, with 31 percent of
renter households and 26 percent of owner households spending more than 30 percent of their
income on housing costs. During the current economic downturn, the rate of overpayment may
have increased due to rising unemployment. Unfortunately, more recent data on overpayment is
unavailable.
Overcrowding is more prevalent among renter households than owner households in
4
Cupertino.
Approximately 17 percent of renters and five percentof owners lived in overcrowded
situations.
While there are no public housing developments located in the City of Cupertino, the
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) and HUD offer rental assistance
for lower-income households through theSection 8 voucher program.
There are 15,839
tenant-based and 5,791 project-based vouchers in the County. This includes 50 tenant-based
vouchers and 127 project-based vouchers in the City of Cupertino.
There are six affordable housing developments with 203 affordable rental units in Cupertino.
In addition, there are three group homes and eight developments that provide below market rate
(BMR) rental units as part of the City’s Housing Mitigation Plan.Cupertino’s subsidized housing
developments and BMRunits are located throughout the City, often in close proximity to major
commercial corridors, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, that have public transportation access.
Thirteen of the 14 developments with subsidized or BMR units are located in areas where Asian
residents comprise more than 50 percent of the population. This does not, however, indicate a
concentration of care facilities in minority neighborhoods because Asian residents represent over
50 percent of the total citywide population.
Fair Housing Complaints
Between 2004 and August 2009, a total of nine fair housing complaints were filed in the City
of Cupertino.
This represents approximately three percent of all complaints filed in the County
2
Maximum affordable rent assumes that household pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities.
3
Defined by HUD as spending more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs.
4
Overcrowding is defined by the U.S. Census as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and
kitchens.
iv
466
DRAFT 1/9/2012
during the same time period. The largest proportion of complaints, 78 percent, was found to not
have probable cause for fair housing violation. The remaining 22 percent of complaints were
conciliated or resolved.
Disability emerged as the most common bases for complaint.
These accounted for 78 percent
of all complaint bases between 2004 and August 2009 in Cupertino. During this time, there was
one complaint each based on national origin and familial status.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Public Sector.
As detailed in Section 5 of this AI, local government can affect housing availability
and costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and allowable densities for
development, and exacting development fees. Publicly imposed constraints on housing supply can
subsequently lead to fair housing concerns, as particular segments of the population lose access to
affordable homes and/or are completely priced out of certain areas.
Local policies and ordinances have the potential to raise fair housing concerns. In particular, local
zoning ordinances can impact the production of multifamily housing, second units, emergency
shelters, transitional housing, and community care facilities, all of which serve lower-income
households and special needs populations. Cupertino’s zoning ordinance allows for the
development of various forms of multifamily housing, second units, and small residential care
homes. However, the ordinance does not identify a zone that allows for permanent emergency
shelters and transitional or supportive housing by right. Pursuant to state law, the Cityamended its
zoning ordinance in 2010 to allow permanent emergency shelters in the BQ zone and permit
transitional and supportive housing by right. The City also formalizedits reasonable
accommodation request procedures to further fair housing efforts.
Private sector.
Despite declining home sales prices, current market prices remain an obstacle for
homeownership for lower-income households in Cupertino. In addition, credit access has emerged
as a real challenge for potential homebuyers. Even more affordable FHA loans and state-sponsored
first-time homebuyer programs can be difficult to access for buyers, as many loan officers and
realtors prefer to focus on conventional mortgages due to the time and effort associated with these
loan products. Homeownership counselors have responded to these challenges by developing
relationships with particular loan officers and agents who can assist buyers with the federal and
State programs.
Foreclosures have also damaged manyhouseholds’ credit ratings, limiting their ability to buy a
home in the future. National data shows that subprime mortgages (which have a strong tie to
v
467
DRAFT 1/9/2012
5
foreclosure) disproportionately occurred in communities of color, raising a fair housing concern.
According to local affordable housing developers, the availability of financing presents the biggest
barrier to producing new subsidized housing. Although the cost of land and construction have
declined, the tightened credit market, and decline in State and local subsidies, have made it
challenging for affordable housing developers to take advantage of lower costs.
Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion, specifically community
concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks. Over the past several years, a
number of housing developments and related planning efforts have been subject to citizen
initiatives and referenda. Citizens’ concerns about the impacts of housing development,
particularly higherdensity development, on community quality of life remain a significant potential
constraint to housing development.
Fair Housing Concerns Impacting Special Need Populations
Affordable Housing Application Processes.
Due to the requirements associated with various
affordable housing funding sources, certain households may encounter difficulties in applying for
subsidized housing. For example, applications can involve a large amount of paperwork and
require households to provide records for income verification. In some cases, short application
time frames and submittal requirements (e.g., by fax) create additional challenges. These
requirements present obstacles for seniors, homeless or disabled individuals who lack access to
communication systems and information networks, as well as the skills to complete and submit the
necessary documentation.
Elderly.
Seniors often need accessible units located in close proximity to services and public
transportation. Many seniors also live on fixed incomes, making affordability a particular concern.
There is a limited supply of affordable senior housing in the City of Cupertino. In addition, local
senior service providers and community workshop participants report that many subsidized housing
projects serve individuals or couples only and do not accommodate caregivers. In other cases, the
caregiver’s income may make the senior ineligible for the affordable unit.
Persons with Disabilities.
Building codes and HOME regulations require that five percent of units
in multifamily residential complexes be wheelchair accessible and another two percent be
accessible for individuals with hearing or vision impairments. Affordable housing developers
follow these requirements and provide accessible units in their buildings. Nonetheless, service
providers report that demand exceeds the supply of accessible, subsidized units. In contrast to this
5
Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners.Center for Responsible
Lending. December 2006.
vi
468
DRAFT 1/9/2012
finding, affordable housing providers report that they can have difficulty filling accessible units
with disabled individuals. This points to challenges in the application and marketing process that
prevent disabled individuals from finding subsidized, accessible housing when needed.
Persons with disabilities face other challenges that may make it more difficult to secure both
affordable or market-rate housing, such as lower credit scores, the need for service animals (which
must be accommodated as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act), the limited
number of accessible units, and the reliance on Social Security or welfare benefits as a major
income source.
Homeless Individuals.
The primary barrier to housing choice for homeless individuals is
insufficient income. Interviews with service providers indicate that many homeless rely on
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which are too
low to qualify for most subsidized programs and affordable housing developments. In addition,
property managers often screen out individuals with a criminal or drug history, history of evictions,
or poor credit, which effectively excludes many homeless persons.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Individuals.
Local service providers state that as financial
institutions institute more stringent lending practices and outreach to minority communities has
declined with the economy, LEP and undocumented individuals face greater challenges in securing
a mortgage. LEP households are also more vulnerable to loan modification and foreclosure rescue
scams. Furthermore, many households in the Spanish-speaking community and other LEP
populations rely on a cash economy, and lack the record keeping and financial legitimacy that
lenders require.
Housing Profile
1.5Recommendations to Support Fair Housing
Access to Affordable Housing
Need:
Due to the requirements associated with various affordable housing funding sources, certain
households may encounter difficulties in accessing subsidized housing. For example, applications
can involve a large amount of paperwork, require households to provide records for income
verification, or have short application time frames and submittal requirements. These requirements
present obstacles for homeless or disabled individuals who lack the resources and skills to
complete the necessary documentation. Moreover, affordable housing providers often have
difficulty filling accessible units with disabled individuals. In contrast, service providers indicate a
great need for affordable accessible housing. This conflict points to barriers in the application
process that prevent interested individuals from finding subsidized, accessible housing or a
mismatch between people who need housing and when it is available.
vii
469
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Action #1: Facilitate access to below-market-rate units.
The City of Cupertino shall continue to
assist affordable housing developers in advertising the availability of below-market-rate units via
its website, the County’s 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media outlets.
The City will also facilitate communication between special needs service providers and affordable
housing developers, to ensure that home seekers with special needs have fair access to available
units.
Fair Housing Services
Need:
The AI finds that fair housing is an ongoing concern in Cupertino. In particular, interviews
with local service providers indicate that many homeseekers and landlords are unaware of federal
and state fair housing laws. They also remain unfamiliar with protections offered to seniors,
disabled, and other special needs populations, as well as families and protected classes.
Action #2: Contract with local service providers to conduct ongoing outreach and education
regarding fair housing for homeseekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents,
and lenders.
Outreach will occur via training sessions, public events, jurisdictions’ websites and
other media outlets, staffing at service providers’ offices, and multi-lingual flyers available in a
variety public locations.
Action #3: Contract with local service providers to conduct fair housing testing in local
apartment complexes.
The testing program looks for any evidence of differential treatment
among a sample of local apartment complexes. Following the test, the service provider submits
findings to the City and conducts educational outreach to landlords that showed differential
treatment during the test.
Local Zoning
Need:
Cupertino’s zoning requirements must comply with State law, the federal Fair Housing Act
of 1968, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. As discussed in Section 5, the City
recently amended its zoning ordinance to comply with State regulations regarding emergency
shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. The City also adopted a formal reasonable
accommodation policy to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.
Action #4: Periodically review the Zoning Ordinance to ensure regulations are consistent
with fair housing laws and do not constrain housing production.
If particular zoning
requirements impede fair housing or housing production, the City should amend the regulations.
Public Housing
Need:
Local Housing Authoritiesare well-versed in fair housing requirements, and aim to apply
viii
470
DRAFT 1/9/2012
these consistently in their outreach, property management, waitlist maintenance, and tenant
recruitment efforts. The following action emphasizes the need for local jurisdictions to assist local
housing authorities in this regard.
Action #6: Assist local Housing Authorities with outreach.
The City of Cupertino shall continue
to support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara to ensure adequate outreach to
minority, limited-English proficiency, and special needs populations regarding the availability of
public housing and Section 8 vouchers. Outreach may occur via the City’s website and
informational flyers in multiple languages available at public locations. Given the extended
waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 programs, attention will primarily be paid to fair
management of the list.
Links Between Housing and Employment
Need:
Impediments to fair housing choice may occur when poor linkages exist between the
locations of major employers and affordable housing. Under these conditions, persons who depend
on public transportation, such as lower-income households, seniors, and disabled persons, would be
more limited in their housing options. The AI finds that Cupertino’s inventory of subsidized
housing is relatively well-connected to public transportation. The City should continue efforts to
support transit-oriented development and furtherimprove connections between new housing and
employment centers.
Action #7: Plan for and encourage transit-oriented development.
The City of Cupertino shall
continue to plan for higher residential and employment densities where appropriate to maximize
linkages between employers and affordable housing.
Action #8: Facilitate safe and efficient transit routes.
The City shall continue to work with local
transit agencies to facilitate safe and efficient routes for the various forms of public transit.
ix
471
DRAFT 1/9/2012
2Introduction
2.1Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) examines policies and practices that may
limit the ability of individuals or households to choose housing in an environment free from
discrimination. The AI assembles fair housing information, identifies any existing barriers that limit
housing choice, and proposes actions to overcome those barriers. As defined by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),impediments to fair housing choice consist of:
Any actions, omissions or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing
choices; or
Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
HUD requires funded jurisdictions to develop and update an Analysis of Impediments as needed. In
Santa Clara County, a number of entitlement jurisdictions have collaboratedin collecting countywide
data and background information for preparation of their 2010-2015 AIs. The group of participating
jurisdictions includes:
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
City of Sunnyvale
City of San José
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Urban County (unincorporated Santa Clara County,Campbell, Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga.)
This collaborative effort allows the jurisdictions to evaluate and plan for fair housing needs on a
local and regional basis. It recognizes that while each jurisdiction may have unique concerns, many
of these issues span jurisdictional borders and could be addressed more holistically.
Cupertino’s AI incorporates some of the data and information from the regional collaboration in
addition to its own local data. This document will serve as a resource for local practitioners and
service providers looking to understand fair housing needs within the City, and where relevant and
applicable, on a regional scale.
10
472
DRAFT 1/9/2012
2.2Methodology and Community Participation
To identify additional variables that could indicate barriers to fair housing, data was analyzed on
variables such as population,household, race and ethnicitytrends, age, household income,
concentration of minority populations, housing affordability indicators, overcrowding, and the
geographic distribution of affordable housing and employment centers. The AI incorporates
numerous sources including the U.S. Census, the State of California Department of Finance, the
Association of Bay Area Governments, and Claritas, Inc., a private demographic data provider.
Complaints about fair housing are one indicatorof the presence of impediments to fair housing
choice. Data on fair housing complaints and cases from 2004 to 2009 from the HUD Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) was obtained and analyzed. In addition, BAE spoke to City
staff and localfair housing service providers about fair housing issues in the City of Cupertinoand in
Santa Clara County.
Lastly, city planning documents, housing elements, policies, and ordinances were reviewed to
determine any direct or indirect impact on fair housing.
PublicOutreach
Community input for developing the AI was obtained through a variety of sources. The City
participated in three countywide workshops held in September 2009 to engage the public and local
stakeholders in the Consolidated Plan process. Fair Housing providers and advocates, other social
service organizations, and members of the public attended the workshops. The Workshops were well
attended, thanks to the Entitlement Jurisdictions’ efforts to publicize the events through emails to
service providers, advertisements in the local newspapers, and communication with local
stakeholders, neighborhood groups, and public officials. A total of 105 individuals participated in
the four Workshops. Appendix A documents the attendees at each session.In addition, BAE
conducted more focused interviews with local fair housing organizations to gain their “on the
ground” perspective.
2.3Organization of the AI
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing is divided into six chapters. Following this
Introduction, the AI contains:
Chapter 2: Background Data.
This chapter describes the demographic profile, housing
stock, and housing market of the City.
11
473
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Chapter 3: Evaluation of Current Fair Housing Legal Status.
This chapter provides data
on fair housingcomplaints between 2004 and 2009.
Chapter 4: Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
Various public and
private impediments to fair housing choice are reviewed.
Chapter 5: Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs and Activities.
Chapter 5
outlines the current fair housing programs and activities in Cupertino
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations.
The final chapter of the AI summarizes
the findings, and provides conclusions and recommendations for the City of Cupertino,
based on information presented in the preceding chapters.
2.4Definitions
Fair housing is defined by HUD in 23CFR 570.904(c)(1) to mean the ability of persons of similar
income levels to have the same housing choice regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,
familial status, or national origin. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing is prohibited against
these protected classes. California fair housing laws built on the federal laws and also added marital
status, ancestry, sexual orientation, source of income, and “any arbitrary discrimination” as protected
categories under the state law. Fair housing laws are intended to further equal opportunity in
housing, mortgage lending, and the purchase of mortgage insurance.
To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove
impediments to fair housing choice. HUD interprets a jurisdiction’s obligations to include the
following:
Analyze and eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction;
Promote fair housing choice for all persons;
Provide opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy;
Promote housing that is physically accessible to and usable by all persons, and particularly
for persons with disabilities; and
Foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
2.52004 AI Accomplishments
Cupertino’s last Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was adopted by the City Council
on May 23, 2004. The City has implemented the following actions in response to the 2004 AI’s one-
and five-year goals.
12
474
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Trained counter staff to be more observant of customer needs. Some physical disabilities are
not easily recognizable and the county staff has been instructed on how to recognize if a
person is not able to speak or write English, is hearing or visually impaired, or physically
disabled.
Continued to provide a brochure detailing the handicap accessibility of Cupertino City Hall.
The brochure also provides information on special services available to the hearing impaired
for public meetings.
Implemented a new sign program that better directs the physically handicapped to
accessibility ramps and elevators.
Funded Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO)to support fair housing activities,
including fair housing counseling, case investigation services, and outreach and educational
activities to increase community awareness of fair housing. ECHO’soutreachactivities in
Cupertino in the 2008-2009 fiscal year included:
Conducted one fair housing training session for landlords and property managers
o
Conducted six fair housing presentations.
o
Distributed 1,500 educational brochures throughout the City at City Hall, the library,
o
and senior center.
Staffed a table at the Tri-County Apartment Association Trade Show.
o
Placed weekly ads in the El Observador and San Jose Mercury News and 29 public
o
6
service announcements on local radio and cable stations.
6
City of Cupertino, Consolidated Annual Performance Report (CAPER), Fiscal Year 2008.
13
475
DRAFT 1/9/2012
3Background Data
This Background Data Chapterincorporates quantitative data from a variety of sources and
qualitative information from various organizations and community stakeholders. Quantitative data
sources include the United States Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments; the State of
California, Department of Finance; Claritas, Inc., a private demographicdata vendor;and discussions
with local fair housing providers. A complete explanation of data sources used in this Background
Data Chapter is provided in Appendix B. Whenever possible, the AIpresents the most recent data
reflectingcurrent market and economic conditions. For example, data from Claritas, Inc.,which
7
estimates current demographic trends based on the 2000 Census, is often used to provide 2009 data.
However, in some cases, the 2000 U.S. Census provides the most reliable data and more up-to-date
8
information is unavailable.
3.1Demographic Profile
Population and Household Trends
Cupertino had an estimated population of 55,800 residents in 2009, representing approximately three
percent of Santa Clara County’s population. As shown in Table 3.1,population growth in the City
has matched countywide growth between 2000 and 2009. During this time period, Cupertino’s
population grew by just under 11 percent.
Household growth in Cupertino and Santa Clara County paralleled population trends, though at a
slower rate. There were an estimated 19,800 households in Cupertino in 2009, an increase of nine
percent since 2000.
7
Claritas is used instead of the American Community Survey (ACS) because the ACS does not allow an analysis
of block groups or smaller geographic areas.
8
In reviewing this Needs Assessment, it is important to consider that the 2000 Census marked a peak in the
County’s economy, with low unemployment and a severe housing shortage. In contrast, today’s economy is
characterized by high unemployment and more affordable housing. Data from 2000 may therefore be less
applicable today. Notwithstanding this issue, current economic conditions also lead to affordability concerns,
specifically because of job losses.
14
476
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.1: Population and Household Growth, 2000-2009
CupertinoSanta Clara County
PercentPercent
20002009 (a)Change20002009 (a)Change
Population
50,54655,84010.5%1,682,5851,857,62110.4%
Households
18,20419,7528.5%565,863612,4638.2%
Note:
(a) 2009 population and household estimates provided by Californ
Sources: Claritas, 2000; California Department of Finance, 2009;
Household Composition and Size
Table 3.2provides a distribution of households across various types in 2009. As shown, family
households, defined as two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption,
represent the majority (75 percent) of households in Cupertino. Single-person households comprise
19 percent of households, while the remaining sixpercent are non-family householdswith two or
more persons.
The average household size in Cupertino is 2.80, slightly smaller than Santa Clara County’s average
household size of 2.98 in 2009.
Table 3.2: Household Composition and Size, 2009
Santa Clara
Household TypeCupertinoCounty
Single Person19.2%21.2%
Two or More Persons
Married Couple64.0%54.8%
Other Family10.9%15.1%
Non-Family5.9%8.9%
Avg. Household Size (a)
2.802.98
Note:
(a) Average household size is based on 2009 California Departmen
and household estimates.
Sources: Claritas, 2009; California Department of Finance, 2009;
Age Distribution
Cupertino’s age distribution, shown in Table 3.3is relatively similar to that of Santa Clara County
with a few notable exceptions. In both Cupertino and Santa Clara County, there are significant
proportions of persons under 18 years old. Compared to the County as a whole, Cupertino has a
lower proportion of adults in the 25 to 44 age range but a higher proportion of 45 to 54 year old
adults. Cupertino’s elderly residents age 65 years old and above, also represents a slightly larger
15
477
DRAFT 1/9/2012
share of the population, compared to the County as a whole.
In 2009, the median age in Cupertino was 40.8 years old, slightly older than the County’s median of
37.2 years old.
Table 3.3: Age Distribution, 2009
Santa Clara
Age CohortCupertinoCounty
Under 1823.7%24.1%
18 - 24 8.7%8.9%
25 - 4424.2%30.1%
45 - 6430.5%25.9%
65 & Older12.9%11.0%
Median Age40.837.2
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Race/Ethnicity
As shown in Table 3.4, Cupertino has a majority Asian population. Asians represented 57 percent of
the City’s total population, a higher proportion than in Santa Clara County as a whole. Chinese-
Americans make up the largest community of Asians in Cupertino (16,578 or 28.4%) followed by
9
Asian Indians (13,179 or 22.6%)
.Appendix C contains additional detail regarding geographic
concentrations of the City’s Asian population. Non-Hispanic White persons were the second largest
racial group in Cupertino, comprising 36 percent of the population. The City has a smaller
population of Hispanic or Latino residents compared to Santa Clara County; approximately three
percent of Cupertino residents were Hispanic or Latino, compared to 26 percent in the County.
9
Current data based on the 2010 Census. Chinese-Americans as defined here includes people reporting their
ethnicity as Taiwanese.
16
478
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.4: Race and Ethnicity, 2009
CupertinoSanta Clara County
RaceNon-HispanicHispanicNon-HispanicHispanic
White36.0%1.9%37.0%10.4%
Black/ African American0.6%0.1%2.4%0.2%
Native American0.1%0.0%0.2%0.4%
Asian56.6%0.1%30.8%0.2%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander0.1%0.0%0.3%0.0%
Other0.3%0.8%0.2%12.9%
Two or More Races2.9%0.5%3.1%1.8%
Total Population96.6%3.4%74.1%25.9%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Racial and ethnic groups are not equally distributed throughout the City. Areas of racial/ethnic
minority concentration are neighborhoods with a disproportionately high number of minority (i.e.,
non-White) households.According to HUD, “areas of minority concentration” are defined as Census
block groups where 50 percent of the population is comprised of a single ethnic or racial group other
than Whites. As shown in Figure 3.1, Asian persons comprise over 50 percent of the population in
the majority of the City. Portions of western Cupertino have a majority White population. There are
no areas in the City where Hispanic residents comprise the majority.
17
479
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Another way employed by HUD to define minority concentration is where the percentage of
minorities in an area is at least 20 percent greater than the countywide share of minorities. In 2009,
the non-White population comprised approximately 64 percent of the County’s population.
Therefore, under this definition, Census block groups where non-Whites represent over 84 percent of
the population are considered areas of minority concentration. There are no areas in Cupertino that
meet this definition of minority concentration.
A third measure commonlyemployed by demographers and sociologists to analyze patterns of
racial/ethnic concentration is the“dissimilarity index.” The index is a measure of the evenness with
which two groups (generally a minority group and Whites) are distributed across the geographic
areas that make up a larger area, such as Census tracts within a county. The index ranges from 0 to
100, with 0 meaning no segregation or spatial disparity, and 100 being complete segregation between
the two groups. The index score can also be interpreted as the percentage of one of the two groups in
the calculation that would have to move to a different geographic area in order to produce a
completely even distribution.
The formula for calculating the dissimilarity index for Cupertino, by Census tract, is as follows: D=
0.5| P
/P-P/P|
iggihh
Pis the population of group g in Census tract i
ig
Pis the population of group h in Census tract i
ih
Pis the total population of group g in the Cityand
g
P
is the total population of group hin the City
h
Analyzing 2009 data for Cupertinoby Census tract results in the following dissimilarity index scores
for each minority group:
Black/African Americans -20
Asians-18
Hispanic/Latino -9
This analysis indicates that 20percent of Black/African Americans, 18percent of Asians, and nine
percent of Hispanic/Latinos would need to move to a different Census tract in order to achieve
10
spatial integration with the White population.
In general, an index score above 60 is considered
11
high, 30 to 60 is considered moderate, and below 30 is considered low.As such, this analysis
indicates that the City’s Black/African American, Asian, and Hispanic/Latinopopulations experience
relatively low segregation relative to Whites, and that Cupertino’s minority populations are
distributed throughout the City.
10
Assuming no movement in the White population.
11
Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1993.
19
481
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Household Income Distribution
Cupertino households are more affluent than Santa Clara County households as a whole. As shown
in Table 3.5, the median household income was $119,000 in the City of Cupertino in 2009. By
comparison, the County’s median household income stood at $88,400. The largest proportion of
Cupertino households earned between $75,000 and $149,999 in 2009.
Table 3.5: Household Income, 2009
Santa Clara
Household IncomeCupertinoCounty
Less than $35,00013.6%20.9%
$35,000 to $74,99921.6%29.1%
$75,000 to $149,99942.4%37.7%
$150,000 or More22.3%12.2%
Median HH Income $119,000$88,400
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Household Income by Household Type
For planning purposes, households are categorized by HUD as extremely low-income, very low-
income, or low-income, based on percentages of the County’s Median Family Income (MFI). The
12
MFI is calculated annually by HUD for different household sizes.The HUD income categories are
defined below:
Extremely Low-Income: Up to 30 percent of County MFI
Very Low-Income: 31 percent to 50 percent of County MFI
Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of County MFI
HUD publishes data on these income groups based on the 2000 Census in the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). Table 3.6shows the percentage of households that are very
low-or low-income, that is those earning less than 80 percent of MFI, by household type. Consistent
with the household income distributions discussed above, Cupertino has a lower proportion of low-
income households relative to the County. Approximately 20 percent of all Cupertino households
werelower-income in 2000, compared to 31 percent of households in Santa Clara County.
In both the City and County, elderly households had the highest percentage of lower-income
12
MFI calculations are based on American Community Survey (ACS) median income data published by the U.S.
Census Bureau and adjusted by a number of factors, including adjustment for high cost areas. As such, the MFI
calculated by HUD is higher than the median household income estimated by Claritas for 2009, presented in
Table 4.5. Higher MFI levels result in higher estimates of housing affordability than may actually be the case for
County households.
20
482
DRAFT 1/9/2012
households earning less than 80 percent of MFI when compared to all other household types.
Approximately 40 percent of Cupertino’s elderly households and 54 percent of elderly households in
the County were lower-income in 2000.
Table 3.6: Percent Low-and Very Low-Income Households,
2000 (a)
Santa Clara
Household TypeCupertinoCounty
Elderly40.2%53.5%
Small Family13.1%21.8%
Large Family15.2%34.3%
All Others21.6%29.1%
All Households19.6%30.5%
Notes:
(a) Very low-income households defined as those earning less tha
50% of median family income (MFI). Low-income households defined
as those earning between 51% and 80% of MFI
Definitions:
Elderly households - 1 or 2 person household, either person 62 y
Small family - 2 to 4 related members
Large family - 5 or more related members
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive H
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 20
Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
Table 3.7presents a distribution of household income by race and ethnicity. As shown, the income
distribution for individual racial/ethnic groups is relatively comparable to the City’s household
income distribution as a whole. However, Hispanic and Native American households do show a
greater concentration at the lower ends of the income distribution when compared to the City as a
whole. Approximately 18percent and20 percent of Hispanic and Native American households,
respectively, have incomes up to 50 percent of MFI, compared to 13 percent of all households in
Cupertino.
21
483
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.7: Household Income by Race/Ethnicity, Cupertino, 2000
Native Pacific
WhiteBlackHispanicAmericanAsianIslanderTotal (a)
Less than 30% MFI6.3%0.0%13.9%0.0%8.4%0.0%7.2%
30% to 50% MFI6.7%6.7%3.8%20.4%3.9%0.0%5.7%
50% to 80% MFI7.0%11.7%7.0%0.0%6.6%0.0%6.7%
More than 80% MFI80.1%81.7%75.3%79.6%81.1%100.0%80.4%
Total Households10,375120502496,7645018,217
Notes:
(a) Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not presented in t
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive H
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 20
Areas of Concentrated Poverty
Countywide, approximately six percent of households had incomes below the poverty level in 2009.
As shown in Table 3.8, the prevalence of poverty in Cupertino was lower, at four percent.
Table 3.8: Poverty Status, 2009
HouseholdsSanta Clara
Below Poverty LineCupertinoCounty
Households54323,000
Percent of Total HH's3.9%5.7%
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2010.
The U.S. Census Bureau uses three categories to discuss the incidence of poverty in an area –less
13
than 20 percent, between 20 percent and 40 percent, and 40 percent or more.The traditional
definition of concentrated poverty is where 40 percent of the population lives below the federal
14
poverty threshold.There are no block groups in the City of Cupertino that have more than 20
percent of the population living below the poverty line.
The CDBG program requires that CDBG funded activities principally benefit low-and moderate-
income persons or meet other program eligibility criteria. CDBG assisted activities generally meet
the low-and moderate-income principal benefit requirement if 51 percent of the residents in the
activity’s service area are low-and moderate-income. However, for jurisdictions with no areas
13
U.S. Census Bureau, “Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 1999,” July 2005,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-16.pdf
14
Wolch, Jennifer and Nathan Sessoms, USC Department of Geography, “The Changing Face of Concentrated
Poverty,” http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2005-1004.pdf
22
484
DRAFT 1/9/2012
meeting this criterion, the highest quartile of all areas in the City in terms of degree of concentration
is used.For the City of Cupertino, Census block groups with at least 27.4 percent low-and
15
moderate-income residents are considered targeted areas.As shown in Figure 3.2, there are nine
Census block groups that meet the definition of targeted areas. These areas are primarily
concentrated in the eastern portion of Cupertino, east of Highway 85. It should be noted that the
boundaries for targeted areas may change when updated data from the American Community Survey
is released.
15
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CDBG Entitlement Low and Moderate Benefit on an
Area Basis –“Exception Grantees.”
23
485
DRAFT 1/9/2012
The federal poverty level is only one way of measuring poverty and self-sufficiency. In fact, the
federal poverty level is based on 1964 cost data, and may not be the best measure for a region with
a high cost of living, such as Santa Clara County. As an alternative to the federal poverty level, the
First Steps to Cutting Poverty in Half by 2020 report for Santa Clara County presents a Self-
Sufficiency Standard that identifies the wage needed for a household to escape poverty. This
includes enough money to pay for basics like rent, food, child care, health care, transportation, and
taxes, and to save and build assets for the future. According to the report, a household with two
adults, a preschooler, and a school-age child would need to earn $68,430 a year to make ends meet
in Santa Clara County. That is morethan three times the federal poverty level of $21,200 for the
16
same-sized family.
The Self-Sufficiency Standard is higher than the federal poverty level, in part,
due to high housing costs in Santa Clara County. The First Steps to Cutting Povertyreportalso
includes an Action Plan to reduce the number of households below the Self-Sufficiency Standard.
Persons with Disabilities
17
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities.
Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding
employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. This segment of the
population often needs affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and
shopping. Persons with disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or
other special features that accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity
of the disability, people may live independently with some assistance in their own homes, or may
require assisted living and supportive services in special care facilities.
The 2000 Census reports that there were approximately 5,100 individuals with disabilities in
Cupertino, accounting for 11 percent of the City’s civilian, non-institutionalized population age
five years and older. The proportion of disabled individuals in the County was higher, at 16
percent.
16
Step up Silicon Valley,First Steps to Cutting Poverty in Half by 2020:Together We Can Help Families Step
Up and Out of Poverty, April 2009, Page 4-5.
17
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, major life activities include seeing, hearing, speaking,
walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working.
25
487
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.9: Persons with Disabilities by Employment (a)
Santa Clara
CupertinoCounty
Age 5-151909,419
Age 16-64, Employed Persons with a Disability2,149114,389
Age 16-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability1,23970,311
Persons Age 65 Plus with a Disability1,50460,610
Total Persons with a Disability5,082254,729
Percent of Total Population10.8%16.4%
Notes:
(a) Includes civilian noninstitutionalized population, 5 years a
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2010.
The U.S. Census Bureau places disabilities into six categories, defined below:
Sensory disability –
blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment
Physical disability –
a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
Mental disability –
a physical, mental or emotional condition that made it difficult to
perform certain activities like learning, remembering, or concentrating
Self-care disability –
a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made it difficult to
perform certain activities like dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home
Going-outside-the-home disability –
a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made
it difficult to perform certain activities like going outside the home alone to shop or visit a
doctor’s office
Employment disability –
a physical, mental, or emotional condition that made it difficult
to perform certain activities like working at a job or business
As shown in Table 3.10, the largest proportion(46 percent) of disabled individuals in Cupertino
had an employment disability. The second most common disability type was go-outside-home
disability, representing43 percent of disabled individuals, followed by physical disabilities at 32
percent. It should be noted that individuals may have more than one disability.
26
488
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.10: Disabilities by Type and Age, 2000
Age 5-15Age 16-64Age 65+Total
Percent ofPercent ofPercent ofPercent of
Persons withPersons withPersons withPersons with
Disability TypeNumberDisabilities (a)NumberDisabilities (a)NumberDisabilities (a)NumberDisabilities (a)
Cupertino
Sensory Disability2111.1%35510.5%55637.0%91117.9%
Physical Disability105.3%63718.8%96264.0%1,59931.5%
Mental Disability17692.6%44113.0%30320.1%74414.6%
Self-Care Disability3317.4%1685.0%28018.6%4488.8%
Go-Outside-Home DisabilityN/AN/A1,45342.9%72248.0%2,17542.8%
Employment DisabilityN/AN/A2,35369.5%N/AN/A2,35346.3%
Total Disabilities (b)2405,4072,8238,470
Santa Clara County
Sensory Disability12,541133.1%16,4808.9%20,56416.9%37,04414.5%
Physical Disability1,80419.2%40,25721.8%39,50832.5%79,76531.3%
Mental Disability1,64017.4%28,04415.2%18,12814.9%46,17218.1%
Self-Care Disability6,87573.0%12,6636.9%12,89710.6%25,56010.0%
Go-Outside-Home DisabilityN/AN/A79,63643.1%30,59625.1%110,23243.3%
Employment DisabilityN/AN/A130,24670.5%N/AN/A130,24651.1%
Total Disabilities (b)22,860307,326121,693451,879
Notes:
(a) Total percent of persons with disabilities exceeds 100 perce
(b) Total disabilities exceed total persons with disabilities be
Source: U.S.Census, SF3-P41, 2000; BAE, 2010.
3.2Housing Profile
Housing Units
According to the California Department of Finance, the majority of housing units in Cupertino and
Santa Clara County were single-family (attached and detached) homes in 2009 (see Table3.11).
Single-family homes represent 71 percent of all housing units in the City and 63 percent of all units
in the County.
27
489
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.11: Housing Unit Type, 2009
Santa Clara
Housing Unit TypeCupertinoCounty
Single-Family (a)71.1%62.7%
Multifamily28.9%34.1%
Mobile Homes0.0%3.1%
Total Units20,269626,659
Note:
(a) Includes single-family detatched and single-family attached
Sources: CA Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Tenure
Often, a jurisdiction’s housing stock correlates with the tenure distribution of the occupied housing
units. Cities with a higher proportion of single-family residences generally have a higher
homeownership rate. As shown in Table 3.12, approximately 59 percent of Santa Clara County
households were homeowners in 2009. Consistent with the distribution of housing type the City of
Cupertino had a higher homeownership rate at 64 percent.
Table 3.12:Tenure Distribution, 2009
Santa Clara
TenureCupertinoCounty
Owner63.7%59.4%
Renter36.3%40.6%
Total
Occupied Units18,408595,646
Sources: Claritas, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Housing Conditions
Age of Housing Stock.
Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health and
safety problems for occupants. Housing policy analysts generally believe that even with normal
maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation.
According to the 2000 Census, approximately 50 percent of housing units in the City of Cupertino
and Santa Clara County were built before 1970.
28
490
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.13: Age of Housing Stock, 2000
Santa Clara
Year BuiltCupertinoCounty
1949 or earlier4.3%10.5%
1950 to 196945.8%39.4%
1970 to 198936.1%38.6%
1990 to March 200013.8%11.5%
Median Year Built19701970
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H34 and H36, 2000; BAE, 2010.
Housing Conditions.
Despite the age of housing units in some jurisdictions, much of the City and
County housing stock remains in relatively good condition. Data on the number of units which
lack complete plumbing and kitchen facilities are often used to assess the condition of a
jurisdiction’s housing stock. AsTable 3.14illustrates, virtually all of the City’s and County’s
housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities.
The 2000 Census, which provides the most recent data on housing conditions, found that less than
one percent of the occupied housing units in the Cupertino and the County lacked complete
plumbing. In addition, lessthan one percent of owner-occupied units in the County and Cupertino
lacked complete kitchen facilities.
Table 3.14: Housing Conditions, 2000
Without Complete Santa Clara
Plumbing FacilitiesCupertinoCounty
Owners0.2%0.3%
Renters0.4%0.8%
Total0.2%0.5%
Without Complete
Kitchen Facilities
Owners0.1%0.2%
Renters0.4%1.1%
Total0.2%0.6%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H48, 2000; BAE, 2010.
New Residential Building Permits
Since 2000, new residential construction in Cupertino has been dominated by single-family homes.
Approximately 66 percent of the 1,100 building permits issued in the City between 2000 and 2009
were for single-family homes. Large multifamily buildings with five units or more accounted for
29 percent of permits issued. Cupertino’s building permit trends differs from the Santa Clara
29
491
DRAFT 1/9/2012
County, where the majority of permits issued were for units in large multifamily buildings(see
Table 3.15).
It should be noted that not all issued building permits are actually constructed. Due to the current
downturn in the housing market, many projects were issued building permits, but were not
completed.
Table 3.15: Residential Building Permits Issued, 2000-2009
2000-2009
Building Type2000200120022003200420052006200720082009Total% of Total
Cupertino
752 65.5%
Single Family11245111368711478836521
54 4.7%
2 Units08400000420
4 0.3%
3 & 4 Units0040000000
338 29.4%
5 or More Units142425200048000
Total1267737136871141268310721 1,148 100.0%
Santa Clara County
19,31339.2%
Single Family2,8271,6222,0962,4682,5342,2912,0761,891930578
3920.8%
2 Units28382262822810445028
1,0102.1%
3 & 4 Units18378147881262029040497
28,51957.9%
5 or More Units3,5734,1792,1964,3882,2423,0503,8992,1482,433411
Total6,6115,9174,4617,0064,9845,5716,0754,1233,4621,02449,234100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009; BAE, 2010.
3.3Housing Affordability
Home Sale Trends
As shown inFigure 3.3,the median sales price for single-family homes in Cupertino increased
between 2000 and 2007, declined in the early part of the decade due to the “dot-com bust,” then
rose steeplybefore falling once more during the current economic downturn. The median sales
price for single-family homes increased by 42 percent from$825,000 to $1,175,000 between 2000
and 2007. Since the 2007 peak, the median sales price has decreased by 16 percent. During 2009
(January through May), the median home sales price for single-family homes was $986,500.As of
June 2010, Cupertino had a median sales price of $980,000.
Condominium sales prices in Cupertino have been more stable compared to single-family homes.
The median sales price for condominiums peaked in 2008 at $686,500 before falling by two
percent in 2009 to $642,500.
30
492
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Figure 3.3: Median Sales Price, Cupertino, 1988-209
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
SFRCondo
Notes:
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009.
Sources: DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Figure 3.4depicts the sales volume for single-family homes and condominiums in Cupertino since
1988. As shown, the sales volume for single-family homes has been more than twice the volume
for condominiums. Residential sales volume for single-family homes has steadily declined since
2004.
31
493
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Figure 3.4: Sales Volume, Cupertino, 1988-2009
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
SFRCondo
Notes:
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009.
Sources: DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2010.
It should be noted that Cupertino’s housing market has remained more stable than the County’s as
a whole. As shown in Table 3.16, the decline in median sales prices in the County was more than
twice as high as in the City between 2008 and 2009 for both single-family homes and
condominiums.
Median home prices in Cupertino were also higher than they were in the County as a whole for
both single-family homes and condominiums. The median sales price for a single-family home in
Santa Clara County during the first five months of 2009 was $447,000, compared to $986,500 in
Cupertino.
32
494
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.16: Median Sales Price, 2009 (a)
Single Family ResidencesCondominiums
Santa Clara Santa Clara
CupertinoCountyCupertinoCounty
Median Sales Price$986,500$447,000$642,500$294,500
Units Sold 1114,918341,645
Percent Change in
Sales Price from 2007
-16.0%-42.3%-1.5%-45.0%
(a) 2009 data includes January to May 2009.
Source: DataQuick, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Rental Market Trends
A review of rental market conditions in Cupertino was conducted using data from RealFacts, a
private data vendor that collects quarterly rental data from apartment complexes with 50 or more
units.
Table 3.17shows rental market characteristics for Cupertino during the fourth quarter of 2009.
Market rents averaged $1,802 a month across all unit types. On average, monthly rents in the City
has decreased by four percent since 2007. During this same time period, vacancies for rental units
inthe City increased (discussed below). The increased vacancies and the corresponding decline in
average rents are indicative of the economic recession. Average asking rents were reduced in
response to rising unemployment and reduced household spending.
33
495
DRAFT 1/9/2012
th
Table 3.17: Rental Market Characteristics, 4Quarter 2009 (a)
CURRENT MARKET DATA - Q4 2009
PercentAvg.Avg.Avg.
Unit TypeNumberof MixSq. Ft.RentRent/Sq. Ft.
Studio
1353%466$1,143$2.45
Jr 1BR/1 BA
692%660$1,166$1.77
1 BR/1 BA
1,54736%722$1,466$2.03
1 BR TH
120%909$1,583$1.74
2 BR/1 BA
57413%913$1,704$1.87
2 BR/2 BA
1,35031%1,056$2,109$2.00
2 BR TH
3538.2%1,070$2,066$1.93
3 BR/2 BA
1724%1,276$2,630$2.06
3 BR TH
1062.5%1,321$2,397$1.81
Totals4,318100%908$1,802$1.98
AVERAGE RENT HISTORY - ANNUAL
2007-20082007-2009
Unit Type20072008% Change2009 (b)% Change
Studio
$1,199$1,2907.6%$1,180-1.6%
Jr 1BR
$1,402$1,316-6.1%$1,256-10.4%
1BR/1 BA
$1,630$1,7125.0%$1,518-6.9%
2 BR/1 BA
$1,885$1,9171.7%$1,774-5.9%
2 BR/2 BA
$2,157$2,3016.7%$2,133-1.1%
2 BR TH
$2,306$2,4325.5%$2,135-7.4%
3 BR/2 BA
$2,644$2,8287.0%$2,641-0.1%
3 BR TH
$2,433$2,6338.2%$2,424-0.4%
All Units$1,928$2,0305.3%$1,847-4.2%
OCCUPANCY RATE
Average
YearOccupancy
2004
95.8%
2005
96.2%
2006
96.7%
2007
96.5%
2008
95.4%
2009
93.1%
AGE OF HOUSING INVENTORY (by Project)
Percent of
YearProjects
Pre 1960's
0.0%
1960's
28.6%
1970's
33.3%
1980's
4.8%
1990's
33.3%
2000's
0.0%
Notes:
(a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more.
(b) 2009 data presents annual average. Differs from above, whic
Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2010; BAE, 2010.
34
496
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Housing economists generally consider a rental vacancy of five percent as sufficient to provide
adequate choice and mobility for residents, and sufficient income for landlords. Higher rates result
in a depressed rental market, while lower rates begin to impinge on resident mobility and lead to
housing concerns such as overcrowding and overpayment. During the fourth quarter of 2009,
vacancy rates in Cupertino stood at seven percent, a symptom of the downturn in the rental market.
Historically, vacancy rates have been lower, ranging from four to five percent between 2004 and
2008.
Housing Affordability for Various Income Groups
Affordabilityis generally discussed in the context of households with different income levels.
Households are categorized by HUD as extremely low-income, very low-income, or low-income
based on household size and percentages of the area Median Family Income (MFI). These income
limits are established annually by HUD. Federal, state, and local affordable housing programs
generally target households earning up to 80 percent of MFI, though some programs also provide
assistance to households earning up to 120 percent of MFI. The HUD-defined income categories
are presented below:
Extremely Low-Income: Up to 30 percent of County MFI
Very Low-Income: 31 percent to 50 percent of County MFI
Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of County MFI
For-Sale Housing.
Table 3.18shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with
extremely low-, very low-, and low-incomes. This analysis compares the maximum affordable sale
price for each of these households to the market rate prices for three-bedroom units in Cupertino
between June 28, 2009 and December 31, 2009.
The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits published by
HUD, conventional financing terms, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of gross
income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. Appendix G shows the detailed calculations
used to derive the maximum affordable sales price for single-family residences and condominiums.
As shown in Table 3.18, the maximum sales price for a low-income, four-person household
seeking to purchase a single-family home is $280,300. In Cupertino, less than three percent of
three-bedroom homes sold on the market were under this price point. This analysis indicates that
current market prices present a serious obstacle to single-family homeownership for lower-income
households in the area.
The maximum affordable sales price for condominiums is slightly lower than the price for single-
family homes because monthly homeowners association (HOA) fees are factored into the
35
497
DRAFT 1/9/2012
calculation, thereby reducing the amount available for mortgage payments. The maximum
affordable condominium sales price for a four-person low-income household is $240,600.
Approximately four percent of three-and four-bedroom condominiums sold in Cupertino were
within this price range, indicating that condominium ownership is also a challenge for lower-
income households.
Table 3.18: Affordability of For-Sale Housing, Cupertino
Single-Family Residences
Percent of 3BR
IncomeMax. AffordableSFRS sold within
Income LevelLimit (a)Sale Price (b)Price Range (c)
Extremely Low-Income (Up to 30% MFI)$31,850$105,1000.00%
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% MFI)$53,050$175,1002.50%
Low-Income (Up to 80% MFI)$84,900$280,3002.50%
Median Sale Price$939,000
Number of Units Sold80
Condominiums
Percent of 3BR+
IncomeMax. AffordableCondos sold within
Income LevelLimit (a)Sale Price (b)Price Range (c)
Extremely Low-Income (Up to 30% MFI)$31,850$65,5000.00%
Very Low-Income (Up to 50% MFI)$53,050$135,5000.00%
Low-Income (Up to 80% MFI)$84,900$240,6003.85%
Median Sale Price$760,000
Number of Units Sold26
Notes:
(a) Income limits published by U.S. Department of Housing and Ur
(b) Assumptions used to calculate affordable sales price:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed)6.53%Freddie Mac historical monthly Primary Mortgage Market
Survey data tables. Ten-year average.
Term of mortgage (Years)30
Percent of sale price as down payment5%
Initial property tax (annual)1.00%
Mortgage Insurance as percent of loan amount0.78%
Annual homeowner's insurance rate as percent of sale 0.12%CA Dept. of Insurance website, based on average of all quotes,
assuming $150,000 of coverage and a 26-40 year old home.
Homeowners Association Fee (monthly)$300
PITI = Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance
Percent of household income available for PITI30.00%
(c) Analysis based on all full and verified sales between June 2
Single-family analysis includes 3-bedroom units only. Condomini
Sources: U.S. HUD, 2009; DataQuick, 2010; BAE, 2010.
In considering this analysis, it is important to note that credit markets have tightened in tandem
with the decline in home values. As such, although homes may have become slightly more
affordable in recent years, lender requirements for a minimum down payment or credit score may
present a greater obstacle for buyers today. More accessible home loan products are available,
36
498
DRAFT 1/9/2012
including Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans. FHA loans are insured by the federal
government, and have traditionally allowed lower-income households to purchase a home that they
could not otherwise afford. However, interviews with lenders suggest that many households are
not aware of these programs. Moreover, many loan officers prefer to focus on conventional
mortgages because of the added time and effort associated with processing and securing approval
18
on a FHA loan.
Rental Housing.
Table 3.19compares the maximum affordable monthly rent with the average
market rents in the four sub-county areas for households of various sizes. Maximum affordable
monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities.
In Cupertino, the maximum affordable monthly rent for low-income households ranges from
$1,372 for one-person households to $1,947 for four-person households. The maximum affordable
rent for two-and three-person low-income households exceeds the average market rate rent for
appropriately sizedunits. However, one-and four-person low-income households would need to
pay in excess of 30 percent of gross income to afford the average market rent. The average market
rent far exceeds the maximum affordable rent for very low-and extremely low-income households
across all household sizes.
18
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
37
499
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.19: Affordability of Market Rate Rent in Cupertino
Household Size (a)
1 person2 person3 person4 person
Average Market Rate Rent
(b)
Cupertino$1,466$1,466$1,704$2,630
Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent
Extremely Low Income (30% AMI)
Household Income (c)$22,300$25,500$28,650$31,850
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)$445$525$587$620
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Household Income (c)$37,150$42,450$47,750$53,050
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)$816$948$1,065$1,150
Low Income (80% AMI)
Household Income (c)$59,400$67,900$76,400$84,900
Max. Affordable Monthly Rent (d)$1,372$1,585$1,781$1,947
Notes:
(a) The following unit sizes are assumed based on household size
1 person - 1 bedroom/1 bathroom
2 person - 1 bedroom/1 bathroom
3 person - 2 bedroom/1 bathroom
4 person - 3 bedroom/2 bathrooms
(b) Reported by Real Facts for 4Q 2009.
(c) Household income published by the U.S. Department of Housing
Development for Santa Clara County, 2009
(d) Assumes 30 percent of income spent on rent and utilities. U
allowance for multifamily dwelling established by Housing Author
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2009; Real
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Overpayment
According to HUD standards, a household is considered “cost-burdened” (i.e., overpaying for
housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. Households
are “severely cost burdened” if they pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.
Citywide, approximately 28 percent of households overpaid for housing in 2000. The incidence of
overpayment was higher for renters than owners in Cupertino, with 31 percent of renter households
and 26 percent of owner households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing
costs. Table 3.20shows the incidence of overpayment by household type in Cupertino.
During the current economic downturn, the rate of overpayment may have increased due to rising
unemployment. Unfortunately, more recent data on overpayment is unavailable.
38
500
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Overcrowding
A lack of affordable housing can result in overcrowded households. The U.S. Census defines
“overcrowding” as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Table 3.21
shows the overcrowding rate among renters and owners by jurisdiction in Santa Clara County. In
2000, approximately 10 percent of all households in Cupertino were overcrowded. Overcrowding
was substantially higher among renters than owners, with 17 percent of renters and five percent of
owner households living in overcrowded situations. The prevalence of overcrowding was higher in
Santa Clara County asa whole, where 14 percent of all households were overcrowded.
As with overpayment, rising unemployment and foreclosures may contribute to greater
overcrowding rates in the County. However, more current data on overcrowding is unavailable.
Table 3.21: Overcrowding, 2000
Overcrowded Santa Clara
HouseholdsCupertinoCounty
Owners5.2%8.2%
Renters17.3%23.3%
Total Households9.6%14.3%
Sources: U.S. Census, SF3 H20, 2000; BAE, 2010.
40
502
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Housing Problems by Income and Race
HUD requires Consolidated Plans to identify any racial or ethnic groups that have a
disproportionately greater housing need.Housing need is defined by HUD as paying more than 30
percent of income towards housing costs, overcrowding, and/or lacking complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities (i.e., HUD-identified “housing problems”).Per HUD’s definition,
adisproportionately greater need exists when members of a particular racial/ethnic group have at
least 10 percent greater need than persons in the income category as a whole.
Table 3.22presents the percentage of households by race and income that experienced housing
problems in 2000. Housing problems include overcrowding, cost burden, and living in units that
lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. As shown, among very low-income households
(earning between 30 percent and 50 percent of MFI), Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian
households had a disproportionate need compared to households in that income group as a whole.
Low-income Asian households and Native American and Black householdsearning above 80
percent of MFIalso had a disproportionate need.
Table 3.22: Housing Problems by Income and Race, Cupertino, 2000
Native Pacific
WhiteBlackHispanicAmericanAsianIslanderTotal (a)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI1,3408891083002,338
2. Household Income <=30% MFI650070056501,307
%with any housing problems66.2%N/A35.7%N/A70.8%N/A66.0%
3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI6908191026501,031
%with any housing problems54.3%100.0%100.0%100.0%88.7%N/A66.1%
4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI7251435044901,227
%with any housing problems51.0%28.6%71.4%N/A83.5%N/A63.5%
5. Household Income >80% MFI8,31098378395,4855014,652
%with any housing problems21.1%38.8%31.5%61.5%35.4%0.0%27.1%
6. Total Households10,375120502496,7645018,217
%with any housing problems28.2%41.7%37.5%69.4%43.6%0.0%34.5%
Notes:
(a) Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not presented in t
Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive H
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 20
Foreclosures
Due to a variety of interrelated factors, including an increase in subprime lending activity in recent
years, California and the nation are currently undergoing an unprecedented wave of foreclosures.
During the third quarter of 2009, approximately 27 homeowners in Cupertino received notices of
default, compared to 15 issued in the third quarter of 2009. Notices of default represent the first
step in the foreclosure process. In addition, three filings for bank owned properties in the City
were recorded by the County Assessor in the third quarter of 2009, a signal that these homes were
lost to foreclosure(see Table 3.23).
41
503
DRAFT 1/9/2012
In general, Cupertino has remained relatively unscathed by the foreclosure crisis, compared to
other parts of Santa Clara County, thanks to the more stable home values and greater housing
demand in thearea.In a stronger residential market such as Cupertino, households unable to make
mortgage payments have a greater ability to sell their properties rather than undergo foreclosure.
Moreover, the high housing prices during the peak of the market effectively prevented many at-risk
buyers from purchasing a home in Cupertino, even with the volatile mortgage products that
contributed to the foreclosure crisis.Nonetheless, as shown below, the number of notices of
default in Cupertino did rise from 15 to 27 between the third quarter of 2008 and 2009.
Several agencies provide foreclosure counseling for homeowners in Santa Clara County, including
in Cupertino. Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valleyand Project Sentinel provide
homeowners that have received notices of default with mortgage counseling and, if they qualify,
assist them in applying for mortgage loan modifications from their lenders.
Table 3.23: Foreclosure Filings, Q3 2008 and Q3 2009
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Q3 2008Q3 2009% ChangeQ3 2008Q3 2009% Change
Notices of Default
152780.0%2,8104,09545.7%
Bank-Owned Properties
330.0%1,845830-55.0%
Source: City of San Jose, 2009; BAE, 2010.
3.4AssistedHousing
Public Housing and Section 8
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) provides public housing and rental
assistance for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the County. There are
nine public housing developments, including two developments for families, four developments for
seniors, and three developments for persons with disabilities. In total, HACSC’s public housing
projects have 555 units, the majority of which have one-bedroom.
While there are no public housing developments located in the City of Cupertino, HACSC, and
HUD offer rental assistance for lower income households through the Section 8 Voucher
19
program.Under the voucher program, HACSC issues an eligible household a voucher and the
household selects a unit of its choice. There are no residency requirements when applying for
Section 8 vouchers, though local residents receive a preference over non-residents. HUD also
provides project-based Section 8 vouchers associated with particular developments.
19
HACSC administers and manages the Section 8 program for the City of San José Housing Authority.
42
504
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.24summarizes this data for Cupertino and Santa Clara County. As shown, there are
15,839 tenant-based and 5,791 project-based vouchers in the County. This includes 50 tenant-
based vouchersand 127 project-based vouchers in the City of Cupertino.
Table 3.24: Project and Tenant-Based Section 8
Vouchers
Santa Clara
Section 8 VouchersCupertinoCounty
Tenant-Based5015,839
Project-Based (a)1275,791
Section 8 Total17721,630
Percent of County Total0.8%100.0%
Section 8 Waiting List (b)53,369
Note:
(a) Project-based Section 8 vouchers include those issued by HAC
addition to those issued through HUD's Section 8 Multifamily Pro
(b) Waitlist and Section 8 data current through October 5, 2009.
Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, 2009; S
Multifamily Program Vouchers, HUD, Region IX, October 2009; BAE,
Subsidized Housing
In addition to public housing and Section 8, there are other federal, state, and local programs that
subsidize rental housing for lower-income households. These funding sources include low-income
housing tax credits, project-based Section 8, HOME, CDBG, HOPWA, and redevelopment agency
funds, among others. As shown in Table 3.25, there are six affordable housing developments with
203 affordable rental units in Cupertino. In addition, there are three group homes and eight
developments that provide below market rate (BMR) rental units as part of the City’s Housing
Mitigation Plan.Figure 3.5maps the location of these affordable housing developments.
Many subsidized affordable housing developments receive government funding that requires units
be made affordable for a specified amount of time. As presented in Table 3.25,the Sunnyview
West development had affordability requirements that expired in 2004. However, this
development has been preserved and is not considered to be at risk of converting to market-rate.
The nonprofit organization that owns and manages Sunnyview West has indicated to City staff that
it intends to continue providing units at affordable rents.
The affordability restrictionsfor the Le Beaulieu project will expire in September 2015. Cupertino
Community Housing originally developed Le Beaulieu in 1984 and utilized project based Section 8
vouchers. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a nonprofit organization, acquired and rehabilitated
43
505
DRAFT 1/9/2012
the project in 1998. Le Beaulieu contains 27 one-and two-bedroom units for adults with physical
disabilities who are able to live independently. All units are handicap accessible and affordable to
low-income households (less than 50 percent of AMI). The Le Beaulieu development is
considered to have a low-risk of converting to market rate because Mid-Peninsula Housing
Coalition is committed to maintaining the property as affordable.
While the Le Beaulieu project is the only subsidized development that is at-risk of converting to
market rate, there are also 10 below market rate (BMR) units in the Chateau Cupertino
development with affordability requirements expiring in March of 2010. These 10 BMR units will
likely convert to market rate when the affordability requirements expire. However, the City of
Cupertino is committed to maintaining long-term affordability of its BMR units. As such, in 2005,
the City increased the minimum affordability term for BMR units in new developments to 99 years.
Cupertino’s subsidized housing developments are located throughout the City, often in close
proximity to major commercial corridors, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, that have public
transportation access. As shown inFigure 3.5, 13 ofthe 14 subsidized developments are located in
areas where Asian residents comprise more than 50 percent of the population. However, this does
not indicate that the City’s affordable housing inventory is disproportionately concentrated in
minority neighborhoods because Asians represent the majority of the City’s total population and
many areas(Census block groups)across Cupertino are characterized by a majority Asian
population.
44
506
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.25: Inventory of Affordable Rental Housing Units
Number of Household IncomeEarliest
Affordable DevelopmentsAffordable UnitsVery Low or LowModerateTermination Date
Sunnyview West
10010005/31/2004
22449 Cupertino Rd.
Stevens Creek Village
404006/30/2035
19140 Stevens Creek Blvd.
LeBeaulieu Apartments
272709/12/2015
10092 Bianchi Way
WVCS Transitional Housing
4407/14/2026
10311-10321 Greenwood Ct.
Beardon Drive
88011/22/2024
10192-10194 Beardon Dr.
Vista Village
2424011/29/2056
10114 Vista Drive
TOTAL2032030
Group Homes
Adult Toward Independent Living
8 personsN/A
19147 Anne Ln.
Pacific Autism Center for Education
12 persons6/25/2025
19681 Drake Dr.
7576 Kirwin Ln
Maitri Transitional Housing
16 personsN/A
Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units
Biltmore Apartments
2206/30/2029
10159 South Blaney Ave.
City Center Apartments
4407/8/2026
20380 Stevens Creek Blvd.
The Hamptons
3434010/20/2027
19500 Pruneridge Ave.
Arioso Apartments
202001/29/2028
19608 Pruneridge Ave.
Forge-Homestead Apartments
151501/16/2027
20691 Forge Way
Aviare Apartments
222207/8/2026
20415 Via Paviso
Chateau Cupertino
101003/1/2010
10150 Torre Ave.
Markham Apartments (formerly Villa Serra)
171703/2/2108
20800 W Homestead Rd.
TOTAL1241240
Source: City of Cupertino, 2010; BAE, 2010
45
507
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Inventory of Facilities and Services for Special NeedsPopulations
Individuals with special needs, including the elderly or persons with physical or mental disabilities,
need access to suitable housing in their communities. This segment of the population often needs
affordable housing that is located near public transportation, services, and shopping. Persons with
disabilities may require units equipped with wheelchair accessibility or other special features that
accommodate physical or sensory limitations. Depending on the severity of the disability and
support program regulations and reimbursement levels, people may live independently with some
assistance in their own homes, or may live in assisted living or other special care facilities.
Table 3.26shows the number and capacity of licensed community care facilities in the County by
jurisdiction while Figure 3.6shows the location of these facilities. These licensed facilities are
defined by the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division:
Adult Residential Facilities (ARF)
provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18
years through 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. ARFs
include board andcare homes for adults with developmental disabilities and mental
illnesses.
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE)
provide care, supervision, and
assistance with daily living activities, such as bathing and grooming.
Group Homes
provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision to children. Services
include social, psychological, and behavioral programs for troubled youth.
Small Family Homes (SFH)
provide 24-hour care in the licensee’s family residence for
six or fewer children who require special supervision as a result of a mental or
developmental disability or physical handicap.
As shown in Table 3.26, there are 715 licensed care facilities with capacity to accommodate
approximately 11,400 individuals within the Santa Clara County.The City of Cupertino has 10
facilities housing 985 individuals. This includes six RCFEs, two ARFs, and two group homes.
47
509
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.26: Licensed Community Care Facilities, 2009
CupertinoSanta Clara County
Facility TypeFacilitiesBedsFacilitiesBeds
Adult Residential (a)2122832,178
Residential Care for the Elderly (b)69613718,677
Group Homes (c)21257535
Small Family Home (d)--422
Total1098571511,412
Notes:
(a) Adult Residential Facilities provide 24-hour non-medical car
(b) Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly provide care, su
(c) Group homes provide non-medical care and supervision to chil
(d) Small Family Homes provide twenty-four hour care in the lice
special care and supervision due to mental or developmental disa
Sources: California Community Care Licensing Division, 2009; BAE
Similar to Cupertino’s subsidized housing inventory, many of the licensed community care
facilities in the City are located in areas where Asian residents comprise the majority of the
population.Figure 3.6shows that eight of the 10 care facilities are located in majority Asian areas.
This does not, however, indicate a concentration of care facilities in minority neighborhoods
because Asian residents represent over 50 percent of the total citywide population.
48
510
DRAFT 1/9/2012
In addition to the residential care facilities described above, there are a wide variety of programs to
assist special needs populations, homeless individuals and families, and individuals and families
threatened with homelessness. Many programs target specific groups such as youth, veterans, or
persons with HIV/AIDS. Appendix E provides a complete inventory of services for special needs
and homeless populations in Santa Clara County.
3.5Existing Fair Housing Services
There are a number of fair housing agencies that serve Santa Clara County including:
Asian Law Alliance
ECHO Housing
Housing First
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley/Fair Housing Law Project
Legal Aid of Santa Clara County
Project Sentinel
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA)
Since 2006, Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO)has been Cupertino’sfair housing
services provider.Chapter6 of this AI provides more detailed information about fair housing
activities in the City of Cupertinoand Santa Clara County.
3.6Linkages between Housing and Employment Centers
Impediments to fair housing choice may exist when poor linkages exist between the locations of
major employers and affordable housing. Under these conditions, persons who depend on public
transportation, such as lower-income households, seniors, and disabled persons, would be more
limited in their housing options. As such, affordable housing developments and community care
facilities should be located in transit accessible areas.
Access to Employment and Job Centers
The distance between jobs and housing and the availability of transit affects people’s ability to find
and hold jobs. Table 3.27provides a list of the largest private sector employers in Santa Clara
County, while Figure 3.7indicates their locations. Many of the County’s largest employers are
located in San José, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. Two of the largest employers are located in the
City of Cupertino. Importantly, 21 of the County’s 26 largest employers are within one-quarter mile
of a transit station or bus stop, facilitating access to households who rely on public transit to get to
20
work.Countywide employment data is presented here to reflect the fact that the many Cupertino
20
Based on GIS analysis of employer locations and transit network.
50
512
DRAFT 1/9/2012
residents hold jobs outside the City.
Cupertino, in additionto being one of the major job centers, is located within close proximity (within
15 miles) of other major job centers in the county. Two major freeways run through Cupertino,
connecting the City to other employment centers in the region. These include Interstate 280 and
Highway 85. In addition, several local bus routesprovided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) serve the major arterials that traverse the City.
Job skills and level of education can also affect a person’s ability to obtain employment, particularly
for the higher wage jobs in the information and technology sections. Persons who are unemployed,
and in particular lower income persons who do not have post secondary degrees or are unskilled for
higher wage jobs, may face challenges in finding work. In North Santa Clara County, the North
Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA), which is a nonprofit, federally funded employment and
training agency,provides workforce development services. NOVA collaborateswith local
businesses, educators,and job seekers to build the knowledgeand skills neededto address the
workforce needs of Silicon Valley. NOVA is directed by the NOVA Workforce Board which works
on behalf of a seven-city consortium composed of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos,Milpitas,
Mountain View,Palo Alto,Santa Clara,and Sunnyvale.Though the majority of job seekers served
through NOVA are laid off workers affected by the downsizing or closure of their companies,
NOVA also helps lower income job seekers with special needs, such as homeless veterans, disabled
workers, welfare recipients, and teen parents.
51
513
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 3.27: Major Employers in Santa Clara County, 2009
Number of
Employer NameLocationIndustryEmployees (a)
Cisco Systems, Inc.San Jose Computer Peripherals Mfg.10,000+
Applied Materials, Inc.Santa Clara Semiconductor Mfg Equipment Wholesale5,000-9,999
Avago Technologies Ltd.San Jose Exporters (Wholesale)5,000-9,999
Fujitsu IT Holdings Inc, InternationalSunnyvale Computers- Wholesale5,000-9,999
Intel Corp.Santa Clara Semiconductor- Devices (Mfg.) 5,000-9,999
Valley Medical CenterSan Jose Hospitals5,000-9,999
Flextronics InternationalMilpitas Solar Energy Equipment- Mfg.5,000-9,999
GoogleMountain View Information5,000-9,999
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Sunnyvale Semiconductors and Related Devices Mfg.1,000 -4,999
Apple Inc.Cupertino Computers- Electronics Mfg.1,000 -4,999
California's Great AmericaSanta Clara Amusement and Theme Parks1,000 -4,999
Christopher Ranch, LLCGilroy Garlic (Mfg.)1,000 -4,999
E4ESanta Clara Venture Capital Companies1,000 -4,999
El Camino HospitalMountain View Hospitals1,000 -4,999
Fujitsu Ltd.Sunnyvale Venture Capital Companies1,000 -4,999
Goldsmith Plants, Inc.Gilroy Florists- Retail1,000 -4,999
Hewlett-PackardCupertino Computer and Equipment Dealers1,000 -4,999
Hewlett Packard Co.Palo Alto Venture Capital Companies1,000 -4,999
HP Pavilion at San JoseSan Jose Stadiums, Arenas, and Sports Fields1,000 -4,999
Kaiser Permanente Medical CenterSan Jose Hospitals1,000 -4,999
Microsoft CorpMountain View Computer Software- Mfg.1,000 -4,999
National Semiconductor CorpSanta Clara Semiconductors and Related Devices Mfg.1,000 -4,999
Net App Inc.Sunnyvale Computer Storage Devices- Mfg.1,000 -4,999
Nortel NetworksSanta Clara Marketing Programs and Services1,000 -4,999
Santa Teresa Community HospitalSan Jose Hospitals1,000 -4,999
VA Palo Alto HealthcarePalo Alto Hospitals1,000 -4,999
Note:
(a) These companies are ranked by employment size category; no e
Development Department.
Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2nd Editi
52
514
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Major Job Centers
The Association of Bay Area Governments estimatesthere are approximately 906,270 jobs in
Santa Clara Countyin 2010. Consistent with information on the County’s largest employers,
San José, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale comprise the three largest job centers in 2010. San José
accounted for 41 percent of all employment countywide, while Santa Clara and Sunnyvale
contained 12 percent and nine percent of jobs, respectively. These three cities are expected to
remain the top three job centers in the County through 2035.Cupertino has an estimated 31,800
jobs in 2010, accounting for approximately four percent of countywide jobs.
ABAG projectsthat employment in Santa Clara County willincrease by 56 percent to 1.4
million jobsbetween 2010 and 2035. Cupertino is expected to experience moderate job growth
relative to the County. ABAG projects the City’s employment base will grow by 18 percent, to
37,600 jobs in 2035. Although ABAG released its projections data in the summer of 2009, and
made some adjustments for the economicrecession, job growth may fall short of the projections
in the near future due to the current economic climate.
Table 3.28: ABAG Job Projections, Santa Clara County, 2005-2035
% Change
201020152020202520302035'10-'35
Cupertino31,78032,55033,34034,26035,88037,62018.4%
Gilroy17,85018,71019,65021,55023,88026,35047.6%
Mountain View51,99052,51053,65058,89065,31072,47039.4%
Palo Alto76,48076,74077,01078,55080,32082,1607.4%
San Jose369,500425,100493,060562,350633,700708,98091.9%
Santa Clara106,750111,560118,100127,080140,050153,94044.2%
Sunnyvale77,89081,46085,20092,650101,320109,90041.1%
Urban County
Campbell22,91023,88025,10026,49027,49028,90026.1%
Los Altos10,54010,82011,13011,43011,73011,95013.4%
Los Altos Hills1,9001,9101,9201,9401,9501,9703.7%
Los Gatos18,90019,02019,51020,25020,99021,80015.3%
Monte Sereno42044048052055059040.5%
Morgan Hill13,52015,45017,39019,81022,22024,64082.2%
Saratoga7,0707,1207,2207,3207,4207,4805.8%
Unincorporated County50,40053,59056,67059,69062,62064,71028.4%
Urban County Total125,660132,230139,420147,450154,970162,04029.0%
Santa Clara County Total906,270981,2301,071,9801,177,5201,292,4901,412,62055.9%
Sources: ABAG Projections, 2009; BAE, 2010.
Public Transit
Several transit systems provide rail and bus service within Santa Clara County, as discussed
below.
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
The VTA provides bus and light rail service
throughout the County. This service includes 75 bus routes, three light rail lines, with total
21
boardings of 34.5 million and 10.8 million, respectively, in Fiscal Year 2009.While there are
21
http://www.vta.org/services/vta_ridership.html
54
516
DRAFT 1/9/2012
no light rail stations in the City of Cupertino, bus routes in the City provide service to nearby
stationsin San Jose.The VTA also offers specialized accessible paratransit services to those
eligible, as specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Appendix 49 CFR37.123). VTA's
Paratransit Program is operated under contract with Outreach, a private, non-profit paratransit
broker.
Caltrain.
Caltrainoperates rail service between San Francisco and San Jose, with weekday
commute-hour service to Gilroy. The line has 32 stations spanning Santa Clara, San Mateo, and
San Francisco Counties, half of which are in Santa Clara County.Caltrain has 98 daily trains,
and approximately 39,100 boardings annually.There are no Caltrain stations in the City of
Cupertino. The closest station is located in Sunnyvale.
Figure 3.8illustrates the public transit routes in the City.Cupertino’s inventory of subsidized
housing is relatively well-connected to public transportation. Approximately 93 percent of
subsidized housing facilities in the City are within a quarter-mile of a transit station or bus stop.
Four of the ten licensed community care facilities within Cupertino are located within a quarter-
mile of public transportation.
55
517
DRAFT 1/9/2012
4Fair HousingProcesses and
Trends
This section outlines the federal fair housing complaint process and provides data on the
number of fair housing complaints filed from HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (FHEO).
It should be noted that complaints filed with HUD will automatically be filed with the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) as well. In most cases, HUD
will send the complaint to the State DFEH for investigation as part of a contractual agreement
between the two agencies. Similarly, if a complaint is filed with the State DFEH and is
jurisdictional with HUD, it will be filed at the federal agency as well.
In addition to filing complaints directly with FHEO and the State DFEH, individuals may also
file fair housing complaints with local fair housing service providers such as ECHOor the
Asian Law Alliance.
4.1Fair Housing Complaint Process
Federal Complaint Process
Fair housing rights are protected under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Individuals may file
complaints about violations with HUD or local fair housing providers through the following
22
process:
Intake.
Any entity, including individuals and community groups, can file fair housing
complaints at no cost by telephone, mail, or via the internet. An intake specialist will
interview the complainant, usually by telephone, and determine whether the matter is
jurisdictional.
Filing
. Ifthe local fair housing provider orHUD accepts the complaint for
investigation, the investigator will draft a formal complaint and provide it to the
complainant, typically by mail. The complainant must sign and return the form to
HUD. HUD will then send the complaint to the respondent, who must submit an
answer to HUD within 10 days.
Investigation.
As part of the investigation, the local provider or HUD will interview
the complainant, the respondent, and pertinent witnesses, as well as collect relevant
documents and conduct onsite visits when appropriate. Local providers refer some
cases that warrant federal scrutiny to HUD. For these types of cases, HUD has the
authority to take depositions, issue subpoenas,conduct interrogations, and compel
22
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD’s Title VIII Fair Housing Complaint
Process, http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/complaint-process.cfm
57
519
DRAFT 1/9/2012
testimony orthe submittal ofdocuments.Local fair housing providers may take the
same course of action by filing injunctions or similar complaints first with the courts.
Conciliation.
The Fair Housing Act requires HUD to bring the parties together to
attempt conciliation. The choice to conciliate the complaint is voluntary on the part of
both parties. If a conciliation agreement is signed, HUD will end its investigation.
Local providers also implement this process as a means to settle cases.
No Cause Determination.
If HUD’s or the fair housing provider’s investigation finds
no reasonable cause to believe that housing discrimination has occurred or is about to
occur, HUD will issue a determination of no reasonable cause and close the case.
Complainants who disagree with the decision may request reconsideration. If
complainants disagree with HUD’s no cause determination in the reconsideration, the
complainant can file a civil court action in the appropriate U.S. district court.
Cause Determination and Charge.
If the investigation finds reasonable cause to
believe that discrimination has occurred or is about to occur, HUD will issue a
determination of reasonable cause and charge the respondent with violating the law. A
HUD Administrative Law Judge will then hear the case unless either party elects to
have the case heard in federal civil court.Local fair housing providers may directly file
their complaints in civil court.
Hearing in a U.S. District Court.
For federal cases filed by HUD or the local housing
providers, the Department of Justice will commence a civil action on behalf of the
complainant in U.S. District Court. If the court finds that a discriminatory housing
practice has or is about to occur, the court can award actual and punitive damages as
well as attorney fees.
Hearing before a HUD ALJ(For cases referred directly to HUD).
If neither party
elects to go to federalcourt, a HUD ALJ will hear the case. An attorney from HUD
will represent the complainant before the ALJ. The ALJ will decide the case an issue
an initial decision. Either party may petition the initial decision to the Secretary of
HUD for review.
4.2FairHousing Complaints
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Table 4.1summarizes fair housing complaint data obtained from HUD’s Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Between 2004 and 2008, a total of 32 to 80complaints were
filed annually inSanta Clara County, with 52 reported through August 30, 2009. During the
same time period, a total of ninefair housing complaints were filed in the City of Cupertino,
accounting for approximately threepercent of all complaints filed in the County during the
same time period. This share of total complaints is consistent with the City’s share of the
countywide population, which also stands at three percent. Between onecomplaintand three
58
520
DRAFT 1/9/2012
complaints were filed annuallyin Cupertino.
Table 4.1:Fair Housing Complaints, 2004-YTD 2009
Year
YTDTotal
200420052006200720082009 (a)Complaints
Cupertino1301229
Santa Clara County325171608054348
Notes:
(a) YTD 2009 data is current through August 30, 2009.
Sources: The Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, H
August 2009; BAE, 2009.
Table 4.2provides data on the bases of the fair housing complaints filed in Cupertino. As
shown, disabilitywas the most common basis for complaint in the City, accounting for 78
percent of all bases between 2004 and 2009. During this time period, there was one complaint
eachbased on national origin and familial status.It should be noted that one housing complaint
may include several bases for complaint.
Table 4.2: Fair Housing Complaints by Bases, Cupertino, 2004-YTD 2009
Year
YTDTotal Bases forPercent
Basis200420052006200720082009 (a)Complaints (b)of Total
Race00000000.0%
Color00000000.0%
National Origin100000111.1%
Sex00000000.0%
Disability030121777.8%
Religion00000000.0%
Familial Status000001111.1%
Retaliation00000000.0%
Total1301229100.0%
Notes:
(a) YTD 2009 data is current through August 30, 2009.
(b) "Total Bases for Complaint" may not match total complaints f
may contain several bases for complaint.
Sources: The Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, H
August 2009; BAE, 2009.
As shown in Table 4.3, approximately 78percent of the complaints filed in Cupertinobetween
2004 and August 2009 were found to not have probable cause for fair housing violation. The
remaining 22 percent of cases were conciliated or resolved.
59
521
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table 4.3: Fair Housing Complaints by Resolution, Cupertino, 2004-YTD 2009
Year
YTDTotalPercent
Basis200420052006200720082009 (a)Complaintsof Total
0.0%
Admin Closure0000000
22.2%
Conciliated or Resolved0000112
77.8%
No Cause1301117
0.0%
Cause0000000
0.0%
Referred and Closed by DOJ0000000
Total1301229100.0%
Notes:
(a) YTD 2009 data is current through August 30, 2009.
Sources: The Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, H
August 2009; BAE, 2009.
ECHO Housing
Many fair housing cases are reported to local fair housing organizations, rather than the FHEO.
ECHO Housing, Cupertino’s primary fair housing service provider, reports that the types of
discrimination exhibited in the City of Cupertino are similar to discrimination experienced
across the Bay Area. In general, the three most common cases of discrimination are based on
23
race, disability, and familial status.As discussed above, disability and familial status were
among the most common bases for fair housing complaints filed in Cupertino.
Table 4.4 summarizes the local fair housing complaints processed by ECHO Housing between
FY 2005 and 2010. A total of 70 complaints were investigated during this time period.
Approximately 33 percent of cases were based on race discrimination, while 30 percent were
based on physical disability and 16 percent on familial status. The majority of fair housing
complaints (57 percent) processed by ECHO were found to have no evidence of discrimination.
Investigations in seven cases found evidence of differential treatment. In addition, five cases
were referred to an attorney, HUD FHEO or the State DFEH.
Table 4.4: Local Fair Housing Complaints, Cupertino, FY2005-2010
Client Referred
Declines to Counseled/ Differential Inconclusive No to Atty/ Percent of
PursueAssistedTreatmentEvidenceEvidencePendingDFEH/ HUDTOTALTotal
11.4%
Age0000010
00.0%
Arbitrary0000000
1115.7%
Familial Status0022502
11.4%
Gender0000001
811.4%
Mental Disability0200411
00.0%
National Origin0000000
2130.0%
Physical Disability21141201
2332.9%
Race10431410
00.0%
Religion0000000
11.4%
Sexual Orientation0000100
45.7%
Source of Income0000400
TOTAL3379403570100.0%
Percent of Total4.3%4.3%10.0%12.9%57.1%4.3%7.1%100.0%
Sources: ECHO, 2010; BAE, 2010.
23
Rocha, Marjorie, Executive Director, ECHO Housing. Phone interview with BAE, August 3, 2010.
60
522
DRAFT 1/9/2012
4.3Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing complaint data indicates that housing discrimination continues despite the presence
of state and federal fair housing laws. In an effort to document the occurrence of discriminatory
practices, ECHO Housing conducts annual fair housing audits in Cupertino and other Bay Area
communities. Audits test compliance with fair housing laws by using trained testers to pose as
bona fide home seekers and report their experiences with respect to quality, quantity, and
content of services that were offered to them by a rental agency. The testers are chosen to have
similar profiles but vary by protected class. Each year, ECHO Housing’s audit tests
discrimination against a different protected class.
Race Discrimination
ECHO Housing’s FY 2007-2008 audit focused on race discrimination and tested 111 properties
in Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo county cities, including six properties in the City of
Cupertino. The audit matched Black and White female testers who posed as married and
looking for a home for them and their spouse. Of the 111 tests, 29 percent revealed
discriminatory practicestowards the minority tester. Although the City of Cupertino’s sample
size was relatively small, it is still worth noting that the City had a lower percentage than the
study as whole, with 17 percent of the properties tested exhibiting differential treatment.
None of the testers in the entire study reported that a rental agent said anything explicitly
discriminatory to her. However, minority testers were treated less favorably by some rental
agents. For example, in some tests, only the majority tester received a follow-up phone call or
thank you card regarding her visit. In other cases, majority and minoritytesters were shown
different units or provided different information about the units. Eleven of the 111 tests showed
that different terms and conditions were presented to testers in the form of the amount of
security deposit or rent. One minority testerwas quoted $650 more for a security deposit while
24
another tester was told that rent would be $500 higher than the rent told to the majority tester.
Source of Income Discrimination
ECHO Housing’sFY 2008-2009 audit focused on discrimination based on source of income.
This audit tested 86 properties, including six properties in Cupertino. The minority tester in this
audit posed as a single woman receiving financial aid and working part time at a campus
bookstore while the majority tester posed as a single woman working full time as a sales
associate. In 22 percent of cases, there was evidence of differential treatment based on source
of income. For the City of Cupertino, 17 percent of the properties tested exhibited differential
treatment.
The types of discriminatory practices exhibited included different rental terms and conditions or
different treatment and information. The audit found numerous cases where the minority tester
was not told about additional units and the majority tester was. Otherexamples of different
treatment included only the majority tester receiving a follow-up phone call and a minority
24
ECHO Housing, “Fair Housing Audit Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008.”
61
523
DRAFT 1/9/2012
tester not being offered an application when the majority tester was given one. Ten of the tests
found different rental terms and conditions, often in the form of the amount quoted for rent
deposit. In two separate cases, minority testers were quoted $100 and $350 more for a deposit.
Other examples of different terms include higher rents and a month-to-month rental option not
25
being availableto the minority tester.
Fair Housing Testing Follow Up
As a follow-up to their audits, ECHO Housing conducts an educational campaign directed to
housing providers involved. ECHO contacts each of the owners of the properties involved in
the audit and provides a report on the performance of their agents. Owners and managers are
encouraged to meet with ECHO’s fair housing counselors to discuss findingsat their property,
and when necessary, suggest possible changes that could be made to their rental policies and
practices in compliance with federal and state fair housing laws. ECHO also encourages
owners and managers to schedule a training session, which is offered at no charge.
25
ECHO Housing, “Fair Housing Audit Report, Fiscal year 2008-2009.”
62
524
DRAFT 1/9/2012
5Identification of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice
To document potential impediments to fair housing, interviews were conducted with local fair
housing organizations such as Project Sentinel and the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley’s Fair
Housing Law Project. Local service providers and community members also provided input on
housing needs at a series of four workshops. In addition, the City’s Housing Element was
26
reviewed for a discussion on each item below.
5.1Public Sector
Government regulations can affect housing availability and costs by limiting the supply of
buildable land, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting
development fees. Publicly imposed constraints on housing supply can subsequently lead to fair
housing concerns, as particular segments of the population lose access to affordable homes.
This section examines these public sector constraints in more detail to evaluate their impact on
fair housing choice in the City.
Local Land Use Controls and Regulations
Zoning Ordinance Restrictions.
The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance establishes development
standards and densities for new housing in the City. These regulations include minimum lot
sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum
building height, and minimum parking requirements. As required by state law, Cupertino’s
Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance has six residential
zoning districts which allow for the construction of single-family, duplex, multi-family, and
mixed-use development.
Second Unit Regulations.
Second units, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are
self-contained apartments with a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping facilities that are attached to a
single-family residence or located on the same property as the principal residence. Due to their
smaller sizes, second units may provide affordable housing opportunities for lower-income
households, seniors, and/or disabled individuals. Local land use regulations that constrain the
development of second units may therefore have anegative impact on housing for special needs
populations.
State law requires local jurisdictions to either adopt ordinances that establish the conditions
under which second units will be permitted or to follow the State law provisions governing
second units (Government Code, Section 65852.2). Cities typically establish regulations
governing the size, location, and parking of second units. No local jurisdiction can adopt an
ordinance that totally precludes the development of second units unless the ordinance contains
26
Per State law, California jurisdictions must prepare a Housing Element every five to seven years to
analyze local housing needs, and provide strategies and actions to address these needs. Housing Elements
are discussed in more detail subsequently in thissection.
63
525
DRAFT 1/9/2012
findings acknowledging that allowing second units may limit housing opportunities of the
region and result in adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, AB
1866 amended the State’s second unit law in 2003, requiring jurisdictions to use a ministerial,
rather than discretionary process, for approving second units. In compliance with State law, the
City of Cupertino allows for second dwelling units in four zoning districts.
Regulations Governing Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing.
Local land use
controls can constrain the availability of emergency shelters and transitional housing for
homeless individuals and shelters if these uses are not permitted in any zoning district or if
additional discretionary permits are required for their approval. SB2, a state law that became
effective on January 1, 2008, sought to address this potential constraint by strengthening
planning requirements around emergency shelters and transitional housing. The law requires all
jurisdictions to identify a zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right without a
conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. In addition, transitional and permanent
supportive housing must be considered a residential use and only be subjected to restrictions
27
that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Cupertino’s Zoning Ordinance allows for “rotating homeless shelters” in the Quasi Public
Building (BQ) zone. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church structures
in the BQ for up to 25 occupants. The operation period of rotating shelters cannot exceed two
months in any one year span at a single location. The Ordinance does not, however, permit or
conditionally permit permanent homeless shelters in any zone. In order to comply with State
law, the City amended itsthe Zoning Ordinance to allow a permanent homeless shelter by right
in the BQ zoning district.
Pursuant to State law, the City also amendedits Zoning Ordinance to allow transitional and
permanent supportive housing in residential zones and treat similar to other residential uses.
Regulations for Community Care Facilities.
Local zoning ordinances also may affect the
availability of housing for persons for community care facilities serving special needs
populations. In particular, zoning ordinances often include provisions regulating community
care facilities and outlining processes for reasonable accommodation. The Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act requires local jurisdictions to treat licensed group
homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents no differently than other
permitted single-family housing uses. Cities must allow these licensed residential care facilities
in any area zoned for residential use and may not require conditional use permits or other
additional discretionary permits.
Consistent with State law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance permits licensed residential care
facilities for six or fewer residents by right in all residential districts. Licensed small group
27
California Department of Housing and Community Development, Memorandum: Senate Bill 2 –
Legislation Effective January 1, 2008: Local Planning and Approval for Emergency Shelters and
Transitional and Supportive Housing, May 7, 2008.
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/SB2memo071708_final.pdf
64
526
DRAFT 1/9/2012
homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures which
would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes
which are not required to obtain a license and large group homes (with more than six residents)
are conditionally permitted uses in all residential districts.
Reasonable Accommodation Policies.
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations
are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with
disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, local governments provide
disabled residents relief from the strict terms of their zoning ordinances through existing
variance or Conditional Use Permit processes.
In May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that cities adopt formal
procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While addressing reasonable
accommodations requests through variances and conditional use permits does not violate fair
housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant’s request for
relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance on
variances and use permits mayencourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to
projects involving much needed housing for persons with disabilities. For these reasons, the
Attorney General encouraged jurisdictions to amend their zoning ordinances to include a written
procedure for handling reasonable accommodations requests.In accordance with a policy
contained in Cupertino’s Housing Element, the Cityformally adopted a reasonable
accommodation policy in 2010.
Definition of Family.
A jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance can constrain access to housing if it
contains a restrictive definition of a family. For example, a definition of family that limits the
number of persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together
can be used to discriminateagainst nontraditional families and illegally limit the development
and siting of group homes for individuals with disabilities. California court cases (City of Santa
Barbara v. Adamson, 1980 and City of Chula Vista v. Pagard, 1981) have ruled a zoning
ordinance invalid if it defines a “family” as (a) an individual; (b) two or more persons related by
blood, marriage, or adoption; or (c) a group of not more than a specific number of unrelated
persons as a single housekeeping unit. The rulings established that defining a family in a
manner that distinguishes between blood-related and non-blood related individuals does not
serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under zoning or land use
planning powers of a jurisdiction, and therefore violates privacy rights under the California
Constitution.
65
527
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Cupertino’s Municipal Code defines a family as “an individual or group of persons living
together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.” The definition
also specifies that family “shall not be construed to include a fraternity, sorority, club, or other
28
group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house, or institution of any kind.”
Because the
City’s definition of family allows for unrelated persons to live together within this definition,
the City’s zoning ordinance is consistent with current regulations governing fair housing and
familial status.
Parking Requirements.
Parking requirements may serve as a constraint on housing
development by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for
project amenities or additional units. Developers may be deterred from building new housing in
jurisdictions with particularly high parking ratios due to the added costs associated with such
requirements. Cupertino’s parking requirements are higher than many other jurisdictions,
particularly for single-family homes. The City does allow for shared parking in mixed-use
developments. In addition, the Planning Commission or City Council may allow further
reductions in the parking requirement as part of a use permit development plan or parking
exception based on shared parking arrangements, parking surveys, and parking demand
management measures. Nevertheless, the City’s Housing Element includes a Program to grant
parking reductions on a case-by-case basis for senior housing, group homes, affordable housing,
transit oriented developments, and other appropriate projects.
Permit and Development Impact Fees
Like cities throughout California, most jurisdictions in the County collect permit and
development impact fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the
administrative costs associated withprocessing applications. New housing typically requires
payment of school impact fees, sewer and water connection fees, building permit fees,
wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical fees
collected in the City are outlined below in Table 5.1. One local developer indicated that impact
fees collected in the City of Cupertino are similar to those assessed in other jurisdictions.
28
City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter19.08.030.
66
528
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Table5.1: Fees and Exactions
Single-Multi-
Fee AmountFamily (a)Townhouse (b)Family (c)
Sanitary Connection Permit (d)$77.50 $78$78$78
Water Main Existing Facilities Fee (e)$4,704 (1 inch service) + permit fee of $6,894$6,894$2,280
$2,190
Off-Site Storm Drainage Fee$1,290 per acre (SF)$160$160$90
$926 / acre + $70 / unit (MF)
Parcel Map (1-4 lots)$3,638N/AN/AN/A
Tract Map (> 4 lots)$7,553$755$755N/A
Park Impact Fee$15,750$9,000$8,100
Single Family$15,750
Small Lot Single Family (5-20 dua)$9,000
High Density (20+ dua)$8,100
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fee$2.58 / Sq. Ft.$5,160$4,130$4,050
Cupertino Union School District Fee$1.782 / Sq. Ft.$3,564$2,851$2,495
Fremont Union High School District Fee$1.19 / Sq. Ft.$2,380$1,904$1,666
Plan Check and Inspection$560$560$560$560
Building Permit Fee$4,055$3,735$662
Apartment Bldgs. (Base Size 40,000 Sq. Ft.)$25,048 + $21.00 for every 100 Sq. Ft.
Dwellings -- Production Phase (Base Size 1,000 Sq. Ft.)$3,254 + $80.13 for every 100 Sq. Ft.
Mechanical$160$128$98
Single-Family and Duplexes$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily$0.07 / Sq. Ft.
Electric$160$128$98
Single-Family and Duplexes$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily$0.07 / Sq. Ft.
Plumbing$160$128$98
Single-Family and Duplexes$0.08 / Sq. Ft.
Multifamily$0.07 / Sq. Ft.
TOTAL$39,836$30,451$20,275
Notes:
(a) Fees estimated for a 2,000 square foot, 3 bedroom home in a
(b) Fees estimated for a 1,600 square foot, 2 bedroom townhouse
(c) Fees estimated for a 1,400 square foot, 2 bedroom apartment
(d) Average of fees charged in the four Cupertino Sanitary Distr
(e) Connection fee for San Jose Water, which serves the largest
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2009; San Jose Water, 2009; Cupertin
On-and Off-Site Improvements
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage
improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased
runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expensesmay be
necessary to mitigate impacts. Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision
Ordinance) establishes the requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on-
and off-site improvements. The City’s Housing Element Update contains an analysis of the
improvements requirements and found that Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for new
subdivisions are consistent with those in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant
constraint to new housing development.
Article XXXIV of the California Constitution
Article XXXIV of the California Constitution requires approval of the voters before any "low
rent housing project" can be "developed, constructed, or acquired" by any "state public body."
Article 34 applies not only to publicly-owned low-income rental projects, but also to low-
income rental projects developed by private persons and non-profit entities using certain types
67
529
DRAFT 1/9/2012
of public financial assistance. Most jurisdictions seek voter approval for a specified number or
percentage of units, rather than on a project-by by-project basis. Exclusions to Article 34
include privately-owned, non-exempt, lower-income developments with no more than 49
percent of the units reserved for lower-income households, and reconstruction of previously
existing lower-income units.
In Santa Clara County, Measure A, passed in the November 1998 ballot, authorizes under
Article XXXIV of the California Constitution the development, acquisition or construction of
low rent housing units in annual amounts equal to 1/10 of one percent of the total number of
existing housing units within the municipalities and urban service areas of the County of Santa
Clara as of the 1990 census. The total number of units authorized each calendar year would be
approximately 540. These units would be for persons and families of low income, including
elderly or disabled persons. If the total annual allocation is not exhausted in any given year, the
remaining number of units would be carried over and added to the number allowed in future
years.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated elements of a jurisdiction’s general plan
and establishes a comprehensive, long-term plan to address housing needs. Updated every five
to seven years, the Housing Element is a jurisdiction’s primary policy document regarding the
development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the
population. Per State Housing Element law, the document must:
Outline a community’s housing production objectives;
List policies and implementation programs to achieve local housing goals;
Examine the need for housing resources in a community, focusing in particular on
special needs populations;
Identify adequate sites for the production of housing serving various income levels;
Analyze the potential constraints to production; and
Evaluate the Housing Element for consistency with other components of the General
Plan.
One of the major requirements of a Housing Element is that the document demonstrates the city
has a sufficient amount of vacant or underutilized residential land zoned at appropriate densities
to accommodate the community’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income
groups. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determine the RHNA for the nine county Bay
Area, which includes Santa Clara County. If a jurisdiction fails to identify adequate sites to
accommodate its RHNA, it risks having a Housing Element that is deemed to be out of
compliance with State law by HCD.
The lack of planning for housing and the repercussions associated with not having a certified
Housing Element could constrain market-rate and affordable housing development, and thereby
contribute to a fair housing concern. The City of Cupertino hasa certifiedHousing Element
Update for the 2007-2014 planning period.
68
530
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Inclusionary Housing
The City’s Housing Mitigation plan requires all new residential developers to either provide
below market rate (BMR) units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Mitigation plan is based on a nexus study prepared by the
City that demonstrated that all new developments, including market-rate residential
developments, create a need for affordable housing. Under this program, developers of for-sale
housing where units may be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price
affordable to median-and moderate-income households. Projects of seven or more units must
provide on-site BMR units. Projects of six units or less can either build a unit or provide pay
the Housing Mitigation fee. To be consistent with recent court decisions and the State Costa-
Hawkins Act regarding rent control, the City is modifying the Housing Mitigation Program so
that developers of market-rate rental unitsmust pay the Housing Mitigation Fee to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Currently, the Housing Mitigation Feeis $2.58 per square
29
foot.
5.2Private Sector
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may
constrain the production of new housing or impede fair housing. These could include market-
related conditions such as the availability of mortgage financing or land and construction costs,
or other private sector activities such as application processes for affordable housing
developments.
For-Sale Housing Market
Affordability.
Between 2000 and 2007, home prices soared in Cupertinoand Santa Clara
County and the high cost of housing emerged as the main barrier to housing choice. Although
home prices have declined slightly as a result of the current economic downturn, market-rate
ownership housing remains out of reach for many lower-income householdsin Cupertino (see
Table3.20).
In addition to housing affordability, credit accessibility and uncertainty in the economy have
emerged as challenges for potential homebuyers. Challenges associated with mortgage
financing will be discussed later in this section.
Foreclosures.
Due to a variety of interrelated factors, including an increase in subprime
lending activity in recent years, California and the nation are currently undergoing an
unprecedented wave of foreclosures. During the thirdquarter of 2009,4,095homeowners
received notices of default, which is the first step in the foreclosure process in Santa Clara
County. This includes 27homeowners in the City of Cupertino,an increase of 80 percent since
30
the third quarter of 2008.
29
The Housing Mitigation Fee is updated periodically.
30
Foreclosure data provided by City of San Jose, 2009.
69
531
DRAFT 1/9/2012
During the mostrecent housing boom, rapid home price escalation spurred lenders to adopt
looser, more automated underwriting criteria, assuming greater risk to generate more mortgages.
Lenders also offered new loan products, allowing buyers to enter the market with little to no
money down and low initial “teaser” interest rates.
Lenders then pooled subprime loans with lower risk mortgages for sale to the secondary market,
which failed to hold lenders accountable for these products. Mortgage brokers whose
commissionsare unaffected by a loan’s foreclosurealso contributed to this shift in the mortgage
market by originating almost 60 percent of subprime loans, sometimes through predatory
31
lending practices.
Through these policies, some lenders provided some buyers with imperfect credit and/or lower
incomes larger mortgages than they could otherwise afford. Unfortunately, as teaser rates (and
other low-variable rates) expired and interest rates increased, many of these households
defaulted on their loans, initiating the current rash of foreclosures. Households that have been
foreclosed on often have a difficult time finding replacement housing due to their poor credit
rating and affordability levels of rental housing.
The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and
the University of Southern California report that data regarding the income, ethnicity, and other
characteristics of households losing their homes to foreclosure is not readily available.
However, the CRL has examined the ethnicity of borrowers receiving subprime loans, using
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. Given the strong link between subprime
lending and foreclosure, this analysis serves as a rough proxy for the ethnicities of buyers
undergoing foreclosure nationally.
The 2006 CRL study found that subprime mortgages disproportionately occur in communities
of color. African-American and Latino borrowers were over 30 percent more likely to receive a
high-cost loan (a proxy for subprime lending) than White borrowers, even controlling for credit
risk. Approximately 52 percent of African-American borrowers and 40 percent of Latino
borrowers received a higher-cost loan in 2005, compared to only 19 percent of White
32
borrowers.
This analysis was conducted on a national scale. Given Cupertino’s and Santa Clara County’s
unique ethnic distribution,homeowners in the City and County undergoing foreclosure likely
have distinct characteristics from national trends.
Federal Mortgage Relief Programs.
In response to rising foreclosures across the country, the
federal government initiated several programs that provide struggling homeowners facing
foreclosure with opportunities to modify or refinance their mortgage to make monthly payments
31
Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners.Center for
Responsible Lending. December 2006.
32
Unfair Lending: The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of SubprimeMortgages.Center for Responsible
.
Lending. May 31, 2006
70
532
DRAFT 1/9/2012
more affordable. One challenge associated with these some of these programs is that borrowers
must actually be in default to qualify for assistance. Homeowners who have not yet missed
payments but are struggling to make their payments are ineligible.
Lending Policies and Practices
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
Enacted by Congress in 1975, the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act requires lending institutions to publically report home loan data. Lenders must
provide information on the disposition of home loan applications anddisclose applicant
information, including their race or national origin, gender, and annual income. HMDA data
indicates which banks are lending in communities and provides insight into lending patterns,
including denial rates and the types of loans issued (e.g., home improvement loans, home
purchase loans). This data, however, cannot be used to conclude definite redlining or
discrimination because many factors, such as income, income-to-debt ratio, credit rating, and
employment history, affect approval and denial rates.
As shown in Table 5.2,1,674home purchase loan applications were submitted in the City of
Cupertinoin 2007. Overall, 66percent of home purchase loan applications were approved in
the City.By comparison, 58 percent of the 46,407 loan applications submitted in Santa Clara
County were approved. Thisis consistent with the higher per capita incomefound in the City of
Cupertinocompared to the County as a whole.
Table 5.2: Disposition of Home Purchase Loans, 2007
Total Number ofAction Type
Loan ApplicationsApproved (a)DeniedOther (b)
Cupertino1,67465.9%11.6%22.4%
Santa Clara County Total46,40758.4%16.2%25.5%
Notes:
(a) Includes loans originated and applications approved but not
(b) Includes applications withdrawn by applicant, incomplete app
institution, and preapproval requests denied.
Sources: Home Mortgage Disclousre Act (HMDA), 2007; BAE, 2009.
Loan approval rates varied by raceand ethnicity in Cupertino.As shown in Table 5.3,77
percent of loan applications submitted by Asian homebuyers were approved in 2007.The
approval rate for White homebuyers was slightly lower, at 64 percent. Asian and White
homebuyers accounted for the vast majority of loan applicants in Cupertino, representing 65
percent and 16 percent of all applicants, respectively. No other racial group had more than 15
loan applications submitted in the City in 2007.
Approval rates for non-Hispanic/Latino applicants stood at 74 percent. By comparison, 59
percent of the 32 loan applications submitted by Hispanic/Latino applicants were approved.
A Chi-Square test determined that the differences in approval rates across races and ethnicities
are statistically significant. This analysis, however, does not identify a reason for the
71
533
DRAFT 1/9/2012
discrepancy. As mentioned previously, many factors can influence loan application approval
rates, including household income, income-to-debt ratio, credit rating, and employment history.
Table 5.3:Disposition of Home Purchase Loans by Race and Ethnicity,
Cupertino, 2007
Total Number ofAction Type
Loan ApplicationsApproved (a)DeniedOther (b)
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native1442.9%14.3%42.9%
Asian1,08376.9%10.2%12.9%
Black or African American3100.0%0.0%0.0%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander1346.2%53.8%0.0%
White26363.5%20.9%15.6%
Information not provided by applicant14360.8%14.7%24.5%
Not applicable1551.3%0.0%98.7%
Total1,67465.9%11.6%22.4%
Ethnicity
Not Hispanic or Latino1,35074.2%11.9%13.9%
Hispanic or Latino3259.4%34.4%6.3%
Information not provided by applicant13759.1%16.8%24.1%
Not applicable1551.3%0.0%98.7%
Total1,67465.9%11.6%22.4%
Notes:
(a) Includes loans originated and applications approved but not
(b) Includes applications withdrawn by applicant, incomplete app
institution, and preapproval requests denied.
Sources: Home Mortgage Disclousre Act (HMDA), 2007; BAE, 2009.
Conventional Mortgages.
As a result of the recession and credit crisis, access to financing has
emerged as a major barrier to housing choice in Cupertino,Santa ClaraCounty,and across the
state and country. Lenders are implementing stricter underwriting, reporting, and verification of
information practices. According to various homeownership counseling agencies, buyers need
a credit score of 720 to 740 to qualify for a conventional home mortgage. Banks also look for
larger downpayments of 10 percent to 20 percent of the purchase price, which is higher than
what was previously required. Many of these requirements directly address problems in the
lending industry that contributed to the current housing and economic downturn. Nevertheless,
thesestandards make it more difficult for buyers to access a mortgage, particularly households
with lower incomes, weaker credit scores, and lacking downpayment funds.
FHA Loans.
Households which face difficulty qualifying for a conventional mortgage may
decide to use a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan. FHA loans are insured by the
federal government, and have traditionally allowed lower-income households to purchase
homes that they could not otherwise afford. Thanks to the FHA insurance, these loans have
lower interest rates, require a low downpayment of 3.5 percent, and have more accessible
underwriting criteria. In general, lenders report that households with a credit score of at least
640 and a two-year employment history can qualify for a FHA loan. FHA loans have become
72
534
DRAFT 1/9/2012
33
more popular as underwriting practices for conventional mortgages have become stricter.In
addition, more homebuyers are eligible for FHA loans as a result of declining home prices. In
34
Santa ClaraCounty the FHA loan limit for a single-family residence is $729,750.
Despite the more favorable terms associated with FHA loans, there are some challenges
associated with purchasing a home with a FHA-backed mortgage. First, stringent guidelines
regulate what properties are eligible for purchase. Properties must meet certain requirements
related to the condition of the home and pass an inspection by FHA representatives. This
requirement is a particular challenge for homebuyers who are purchasing foreclosed properties
35
that have been vacant for a prolonged period and have associated maintenance issues.
FHA also has stringent requirements for condominium purchases that pose additional
challenges. One requirement is that a certain percentage of units in a condominium project
must be under contract before FHA will back a condominium mortgage. Recently FHA raised
the presale requirement 25 percent to 51 percent of units. This can create a “Catch-22” situation
where FHA will not issue loans until a certain percentage of units aresold, but developments
cannot reach that threshold if buyers are unable to get mortgages. Additionally, FHA will not
back mortgages in developments where more than 15 percent of homeowners are 30 days
delinquent on homeowners’association dues, or in projects where a single entity owns more
than 10 percent of units. This latter restriction can create problems as many developers are
36
forming companies to buy units and rent them out due to the slow housing market.
Another potential barrier is that not all banks issue FHA loans. Moreover, many loan officers
prefer to focus on conventional mortgages because of the added time and effort associated with
37
processing and securing approval on a FHA loan.
First-Time Homebuyer Programs.
In addition to conventional mortgages and FHA loans, the
State offers various first-time homebuyer programs. These include various downpayment
assistance programs such as the California Homebuyers Downpayment Assistance Program
(CHDAP), which offers a deferred-payment junior loan of up to three percent of the purchase
price or appraised value.
Downpayment assistance and second mortgage programs are attractive to potential homebuyers,
particularly during times when financial institutions are approving loans at lower loan tovalue
ratios. However, loan officers sometimes seek to avoid homebuyers utilizing first-time
homebuyer programs due to the added time and labor associated with these programs. While
33
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency / First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July
16, 2009.
34
FHA Loan Limits for California, http://www.fha.com/lending_limits_state.cfm?state=CALIFORNIA.
35
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency / First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July
16, 2009.
36
“Condo buyers find it tough to get mortgages,” San Francisco Chronicle,August 5, 2009.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/05/BUCT190GMM.DTL&tsp=1
37
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
73
535
DRAFT 1/9/2012
lenders typically process conventional loans in 30 days, the closing period for homebuyers
using first-time homebuyer programs is often 45 days. In addition, loan officers receive smaller
commissions under these programs, as they reduce the amount homebuyers need to borrow
38
from the lender.
Some real estate brokers also prefer not to work with homebuyers using first-time homebuyer
programs. Brokers aim to expedite the closing period, while first-time homebuyer programs
generally result in extended loan approval processes. As a result, agents may not tell
homebuyers aboutpotential State and local programs they would qualify for. Homebuyers who
do not attend first-time homebuyer classes or work with nonprofit housing counseling agencies
39
are often unaware of programs available to assist them.
Local governments and homeownership counselors have dealt with these issues by developing
relationships with particular loan officers and real estate agents who are familiar with the State
programs and are willing to assist homebuyers with the application process.
Development Constraints
Supply of Available Land.
Similar to many other built-out jurisdictions, the limited
availability of land for housing development in Cupertino may constrain new housing
production. As a result, new residential production will largely occur as infill projects, often a
more challenging and costly development type. It is worth noting, however, that infill
development offers the benefits of greater transit accessibility, the redevelopment of underused
sites, and the preservation of open space.
Land Costs.
Land costs in Cupertino are generally high due to the high demand and limited
supply of available land. Local developers indicated that land prices are adjusting during this
economic downturn. However, the seller market, particularly in cities like Cupertino, is slow to
react to the declining market because many are not compelled to sell their property. Rather,
many will wait for the market to recover.
Nonetheless, one developer did report that at the height of the housing boom, land prices in
Cupertino were in the range of $3 million per acre.
Construction Costs.
According to 2009 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, hard construction
costs for a two-story, wood-frame, single-family home range from $110 to $145 per square foot.
Costs for three-story, wood frame multifamily projects range from $145 to $210per square foot.
Construction costs, however, vary significantly depending on building materials and quality of
finishes. Parking structures for multifamily developments represent another major variable in
the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs
(architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction
38
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
39
Thompson, Samuel, Chase Bank, phone interview with BAE, July 8, 2009.
Zhovreboff, Walter, Bay Area Homebuyer Agency / First Home, Inc., phone interview with BAE, July 16,
2009.
74
536
DRAFT 1/9/2012
period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10to 15 percent of the construction and land costs.
Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the
increased need for construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site
preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total
development cost of a project.
During 2008, key construction costs fellnationallyin conjunction with the residential real estate
market.However, costs began to slowly rise duringthe second half of 2009.Figure 5.1
illustrates construction cost trends for key materials based on the Producer Price Index, a series
of indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that measures
the sales price for specific commodities and products. Despite the recent rise in costs, the prices
for key construction materials remain lower than peak prices experienced in previous years.
Lumber prices remain 17 percent lower than the peak in 2004. Meanwhile, steel and other
construction material costs are lower than peak prices in early 2008. Local developers have
confirmed that construction costs, including labor, fellby approximately 10 percent in tandem
with the weak housing market.
However, it is important to note that although land cost and construction costs have waned,
developers report that they have not fallen enough to offset the decrease in sales prices.
Figure 5.1: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Materials and components for constructionLumberSteel Mill Products
Base Year: 1982 = 100
Sources: U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; BAE, 2010.
Public Perception.
Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion,
specifically community concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks.
75
537
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Over the past several years, a number of housing developments and related planning efforts
have been subject to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizens’ concerns about the impacts of
housing development, particularly higher density development,on community qualityof life
remain a significant potential constraint to housing development.
Local developers indicated that public opposition to new development can be an obstacle to the
production of both market rate and affordable housing in Cupertino. In any jurisdiction, the
entitlement process can be a costly one. In Cupertino, several developers successfully obtained
the necessary entitlements from the City but had their projects halted by citizen referenda,
resulting in financial losses. This threat of a referendum and associated financial losses makes
development in the City more risky.
The potential for community opposition means that good design and planning are essential,
particularly for higher density projects.
Subsidized Housing
Affordable Housing Financing.
According to localaffordable housing developers, the
availability of financing presents the biggest barrier to producing new subsidized housing.
Although the cost of land and construction have declined, the associated tightening of the credit
market, and decline in State and local subsidies have made it challenging for affordable housing
developers to take advantage of lower costs.
As a particularly salient concern, the value of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) has
fallen in tandem with the economy. Tax credit investors also now have an even greater
preference for new construction, family housing, and senior housing developments, perceived to
40
be less risky than rehabilitation projects and permanent supportive housing.With this loss in
tax credit equity, developers are forced to turn to the State and local agencies for greater
subsidies. Unfortunately, uncertainty around State and local finances and the expiration of
programs funded by previous State housing bonds limits funds from these sources as well.
However, some additional funds are available through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provides funding for various housing programs, including the
41
Community Development Block Grant and the Tax Credit AssistanceProgram.
In addition to reduced LIHTC financing, local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) have reduced
funding available as a result of the State budget crisis. To balance the State’s budget for fiscal
year 2009-2010, RDAs across the state are required to pay $2.05 billion of tax increment
40
Sawislak, Dan, Executive Director, Resources for Community Development, phone interview with BAE,
July 2, 2009.
41
The Federal Provision to Buy American containedin the ARRA law, requires that funds made available
by the Act cannot be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public
building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are
produced in the United States. The Office of Management and Budget defines a public building or public
work as one occupied by a government entity. As such, private or nonprofit affordable housing developers
receiving funds through ARRA are not subject to the Provision.
76
538
DRAFT 1/9/2012
otherwise due to them to the State’s Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(SERAF) over the a two-year period. In order to make the SERAF payment, some RDAs may
need to borrow from or suspend payments to the Low and Moderate Income Fund, which
42
supports affordable housing for low-and moderate-income households.
As another financing challenge, the State’s weak fiscal condition has led to uncertainty of future
bond financing, a major strategy for raising affordable housing funds. In the face of
California’s budget concerns, this constraint will likely remain in effect for upcoming years.
In addition to constraints associated with capital fundsdiscussed earlier, affordable housing
developers report that it is difficult to secure funding for ongoing costs associated with the
provision of supportive services. Although this trend is beginning to change, some cities
maintain rigid limits on their contributions to supportive services costs due to limited funding or
43
regulatory constraints.
Affordable Housing Application Processes.
Due to the requirements associated with various
affordable housing funding sources, certain households may encounter difficulties in applying
for subsidized housing. For example, applications can involve a large amount of paperwork and
require households to provide records for income verification. In some cases, short application
time frames and submittal requirements (e.g., by fax) create additional challenges. These
requirementspresent obstacles for homeless or disabled individuals who lack access to
communication systems and information networks, as well as the skills to complete and submit
the necessary documentation.
Affordable housing developers receive hundreds to thousands of applications for a limited
number of units. As a result, applicants who are not selected through the lottery process are put
on a waiting list. Households must be proactive and regularly follow-up with property
managers to inquire about the status of the waiting list. If applicants on the waiting list move or
change their phone number, property managers may not be able to contact them when a unit
becomes available. Again, this procedure can make it more difficult to get off a waiting list for
transient individuals or families who don’t have a regular address, phone number, or email
address.
Applicants who are selected through the lottery or who come off the waitlist go through an
interview and/or screening process. Property managers routinely screen out individuals with a
criminal or drug history, or a poor credit record. This process can effectively screen out
homeless or mentally disabled applicants. To help address these challenges, severalSanta Clara
Countyorganizations provide housing location assistance. For example, West Valley
Community Servicespartners with other County service providers to reach, case manage, and
42
California Redevelopment Association, “Redevelopment Agencies Prepare Second Lawsuit to Block
Unconstitutional Raids of Redevelopment Funds,”
http://www.calredevelop.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&Co
ntentID=5855
43
Cavanaugh, Angela, Affordable Housing Associates, phone interview with BAE, July 14, 2009.
77
539
DRAFT 1/9/2012
assist homeless individuals and families secure housing.
Conversion of Subsidized Units to Market-Rate.
Many subsidized affordable housing
developments receive government funding that requires units be made affordable for a specified
amount of time. Table 3.25presented earlierlists affordable developments in Cupertino, along
withthe year affordability requirements associated with funding sources expire.As indicated in
Table 3.25,the affordability restrictions at one development, the Le Beaulieu project, will
expire in September 2015. The Le Beaulieu development is considered to have a low-risk of
converting to market rate because Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, the nonprofit organization
that owns and manages the property,is committed to maintaining the property as affordable.
While the Le Beaulieu project is the only subsidized development that is at-risk of converting to
market rate, there are also 10below market rate (BMR) units in the Chateau Cupertino
development with affordability requirements expiring in March of 2010. These 10 BMR units
will likely convert to market rate when the affordability requirements expire. However, the City
of Cupertino is committed to maintaining long-term affordability of its BMR units. As such, in
2005, the City increased the minimum affordability term for BMR units in new developments to
99 years.
Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Populations
Service providers who assist various special needs populations, including the elderly,
individuals with disabilities, the homeless, and limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals
consistently report that one of the greatest barriers to housing choice for these populations is the
lack of affordable housing. In addition, special needs populations may face particular
challenges to housing choice, as discussed below.
Elderly Housing.
Seniors often need accessible units located in close proximity to services and
public transportation. Many seniors are also living on fixed incomes, making affordability a
particular concern. Cupertino offers a number of resources for seniors. There are six residential
care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) and three skilled nursing facilities in the City. In
addition, there are two subsidized independent senior housing developments in Cupertino.
Demand for the subsidized units is high. Staff at one of the developments estimates that there is
over 500 people on the waiting list and it takes approximately five years for individuals to get a
unit.
While there are subsidized senior housing developments in the Cityand elsewhere throughout
the County, local service providers at each of the Consolidated Plan Workshops indicated a
need for more affordable senior housing facilities, particularly given the long waiting lists at
existing subsidized developments. In addition there are few, if any, subsidized assisted living
facilities in theCity andCounty. Faced with this shortage, lower-income individuals often do
not have the option of living in an assisted living facility and must bring services into their
homes. Many affordable senior housing facilities have service coordinators who work to
provide these services to residents at the development. There are also several referral and
assistance programs that provide information and help to connect individuals with support
78
540
DRAFT 1/9/2012
resources in the community.
Seniors can also face difficulties finding subsidized housing that accommodates a live-in
caregiver. According to senior service providers, many subsidized projects serve individuals or
couples only and do not accommodate caregivers. In other cases, the caregiver’s income may
make the household ineligible for the affordable unit. Challenges associated with live-in
caregivers may also apply to persons with disability or HIV/AIDS.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities.
Individuals with mobility disabilities need accessible
units that are located on the ground floor or have elevator access, as well as larger kitchens,
bathrooms, and showers that can accommodate wheelchairs. Building codes and HOME
regulations requirethat five percent of units in multifamily residential complexes be wheelchair
accessible and another two percent of units be accessible for individuals with hearing or vision
44
impairments.
A local fair housing service provider reports that accessibility compliance in
new multifamily housing developments has increased over the past year. While violations still
45
occur, they are fewer in number and less severe.
Affordable housing developers follow accessibilityrequirements and provide accessible units in
their subsidized housing developments. However, local service providers at Consolidated Plan
Workshops report that demand far outstrips the supply of accessible, subsidized housing units.
Nonetheless, affordable housing providers often have difficulty filling accessible units with
disabled individuals. Some affordable housing providers report that they only have a few
disabled persons on their waiting list. As such, if all disabled individuals on the waiting list are
placed in a unit and accessible units still remain, the developer will place a non-disabled person
in the unit. This contradicts information provided by other service providers who indicate a
great need for affordable accessible housing, and points to barriers in the application process
that prevent interested individuals from finding subsidized, accessible housing, or a mismatch
between people who need housing and when it is available. A lack of communication between
affordable housing developers and organizations that serve disabled persons also contributes to
this problem. In fact, affordable housing providers state that filling accessible units with
disabled individuals requires a substantial effort. Property managers must give presentations
and meet with clients and service providersin order to secure the applications.
Persons with disabilities face other challenges that may make it more difficult to secure both
affordable or market-rate housing. Often persons with disabilities have high medical bills that
lead to credit problems. Many individuals also rely on Social Security or welfare benefits.
Organizations who assist disabled individuals secure housing in the region, report that poor
credit is one of the biggest barriers to housing choice.
Reasonable Accommodation and Modification.
Other challenges disabled individuals may
face include difficulties securing reasonable accommodation or modificationrequests. As
44
Papanastassiou, Andrea, Director of Real Estate Development, Eden Housing, Inc., phone interview with
BAE, July 14, 2009.
45
Project Sentinel, 2007 Trends Report.
79
541
DRAFT 1/9/2012
discussed previously, the Fair Housing Act prohibits the refusal of reasonable accommodations
in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations are necessary to afford a
person with a disability equal access to housing. This applies to those involved in the provision
of housing, including property owners, housing managers, homeowners associations, lenders,
real estate agents, and brokerage services. Examples of reasonable accommodation requests
include permission to have a service animal in the residence or securing parking closer to the
unit. The Fair Housing Act also requires housing providersor homeowners’ associations to
provide reasonable modifications when such modifications are necessary to afford persons with
disabilities full enjoyment of the premises. A reasonable modification is a structural change
made to existing premises and can include changes to interiors and exteriors of dwellings and to
common and public use areas.
Local fair housing organizations, including ECHO and Project Sentinel, indicate that some
individuals have difficulties with landlords approving their reasonable accommodationor
modificationrequest, even when the tenant would be financially responsible for the cost of the
modification.Most landlords know that they are not allowed to explicitly discriminate against
persons with disabilities. However, some are not aware that they are required to allow
46
reasonable modifications and reasonable accommodations.ECHO and Project Sentinel report
that reasonable accommodations requests for disabled individuals are one of the more common
47
fair housing complaints seen throughout Santa Clara County.
Housing for Homeless Individuals.
The primary barrier to housing choice for homeless
individuals is insufficient income. Local and regional service providers report that many
homeless rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI), which are too low to qualify for most subsidized programs and affordable housing
developments. In addition, as noted above, both affordable housing developers and market-rate
landlords may screen out individuals with a criminal or drug history, history of evictions, or
poor credit.
Securing housing can prove more difficult for homeless families compared to individuals due to
occupancy regulations, potential landlord biases against households with children, and the more
limited supply of larger units. Consolidated Plan Workshop participants and staff at West
Valley Community Services reported that as a result of the recession, there are more homeless
families than ever seeking housing.
Cupertinoand other Santa Clara County jurisdictions are addressing issues of housing choice
and accessibility for homeless individuals and families through strategies identified in the 10
Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara County and through efforts of
Destination: Home, a taskforce focusing on ending chronic homelessness. Destination: Home
opened two One-Stop Homeless Prevention Centers in November 2008, serving over 3,700
46
Rocha, Marjorie, Executive Director, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, August 3, 2010.
47
Arlene Zamorra, Housing Counselor, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, September 30, 2009.
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14, 2009.
80
542
DRAFT 1/9/2012
homeless and at-risk clients to date. The County of Santa Clara Department of Social Services
has Supplemental Security Income (SSI) advocates at each One-Stop location, allowing eligible
clients to begin the process of applying for benefits at the same time they search for
48
employment, receive housing assistance, or get assistance with other needs.
Access to Housing by Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Individuals.
As financial
institutions institute more stringent lending practices in response to the economic downturn,
LEP individuals may face greater challenges in navigating the mortgage process. According to
regional housing counseling agencies, at the height of the housing boom lenders were very
interested in accessing the Latino and Asian populations. However, bank outreach to these
communities has since declined.
Whilebank outreach to LEP communities has declined, these individuals have been more
vulnerable to scams related to loan modification. In addition to HUD-certified housing
counselors who offer services through nonprofit organizations and local jurisdictions, there are
a variety of private loan modifications offering services of varying quality. Some of these
private loan modification outfits scam borrowers by illegally collectingup-front fees,
misrepresenting services, or knowingly taking on borrowers would clearly not qualify for a loan
modification. LEP individuals are particularly vulnerable to these types of scams because of the
challenge they face in understanding documentation that is often provided in English. One local
service provider reported thatsome loan modifications market their services and explain the
49
process to borrowers in Spanish, but provide written documentation in English.
As another concern for LEP households, undocumented individuals may face more complicated
processes when applying for a mortgage. Some groups within the Spanish-speaking community
and other LEP populations are “unbanked,” and rely on a cash economy. Because regular
banking provides the record keeping and legitimacy that lenders look for, unbanked households
50
have amore difficult time providing documentation to qualify for a mortgage.In addition to
challenges accessing housing, undocumented immigrants are also more reluctant to file fair
housing complaints with HUD or the State.
Victims of Domestic Violence.
A2000Department of Justice studyfound thatnearly 25
percentof women and 7.6percentof men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or
former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their
51
lifetime.Low-income victims of domestic violence (DV) can encounter impediments to fair
housing choice to the extent their housing choice is dependenton access to counselingservices
and safe housing away from their abuser. In many instances, victimsare forced to choose
between staying in an abusive homeand homelessness.In 2005, the U.S. Conference of
48
Maureen O’Malley-Moore, Project Director, Destination: Home, “One Stop Homelessness Prevention
Centers.”
49
Pederson, Kim, Senior Attorney, Fair Housing Law Project, phone interview with BAE, June 17, 2010.
50
Gonzales, Gilda, Executive Director, Unity Council, phone interview with BAE, July 15, 2009.
51
Extent, Nature, and Consequences of IntimatePartner Violence: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey. Patricia Tjaden and Nance Thoeness. US Department of Justice. 2000.
81
543
DRAFT 1/9/2012
52
Mayors surveyfound that 50 percent of citiescitedDV as aprimary causes of homelessness.
The 2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey found that 55percentof homeless
women had experienced DV or claimed it as the reason they were homeless.
As of 2009, Cupertino had an estimatedpopulation of 55,840residents, with Asianscomprising
the largest share of the populationat 57 percent. According to the 2010 US Census, Chinese-
Americans represent the largest ethnic group among Asiansin Cupertino,making up
approximately 28.4percentof the total population or about16,578individuals. Asian Indians
are the second largest ethnic group among Asians in Cupertino with 22.6 percent of the total
population, or 13,779 individuals. Based on the nationalrate of DVcited above, one can
estimatethat as many as1,600potential female Asian Indian victims ofdomestic violencemay
live in Cupertino.
Local service providers report that South Asian victimsof domestic violencehave several
cultural barriers to leaving that abuse, some of which are particularly pronounced amongSouth
Asians. South Asian batterers may use their victim’s residency status to control themand
prevent them from leaving. Immigrant victims would not be able to work legally if they left
their abuser until they received residency status as allowed through the U and T visa program
and the Violence Against Women Act, which may take up to one year. This lack of income can
inhibit victims’ ability to pay even nominal rent at transitional homes for domestic violence
victims. In addition,South Asian culture often imposes the burden of blame on victims,making
it difficult for South Asian victims to find support from peers. Finally, repercussions from
leaving may have an impact on a South Asian victim’s family in their native country.
The higher rate of domestic violence encountered by women,coupled with the large number of
Asianand South Asianresidents in Cupertino,suggest the need for culturally appropriate
services for Asian and South Asian women suffering from domestic violence.
In Cupertino, Maitri offers counseling and referral services for victims of domestic violence,
helping themaccess the necessary resources to gain independence from their abuser.Although
Maitri specializes in assisting South Asian women suffering from domestic violence, the
organization provides its services to men and women of all ethnicities. Maitri’s Transitional
Housing (TH) Project in Cupertino offers ninebedrooms, where Maitri Volunteer Mentors, the
TH Coordinator, and a half time DV Advocate provide long term, holisticservices,peer
counseling,transitional housing, safety planning, and links to community resources. Maitri’s
TH will be open to all ethnic and cultural populations. The facility is not equipped to serve men
and women simultaneously, given the unique concerns posed by victims of DV. In fact, Maitri
staff report that housing is rarely if ever a concern among their male clients, because they
typically have incomes and can afford to move away from their abuser. Nonetheless, Maitri
maintains a list of other services in Santa Clara County available to male victims of DV, should
53
they need housing assistance
.
52
U.S. Conference of Mayors. A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities. 2005.
53
Jalan, Rama, Transitional Housing Manager, Maitri, phone interview with BAE, June 17, 2010.
82
544
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Long-term residency is vital for many of Maitri's clients as they may be in the U.S. on
dependant visas and hence cannot work while they apply for work permits as allowed under
immigration law.Clients receive case management services, peercounseling, rental assistance,
housing establishment and employment search assistance, driving classes, and assistancein
setting specific goals and a means to achieve them so they can resume productive lives. The TH
also provides linguistically and culturally specific one-on-one counseling or refers and
sometimes pays for individual counseling off site, and mentors children impacted by DV and/or
cultural isolation in order to develop their self-esteem and emotional resiliency.
Housing Opportunities forFamilies
Fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on familial status. However, local service
providers report that households with children are sometimes discriminated against, particularly
when searching for rental housing. Landlords may view households with children as less
desirable due to potential noise issues or damage to units. While landlords and property
managers may not deny families housing, they may place them in less desirable units such as
units at the back of a complex or a downstairs unit. The challenge in identifying discrimination
on the grounds of familial status is that often families may not know that other units in a
complex are available, and therefore not realize that they are being offered a less desirable unit.
In some cases, landlords establish occupancy restrictions that limit the number of people in the
54
household or ask for fees based on the number children in the household.
Local fair housing
service providers report that differential treatment on the basis of familial status is another
55
common fair housing issue in the County.
Fair Housing Awareness
Many fair housing violations are committed by unsophisticated “mom-and-pop”
owners/operators and by untrained or unsupervised property managers. These operators and
managers may have little understanding of fair housing laws and requirements. An analysis of
Santa Clara County fair housing complaints by housing development size conducted by Project
Sentinel found that the majority of eviction complaints were associated with small properties
with one to 10 units. Approximately 58 percent of eviction complaints filed with Project
Sentineland Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing (now part of ECHO)between 2003 and
2006 were in properties with one to 10 units. In each of these small property cases, the owner
was the offending party. A large share of refusal to rent complaints was also associated with
small properties; 39 percent of the complaints in this category occurred in properties with 10 or
fewer units. Of therefusal to rent cases associated with properties with 10 or fewer units, 74
percent involved the property owner. Other than eviction and refusal to rent cases, the majority
56
of fair housing complaints were filed for properties with 50 or more units.
One local service provider reports that “mom-and-pop” owners/operators and larger
54
Rocha, Marjorie, Executive Director, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, August 3, 2010.
55
Arlene Zamorra, Housing Counselor, ECHO, phone interview with BAE, September 30, 2009.
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14, 2009.
56
Project Sentinel, 2007 Trends Report.
83
545
DRAFT 1/9/2012
management companies require different strategies when dealing with fair housing issues.
Larger management companies can be easier to deal with than smaller owners/operators when
57
resolving fair housing issues.This may be due to the relative lack of awareness of fair housing
lawson the part of “mom-and-pop” owners/operators.Continued fair housing educationand
outreach to all types of housing providerswill provide property owners and managers with
greater awareness of their civil rights obligations.
5.3Public and Private Sector
In addition to governmental and non-governmental impediments to fair housing, there are some
impediments to housing choice that span both the public and private sectors.
Linkage Between Housing and Employment Centers
As discussed earlier, the Cupertino’sinventory of subsidized housingand the County’s major
employers are well-connected to public transportation. Local affordable housing developers
report that transit accessibility significantly affects site selection decisions for subsidized
housing. In addition to the fact that lower-income households tend to have a lower rate of
vehicle ownership, the funding structure for affordable housing favors sites with better
accessibility. Developers are required to compete for various affordable housing funding
sources like low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC). Public transportation access is one of the
criteria projects are ranked on; developments with better transit access receive higher scores.
Because the competition for affordable housing financing is so great in California, developers
report that projects must receive the maximum score in the transit category in order to be
competitive. As a result, affordable housing projects tend to be very well connected to transit.
Approximately 93percent of the subsidized housing developmentsCity of Cupertinoare
located within one-quarter of a mile from transit.
While affordable housing projects are often located in close proximity to transit, local public
transportation providers are cutting services as a result of budget shortfalls. For example, the
Santa ClaraValley Transit Authority (VTA) implementedmajor bus and light rail service
58
changes in January 2010, due to declining economic conditions.
57
Yee, Shawn, Staff Attorney, Asian Law Alliance, phone interview with BAE, August 10, 2010.
58
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, “VTA Service Changes Begin Monday, January 11,”
http://www.vta.org/news/show/NR+10+01+01
84
546
DRAFT 1/9/2012
6Assessment of Current Fair
Housing Programs and Activities
6.1Programs and Activities that Promote Fair Housing
Fair Housing Laws
Fair housing laws are in place at the federal and state levels. Federal, state, and local
governments all share a role in enforcing these laws, as well as conducting activities to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Title VIII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits housing discrimination based on
race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, or religion. The 1988 Fair Housing Amendments
Act added familial status and mental and physical handicap as protected classes. The laws
prohibit a wide range of discriminatory actions, including refusal to rent, sell, or negotiate for
housing, make housing unavailable, set different terms, conditions, or privileges, provide
different housing services or facilities, refusal to make a mortgage loan, or impose different
terms or conditions on a loan.
At the State level,the Rumford Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination toward all classes
protected under Title III, and adds marital status as a protected class. The Unruh Civil Rights
Act prohibits discrimination in all business establishments in California, including housing and
public accommodations, based on age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion,
59
sex, or sexual orientation.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination and harassment in
all aspects of housingincluding sales and rentals, evictions, terms and conditions, mortgage
loans and insurance, and land use and zoning. The Act also requires housing providers to make
reasonable accommodation in rules and practices to permit persons with disabilities to use and
enjoy a dwelling and to allow persons with disabilities to make reasonable modifications of the
premises.
The City of Cupertinorequiresdevelopers to comply with all fair housing laws and develop
affirmative fair housing marketing plans, which include strategies to attract buyers or renters
from groups, regardless of background.
Public Housing Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policies
In its Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy, the Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara (HACSC) outlines measures to affirmatively further fair housing in the
administration of its public housing program. These measures include taking appropriate action
to ensure individuals with disabilities will have equal access to available services programs, and
59
The protection afforded under the law is extended by case law to include sexual orientation. Sexual
orientation includes persons who are homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.
85
547
DRAFT 1/9/2012
60
activities and seeking to have bilingual staff for non-English speakingfamilies.
HACSCalso has a policy to execute measures to deconcentrate poverty and promote economic
integration. As such, HACSC attempts to bring in higher income tenants into lower income
61
projects and lower income tenants into higher income projects.
Fair Housing Services
The primary fair housing activity the City of Cupertino undertakes is to contract with local
nonprofit organizations that specialize in fair housing issues. This model allows for stronger
fair housing programs and resources as the nonprofit organizations are able to specialize in fair
housing issues and achieve economies of scale by serving a wider geographic area.
Through contracts with the City, local fair housing organizations perform the following
services:
Investigate allegations of housing discrimination and counsel tenants and landlords on
their rights and responsibilities under state and local laws;
Providing fair housing training for landlords and property managers;
Conducting fair housing presentations;
Staffing a table at the Tri-County Apartment Association Trade Show;
Provide outreach and educational activities by distributing brochures and placing ads in
print media, radio, and television.
Other Local Fair Housing Services
Countywide Fair Housing Task Force.
In fiscal year 2003, the Countywide Fair Housing
Task Force was established. The Task Force includes representatives from Santa Clara County
jurisdictions, fair housing providers, legal service providers, and other community service
providers. Since its inception, the Task Force has implemented a calendar of countywide fair
housing events and sponsors public information meetings, including Accessibility Training,
First-Time Homebuyer training, and Predatory Lending training.
Affordable Housing Programs.
The lack of available and affordable housing can be an
impediment to fair housing in some areas of Santa Clara County. In response to high housing
costs in the region, the City has a Housing Mitigation Program which requires the payment of a
housing mitigation fee or the provision of below market rate (BMR) units. The City requires
payment of an Office and Industrial Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of office
and industrial space and a Housing Mitigation fee, which is assessed on developers of market-
rate rental housing to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new development.
Developers of for-sale housing with six or fewer units are required to pay the Housing
Mitigation fee while for-sale housing projects with seven or more units must provide on-site
BMR units. All affordable housing mitigation fees are deposited into the Affordable Housing
60
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy for the
Public Housing Program. October 1, 1999. Chapter 1, Section D.
61
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy for the
Public Housing Program. October 1, 1999. Chapter 4, Section J.
86
548
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Fund, which provides financial assistance to affordable housingdevelopments.
6.2Problems Related to Current Fair Housing Programs
Limited Resources
Given the diversity of Cupertinoand Santa Clara Countyas a whole, fair housing is a major
concern. The City and County continue to support fair housing programs through staff outreach
and by contracting with local nonprofit organizations. Additional funding for local fair housing
organizations could allow for additional outreach and education activities as well as broader fair
62
housing audits which would include more properties in the City of Cupertino.However, due
to budget cuts at various levels of government, staff resources and funding available for fair
housing programs has decreased. The City is maximizing resources for fair housing while
balancing the needs of other housing and community development programs.
Lack of Awareness of Fair Housing
According to fair housing organizations, general public education and awareness of fair housing
issues is limited. Tenants often do not completely understand their fair housing rights. To
address this issue, the City and local fair housing organizations providevarious fair housing
education and outreach programsto housing providers and to the general public. For example,
Project Sentinel provides between 10 and 20 fair housing trainings for property owners and
managers in Santa Clara County each year.ECHOalso conducted a fair housing training for
landlords and property managers in Cupertino.In addition, the Cityand fair housing
organizations outreach to the general community through mass media such as newspaper
columns, multi-lingual pamphlets, flyers, and radio advertisements. Fair housing organizations
63
also outreach to protected classes by working with organizations that serve target populations.
62
Rocha, Marjorie, Executive Director, ECHO Housing, phone interview with BAE, August 3, 2010.
63
Marquart, Ann, Executive Director, Project Sentinel, phone interview with BAE, October 14, 2009.
87
549
DRAFT 1/9/2012
7Findingsand Recommendations
This section summarizes the key findings from the AI, and presents policies and supporting
actions that support fair housing in the City of Cupertino. These policies and actions build upon
the current fair housing programs and activities described in Section 5.
7.1Key Findings
Demographic Profile
Cupertino had an estimated population of 55,800 residents in 2009, representing
approximately three percent of Santa Clara County’s population.
Population growth in the
City has matched countywide growth between 2000 and 2009. During this time period,
Cupertino’s population grew by just under 11 percent.
Cupertino has a slightly higher proportion of family households compared to Santa Clara
County.
In 2009, approximately 75 percent of Cupertino households were family households,
defined as two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. By
comparison, 70 percent of Santa Clara County households were families.
The City has a majority Asian population, with Asian residents representing 57 percent of
the total population.
Non-Hispanic White persons were the second largest racial group in
Cupertino, comprising 36 percent of the population. The City has a smaller population of
Hispanic or Latino residents compared to Santa Clara County. Asian persons comprise over 50
percent of the population in the majority of Census block groups in the City. Portions of
western Cupertino have a majority White population. There are no areas in the City where
Hispanic residents comprise the majority.
Cupertino households are more affluent than Santa Clara County households as a whole.
The median household income was $119,000 in the City of Cupertino in 2009, compared to
$88,400 in Santa Clara County. The City also has a lower share of households living below the
federal poverty threshold relative to the County. Approximately 3.9 percent of Cupertino
households had incomes below the poverty threshold, compared to 5.7 percent in the County.
The City has nine Census block groups that meet the CDBG program definition of targeted low-
and moderate-income areas with at least 27.4 percent of residents falling within these income
categories. These areas are primarily concentrated in the eastern portion of Cupertino, east of
Highway 85.
Housing Profile
The median sales price for single-family homes in Cupertino increased dramatically
between 2000 and 2007before falling during the current economic downturn.
The median
sales price for single-family homes rose by 42percent from $825,000to $1,175,000between
2000 and 2008. Since the 2007peak, the median sales price has decreased by 16percent.
88
550
DRAFT 1/9/2012
During 2009 (January through May), the median home sales price for single-family homes was
$986,500.It should be noted that Cupertino’s housing market has remained more stable than
the County’s as a whole. Thedecline in median sales prices in the County was more than twice
as high as in the City between 2008 and 2009 for both single-family homes and condominiums.
Ownership housing in Cupertino is largely unaffordable to lower-income households.
The
maximum affordable sales price for a low-income, four-person household seeking to purchase a
64
single-family home is $280,300.In Cupertino, less than three percent of three-bedroom homes
sold onthe market between June 28, 2009 and December 31, 2009 were under this price point.
Additionally, only four percent of three-and four-bedroom condominiums sold in Cupertino
during the same time period were affordable to low-income households.
In terms of rental housing, the average market rent in Cupertino far exceeds the
65
maximum affordable rent for very low-and extremely low-income households.
These
households would need to spend substantially more than 30 percent of their gross income to
afford market rate rental housing.
66
Approximately 28 percent of Cupertino households were “cost-burdened” in 2000.
The
incidence of overpayment was higher for renters than owners in Cupertino, with 31 percent of
renter households and 26 percent of owner householdsspending more than 30 percent of their
income on housing costs. During the current economic downturn, the rate of overpayment may
have increased due to rising unemployment. Unfortunately, more recent data on overpayment is
unavailable.
Overcrowding is more prevalent among renter households than owner households in
67
Cupertino.
Approximately 17 percent of renters and five percent of owners lived in
overcrowded situations.
While there are no public housing developments located in the City of Cupertino,the
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) and HUD offer rental
assistance for lower-income households through the Section 8 voucher program.
There are
15,839 tenant-based and 5,791 project-based vouchers in the County. This includes 50 tenant-
based vouchers and 127 project-based vouchers in the City of Cupertino.
There are six affordable housing developments with 203 affordable rental units in
Cupertino.
In addition, there are three group homes and eight developments that provide
belowmarket rate (BMR) rental units as part of the City’s Housing Mitigation Plan.
64
This assumes conventional financing terms and a maximum payment of 30 percent of gross income on
mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance.
65
Maximum affordable rent assumes that household pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and
utilities.
66
Defined by HUD as spending more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs.
67
Overcrowding is defined by the U.S. Census as more than one personper room, excluding bathrooms and
kitchens.
89
551
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Cupertino’s subsidized housing developments and BMR units are located throughout the City,
often in close proximity to major commercial corridors, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, that
have public transportation access. Thirteen of the 14 developments with subsidized or BMR
units are located in areas where Asian residents comprise more than 50 percent of the
population. This does not, however, indicate a concentration of care facilities in minority
neighborhoods because Asian residents represent over 50 percent of the total citywide
population.
Fair Housing Complaints
Between 2004 and August 2009, a total of ninefair housing complaints were filed in the
City of Cupertino.
This represents approximately threepercent of all complaints filed in the
County during the same time period. The largest proportion of complaints, 78 percent, was
found to not have probable cause for fair housing violation.The remaining 22 percent of
complaints were conciliated or resolved.
Disability emerged as the most common bases for complaint.
These accounted for 78
percent of all complaint bases between 2004 and August 2009in Cupertino. During this time,
there was one complaint each based on national origin and familial status.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Public Sector.
As detailed in Section 5of this AI, local government can affect housing
availability and costs by limiting the supply of buildable land, setting standards and allowable
densities for development, and exacting development fees. Publicly imposed constraints on
housing supply can subsequently lead to fair housing concerns, as particular segments of the
population lose access to affordable homes and/or are completely priced out of certain areas.
Local policies and ordinances have the potential to raise fair housing concerns. In particular,
local zoning ordinances can impact the production of multifamily housing, second units,
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and community care facilities, all of which serve
lower-income households and special needs populations. Cupertino’s zoning ordinance allows
for the development of various forms of multifamily housing, second units, and small
residential care homes. However, the ordinance does not identify a zone that allows for
permanent emergency shelters and transitional or supportive housing by right. Pursuant to state
law, the Cityamended itszoning ordinance in 2010 to allow permanent emergency shelters in
the BQ zone and permit transitional and supportive housing by right. The City also formalized
its reasonable accommodation request procedures to further fair housing efforts.
Private sector.
Despite declining home sales prices, current market prices remain anobstacle
for homeownership for lower-income households in Cupertino. In addition,credit access has
emerged asa real challenge for potential homebuyers. Even more affordable FHA loans and
state-sponsored first-time homebuyer programs can be difficult to access for buyers, as many
loan officers and realtors prefer to focus on conventional mortgages due to the time and effort
90
552
DRAFT 1/9/2012
associated with these loan products. Homeownership counselors have responded to these
challenges by developing relationships with particular loan officers and agents who can assist
buyers with the federal and State programs.
Foreclosures have also damaged many households’ credit ratings, limiting their ability to buy a
home in the future. National data shows that subprime mortgages(which have a strong tie to
foreclosure) disproportionately occurred in communities of color, raising a fair housing
68
concern.
According to local affordable housing developers, the availability of financing presents the
biggest barrier to producing newsubsidized housing. Although the cost of land and
construction have declined, the tightened credit market, and decline in State and local subsidies,
have made it challenging for affordable housing developers to take advantage of lower costs.
Other constraints to housing production in the City include public opinion, specifically
community concerns about impacts on the school districts, traffic, and parks. Over the past
several years, a number of housing developments and related planning efforts have been subject
to citizen initiatives and referenda. Citizens’ concerns about the impacts of housing
development, particularly higher density development, on community quality of life remain a
significant potential constraint to housing development.
Fair Housing Concerns Impacting Special Need Populations
Affordable Housing Application Processes.
Due to the requirements associated with various
affordable housing funding sources, certain households may encounter difficulties in applying
for subsidized housing. For example, applications can involve a large amount of paperwork and
require households to provide records for income verification. In some cases, short application
time frames and submittal requirements (e.g., by fax) create additional challenges. These
requirements present obstacles for seniors, homeless or disabled individuals who lack access to
communication systems and information networks, as well as the skills to complete and submit
the necessary documentation.
Elderly.
Seniors often needaccessible units located in close proximity to services and public
transportation. Many seniors also live on fixed incomes, making affordability a particular
concern. There is a limited supplyof affordable senior housing in the City of Cupertino. In
addition, local senior service providers and community workshop participants report that many
subsidized housing projects serve individuals or couples only and do not accommodate
caregivers. In other cases, the caregiver’s income may make the senior ineligible for the
affordable unit.
Persons with Disabilities.
Building codes and HOME regulations require that five percent of
units in multifamily residential complexes be wheelchair accessible and another two percent be
68
Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners.Center for
Responsible Lending. December 2006.
91
553
DRAFT 1/9/2012
accessible for individuals with hearing or vision impairments. Affordable housing developers
follow these requirements and provide accessible units in their buildings. Nonetheless, service
providers report that demand exceeds the supply of accessible, subsidized units. In contrast to
this finding, affordable housing providers report that they can have difficulty filling accessible
units with disabled individuals. This points to challenges in the application and marketing
process that prevent disabled individuals from finding subsidized, accessible housing when
needed.
Persons with disabilities face other challenges that may make it more difficult to secure both
affordable or market-rate housing, such as lower credit scores, the need for service animals
(which must be accommodated as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act),
the limited number of accessible units, and the reliance on Social Security or welfare benefits as
a major income source.
Homeless Individuals.
The primary barrier to housing choice for homeless individuals is
insufficient income. Interviews with service providers indicate that many homeless rely on
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which are
too low to qualify for most subsidized programs and affordable housing developments. In
addition, property managers often screen out individuals with a criminal or drug history, history
of evictions, or poor credit, which effectively excludes many homeless persons.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Individuals.
Local service providers state that as
financial institutions institute more stringent lending practices and outreach to minority
communities has declined with the economy, LEP and undocumented individuals face greater
challenges in securing a mortgage. LEP households are also more vulnerable to loan
modification and foreclosure rescue scams. Furthermore, many households in the Spanish-
speaking community and other LEP populations rely on a cash economy, and lack the record
keeping and financial legitimacythat lenders require.
7.2Recommendations to Support Fair Housing
The following policies and actions respond to the fair housing needs expressed in Section 5of
the AI, and reinforce the current fair housing programs and activities described in Section 6.
Access to Affordable Housing
Need:
Due to the requirements associated with various affordable housing funding sources,
certain households may encounter difficulties in accessingsubsidized housing. For example,
applications can involve a large amount ofpaperwork, require households to provide records for
income verification, or have short application time frames and submittal requirements. These
requirements present obstacles for homeless or disabled individuals who lack the resources and
skills to complete the necessary documentation. Moreover, affordable housing providers often
have difficulty filling accessible units with disabled individuals. In contrast, service providers
indicate a great need for affordable accessible housing. This conflict points to barriers in the
application process that prevent interested individuals from finding subsidized, accessible
92
554
DRAFT 1/9/2012
housing or a mismatch between people who need housing and when it is available.
Action #1: Facilitate access to below-market-rate units.
TheCity of Cupertinoshall continue
to assist affordable housing developers inadvertising the availability of below-market-rate units
via its website, the County’s 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media
outlets. The Citywill also facilitate communication between special needs service providers
and affordable housing developers, to ensure that home seekers with special needs have fair
access to available units.
Fair Housing Services
Need:
The AI finds that fair housing is an ongoing concern in Cupertino. In particular,
interviews with local service providers indicate that many homeseekers and landlords are
unaware of federal and state fair housing laws. They also remain unfamiliar with protections
offered to seniors, disabled, and other special needs populations, as well as families and
protected classes.
Action #2:Contract with local service providers to conduct ongoing outreach and
education regarding fair housing for homeseekers, landlords, property managers, real
estate agents,and lenders.
Outreach will occur via training sessions, public events,
jurisdictions’ websites and other media outlets, staffing at service providers’ offices, and multi-
lingual flyers available in a variety public locations.
Action #3:Contract with local service providers to conduct fair housing testing in local
apartment complexes.
The testing program looks for any evidence of differential treatment
among a sampleoflocal apartment complexes. Following the test, the service provider submits
findings to the City and conducts educational outreach to landlords that showed differential
treatment during the test.
Local Zoning
Need:
Cupertino’szoning requirements must comply with State law, the federal Fair Housing
Act of 1968, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. As discussed in Section 5, the
City recently amended its zoning ordinance to comply with State regulations regarding
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. The City also adopted a
formal reasonable accommodation policy to accommodate the needs of persons with
disabilities.
Action #4:Periodically review the Zoning Ordinance to ensureregulations are consistent
with fair housing laws and do not constrain housing production.
If particular zoning
requirements impede fair housing or housing production, the City should amend the regulations.
Public Housing
Need:
Local Housing Authoritiesare well-versed in fair housing requirements, and aim to apply
these consistently in their outreach, property management, waitlist maintenance, and tenant
recruitment efforts. The following action emphasizes the need for local jurisdictions to assist
93
555
DRAFT 1/9/2012
local housing authorities in this regard.
Action #6:Assist local Housing Authorities with outreach.
The City of Cupertino shall
continue to support the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara to ensure adequate
outreach to minority, limited-English proficiency, and special needs populations regarding the
availability of public housing and Section 8 vouchers. Outreach mayoccur via the City’s
website and informational flyers in multiple languages available at public locations. Given the
extended waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 programs, attention will primarily be
paid to fair management of the list.
LinksBetween Housing and Employment
Need:
Impediments to fair housing choice may occur when poor linkages exist between the
locations of major employers and affordable housing. Under these conditions, persons who
depend on public transportation, such as lower-income households, seniors, and disabled
persons, would be more limited in their housing options. The AI finds that Cupertino’s
inventory of subsidized housing isrelatively well-connected to public transportation. TheCity
should continue efforts to support transit-oriented development and further improve connections
between new housing and employment centers.
Action #7: Plan for and encourage transit-oriented development.
The City of Cupertino
shall continue to plan for higher residential and employment densities where appropriate to
maximize linkages between employers and affordable housing.
Action #8: Facilitate safe and efficient transit routes.
The Cityshall continue to work with
local transit agencies to facilitate safe and efficient routes for the various forms of public transit.
94
556
DRAFT 1/9/2012
8Appendix A: Community Workshop
Attendees
95
557
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Appendix A.1: CDBG Workshop Attendees
September 9, 2009 -West Valley Branch Library, 1243 San Tomas Aquino Road, San José, CA 95117, 6-7:30pm
NameOrganization
1AlaMalikFresh Lifelines for Youth
2Andrea OsgoodEden Housing
Birku Melese, Ph.D.,Ethiopian Community Services, Inc.
3
4Carlos Garcia Fresh Lifelines for Youth
5Cesar AndaState legislature AD 23
6Ching Ming HsuehCatholic Charities
7Elaine CurranCity of SJ Early Care
Elizabeth HuntIndian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
8
9Erik Kaedingresident/student
10Gary SmithGS Lighting Design
11Georgia Bacil, Exec. Dir.Senior Adult Legal Assistance
Heona LeeKorean-American Community Services (KACS)
12
James R. BruneDeaf Couns., Adv. & Referral Agency (DCARA)
13
Jan V. Chacon
14Indian Health Center of Santa Clara Valley
Jane Hills, Deputy Director
15Catholic Charities
Jeff BornefeldCommunity Partners for Youth, Inc. (CCPY)
16
Jenna Boyer
17The Opportunity Fund
18Judy Whittier, Dir. of Community ResourcesThe Bill Wilson Center
Lee Elak
19CDHC Commissioner
20Liz GirensOpportunity Fund
21Margie Matthewsresident
22Maria SolisJapanese American Senior Housing
23Mark Johansonresident
24Michele Lew/President-CEOAsian Americans for Community Involvement
25Minh Hoang PhamCatholic Charities
26Regina AdamsCity of Mountain View
27Ronald AndersonThe Cambrian Center
28Sylvia AlvarezEvergreen School District Board Member,
29Tamon NorimotoHCDC of SJ
Tom GearySecond Harvest
30
Yolanda Ungo
31Catholic Charities
September 16, 2009 -Morgan Hill Community Cultural Center, 17000 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, CA 95037, 6-7:30pm
Alban Diaz
1Catholic Charities
2Dina CampeauSouth County Collaborative
3Edna Nagy Case Manager, Morgan Hill Depot CommonsCatholic Charities Day Break III
resident
4Forrest Williams
Jane Hills, Deputy Director
5Children, Youth and Family Development
6Jeff PedersenMorgan Hill resident + Housing Mgr. City of SC
7Joe Muellerresident
8Leah EzeohaJuvenile Probation, SCC
9Lori Mathis, Dir. of Brown Bag ProgramsSecond Harvest
10Lynn Magruder, Grants AdministratorCommunity Solutions
resident
11Marilyn Roaf
12Martha Bell, Exec. DirectorSilicon Valley Independent Living Center
13Melanie VillanuevaCity of Morgan Hill Staff
14Michele SchroderSALA
15Osvaldo Maldonado, Community Programs Manager Second Harvest
16Patti Worthen, Supervisor Day BreakCatholic Charities Day Break III
City of Gilroy
17Sandra Nava
18Sheryll Bejaranoresident
19Sue L Koepp-Bakerresident
20Wanda Hale, Development OfficerCatholic Charities of Santa Clara County
September 23, 2009 -Sunnyvale City Hall Council Chambers, 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086, 3-4:30pm
1Adam MontgomerySilicon Valley Association ofRealtors
Support Network for Battered Women
2Adriana Caldera
3Anna GonzalesJuvenile Probation, SCC
Arely Valeriano
4Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
96
558
DRAFT 1/9/2012
Arthur Schwartzresident
5
6Beatriz LopezSALA
7Beverly Jackson, EDRebuilding Together
8Chana PedersonCCSC
9Cindy McCormickCity of Saratoga
10Cindy StahlNOVA
11Connie Soto
12Connie VercelesCity of Sunnyvale, ED Manager
Consuelo CollardThe Health Trust
13
14David RamirezOutreach
15Demi YezgiH& HS Com.
16Dennis KingHispanic Chamber of Commerce
17Desirie EscobarJPD
18Diane ShakoorCommunity Action Agency
19Dori HailuH & HS Com.
20Dorothy Heller, Exec. AssistantDayworkerCenter of Mountain View
21Edith AlamsCDD/Housing
22Elba LandaverdeCommunity Svcs. Agency of Mtn. View and Los Altos
23Eric AndersonSunnyvale HHSC
24Estella Jones, phone 408-730-5236.Sunnyvale resident
25Gerald HewittCity of Santa Clara HCD
26Ginger McClureCatholic Charities of Santa Clara County
27Greg HarrickHUD Region IX
28Hector BurgosHabitat Silicon Valley
29Hilary Barroga, Director of ProgramsEmergency Housing Consortium (EHC)
30Jesus EstradaCommunity Action Agency
31Joan Smithson, Site ManagerSenior Lunch Program
32JoAnn Cabrera, development coordinatorMayView Community Health Center
33Kathy MarxCity of Palo Alto
34Kerry Haywood, ED Moffett Park BTAMoffett Park BTA
35Laura Robichekresident
36Lynn Morisonthe bill wilson center
37Mark Robichekresident
38MatthewOsment-Dir. Strategic AlliancesInn Vision
39Nancy TivolCity of Sunnyvale-resident
40Patricia LordCity of Sunnyvale
41Perla FloresCommunity Solutions
42Pilar FurlongRed Cross of Silicon Valley
43Raul and Helen Ledesmaresidents
44Roger GawSunnyvale Chamber of Commerce
45Sarah KhanMAITRI
46Shamima Hasan, CEOMayView Community Health Center
Stacy CastleYWCA Silicon Valley
47
48Susan HuffSaratoga Area Senior Coordinator
49Tom GearySecond Harvest
50Tricia UyedaWest Valley Community Services -Rotating Shelter Program
51Victor RuderSunnyvale Senior Nutrition
52Wanda Hale, Development OfficerCatholic Charities of Santa Clara County
97
559
DRAFT 1/9/2012
9Appendix B: Needs Assessment
Data Sources
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
ABAG, the regional planning
agency for the nine county San Francisco Bay Area, produces population, housing, and
employment projections for the cities and counties within its jurisdiction. The
projections are updated every two years. BAE used data from the 2009 ABAG
Projections in this Needs Assessment.
Bay Area Economics (BAE)
–BAE is listed as a source simply to indicate that it is
responsible for assembling the table. BAE is not the primarysource for any of the data
provided in this report. All primary sources are listed in each table.
Claritas, Inc.
Claritas is a private data vendor that offers demographic data for
thousands of variables for numerous geographies, including cities, counties, and states.
Using 2000 U.S. Census data and more current American Community Survey as a
benchmark, Claritas provides current year estimates for many demographic
characteristics such as household composition, size, and income. This is particularly
valuable given the fact that many cities have undergone significant change since the last
decennial census was completed over nine years ago. BAE used Claritas data to
characterize population and households and to describe housing needs. Current-year
demographic data from Claritas can be compared to decennial census data from 1990
and 2000. Claritas does not publish margin of errors for their data.
DataQuick Information Systems.
DataQuick is a private data vendor that provides
real estate information such as home sales price and sales volume trends. DataQuick
also provides individual property records, which includes detailed information on
property type, sales date, and sale amount. This information allowed BAE to assess the
market sales price of homessold in the County.
RealFacts.
RealFacts, a private data vendor, provides comprehensive information on
residential rental markets. Based on surveys of large apartment complexes with 50 or
more units, this data includes an inventory analysis as well as quarterly and annual rent
and occupancy trends.
Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, 2009.
In January 2009, a count
of homeless individuals in Santa Clara County was conducted. Concurrently, one-on-
one interviews with homeless individuals were completed to create a qualitative profile
of the County’s homeless population. This report provides detailed information on the
size and composition of the homeless population in Santa Clara County.
State of California, Department of Finance.
The Department of Finance publishes
annual population estimates for the State, counties, and cities, along with information
on the number of housing units, vacancies, average household size, and special
98
560
DRAFT 1/9/2012
populations. The Department also produces population forecasts for the State and
counties with age, sex, and race/ethnic detail. The demographic data published by the
Department of Finance serves as the single official source for State planning and
budgeting, informing various appropriation decisions.
State of California, Employment Development Department.
The Employment
Development Department identifies the largest 25 private-sector employers in each
County.
U.S. Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau collects and disseminates a wide range of
data that is useful in assessing demographic conditions and housing needs. These are
discussed below.
Decennial Census.
The 2000 Census provides a wide range of population and
o
housing data for the County, region, and State. The decennial Census represents a
count of everyone living in the United States every ten years. In 2000, every
household received a questionnaire asking for information about sex, age,
relationship, Hispanic origin, race, and tenure. In addition, approximately 17
percent of households received a much longer questionnaire which included
questions social, economic, and financial characteristics of their household as well
as the physical characteristics of their housing unit. Although the last decennial
census was conducted nine years ago, it remains the most reliable source for many
data points because of the comprehensive nature of the survey.
American Community Survey (ACS).
The U.S. Census Bureau also publishes
o
the ACS, an on-going survey sent to a small sample of the population that provides
demographic, social, economic, and housing information for cities and counties
every year. However, due to the small sample size, there is a notable margin of
error in ACS data, particularly for small-and moderately-sized communities. For
this reason, BAE does not utilize ACS data despite the fact that it provides more
current information than the 2000 Census.
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
CHAS provides
o
special tabulation data from the 2000 Census which shows housing problems for
particular populations, including the elderly, low-income households, and large
households. This data is used in the assessment of demand for special needs
housing.
Building Permits.
The Census Bureau provides data on the number of residential
o
building permits issued by cities by building type.
99
561
DRAFT 1/9/2012
10Appendix C: Detailed Maps of
Minority and Poverty
Concentration
100
562
DRAFT 1/9/2012
11Appendix D: Maximum Affordable
Sales Price Calculation
103
565
DRAFT 1/9/2012
12Appendix E: Special Needs and
Homeless Services
106
568
PUBLICWORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
1010300TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408)777-3354www.cupertino.org
CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject
City’s surplus propertyonGreenleafDrive.
RecommendedAction
AdoptResolutionauthorizingtheCityManagertonegotiateandexecuteacontracttosellan
abandonedwelllot on GreenleafDrivetothepropertyowners on theadjoining propertyat 10500
CastineAvenue.
Discussion
TheCityofCupertinohasownedthewelllotonGreenleafDrivesincethe1960’s.Thewellon
thesitehasbeenabandonedbytheCityandisnolongerinproduction.Thepropertyisofno
furtherusetotheCity,andthusmaybeconsideredsurplus.Theabandonmentoccurredover
twentyyearsagowhenthewellcasingfailed.Itwasdeterminedatthattimethatthiswellwas
notnecessarytosupportthecapacity ofthewatersystem.TheSantaClaraValleyWaterDistrict
hasconfirmedthatthe200-foot-deepwellwasdestroyedappropriatelybybeingfilledwith
concrete.TheSan JoseWaterCompany(SJWC),who bylong-termleaseoperatestheportionof
theCitywatersysteminwhichthewelllotexists,hasexpressednointerestinthenon-producing
welllot otherthanto beassuredthatthewaterlateral on the propertybe properlycapped.
Theownersoftheadjoininglotat10500CastineAvenuehaveexpressedaninterestin
purchasingthelotfromtheCity.Acquisitionofthewelllotwouldallowtheownersof10500
CastineAvenuetoextendtheirpropertyboundariesasmalldistance.Thisextensioncanbeseen
ontheattachedmap.
Sincethepropertyisnotbuildableandofnopracticaluse,theCityAttorneyhasadvisedstaff
thatitcanbedisposedofinamannersimilartosurplusright-of-way.Thevalueofthesurplus
propertycanbeestablishedbyappraisalandthepurchasepricemaybenegotiatedwiththe
owners of 10500 CastineAvenue.Anauctionis not necessary.
TherealestateappraisalcompanyHulberg&Associates,Inc.,submittedtotheCityasummary
valuationreportforthewelllot,whichCouncil hasreviewedinclosed session.
FiscalImpact
Dependingontheresultsofnegotiationswiththeownersof10500CastineAvenueforthesaleof
thewelllot,theCitywillrealizeagainfromtheproceedsofthesale.Inaddition,theCitywill
realizea smallcost savingsby beingrelieved ofthemaintenance ofthe surplus parcel.
_____________________________________
580
Preparedby:GlennGoepfert,AssistantDirector ofPublicWorks
Reviewedby: TimmBorden,Director ofPublicWorks
ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager
Attachments:
A-DraftResolution
B-Map ofWellSite
581
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTIONNO.12-
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO
DECLARING ITS INTENTIONTOSELLSURPLUSREALPROPERTY,
ABANDONED WELLLOTONGREENLEAFDRIVE,APN 326-41-114
WHEREAS,sincethe1960s,theCityofCupertinohasownedawelllotonGreenleaf
Drive on APN 326-41-114;and
WHEREAS,theSantaClaraValleyWaterDistrict,theregulatoryauthorityinthiscase,
hasconfirmedthatthewell has beenformallydestroyedand officially no longerexists;and
WHEREAS,thewellonthesitehasbeenabandonedbytheCityandisnolongerin
production,sothatthepropertyisofnofurtherusetotheCity,andthusmaybeconsidered
surplus;and
WHEREAS,theownersoftheadjoininglotat10500CastineAvenuehaveexpressedan
interestin purchasingthewelllotfromtheCity.
NOW, THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED THAT THECITYCOUNCILHEREBY
a.ApprovesafindingthattheabandonedCitywelllotonGreenleafDriveonAPN
326-41-114is of no further usetotheCityandmaybeconsidered surplus;and
b.Declaresitsintentionto sell said surplus property;and
c.AuthorizestheCityManagertotakeall necessaryassociatedactions.
PASSEDANDADOPTEDattheregularmeetingoftheCityCounciloftheCityof
th
Cupertinothis 17 dayofJanuary 2012, bythefollowing vote:
VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
________________________________________________
GraceSchmidt,ActingCityClerkMarkSantoro, Mayor
582
ATTACHMENTB
.
Subject:City'spropertyonGreenleafDrive.
RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.11-____declaringpropertyassurplusand
authorizingCityManagertonegotiateandexecutecontracttosellproperty.
583
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10UPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2012
Subject
Authorize City Manager to conduct a Request for Qualifications process for tennis instruction at
the Cupertino Sports Center.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to conduct a Request for
Qualifications process for the provision of tennis instruction at the Cupertino Sports Center.
Description
Tennis instruction is an important program at the Cupertino Sports Center. It is very popular
with Sports Center members. In FY2010/2011, there were 5206 participant transactions and a
resulting profit for the Sports Center of $243,226
tennis instruction contractor since 1994. The partnership between Lifetime Tennis and the
Cupertino Sports Center has been a positive one. However, staff felt it prudent to conduct a
Request for Qualifications process to learn if other qualified providers might be interested in
submitting a proposal.
Discussion
A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process seeks to find the most qualified vendor for a
particular service. Once the most qualified vendor is found, negotiations will begin regarding an
agreement. Tennis instruction at the Cupertino Sports Center is a very important part of the
most qualified provider of tennis instruction possible.
The RFQ will be sent directly to all tennis instruction providers in northern California. The list
of providers has been developed by contacting other departments and agencies, and the
California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS). Staff will also post the RFQ on the Parks and
If Council approves this process, the RFQ will go out on January 18, 2012 with a due date of
February 1, 2012. Prospective providers that meet the qualifications will be interviewed and
references checked. Once a preferred provider is selected, staff will negotiate an agreement.
The agreement would return to Council for discussion and action in March 2012. The current
agreement expires June 30, 2012.
584
A copy of the Request for Qualifications is attached to this report as Attachment A. The RFQ
Sustainability Impact
N/A
Fiscal Impact
The Cupertino Sports Center is an enterprise fund and does not receive General Fund support.
The Sports Center is projected to generate $1,763,000 in revenue in FY 2011/12. With close to
$245,000 coming in from tennis instruction, it is a significant part of the overall revenue stream.
Therefore, it is important to have a viable tennis instruction program in place. Lifetime Tennis is
highly regarded and is already in negotiations with a neighboring city. Staff is has developed a
straightforward request for qualifications and a process that will move quickly. Staff is hopeful
that Lifetime Tennis will respond to the RFQ.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Mark Linder, Director, Parks and Recreation
Reviewed by: Donna Henriques, Administrative Assistant
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Attachment A Request for Qualifications
585
586
587
588
CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT
Meeting:January 17, 2012
Subject:Councilassignmentsforlocalandregional organizationsandagencies.
NOWRITTEN MATERIALSINPACKET
589