The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 11-03-03CITY OF CUPER TINO AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, November 3, 2003 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation declaring November 2-8 as Youth Appreciation Week in Cupertino, to be presented to the Cupertino and De Anza Optimist clubs. (Continued from October 6, 2003). 2. Proclamation presented to the Emergency Housing Consortium declaring the week of November 16 through 22, Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week in Cupertino. 3. Proclamation presented to the Cupertino Tournament of Bands. 4. Proclamation presented to Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jody Hansen. 5. Proclamation presented to Mahesh Nihalani in recognition of his support for the Chamber of Commerce Diwali Festival. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 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. 6. Approve the minutes from the October 17 and 20 City Council meetings. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 17 and 24, Resolution Nos. 03-197 and 03-198. 8. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for October 24,' Resolution No. 03-199. 9. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for September. 10. Adopt the State Resolution authorizing the investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). 11. Adopt a resolution approving the destruction of records from the Human Resources, Code Enforcement, and City Clerk's Department, which are in excess of two years old, Resolution No. 03-200. 12. Acknowledge a fee waiver expenditure of $9,631.16 for the Cupertino Rotary Club's facility use of portions of the Quinlan Community Center and Memorial Park, and staff costs for the 2003 Oktoberfest that was held on October 11 and 12. 13. Adopt a resolution accepting Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant allocation, Resolution No. 03-201. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Application Nos. Z-2002-03 and EA-2002-20, City of Cupertino, Linwood Acres, Randy Lane and Lan'y Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive, to rezone approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone. (Continued from October 20). First reading of Ordinance No. 1927: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning Sixty-Eight Parcels Totaling 19 Gross Acres From Al-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to the R1-A Single Family Residential District and Amending Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code." PLANNING APPLICATIONS November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 15. Initiate reorganization proceedings for temtory designated as Monta Vista 02-07 and set a public hearing date of December 15, 2003 to consider protests, Resolution No. 03-207. 16. Library/Civic Center Project: Review bids and award contract for the Civic Center Audio Visual Equipment and Installation contract to Ceitronics, the responsive and apparent low bidder, for a base bid of $631,738 and four alternates with a value of $179,007 for a total contract amount of $810,745 Review and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the First Amendment to the Agreement with Nova Partners in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for additional Construction Management services on the Library and Civic Center Project for a total Agreement amount of $1,150,000, Resolution No. 03-202 17. Friends of the Cupertino Library donation: Accept $75,000 from the Cupertino Library Foundation as donated by the Friends of the Cupertino Library Approve plaque recognizing $75,000 contribution by the Friends of Cupertino Library fro the Children's Story Room in the new Library 18. Consider establishing a policy embracing demographic diversity: Resolution No. 03-203 OR Resolution No.03-203 and 03-204 OR Resolution No. 03-205 19. Review bids and award contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks, Project No. 2003-01, to JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $397,400.00, and approve a contingent amount of up to $95,000.00 for additional work that may be identified in the second half of the fiscal year as approved by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $492,400.00. 20. Consider adopting a resolution amending Resolution No. 03-186 and endorsing the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA)'s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program and its Manual of Best Practices for integrating transportation and land use, Resolution No. 03-206. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 21. Authorize the City Manager to execute a $3,000 contract with our City auditors, Maze and Associates, to test compliance with City guidelines used in the approval of housing units to Below Market Rate (BMR) program participants by our subcontractor Cupertino Community Services (CCS). 22. Authorize the City Manager to execute a $29,000 contract with Public Resources Management Group (PRM), to conduct a Development Fee Study. 23. Review proposals for animal control services and direct staff to negotiate a contract for animal control services effective July 1, 2004. ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Michael Chang: Audit Committee Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee 5 C's Liaison Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Alternate Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Alternate Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and Managers Vice-Mayor Sandra James: Economic Development Committee Environmental Review Committee Alternate Leadership Cupertino Library Steering Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate Councilmember Patrick Kwok: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors Library Steering Committee Alternate Guadalupe/West Valley Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Lower Peninsula Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Sister City Committee - Toyokawa Alternate Councilmember Dolly Sandoval: Audit Committee Environmental Review Committee Legislative Review Committee 5 C's Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Task Force Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Alternate Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Alternate for 2004-2005 Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board Member (SVACA) Alternate Comtcilmember Richard Lowenthal: Association of Bay Area Governments (A.BAG) Alternate Economic Development Committee Guadalupe/West Valley Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Alternate Lower Peninsula Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Task Force Alternate Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Alternate Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board Member (SVACA) CLOSED SESSION 24. Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6. The purpose of the closed session is to consult with City management representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood, Ralph Qualls, and Sandy Abe concerning labor negotiations with Operating Engineer's Local No. 3. 25. Pending litigation -Govemment Code Section 54956.9(a), Golden vs. City of Cupertino regarding a pending claim. 26. Negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property - Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. ADJOURNMENT November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 6 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. 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. CITY OF CUPEP TINO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 20, 2003 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Michael Chang, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Patrick Kwok, Dolly Sandoval and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: none. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Public Works Director Ralph Quails, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Recreation Supervisor Christine Hanel, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation to mail carrier Marilyn Bonacurso in recognition of resourcefulness in saving the life of a Cupertino resident. Mayor Chang presented the proclamation. POSTPONEMENTS Item No. 8, rezoning Randy Lane and Larry Way, was continued to November 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sharon Kohlmannslehner, chairperson of the Faria School site council, presented a card created by the fifth grade students thanking the Council for the residential permit parking changes near their school. Lee Shodiss, 21412 Elm Court, thanked the Council for adding inlets to his street to limit flooding. He asked what contingency plans are available if that does not suffice. Public Works Director Ralph Quails said that if there were an extraordinary event, the City could make sandbags available. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Shing-Shwang Yao, 21441 Elm Court, said he appreciated the extra drains on Elm Court, and asked that the City engineering division and service center clean out the drains before the rainy season. Kathy Stakey, speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Library, said that it was a volunteer organization that raised money for the library primarily through book sales. As president of the Friends of the Library, she said they pledged $75,000 to help support the Cupertino Library and asked for a recognition plaque near the children's story room. The Council members expressed their appreciation for the generous donation and asked the City Manager to arrange for the formal acceptance of this gift. Doris Li, 10338 S. Stelling Road, said she had addressed Council last month regarding the trees removed to make way for a parking structure on DeAnza College. She said her associates were currently addressing that college's board of supervisors, but she was asking for help from the city of Cupertino about the additional traffic flowing onto Stelling Boulevard. Public Works Director Ralph Qualls explained that the City had responded to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) very directly, but those suggestions were largely ignored, and the project did not fall within the City's jurisdiction. Mayor Chang suggested that Ms. Li and the Public Works Director work together to explore other options. Councilmember Sandoval suggested additional Sheriff's patrols in the area to increase code enforcement. CONSENT CALENDAR Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item No. 2, which was pulled for discussion. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 3 and October 10, Resolution Nos. 03-189 and 03-190. 4. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for October 10, Resolution No. 03-191. Approve an application for an Alcoholic Beverage License, Green Valley Liquors, 10073 Saich Way (existing liquor store). 6. Heung Ser Park, a single man, Mercedes Road, APN 342-22-044: A. Approve an Improvement Agreement, Resolution No. 03-192 B. Approve a Quitclaim Deed, Resolution No. 03-193 C. Approve a Grant of Easement, roadway, Resolution No. 03-194 Accept municipal improvements (may include grading, street improvements, on site and off-site improvements): Jim Netzel and Zita S. Netzel, 10070 Hillcrest Road, APN 326- 16-019. (No documentation in packet). October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 2. Approve the minutes from the October 3 and 6 City Council meetings. Lowenthal asked for clarification on the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for December 1. The Council concurred to hold a speci{d meeting to install new members, a regular meeting to elect a new Mayor and Vice-Mayor and take action on any consent calendar items, and to hold a reception in the lobby at the end of that meeting. Lowenthal noted that the minutes of October 6 showed item No. 13, a budget adjustment for fountain repair at Quinlan Community Center, should have been continued to this meeting, but it was not on the agenda. The City Manager said the matter had been tabled because staff had found a different solution. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the October 3 and October 6 meetings. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Approve Application Nos. Z-2002-03 and EA-2002-20, City of Cupertino, Linwood Acres, Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive, to rezone approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to P (Al) Planned Developmem Zone. A Negative Declaration is recommended. (Continue to November 3 at the request of staff). James/Kwok moved and seconded to continue this item to November 3. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Approve Application No. MCA-2003-01 to amend Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding temporary signs, City of Cupertino, Citywide. First reading of Ordinance No. 1926: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 17.32 of the City's Ordinance Code Regarding Temporary Signs." Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that in 1997 Council had amended the sign ordinance to ban all temporary signs (including temporary political signs) from the public right-of-way and public property in order to eliminate visual clutter and to avoid the liability risks posed if such signs were allowed on public lands. He said the proposed amendment would limit temporary signs to residential and institutional districts (public parks, public schools, churches, government property, etc.). He listed the benefits of allowing signs in the right-of-way, which included better directional signage for garage sales, open houses, church events, and community events. He said the disadvantages October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 include increased clutter, increased code enforcement costs and liability exposure, and that signs may be placed in front of someone's house who does not agree with the content (such as a political sign). Council was given letters from the Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors supporting the ordinance and offering some minor changes. Jody Hansen, Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce, asked that the Council allow up to 6 signs. She said the Chamber would support lower sign profiles so that signs could be placed closer to the intersections. She said they would be agreeable to a 48 hour limit, and believed that signs have a positive value for the community. Natalie Cardenas, Government Affairs Officer for the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, thanked the Council for considering this change. She said they shared the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce and were in support of their recommended changes. Lyn Faust, 11033 Canyon Vista Drive, said she had supported changes to the sign ordinance in 1996 and had been pleased with the ban on signs in the public right-of-way in 1997. She said she was concerned about an increase in visual clutter and the impact on the code enforcement officers. She distributed 10 color photograph,s taken before the ban, showing political and other signs posted in various locations in the community. Gordon Frolich, 1202 Belknap Court, said that he had been on the final term of the Architectural and Site Approval Committee, and there had been many arguments back and forth about the sign ordinance. He recommended leaving the ordinance unchanged. Mark Burns, President of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said he was also speaking as a member of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Political Action Committee. He said that many neighborhoods in Cupertino would need up to 6 open house signs to properly direct drivers, because in spite of heavy advertising, it is signage that draws potential buyers. He noted that open house signs are typically 2 feet by 3 feet, and are up for about 5 hours. City Attorney Charles Kilian said that a 48 hour limitation would be acceptable for real estate signs, but would in effect prohibit political signs, and he said that all signs must be treated the same regardless of their content. James said she had originally voted against the ordinance which limited signs in the public right-of-way because of the disadvantage to realtors, and because the political signs provide a public service. She was in support of the Chamber's recommendations. Sandoval agreed that political signs were a valuable service, and asked for more clarification about whether staff could immediately remove improperly posted signs and charge for the expense. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Lowenthal said that he felt the most important reason to allow signs in the right-of-way would be to provide better signage to public events, so he would support the Chamber's recommendation with a 36-inch limit on the size of the signs. Kwok said he was not comfortable with thc current proposal, and the Chamber's recommendations needed more review. He suggested another public hearing to give the public more opportunity to address the issue before making any changes. Chang said he was sympathetic to the needs of the realtors and event promoters but had serious concerns about making any changes. He agreed that more discussion was needed, and if Council did decide to make changes, he would be more comfortable with signs of reduced size, a maximum of 30 inches from the ground, for a one-year trial period. He was concerned that political signs would be put in front of people's houses without permission. The City Attorney was asked if candidates could be required to obtain permission to post signs in the parking strip in from of homes. He said that he would be wary of a provision that would require candidates to request permission from private property owners in order to exercise their First Amendment rights. James/Kwok moved and seconded to refer the item back to staff to incorporate the Council's commems as well as considering the proposals by the Chamber of Commerce, and to arrange for a second public hearing on November 17. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. Consider amending the Joim Exemise of Powers Agreemem (JPA) creating the Silicon Valley Animal Control Amhority (SVACA) for voting and withdrawal changes. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report and explained that while the Council has voted to withdraw from SVACA at the end of the fiscal year, Cupertino remains a part of the JPA until then. She said this amendment would create an opportunity for all the member agencies to have a vote on the SVACA Board. Lowenthal asked that the record reflect the City Attorney's clarification of page 10-14, section 8.2.1, regarding the effective date, and section 6.1. The City Attorney explained that the effective date of withdrawal for the City of Cupertino is July 1, 2004. He said that section 6.1 protects the city because it has already approved and set a budget that Cupertino will have to pay for that year, and the JPA cannot increase the budget for the City unless the City independently votes to approve an increase. He said that without section 6.1 the city could be liable for the last 6 months of operation with the JPA for an unspecified amount of money based upon what the JPA October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 6 11. decides, so section 6.1 is the operative language that protects the city from being charged for additional costs. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the amendment to the JPA for SVACA for voting and withdrawal changes. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Adopt a resolution regarding the Marine Aquarium (Continued from 10/6/03), Resolution No. 03-195 to: Approve the concept of the installation of a Marine Aquarium of approximately 4,000 gallons in the new Cupertino Library and accept, in principle, a donation of $325,000 from Mr. Fred Chan for the fabrication and installation of the Aquarium and an additional contribution in the form of a commitment for five years of annual maintenance of the Aquarium facility and up to an additional five years of maintenance expenses to be shared equally with the City Approve the installation of a recognition Plaque in the Library with the Aquarium acknowledging the contribution of Fred and Annie Chan and their family, which will read as follows: "This Marine Aquarium was made possible by the contribution of Fred and Annie Chan and their family in loving memory of Mr. Pak Chung Chan." Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Mr. Fred Chan, to accept the donation and the maintenance commitment that states that the donation will be used exclusively for fabrication, installation, and construction expense for the aquarium Public Works Director Ralph Quails reviewed the staff report. Sandoval requested that the word, "maintenance" be added to the donation agreement. She also asked who would be in charge of the public donation effort to raise the other half of the maintenance costs after the initial 5 years. City Manager David Knapp said that it hadn't been defined yet at this point, but Council could designate who they wanted to do that. Public Works Director responded that the City Manager would be the one to recommend a course of action or process for the Council to approve. James said that Mr. Chan's feeling was that after the first 5 years, he wanted the City's residents and businesses to take on an active ownership of the project by having corporations sponsor the maintenance each year and having a place for children to put small change into. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 7 NEW 12. Chang requested that the phrase, that Mr. Chart agreed and is committed to paying up to half of the maintenance that is not raised by a public donation effort after the first 5 years, be repeated every time in the agreement and in the resolution. Quails responded that the wording on page 11-2 of the staff report, "Mr. Chan has further agreed to fund the entire cost of the annual maintenance of the aquarium for a period of 5 years and has committed to pay up to half of the maintenance that is not raised by a public donation effort," would be included in number 2 of the resolution. Linda Cervantes, head of the Santa Clara County Library system, said that she liked the location of the aquarium and has ideas about working with the school districts to find curriculum programs that engage marine life and to conduct class tours. She said that the aquarium would draw older students and community college students as well. James said that Apple Computer has agreed to provide interactive computer technology for the aquarium, which would be discussed at a later date. Chang recognized the Chan family's generosity in donating the aquarium. He mentioned that a reception would be held on Thursday, October 30 in the City Hall lobby at 4:00 p.m. to show the renderings of the aquarium and to acknowledge the donation. James/ Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-195. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. BUSINESS Presentation from the School Districts regarding attendance boundaries and projected number of students from new developments. (No documentation in packet. Continued from 10/6/03). Rick Hausman, Assistant Superintendent for Business Service for Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) gave a PowerPoint presentation covering the following points: · District Funding · Current District Configuration · Future Facility Plans · Enrollment Projections · Future Capacity for Growth · City/District Coordination He said that the district consists of 20 elementary schools (grades K-6) and 4 middle schools (grades 7 & 8) with space available for some 6th graders who volunteer to attend middle school. Some sites have excess capacity, and bussing is done from a few overcrowded sites to those with space. Hausman said their plans include opening a new elementary school in 2004, converting Collins to a 4th middle school in 2005, and moving all 6th graders to middles schools in October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 8 13. 2005. At that time, all but one elementary school will be under 600 students and they will still have excess leased sites (Luther & Serra) for potential future use. Hausman said they use a professional demographer that is very familiar with Silicon Valley and the South Bay, and an analysis is done regularly, with updates on a case-by- case basis as needed. He discussed the enrollment projections for 2003, as well as the district's future capacity for growth. He explained that shifting 6th graders to middle school in 2005 would leave approximately 30 classrooms vacant, which could accommodate approximately 750 students. Modular classrooms can be added as needed, and Luther and Serra leased sites are available as a back up, with a minimum of 40 classrooms. He said that the Cupertino Union School district reviews all residential plans and that he felt confident that the school district knows what the future impacts will be. Council thanked Mr. Hausman for his thorough report and directed staff to reschedule a presentation with the high school district. Review and approve mid-year budget adjustments for fiscal year 2003/04: Authorize transferring $60,000 of one-time year-end savings to establish the FY 2002-2003 Sports Center project budget of $2,400,000, as originally approved, and transferring $70,000 of one-time year-end savings, to increase the project budget to $2,470,000. Approve an increase in the project construction contingency authorization from $138,000 to $208,000 within the proposed budget of $2,470,000. Approve a fiscal year 2003/04 budget adjustment for the operation of the Cupertino Teen Center in the amount of $40,000. See attached staff report Authorize the use of $20,000 of year-end savings to provide for the funding of additional costs associated with the "top four" Operating Engineer's Local Number 3 (OE3) requirement based on newly submitted salary figures from San Jose Authorize the use of $80,000 of year-end savings to provide for the funding of unforeseen disciplinary actions and general liability claims Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed the staff report, and explained that the preliminary close for the fiscal year 2002/2003 shows the General Fund with an unexpected savings of approximately $270,000 over budget projects as a result of salary and benefit savings realized from a selective hiring freeze and also by reducing expenditures in all departments. She said this amount is over and above the $10 million Economic Uncertainty Reserve. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and to approve the mid-year budget adjustments. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 9 14. Adopt a resolution approving the second anaendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Los Altos Garbage Company dated December 4, 1995, in order to make clear the "debris box" definition, Resolution No. 03-196. City Attorney Charles Kilian explained that the amendment clarifies the definition of "debris box" and "container". Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-196. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 15. Select an altemate to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) board. Council concurred to appoint Council member Dolly Sandoval as the alternate to the board for the two-year term beginning January 8, 2004. RECESS Council recessed from 10:00 p.m. to 10:12 p.m. ORDINANCES 16. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1924: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning One Parcel Totaling .31 Gross Acres Parcel From P (Planned Development/With Limited Commercial/Office Use Activity) Zone to P (Planned Development/With Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity) at 10650 Bubb Road." James/Sandoval moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1924. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 17. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1925: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 14.04, Section 14.04.040, Relating to Street Improvement Requirements, and Chapter 18.32, Section 18.32.030, Relating to Subdivision Frontage Improvements to Include Findings for Adoption of a Rural or Semi-Rural Street Designation." James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1925. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 10 STAFF REPORTS 18. Receive a status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures. (No documentation in packet). Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood said that to date ending September 30, revenues are down by over a million dollars in the first 3 months. She said that was attributable to sales tax being down by $335,000 and a portion of the vehicle license fee tax ($759,000) that had been borrowed by the state, which is to be paid back in 2006. She said that departments are keeping expenditures down, and are under budget at this point by $104,000. She said that the City has $3 million in the general fund from vehicle license fees, which is about 10% of the general fund, and it goes to pay for general services like police and library. She said that if that revenue is lost, the City would have to cut services and workforce immediately. 19. Receive a monthly status report on the Cupertino Civic Center and Library Project. Public Works Director Ralph Quails narrated a videotape showing the steel framing and foundation work that has taken place on the community hall. He said the library building plumbing is done, the foundations have begun, and they will begin steel work in early November. He said that Council will be awarding bids for audiovisual equipment at the November 3 Council meeting. Chang said that the Cupertino Library Foundation has renewed its commitment to raise funds. Council concurred that Chang and Lowenthal should meet with staff and the Foundation representatives to discuss the next steps in the fundraising plan. COUNCIL REPORTS Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events, including the following: The Walk to End Domestic Violence; Walk to School Day for Collins School; and offer by the Cities Association to work with Governor Schwarzenegger on the transition taking place at State government; a walkathon for Self Help for the Elder; a report about ethnic and youth performances being the fastest-growing events at the Flint Center; the celebration for the World Journal's new offices; the Rotary Candidate's Forum; the 1st annual Diwali Indian Festival in Cupertino; the Tournament of Bands; the Payvand Cultural event; a meeting with Cupertino Community Services and local churches for Faith in Action; and a recent Council teambuilding session. CLOSED SESSION 20. Labor negotiations -Govemment Code Section 54957.6. The purpose of the closed session is to consult with City management representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood, Ralph Quails, and Sandy Abe concerning labor negotiations with Operating Engineer's Local No. 3. October 20, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 11 At 10:24 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session. At 10:48 p.m. Council reconvened, and the City Attorney announced that Council had directed its representatives to proceed along the lines discussed in closed session. ADJOURNMENT At 10:48 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. RESOLUTION NO. 03-197 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCREBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 17, 2003. WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino lO/16/o3 kCCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO CNRCK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" CUE ACCT CEECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 602189 V 07/03/03 1432 C~ILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUS 5806349 1020 604309 1020 604309 1020 604309 TOTAL CHECK 10/17/03 1695 3M 2708405 10/17/03 1695 3M 2708405 10/17/03 1695 3M 2708405 1020 604310 10/17/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 604310 10/17/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 604310 10/17/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 604310 10/17/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 604310 10/17/03 4 A T & T 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604311 1020 604311 TOTAL CHECK 10/17/03 2259 A-1 FENCE, INC. 1108312 10/17/03 2259 A-I FENCE, INC. 1108302 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1820 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 1020 604312 10/17/03 9 TOTkL CHECK ABAG POWER PURC"HASING PO 1108501 ABAG POWER PURC~LkSING PO 1108509 ~%BAG POWER PURCH~ING PO 1108507 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108508 ~AG POWER PURC~LASING PO 5708510 ~AG POWER PI/RC~iASING PO 1108505 ABAG POWER PURCHASING P0 1108504 ABAG POWER PL~CHASING PO 5606620 ABAG POWER PURC}iASING PO 1108503 ABAG POWER PURCI4ASING PO 1108506 1020 604313 10/17/03 13 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 1020 604314 10/17/03 28 AIRGA~ NCN 1108314 1020 604314 10/17/03 28 AIRGAS NCqq 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 804315 10/17/03 2276 AJ~P~A 5706450 1020 604315 10/17/03 2278 ALI43~P~A 1104510 1028 684315 18/17/03 2276 AL~P~ 1104510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604316 10/17/03 1795 ~%LL CHEM SUPPLY CO INC 5208003 1020 604318 10/17/03 1795 ALL CHEM SUPPLY CO INC 5208003 1020 604316 10/17/03 1795 ALL CHEM SUPPLY CO INC 8208003 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604317 18/17/03 2319 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERV 1108201 1020 604318 10/17/03 2330 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPP 6308840 1020 604319 10/17/03 2849 AMERICAZ~ LEGAL PUBLISHIN 1101500 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SUeR SCIENCE 8/25 PAGE 1 0.00 -315.00 PAVEMENT MJkRKER 8.00 1636.74 YELLOW GREEN SNEETING 0.00 2386.72 YELLOW GREEN SHEETING 0.00 2119.00 0.00 6142.86 OCT2003 STATEMENT OCT2003 STATEMENT OCT2003 STATEMENT OCT2003 STATEMENT OCT2003 STATEMENT INSTALL PERMANENT FENC INSTALL NEW FENCE AT M OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEME~TT OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMEBTF OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMENT OCT 2003 STATEMENT FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC EMPLOYEE DRINKING WTR EMPLOYEE BOTTLED WTR EMPLOYEE BOTTLED WTR SUPPLIES ;{25025 SUPPLIES 17438 SUPPLISS A25025 0.00 37.59 0.80 20.21 0.00 20.21 0.00 20.21 0.00 20.15 0.00 118.37 0.00 950.00 0.00 650.00 0.00 1600.00 0.00 947.88 0.00 44.73 0.00 277.18 0.00 41.85 0.00 468.26 0.00 177.29 0.00 172.83 0.00 40.48 0.00 79.24 0.00 119.72 0.00 24.30 0.00 247.50 0.00 160.80 0.00 432.60 0,00 46.35 0.00 23.18 0.00 75.56 0.00 145.09 OCTOBER 2003 SERVICES 0.00 7254.46 SUPPLIES 15150 0.00 114.37 CODE OF ORDINANCES 0.00 i000.00 RUN DA~ 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:58 10/16/03 CITY OF C%3PERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOL~ING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBL~RSEMENT FL~ND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.trans_date between .10/13/2003- and "10/17/2003- F~ - 110 - GENEPOkL FUND 1020 604319 10/17/03 2849 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604320 10/17/03 44 ~4ERIC3%N RED CROSS 1104400 1020 604321 10/17/03 46 ~kNACOMP INC 1108101 1020 604322 18/17/03 57 ~%P~K 1104610 1020 604322 10/17/03 57 ~K 1104510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604323 10/17/03 M ~GUELLES, F/tBIOL~ 580 1020 604324 10/17/03 59 ;~RNE SIGN CO 2708405 1020 604325 10/17/03 M Apel, Marjorie 550 1020 604326 10/17/03 968 BAP AUTO P~RTS 6308840 1020 604326 10/17/03 968 BAP AL~TO PkRTS 6308840 1020 604326 10/17/03 968 BAP A[7~O PARTS 6308840 1020 604326 10/17/03 968 BAP ALTTO PkRTS 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604327 10/17/03 1460 TONI C~RREIRO 5609112 1020 604327 10/17/03 1460 TONI CARHEIRO 1101065 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604328 10/17/03 146 CASH 1101065 1020 604328 10/17/03 146 C~kSH 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1820 604329 10/17/03 148 C~H 1108503 1020 604329 10/17/03 148 CHSH 1108503 1020 604329 10/17/03 148 CASH 2708404 1020 604329 10/17/03 148 C-~H 1108303 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 CASH 1104000 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 CASH 1104100 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 C~H 1104100 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 ClkSH 1104400 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 CASH 1107301 1020 604330 10/17/03 149 C~H 2204011 TOTkL CHECK 1020 604331 10/17/03 151 C~DW COMPDTER CE~ERS 1103300 1020 604332 10/17/03 1820 CERIDI~%N BENEFITS SERVIC 110 1020 604333 10/17/03 2626 C~L~G, CHEN-YA 1103300 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... CODE OF ORDINANCES CERTIFICATION FEE TONER A25023 EMPLOYEE COFFEE SERV EMPLOYEE COFFEE SERV Refund: Check - Refund RESIDE~IAL P~kRKING ST Refund: Check - Southe FY 2003 2004 OPEN PCHC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLTRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PI/RC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC WEBSITE UPDATES WEBSITE UPDATES PETTY CASH 9/29-10/09 PETTY CASH 9/29-10/09 PETTY CASH 10/03408 PETTY C~H 10/03-08 PETTY C3%SH 10/03-08 PETTy CASH 10/03-08 PETTY CASH 10/7-10/13 PETTY CASH 10/7-10/13 PETTY CASH 10/7-10/13 PETTY CASH 10/7-10/13 PETTY CASH 10/7-10/13 PET~f CASH 10/7-10/13 ~OBE ACROBAT V6.0 HP SEPT03 MED/DEP CLIPPING SERV SEPT03 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 2000.00 3000.00 80.00 441.95 147.85 166.76 314.61 80.00 1925.76 175.00 74.78 51.70 48.00 25.92 200.40 33.80 737.75 771.55 25.97 251.22 277.19 38.50 38.42 66.57 5.47 148.96 35.00 31.16 15.00 25.99 50,49 12.96 170.62 296,45 63.00 200.00 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:58 - FIN~kNCIAL ACCOL~ING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD~ 4/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" FLrND - 110 - GENER3%L FI/ND 1020 604334 10/17/03 2769 CHARLES M SALTER ASSOCIA 4239222 1020 604335 10/17/03 M CHEN, YI 580 1020 604336 10/17/03 1432 CHILDREN'S DISCOVERY MUS 5806349 1020 604337 10/17/03 1453 CHRISTOPHERS CA~PET SERV 1108501 1020 604338 10/17/03 1612 B~HIE D COATE 110 1020 604336 10/17/03 1612 BARRIE D COATE 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604339 10/17/03 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5708450 1020 604340 10/17/03 2857 CONCI/R INC 2159620 1020 604341 10/17/03 1130 TNE COURT WORKS 5706450 1020 604341 10/17/03 1130 THE COURT WORKS 5706450 I020 604341 10/17/03 1130 THE COURT WORKS 5706450 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604342 10/17/03 1407 CLUING HENDERSON TIRE 6308840 1020 604342 10/17/03 1407 CLUING HENDERSON TIRE 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604343 10/17/03 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1104510 1020 604344 1020 604344 1020 604344 1020 604344 1020 604344 TOTAL CHECK 10/17/03 194 10/17/03 194 10/17/03 194 10/17/03 194 10/17/03 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108315 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108303 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108503 1020 604345 1020 604345 1020 604345 TOTAL C"HECK 10/17/03 209 10/17/03 209 10/17/03 209 DE JkNZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 1020 604346 1020 804346 TOTAL CHECK 10/17/03 1242 10/17/03 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1108201 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1108101 1020 604347 10/17/03 220 DISCOUNT SC"HOOL SUPPLY 5806349 1020 604348 10/17/03 1958 DISPENSING TECHI%OLOGY 2708403 604349 i0/17/03 1912 ELESCO:EStERGENCY LIGHTIN 1108504 604350 10/17/03 1949 EVE/TI SERVICES 1108503 1020 1020 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX CONS~iUCTION ADMINISTR 0.00 Refund: Check - FALL # REPL CK602189 LOST 0,00 CARPET REPAIRS 0.00 R#23222 ON-SITE SURVY TREE REPORTS R#22544 0.00 0.00 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 9/17 - 10/10/03 0.00 DURA SCREENS 0.00 DLLRASCREENS 0.00 CASTER WHEELS 0.00 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 0.00 297.50 315.00 120.00 853.70 627.45 1481.15 252.85 12034.25 246.14 1033.18 21.40 1300.72 291.12 2159.40 2450.52 PHYSICAL/N.MATFIOR 0.00 98.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pLIRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 200342004 0PSN PURC CARPETS/LOBBY/CHAMBER CARPETS/LAW ENFORCEMT SPECIAL/CONFER PJM QC B.CAP~S/J.BISELY B.CARDS/C.LYNAUGH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUPPLIES A25605 HONDA LINE REMOVER CPM SUPPLIES RENTAL 9/01-9/30/03 98.85 98.85 98,86 96.85 438.54 280.00 95.00 186.00 561.00 57.21 68.04 125.25 179.31 5039.42 101.56 162.38 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/13/2003" and "1Q/17/2003. CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604351 10/17/03 280 FEDEP~ EXPRESS CORP 4259313 1020 604351 10/17/03 260 FEDE~ EXPRESS CORP 6308840 1020 60~351 10/17/03 260 FEDERJtL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 1020 604351 10/17/03 260 FEDER~J~ EXPRESS CORP 110 1020 604351 10/17/03 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 1020 604351 10/17/03 260 FEDER3tL EXPRESS CORP 1101000 1020 604351 10/17/03 260 FEDEP~ EXPRESS CORP 1101031 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604352 10/17/03 2558 FEET FIRST ENTERTAINME~TT 5806349 1020 604353 10/17/03 2619 GENEVIEVE FIRE 2308004 1020 604353 10/17/03 2619 GENEVIEVE FIRE 2308004 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604354 10/17/03 2271 FLI~ T93%DING COMP~ 2708404 1020 604355 10/17/03 268 1020 604355 10/17/03 268 TOTAL CHECK FOSTER BROS SEC~q{ITY SYS 1108501 FOSTER BROS SECURIT~Z SYS 1108508 1020 604356 10/17/03 2719 GCS SERVICE, INC. 1108505 1020 604357 10/17/03 ME2004 GLEAVES, AIMEE 1100000 1020 604358 10/17/03 298 GR3%INGER INC 1108830 1020 604358 10/17/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108830 1020 604358 10/17/03 298 GP~INGER INC 1108501 1020 604358 10/17/03 298 GP~INGER INC 1108504 1020 604358 10/17/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108504 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604359 10/17/03 2500 TER~RY GREENE 4239222 1020 604360 10/17/03 899 GUZZARDO & ASSOCIATES IN 4259313 1020 604361 10/17/03 2535 ROBERT L ~L~Od~ISON 110 1020 604362 10/17/03 2565 HER/~ING U~qDERGHOUND SUPP 1108830 1020 604363 10/17/03 M2004 HO~X~G, PETER 110 1020 604364 10/17/03 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF 2708405 1020 804364 10/17/03 334 HOB~R DEPOT/GECF 5606620 TOT~ CHECK 1020 604365 10/17/03 1898 AL~TOMATIC RAIN CO. 1108315 1020 604366 10/17/03 M2004 I I M C 1104300 1020 604367 10/17/03 341 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 5806449 DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT COURIER SERV C.WATER 0.00 14.47 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 13.20 COUEIER SERVICE 0.00 18.20 COI3RIER SERVICE 23198 0.00 16.34 COURIER SERVICE 23277 0.00 15.64 COI/RIER SERVICE 0.00 14.47 COUEIER SERVICE 0.00 14.47 0.00 106.79 D~=NCE 10/17 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 380,00 1020.00 1805.00 2825.00 1150.10 168.00 168.01 336.01 REPAIRS/F~/q 0.00 543.95 REPL CK70816 LOST 0.00 229.65 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003 2004 OPEN P~/RC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PI/RC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 P~TS/SUPPLIES 0.00 0.00 95.76 278.4I 17.66 25.73 46.63 464.I9 AQUARIUM DEV MTG 0.00 72.79 PUBLIC WOR~S CONTP~CT 0.00 4330.06 TI~AFFIC S~3DY 0.00 3450.00 SUPPLIES A25249 0.00 303.10 REFD ENCROACH BOND 0.00 6100.00 PAJ~TS/SUPPLIES A25229 0.00 193.63 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15972 0.00 98.72 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 1173.95 RENEWAL G.JOHNSON 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2772.00 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 10/16/03 CITY OF C73PERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604368 10/17/03 995 1020 604368 10/17/03 995 TOTI~L CHECK 1020 604369 10/17/03 1981 1020 604370 10/17/03 M 1020 504371 10/17/03 3061 1020 604372 10/17/03 371 1020 604373 10/17/03 373 1020 604374 10/17/03 2550 1020 604375 10/17/03 386 1020 604375 10/17/03 386 1020 604375 10/17/03 386 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604376 10/17/03 2999 1020 604376 10/17/03 2999 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604377 10/17/03 M 1020 604378 10/17/03 M 1020 604379 10/17/03 M2004 1020 604380 10/17/03 2514 1020 604381 10/17/03 M 1020 604382 10/17/03 1463 1020 604383 10/17/03 1968 1020 604384 10/17/03 1868 1020 604384 10/17/03 1668 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604385 10/17/03 M2004 1020 604386 10/17/03 2405 1020 604387 10/17/03 866 1020 604388 10/17/03 471 INSERV COMPAJ~Y 1108504 INSERV COMPA~ 1108501 I~ERSTATE TP~FIC CONTR 2708405 IRWIN, SUSAN 560 KI~4ERLE BROS., INC. 6308840 LISA KING 5806449 KIRK XPEDX 1104310 Y~EINES & Fd{EINES, INC. 1107302 MICTL~EL L~ 110 MIC~LkEL I~ 5806649 MICF~L I~ 5806649 LESCO 1108315 LESCO 1108315 LIAO, SAM 580 LIU, JU-CRING 580 LIVE OAK ADULT DAY SERVI 2607404 LOS ALTOS G~P~BAGE 5208003 Lee, Cynthia 550 MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BO 6308840 MAZE A~ ASSOCIATES 1104000 METRO MOBILE CO~4UNICATI 1108501 METRO MOBILE COF~3NICATI 1108501 MIDPENINSULA CITIZENS 2607404 CHRIS MORTON 5806449 MPA DESIGN 4209119 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN 6308840 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 5 AMOUNT WATER IRTME~fT OCT03 0.00 211.63 WATER TRTMENT OCT03 0.00 211.63 0.00 423.26 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINAMCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CIT"f OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" FUND ~ 110 - GENERAL FL~TD CASE ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT PAGE 6 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 604389 10/17/03 2639 NOVA PART~ERS 1NC 4239222 1020 604390 10/17/03 M Nilson, Grace 550 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 I020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806349 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104000 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806349 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108265 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806449 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104400 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1106300 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 2204011 1020 604391 10/I7/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 1020 604391 10/17/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCFLARD SUPPLY 5606640 I020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCFARD SUPPLY 5606640 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCHID SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCq~ARD SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORC~D SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORC~LARD SUPPLY 5606620 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606640 1020 604392 10/17/03 503 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606620 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604393 10/17/03 1220 ORC~L~ SUPPLY ~U~qDWARE 1108503 1020 604393 10/17/03 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108503 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604394 10/17/03 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 1102401 1020 604395 10/17/03 M OZAWA, N~CY 580 1020 604396 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604396 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604396 10/17/03 833 P 5 R S 110 1020 604396 10/17/03 833 F E R S 110 PUBLIC WORKS CON/~{ACT 0.00 60911.83 Refund: Check - Southe 0.08 175.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 26.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 21.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 254.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 69.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 13.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 187.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 143.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 52.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 55.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 46.43 COFFEE 0.00 43.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 384.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 160.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 38.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 38.96 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 144.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 84.69 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 39.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 32.44 0.00 1915.53 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PCRC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PCRC ON-TIME DISCO[/N~ 9/26 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PCRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC ON-TIME DISC 9/26 PARTS/SUPPLIES CARGOSPORT 8 WIDE TAG Ref%led: Check - Return PERS EMPLOYEE PERS EMPLOYER PERS 1959 PERS BYBK 0.00 14.59 0.00 3.03 0.00 12.20 0.00 61.40 0.00 -8.95 0.00 -5.76 0.00 286.94 0.00 10.80 0.00 41.08 0.00 417.26 0.00 -4.38 0.00 8.64 0,00 4.26 0.00 12448.75 0.00' 300.00 0.00 26146.52 0.00 7121.29 0.00 117.18 0.00 462.65 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FIN~CIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "10/13/2003,, and "10/17/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604396 1020 604398 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604397 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604397 10/17/03 833 P E R S 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604398 10/17/03 510 P.D.M. STEEL 1104400 1020 604399 10/17/03 513 1020 604399 10/17/03 513 1020 604399 I0/17/03 513 1020 604399 I0/17/03 513 1020 604399 10/17/03 513 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604400 10/17/03 515 1020 604401 10/17/03 526 1020 608401 10/17/03 526 1020 604401 10/17/03 526 1020 604401 10/17/03 526 1020 604401 10/17/03 526 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604402 10/17/03 690 1020 604403 10/17/03 M2004 1020 604404 10/17/03 545 1020 604405 10/17/03 559 1020 604406 10/17/03 M2004 1020 604407 10/17/03 M 1020 604408 10/17/03 570 1020 604408 10/17/03 M 1020 604410 10/17/03 M 1020 604411 10/17/03 601 1020 604412 10/17/03 2269 1020 604413 10/17/03 621 1020 604414 10/17/03 2224 PACIFIC G~ & ELECTRIC ( 5606620 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 5606620 PACIFIC G~ & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108602 PACIFIC WEST SECLTRITY IN 1108504 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSU~ DIGITAL IMAGIN II0 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSLrL~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSUI~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSULA FORD 6308840 PEPpERMILL, INC. 110 JEFF PISERC~IO 5606640 PROJECT SENTINEL 1107405 PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE G 1100000 Pawell, Virginia 550 RADIOSHACK CORP 1106265 PAGE 7 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PERS SPEC O.O0 I59.08 PERS BYBK 0.00 I23.70 O.O0 34130.42 PERS EMPOLOYEE 0.00 216.60 PERS EMPLOYER 0.00 56.64 0.00 275.24 SUPPLIES 0.00 185.29 8/27-9/26 0.00 4.51 8/27-9/26 0.00 130.80 8/27-9/26 0.00 5.41 8/27 9/26 0.00 -116.48 7/22-9/30 0.00 21.61 0.00 45.85 SERVICE C3%LL 9/29 0.00 180.00 CC&L IMPROVE pLANS 0.00 97.90 IMPROVEMENT PLANS 0.00 238.53 CC&L IMPROVE PLANS 0.00 700.82 CC&L IMPROVE PI2%NS 0.00 591.21 CC&L IMPROVE PLANS 0.00 385.15 0.00 2013.61 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLrRC 0.00 10.57 REFD TEMPORARY SIGN 0.00 100.00 I0/01-10/14 SERVICES 0.00 1956.00 7/01-9/30-03 0.0O 6250.00 VILL~% SERRA REFUND 0.0O 2116.00 Refund: Check - Southe 0.00 175.00 FUSES 25423 0.00 8.06 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 84.00 Reflind: Check - REFUND 0.00 100.00 SUPPLIES A25257 0.00 338.57 3 COLL~ 3" DISPLAy 9/ 0.00 756.00 ADS 9/5-7, 9/12-14 0.00 89.60 NEG DECIJ~RATION (2} 0,00 100.00 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... 1020 604415 10/I7/03 633 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 1020 604415 10/17/03 633 SANTA CL4%RA COUNTY 5KERI 5606620 1020 604415 10/17/03 633 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604416 10/17/03 1150 SAVIN CORPORATION 5806249 1020 604416 10/17/03 1150 SAVSN CORPORATION 5706450 1020 604416 I0/17/03 1150 SAVIN CORPORATION 5806349 1020 604416 10/17/03 1150 SAVIN CORPORATION 5806449 1020 604416 10/17/03 1150 SAVIN CORPORATION 1104310 1020 604416 10/17/03 1150 SAVIN CORPORATION 5506549 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604417 10/17/03 2875 SAVIN CREDIT CORP 1104310 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI I161000 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SEC/MCI 1102100 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101500 1020 604420 10/17/03 51I SBC/MCI 1104300 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1103300 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1103500 1020 604420 10/17/03 51I SBC/MCI 1104000 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104100 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104200 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SEC/MCI 1104510 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SEC/MCI 1104530 1020 604420 10/17/03 911 SBC/MCI 1104400 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106100 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106529 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106500 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107200 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101200 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107302 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107501 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107502 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107503 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108001 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108101 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108102 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108501 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108503 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108507 1020 604820 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 BEF OCT 04, 2003 BBF SEPT 27, 2003 BBF SEPT 21, 2003 1-5060106 8/8-11/8/03 1-5060106 8/8-11/8/03 1-5060106 8/8-11/8/03 1/5060106 8/8-11/8/03 1-5060106 8/9-11/8/03 1-5060106 8/8 11/8/03 J0131303354 NOV2003 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPRONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPRONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPRONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE EERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 677.08 0.00 677.08 0.00 338.54 0.00 1692.70 0.00 1589.91 0.00 355.98 0.00 372.59 0.00 296.65 0.00 2135.66 0.00 1423.91 0.00 6174.90 0.00 114.66 0.00 191.86 0.00 159.89 0.00 351.75 0.00 284.24 0.00 63.95 0.00 95.93 0.00 95.93 0.00 191.86 0.00 95.93 0.00 191.86 0.00 31.98 0.00 223.84 0.00 95.93 0.00 223.84 0.00 95.93 0.00 511.63 0.00 95.94 0.00 31.96 0.00 383.72 0.00 95.93 0.00 287.79 0.00 95.93 0.00 63.95 0.00 127.91 0.00 415.70 0.00 31.98 0.00 127.91 0.00 159.89 0.00 302.00 0.00 31.98 0.00 95.93 0.00 716.06 0.00 861.43 0.00 63.95 0.00 319.77 RUN DATE 10/I6/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINANCIAL ACCOI/NTING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO pAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~ransdate between "I0/13/2003" and "10/17/2oo3" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5706450 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108601 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108602 1820 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5208003 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 2308004 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5708510 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108201 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SHC/MCI 6104800 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606640 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 604420 10/17/63 511 SBC/MCI 1108511 1020 604420 10/17/53 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1520 604420 10/17/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108407 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604421 10/17/03 511 SHC/MCI 1108507 1020 604422 10/17/03 3049 SELECT ONE TRkNSPORT 6308840 1020 604423 10/17/03 2189 SETNESS TOURS 5506549 1020 604424 10/17/03 M SHIN, MJ%RC 560 1025 604425 10/17/03 2051 SIADAT ENTERPRISES, INC. 6308840 1020 604426 10/17/53 3020 SIGNS GP~PHICS 1106265 1020 604427 10/17/03 2383 SILICON VALLEY J~NIS~L CO 1104530 1020 604428 10/17/03 2217 SKYLINE PURLISHING COMPA 6308840 1020 604429 10/17/03 2810 SFtART & FINAL 5506549 1020 604430 10/17/03 2320 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 6308840 1020 604430 10/17/03 2320 SNAP-ON IArDUSTRIJ~L 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604431 10/17/03 200 LESLIE SOEOL DBA DAJ~CEKI 5806449 1020 604432 10/17/03 1116 SO~Y ELEC~fRONICS INC 1103500 1020 604433 10/17/03 671 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHIN 4239222 1020 604434 10/17/03 2549 STATE OF C~LLIFORNIA 110 i020 604435 10/17/03 2045 SVCN 1020 604435 10/17/03 2045 SVCN 1020 604435 10/17/03 2045 SVCTg 1020 604435 10/17/03 2045 SVC~ 1104300 1104300 1104300 1104300 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX TELEPNONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHON~ SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV AUG03 0.00 0.00 383.72 95.93 127.91 31.98 255,82 221.04 159.89 31.98 63.95 287.79 63.95 31.52 14.89 9625.6I #5170211 8/01 9/27 0.00 15.20 TP~ANSPORT 4 RAV4 EV FR 0.00 1200.00 TRIP NOV 01-03 0,00 7000.00 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 300.00 CAR WASHES 9/01-30 0.00 221.00 LOBBY DIRECTORY BUILT 0.0O 3786.59 2ND QTR 2003/04 FY 0.00 57678.70 RENWL FLEET MANAGEM~T 0.00 195.00 SUPPLIES 7253 0.00 118.74 SUPPLIES 24160 0.00 29.70 SUPPLIES 24160 0.00 13.10 0.00 42.80 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 P~J~TS/SUPPLIES i6471 CANNON IR2010F COPIER 0.60 2932.46 177.46 351.81 50.00 41.25 38.50 44.00 38.50 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transac~.trans_da~e between "10/13/2003" and "10/17/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FIOND ..... DESCRIPTION ...... FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR HOSE ASSY GEOTEC~ICAL SERVICE F GEOTECH~ICAL SERVICE F GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE F GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE F REF: 799170 RETLrRN SAFETY GLASSES TR3~NSLATE 8/31-9/20 #308957246 SEPT2003 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Southe REFD DEV MAINT FEE FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES A25206 RENTAL OF TRAILERS UM2 RENTAL OF TP. AILERS L~42 Refund: Check - Return REFD: 234906 & 234907 Refund: Check - USS PO SOCIALS/BIRTHDAY LNCN PAGE RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME I3:13:99 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/16/03 CITY OF ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/1~/2003" and "i0/17/2003', PUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VEArDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION TOTAL REPORT PAGE SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 359761.73 RUN DATE 10/16/03 TIME 13:13:59 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 24, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 10/23/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD~ 4/04 C~£CK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT ~OND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003" FI~ - 110 - GENER3%L FU~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604449 V 10/17/03 M WRENSCH, DEL~ 580 1020 604453 10/24/03 2679 /ETC/NET~ORKS 6104800 1020 604454 10/24/03 M ABDOLL4MqI, MORTEZA 580 1020 604455 10/24/03 2825 AC~EMIC CHESS 5806349 1020 604456 10/24/03 2978 ~%LLIN CORPORATION OF CA.L6109856 1020 604457 10/24/03 M ARGUELLES, FASBIOLA 580 1020 604458 10/24/03 M B/I~TWA, I~ 580 1020 604459 10/24/03 2889 BAY CONSTRUCTION INC 4209119 1020 604460 10/24/03 1731 ROGER BERRY 1163300 1020 604461 10/24/03 M BFLAyANI, ARPITA 580 1020 604462 10/24/03 867 BRI/tN KA-NGAS FOULK 2709430 1020 604463 10/24/03 1476 C~ON DESIGN GROUP 110 1020 604463 10/24/03 1476 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 1020 604463 10/24/03 1476 C~ON DESIGN GROUP 110 1020 604463 10/24/03 1476 C3%RNON DESIGN GROUP 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604464 10/24/03 2232 CARIAGA. LOURDES 110 1020 604464 10/24/03 2232 CARIAC~, LOLTRDES 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 CASH 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 CASH 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 CASH 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 CASH 1020 604465 10/24/03 149 CASH TOTAL CHECK 1020 604466 10/24/03 1057 1020 604466 i0/24/03 1057 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604467 10/24/03 1156 1020 604468 10/24/03 2871 1020 604469 10/24/03 1363 1104400 1101000 1101200 5208003 2204010 1107301 1104510 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDI~N BENEFITS SERVIC 110 JACKSON CHOW CLEAN SOURCE 5806349 5208003 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX Refund: Check - Return CHECKPOINT ENTERPRISE Refund: Check - RETURN SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR WINDOW 2000 MIGP~TION CUPERTINO RM DEPOSIT REFDS 236275 & 236331 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - FALL; P.O.~00030281 C~MqRYOVE ~M~CHITECT RV!4 #23198 ACHITECT RVW #20739 ARCHITECT RVW #20247 ]%RCHITECT RVW #22544 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTY CASH 10/15-22 PETTy CASH 10/15-22 *FLEX DEP/240125 *FLEX HLTH/240125 CFA SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 21981 PAGE 1 AMOUNT 0.00 -750.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 6594.67 0,00 13000.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 409.00 0.0O 72653.77 0.00 4500.00 O,O0 2600,00 0.00 507.40 0.00 240.00 0.00 230.00 0.00 250.00 0.00 120.00 0.00 840.00 0.00 306.50 0.00 103.64 0.00 410 . 34 O,O0 42.80 0.00 10,00 0.00 84.40 0,00 52.53 0.00 44.69 0.00 36.58 0.00 15.98 0,00 286.98 O.OO 349.94 0.00 522.42 0.00 872.36 0, O0 129,85 0.00 5441.34 O.OO 25.09 RUB DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:45 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604470 1020 604470 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 10/24/03 1612 BARRIE D COATE 18/24/03 1612 BARRIE D COATE 110 1020 604471 10/24/03 178 1020 604471 10/24/03 178 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604472 10/24/03 3032 1020 604472 10/24/03 3032 TOT/%L CHECK COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SER 4269212 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SER 4239222 1020 604473 10/24/03 187 ~4ARY J CP~WFORD 5806349 1020 604473 10/24/03 187 ~t~qy J CRAWFORD 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604474 10/24/03 2866 1020 604475 10/24/03 M 1020 604476 10/24/03 210 1020 604477 10/24/03 676 I020 604478 10/24/03 2795 1020 604479 10/24/03 M 1020 604480 10/24/03 242 1020 604481 10/24/03 243 1020 604482 10/24/03 234 1020 604482 10/24/03 234 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604483 10/24/03 250 1020 604484 10/24/03 253 1020 604485 10/24/03 260 1020 604485 10/24/03 260 1020 604485 10/24/03 260 1020 604485 10/24/03 260 1020 604485 I0/24/03 260 1020 604485 18/24/03 260 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604486 10/24/03 261 1020 604487 10/24/03 M DIANA R. ELROD 2607401 DAVIS, LENKA 580 DEEP CLIFF ASSOCIATES L 5806449 DEP~RTMENT OF JI3STICE 1104510 DEVCON ASSOCIATES XVI 4239222 Deuchar, Sally 550 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 110 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE 1104300 EUPHRAT MUSEUM OF ALT 5606348 EXCH3~NGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 4239222 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1103500 FEDER~ EXPRESS CORP 1101000 FEDER~ EXPRESS CORP 4269212 FEHE & PEERS ASSOC INC 110 FERRELL, SOPHIA 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... ARBORIST RVW ~22889 ALBORIST RVW #23541 #E7013899 ~E7013899 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR PAGE 2 AMOUNT 0.00 982.26 0.00 152.69 0.00 1134.95 0.00 272.56 0.00 289.33 0.00 561.89 0.00 3380.00 0,00 14669.81 0.00 18049.81 0.00 1091.93 0.00 290,27 0.00 1382.20 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2989.05 Refund: Check - FALL: 0.00 89.85 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 3504.00 FINGERPRINTS SEPT2003 0.00 128.00 TEMP LIBRARY NO72003 0.00 16180.00 Refund: Check - Refund 0.00 126.00 SIT/932-0014-5 0.00 18500.23 SDI/776-5260-0 0.00 414.83 MAILING SERVICES 0.00 2384.48 PUBLIC WEARING NOTICE 0.00 223.92 0.00 2608.40 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2126.34 0.00 88.34 0.00 26.28 0.00 14.47 0.00 17.71 0.00 482.72 0.00 8.05 0.00 49.26 . 0.00 598.49 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC COURIER SERVICE COUBIER SERVICE COURIER SERVICE COURIER SERVICE COURIER SERVICE COURIER SERVICE TRANS. CONSLrLTING 0.00 6071.30 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 39.00 RUN DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:46 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between ,,10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003,, FUND - 110 - GENEPJkL FUND CASR ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 604488 10/24/03 2304 1020 604488 10/24/03 2304 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604489 10/24/03 818 1020 604489 i0/24/03 818 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604490 10/24/03 2500 1020 604491 10/24/03 M 1020 604492 10/24/03 M 1020 604493 10/24/03 2522 1020 604494 10/24/03 1235 1020 504494 10/24/03 1235 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604495 10/24/03 M 1020 604496 10/24/03 M2004 1020 604497 10/24/03 343 1020 604498 10/24/03 M 1020 604499 10/24/03 2335 1020 604500 10/24/03 2355 1020 604500 10/24/03 2355 1020 604500 10/24/03 2355 1020 604500 10/24/03 2355 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604501 10/24/03 3065 1020 604502 10/24/03 M 1020 604503 10/24/03 1395 1020 604503 10/24/03 1396 1020 604503 10/24/03 1396 TOTAL CMECK 1020 604504 10/24/03 M 1020 604505 10/24/03 2356 1020 604506 10/24/03 M FIELD PAOLI ~RCRITECTURE 4269212 FIELD PAOLI ARCHITECTURE 4269212 FLOYD D BROWN 1104400 FLOYD D BROWN 1104400 TERRY GREENE 4239222 Gannon, Genevieve 550 HALLER, SgERYL 580 LY~N RELLER 5506549 RIGF~ARK LIFE INSURANCE 6414570 HIGRMARK LIFE INSURANCE 110 ROLEYFIELD, KATHRYN 580 RONIG, LUCILLE 1103300 ICMA P~ETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 JOHNSON, KAREN 580 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES 4209546 KIMLEY-RORN A/qD ASSOCIAT 4209534 KIMLEY-HORN A-ND ASSOCIAT 4209534 KIMLEY*HOP~N AND ASSOCIAT 4209534 KIMLEY-HORN ~ ASSOCIAT 4209534 LEADER INSTRL~4ENTS CORP. 1103500 LEE, SHINN-DER 580 LIEBERT C~LSSIDYWHITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY WgITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY WgITMORE 1104511 LIEW, CATHERINE 580 LYNX TEC~OLOGIES 6109863 Logan, Jesse 550 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAR PAGE 3 AMOURT SERVICES 8/30-9/26 0.00 12380.02 PDBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 138.00 0.00 12518.02 CREDIT REF: 112727 0.00 -399.70 DRY CHEMICAL 0.00 919.60 0.00 529.90 TRIP OCT 16-17 0.00 1041.77 Refund: Check - CaI~nel 0.00 27.00 Refund: Check - REFUND 0~00 100.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 600.00 LTD 0.00 7149.00 LIFE / A/)&D 0.00 9063.02 0.00 16212.02 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 164.50 TOYOKAWA STUDENT EXCH 0.00 422.43 *ICMA 0.00 5933.33 Reftund: Check - FALL; 0.00 120.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 11389.46 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 614.62 PUNLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 1709.76 PUBLIC WORKS CONTP~CT 0.00 1709.25 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 836.69 0.00 4870.32 PARTS/SUPPLIES 16470 0.00 38.49 Refund: Check - FALL E 0.00 14~.08 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 945.00 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 855.00 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 540.00 0.00 2340.00 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 45.50 03/04 GIS MAINTENANCE 0.00 llO0.00 REFDS 44813 & 44815 0.00 54.00 RUN DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:46 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OF C~3pERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003" FI~IqD - 110 - GENERAL FLrND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FIOND/DEPT 1020 604507 10/24/03 M MATVEEVA, OLGA 580 1020 604508 10/24/03 820 MILLS-PENINSUI~ HEALTH S 1104510 1020 604509 10/24/03 2567 MISDU 110 1020 604510 10/24/03 M NAGS, JAIWANTHI 580 1020 604511 10/24/03 302 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN i10 1020 604512 10/24/03 480 NELSEN ENGINEERING 1107305 1020 604513 10/24/03 M NGDYEN, RUNG 580 1020 604514 10/24/03 489 NOTEWORTRY MUSIC SCHOOL 5806349 1020 604815 10/24/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 1020 604515 10/24/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604816 10/24/03 501 OPERATING ENGINEERS #3 110 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 P E R S I10 1020 604517 10/24/03 833 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604518 10/24/03 1952 PAPA 5606620 1020 604519 10/24/03 520 PAPER/DIRECT INC 5806349 1020 604520 10/24/03 M2004 PC MAGAZINE 1103500 1020 604521 10/24/03 533 PERS LONG TERM CARE FROG 110 1020 604522 10/24/03 1647 POSTMASTER 1106100 1020 604523 10/24/03 1071 REP[IBLIC ELECTRIC 1108602 1020 604524 10/24/03 3066 RICHARD'S TIRE SERVICE 5806620 1020 604525 10/24/03 3080 JAMIE RIEGER 5806349 1020 604526 10/24/03 842 ROBERT A BOT~ INC 4259313 1020 604527 10/24/03 2482 ROBERT I~3%LF TEC~INOLOGY 6104800 1020 604527 10/24/03 2482 ROBERT ~tALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 PAGE 4 DESCRIPTION ...... SALES T~X AMOUNT Refund: Check - FALL E 8.00 144.00 EAS NOV03-OCT04 0.00 540.00 J TRYBUS 385960533 0.00 223.00 Refund: Check - FALL E 0.00 144.00 *NAT'L DEF 0.00 15931.37 M.VISTAAI~X 0.00 7000.00 Refund: Check w FALL; 0.00 355.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT POR 0.00 4647.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 32.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 46.75 0.00 79.18 LrNION DUES 0.00 672.57 PEgS EMPLR 0.00 7099.99 PERS EMPLY 0.00 26100.26 *PERS BYBK 0.00 123.70 PEgS 1959 0.00 117.18 *PERS BYBK 0.00 462.65 PERS SPEC 0.00 126.88 0.00 34030.46 ~q~AINING S.NEMETZ 0.00 55.00 SUPPLIES A25677 0.00 157.88 PC MAGAZINE RENEWAL 0.00 59.97 PERS LTC/2405 0.00 177.24 AN~UJAL RENEWAL 000341 0.00 150.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 4980.00 TIRE REPAIR 0.00 76.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 396.67 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 171046.90 C.FUNDERBUBK 10/03 0.00 1152.00 C.FUNDERBUBK 10/10 0.00 864.00 RUB DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:46 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OF C~JPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD~ 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FL~ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT TOTAL CHECK 1020 604528 10/24/83 M2004 ROM, DORIT 1100000 1020 604525 10/24/83 M2004 ROM, DORIT 110 1020 604528 10/24/03 M2004 ROM, DORIT 1100000 1020 604528 10/24/03 M2004 ROM, DORIT 1100000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604529 10/24/03 2959 ROSE~DIN ELECTRIC, INC. 4269212 1020 604530 10/24/03 600 ROTO-ROOTER SEWER SERVIC 5606660 1020 604531 10/24/03 959 THE MERCURY NEWS 1101000 1020 604532 10/24/03 258 SANTA CL~ COU~Y 110 1020 604533 10/24/03 628 SANCTA CI~ COLBY SHERI 1102100 1020 604534 10/24/03 1648 1020 604534 10/24/03 1648 1020 604534 10/24/03 1648 TOTAL CHECK SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 SAVIN CORPOP~TION (SUPPL 1104310 1020 604535 10/24/03 2397 SAVIN CREDIT CORPORATION 1104310 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 5708510 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 6104800 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1108501 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1101500 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1108505 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1108503 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 5708510 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1108504 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 1101500 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1028 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108504 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108505 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SBC 1108503 1020 604536 10/24/03 2692 SEC 5606620 TOTAL C~CK 1020 604537 10/24/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108507 1020 604537 10/24/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 1020 604537 10/24/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604538 10/24/03 M SEET~, SHIRISH 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SA~ES 0.00 AMOUNT 2016.00 REFD PERMIT FEES 0.00 137.78 REFD PERMIT FEES 0.00 15.00 REFD PERMIT FEES 0.00 988.00 REFD PERMIT FEES 0.00 512.08 0.00 1652.84 SERVICE AGREE~5~ FOR 0.00 4500.00 SEWER SERVICE CALL 0.00 134.55 10/28-1/26/04 0.00 49.26 V ORTEGA 563312780 0.00 588.00 0.00 ENFORCEMENT OCT03 487139.00 J0131303354 7/25 1YE 0.00 384.72 STAPLES 0.00 197.39 P6021200058 10/28-JAN 0.00 936.00 0.00 1518.11 H2400800225 NOV2003 0.00 190.50 9/08-10/08 0.00 89,67 9/02-10/01 O.O0 575.31 9/02-10/01 0.00 596.16 9/08-10/07 0.00 55.33 9/08-10/07 0.00 55.33 9/08-10/07 0.00 55.33 9/08-10/07 0.00 245.78 9/08-10/07 0.00 245.78 9/08-10/07 0.00 245.78 9/08-10/07 0.00 245.78 9/08-10/07 0.00 245.78 9/08-10/07 0.00 491.52 9/08-10/07 0.00 89.66 9/08-10/07 0.00 89.66 9/08-10/07 0.00 69.67 9/08-10/07 0.00 89.67 9/08-10/07 0.00 89.67 9/08-I0/07 0.00 89.67 0.00 3685.55 ~5170211 9/28-10/27 0.00 15.32 #5171195 9/20-10/21 0.00 92.51 #2622405 9/16-10/15 0.00 16.08 0.00 123.91 Refund: Check - REFUND 0.00 100.00 RUN DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:46 - FINANCI/%L ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OP ~3PERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003. .... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES PAGE 6 AMOONT 1020 604539 1020 604540 1020 604540 TOTAL CEECK 10/24/03 3053 10/24/03 2415 10/24/03 2415 CHRISTINE SHEPHERD 5806349 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUR WINKE 4239222 1020 604541 10/24/03 2810 SMART & FINAL 1106265 1020 604541 10/24/03 2810 SMART & FINAL 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604542 10/24/03 I011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 i011 1020 604542 10/24/03 S011 1020 604542 10/24/03 i011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 1020 604542 10/24/03 1011 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604543 10/24/03 1020 604544 10/24/03 1020 604545 10/24/03 1020 604545 10/24/03 1020 604545 10/24/03 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604546 10/24/03 1020 604547 10/24/03 1020 604548 10/24/03 1020 604549 10/24/03 1020 604550 10/24/03 1020 604551 10/24/03 1020 604552 10/24/03 1020 604553 10/24/03 1020 604553 10/24/03 TOTAL CEECK STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 270 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 560 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 5700000 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 STATE BOkRD OF EQUALIZAT 630 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 610 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 580 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 570 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 520 STATE BO~3J) OF EQUALIZAT 420 STATE BOAP~D OF EQUALIZAT 220 STATE BOAP~D OF EQUALIZAT 110 677 STATE STREET BANK & ~US 110 529 SUNGARD PENTA~TION, INC 6104800 2045 SVCN 1104300 2045 SVUN 1104300 2045 SVUR 1104300 M2004 TANIGUURI, ~GE 1103300 701 TARGET STORES 5706450 1013 TAR COLLECTOR 1108001 1013 TAX COLLECTOR 1101200 1013 T~C<COLLECTOR 1108001 1763 TEEATERFUN INC 5806349 1993 TREASIJRER OF ~J~DA COU 110 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 8/30-9/26ACT SERVICES 8/30-9/26 SUPPLIES 25425 SUPPLIES 25425 JULY-SEPT 2003 0~3LY-SEPT 2003 JI/LY-SEPT 2003 JLrLY~SEPT 2003 JULY-SEPT 2003 JLrLY-SEPT 2003 JI/LY-SEPT 2003 0ULY-SEPT 2003 J~3LY-SEPT 2003 JLrLY-SEPT 2003 JL~Y-SEPT 2003 JI3LY-SEPT 2003 *PERS DEF SEPT03 DATALINE CKRGS FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 446.67 0.00 21759.38 0.00 1096.15 0.00 22855.53 0,00 23.88 0.00 7.50 0.00 31.38 0.00 150.74 0.00 11335.82 0.00 313.12 0.00 -6270.00 0.00 34.90 0.00 851.36 0.00 92.38 0.00 15.08 0.00 69.06 0.00 44.35 0.00 33.00 0.00 551.19 0.00 7221.00 0.00 4085.94 0,00 60,38 0.00 55.00 0.00 79.75 0.00 55.00 0.00 189.75 STNDENT EXC%qANGE 0.00 35.86 SUPPLIES A25663 0.00 98.88 LAND 323-34-006-00 0.00 176.25 SCENIC ~357-08-037 0.00 6356.87 WATER DSTR 9492832600 0.00 183.89 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 777.34 A LOPEZ JR 566398126 0.00 253.84 PkRTS 15982 0.00 27.70 EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 48.29 0.00 75.99 RUN DATE 10/23/03 TIME 10:21:46 - FINkNCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/23/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transac~.trans_date between "10/20/2003" and "10/24/2003" PAGE 7 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 604554 10/24/03 2665 ERIN %~/RI 5806349 1020 604555 10/24/03 1154 UNITED WAY OF S~-NTA C~%R 110 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 5606620 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1102403 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1107501 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1107503 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108009 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1101200 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108102 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108201 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108501 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108503 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108504 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108505 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 5208003 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 6104800 1020 604556 10/24/03 310 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108602 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604557 10/24/03 742 1020 604558 I0/24/03 M 1020 604559 10/24/03 2925 1020 604559 10/24/03 2925 1020 604559 10/24/03 2925 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604560 10/24/03 1020 604561 10/24/03 TOTAL REPORT COSETTE VIAUD 5806349 Vilen, June 550 WLTLFSBERG REESE COLVIG & 4269212 WULPSBERG REESE COLVIG & 4259313 WZTLFSBERG REESE COLVIG & 4239222 Woodbeck, Jane 550 YOSHIMOTO, M3~RK 550 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0,00 I383.34 UNITED WAY 0.06 122.10 #408456999 SEPT03 0.00 94.74 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 78.29 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 50.22 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 321.94 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 65.97 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 51.32 #408456999 SEPT03 0.00 150.82 #408456999 SEPT03 0.00 437.52 #408455999 SEPT03 0.00 783.37 #408456999 SEPT03 0.00 98.69 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 390.62 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 104.83 ~408456999 SEPT03 0.00 47.37 #408456999 SEPT03 0.00 51.32 #405455999 SEPT03 0.00 193.43 0.00 2920.45 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Carmel SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check Mill V Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 733.34 0.00 27.00 0.00 43.13 O.00 18.49 0.00 92.42 0.00 154.04 0,00 36.00 0.00 46.50 0.00 1034213.28 0.00 1034213.25 0.00 1034213.28 RUN DATE 10/23/03 TIME I0;21:46 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON October 24, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 438,822.03 Less Employee Deductions $(118,093.67) NET PAYROLL $ 320,728.36 Payroll check numbers issued 71092 through 71332 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED:~ Director of Admi'nistrative Services ' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November ,2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEI INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Agenda Item No. ~ SUMMARY Meeting Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - September 2003 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended September 30, 2003. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $38.6 million at September 30, 2003, with a maturity value of $38.4 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. Short-term agency yields rose very slightly in September. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAW) yielded 1.635% compared to August's 1.633%, and 2.60% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.76% in September. The City's investments in short- term callable federal agency notes are no longer being called, so fewer reinvestment purchases are required. As a result, both the average length to maturity of the City's portfolio and the investment yield should stabilize. It is anticipated that interest rates will continue to rise at a moderate pace for the next several months. Overall, the City's current investment portfolio decreased approximately $2.5 million in September, as planned expenditures exceeded incoming revenues. Vehicle license fee payments from the State have been postponed for the fiscal year's first quarter, creating a $750,000 cash shortfall from these revenues. A $1.5 million draw will be made on the City's bond proceed account as reimbursement of Library/Civic Center Project expenditures. Note that investments have been laddered to maturity dates that will allow for the projected cash flows required for the library and other capital projects. Pantod On Rocyclod Paper The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends Most General Fund revenues are well below budget projections at the end of September due to the timing of major tax payments from the County and other tax revenues submitted in the month subsequent to collection. The State stopped paying the local agency "backfill" for vehicle license fees during the three-month period between July 2003 and September 2003 (a $750,000 hit for the City of Cupertino) before the higher VLF fees took effect on October 1. The current language of the State budget calls for this to be a "loan" to be paid back in 2006, but these deferred payments will not be booked as revenue in this fiscal year. Operating expenditures have decreased two percent from September of last year, consistent with the 2003-2004 operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for September 2003. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Carol T. Augustil~e Deputy Treasurer David W. Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino October 2003 ACTIVITY DA'IE ADJUSTED MATURD'Y bL~kRKE'I dNREALIZE£ PURC}IASE I MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF YIELD COST VALUE VALUE PROFITFLOS~ SECURITIES MATURED/CALLED ' SECIJRITIES PURCI IASED 09/19103 09/19/06 FHLB©! ~6k 320%i 1,468.502 1,475,000 ' 1,480,773 12,271 09/29/03. 09/29/06 ~"HI.B¢~.step 6k T 3.00% ' L~ 1.000,000 l 003 230 . 3,2311 ~CASlt 09/30/03 2?upertino National Bank ] 1,727,000 ].727,000 1,727,000 0 09/30/03 Grea er Ba~ Trust Company / 0 0 0 CORPORATE BONDS 0 0 0 0 CORP j 0 0 0 0 LA LAiF ~ 9,788,902 I 9,788,902 0 09/30/03 LAIF - State Pool 6f 1.64°/,, 9,788,902 MONEY MARKET FUNDS ~ · · 09/30/03 Cupertino N atl-Swccp account '6j 0.27%' L469,458~1,469,4 1,469.4q8 09/30/03 GBTC Money Market 6j 051% 569 569 569 MM~ ~ 1,470.027 1.470.027 i 1,470,027 0 MORTGAGE {)BI.IGAT1ONS I ' o ' [ 267.069 ~ 276.727 ' 6.515 07/09/93 04/15/07 FI ILMC(P) [6k 691Vo 270~211 09/30/93 ~ 05/15/08 FHLMC(P) ~6k 6.62% 2.910.874 ~ 2.860 00I) 2.867,548 (43,3261 06/28/02 112/15/04 FHLMC(P) ~6k ' 275%I ].312.134 1,300,000 1,319.816 7.682 06/28/02 04/15/04 FHEMC(PI '6k ' 2.827~ 1,300,000 -- 1,318.242 ' I 1.773 [ 06/28//12 05/]4/04 FNMA '6k ' 291% 1.321 823 1.300,000 ~ 1.336.176 ' 14.354 06/28/02 03/15/04 FNMA 6k - 2.84°A 1.311.344 1.300,0011 1.321,375 10,031 06/28/02 09/15/04 FNMA 6k 312% 1,788,574 1.800.000 L839,730 51A56 06/28/02 06/15/04 FNMA '6k 2.93% 1,200,571 1,200,/100 1,215,798- 15.227 ~06/28/02 11'01/04 ENMAL6kt6k 32:3546:;:~ 671001 650,000 686,336~ 15.335 06/28/02 t 11/17/03 FNMA 2,007,366 ~ 2,000,000 2,010,618] 3,252 07/21/03 07/21/06-FHLB~ 6k 22/1% 500,000 500.000 497,311 (2,689) 08/07/03 08/07/06 iFltLB¢$2step~ 233% 500,000 500.000 500.547 547 08/0~H/14/05 kNMA~, 5k L 2.26% 1,007,125 1,000,000 1,001.774 15,3511 08/11/03 08/II/06'FIILB©+ ~Sk 2.50% 2,400,000 2,400,000 2.400,816 816 08/25/03 08/25/06 FHLB~,step 5k ~ 3.06% 1.000.000 1.000.000 L002,762 2,762 08/28/03 08/28/06 FI tLB.~$ Sk 320% 1,000,000 1.000.000~ 1.002.849 2,849 09/29/03 09/29/06 FI iLB,tg.stcp 5k 3.00%: 1.000,000 . 1,000,000 1,003.230 3,230 MO ] 22 975.993 t 22,852,069 23,082,426 106,433 07/01/02 12/31/03 Treasury Note '6a ' 3.2s%oI 2.520,814 2,500,000 2,513.670~ 17.1441 US 2.520,814 2,500,000 2,513,670 17,144) 'Total Manag~ 'Port folio $1t,482,73S 38,337,997 38,582,024 99,289 ~verage Yield k 2.76% ~Average l,ength to Maturity (in years) 1.26' ' - City of Cupertino October 2003 ACTIVII Y DATE ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET PURCllASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION YIELD COST VALUE VALUE 'TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO [ 0~?})/01 [ i~/3~/0~.ino Na~i(Keste; Trustl J6b _ i,02% / / I BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO ~ ' , Traffic Impact Fr~lklin Fiducia~ Trust ~ 0.80 ~o 19,10 19,100 [ 19.100t F67i~/0~ ' i ¢~Pavmeta Fund ] t0.35% 3.3927 5 392 [ ~392 Investments by Type Managed Portfo io LAIF 25% 3% 4.00% Rate of Return Comparison] 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 0.50% 0.00% 8/02 9/02 10/02 11/02 12/02 1/03 2/03 3/03 4/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino September 30, 2003 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $40 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 years Complies " Remainder up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except govts) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies City of Cupertino ~ . General Fund Budget Report 9/30/03 2002/03 Budget 2003/04 Budget. Actual ~ Actual YTD 09-30-02! YTD 09-30-03 % of Budget Over/Under Analysis of Trends Taxes: Sales Tax Property Tax Transcient Occupancy 1,665,000 Utility Tax 2,620,000 Franchise Fees 2,200,000 Other Taxes 1,250,000 Licenses and Permits 1,182,000 Use of Money & Property 1,370,000 Intergovernmental 3,799,905 10,000 0001 i014061600` ' 3,700,000~ 3,800,000_ _ 1,675,000[ 2,750,000i 2,043,832 1,709,7651 -34.24% 2,230 0 2~00))0% 'Payments rec'd Nov - Jan & Apr-June 269,010 268,716[ -35.83%! i July and August only 306,580 36~,350j -47~4~% ~ 2,300,0001 , 114,066 112,2181 -80.48%I Payments rec'd in subsequent month 1,260,000 284,175 243,100i -22.83%I ,Construction taxes down $81k from last year 11650,006 ~ 4~5}935 2371,979! -8.72%I 1,500,000 [ 334,218 312,792 -16.59% Yields down 25% on investments~2003 incl. bond interest 3,3301000 ~iI)37 322,629: -6 .25% No Vehicle license fee backfill for first quarter. Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Other Revenue Total Revenue Operating Expenditures: Administrative Law Enforcement 381,250 410,000 600,000 600,000 16,855,600 40,000 !~78,7361 1,322,305 6,325,4111 6,635,487 97,453 116,777 13.93% 4!'409 57,428 -61.71%] 10,308 2,638_ -73.62%l ~ ~ -47.74% 276,7691 233,0971 -29.49%~ 1,490,038 1,531,890 -7.65% 02-03 budget includes additional debt proceeds Prior year includes $25,500 payment for public access Community Service Administrative Service Recreation Service Community Development Public Works Total Expenditures Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers Out Net Income/Loss 765,6021 3 679,8711 2,254,9111 3,525,796 9,159,072. 25o,oooi -25,497,0001 797,888 140,573. 149,761. -24.92% 3,951,782 1,036,038 1,104,209 11.77%. 2,190,03! 552,~06~ ~07,~63. -7.24%. 2,738,225 ~ 555,07~ 475~622 -30.5~%- 9,139,278 / 1,975,534 1,919,631 -15.98% Cupertino Scene postage pd in lamp sum this year Insurance Premiums ($336k) pd at beginning of fiscal year. Prior year 4~h of July = $50,000 BMR payment~ down $75k from last year ~ 1,425,0001 -4,955,000 i -6,685,500! -1,238,7511 -609.9961 431,250 356,2501 0.00%° 0.00%I 2002-03 Budget included transfers to CIP for New Library 2,500,000 Revenue Comparison 2,000,000 1,500,000 0 ! Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 TOT 4 Utility Tax Expenditure Comparison 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000- IYTD 09/30/027 ~YTD 09/30/03r Administrative Law Enforcement Community Service Administrative Service Recreation Service Community Development Public Works ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 City of Cupertino I Summary of Budget Transfers 7/30/03 Budget Revenue Expenditure Description Acct # Adiustment Budget Budget ~003/04 ADOPTED BUDGET 44,309,000 44,746,826 2002~03 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances various 3,864,187 3,864,187 Department carryovers various 225,760 225,760 Project carryovers various 29,237,866 1,200,000 29,237,866 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2401-7014 85,156 85,156 Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2403-9400 15,110 15,110 Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2402-7014 7,500 7,500 2002/03 ADJUISTED BUDGET 45,509,000 78,182,406 Capitel Projects 9/30003 Fund Pr~ DescriDtion C/Oenc C/Obudaet i Adootod chanqe TotaiBudqet ! Encumbrance ExDenditure Current Bal. 216 9612 V~inor Storm Drain Improv 9,102.50 25,221.40i 105,418 139,741.901 27,627.50 12,827.36 99,287.04 215 962(; ~torm Drain Projects 27,073.00 954,764.06 981,837.061 146,493.00 35,580.00 799,764.06 270 943C ~tev Canyon Rd widening 118,816.64 5,988.19 124,804.831 106,879.81 12,779.54 5,145.48 270 9432 Hmstd belleville T/S modif. 75,000.00 75 000.00 75,000.00 270 9435 Neighborhood t raf calming 39,031.64 65,433.98 25,000 129,465.62i 0.00 38,230.64 91,234.9~ 270 9436 StevCrk Trail Bike faellities 30,219.00 30,219.00i 30,219.0( 270 9443 ~3ellinger Rd bike facility improv. 14,959.81 189,943.29i 204 903.10i 14,959.81 0.00 189,943.2.c 270 9447 Mary Av6nue gateway 17,476.07 91,198.89i 108,674.961 17,476.07 0.00 91,198.8.c 270 9449 Mary Avenue Footbridge 25,000.00 998,594.78 800,000 1,823,594.781 25,000.0C 0.00 1,798,594.7~ 270 9450 Pavement Management 501,369.15 13,455.25 750,000 1 264824.40 0.0C 486,897.31 777,927.0~ 270 9531 Ramp meter aigna1280/85 312,131.21 70,209.00 382,340.21 311,120.11 1,011.10 70,209.0C 270 9532 SR85/Stev Crk T/S medification 49,378 49 49,378.49 i 49,378.49 270 9701 Sidewalk gapa unimprvareas 75,000.00 75,000.00 150,000.00 ! 150,000.00 270 9702 Citywide bike parking facilities 51,789.001 51,789.00 51,789.00 280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv. 211,652.00! 211,652.00 211,652.00 420 9113 StevCrk trail masterplan 6,260.70 6,260.70 6,260.70 420 9115 Skate Park 181,953.40 181,953.40 181,953.40 420 9116 San Thomas trail improvements 43,326.09 53,694.60 97,020.69 2,636.97 41 246.48 53,137.24 42(; 9117 Stev Crk Trail master plan study 16,036.49 20,732.03 36,768.52 16,036.49 0.00 20,732.03 42(; 9119 Portal/Wilson park improvement 302,828.60 46,139.94 348,968.54 103,250.78 217,541.71 I 28,176.05 42C 9121 Memorial park softbail field impv. 25,000.00 125,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 42(3 9216 Se~ce center expanison 66,538.00 21,026.55 87,564.55 66,538.00 0.00 21,026.55 42(3 9223 Civic center improvements 5,680.00 2,447,882.92 17,000.00 2,470,552.92 2,469,413.00 0.00 1,149.92 42(3 9224 ;ivic center plaza improvements 0.00 937,122.72[ 937,122.72 ! 160,301.00 775,821.00 1,000.77 420 9225 3H space study 0.00 0.00i 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 0.00: 0.00 420 9528 -~80/Welfe traffic safety imp rov. 23,261.69 105,129.83 128,391.52 23,261.69 (295.18) 105,425.01 420 953(; ~hase III Hmstd arterial mgmt 43,540.90 43,540.90 0.00 43,540.90 420 9533 Green LED T/S lights 260.26 261,036.00 261,296.26 215.07 45.19 261,036.00 420 953,~ Advanced ITS De Anza bird 661,016.83 21,918.59 682,935.42 661,016.83 403.23 21,515.36 420 9535 Adaptive traf control system 344,064.77 300,561.00 644,625.77 523,364.77 272.42 120,988.58 420 9541 School traffic calming measure 0.00 47,686.55 47,686.55 0.00 0.00 47,686.55 420 9544 Safe routes CHS 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 420 9545 T/S upgrades various locations 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 420 9546 T raf aperation center facilities 24,173.19 129,569.31 153,742.50 24,000.00 17,104.53 112,637.97 420 9547 Yellow pod LED T/S upgrades 140,000.00 140,000.00 140,000.00 420 9548 Traf st walk~bility mods facility 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 420 9549 Safe route Garde~ Gate school 0.00 0.00 205,000.00 205,000.00 0.00 205,000.00 420 9550 T/S battery power backup 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 423 9222 libraryconstruction 738,564.99 17,504,854.19 (17,000.00 18,226,419.18 12,374,066.02 363,758.80 5,488,594.36 425 9313 Four Season Comer 15,141.82 926,012.47 941,154.29 887,306.09 33,152.05 20,696.15 425 9314 Four Season Art Sculplure 122,220.00 0.00 122,220.00 50,326.00 71,894.00 0.00 42~ 9212 Sports Ctr.fitness expanelon 72,560.59 1 891,972.72 1,964,533.31 1,387,383.14 447,029.36 130,120.81 56(; 9105 Blackberry Farm 0.00 491,431.62 75,000.00 566,431.62 ! 0.00 13,175.00 553,256.62 56C 9112 BBF master plan study 10,375.10 71,493.09 81,868.19 i 5,391.00 26,219.70 50,257.49 Total 3,511,008.44 29,237,866.46 I 2,410,418.00 0.00 35,159,292.90 19,454,063.15 2594,694.24 13~110,538.51 ok ok iok ok CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ] 0 Meeting Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorize the Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAW) BACKGROUND Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Govemment Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. The State now requires a specific resolution be adopted by each agency authorizing the deposit or withdrawal of monies into LAIF. The attached State resolution satisfies this requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution. Submitted by: Carol A. Atw~od Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager PrinteclonRecyclodPaper [0--[ DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3200 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein as in the best interests of the City of Cupertino; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby authorize the deposit and withdrawal of the City of Cupertino monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein, and verification by the State Treasurer's Office of all banking information provided in that regard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following City of Cupertino officers or their successors in office shall be authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer Carol Augustine Finance Manager/Deputy Treasurer Signature Signature PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, of the State of California on November 3, 2003. ATTEST: City Clerk JO -2. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-200 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS (HUMAN RESOURCES, CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02- 037 establish roles and regulations for records retention and destruction; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old no longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and WHEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy all said records in excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02-037; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorizes destruction of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rdday of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION Deparlment: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson Page: __ of__ - File Name: Insurance claims closed Resolution which authorized destruction: No. (to be used for microfiche card #) File Name, Project name or Developer File Number, Resolution, Ordinance, Application Number Subject, Application, Permit Address or Location (if any) Date ranges I Enter (or most] Ivl = to be microfilmed recent date) D = to be destroyed REQUIREr} Insurance Claims Ford, Barry 09/21/93 D Closed 1993 hasurance Claims Metevia, William 02/08/95 D Closed 1995 Insurance Claims Clark, David 06/25/97 D Closed 1997 Insurance Claims Wang, Shin Ling 03/13/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Bearden, Donald 08/26/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Besler, Pauline 07/20/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Blanton, Linda and 1998 D Closed 1998 Richard Insurance Claims D'Ortenzio, 09/20/98 D Closed 1998 Michael Insurance Claims Gemer, Karl and 07/20/98 D Closed 1998 Deanna Insurance Claims Gutierrez, Raul 05/11/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Hampton, Hilary 07/28/98 Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Hanson, Charles 11/19/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Kolski, Alice 02/09/98 D Closed 1998 I Page RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson Page: of__ - File Name: hlsurance claims closed Resolution which authorized destruction: for microfiche or Developer Ordinance, Application Permit (if any) (or most M = to be microfilmed card #) Number recent date) D = to be destroyed · REQUIRE~) Insurance Claims Kuszai, Jim 08/26/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Lam, Larry 05/20/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Levy, Robert 08/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Mahan, Diane 08/26/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Metevia, William 02/18/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Murray, Eileen 05/11/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Quiwa, Lamuel 12/28/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Raina, Eileen 09/02/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Reddy, Sri 07/28/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Rizzo, Vincent 05/29/98 D Closed 1998 Dana Insurance Claims Rodriguez, 07/17/98 D Closed 1998 Michelle Insurance Claims Siegmund, Bemd 03/09/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Sixth, Anna 08/19/98 D Closed 1998 Page RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DES~UCTION Depar~ent: City Clerk Contact: KJmberly Smith or Grace Johnson Page: __ of__ - File Name: Insurance claims closed Resolution which authorized destruction: No. (to be used for microfiche card #) File Name, Project name or Developer File Number, Resolution, Ordinance, Application Number Subject, Application, Permit Address or Location (if any) Date ranges (or most recent date) Enter M - to be microfilmed D = to be destroyed m~quiRE~) Insurance Claims Spielman, Marvin 07/20/98 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Usoz, Steve 1998 D Closed 1998 Insurance Claims Wendling, Christine 02/10/98 D Closed 1998 Page RECORDS iNVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR. DESTRUCTION Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith 0r Grace Johnson Page: of__ - Pile Name: October 2003 Resolution which authorized destruction: No. (to be used for microfiche card #) File Name, Project name or Developer File Number, Resolution, Ordinance, Application Number Subject, Application, Permit Address or Location (if any) Date ranges (or most recent date) Enter M - to be microfilmed D - to be destroyed REQUIRED Code Enforcement Parking citations 1997- 2000 D Page No. (to be used for microfiche card #) RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson Page: of __ - File Name: October 2003 Resolution wlfmh authorized destruction: File Name, Project name Subject, Application, Address or Location or Developer Permit (if any) File Number, Resolution, Ordinance, Application Number City Clerk Claim logs Date ranges Enter (or most M = to be microfilmed recent date) D = to be destroyed REQUIRED 1992- Page CITY OF CUPER,.TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 T¢lcphone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK To: From: Subject: Date: MEMORANDUM Dave Knapp, City Manager; Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services; Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation; Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ralph Qualls, Director of Publie Works; Sandy Abe, HR Manager; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Kimberly Smith, City Clerk. Grace Johnson, Deputy City Clerk RECORDS FOR DESTRUCTION October 8, 2003 Listed on the attached sheets are records, which are in excess of two years old and can therefore be destroyed in accordance with the City's records retention schedule. Please review the list and contact me if you believe any of these files are of historical or administrative significance and should not be destroyed. If approved, a resolution authorizing destruction will be on the council agenda for Octob$:¢6, 2003. City Clerk~ Date NO OBJECTION TO DESTRUCTION: City~ Date Dir. of Administrative Services Date Dir. of Community Dev. Date Dir. of Parks & Recreation D_ate (." tv,/4,v. c , / c , I o . Dir. of Public Works VDate HR Manager Date Encls: Human Resources, Code Enforcement, City Clerk files Printed on necycled Paper I CITY OF cUPEP T NO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3210 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number [,~ Agenda Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Acknowledge a fee waiver expenditure of $9,631.16 for the Cupertino Rotary Club!s facility use of portions of the Quinlan Community Center and Memorial Park, and staff costs for the 2003 Oktoberfest that was held on October 11 and 12. BACKGROUND This art and cultural event included a variety of community activities such as dance, music, and food. Associated costs for this event were: In-Kind Contribution: 1) Cupertino Room 2) Conference Room 3) Amphitheater Subtotal Actual City Costs: 1) Public Works Staff $3,300.00 2) Parks and Recreation Staff $ 788.00 3) Santa Clara County Sheriffs $1,333.16 Subtotal FESTIVAL TOTAL $3,120.00 $ 650.00 $ 440.00 $4,210.00 $5,421.16 $9,631.16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION No Council action is necessary. Funds to pay the "out of pocket" costs of $5,421.16 were included within the 2003-04 budget. Council will receive reports on the in-kind and direct costs of special events throughout the year. SUBMITTED BY: Therese ~_mbrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp, City Manager CUPER TINO__ City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (~-Og) 777-3220 Fax: (~-08) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ ~ Meeting Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Accept Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant Allocation BACKGROUND The 2003 Budget Act provided $200 million in General Fund monies in 2003-04 to eligible local jurisdictions, as defined, for public safety purposes. Of this amount, $100 million is allocated to the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program and $100 million is allocated to counties for specified juvenile justice programs. USE OF FUNDS Cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services. This can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs. The funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. Capt. John Hirokawa has submitted the attached recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the sheriff's request for the expenditure of COPS funds. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Car61 A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services David W. Knapp City Manager PrmtodonRecycledPapor g ~"~ l CITY OF CUPERTINO CITIZEN'S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Fiscal Year 2003/04 Program School Resoume Officer - 2nd Public Dialogue Consortium/City Neighborhood Leader Program Cops and Kids Program Allocation $71,085 $13,915 $15,000 Total Grant Proposal $100,000 RESOLUTION NO. 03-201 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING REQUEST FROM SHERIFF FOR USE OF THE CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM FUNDS OF $100,000 WHEREAS, the 2003 Budget Act provided $200 million in General Fund monies in 2003-04; and WHEREAS, the Budget Act establishes the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program and appropriates $100 million from the state general fund for the 2003-04 fiscal year and the City of Cupertino's per capita share is $100,000 for fiscal year 2003-04; and WHEREAS, the COPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of ensuring public safety; and WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services which can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs; and WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the Sheriff's request for the expenditures of Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino cuP PO o City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Agenda Item No. ~ Summary Agenda Date: November 3, 2003 Application: Z-2002-03, EA-2002-20 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. Application Summary: Rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2002-20; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2002-03, in accordance with the Planning Commission resolution and draft ordinance rezoning the neighborhood to Rl-a. The "a' is a subset designation that incorporates the zoning rules that vary from the R1 ordinance similar to the "e' for Eichler and "i' for single-story. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Residential Low Density 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac. A1-43 (67 properties) R1-7.5 (1 property) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The Linwood Acres neighborhood consists of 68 homes on Randy Lane and Larry Way between Merritt Drive and Lucille Avenue. To the north of the neighborhood is Applicati0n: Z-2002-03 Linw00d Acres Rezoning November 3, 2003 Page 2 Interstate 280, to the west is the Apple Computer campus, to the south is Collins School, and to the east are the Veranda Apartments, a church and single-family residences in the R1 zone. The typical lot size is about 9,400 square feet, roughly 75 feet in width and 125 feet in depth. Incorporation - 1955 The Linwood Acres neighborhood consisted of 68 single-story homes developed between 1951-1954 while the neighborhood was still in the County of Santa Clara's jurisdiction. Upon incorporation in 1955, the neighborhood was zoned A143 Agricultural-Residential, which was consistent with the prior County zone. 1970s - 1980s - Variance Applications The A1 zone requires 20-foot side setbacks and most of the homes in the neighborhood do not conform to this setback. Homeowners that wished to add on to their homes had to conform to the 20-foot side setback regulation or file for a variance. Several variances were requested in the 1970s and 1980s. Throughout the review of these variances, the City raised the issue of rezoning the neighborhood to the R1 zone. Residents opposed this suggestion on every occasion. In the late 1980s, the residential ordinances in the City (R1, Al, RHS) were updated to include a provision that allowed homeowners to extend one non-conforming building line without filing for a variance. After this rule was put in place, a number of homeowners added on to their houses and did not need to provide the 20-foot side setback regulation on one of the side yards. 1999 - R10rdinanceAmendment In 1999, the City enacted regulations that limited two-story development in the RI zone. The A1 regulations were not modified. The R1 zone limits the second story to no more than 35% of the first story, has design review and privacy protection. The A1 zone has no such regulations. Between the 1950s and 1999, four second-story additions have been built in the neighborhood. Since the R1 ordinance was updated in 1999, three new two-story homes have been developed in the neighborhood. Two are complete and one is nearing completion. Today, 90% of the neighborhood remains single-story (61 of 68). September 2002 - Report to the City Council On September 16, 2002, staff reported to the City Council about the trend of new homes being proposed in the Linwood Acres neighborhood and the lack of design review and privacy protection provided by the A1 zone. The City Council concurred that the neighborhood's zoning regulations should be looked at and enacted an interim ordinance that required new development to comply to the A1 and R1 regulations, whichever is more restrictive. The interim ordinance expires on January 31, 2004. The Application: Z-2002-03 Linwood Acres Rezoning November 3, 2003 Page 3 Council directed staff to work with the residents to develop regulations for the neighborhood (see attached minutes) October 2002 - Neighborhood Meeting Staff sent notices to all properties in the neighborhood for a neighborhood meeting at the Cupertino Library Community Room on October 2, 2002. About 50 residents attended. Staff presented information to the neighborhood to describe the issues and asked for volunteers to study possible zoning rules for Linwood Acres. About 24 residents signed up for the study group, which the residents agreed would meet every Wednesday night. Following the neighborhood meeting, staff received no calls or inquiries from residents who were not in attendance at the meeting. October 2002- October 2003- Study Group Deliberations The study group met regularly on Wednesday night from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm in City Hall a total of thirty-six times. The first dozen meetings focused on understanding the regulations that affected their neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the City. About 18 residents attended these meetings. Ordinances reviewed included the A1 regulations, R1 regulations, Accessory Structure regulations, Second Dwelling Unit regulations. The study group also discussed public improvements such as sidewalks and streetlights. Once the study group reviewed the City's regulations, the group went through an informal visioning session for three meetings. Issues discussed included why people chose to live in Linwood Acres, what they like and dislike about the neighborhood and what they want to see for the future of the neighborhood. Most of the study group liked the lack of street improvements and the large setbacks in the neighborhood. After the visioning session, the study group discussed the regulations that they preferred for the neighborhood. This discussion lasted for about 15 meetings. At this point, the study group consisted of about 14 residents. There was unanimous agreement on some issues, but many issues were split votes. Several members strongly support a one-story overlay and several other members tended to support the R1 zoning. The group attempted to craft a hybrid of the A1 and R1 regulations to balance the concerns of the one-story and the R1 proponents. Their recommendation is commonly referred to as the "Group Proposal." July 2003 - Presentation to the Neighborhood The study group held a neighborhood meeting on July 8, 2003 at the Quinlan Center to present their proposal to the neighborhood. Surveys were available for residents to indicate what they thought about various issues. The study group allowed two group members to present their recommendation of rezoning to the R1 zone. Residents who Application: Z-2002-03 Linwood Acres Rezoning November 3, 2003 Page 4 prefer the R1 regulations'instead of the Group Proposal later formed the Linwood Acres Property Rights Group. Following the second neighborhood meeting, the group revised their proposal to address concerns that were raised by residents. The group sent out a letter to the neighborhood describing the revisions they made and in some cases, the reasons that they did not change a regulation even though many residents commented on the item. The letter included the hearing date for the Planning Commission as well as the group's model ordinance. DISCUSSION: Neighborhood Sentiment Survey During the July 8, 2003, neighborhood meeting the study group distributed survey to obtain resident feedback on specific components of the group proposal. The survey allowed people to comment on specific issues, and was narrated by a resident so people could understand what the purpose of each regulation was. This meeting was also videotaped. The R1 proponents felt the survey was confusing and were displeased with the limited time they were allotted to speak at the meeting. 56 of the 68 properties were represented on a survey with the following results. · 55% of the respondents supported the Group Proposal. Half of these respondents commented on the survey that they preferred a one-story overlay. · 35% specifically stated that they preferred the R1 zoning. · 10% could not be categorized as supporting either position. Petitions The City received two petitions representing 64 of the 68 properties in October of 2003. The petitions reveal that 52% of the respondents support the Group Proposal with 48% supporting the R1 position. The petitions did not allow people to comment on specific issues as the survey did and there is no record of how the petitions were presented to residents. Staff received two letters (attached) from residents that claim they signed the R1 petition with the understanding that they were signing for the Group Proposal. Taking the petitions into account, neither position has a significant majority of the neighborhood's support. Application: Z-2002-03 Linwood Acres Rezorting November 3, 2003 Page 5 Planning Commission The Planning Commission recommended approval of a modified version of the study Group Proposal on September 22, 2003 on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Wong opposed. Commissioner Miller subsequently stated that he wanted the Commission to reconsider the action. The Commission discussed reconsidering their discussion on the rezoning, but the motions failed on a 2-2 vote on October 13, with Commissioners Saadati and Corr opposed, and 2-3 vote on October 27 with Commissioners Saadati, Corr and Chen opposed. The attached minutes provide more detail of the Commission's actions. Please note that the October 27 minutes are a draft version. On October 27, 2003, the Commission voted 3-2 to confirm that the Draft Ordinance represents the intent of their September 22, 2003 recommendation, with Commissioner Miller and Wong voting no. Decision Points Based on the available information, the following points should be considered for this rezoning: 1. The neighborhood has consistently resisted rezoning to RI for over thirty years (source: historical files, residents) 2. The A1 zone does not contain design standards or processes that protect neighbors from two-story development impacts and it does not provide reasonable opportunities for additions or new homes to be developed (source: the opinions of both neighborhood groups). 3. Half of the neighborhood supports the original Group Proposal and oppose R1. Half of this group (a quarter of the whole) want a single-story overlay (source: survey and petitions) 4. Half of the neighborhood prefers R1 to the original Group Proposal (source: petitions). Negotiations Following the Planning Commission recommendation on September 22, 2003, supporters of the Group Proposal and the R1 proponents met to determine Ifa compromise was possible. Upon hearing this irfformation the Commission encouraged that the two groups to continue to meet and seek a compromise that meets the needs of both groups. Staff will be meeting with the leaders of both groups up until the City Council meeting to determine if further discussions have led to a greater consensus of opinion. Process Results The past year long process has not yet achieved consensus in the neighborhood but it has achieved several important outcomes: L'mwood Acres Rezoning November 3, 2003 Application: Z-2002-03 Page 6 1. Residents of the neighborhood are well educated on the details of zoning regulations. 2. Most residents now realize that the current A1 zone is not an appropriate zone for their neighborhood, thereby getting beyond the impasse the city experienced in the past discussions about rezoning this neighborhood. 3. While there is disagreement on the specific zoning approach, there are significant areas of agreement and the two sides have met to discuss compromises on the specific zoning components that are the source of the disagreement. 4. The neighborhood has participated in a time-intensive grass-roots exercise of self-determination in arriving at their present positions. Fiscal Impact Analysis There will be no significant fiscal impacts from this rezoning. There will be no significant increases in staff workload if the neighborhood is rezoned based on the Group Proposal, the Commission recommendation or to the R1 district. Special RI Zones There are existing neighborhoods in the City that have the appearance of being a standard R1 zoning district, but have some special regulations. Examples include: Rl-e Eichler zoning (unique architecture), Rl-i one-story overlay zones (neighborhood preference), P(R1) or P(Res) zones (various reasons), and cases where the subdivision map calls for greater setbacks than the City requires. City Council Actions The City Council has four options to consider: 1. Approve the recommendation from the Planning Commission. 2. Direct changes to the recommended draft ordinance that address specific issues of either group or sentiments of the Council. If such changes are complicated it may be necessary to continue this item to provide proper draft language. 3. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission to work on the remaining areas of disagreement among the groups. Please note that the interim ordinance expires on January 31, 2004, and the new ordinance must receive its second reading and 30-day environmental challenge period prior to becoming effective. Referring the item back to the Planning Commission would result in the interim ordinance expiring prior to any new ordinance taking effect. If the A1 zone became effective applicants could once again present building plans that conform to the original rules that sparked this zoning review. Application: Z-2002-03 . Linwood Acres Rezoning November 3, 2003 Page 7 The City Council can continue this item to their November 17, 2003 meeting without compromising the timeline for expiration of the interim ordinance. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures Model Ordinance Exhibit A: Planning Commission Resolution 6207 Exhibit B: Planning Commission Draft Ordinance Exhibit C: Documents from the Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Executive Summary Petition Exhibit D: Documents from the Linwood Acres Property Rights Group Cover Letter Powerpoint Slides Petition Exhibit E: Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 2003 Exhibit F: Environmental Documents Recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee Initial Study Negative Declaration Exhibit G: Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2003 DRAFT October 13, 2003 DRAFT October 27, 2003 Exhibit H: City Council Minutes from September 16, 2002 Correspondence received after the September 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting ORDINANCE NO. 1927 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING SIXTY EIGHT PARCELS TOTALING 19 GROSS ACRES FROM A1-43 AGRICULTURAL- RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND R1-7.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE TO THE Rl-a SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted an interim ordinance for the Linwood Acres neighborhood on September 16, 2002 for the purpose of allowing the residents to determine the appropriate zoning regulations for their neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and model regulations for this district is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 as a proposed amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the properties described in Exhibit 1 are hereby rezoned to Rl-a Single Family Residence Zoning District; and that Exhibit 1 is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. The regulations that shall apply to this district shall be based on Exhibit 2; and that Exhibit 2 is made part of the Municipal Code. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage at which time the interim Ordinance No. 1902 shall be rescinded. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 3rd day of November, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 3rd day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXltlBIT l- Legal Description Lucille Avenue C/L i I I I I I I I I I I I I II~1 I I I ~ APN ~ Site Address 316 02 005 10741 Larry Way 316 02 006 10727 La~y Way 316 02 007 10713 Lm~y Way 316 02 0C~ 10699 Larry Way 316 02 009 10685 Larry Way 316 02 010 10671 Lany Way 31602011 10657 Lany Way 316 02 012 10643 La~y Way 316 02 013 10629 Larry Wa 516 02 014 10615 Larry Way 316 02 015 10601 Larry Way 316 02 016 10587 Larry Way 316 02 017 10571 Larry Way 316 02 018 10557 Lm'ry Way 316 02 019 10541 Larry Way 316 02 020 10525 La~y Way 316 02 021 10511 Larry Way 316 02 023 10510 Lamy Way 316 02 024 10524 Larry Way 316 02 ~z5 10540 La~y Way 316 02 026 10556 Larry Way 316 02 027 10570 Lan~ Way 516 02 028 10586 Larry Way 316 02 029 10600 Lar~y Way 316 02 030 10618 Larry Way 316 02 031 10628 Larry Way 316 02 032 10642 Larry Way 316 02 033 10656 Larry Way 316 02 034 10670 Larry Way 316 02 035 10684 Lan~ Way 316 02 036 10698 Larry Way 31602037 , 10712 La~ry Way 316 02 038 10726 Larry Way 316 02 039 10740 La~y Way 316 02 040 10741 Randy Ln Parcel Number MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE R1-A OVERLAY ZONE REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The following text shall be added to Chapter 19.28: 19.28.105 Development Regulations - (Rl-a). Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned Rl-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Setback - First Story 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. D. Setback- Second Story 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is twenty feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. E. Second-story Regulations 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. F. Front Yard Paving. No more than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. G. Variation from the R1 and Rl-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. H. Design Review. Discretionary review processes shall be based on the R1 ordinance, except as amended by this ordinance. I. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. 1. Second-story windows. Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor, or should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. 2. Section 19.28.060 E (5) (a) and (b) shall be considered guidelines in this district. Permitted Yard Encroachments. 1. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. a. Thc extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or at~er such property become part of the City. 2. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 3. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. a. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. b. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. K. Landscaping. Eave Height. The cave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the cave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. 1. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. 2. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts fi.om mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.060 H of the R1 Ordinance in the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of 12' at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. Design Review Procedures and Process 1. Posted Notice. For all new construction, the applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the City; c. The name and contact information for the staff person assigned to the project; d. Reference to the application on file for particulars; e. In cases where design review is required, the sign shall include a projected action date, which in no case shall be less than fourteen calendar days fi.om the posting of the notice and an 1 l"x17" perspective rendering of the proposed house when viewed from the street. EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Z-2002-03 RESOLUTION NO. 6207 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 19 ACRES, CONSISTING OF 68 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES FROM A1-43 AGRICULTURAL- RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND R1-7.5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE TO THE P(A1) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL INTENT. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Z-2002-03 (EA-2002-20) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Both sides of Randy Lane and Larry Way north of Merritt Drive and south of Lucille Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino directed the Linwood Acres neighborhood to determine the appropriate regulations for their neighborhood; WHEREAS, after one year of work, the Linwood Acres neighborhood proposes a set of regulations, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary punic notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the properties involved are adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land in the neighborhood. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. Z-2002-03 September 22, 2003 Resolution No. 6207 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. Z-2002-03 (EA-2002-20), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS The recormmendation of approval is based on the Zoning Plat map Exhibit A, dated 9/4/03 and Model Ordinance, Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PD REPORT\ RES \ Z-2002-03 res.doc EXItlBIT A Legal Description Lucille Avenue C/L ~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I/I I I I & ii ~11 lllllll 316 02 005 10741 Lar~y Way 316 02 006 10727 ~ Way 316 02 007 10713 Larry Way 316 02 008 10699 Lan'y Way 316 02 009 10685 Lan'y Way 316 02 010 10671 Larry Way 316 02 011 10657 La~y Way 316 02 012 10643 Lmly Way 316 02 013 10629 Larry Way 316 02 015 10601 Larry Way 316 02 016 10587 Lar~ Way 316 02 017 10571 Larry Way 31602018 10557 Larry Way 316 02 019 10541 Larry Way 316 02 020 10525 Larry Way 316 02 021 10511 Larry Way 316 02 023 10510 Larry Way 316 02 024 10524 Larry Way 316 02 025 10540 Lai2y Way 316 02 026 10556 Larry Way 316 02 027 10570 Larry Way 316 02 028 10586 Larry Wa 316 02 029 10600 Larry Way 316 02 030 10618 Lat~y Way 316 02 031 10628 Lan7 Way 31602032 106{2 Larry Way 316 02 033 10656 Larry Way 31602034 10670 Larry Way 316 02 035 106841~ Way 316 02 036 10698 Larry Way 31602037 10TI2 Larry Way 316 02 038 10726 Larry Way 31602039 10740 Lax~ Way 316 02 040 10741 Randy Ln 316 02 043 10699 Randy Ln 316 02 044 10685 Randy La 316 02 045 10671 Randy Ln 316 02 046 10657 Randy Ln 316 02 047 10643 Randy l~n 316 02 050 10601 P, artdy Ln 316 02 051 10587 Randy tm 316 02 052 10573 Randy Ln 316 02 053 10557 Randy Ln 316 02 054 10541 Randy Im 316 02 055 10525 Randy Ln 316 02 056 10511 gandy Ln 316 02 057 10510 Randy Ln 316 02 058 10524 Randy Ln 316 02 059 10540 Randy La 316 02 060 10556 Randy Ln 316 02 061 10572 Randy La 316 02 062 10586 Randy La 316 02 063 10600 Rand, 316 02 06{ 10614 Randy Ln 316 02 065 10628 Randy Ln 316 02 066 10642 Randy Ln 316 02 067 10656 Randy Ln 316 02 068 10670 Randy La 316 02 069 10684 Randy Lal 316 02 070 10698 F~mdy Da 316 02 071 10712 Randy Ln 31602072 10726 Rmady La EXHIBIT B · Underlined text is new language based on the Planning Commission recommendation Planning Commission DRAFT Model Ordinance Linwood Acres Planned Zoning District Section 1. Purpose The Rl~a ~ zoning district is intended to: A. Preserve and enhance the established low-intensit3', :ingle :teD', single-family residential identity of the neighborhood; B. Ensure provision of light, air and privacy to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the semi-rural setting in the community; E. Encourage communication between residents regarding new development. Section 2. Applicability of regulations No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an Ri-a P(A!) district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. Section 3. Permitted Uses Permitted uses in this zoning district shall be based on Chapter 19.28.030 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Section 4. Conditional Uses Conditional uses in this zoning district shall be based on Chapter 19.28.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 2. ~mimal breeding; ~' ......... ~- ........ a ............... t~'., ............... hforma ~ot r ......., r .............~ ....... , .~ a m ..................of fix o Section 6. Site Development Regulations A. Discretionary review processes for new development shall be based on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, ~^~;~ ~ ,~+,a ~+ except as amended by this ordinance. B. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten-thousand square feet. C. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. D. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area. E. Floor Area Ratio. 1. The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the net lot 2. The maximum floor area of a second floor shall be based on Section 19.28.060 B(3) of the Cupertino Municipal Code F. Setback - First Story 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. G. Setback- Second Story 2. 3. H. Height 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is twenty feet. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. The maximum height of a principal building or structure is twenty- eight V:.'zrAy :ix feet. Fireplace chimneys, antennae, or other appurtenances are excluded from this restriction. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: a. A twelve-foot t-e~-ooChigh vertical line measured fi-om natural grade and located five feet t~-m-fee~ fi-om property lines; b. A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection H(2)(a) of this section. 3. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen ~ feet measured from natural grade to the top of the plate. 4. A gable end of a roof may have a maximum wall height of eighteen feet to the peak of the roof as measured fi.om natural grade. I. Second-story Regulations 1. Second story decks shall conform to the second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and rear only and shall require a second-story deck exception. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid.prohibit a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. J. Eaves. The second story shall have one-foot eaves. ............... ^" ..........ruction' K. Front Yard Paving. No more than 50% of the fi.ont yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or asphalt. ....... 2 ........ , ............................... car garag¢. detached accc::cr7 ~ ..................... M. Basements. Basements are permitted subject to the regulations in Section 19.28.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. N. Variation fi.om the regulations in this section shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Section 7. Design Guidelines Through the Design Review process outlined in this chapter, decision makers must determine that proposals for new construction conform to these design guidelines prior to approving a project. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project. The guidelines in this section shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. In cases where there may be conflict between the two sets of gnidelines, this Section shall take precedence. In cases where formal Design Review is not required, the Director of Community Development shall make a determination of guideline conformance. 3 Fe 'g ' ~.'-' Second-story windows -v~ ,~,~ ..... c ~, ..... ~., ...... ;~ ...... . ~..~ ~, ~ .......... ; .....,. ~¢,~ T ,~:r~ o..:~:-- t-~ Windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor, or should ..... have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor's privacy. E. Second Story Walls. The height of second story walls are regulated as follows: 1. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls should not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second floor wall. The overlap should be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the first stow exterior wall plane. 2. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured fi.om the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum two-foot depth and six- foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. Section 8. Permitted Yard Encroachments A. Where a principal building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building line. a. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback and the height of the existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not be increased. b. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. c. This section does not apply to attached accessory structures such as attached carports. d. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance or exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. Fo · u~ c ................. linc Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. Front Porch. Traditional, open porches are encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of the Director of Community Development. 1. Posts. Vertical structural supports, such as posts, for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback. Structural supports must be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive. 2. Columns. The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged. 3. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback area. 4. Eave Height. The cave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood. 5. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements. 6. The porch platform and roof overhang may encroach five feet into the required front setback. Section 9. Landscaping A. Landscaping plans shall be required for all additions or new homes, des~ ~~a~. The purpose of the landscaping is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. Specific measures are not prescribed, but a~a!! be .......... v ........... ~* ......... w-v-teCh. Generally, the landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences. B. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intmsion as required in Section 19.28.060 H of the R1 Ordinance in the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: 1. Privacy planting must be from the approved City list and shall have a minimum setback from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the spread noted on the City list. 2. Privacy trees shall be at least 12' at the time of planting. ~ I)~: ....... h~,l,~ ~1~11 ~ .~.~ 1~.~+ Il' ~+ +1~ +1,..~ 4. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views fi.om second- story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. 5. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report fi*om an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. Section 10. Design Review Procedures and Process In addition to the review procedures and process in Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the following shall apply to this zoning district: .......... ~ ....... ~ ........... ~. ......... ~ .........b) tho .......... ~ ...... ~, ......... ~, ......... For all new construction, the applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the followIng: 1. The exact address of the property, ifknoTM, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; 2. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the City; 3. The name and contact information for the staffperson assigned to the project; 4. Reference to the application on file for particulars; 5. An 1 l'x17" perspective rendering of the proposed house when viewed from the street; 6. In cases where design review is required, the sign shall include a projected action date, which in no case shall be less than fourteen calendar days from the posting of the notice~ Section 11. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall irrffinge upon solar easements of adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires variation fi:om the setback or height restrictions of this chapter shall be allowed through for design review process described in Section 10 of this ordinance subject to the approval by the Director of Community Development. Section 12. Interpretation by the Director of Community Development The Director of Community Development shall bc empowered to make reasonable imerprctations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter, consistent with the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. EXHIBIT C .cres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive Summary Background In September 2002, the Cupertino City Council directed the Planning Department to attempt to form a study group to make a neighborhood-supported recommendation about the possible rezoning of the Linwood Acres neighborhood. For the interim period, the Council wisely implemented an emergency zoning ordinance that protected the neighborhood from uncontrolled development while the issue is studied. This ordinance expires on January 31, 2004 and cannot be extended, so action on this proposal is urgent. Our Special Neighborhood Linwood Acres is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the City of Cupertino, and in fact predates the incorporation of the City by several years. When the City incorporated in 1955, the neighborhood was zoned Al, in keeping with the fact that the neighborhood was surrounded by orchards at the time. Good, bad, or otherwise, A1 is the zoning that the neighborhood has enjoyed for the last 50 years, and it has had a significant role in shaping the character of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of large, quarter-acre lots - a result of the requirement to have septic tanks and the corresponding drainage fields in the pre-City era. These lots are uniform in size, 75' wide by 125' or 130' deep, and are all oriented the same way relative to the two streets. Beyond the large lot size, this neighborhood retains a large measure of the "country", semi-rural feel that helps to establish our identity. The neighborhood has rolled curbs, no sidewalks, telephone poles down one side of the street with streetlights and overhead wires (unfortunately), and old-fashioned, rural-style mailboxes out at the curb. These mailboxes have been a gathering place to meet and encourage chatting with neighbors. In addition to these, if you drive, or even better, stroll down our streets on a pleasant afternoon or evening, you can appreciate the sense of openness that characterizes our neighborhood. The homes are set far back from the curb, typically about 40'. The large front yard area and many large, mature trees enhance our wide streets and serves to reinforce the unique character of the neighborhood. The homes are spaced fairly far apart, so there is no sense of the crowding that is common in other neighborhoods in the City. The importance of the A1 zoning in shaping the culture and identity of the neighborhood has several facets. First, the history as "agricultural" is still evident Prepared by: Revised: Terry Griffin Page 1 of 6 October 28, 2003 Chairperson, LAZSG Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive Summary in the neighborhood. Many residents have generous gardens, and some even have small orchards. During the summer and fall, it is common for neighbors to exchange fruits and vegetables grown on their property. In fact, on the Saturday that I went door to door to ask neighbors to sign the petition supporting the group proposal, I interrupted two different families that were in the process of canning homegrown tomatoes from their gardens - that is 2 out of the 30 homes on Randy Lane that I approached that day. Second, the large setbacks of A1 (20' on the sides and 30' from the front property line) have been the major factor in foming new construction away from encroaching on the adjoining neighbors. The effect of this has been to further reinforce the openness and lack of crowding that is a unique characteristic of our neighborhood. Likewise, these large setbacks created the sense in the neighborhood that our A1 zoning was more protective of the neighbors' right to privacy than R1 was, and rightly so. A third facet of being zoned A1 is that it fostered a unique neighborhood identity - it was "our" zoning and made us just a little more special. This is a key reason that the majority of our neighbors are appreciative of the Council's consideration to allow us to continue to have a neighborhood-unique zoning. Just as we have Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood block parties, and neighborhood emergency preparedness teams, having neighborhood specific zoning promotes the sense of belonging within the larger community of the City of Cupertino, and this in turn is good for our city. Process The Planning Department organized a neighborhood meeting, held at the Cupertino Library on October 4, 2002, where they presented the information about the potential impacts of the existing A1 zoning, particularly as it relates to two-story construction. The Director of Community Development suggested that the neighborhood form a study group to make a recommendation to the City about rezoning our neighborhood. Anyone who volunteered was invited to participate, and the study group was formed. The group's process was facilitated by Senior Planner Peter Gilli, and the group met weekly to study the issues. The overall process can be summarized as: October 2002 - December 2002, Education: The group studied almost all facets of the existing A1 and R1 zoning ordinances, with Mr. Gilli providing his professional expertise to clarify and educate the group members on the application of these regulations in the City. The group also spent a few weeks in Prepared by: Terry Griffin Chairperson, LAZSG Page 2 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive Summary December going through a "neighborhood vision" exercise - identifying why we purchased here, what we currently like and dislike, and then extrapolating that to how we would like to see the neighborhood develop in the future. It is these "vision" items that drive the group's individual recommendations. January 2003 - April 2003, Formulation: After studying the existing ordinances, the general agreement of the group was that neither the existing A1 nor the existing R1 ordinance was in the best interest of the neighborhood, based on our collective vision. The group began the process of formulating a "new" zoning, drawing from the most appropriate aspects of Al, R1, and from our collective experience as residents in the neighborhood. This was an arduous process, with many passionate (and sometimes heated) discussions on individual points. More often than not, there was a compromise process that resulted in a proposed regulation item that is less restrictive than was initially proposed, but in some cases more restrictive than the corresponding A1 or R1 regulation. May 2003- July 2003, Formalization and Presentation to neighborhood: May and June were spent formalizing the group's proposal, preparing the summary comparison table of Al, R1 and the group proposal, and then presenting this information at a neighborhood meeting held at Quinlan Community Center in July 2003. At that neighborhood meeting, we explicitly asked our neighbors and property owners for written feedback on the individual areas of the group proposal. In addition, there was a second, more informal meeting, to permit property owners that could not attend the Quinlan meeting the opportunity to provide feedback on the group's proposal. The results of the feedback surveys were clear that a majority of the neighborhood generally supports the group proposal. It was also clear that there are at least two other positions with significant support, but that at that time, neither of them had majority support from the neighborhood property owners. August 2003 - September 2003, Revision and Preparation for presentation: The group continued to meet weekly and reviewed all of the feedback comments from the survey. The result was to make some relatively minor revisions to the group proposal - primarily to provide more flexibility by moving several items from regulations to guidelines. The final action by the group was to notify the neighborhood of the finalized group proposal, referred to a "P(A1 )", and to encourage the property owners and residents to participate in the public hearing before the Planning Commission, scheduled for September 22, 2003. Prepared by: Terry Griffin Chairperson, LAZSG Page 3 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive .Summary Key Elements of the Group Proposal Although the greup proposal draws many of its regulations from the existing A1 and R1 ordinances (especially the 1999 revisions to R1 that were not incorporated into Al), there are several key differences that are unique. Square Footage Allowed: In evaluating the various zoning items, the study group was very concerned that we do not negatively impact the perceived value of our property. To this end, we wanted to insure that the same size home could be built under the greup's proposed zoning as could be built under RI. We increased the maximum lot coverage from Al's 40% to match Rl's 45%. In addition, we adopted all of the R1 specifications for Floor Area Ratios, including the second story 35% FAR. e Setbacks: The greup is proposing to retain most of the setbacks from Al, which are significantly different (larger) than R1. The preposed setbacks are appropriate for our uniform large lots (typically about 10,000 sq. ft.) and are in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. The exceptions are that we reduced the first story side setbacks from A1 's 20 ft. to a more reasonable 10 ft. on both sides, and that we increased the second story rear setback to 40 ft. (our lots are 125-130 ft. deep) to afford rear neighbors an extra measure of privacy. These setbacks will help preserve the Iow density look and feel of the neighborhood. m Building Height: The group proposal incorporates the building envelope concept from the R1 ordinance, but generally reduces all heights by 2 feet to be more compatible with the existing predominantly California Ranch style homes in the neighborhood, and to mitigate some concerns about views from taller single story structures that encroach into an adjoining neighbor's privacy. 4. Increased Privacy Protection: The group considered many issues related to privacy, particularly as they relate to two-story construction. The group generally agreed with 1999 previsions added to the R1 ordinance, and chose to address a few additional items. These included increasing the planting size of the privacy screening required to partially obscure direct views into adjoining neighbor's homes and yards. The purpose of this change is to provide the privacy invasion mitigation more immediately than the target specified in R1 of "three years after planting". The adverse impact is immediate; the mitigation should also be as immediate as is reasonably possible. In addition, the group proposed requiring side-facing windows to be obscured, or have a sill height greater than 5 feet (to allow light and views, but discourage downward-looking views into adjoining neighbor's preperties). The group does not feel that privacy planting on Prepared by: Revised: Terry Griffin Page 4 of 6 October 28, 2003 Chairperson, LAZSG Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive Summary the sides of a home is useful for providing appropriate mitigation on two- story homes and should not be an option. Likewise, the group proposal suggests that second story decks and balconies be front- or roar-facing, and that they be limited in size. Both of the latter items are guidelines, not regulations, and an exception to the guideline could be allowed if the project can demonstrate no adverse impacts from the exception. Exception vs. Variance: The opinion of the group is that regulations should be enforced, without exceptions, and that any deviation from the regulations should require demonstration of a hardship and require a variance. The group is sympathetic to the need for flexibility in design and building, and attempted to address this need by moving any item that we felt could reasonably warrant an exception from a regulation to a guideline. However, the intent is to enforce fundamental regulations as written. Thero should be little need for exceptions due to the uniform nature of the lots in this neighborhood (no hills, oddly shaped lots, etc.) Design Review Process: Because many items were moved from regulations to guidelines, the group is strongly recommending design review for all one- and two-story construction projects that have a visual or privacy impact on the adjoining neighbors. The group recommends reviews by the Planning Staff for single story construction and a Design Review Committee review and hearing for two-story projects. The proposed ordinance specifically states that the guidelines will be followed, unless the project can demonstrate that an exception to the guidelines does not impose an adverse impact. Neighbor Notification: The group lamented the "old days" when someone thinking about remodeling would talk with their neighbors, sharo their vision, and generally take the impact on their neighbors into account when planning and completing their project. The general agreement was that all adjacent neighbors aro impacted in some way by a remodeling addition or new construction project, and that it is appropriate to communicate the project plans to the neighbors and allow them to voice their concerns (and hopefully have them addressed) before construction begins, rather than trying to mitigate an adverse impact after the fact. The forms of notification include front-yard signage, mailing of a notification with a copy of plans to adjacent neighbors, and for two-story construction, a simple mailing notification to the 68 homes in the neighborhood, plus any residences within 300 feet. Please note that this is neighbor notification, but should not be interpreted as requiring neighbor permission. Decisions about impacts will result from the recommended design review process. Prepared by: Terry Griffin Chairperson, LAZSG Page 5 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Proposal Executive Summary Multiple Non-Conforming Side Wall Extensions: This proposed regulation is intended to address a concern unique to this neighborhood. Under both A1 and R1 zoning, a single non-conforming wall extension is permitted during the life of a property. For Linwood Acres, there are several homes whose owners (or previous owners) utilized this allowance for a simple addition 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. The group felt it was reasonable to permit additional extensions, with the added provision that the wall height cannot be increased above the original height of the wall being extended. In addition, the recommended notification and design review process should allow a potentially impacted neighbor to voice their concerns prior to construction. Allowing multiple extensions also encourages single-story additions, rather then requiring a property owner to build a second story to achieve desired living space. Additional Neighborhood-Specific Guidelines: The group proposal includes a few addition guidelines that are intended to help preserve the semi-rural "country" feel of the neighborhood. These include such items as using natural materials for fences, encouraging traditional open front porches, limiting garages on the front elevation of the house to two-car door widths (additional space can be provided via detached garage or tandem car spaces), and discouraging massive entry features such as large columns or overly large double doors. These items are clearly subjective, and it is the intent of the group to have the design review process determine whether or not these are "compatible" with the existing neighborhood. Summary The Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group proposal represents an extraordinary amount of commitment and effort on the part of the volunteer members of the group. It also reflects an incredible level of involvement by a neighborhood characterized by the Cupertino Courier as "a neighborhood divided." It is incumbent upon you to evaluate this proposal on the basis of its merits, and on the needs and desires of the majority of the property owners and residents in the Linwood Acres neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Terry Griffin Chairperson On behalf of the Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group Prepared by: Terry Griffin Chairperson, LAZSG Page 6 of 6 Revised: October 28, 2003 Linwood Acres P(A1) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group for all properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross streets of Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. 31 31 31 3 31 3 31 ~rcel Number Address Name Signature Date Dates: to Page of__ Linwood Acres P(A1 ) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group for all properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross streets of Lucille Avenue and Merritt Ddve. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. Pamel Number Address Name Signature Date ~,~_0~ o7. /~ ¢/~ ~/:~_~~. .. ~~ ~. Dates: to Page of ~ Linwood Acres P(A1 ) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Lin~vood Acres Zoning Study Group for all properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross strcc~,s of Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. Parcel Number Address Name Signature Date Dates: to Page of __ Linwood Acres P(A1) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group for all properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross streets of Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. cel Number Address Name Signature Date ~/ . -o2-o Og Pal 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 31E Dates: to Page of__ Linwood Acres P(A1 ) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group for all properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross streets of Lucille Avenue and Merdtt Drive. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. Parcel Number Address Name Signature Date 316-02-0 ~D I O~J ~ ~ W~V 3 ~ 6-02~ 3 ~ ~02-0 ~ ~ ~02~ 3~6~2~ 3 ~ 6-02~ 3 ~ 6-02-0 Dates: to Page of __ Linwood Acres P(A1) Zoning Petition We, the undersigned property owners in the Linwood Acres neighborhood, do hereby respectfully request that the City Council of the City of Cupedino, California, adopt the P(A1) zoning ordinance proposed by the volunteer Linwood Acres Zoning Study Group for ali properties on Randy Lane and Larry Way, between the cross streets of Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. We prefer the conditions of the proposed P(A1) ordinance over both the existing A1 zoning and the alternative of R1 zoning for our neighborhood. Parcel Number Address Name Signature Date 316-02-0 .-~'~' ~ '~~. _._. ~'~%-0 /. 316-02-0 ~ ' ¢ 316-02-0 ,- · ¢ . . ~ - Dates: to Page__ of__ EXHIBIT D ~er: We, the Linwood Acres Property Rights Group (LAPRG), would like this opportunity to share our perspective on Linwood Acres rezoning issue. Before you consider the specifics of each zoning proposal, you must decide which proposal serves the neighborhood best in the context of the entire city. On what basis should a neighborhood have a special zoning different from the rest of the city. Is mere claim or assertion to uniqueness enough? Is the desire by half of the neighborhood enough to warrant special zoning? During September 22 Planning Commission public hearing, Study Group Proposal was presented and justified with following three main arguments. · It has a strong neighborhood support or consensus based on the survey done by the Study Group. · Linwood Acres has unique physical characteristics, namely its front and side setbacks. · The history of opposition to being mainstreamed to Ri. By collecting signature endorsing Ri, we have shown that Study Group has at best the support of half of the neighborhood. This proves no consensus. The neighborhood is equally divided. Planning Commission acted on side setback issues for the first floor, while never discussing the second floor setback issue, based on assertion by Study Group Proposal. This assertion was later supported by Steve Piasecki and Peter Gilli in September 22 meeting. Our subsequent findings proved that Linwood Acres do not have uniform side setbacks, as uniqueness implies. Please see the rest of this packet for supporting data. Study Group has maintained that history of opposition to change warrants some recognition by city for special zoning. Perhaps, it is true that there was a history of opposition to change or at least "leave us alone" sentiment. Rather than simply buying into the "history of opposition" argument, you must weigh the value of the tide of change. Newcomers to Linwood generally support more flexible zoning regulation, not much different from the rest of Cupertino. Our sentiment for more flexible zoning might have been a minority view in the past, but now it constitutes half of the neighborhood. Considering the trend of changing neighborhood is imperative if you are going to consider the history of opposition at all. Study Group has failed in their argument for justifying special zoning. With this fact in mind, is the city going to grant special zoning simply based on few loud voices? You must make the decision solely based on merit. The LAPRG would like to present some additional information on Linwood Acres that were not available during September 22 Planning Commissioner public hearing. The information presented should be considered in making the zoning decision affecting our area for many years to come. Sincerely, Linwood Acres Property Rights Group e Side Setbacks First Floor (page 2) · A word such as "unique" was used to describe the side setbacks of Linwood Acres. "Unique' means one of a kind, but is used generally to mean uniformity or consistency. Since thc uniqueness of side setbacks in Linwood Acres was the basis for Study Group's argument for specialized zoning, it is imperative that Linwood Acres actually has a consistent or uniform side setback. Please see page 2 for the specific data, you will find that there is no consistent side setback for Linwood Acres. Side setback in Larry Way is generally smaller than those in Randy Lane. In Linwood Acres, the combined side setback ranges as small as 10 feet to as large as 36.5 feet. 47 homes in the neighborhood have a side setback less than 10 feet. That constitutes 78% of the neighborhood (excluding the comer homes). Second Floor (pages 3) · The privacy concerns were addressed with a choice either privacy planting or fixed fi-osted windows. There is no need, nor basis for having such a wide setback that limits the flexibility of second floor design. Having 20-20 second floor setback unduly affects the flexibility and diversity of home design. Allowing wide second floor reduces the wall facing the next-door neighbors, which will reduce the need for windows on the side. Privacy Issue Supposed visual impact of Mr. Truong home (pages 4,5,6) Dispelling misleading information is imperative. Please see the pictures in stated pages. Mr. Truong home was used as an example by the Study Group to show what's wrong with new homes. To Mr. Victor Mueller's argument that no one complained privacy issue eansed by second floor before, Mrs. Prosser rebutted that unlike Mr. Tmong's home Mrs. Benetti's home was designed in such a way to reduce impact to its neighbor. As you can see in the picture provided, both Mrs. Benetti's home has second floor that is just as close if not closer to its neighbor than that of Mr. Tmong's home. Mr. Truong's home is no more invasive to its neighbor than existing two story homes to theirs. Trees (pages 7,8,9) · So far, in addition to being difficult to find, 12-foot trees cost $800 or more as opposed to 10-foot trees of $329. We've been informed that the use of crane is necessary for planting 12-foot tree. Unfortunately, the people and the places we've contacted were unable to quote price or have any experience planting 12-foot trees. Please consider the extra cost and undue burden on homeowners. In addition to the financial burden and adverse affect on growth rate, planting larger trees can be dangerous. Mature trees are more adversely affected by the shock of being planted to a new area. Larger tree are likely to have its growth stunted. Transplanted larger trees, usually more mature trees, cannot grow its root as well as young trees. Hence, strong winds can cause it to fall. This portion of the ordinance can be a source of safety issue. res Group 2003 and Fairness No Consistency In Side Setback Combined Side Setback Survey Randy Lane Larry Way Linwood Acres Minimum 17' 10' 10' 1st Quartile 19.5' 17.1' 17.9' Median 21.3' 18.5' 19.8' 3rd Quartile 27.1' 21.3' 24' Maximum 36.5' 28' 36.5' · 11 homes (27%) have side setbacks less than 10 feet on both sides (excluding corner homes). · 47 homes (78%) h.a. ve setback less than 10 feet on one s~de (excluding corner homes). November 3, 03 Equality, Consistency and Fairness 2 Mr. Truong's House on Randy Lane 2-story hous~ being built in 2003 November 3, 03 Equality, Consistency and Fairness 4 2nd Floor ViSual Impact Benetti's home (for' group proposal) No neighborhood opposition to its "privacy invasion" since 196,9 November 3, 03 Equality, Consistency and Fairness 5 Benetti since 1969 vs. Truong due in 2003 Home of Former Mayor of Cupertino Home of Electrical Contractor November 3, 03 Equality, Consistency and Fairness 6 Shopping for Trees at Payless Nursery * 12-foot trees are costly, at least $800/tree compared to 10-foot tree at $329.99/tree and 8-foot at $89/tree. * Heavy equipment required for big tree planting. * Larger tree does not mean that it will grow faster - according to arborists. November 3, 03 Equality, Consistency and Fairness Comparing 10-foot Trees, 6-foot Shrubs Planted After 1 Year 2 Trees on the left, 2 Shrubs on the Right Reached Same Height After 1 Year November 3, 03Equality, Consistency and Fairness 9 on Merit Fairness 10 PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO R1 ZONING · Descriptlon/Historv: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. · Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (AgricuturaI-Residential) to R! (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of I acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-! does not increase property taxes. · R-1 does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. It is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R~I. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Date Sionature Name Address Phone 7. 8. 9. 10 PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO RI ZONING Ill Description/History: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-l. Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (AgricuturaI-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of ! acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-1 does not increase property taxes. · R-! does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres a rea. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. It is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-1. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. m Date Siqnature Name Address Phone o 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 lq-S/ PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO RI ZONING Description/History: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A:t (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than :[0,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. III Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (Agricutural-Residentiat) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-! zoning was originally designed for lots of ! acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than :[0,000 square feet. · R-1 does not increase property taxes· · R-! does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-! is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres a rea. · R-! prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-! protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. It is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-1. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Date SiQnature Name Address · , Aar;r<: ic/o-.i, 7' t JI I - ----'-- ~ Phone 10 PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO RI ZONING Description/History: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned AZ (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. I Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (Agricutural-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of 1 acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-1 does not increase property taxes. · R-! does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. It is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. BeCause currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-1. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Date $iqnature Name Address. Phone 6. 7. 8. lO PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO R1 ZONING I Description/History: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. Petition: To the CuperUno City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (AgricuturaI-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of 1 acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-1 does not increase property taxes. · R-1 does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. It is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R~I would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-1. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Date Siqnature /~'~) Name Address Phone · DescrJption/~istor¥: linwood Acres, composed of properties located on R~ndy Lane ~nd Larry/ Way. They were zoned Az (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 40's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. · Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (Agricutural-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of 1 acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-1 does not increase property taxes. · R-1 does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value, · R-1 allows flexibilities in design, its is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-l. · R-1 is fair and equitable for ail property owners. · Date SJqnature Name Address 5. 10 Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (AgHcultureI-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 40's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-1. Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (AgricuturaI-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of :1 acre or more while most if not all lots in Unwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet, · R-1 does not increase property taxes. · R-1 does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-1 is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Unwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the properW value. · R-! allows flexibilities in design. Its is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-1 would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R~I. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. Address · Description/History'. LJnwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (Agricultural-Residential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino City from the County in the late 40%. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About 10% are 2-story houses, and ooe home was even rezoned to R-1. · Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and City Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A1 (AgricuturaI-Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-! zoning was originally designed for lots of I acre or more while most if not all lots in Linwood Acres have size less than 10,000 square feet. · R-[ does not increase property taxes. · R-1 does not require sidewalks. · R-1 zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-! is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-1 protects and enhances the property value. · R-1 allows flexibilities in design. Its is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-:t would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-1 or R-1. · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Siqnature Name Address OCT-Z~-ZO0~ IO:4BA~ FRO~-POWER INTEGRATIONS T-4~4 P.oo1/oOl F-e60 PETITION TO CONVERT LINWOOD ACRES AREA TO RI ZONING · Description/History: Linwood Acres, composed of properties located on Randy Lane and Larry Way. They were zoned A1 (Agricul~:uraI-P, esidential) when this area was annexed into the Cupertino CiLy from the Counb/in the late 50's. The neighborhood of 68 houses, built on lot size of less than 1/4 acres (less than 10,000 square feet), consists mostly of older houses mixing with a few remodels and brand new houses. About ~.0% are 2-story houses, and one home was even rezoned to R-~.. Ia Petition: To the Cupertino City Council and CiLy Planning Committee: We the undersigned, Linwood Acres property owners, petition that Linwood Acres zoning ordinance be changed from A! (AgricuturaI-P, esidential) to RI. (Single Family Residential) Among the reasons we would like to have the area rezoned are as follows: · A-1 zoning was originally designed for lots of ~. acre or more while most if not all IDes in Linwood Acres have size less then ~.0,000 square feat. · R-! does not increase proper~y taxes. · R-~. does not require sidewalks. · P,-[ zoning is easy for homeowners to follow and for city regulatory body to administer and is consistent with the majority of the surrounding areas. · R-! is the zoning ordinance of the majority of Cupertino residential areas similar to Linwoods Acres area. · R-1 prevents over regulation where it is not needed. · R-! protects and enhances the properly value. · R-1 allows fle×ibilitles in design. [t is possible to have wider homes (adding aesthetic value to the neighborhood), and bigger backyards (for private family activities as well as a safe place for children to play). · R-! would provide consistency with the surrounding residential areas and the City of Cupertino. Because currently, most if not all of the existing homes were not built in compliance with either A-I or · R-1 is fair and equitable for all property owners. · Date ~ Name Add ress lO EXHIBIT E CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2002-03, EA-2002-20 Agenda Date: September 22, 2003 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive. Application Summary: Rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to the ]?(Al) Planned Development Zone with Agricultural-Residential Intent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Negative Declaration, file number EA-2002-20; 2. Recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the model ordinance and model resolution. BACKGROUND: The Linwood Acres neighborhood consists of 68 homes on Randy Lane and Larry Way between Merritt Drive and Lucille Avenue. The typical lot size is about 9,400 square feet, roughly 75 feet in width and 125 feet in depth. To the north of the neighborhood is Interstate 280, to the west is the Apple Computer campus, to the south is Collins School, and to the east are the Veranda Apartments, a church and single-family residences in the R1 zone. Incorporation - 1955 The Linwood Acres neighborhood was developed in the County of Santa Clara prior to the incorporation of the City of Cupertino in 1955. The neighborhood agreed to be part of the City and was zoned A1-43 Agricultural-Residential, which was consistent with the prior County zone. 1970s - 1980s The A1 zone requires 20-foot side setbacks and most of the homes in the neighborhood do not conform to this setback. Homeowners that wished to add on to their homes had to conform to the 20-foot side setback regulation or file for a variance. Several variances were requested in the 1970s and 1980s. Throughout the review of these variances, the City repeatedly raised the issue of rezoning the neighborhood to the R1 zone. Residents opposed this suggestion on every occasion. In the late 1980s, the residential ordinances in the City (R1, Al, RHS) were updated to include a provision that allowed homeowners to extend one non- conforming building line without filing for a variance. After this rule was put in lq Z-2002-03: Linwooc..cres Rezoning 2 place, a number of homeowners added on to their houses and did not need to provide the 20-foot side setback regulation on one of the side yards. 1999 - R1 Ordinance Amendment In 1999, the City enacted regulations that limited two-story development in the R1 zone. The A1 regulations were not modified. The R1 zone limits the second story to no more than 35% of the first story and has design review. The A1 zone has no such regulations. Since 1999, four large homes have been proposed in the neighborhood. Three have been built. One is currently under construction. It was the residence that is currently under construction on Randy Lane that prompted staff to suggest to the City Council that action be taken to protect the neighborhood. September 2002 - Report to the City Council On September 16, 2002, staff reported to the City Council about the trend of new homes being proposed in the Linwood Acres neighborhood and the lack of neighborhood input provided by the A1 zone. The City Council enacted an interim ordinance while the neighborhood evaluated alternative zoning rules. The interim ordinance will expire on January 31, 2004. The Council directed staff to work with the residents to develop regulations for the neighborhood. October 2002 - Neighborhood Meeting About 50 residents attended a neighborhood meeting held at the Cupertino Library Community Room on October 2, 2002. Staff presented information to the neighborhood and asked for volunteers to study possible zoning regulations for Linwood Acres. About 24 residents signed up for the study group, which the residents agreed would meet every Wednesday night. Following the neighborhood meeting, staff received no calls or inquiries from residents that could not attend the meeting and were interested in what happened. October 2002 - October 2003 - Study Group Deliberations The study group met on thirty-six occasions. The first dozen meetings focused on understanding the regulations that affected their neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the City. About 18 residents attended these meetings. Ordinances reviewed included the A1 regulations, R1 regulations, Accessory Structure regulations, Second Dwelling Unit regulations. The study group also discussed public improvements such as sidewalks and streetlights. Once the study group reviewed the City's regulations, the group went through an informal visioning session. Issues discussed included why people chose to live in Linwood Acres, what they like and dislike about the neighborhood and what they want to see for the future of the neighborhood. Z-2002-03: Linwooc, Acres Rezoning 3 After the visioning session, the study group began discussing the regulations that they preferred for the neighborhood. This discussion lasted for about 15 meetings. At this point, the study group consisted of about 14 residents. There was unanimous agreement on some issues, but many issues were split votes. Several members strongly support a one-story overlay and several other members tended to support the R1 zoning. The group crafted a middle ground between the one-story and the R1 proponents. July 2003 - Presentation to the Neighborhood The study group held a neighborhood meeting on July 8, 2003 at the Quinlan Center to present their proposal to the neighborhood. Surveys were available for residents to indicate what they thought about various issues. The Powerpoint slides of the presentations are attached. The study group allowed two dissenting group members to present their recommendation of rezoning to the R1 zone. The Powerpoint slides of the presentation are attached. Following the second neighborhood meeting, the group revised their proposal to address concerns that were raised from residents. The group sent out a letter (attached) to the neighborhood describing the revisions they made and in some cases, the reasons that they did not change a regulation even though many residents commented on the item. The letter included the hearing date for the Planning Commission as well as the group's model ordinance. DISCUSSION: Group Proposal The group proposal is a hybrid of the A1 and R1 zones that maintains most of the setback requirements of the A1 zone, except for relaxed side setbacks, and uses the significant massing regulations of the R1 zone including the maximum floor area ratio, lot coverage and second-story size. Review Process for New Construction The group proposes a set of guidelines to be applied to all new construction. To apply guidelines, there must be some level of review. The group proposes staff level review for all single-story development and review by the Design Review Committee for all two-story development. Extension of Nonconforming Building Lines on the Side Yards This is one of the significant issues in the neighborhood. This allowance was added to the A1 and R1 zones in 1989. The intent of this rule was to allow residents to increase the size of an existing room even though it did not meet the side setback. Because this neighborhood had 20-foot side setbacks, this rule was used frequently in this neighborhood. Homebuilders would extend a nonconforming wall all the way down the side property line, then raise the height of the wall to nearly twice the original height. This resulted in significant visual impacts on neighbors. Also, the City has no definition of what a Z-2002-03: Linwooc~_ ~cres Rezoning 4 demolition is. Homebuilders can remove the entire wall and foundation, but still extend the wall. The group believes this is an important regulation to keep in some form because it encourages homeowners to add on to their existing house without building a second story. To address potential abuse, the group recommends that the height of the extended wall not be increased. Privacy Protection The group proposes to use the privacy regulations in the RI zone except for the following items: 1. Trees must be 12-feet tall when planted (the R1 zone requires 8-feet). 2. Shrubs must be 9-feet tall when planted (the R1 zone requires 6-feet). 3. Set back planting from property lines equal to 1/4 of the tree/shrub spread. The purpose of these differences is to provide more immediate privacy protection to affected neighbors. After further study, the group believes it is not feasible to get 9-foot shrubs. Staff expects that the group will revise their proposal between the Commission meeting and the City Council meeting. Guidelines The group proposes using the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines with additional guidelines specific to the neighborhood. Projects must conform to the guidelines unless it is shown that there are no adverse impacts from the nonconformance. The group wishes to have this level of certainty due to the recent decisions with the R1 ordinance and City's current guidelines. Variation frotn the Regulations The A1 zone requires variances for projects that do not meet the regulations in the ordinance. The group proposes to maintain this. The R1 zone has an exception process, which is easier to approve. Staff believes the R1 zone needs the exception process because the R1 zoning is a "one-size-fits-all" zoning that applies to 5,000 square foot lots, 20,000 square foot lots, rectangular lots, triangular lots, lots on flat terrain and lots with significant slope. The Linwood Acres neighborhood is made up of rectangular lots on level terrain with roughly the same lot size and the same orientation to the street. Staff believes that an exception process for the Linwood Acres neighborhood is not warranted. To provide flexibility in a different way, the group moved many of their proposed regulations to guidelines. RI Proposal A number of residents in the neighborhood oppose the study group's proposal and wish to have the R1 zoning that applies to most neighborhoods in the City. Based on survey results, about one-third of the neighborhood is in this category. The group has organized as the Linwood Acres Property Rights Group. Z-2002-03: Linwooc~ _ ~cres Rezoning 5 A number of elements of the group proposal have been relaxed to address the concerns of R1 proponents that the group proposal is not flexible enough. The objectionable issues that the R1 proponents have raised to staff are the greater setbacks, reduced building height, higher privacy protection requirements and review process. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission endorse the group proposal for the following reasons: 1. The study group has developed neighborhood regulations to reflect their unique history and character and appear to have received support from the neighborhood; 2. The study group proposal most closely reflects the position of those advocating a one-story overlay while maintaining the maximum allowable building area for all residents; 3. The study group proposal is similar to the R1 zoning with a few distinctions that reflect their larger lot size, their concern for privacy and their desire to have more input in the future development of their neighborhood; If the City Council enacts the study group proposal, staff will recommend a review of the results after three or four years. Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A: Zordng Plat Map Exhibit B: Model Ordinance Initial Study ERC Recommendation Letter to Neighborhood dated September 19, 2002 (and attachments) Letter to Neighborhood dated June 13, 2003 Study Group Proposal - Powerpoint Presentation Part I Study Group Proposal - Powerpoint Presentation Part II - Walkthrough the survey form Survey Form RI Proposal - Powerpoint Presentation Letter to Neighborhood (undated) notifying residents of PC meeting, including: Study Group Proposal Comparison Table Study Group Proposal Model Ordinance Cupertino Courier Article dated September 17, 2003 (web-version) E-mail to the Courier from Terry Griffin Executive Summary of the Study Group Proposal from Terry Griffin Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Plarmer Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmet~_ EXHIBIT F CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on November 3, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2002~20 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2002-03 City of Cupertino: Linwood Acres Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200220 iq4 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 10, 2003 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on September 10, 2003. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2002-03 (EA-2002-20) City of Cupertino: Linwood Acres Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to P(A1) Planned Development Zone. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE3vV COMMITTEE The Environmental..~ __Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaratipf?fin~g t~t the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no ~al impacts. StevX~dPiaseckk/ ~ .... Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2002-20 CUPEI TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ~Staff Use Only lEA File N°, EA-2002-20 ICase File N~'. ~3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~,ttachments. ~ Project Title: Linwood Acres Nei.qhborhood Rezoninq Project Location: Randy Lane and Larry Way between Lucille Avenue and Merritt Drive Project Description: Rezoninq of approximately 19 acres, consistinq of 68 sinqle-family residences from A1-43 AqriculturaI-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Sinqle Family Residence Zone to the P(A1) Planned Development Zone with AqriculturaI-Residential Intent. Environmental Setting: The neiqhborhood is an existin.q sinqle-family residential neiqhborhood, developed in 1951. The surroundinq area is completely developed. The nei.qhborhood is bounded by Interstate 280 to the north, the Apple Computer campus to the west, Collins Elementary School to the southwest, sinqle-family residential properties to the south and southeast, and a church and apartment complex to the east. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Area - 19.5 acres. Bldg Coverage - N/A% Exist. Bldg. - N/A s.f. Proposed Bldg. -N/A s.f. Zone - A1-43 G.P. Designation - Low Density Residential 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac. Assessor's Parcel No. - Book 316, Paqe 02 Parcels 005 - 073 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type fl4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [] [] [] S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - N/A s.f. Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required N/A Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - FAR- N/A. Max. Parking Provided N/A YES X NO A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES i. L~nd U~e E[ement 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. CityAerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) '14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. ClTYAGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open gpace District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School Distdct 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water Distdct E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clam County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site Fo OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Se'dApplication Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A. Complete ali information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each paqe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. C. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,/'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document '/'Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [t, 17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] The rezoning will have no aesthetic impacts on the environment. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for [] [] [] [] agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] [] [] [] [] [and SuppoSing Information Sources] ~ 'E~_E ~ '[ .~_o'- ~ .~_E _E While the neighborhood is in an agricultural-residential zone, there are actually no agricultural resources of uses in the neighborhood. The rezoning project will have no impact on agr cu tural resources. III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [] [] pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a [] [] substantial number of people? [4,37,44] The area is zoned Agricultural-Residential, but no agricultural uses are present in the neighborhood. The area is a suburban single-famill residential subdivision. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any , riparian habitat or other sensitive natural [] [] [] [] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridom, or impede the use of native wildlife numery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] The subdivisions "Linwood Acres" and "Linwood Acres No. 2" have been developed since 1951. There is no natural habitat in the area, and there will be no biological impacts from the extension of the interim ordinance. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: [] [] [] [] a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in {}15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [] [] [] [] )aleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including [] [] [] [] i [and Supporting Information Sources] i - I those interred outside of formal cemetedes? I[1,51 i The project will have no impact on cultural resources. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk I of loss, injury, or death involving: : i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [] [] El [] delineated on the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] [] [] [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [] [] [] [] liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] [] [] [] [] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the [] [] [] [] loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is [] [] [] [] unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined [] [] [] [] in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997) creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately [] [] [] [] supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] The proJect will have no geologic impacts. [and SuppoSing Information Sources] VII. H~RDS AND H~RDOUS MATER ALS - Wou d the project: Ia) Create a significant hazard to the public or ~ the environment through the routine transpo~, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quaKer mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signifi~nt hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project Io~ted within an airpo~ land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o miles of a public airpo~ or public use airpo~, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the proje~ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, inju~ or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] The project will not result in the introduction or transport of hazardous materials into the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or [] [] [] [] waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] [] [] [] [] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or 31anned stormwater drainage systems or arovide substantial additional sources of ~olluted runoff? [20,36,42] 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [2,36,38] [] [] The rezoning will have no impacts on hydrology and water quality. ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] the project: a) Physically divide an established [] [] [] [] community? [7,12,22,41] [] [] [] [] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] [] [] [] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] The rezoning will not conflict with the General Plan or any other land use policy. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] The project will have no impact on mineral resources. Xl. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, [] [] [] [] noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [] [] [] [] excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] [] [] [] [] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [and SuPporting Information $ourees] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where Such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] d) A substantial temporary or periodic [] [] increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] [] [] [] [] [] [] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] The rezoning will not have any noise impacts. XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an [] [] [] [] area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of reads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [] [] [] [] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] [] [] [] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] The project will have no impact on housing and population growth or displacement. XlII, PUBLIC SFRVICI:S a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or IggUEg: [and Supporting Informntion Sources] other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] Police protection? [33,44] Schools? [29,30,44] [] [] [] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] [] [] [] [] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] The project will have no impacts on public services. XlV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational [] [] [] [] facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] The project will not result in the need for additional ~arks. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: [] [] [] [] a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Icad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [] [] [] [] including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in [and Supporting Information Sources] substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equ pment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] o ~o The project will not result in impacts related to vehicular and air transportation. XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ~ g) Comply with federat, state, and local [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] The project will have no impact on utility and service systems. II ~MANDATOR~ F NDINGS OF SlGNIFIG~CE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in ~nnection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effec~ of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ~use substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ',~z~ /~' Preparer's Signature . - Print Preparer's Name Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water [] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] Utilities / Service [] Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: [] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects la) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and lb) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed ~ojec, t, .no.}hing further is required. Date ERC ' 'person Date EXHIBIT G Iinutes 5 September 22, 2003 He said the PG&E tower is an excellent situation, yet not the most attractive things in the cities. Mounting the antennae, painting them to match, putting the equipment underneath the tower is a Sa to sector on ground to be antennas is difficult because from company to : or the tower, you may get different antennas. was a costly option; seen only the coax is not flexible. site to site, sector Chair Saadati: to raise up out of the Mr. Jung: · Referred to Page 23 of providing for the willing property owner, the) have to find a willing property above the fence line and easements that would affect the Wireless to be either in the rear' citing design guidelines, we are if they were able to find a of adjacent residences, but they would cabinets should not be visible to know both land easements and · Chair Chen closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr ' Com. Applications on page 15 of the Draft Wireless Facilities Master that bullet No. 2 of the page be deleted and replaced with" ,I district on~ag.e 1 acknowledge the Dosed a friendly amendment that Commission vice chair as Commission and Planning \ well. 5-0-0) Z-2002-03, EA-2002-20 City of Cupertino: Linwood Acres Rezoning approximately 19 acres, consisting of 68 single-family residences from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and R1-7.5 Single-Family Residence Zone to P(A1) Planned Development Zone Tentative City Council date: October 20, 2003 Chairperson Chen outlined the guidelines for discussion of the application and public input. Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Reported the application was for rezoning 19 acres, consisting of 68 homes, from A1 and R1 to P(A1) Planned Development Zone with agricultural-residential intent. · Staff report outlines the history of the application. · Staffreport also includes items different fi.om what is in RI. · Said a model ordinance fi.om the study group is in staff report; if Planning Commission makes a recommendation different, suggested they recommend their version of the model ordinance; changes can be made and what will be presented to the City Council will be the Planning Commission recommendation of what the ordinance should be and what the study group is preferring. One group supports the study group proposal and the other group would prefer the R1 ordinance. · If Planning Commission feels the RI is more appropriate then we don't have to have a model ordinance; it would be rezoned as Ri. · If the Planning Commission believes it is in between the two extremes, the document can be amended to address commissioners' concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 22, 2003 Com. Miller: · Questioned the basis for zoning the 68 units separate from everything else in Cupertino. Mr. Gilli: · Said that it was already different and has been different for the life of the city whereas many neighborhoods in the R1 zone have a mix of lot sizes, shapes. · One key item is the setbacks in their neighborhood have been and are not is what is in RI. · There are reasons that the neighborhood itself or a section of the neighborhood feels that it has unique characteristics; they were one of the original neighborhoods that came into the city at the time they were made A1 and remained that way; there has been at least 6 attempts to rezone the area to R1 and they have not always had support from the neighborhood, that is why staff is comfortable with rezoning this to a designation that is not in keeping with the rest of the city. Com. Miller: · Said there is a precedent for zoning a neighborhood differently which is the Eichler neighborhood, in which case it is clear it uses another precedent which is throughout the county, of zoning neighborhoods with Victorian houses. For example in a separate category, the intent being to keep a particular architectural design that is different, unique, and preserve it for future generations which is understandable, easy to justify. In this case he said he did not see the same kind of strong justification because in the neighborhoods, there are some differences, but they are also very similar to a number of other neighborhoods in Cupertino. Mr. Gilli: · Said from staff's standpoint, if the neighborhood wishes to have regulations that don't match the rest of the city, they feel they should have the ability to make that determination. · There are other neighborhoods in the community that have done that, in particular the ones who have requested a single story overlay; there is nothing unique except that neighborhood wanted to be one story. · There are residents in the neighborhood who would prefer a one story overlay. · The group listened to both sides and came up with something they thought was middle ground. · The right to determine what your neighborhood will be like was a strong point and the history of opposition and the history of always wanting to be a unique neighborhood are the basis of staff' s position. Com. Miller: · From the staff standpoint looking at it on a citywide basis, if it is done, one concern might be that other neighborhoods would want to do the same thing and the question has to be asked that given that you spent roughly a year in this process and if other neighborhoods come up and they have similar thoughts and needs, it would be expected that staff would spend additional time and there would be additional time administering these. Is that an issue from staff's standpoint? Mr. Gilli: · Said it is an issue from one standpoint that if there are a number of different zones, it is more difficult on staff, but in the city there are a lot of neighborhoods that are in a planned development, every time they have an accessory structure, staff has to do an approval for it and it can turn into a difficult process. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 22, 2003 · Said one item about this neighborhood that will likely not reoccur is that this rezoning started because of a concern that the existing zoning wasn't adequate. · Other neighborhoods have the two story protections that are in R1 so they won't have as much of an immediate need; what will likely be asked for in those cases is that they start out with a strong group who wants to do a rezoning and they start out with ideas of what they want which would greatly decrease the amount of time staff needs to spend. In this case the study group needed to be educated on why staff thought they needed to rezone and then have a discussion on what it should be; that part should not occur in the future. · There are neighborhoods such as Rancho Rinconada that because they are unique in their lot sizes, may warrant it, instead of trying to make RI fit 5,000 sq ft lots, which it wasn't made to, it might be better to make them separate but it will have to start with them; the neighborhood will have to come up and ask for it. Mr. Piasecki: · The Planning Commission not long ago discussed the concept of neighborhoods plans and encouraged neighborhoods to look at their individuality and what makes them special. Staff feels that is healthy, and in this case given the history of this particular neighborhood the City Council invited them to see if they could reach a consensus. Staff feels they have done what they were asked to do; if we simply wanted them to go to the RI as in the past three or four times when we have brought that up and there is an opposition to that we did not feel that wasn't the right way to go in this case. The Planning Commission can still recommend that, but there has been a lot of history and we think this has come a long way toward reaching that reasonable level of cons4nsus and compromise. Com. Miller: · Questioned if it was the same type of process the Eichler neighborhood went through or was that different; is there any the history on the Eichler neighborhoods? Was there general consensus among the entire neighborhood? Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was similar in the sense that staff met with the residents of the neighborhood and developed the guidelines; worked with some architects to develop what is special about Eichler homes. He said it was similar, not quite as lengthy, and did not have as much history. Mr. Gilli: · Said he recalled that there not strong levels of consensus because the group that worked on the Eichler rezoning brought a proposal to the Planning Commission and City Council, and it was modified greatly and a great many things were taken out. · Said in the case of Eichler, it was an architectural style that was trying to be protected; in the case of this neighborhood the residents who have been there know what they want to protect; it is not a case of certain architectural styles are in keeping with what is there; it is more of a wish of the neighbors as to what they want the future of the neighborhood to evolve to. · Said over 80% of the properties provided input on the group proposal; exact number not known. · Said it was likely that the 9 foot shrub requirement would not stay because after further review it is too difficult to get. The group wanted to have taller plantings because if it is possible and not a significant increase in costs then larger trees should be planted because it will block the views out of two story homes sooner. · In the RI, the intent is that there won't be any real privacy protection for three years; members of the group felt larger trees are possible, 12 foot tall trees are approximately a 36 inch box tree Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 22, 2003 on commercial properties, and it was felt that the increase in cost was worth it based on the improvement to the privacy situation. The 9 foot tall shrubs are going to have to be amended. The R1 does have a list of trees and shrubs and it does have a requirement that the trees be 8 feet tail when planted; shrubs 6 feet tall; so what they did was they went up another level and the group felt that the neighbor's privacy was worth that extra money. Com. Corr: · (1) How does signage compare to what is proposed? · (2) Design guidelines for second story deck; what drove the 6 feet depth? · (3) Second story windows: Whose opinion is it that the total area of the second story windows should not be significant more than necessary. Mr. Gilli: · (1) It is similar; the difference being that for one story projects, the sign postings I R1 may be courtesy notification. In the case of what the group is proposing, it would be notification in which there would be neighborhood input, the remainder would be similar to what is proposed for RI. · (2) Design guidelines came out to ensure that the deck was not oversized; said he was not sure if 8 feet would be objectionable if it were changed. The way the group is proposing these guidelines operate is that the project must conform to them unless it is shown there are adverse impacts from the non- conformance, so if this were approved as is and an applicant could show yes it is more than 6 feet, but because of the design of the deck, it is not increasing impacts on privacy, it would be allowed. He said they may want to ask some of the members who support the group proposal, whether or not they would be comfortable with increasing the deck to 8 feet. · (3) On the uniform building code, each room needs a certain amount of egress, which came to light based on the house currently under construction. There are a lot of two story windows on the sides and they are larger than required. Vice Chair Saadati: · (1) How were the notices sent out to the neighborhood on the study? · (2) What percentage of the neighborhood attended the group meetings on average? · (3) Relative to privacy, the ordinance addresses privacy; the builders need to come up with trees or shrubs that in about 2-3 years will meet the requirement. What is the maximum size of trees in the past we have required to be planted? · (4) The side setbacks set by R1 are 10 and 5 and by the group proposal 10 and 10. · (5) Are there any other homes in Cupertino where the side setbacks are 10 and I07 Mr. Gilli: · (1) There was a neighborhood meeting in October last year; everyone was hand delivered a packet on their doorstep; later it was learned there was a flaw because the absentee owners did not receive them; everyone was invited to a neighborhood meeting at the library and the neighbors attending were asked if they wanted to participate in a study group. They decided to meet on each Wednesday; those who attended the first meeting knew about the meeting schedule and e-mails were sent out to residents notifying them of the meetings. · (2) There were about 50 to 60 people, did not check what percentage of properties attended. · (3) The R1 has a list of trees and shrubs to chose from and a minimum planting size and people plant the minimum size. In the Ri, the box size is specified as 24 inch box, 8 foot in height, for Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 22, 2003 a second story window. The group proposal is not proposing a box size, but requiring the height of 12 feet. (4) Yes, the A1 zoning had 20 foot side setbacks which didn't match what was in the neighborhood. The group proposed reducing it to 10 feet on both sides and R1 has 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other. The group believes that keeping larger side setbacks is important. Mr. Piasecki: · (2) For each meeting, it was predominantly the study group meeting and during the 35 meetings they had, their charge was to develop a proposal that they could then present to their greater neighborhood, which they did. That was noticed widely but it was not a public hearing in a sense that you hold public hearings; they were simply asked to volunteer and they had to study it in great depth and then come back with a proposal that they presented to the whole neighborhood. · (5) There are some large lots but R1 is the same for all lots; the requirement is 10 and 5, even for a 20,000 square foot lot. Chair Chen: · (1) Resolution on Page 2-9, permitted used A-H, is that consistent with R1 use or is it primarily based on Al, specifically concerned about use No. C. · (2) Where are the RI zones in Cupertino, is there any minimum size lot requirement for R1 zoning that can perform those kinds of uses, such as raising horses. · (3) Assuming the lot sizes for all the A1 zones in Cupertino are much larger than the 10,000 sq. ft. or quarter acre in the Linwood Area. · (4) Asked for clarification on second story restrictions. · (5) If we make changes to Al, this is proposed only as PD(A1), does that affect the PD zoning or do we have to go through rezoning process or whatever process to change it? · (6) Can they request the 67% support from the neighborhood to go through the process? Mr. Gilli: · (1) Use No. C does come out of Al, there are many animal and agricultural uses in Al, the group wanted to keep as many of the uses as possible from A1 because they believed that there were residents of the neighborhood who wanted that. · Said there are more in the conditional uses; there are items that are proposed to be for conditional use that you would not be able to do in RI. Of all the items under permitted uses, C is the only one that is not from RI; there are a number of items in the conditional uses that are not from R1. The A1 is very different, the group proposal removed a lot of the uses that are clearly inappropriate such as a quarry, mine and a cemetery; they are taken out as being even possible, but things that might be acceptable were kept in if there were residents who wanted that right. · (2) The RI does not allow that; RHS does, which is the hillside, A1 allows it; the lots down by Linda Vista Park which are the other Als are on slopes so they are like a hillside zone, so they would be allowed to have those k/nd of uses, most of them are conditional and would need approval from the Planning Commission but there are some that would be permitted. · (3) The A1 requires a minimum lot size of one acre, none of the Linwood lots are one acre; some of the lots near the hillside might be an acre but there are some less than that; there are some that might be in the range of 20,000 sq ft. · (4) Second story restrictions: Them won't be conflicts at least not that staff sees; what we did was we took the average size lot, took what the proposed second floor setbacks would be that left an area of almost 2,000 sq ft; the setbacks allow almost 2,000 on the second floor because Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 22, 2003 of the size of the lots and the regulations that limits the second story, the most you could have on the second floor is a little over 1,000 square feet, so there is going to be plenty of flexibility to move around in that envelope. The other items that are second story regulations, saying that the decks can only be located on the front or rear, there will be plenty of room as seen on the last slide; two items in RI are regulations that are proposed in the group proposal as a guideline; one is the requirement that half of the perimeter of the second story can't have exposed wall heights over 6 feet and that has to be offset by 4 feet; that is proposed to be a guideline so if someone has 51% but it looks fine and the neighbors are okay with it, it can be allowed. The other is requiring an offset every 24 feet which has to be 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide. Those 2 roles are ones where applicants in the R1 sometimes have issues with that. They can make the design meet the setbacks but might not meet one of those of the last two, so the group is proposing to put those into guidelines so you don't have to meet it as long as the intent of these rules which is to keep most of the second story walls, have them covered with first story roof and not have two story wall planes that are too long. As long as the intent of that is met you don't have to meet the exact rule that is in RI. He said he did not anticipate any problems meeting the second story rules that the group is proposing. (5) If Alwere changed then that would not affect this zoning if it were approved as a PD; you would have to change the PD zoning in this neighborhood in order to make a change to it. If new things are realized in roles that work or don't work and it will come down to the neighborhood having to ask to have that also; an R1 gets regulations or has a regulation removed, and the neighborhood wants that same treatment they would have to ask for it. (6) Relative to the 67% support, that is to go so far as to make a one story overlay, which from staff's perspective is a significant regulation. It isn't an item you should approve with just 51% of the neighbors; if the neighborhood wonted to change a rule that was not significant, from staff's perspective you would not need 67% support of the neighborhood since it is not significant; if it is a change to FAR, to setbacks that you need a more significant amount of support, at least 60%. He said it goes to the City Council for determination. If the neighborhood requests a zoning change, it would likely go to the Council and request the City Council to authorize it to happen. Chair Chen opened the public hearing. Terry Griffin, 10727 Randy Lane, Voluntary Study Group Chair: · Said study group was formed at request of the City Council to address zoning issues in the neighborhood. · Said they felt the charter given to them was to review the single family residence zoning and come up with a recommendation for zoning appropriate for the neighborhood. · Gave a history of the neighborhood as staffreported previously. · Said several attempts have been made to rezone the neighborhood and the residents have requested that it remain as is. · The plans for new two story home on Randy Lane are what triggered this process. · illustrated a photo of the proposed house; larger than others on street, but dwarfs the homes on the other side of it; showed views of the house and privacy impacts of two story construction to neighboring houses. · He outlined the goals of the study group: ~' What is it that brought us to the neighborhood; the likes, dislikes, and use those to extrapolate a set of key considerations to use in formulating the group's proposal. > To maintain the desirability of the neighborhood and to protect investment; not just based on the size of the house you can build, but based also on the livability of the neighborhood; it is open, tranquil, houses are set further apart than most R1 neighborhoods in the city, and they want to protect that. Planning Conumssion Minutes 11 September 22, 2003 Have a safe, family friendly neighborhood and want it to continue. Want to keep a sense of community in the neighborhood; neighbors talk to each other, have an identity as a community. Said they appreciated that the city came and asked them to consider zoning for the neighborhood, which helps to establish a unique identity, and it is a positive thing. >' Want to maintain semi-rural atmosphere; large lots. ~' Want to maintain fi-ont setback consistency to help maintain the look of the neighborhood. Consider two story development and being reasonable about how it affects the neighborhood. Said the process is one of compromise and consensus; they went through meetings where there was clearly emotional stakes in the process that the people want one story only. Said he did not want to deal with the danger and hassle of having two stories overlooking his house; and to go with the RI. Said the proposal is neither A1 which is what we are, what we were; nor is it R1 and they tried to pick the best of both. Overriding objective is try to find the best fit for our neighborhood. It was a consensus and compromise process; there is not unanimous agreement; there is a majority consensus of the neighborhood. Reviewed elements of the proposal: Square footage allowed. Setbacks (kept A1 setbacks, relaxed the side setbacks to be more reasonable and more in keeping with what was in the neighborhood, but are larger than what is in RI. Building height; are proposing to use the R1 guidelines as far as the building envelope, and also the wall heights, those specifications except to reduce them by 2 feet. Talked about a process different than RI; feel strongly that regulations should be enforced and not be open to interpretation. Design review process is the mechanism by which we want to enforce the guidelines; the design review process allows for somebody to say that they can show it doesn't have a negative impact and therefore be allowed to do something that is outside of the specification of the guideline. Proposing that there be design review for both two story and single story and that the single story is design review at the staff level with the approval of the Director of Community Development. Two story development requires design review including the design review before the DRC. ~. Neighborhood notification is important; in A1 there is no requirement for neighborhood notification of any construction; in R1 there is only neighborhood notification required if the construction is massive, more than 35% of the FAR to the lot size; for single story construction neighborhood notification is important because a single story construction still impacts the neighbors and it has been found that the neighbors don't know anything is happening until after the construction begins. What is hoped by neighborhood notification is to give the neighbors an opportunity to provide their feedback at a time when something could be done about their feedback rather than waiting until after the construction and having angry neighbors and potentially expensive costs to mitigate some adverse impact. > Non-conforming wall extension is unique to the neighborhood; we are recommending that unlike the existing A1 and RI, where you can have a single non-conforming side wall extension, we are recommending allowing multiples; the reason for that is our neighborhood was bulk out in the early 50s; many of the homes have akeady had a single extension done and we feel it is reasonable for them to do an additional extension particularly because it allows flexibility either going single story or going to a two story to get the living space desired. Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 22, 2003 ~ Increased privacy protection. Addressed Com. Corr's issue, stating that their goal was is to provide as in:unediate protection as possible (impact is immediate, protection should be as well); guidelines in R1 say there would be protection in three years, which is a long time to live somewhere with somebody looking down into your side yard. Summarized that from the neighborhood meeting they had received a good sense of majority support for the group proposal at that meeting, and also have continued to receive that and feedback aRer that meeting and look forward to the recommendation to the City Council. Com. Wong: · Thanked Mr. Griffin for the excellent job he did in facilitating the July meeting; there were stressful conditions on both sides. · Referring to the photo of the two story home, he asked how, under the new draft proposal, it would be addressed under the new draft plan. Mr. Griffin responded: · There are 2 parts to it; one is that the group's proposal specifically states that the side viewing windows need to be obscured or have 5 foot sills which will prevent downward looking views; that is the key thing that would address this. · The other is for rear facing views when we do have two streets that back up together, requiring taller privacy planting would address that. · Said the setback was 20 feet from the fence to the side of the house. · There are no second story requirements in Al. · He added that the group's proposal was keeping the 20 foot setback for the second story but does allow the first story to come out to 10 feet. Thanh Nguyen, Linwood Acres Property Rights Group stated the following: · Members group opposed the special zoning for consideration as the new zoning for the Linwood Acres area. Sam Liem, 10726 Randy Lane, stated the following: · Said the topic to present is change; the background of change and why Linwood Acres needs to change; and we go over some paradigm of shift and some history of changes and we shall look at our fights as property owners and how we protect our investment. · Said he and his family had a dream to have a home; they built their dream home. Change means progress, change is for good, change is for improvement; · He discussed historical changes and the changes in Linwood Acres. · Said there was inconsistent zoning of Al; there's R1 and Al, the sides setbacks are unequal, unrealistic, so compliance to current A1 cannot be reached · Said A1 is no longer meaningful to them; the changes already began, and the benefit of the change to R1 is that there is compliance, consistency, growth opportunity and easy to maintain. · He spoke about the freedom of land rights; stating it is a controversial issue but we have to remind ourselves about the founding fathers, remember the symbol of our liberty, the constitution and the bill of rights. · Said if he purchases property, he wants to protect his investment and enhance the look of the neighborhood and promote safety. · Said they need to change to more consistent zoning and change is for progress. · Discussed consensus; is it 60%, 70% or 90% of the neighborhood, clearly it is not 50% as stated by staff in an e-mail. · Showed how he arrived at different calculations relative to the survey. · Illustrated photos of different neighborhoods in other areas. Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 22, 2003 · Said the survey was confusing; left too much to interpretation and there was no consensus from the survey handed out. The neighborhood has specialized zoning and they need to meet the burden of proof that they have clear consensus and they failed to do so especially with the petition submitted showing no consensus. · He said at best there is a divided neighborhood and it is because of that the Planning Commission must reach a decision on merit and nothing else. · Said he foresees a problem with specialized zoning as it is confusing and makes it difficult for the city to administer. · Said he felt A1 was odd zoning; it is a mistake when they incorporated into the city. · Urged the commissioners to make the right decision that settles once and for all the zoning that has been for the city and all the people that live in the neighborhood. Chair Chen asked those in support of the statemant, to raise their hand. Janine Paulson, 10557 Randy Lane: · Said her passion is equality; people coming into the area and being treated fairly and equally and rising up to be able to take care of their families every day. · Said that the churches in the area say there is a remover in their community about 30%, which justifies looking at R1 again even though it has been shot down by the neighborhood in the past. · Clarified that the focus group of the board split and became two groups with strong views; · Said it was a misnomer to call it the study group proposal because there are two proposals, R2 and what ended up becoming the proposal. · Said her concern is that some people in the neighborhood think their vote is worth more because they showed up for more meetings or their home cost more than someone else's, or less than somebody else's, or they resided on these street longer than anyone else, or they are using the house as an investment. · He said that there were threats made by the other side at the focus group meetings, threatening people's houses, and lawsuits. · Expressed concern that some of the voting done may have resulted out of intimidation and not a true democratic free choice vote. Geoffrey Paulsen, 10557 Randy Lane said: · Change has been a constant in Cupertino for 200 years. · Presently in the midst of an exciting change; as Mr. Liem said Cupertino has become a city and we are on our way to becoming a built up interesting community with the streetscape plan that has been offered and a multi cultural city. · Change is coming to Linwood Acres and what you see partly reflects the tension that arises from these changes that are beginning to drive the character of the neighborhood; encouraged the Planning Comrmssion to consider that in their decision. Com. Wong asked those in the audience who support the R1 to stand up. Mr. Gilli noted that there were audience members who did not live in the neighborhood or own property in the neighborhood. Com. Miller: · Asked to see a show of hands of those who supported the group proposal. · Said statistics were confusing; staff indicated 82% of the community submitted surveys; about 55 people; Mr. Liem showed different numbers. · More time needed to look at the numbers and decide which are the real numbers. Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 22, 2003 Chair Chen: · Said it appeared to be a consensus of the Commission; they would favor collecting public input tonight and also provide specific directions for staff to work more on the issue and also allow some time to understand the issues a lot better. Com. Miller: · Suggested continuing to hear public input and then provide comments at the end and make a recommendation either to approve, not approve, or continue the application. Peter Griffin, 19727 Randy Lane: · Said he supported the group proposal. · Said there have always been privacy issues; he would prefer not to look into someone else's window or have them look into his. · People living in the area have had an equal and fair opportunity to give their input into what they want the neighborhood to look like; if they want something in this neighborhood they can easily attain it by going to the meetings and suggesting what needs to be changed. · Think the zoning that the group has come up with would preserve that better than R1; R1 is missing some specific things that are needed to preserve that which have been made changes in the group. · Relative to changes that were made, he said if something changed on their street and the group decided that they wanted less restrictive zoning, then they could change it without affecting the other neighborhoods present in Cupertino, which may not want less or more restrictive zoning. · Linwood Acres is a minority in the Cupertino area but they are very different and it would be changing RI; would affect the two blocks of 68 properties of people who have different ideas for their housing. · The zoning would be a fair representation of the neighborhood and preserve its real feel; would give people a chance to get involved in their neighborhood and what they want it to look like from a zoning point of view. Brian Kuo, 10540 Larry Way: · Said the reason he would like to reject the study group proposal is it is a flawed process; the group proposal is confusing to everyone; it was unfair presentation at the neighborhood meeting that the group proposal is unsafe and costly to build; there is no consensus reached from the neighbors. · Said the study group proposal was a flawed process because after the first meeting there was no meeting summaries sent to neighbors, 80% of the Larry Way residents didn't know exactly what happened after the meeting; a meeting was controlled by a small group of people. He said he asked staff to send a letter informing neighbors about a meeting concerning the seniors and the non-English speaking residents, but was rejected repeatedly. · Said residents who found out later and wanted to get involved with this meeting were rejected by the city staff and group. The layout shows clearly it is their own flavor, not considering the neighborhood or city as a whole. · The group members did not meet or have discussions with neighbors, until after they learned the neighbors started their own group. · Group members were abused and threatened at meetings, resulting in them not feeling that they could trust city staffto handle the neighborhood meeting. · Staff and the group did not disclose the additional cost of unrealistic size trees required to be planted; and said his house value would be depressed by that. Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 22, 2003 · Allowing this would significantly impact the overall look of the neighborhood and make large homes appear even larger. · The R1 side setbacks are too small; a five foot side setback coupled with a non-conforming side is too close. Many residents do not have air conditioning; in the summer when the windows are open, they don't want to hear or see their neighbors. · The R1 20 foot rear setback can be reduced to 10 feet if the lots do not border single family residential areas; this applies to all the houses on Larry Way bordering Apple and the homes on Randy bordering the apartments and the church. · This has the potential of impacting the neighbors on either side of these homes by allowing a wall and roof line to extend all the way down the fence line. · The R1 regulations are inappropriate for a neighborhood because R1 covers such diverse neighborhoods and lots; it is a complex maze of conditions, cases and exceptions. · This opens the door for regulations and guidelines to be used in ways they weren't intended. · The group proposal is easy to read, understand and comply with; the setbacks are fixed; there is no exceptions. · The Ri regulations would have a significant environmental impact both aesthetically and under the mandatory findings of significance; the reduced setbacks AND increased wall heights would dramatically change the openness and low density look and feel of our neighborhood not to mention the quality of life to our residents · Having unique neighborhoods is good for the city; it encourages people to have an identity to have a sense of belonging at a much lower level than the city. · The city encourages neighborhood watch groups, neighborhood emergency prep groups, etc. Having a neighborhood identity encourages this which in mm helps the city. · The group proposal is what the majority of the neighborhood wants. Ellen Chen, 10540 Larry Way: · Said at the study group she and her husband were told they could not vote on any items discussed because they were latecomers who had not joined the meetings at the beginning; however they were welcome to express their opinion but could not vote. · Said that speaking itself does not afford them rights and voting gives them rights. · Said they were frustrated with the process and felt they could not express their opinions at the meeting. They did not stay in the group because they felt they were not treated fairly at the meetings. Christina Harmer, 10712 Randy Lane, read the following into the record: · "With the group proposal and the rules that are needed to help the building codes; we need to have building codes. · As neighbors we need to protect our privacy. · When anyone is next door to us, building codes are needed. · The article in the Courier sounded ugly, we are all neighbors; the neighbor that put the article abut nationalities was not needed or called for; we are all neighbors and we should stay neighbors after all this; we shouldn't be fighting about all this. · All we need is rules and regulations. · Iff'ecs are planted between the buildings, that will interfere with the other neighbors; the roots will interfere with the other neighbors. · The best thing to do is build the building right to begin with." Vic Muller, 10657 Larry Way, · Provided a history of two story homes in Linwood Acres back to the 60s. Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 22, 2003 · The chairman of the group told neighbors the survey will not be used to decide Al, R1 or others but he did today. · Said he felt it was unfair that the chairman took one hour to present, but left only 6 minutes for the group to present. · Said the group proposal should not be considered because it started as unfair process; no consensus reached from the neighbors, Linwood Acres is no different than other R1 residences in Cupertino. Wes Weigel, 10726 Larry Way, stated: · He was a member of the study group, and he felt it was more or less open democratic thing where you have people going back and forth, heated debate, the funny part of the whole things is that I am the one that is R1 on that s~eet; however was not invited to the R1 group meeting so don't know what happened there. · In 1984 canvassed neighbors about his idea to add a second story to his house; got their approval and went on to the city and applied for a permit. · The process resulted in a second story with side windows that don't invade his neighbors; has a ftre egress, good lighting and a privacy barrier there that does not affect him or the neighbors. · "The commission has to look at the fact that is it privacy vs profit; privacy and construction can get along; we have come up with some changes; if you look at everything on the board, they do look like they have similarities, but there are some things that we looked at that would be good for this particular neighborhood; and very possibly the city as a whole. It has been said by commissioners and councilmembers that sometimes one size does not fit all and maybe we should go back and look at things because what happened in the R1 ordinance when you first put it together there were some flaws. We looked at that and this is what we came up with but we looked more for that people can have a second story. · Not saying that you cannot have a second story; it is just within certain guidelines to help protect the neighbor; trying to get along with everybody. It can be done." Sharon Hornung, 10618 Larry Way: · Said she supported the proposed changes. · Said they planned to remodel her home with a basement and bedroom on top of the basement. · Was informed they could not build extending the L shaped ranch because it is R1 or Al. · Only way they can remodel as planned is if the change is made. · I think a lot of people on the R1 side also have had their homes remodeled years ago and there is confusion because I don't think they realize that they are stuck; they cannot remodel in a realistic way ever again if they continue with R1. · Moved into the neighborhood because of its mral atmosphere; did not want sidewalks; liked the wide streets with a country rural atmosphere. · Issue of privacy was raised; she stressed the group changes proposed. Mr. Gilli said that the group proposal is going to match the roles in R1 relative to basements. Peggy Griffin, 10727 Randy Lane addressed why not RI: · Mentioned no physical distinction, but when turn into the neighborhood you know it is different. · The setbacks, R1 is one size fits all; the R1 setbacks are too small for their quarter acre lots and the existing look of their neighborhood. · R1 allows homes to move 10 to 15 feet closer to the street; which is what the R1 front setback is. Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 22, 2003 · Discussed the Nguyen single family home that is part of the controversy; built a home of french architecture on Larry Way similar to homes found in the Bordeaux region of France; his immediate neighbors took offense to his home, citing property line issues, incomplete fence construction and oversized windows which they claimed compromised privacy. · Pointed out that Mr. Nguyen is 5'5" and his wife is 5'2" - they would not be able to see into their neighbor's back yard. · They have had many confrontations together; at one point he police had to be called to settle an issue; his wife now wants to move, his children are afraid to play in the front yard and are frightened by the man next door who waters the concrete fence. · This case should have been resolved using a multi-cultural arbitrator rather than involving the entire community or neighborhood. · Said in any process, everyone deserves to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. · Said he has attended numerous committee meetings and witnessed first hand the intimidation tactics of certain members who were attempting to bully their points of view repeatedly. · Said he felt the group is a self-selected group of amateurs without an architect who are trying to resolve complex subjective and architectural issues with the expectations of professional compromised results. · In the end everyone lost; no matter what side prevails, everyone still loses. · Relationships with the neighbors and their trust that took years or decades to cultivate are damaged and in some cases, beyond repair. · The orchards are gone; the culture of Cupertino had changed forever; you cannot bring it back. · This clearly is a neighborhood in transition with nothing unique about it. · Said he was urging the Planning Commission to do the common sense thing to blend Linwood Acres into the rest of Cupertino relative to the zoning laws, so the residents could enjoy the same construction opportunities if they chose to do so and to maintain their high property values. · 99.5% of Cupertino is zoned R1 single family residential and so should Linwood Acres. Carl Orr, 10524 Randy Lane: · Said most of the neighborhoods have personalities and they think of their neighborhood as a unique area and one of the reasons they chose to settle in Cupertino. · Original concept of the founding city fathers was an idea that lot sizes should be of a larger size than that of nearby neighbors, namely Sunnyvale and San Jose; thus the concept was soon abandoned as San Jose encouraged by developers annexed right up to Cupertino's doorstep as evidenced by the loss of commercial and residential areas south of Bollinger Road. · Since the R1 code is written with smaller lot size in mind and since a new proposal allows the same size house footprint as R1, it should be understandable that front, side and back should be adjusted to fit the larger lot size. · Other minor adjustments to the R1 code are designed to encourage single story homes while allowing two story homes; some two story homes dot the neighborhood and the clock cannot be tumed back. · The switch to regular R1 seems to be orchestrated by outsiders who do own property but do not live, nor intend to live in the neighborhood. Those speculators appear to care little about existing property owners or neighborhood and only about personal gain. · It has been alleged that the change to other than R1 will destroy property values, which is a scare tactic of the worst kind. · Said property values have not decreased in the 38 years he has lived in his house; in fact the opposite is true; and as long as Cupertino remains in California, the property values will continue to rise. Planning Comrmssion Minutes 18 September 22, 2003 · Asked that the ordinance be approved as it benefits the neighborhood as well as the city of Cupertino as a whole. Toshiko Kawamoto, i0510 Randy Lane: · Supports the group proposal, have read both zoning and ordinances for A1 and R1 and agrees with the choices the committee has made. · Prefers single story, single family residential homes in the neighborhood having reviewed both ordinances, the group proposal has made good choices; no massive homes; residents want their privacy. · Feels that the proposal the committee made with some compromises is a good proposal; hope the Planning Commission will give consideration to our choice. Frances Bush, 10712 Larry Way: · Complimented the proposal made for the P(A1) and the unity that it attempts to accomplish in their neighborhood despite what they may be hearing. · It accomplishes compromises representing the long-time residents and the newer ideas. Said they were misquoted in the Courier; clarified that the photo said they were in favor of the "monster" houses, which is untrue. He said he would support the statements made by Mr. Weigel who resides next door, and certainly the house that was added upwards by the Bennetti family. · Those homes' second stories have been well received by the neighbors; they have incorporated privacy that seems to be the issue here. · Said it was their hope that the outcome of this matter will be accepted by the P(A1) ordinance. Donna Prosser, 10699 Larry Way: · Read a letter from Celine Lau, 10740 Larry Way: · "I have never been able to attend the discussion meeting regarding the zoning of Linwood Acres. Am submitting opinions in writing: I like to see things the way they are without disruptions; however, change is certain and I am in favor of the group proposal. ~' I am more concerned that each home Should maintain its balance between nature, the lot size, the landscaping, spaces between buildings, fi-ont and back setbacks, and the structure and size of our home to bring forth its aesthetic beauty. }If this is followed, privacy issues should not be minimized." · Ms. Prosser said it had nothing to do with the zoning or why she is on the committee. · Said she was on the comrmttee because she lived at one time or another in Cupertino since 1962, her parents lived in her home; and she purchased the home from them and hoped to pass the home to her children. · She said she had a long term cornnUtment with Cupertino, and wanted it to be a place where they also would live. · She said to look at the long term, not the short term. · Extended an invitation to go to her yard and look at the impact; and said it was only fair that they look at all the issues. Dan D. Andrea, 10600 Randy Lane: · Said he was speaking on behalf of his mother who was unable to attend. · Said he understood people's concern for privacy; but at the same time both proposals approve a two stow. Planning Commission Minutes 19 September 22, 2003 · Concern with the group proposal is the safety of people living in the second story, especially relative to windows after seeing how fast the recent New Jersey fire spread. · Said he was concerned less with privacy and more with the safety of the children and older people to have the ability to vacate the premises as soon as possible, and it may mean windows at a certain height on the sides, as well as front windows. · Let the group decide how to secure privacy. · Second thing is for sen/or citizens on a fixed income, depending on which proposal is chosen, to keep the present value of the homes plus possible values increasing, I feel with the improvements on the streets that with most of the two stories built, they improve the neighborhood. · Perhaps it can be changed in different ways, but all in all the people who have moved in and the people who I have grown up with, it is a matter of attitude toward each other's neighbor and how you treat each other whether you are in a single or double story. Thuy Dang, 10685 Larry Way: · Said that there was no architect attending the meetings, so all those present making the proposal were not professionals; they don't know what they are asking for and whether it is the right way to do it or not. · Said he did not feel the proposal was right. · The proposal has a lot of uncertainty; according to the proposal it says 67% of the neighbors had to approve the requests or whatever they want to build. · Said when they build a house they want to build their dream home and what they want, not what the neighbor wants, and will follow the rules. · Said he would prefer the R1 because the whole of Cupertino is R1. · Said that the article in the Courier indicated that the group meeting was a dictatorship meeting; it has never been a democratic meeting; he felt people did not have the right to speak and he did not want to attend that meeting because he felt his voice would not be heard. · Said he was voicing his opinion now so that he would be heard. · Said he recommended the R1 instead of the group proposal. Lorraine Eaneff, 10698 Larry Way: · Has been involved in the study group throughout the process from the beginning. · At the initial meeting the city suggested a study group of 5 to 9 people be put together; after the meeting Mr. Gilli handed out a list of people who had signed up to participate in the study group; 23 people signed up representing 17 properties out of the 68; a 25% commitment to attend the meetings. · Said it was surprising to hear people say they weren't invited or weren't notified; based on this list they thought they had good involvement. Everyone was invited to attend the weekly meetings, 11 of the residents were from Randy Lane and 6 were from Larry Way. · After attending the weekly meetings for almost 12 months, we came up with a plan that was a compromise; in some ways it matches R1 exactly; said he was told that staff thinks that up to 70% of it is RI. · In at least 3 ways it is more lenient than RI, no second story wall offsets; we have allowed more than one extension of a property line and we did not add a surcharge on second story setbacks. We have tried to be flexible; we are not trying to make it impossible for people to add a second story to their homes. · When they asked us to compromise, came up with a list of 18 things compromised on. · Decks: originally no second story decks; realized that was too s~ngent, maybe should allow second story decks that didn't impact neighbors. Planning Comrmssion Minutes 20 September 22, 2003 · Shrubs: originally no shrubs, wanted trees for immediate privacy; did not want to wait three years; the shrubs were a compromise and may have to go back on that. · Five windows on one side of a second story are not necessary. · Many of the guidelines on window heights and obscured windows can be found in the Cupertino 1999 design guidelines. · Said freedom is a great thing but you have to have some concern for your neighbors. · Clarified the comment that they split in the Fall; in the Fall it was a leaming process, and going through A1 and R1 and trying to decide what they wanted to do; the group proposal did not exist. Ted Bislmpski, Randy Lane: · Pointed out that there was an interim ordinance with a time limit that you need to act tonight as to not jeopardize the interim ordinance and the ending o that · Said that he was a professionally trained arbitrator, mediator and negotiator and the process of the group proposal worked fine because everyone lost; there were no winners; it was split down the middle. · In terms of the petition circulated that the anti-group proposal factions eluded to, the petition was circulated in early January and when asked to sign the petition, he said he needed more information before he could make am intelligent decision. · The petition signatures were collected during the group study and were signed by non- residents, past residents, and past property owners and it is interesting how they can dram up potential support when a large number of names could be disqualified. · Said Linwood Acres was incorporated into the city in 1955, and 7 attempts have been made to rezone to some sort ofrezoning from A1 to rezone. · In the 7 attempts to rezone, privacy and setback issues were brought up. · Said he felt there may be some cornnUssioners who may have a potential conflict of interest. He referred to an open house Com. Miller hosted in March 2002 at 10656 Randy Lane and said he did not feel it was appropriate for him to take action on this issue. · Said that on September 11, 2003, Com. Miller and Vice Chair Saadati att~ded what he termed "a secret meeting" at his home. He said he was uncertain if Com. Wong was also in attendance. · Said he was concerned that the Brown Act was violated by the Commissioners and referred the City Council to look up Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos, 213 Cal Appellate Third Edition 1050 relative to open meeting rules. · Deliberations have been broadly construed to broadly connotate not only collective discussion but collective acquisition of exchange of facts, preliminary to ultimate decision, which means telephone, personal contacts, and secondary tertiary meetings. Mr. Piasecki clarified that Com. Wong was not present at the September 11t~ meeting, therefore there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission present. Com. Miller: · Asked for legal clarification if the open house he held two years ago would be deemed as a conflict of interest, and said he did not want to be in conflict of interest. · Said in the meeting he was invited to attend the meeting with Vice Chair Saadati which is permissible under the Brown Act. He said he had a policy of accepting invitations to meet people. · Said Mr. Biskupski never offered an invitation; but sent an e-mail stating he may want to set up a meeting but did not follow up. Planning Commission Minutes 21 September 22, 2003 · Said he strongly objected to the personal attack by Mr. Biskupski which has no supporting evidence. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that it did not appear to be a conflict of interest; and said it could be further investigated. Vice Chair Saadati: Clarified that the September 11th meeting did not go into discussion of any matter discussed this evening; primarily the residents wanted to know about the city policy and they were informed they could come before the Planning Commission and before the City Council to express their concern and views. · There was no discussion about the position, and it was clearly indicated that was something that had to be decided after hearing everyone and it was not a whole Planning Commission. · There was concern raised about the city staff from some of the residents. · Said he wanted to have an opportunity to see the neighborhood and did drive around and looked at the window that is looking at the fence; and there are solutions to deal with this type of window; put shrubs there and not look at the fence; it can be done from the property owners. · The meeting was to hear from everyone and become familiar with the buildings. Com. Wong noted for the record that he was not present at the September 11t~ meeting. He said the Director of Community Development called him, and he was not at that meeting. Robert Jemin, 10541 Randy Lane: · Not currently a resident of the property, but home has bean in the family for 50 years; purchased the home from a family trust. · Plan to move onto the property; the interim ordinance had slowed down the development. · Became concerned after he was invited to the group proposal meetings, attended the major/ty of the 35 meetings and was concerned that the group meeting was not a balanced meeting and said he did not feel they had a level of sophistication that would be undertaken on such an endeavor but a group that understands planning, real estate, the economy and the architecture as well and have a good broad sense of what is involved in rezoning a neighborhood. · Said there was a handful of people malting decisions that in his opinion, it took 35 meetings to develop. It was a learning curve for the people at the meetings to understand what the issues and concerns were. · Process was convoluted and confusing if one didn't attend the 35 meetings; it did not represent a fair option or fair alternatives for everyone and there may be privacy issues with single family homes; two story homes have more privacy issues but those can be addressed with landscaping. · Said the custom zoning is a risk; it is not proven and he felt it was safer for the neighbors who are uninformed about the option with the proposed zoning. · Said he felt it was best to stay with the RI. Malka Nagel, 10105 So. DeAnza Boulevard: · Said her comments are from a realtor's point of view. · Spoke about a scenario wherein some neighbors were organized to come up with housing ordinance relevant to two neighborhood blocks because they did not like the R1 ordinance. In the scenario the neighbors would paint their homes orange with purple trim (displayed a sample picture). City staff would be asked to work on the two blocks for 11 months, spend 36 weeks on the project and on the street. Planning ComnYlssion Minutes 22 September 22, 2003 · What would happen to the city process if someone else wanted a special ordinance for their block, and someone else for another area. · Asked if Linwood Acres was more important than her neighborhood? Does it have any special attributes unique to it; special architectural style; Spanish houses, Victorians, etc., special scenery to be preserved - the answer is no, it is no different than other streets in Cupertino. · Questioned why the neighbors weren't polled on a simple question, Al or R1, where is the survey from the beginning? · If the neighbors are so opposed to two stories, why weren't they polled in this matter from the beginning, one story or two? · A complicated survey was developed with multiple choice answers that even the statistician could not come up with meaningful numbers. · Said it was troubling for her as a resident that 11 months of staff time has been used to come up with a planned zoning ordinance that applies to only 68 households, of which 32% have already been modified, some with 3 and 5 foot setbacks; and some of these people who want a tighter ordinance are the ones who have the 3 and 5 foot and they want everyone else to have 10 and 10. · Said she felt there could have been other ways to resolve the issues. · Proposed R1 ordinance, which she said equals a vote of reason, a vote of common sense. Thanh Ngt~yen, Randy Lane resident: · Said he cared about the neighborhood although he did not reside there. · Own a house there for 17 years; so when he was characterized as an outsider with no interest, said his house was still original. · Said he was a member of the group and they presented the merits of the case not the flawed process or other accusations. · Said he felt he was a victim of the process and endured all of the suffering, humiliation and snide remarks, verbal abuse which was witnessed at the meeting. · Keep hearing people saying about compromise in the meeting; there was no compromise; it was a one-sided group. · Said they chose the R1 petition because they gave up on the process; it is an unfair process, must find alternative. Used a petition to circulate and get the signatures and support from the neighbors. · Said he was pleased to have the opportunity to present his view as he was not afforded that opportunity before. · Asked the Planning Commission to take courageous action; might be unpopular with some people but to settle the zoning issue. · Make it consistent with R1 zoning, and still retain the character and features of the area. Chuck Eaneff, 10698 Larry Way: · Thanked staff for bringing the neighbors attention to the proposed construction that was clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood. · Tlfis is a special and unique neighborhood; it retains a country atmosphere with large lots and zoning that has protected the privacy of the neighbors over the years. · Neighbors such as the Bennettis who developed the two stories respected the privacy of their neighbors; they constructed it so they weren't intruding on the privacy of the neighborhood because they value the privacy that the homes afforded. · Said to imagine having a property with all the benefits of R1 yet it was still private and your neighbors respected your privacy and didn't peer into your windows; that is what this neighborhood has and that is what the group proposal is trying to maintain. Planning Commission Minutes 23 September 22, 2003 The city on your behalf came into the neighborhood and worked with us for over a year to come to a compromise that encouraged construction through subtle changes to the zoning; at the same time it encouraged protection and privacy in the unique nature of our community. · It is a unique neighborhood that retains its sense of community and regardless of your position, whether R1 or group proposal, or Al, or one story overlay, one can see that passion of the community here showing that this does have a sense of community although no agreement. · The city by repeatedly coming to the neighborhood with a series of public meetings, follow up with volunteers, continued outreach, has crafted a compromise that encourages construction while maintaining the unique feel of community enjoyed by the neighbors. · Through that repeated outreach the city came to understand that neither R1 nor A1 could encourage construction while still maintaining the vision of our neighborhood; that vision included a neighborhood that maintained the country feel, the family friendly and had strong property values that is still enjoyed today. · Said they were not asking the Planning Commission to change the nature of the neighborhood, or request that you allow us to preserve the positive aspects of our neighborhood while encouraging construction through the group proposal. This is an excellent example of developing, maintaining and encouraging a sense of community in a neighborhood. · This proposal represents compromise between those wanting to keep one story and 20 foot setbacks and those who have no interest in preserving the unique sense of community and privacy enjoyed by the neighborhood. · He encouraged the Planning Commission to listen to the staff as professional planners and community members. Leslie Burnell, 21466 Holly Oaks Drive: · Said he did not live in the area but spent over 18 months going to the R1 meetings. · Said he had an ax to grind for privacy which is one of the major issues heard; there are special areas: Eichler homes 220 have this obscure specification, which he said he has been urging the city for over 2 years to incorporate across the city; and there is also a street where there is a spec for only single story homes; it is not just the idea that this is some unique group of people; this is not true. · He illustrated examples of one and two story homes and privacy impacts. · The one major issue is privacy; for new people coming in that is fine; build to the spec but also have consideration for one's neighbors, and I believe that the R1 spec should be modified, should be the exact specification that would cover what is part of the A1 and is already in the Eichler. · Incorporating that in the R1 will take care of 50% of the questions people have here and it will be across the city in the R1. Cary Chen, 10583 Felton Way: · Said that the R1 ordinance was very restrictive; is a result of hard work by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1999. · Said he did not want people to think that the group is here to make a proposal because R1 is not doing the job; that is not the case. · Said he did volunteer work and worked with the commissioners who are highly ethical and capable and would not violate the Brown Act. Chair Chen closed the public input portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 24 September 22, 2003 Com. Corr: · The process was undertaken to help come up with a plan for people to reach a consensus on and is it not being done. · Staff recommends the group proposal, which has many good points. · Said he was concerned about some things that are onerous; and the comment in terms of trying to make this something for everybody, with the horses and kennels, etc. He said to stick to reaching a proposal that says what can be built, what the setbacks are going to be, what the guidelines are, and not try to put all the extras in. · Said he was tied to what Com. Miller said earlier, that they had heard the proposal, taken down copious notes of what everybody said, and for the most part saw that most of the people who spoke tonight were in favor of the group proposal; but that is what was heard tonight. · Questioned whether staff knew based on the map, and by the data, which lots are for and which are against the group plan. Mr. Gilli: · Said because of concerns that there would be a lot of intimidation one way or the other, the survey was done anonymously. Com. Corr: ,, Said it was difficult to say who arc in favor and who are against; there is a history of being able to create some special neighborhoods and some special plans, clearly this neighborhood was different when it started, and is A1 still the appropriate thing? · Said it was well pointed out that the house on Randy Lane shows that under the Al, some things can happen that community does not want to have, yet they are still split on whether it is A1 modified AP-A1 or if R1 is the better thing to do. · Said he was not hearing a lot of consensus out of the neighborhood. · Said he was interested in his colleague's perceptions, and was feeling at a loss in terms of data on which to make a difficult decision. · Said if he had to do it, he would go through it line by line and modify the proposal in terms of all the pieces present. · Said he could not support the group plan the way it is and he heard a strong case for the R1 and was having difficulty. Com. Wong: · Said he agreed with Com. Corr that there was not a consensus. Both sides are passionate and tried to work hard. · He said they should not go back and look at the process but try to move forward and work on the issues here; it is important to do that · Said that he was troubled that whatever is decided tonight, there will be a loser; there is not going to be a winner in this particular case and he said he was not comfortable voting either way now because there wasn't a consensus. · Said he understood the concerns why staff wanted to be proactive and talk to the neighborhood, spend 11 months trying to get true consensus, but it is difficult for people to come out every month with their busy schedules to do it. · Said he appreciated Mr. Griffin managing the meetings and trying to bring the group together. · Said he was in favor of status quo or being like the rest of Cupertino; however, there was not a consensus yet. Planning Commission Minutes 25 September 22, 2003 Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked what the maximum square footage is of one story that one can build with ten foot setback on either side. Mr. Gilli: · The setbacks don't actually make a difference because what ends up being the primary limit is the FAR and the group proposal R1 and A1 are all the same on the FAR; it is 45%, at least half the lots are 9300 square feet which results in about 4,200 square feet of house, one or two story. Vice Chair Saadati: · Heard the issues are privacy and setback. · There is no consensus. · Privacy has always been a concern; the issue of trees taking three years to grow for privacy is something that needs to be addressed with the R1; said he did not have a problem with trees or fast growing shrubs because that is something that should be applied throughout the city and eventually it will happen. · Relative to setbacks, they are not the driving issue for the square footage of the house, 10 foot setbacks on either side are more appropriate, and was willing to accept and vote on. · The front and back; the back is 20 feet and the front is the one that needs consensus regarding privacy, said he agreed with the verbiage that is in the proposal, and obscure glass and 6 foot high shrubs should satisfy the concern of most of the people. · Said with that they will be a lot closer to a resolution and he wanted to hear other comments. Com. Miller: · Said that if every group of 68 homes in Cupertino wanted separate zoning, there would potentially be 200 separate zoning ordinances in the city, which is foolish. · Said it was important to identify something unique about the neighborhood that the city as a whole feels is important to preserve. · The second issue is the one that we tend to look at whenever people come up with issues relative to R1 amd they are asking to build houses in neighborhoods and that is what is the consensus of the neighborhood, is there an overriding feeling within the neighborhood that they should go forward with a particular plan; or in this case a zoning change, and has it come about? · Questioned if the process was done in a fair way and if there was consensus. · Earlier asked about what happened with the Eichler neighborhoods, and Mr. Piasecki indicated that at the end people came together on what was proposed and accepted it. He said that is not what occurred here tonight; there were deep divisions and accusations and he was a target of accusation also. · Said that before he would be ready to vote either way, wanted to see some better numbers on what the consensus is and more information on what makes this neighborhood unique · Said he agreed with Mr. Burnell who talked about the privacy issues and welcomed him to help address those issues through the R1 ordinance which is the ordinance the city in general has adopted and can be made to work in this particular case. Chaiperson Chen: · Said what she heard tonight was a planned development rezoning proposal has to be supported by the majority of the group; it is obvious that it is hard to tell at this point whether or not it is supported by the majority of the group. Planning Commission Minutes 26 September 22, 2003 · Said she would help to set some guidelines for discussion and will need input fi~om each Planning Commission as to how well they can support it. · Said since this neighborhood is surrounded by residential areas, she is concerned about keeping the neighborhood in A1 zone with the restrictions applied to it; and would propose to change it to a P(R1) instead ofa P(A1). · Said the reason for a planned development which is deviated from existing R1 zone is privacy issues brought up by the group proposal; and said she would like to hear the commissioners comment on more privacy restrictions. · Said the second concern heard was the preservation of the unique characteristics of the neighborhood; said she felt it was addressed with height restriction, more height restriction from the R1 zone and also for the setback restriction from the R1 zone, and she would like comment. · Said she heard concerns about process; and the biggest concern she had about process related to the survey results; how were survey results presented and how correct is the representation. Mr. Gilli explained the survey process. · Said there were comments that the survey was confusing. Each survey question was explained at the main meeting; what the idea was, and why the group chose to either be like R1 or A1 or be different. He said the survey could be confusing if it was taken out of context. · He said he stood by the numbers. Mr. Piasecki summarized: · From the staff's standpoint, if someone said R1 seems to be the appropriate way to go, it would be the easiest cop-out for staff; procedurally simple, easy, treat them one size fits ail, like every other neighborhood in the community. That is not what they were asked to do. · R1 was proposed to them in the beginning; it would have been an easy question; they would have said no, like they have in the past. · Staff directed them to try to work to fred a way to get out of the A1 zoning, what works and what doesn't work. It was a legitimate process; there were some unfortunate incidents that took place along the way; there have been accusations; the people in the group met about 36 times which is unusual; staff was present to support them and would have been there to support them 50 or more times because of the legitimacy of that self determination. · It is extremely important I think that if neighborhood like this wishes to characterize themselves and look at themselves as being different then I think the question from Com. Miller is what is different. The setbacks are significantly different out there just because of the history of the agricultural zoning and also the fact that they have been agricultural for so long and have strong feelings about their neighborhood. · They have limited improvements; it is different and it may be subtle to other people; he said he saw it as a very distinctly different neighborhood. · Said he did not see a consensus for the R1 proposal. · Suggested that they take the group proposal seriously, dissect it as you talked about, see if you can come to some conclusions yourselves that you think is a reasonable compromise, send it to the city council. If you are at all inclined to say no we have to redo this and start all over; that is what it would take, because we would have to revisit that whole process one more time with a different appearance of openness in the meetings. · When this process started, everyone was invited to participate in and as pointed out 24 members of that neighborhood did sign up, not many stuck with it, and when the group started meeting, we backed off; this wasn't a government project, this was the neighborhood meeting and when they got into their 12t~ and 13t~ , 16th and 20th meeting, they felt they had invested a lot of time and effort. Planning Commission Minutes 27 September 22, 2003 Staff backed off again and said they weren't running this; the residents were running it. If it is illegitimate in anyone's mind, then so be it, revisit it. We repeatedly pointed out that there is always the public hearing process to present facts, facts that are about whether this is a good, bad or indifferent thing to do. Chair Chen: · Said that the entire commission should ask themselves if they are going to continue this item, what difference would they like see in two weeks or a month from now. · Staff needs clear direction as to what can be done with/n this period of time. Com. Corr: · Said Mr. Piasecki's comment and suggestion falls into what he was saying; this is close to R1 but somewhat Al, but there are pieces he is uncomfortable with. · Said the ideal thing would be to take the model ordinance and Exhibit B and place them side by side and do a line by line comparison, if there was agreement or not. Chairperson Chen: · Said she felt the entire discussion focused so much on just the house itself, the building on the property and not the environment; and in order to make comments, suggested staff do a side by side comparison of the entire model ordinance, but not just on the restriction on the housing part of the model ordinance. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the first line talks about the allowed and conditional uses; it categorizes them saying it matches Al, but it has certain uses that are taken out; on that item if you want to look at the model ordinance, you could go through and staff could identify all the ones that aren't in R1. Com. Wong: · Said that since this is so close to R1, he agreed with Com. Miller's question of what makes this neighborhood unique. · Said he knew some of the neighbors were very passionate; it is a unique neighborhood. · He said other parts of Cupertino resemble his neighborhood in North Cupertino, with no street lights, wide streets, lots of about 12,000 square feet. They are in R1 and are happy with R1. He said they are so close to R1 instead of having (already have Eichlers and Rls) a third one, which will add some frustration to the neighbors; he was more inclined to go toward R1. Mr. Piasecki: · Said he supported the concept of neighborhood plans, neighborhood distinctiveness; Eichler was a good example of that. · In many respects and because these are large lots, they can accommodate the greater setbacks with little damage; that is why they can still get a 45% FAR; that is why they still have lots of flexibility under the group proposal, because they have large lots. It is the subtleties between neighborhoods that we want to celebrate; the subtlehes and diversity that makes Cupertino special. · Said he would not like to see every neighborhood washed out into an R1-C and we don't have distinctive neighborhoods like this; I would like to look at this neighborhood in another 50 years and ask why do they have 30 foot setbacks; because they had them for the first 50 years; it's is a subtlety that you are hearing a lot of sentiment from a lot of the neighbors out there, and we saw it in the survey saying preserve that aspect of our community and that is what we should be about. Planning Commission Minutes 28 September 22, 2003 · Said it would be a shame to wash this neighborhood into the R1-C; it is different and should be respected. Chairperson Chen: · Said she felt the survey was conducted to collect public input from the neighborhood and if there is question regarding the survey, consideration should be given to redoing the survey part of the process. Chen called for the Commissioners input on redoing the survey and if staff feels strongly that they should not change the zoning from the P(A1) to P(R1). Com. Wong: · Relative to Chair Chen's idea about the survey, he asked if they could send it certified mail to each of the 68 parcel land owners because they are the stakeholders as the owner of the property; allow each one vote by certified mail, and then send it back to city hall. · Said the interim ordinance doesn't end until the end of the year, and it seems the most democratic way and will provide a clearer mind to both the Commission and the Council regarding the true feeling vs. having the public input. Com. Corr: · Said on the other hand, an elechon could be held and have the neighborhoods do it; then what is the purpose in trying to look at it in terms of the whole city; there are people looking at it from a microcosm rather than a macrocosm and Mr. Piasecki's point is well made that the proposal is very close to the RI, there are some things that the R1 proponents have said they don't like. He said he shared some of those concerns. · Said he felt the group proposal represents a good start of zoning needs for the area; make modifications to try to reach a compromise between the groups. · There may be nothing to gain with a straw vote. Vice Chair Saadati: · Said he concurred with Com. Con'; another survey may result in 52%, 48% and what would it prove; it would be back to the beginning again. The proposal is similar to RI, perhaps a modified R1 with a different setback. Buildings should conform to a certain standard wtfich would result in a harmonious and attractive building, which is what everyone wants. Com. Miller: · Said he heard what was said; that the feeling is that the neighborhood is unique, the primary uniqueness being the setback. Asked if there is a benefit to the city if the setbacks are greater in this particular part of the city than others. · Said he saw a benefit in preserving a particular type of architecture, and straggled as to where the benefit to the city is in having a separate zoning ordinance for this area. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it was a subtle point, but if you look at the neighborhoods in various communities and think that is a nice area, you might think of Willow Glen in San Jose, you might think of other nice neighborhoods in Palo Alto or Los Gatos; usually the differences are subtle. If you take this neighborhood, fairly homogeneous, with the larger setbacks and say that is not important to us anymore, now you can have the smaller setbacks commensurate with the R1 district, you will see the changeout, it will take another 50 to 70 years; it will look like amish mash of old and new and I think that in the greater public interest of Cupertino, it is important to preserve Planning Commission Minutes 29 September 22, 2003 that continuity that exists in this neighborhood over the long term. It is unique to this area that we have an R1 district predominantly single story, single family, big setbacks, and big lots and I think you will wash that out if you wash it into the R1 stream and it will look like just about every other neighborhood. Com. Miller: · Said that if they could get past that point, and was not sure they have done that, he would go along with Com. Corr and Vice Chair Saadati in terms of beginning to look at the individual items. Chair Chen: · Said if it is the majority opinion of the group, she was not opposed to it, but reminded everyone that it is supposed to be a g~oup proposal, and there were 33 petition signatures for a different proposal. The fundamental support for the planned development concept is the neighborhood, which is the reason she was .suggesting the new survey. · Restated her earlier statement, that she was not disagreeing with the special zoning for this particular neighborhood, but said that the zoning has to address two major issues. · Said the three major issues were: process, privacy, and preservation of the neighborhood special characteristic issue, and these issues are addressed within the proposals. · Questioned if they were not far from the RI, why could it not be changed to a Planned Development R1 and start from there. The Planning Commission expressed specific concerns about the proposal: Chair Chen: · Said she was concerned about specific use of the proposal; if the permitted use is under Al, there is some use that doesn't fit into the neighborhood, hence would like to see the use of the proposal being changed to RI. · Regarding specifics, said she was not concerned with any of the specifics, as she assumed it was the group's decision. · Said she was concerned about height; it is low and they are lowering the height and bringing up the privacy screening trees; she said she felt there was double protection to address the privacy issue. · Consistency with the neighborhood; it is a mixed neighborhood with some newer buildings built up to the height that they want to avoid; · Said she felt R1 was the correct middle point to address the transition time of this particular city. · Setbacks: agree with them; setbacks mean a lot in preserving the special characteristics of the neighborhood. · Said she did not disagree with the landscape and privacy plan. Mr. Gilli: · Clarified his understanding that Chair Chen felt the height should be R1; two items that are significant is the group wants to have the guidelines apply to one story and two story which means there has to be a level of review of some sort. · The group also wants a variance process, which is what is in Alinstead of an exception process which is in RI. · Relative to distinction between variance and exception, he said that in the R1 zone, exceptions were added in 1999 to allow the other things added to the R1 in 1999; the concept was that the Planning Commission Minutes 30 September 22, 2003 city was adding a lot of regulations that were new that affect a second story; and even on the first story on the building envelope. R1 is spread over the whole city; it is 5,000 square foot lots, 10,000 square foot lots; many odd shaped lots, and there are many houses that are in a neighborhood that's all two story that really shouldn't have to have the same requirements applied that are in a neighborhood of all single story. What the Council came up with was an exception process which is easier to approve when compared to a variance to allow that level of flexibility. For a variance you need to make specific findings about a hardship on the property or in the situation; the group and I concur with what the group has voted on, believes variance is more appropriate because all the lots are the same size; same shape, same orientation to the street, they don't have slope, so there aren't all of these items that you might worry about applying the rules specifically across the board. That is the reason the group wants to stick with variances as in A1 so that all of the regulations they came up with have to be applied. Chair Chen: · Since we go through the effort to make all the proposals slightly different from RI, I think our intent is to keep the proposal, and would agree with the variance. Mr. Gilli: · Said they have guidelines that they want applied on single story as well as two story, which will require a review process. Chair Chen: · (1) Said for single story the proposal said it is the Planning Department review and double story is Design Review Committee; which is different than RI. · (2) Said there was also a special requirement for notification. · (3) Said she did not agree with the notification process; the neighbors need to know what is happening in the neighborhood and regarding the review process. With the notification process, there is staff level review required for all new development. Mr. Gilli responded: · (1) It is different fi'om RI; in R1 there is no review of single story unless you need an exception. There is review of two story only if the floor area ratio is over 35% · (2) Yes · (3) Correct, in the case of one story it will end at the Director; it is appealable; in the case of two story it will end at the Design Review Committee which is also appealable. Chair Chen said she did not see any reason to have a different review process from RI. Mr. Gilli: · Said the group wants to limit the amount of garages that are on the front fafade; they want the appearance of a two car garage on the front. · What that means is if you want more garage space you can have it in the rear and it is detached, because they have a ten foot side setback; that is nearly enough to have a driveway, and that is different than in R1. Chair Chen: · Said that with additional setback, she did not see it as a necessary requirement. Planning Commission Minutes 31 September 22, 2003 Com. Wong: · Regarding height, agree with Chair Chen that the height should be at R1. · Agree with the setbacks. · Landscaping privacy plan: shrubs are too high at the suggested 9 feet, and should go back to R1. · Regarding guidelines for single story and two story, prefer RI. · Variance vs. exception, I differ and feel need for flexibility regarding exceptions. · Regarding notifications, agree with group proposal. · Regarding garages, I believe there should be an option of either doing a two car or three car garage, or a tandem garage. · Regarding front door, said term "massive double doors" is a misnomer, similar to the term "monster homes". Some people like double doors and by saying massive double doors, there may be some disagreement, and it should be leR open. Com. Wong: · Relating to the purpose of Section 1, No. A, single story neighborhood, asked if was possible to remove the word because it will give a perception to the potential builders that you cannot do two stories. Mr. Gilli: · The reason that it is included is because the group's underlying intention of the rules they came up with was to preserve and encourage development to be single story; it says in the rules specifically you can have a two story but it is important that it be included so that in the future if this is ever looked again, it is known that was part of the intent. It can still be part of the proposal that it not be included. Com. Wong: · Said he understood staff's' explanation and the neighborhood's concern regarding their preference for single story but will allow two stories, but said he did not feel comfortable with the addition of the word. · Section 5, design review pernuts: I think that goes over regarding guidelines · Section 6, setbacks: agree with those. · Page 2-12 Section 6, No. 4: Maximum plate height of the second story shall be 9 feet: he said he did not want to put number of feet on it; want flexibility which will depend on how much they can get on the height vs. on the daylight plane: said he did not agree with that section. · Garages: already addressed. · Section 7 Design guidelines on fi'ont porches: personally like front porches; want to see some flexibility; front porches add to the community. Stating you have to have a front porch is too harsh. Mr. Gilli: · They are guidelines that if you want fi.om porches, you can encroach on the front setback; it is not saying that you must. It is offering an incentive. Mr. Gilli reviewed Section 8 Permitted Yard Encroachments: · It is the A1 and R1 in some form; there are two changes proposed from what is in Al; the first is in A1 and R1; you can only extend a non-conforming side building on one time in the life of the structure. · The group thinks that because a lot of people have done that it will make it more likely that people will chose to add on either by going up or complete a teardown and rebuild. Planning Commission Minutes 32 September 22, 2003 · What they want to do is provide more flexibility to extend one side more than once with the caveat that you can't raise the height of that wall; because the intention of that rule was if you had an existing house built according to the rules at the time, and now it doesn't conform to the rules; specifically the side setback, and you want to add on to a room, the intent was to make it so you didn't have to have an interior jog in the room. You could take that wall and continue it down so that your room looked normal, without a jog. · That has been abused in the past in that neighborhood where people have torn down the entire house and kept a wall or said they kept the wall, and then made the height of the wall at least twice as much. · The group saying is they are fine with the extension as long as you can't raise the height. This is what was in the Planning Commission recommendation in the R1 ordinance approved in February, not being able to increase the height of the non-conforming wall. Com. Wong: · Said that he did not support Section 8 at this time, but needed more time to study it. · Said he supported the landscaping plan. · Said story poles are expensive and there are other ways of doing them. By doing the public notice, said he felt he would rather strike story poles if there is a better process by first using notice by mail, and putting a sign out front saying that they prefer not to have story poles. · Relative to the potential use, he said he would prefer that it go to R1-A. Com. Corr: In terms of Al, remove the inappropriate uses..., mines, etc., would rather go with the R1 uses. The floor area which matches the R1 is acceptable. The 45% of the net area, is an increase from 40% in the A1 to the 45%; is acceptable. The second story 35% of the first story with a maximum second story of 1094: is acceptable. Setbacks: acceptable; the lots are big and seem to work well. Building height: agree with Chair Chen and stay with the RI. Second story decks on the front and back only: acceptable. The windows on the side must be obscure, frosted or inoperable or have sill heights over 5 feet. · Garages: Prefer to go with the R1; have come up with some good solutions there. · The basements: acceptable. · Eaves: acceptable. · The approval of the 67% of the neighborhood: said he had a problem with that in terms of how you get there; The explanation in terms of doing what seems to fit with the neighborhood and what makes more sense, gives people the idea they are going to get a chance to vote on everybody's development which is not the case · Front yard paving up to 40% of the front setback can be impervious; what we were saying was up to 40% can be paved and I would rather go with something like that. Also says that you can use pervious material because I think what they were saying was leave the rest of it in vegetation and not pave over the whole thing; don't make a parking lot of it. · The variance: if they want a variation for the regulations to go with the variance that is acceptable. · The extension of the non-conforming building lines and side yards: acceptable for now. · Landscape plan: It is acceptable to have a landscape plan, but said he had difficulty when getting into the privacy planning saying that it can be waived; it should not be waivable. · Design review: staff approval for single story design review is acceptable; said he liked the idea of the signs, notification as they make sense citywide. Planning Commission Minutes 33 September 22, 2003 · Story Poles: Said he felt the notification and having a plans up would tell the story better; but if Council is in favor story poles, they remain. · Front porches: acceptable. · Agree with Com. Wong regarding massive double doors; if it fits in with the design; who defines massive? · Front yard fencing natural materials encouraged; concrete cinder block and chain-like fencing discouraged; natural materials, wood is acceptable. · Second story deck: Said he did not want to get prescriptive with those; if they are saying front and back that is acceptable. · Second story windows - I go with the UBC. · The second story offsets and not having a cantilevered second story are acceptable. · Conform to the guidelines unless it is shown that no adverse impacts from the non- conformance: acceptable. · Said that he was concerned with things such as non-commercial stables and kennels The comment was made that even in the county more acreage is needed for that. Vice Chair Saadati: · R1-A that's 45% maximum floor area, 4219 maximum lot coverage 45% second story 35%, maximum second story area 1094; one story zoning restriction. · Front setback: 30 ft. is fine; side setback is fine; rear setback is fine; second story setbacks are fine as shown; height R1 ordinance; second story deck is acceptable. · Eaves are acceptable; front yard paving should be maximum up to 40%; encourage more greens in front. · Garages: no problem with the R1 ordinance, third garage may be set back and should be done with taste and blend in; there should be flexibility there · Basement is acceptable; variances is acceptable. · Extension of non-conforming building as stated in the group proposal. · Landscaping is fine; privacy planting; shrubs 6 ft tall. · Continue to modify the R1 ordinance to encourage everyone to try to put taller trees or somehow plant as early as possible prior to start of construction if possible, so the trees get to grow before move in. · Design review is appropriate. · Notification is appropriate. · Story poles: not certain it is absolutely necessary as long as the rendering can be provided so people can see what is going to be built in order to give them a good idea; but it depends on direction City Council is going to take. · Acceptance for solar: yes. · Other items: much as stated; agree that massive double door needs to be more definitive because it can be interpreted differently; assume massive is two four-foot doors front doors, he said the double door is not massive in his opinion. Mr. Gilli: · It is saying if you have double doors and chose to make them 10 feet that is massive; if you have one door that is 10 feet, it is not a double door; it would only apply if it was both. Com. Miller: · If what is unique about this neighborhood is setbacks, then I am in favor of the setbacks as the group proposal states. Planning Commission Minutes 34 September 22, 2003 I had a question about the extended wall; so if it is a one story wall, currently you can extend that, but then if you have a second story, the second story has to meet the second story setbacks for that side. Mr. Gilli: · Yes, the extension is currently in A1 only on the ground floor, and the proposal is ground floor. Com. Miller: · Said he was in favor of that as well. · Process: inclined to go with the R1 process as opposed to having a separate process; the intent of the R1 specifically was not to have single story review and I am inclined to go with that. · Notificafion: good idea and is one we were talking about changing in the R1, so I would expect that we would be making the same change in R1 as well. · Second story height reduction: doesn't necessarily make the neighborhood unique, so inclined to go with it. Would like to see the flexibility in the process as we have in RI. · As well there has been an issue over plate height; it shouldn't be the plate height but whether or not it is obtrusive or non-obtrusive as opposed to a specific number on plate height. · Story poles: talked about a number of times and there has been general agreement that story poles cost a lot of money and do potential damage to the house; not in favor of story poles. · The uses: would like to see R1 uses and also agree not to include they can have horses, and chickens and sell wine and fruits and vegetables; it is just not likely. · The 9 foot shrubs are not realistic and again as we mentioned we are going to privacy within the RI and we can look at it within the context of this too. As one person suggested, if fixed in the RI, that would solve a lot of problems, that is an intent of this commission to do that; and we can look at some ideas they have here about doing that and then move it over to R1. · Garages: No reason not to do the R1, use the same approach as R1 did. Com. Wong: · (1) Asked what the group was proposing relative to eave height. · (2) Asked staffto discuss fencing. Mr. CJilli: · (1) The group is proposing to lower the building envelope 2 feet and not to talk about eave heights anywhere else. · (2) The idea was not to have concrete walls in the front wall. Mr. Gilli summarized Planning Commissioners' comments: · Purpose: What is the Commission's thoughts on having the words "of single story" in the purpose statement. Com. Wong said it shouldn't be there; said that he felt the intention of preserving the neighborhood is included already and by putting in those two words it may show confusion in the future. } Com. Corr said he concurred with single story; the idea being to establish the low intensity, single family residential identity; the single story piece doesn't fit, especially if you are going to allow two stories. ~Chair Chen agreed; Com. Miller and Vice Chair Saadati agreed also. · Uses: All wanted the R1 uses. ,, Design Review: Split 3/2. Some people were fine with it and design reviewed them for single story; some wanted to match R1 exactly. Planning Commission Minutes 35 September 22, 2003 · FAR: Heard no concerns with FAR · Ratio lot coverage: Most commissioners were okay with the proposed setbacks. Height: stick with Rlwhich is an increase of two feet based on the group proposal; saying that the deck has to meet the second story setbacks only on the front and rear - Com. Miller no problem, Com. Wong - no problem; others no problem. · Plate height: 2 people opposed to plate height on second floor; others did not comment Com. Wong: · Said since they were going to the maximum height, the reason he wanted flexibility is that they can go higher than 9 feet depending on if they have a good design and it matches the preservation of the neighborhood. · That is the reason he is supporting it to go over 9 feet. · Com. Miller: said was reasonable; Vice Chair Saadati said it was acceptable; Chair Chen also said it was acceptable. Com. Wong: · Said he wished to make a case for the three car garage, and said if they have a good design, he felt they should be allowed a three car garage. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that what they were hearing fi.om the majohty of the Planning Commission that the Ri standards are acceptable for three car garages; and only applies if it is two story and goes through design review, because they are asked to have an offset for the third space. · Said they could have a three car garage for a single story home. (Continued summing): · Variance vs. exception: 3/2 in favor of variance. · Mr. Gilli clarified that variance is approved by the Director, but in cases where it is controversial, the Director would have it referred to the DRC. Mr. Piasecki: · Given the uniformity of lot sizes and the flatness of the terrain, you are not going to have any variances approved; by saying you need a variance it will lock in all these roles, and the only reason we have the exception in the ordinances now, is because there is such a variety in the R1 in terms of lot shape, size, location, hills, etc., you may need exceptions. I think they felt they didn't want that uncertainty. Com. Wong: · Suggested to colleagues of doing variance going to DRC vs going to the Director. Com. Corr: · Said he was not sure it would be necessary given if this were a citywide ordinance having to deal with all of them, but whenever it is so cookie cutter in terms of the sizes, there shouldn't be a need for a variance. Mr. Piasecki: · Variance process was streamlined quite a few years ago with the interest of not having to make people to go through a lot of procedures and rules; they wanted it to come to the Director for that reason and it has worked. Planning Commission Minutes 36 September 22, 2003 Com. Miller: · In terms of the process if they request a variance, they go to the Director Mr. Piasecki: · They can appeal Director's decision to the Planning Commission positive or negative; and the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council · Consensus to leave the variance in there. Mr. Gilli: · If you are not going to have review of single story homes, then the group guidelines won't be enforced unless it is a two story house; many of the items apply to the ground floor; at least half of them; is it the Planning Commission wish to still maintain for example the ability to have the porch encroach in the setback, but to have someone would have to review the specifics on the columns on the cave heights, the detailing, etc and if you don't have any review process, there isn't anyone to review it. So if there is not at least a stafflevel review to make sure they meet the guidelines to have the encroachment, then they can never really have the encroachment Com. Wong: · Suggested if they want to encroach into the front yard, it would require review; if they don't have a front porch encroachment then it would trigger a review by the DRC. (There was consensus of the Planning Commission to accept suggestion) Mr. Gilli: · Said it was his experience that if you have the requirement they have go the DRC, no one will ever put a porch in, because people don't want to go through the process if they don't have to. There are many applicants that would be more comfortable with Director's review because there is no hearing and is a shorter period of time. Vice Chair Saadati: · If the ordinance allows porches, to go into the setback, would the purpose of a review be to review the aesthetic, and that is not at the staff level too. Mr. Gilli: · The purpose would be to review the aesthetics whether or not the columns, the detailing; because the concept is if you have a traditional open porch, you can encroach; someone has to make the determination based on this language that it is traditional. Com. Corr: · Our current plan says that if somebody disagrees with what staff is telling them, whether it is the planner or Director, they can then send it to the Planning Commission; so that should be fine. Com. Wong: · Asked what the point was in having the DRC, since he thought the DRC was to review design. Com. Corr · Said it was not actually design; it is separate from that saying that the policy says you can encroach into the 20 foot setback if you are going to do a porch; staffis going to look at it and say you are encroaching, it is a porch, it looks pretty good, or they will say no it doesn't; and Planning Commission Minutes 37 September 22, 2003 then they can either change it or make it so the staff will support it or say we want to talk to the DRC in order to sell our idea. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it is a perfunctory process; in other words there is not going to be a lot of discretion exercised; fundamentally do you have a porch in the front, does it follow the traditional lines or is it somehow; it was awkward; huge pillars I might send it to the DRC or Planning Commission but otherwise staff would just approve it. Com. Wong: · Asked for clarification on there being no further review on other things regarding the single family house. Mr. Gilli: · That is the only single story guidelines that exists, because there was consensus that not to look at the doors on the front; all the other guidelines are on the second story. Com. Wong: · Said he was comfortable with staff doing it as long as it does not affect the other things on the single story houses. Mr. Gilli (continuing summary of conclusions/opinions): · Said that he heard that it is only if people want to utilize the encroachment into the front yard to have a porch; if it is a one story house that meets the setbacks, it is building permit. · The other guidelines talk about windows and decks and wall heights; with window what I heard was not to have an ordinance regulation about it and just let people have large or small ones. · Second story deck: there was agreement on not having it on the front or back, heard from some that it is enough; you don't need to go beyond that and say it should not be a certain size. The intent of the rule is saying don't overdo the size of the windows. · There are two sections in the ordinance in the R1 that the group thinks should be as guidelines that applies to the perimeter of the second Story wall having exposed wall heights and the wall offsets. Because the group wants a variance, they understand that it is possible to have a design that is going to be fine that won't meet this; and a variance will be too hard to get, so they want to make these guidelines in their neighborhood. · Clarified the R1 has a rule that 50% of the total perimeter length of the second story should not have exposed wall heights greater than 6 feet and there has to be an offset between the first story and second story wall; that is in the R1 ordinance. The group thinks it is possible to get a design that doesn't meet that but is fine, but the group also wants variances not exceptions so the group is saying make this a guidelines so that if it is acceptable it can be approved. (There was Planning Commission consensus to agree to that). · Also on the wall offsets, you are required to have a wall offset every 24 feet on the second story wall; to t he same concept it is possible that its 25 feet and looks fine so the idea is to make that a guideline. (Chair Chen, Com. Wong said it was fine) · Relative to encroachments said he heard a majority supporting what the group has come up with, allowing it more than once; not allowing the height to be raised. · Landscaping: the contention heard was the size of planting, specifically most commissioners mentioned the shrubs which the group knows is not feasible and they are going to have to come up with something. Where does the Planning Commission stand on requiring the trees to be a larger size? Planning Commission Minutes 38 September 22, 2003 Com. Corr: · Relative to privacy, he recommended looking back to the Eichler again because that has interesting ways to use obscure glass or block to get some light in but not have views into people's houses. Mr. Gilli: · That is what the group proposed; the side facing windows have to be obscured; there is not really safety concerns because these rooms would also face the front or rear; you put the large windows there; it is saying the side facing windows have to be higher sill height, obscured in some way; that is what the group would prefer; that would focus all the planting onto the rear and not the sides. Mr. Piasecki: · Questioned if the Eichler rules for second story windows, which were obscure glass, were acceptable. · Com. Corr said he was; Com. Wong said he would prefer compromise of higher trees than to have obscure windows. Vice Chair Saadati said that would be an option to people who build it; Chair Chen said she heard to give them options. Mr. Gilli: · In the RI, if you have obscure glass, you don't have to plant; to a certain extent, if you make it obscure is one option, or you do higher trees, which is what the group proposal is saying. The difference with R1 is that the group proposal wants the trees to be taller at planting time. R1 also allows the neighbors to work out an agreement that may not be what is in the ordinance; they may work out an agreement that says if you stick a lattice on your fence it will be fine, which is in R1 and they are proposing to keep that. Com. Miller: · The Eichler also has some other options such as covering the windows with exterior louvers. · Said he would like to leave in as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Gilli: · Said he would check and if not already included, it would be added to the recommendations. Com. Miller: · Relative to eave size, one line says the group proposal both the first story and the second story have a minimum one foot cave. · Said he felt it is an architectural issue and should not be a regulation. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the R1 has a regulation that says the second story will have a one foot eave; the group thinks that their style has eaves; and they want to make sure that stays. From our perspective, it is not a major issue to us Com. Miller said to leave as Ri; Com. Wong said he agreed with Com. Miller. Mr. Gilli summarized that the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission pass the model ordinance that it feels is appropriate and recommend approval of the environmental documents; the environmental impacts are the same in staff's opinion regardless of what the zone Planning Commission Minutes 39 September 22, 2003 is, because it is the same number of houses and same number of people, that is also what the ERC recommended; that regardless of the outcome a negative declaration was warranted. A discussion ensued regarding whether to continue the draft ordinance, to allow for more meetings to be held to allow for more public input. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Vice Chair Saadati to approve Z-2002-03 as designed this evening. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Wong: no) · Com. Wong stated he voted no because, he agreed with Com. Miller that it should be continued for more public input from both the majority as well as the minority viewpoint. It could move forward to the City Council and concerns voiced there, but said he felt he would like to reach consensus before it moved on so he could see where both sides are coming from, which was his major concern. · Relative to the data, it is still in question; he agreed with Chairperson Chen that the survey should be redone. · Said he was hopeful that the majority could still work with the minority viewpoint and see if it is something the Planning Commission wants or doesn't want. · Does not feel there is a consensus. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second Vice Chair Saadati to approve EA-2002-20 (Vote: 5-0-0) Mr. Piasecld remarked on the patience of the residents at the meeting. Chair Chen thanked the audience for attending and presenting input. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None THE PLANNING COMMISSION: that the Housing Mayor's Review Committee: discussed. Com. Miller reported' With meeting; of events throughout Commission reported c and about 40% of the books are ~ met for the first t blackout last meeting; and reported : was no meeting held. Vice Chair Saadati reported that various presented a flier listing calendar that it be posted on the city website. The Library in which 150 out of 200 rated the services excellent out. The Teen Commission has 6 new members and reported that during the not working because the poles did not have batteries to operate phones; they su~sted keeping the phone with the wiring in your hometobe~ ~ 1.cyand911. ~ DISCUSSi ,'~ ~R CLIPPINGS: None ~ REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVI~PMENT: Written report submitted. ~ Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 13, 2003 X condition that Lot 2 comes back to the DRC as an Old TR-2003-07 on Business item. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chert absent). DRAFT 3. ~ Modification to visual (EXC-2001-08), located ~Road. Planning Commission decision ppealed. Mr. Peter Gilli, · Reported the a exhibits · Staff is effect that was ~ Terry Brown, representing the staff report n was for modifications to ', of the residence Addressed Chairperson Saadati's to 10 feet vs. 3 feet. Said all of the grading but as staffpointed out, ~ If you ; the berm the building site. to speak. Motion: the approved floor. he trees will be able to create the the stability of the hill if it were to be raised · ' of a soils engineer and compacted, owed is two horizontal to one vertical. it would move it 14 feet back further onto opened the meeting for public input. T~as no one present who wished Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. ,C,~o. rr~ tho ~pr~l~ve Application M-2003-05 per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Co~sent). 6. Confirmation of the Draft Ordinance approved by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2003 for the Linwood Acres neighborhood rezoning. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the staff report included the draft ordinance based on staff's interpretation of what was descr/bed on September 22. · Asked Planning Commissioners to point out any wording changes or things in the content that are not what was intended. Some commissioners have provided changes and those were made and are shown as bold italic in the document. Com. Wong: · Said there was some uncertainty as he viewed the video tape again regarding the proposed zoning and felt strongly that it should be RI-A, but some colleagues had a different viewpoint. · Said the reason he felt the document that was approved R-1 was mainly R1 but we recognized some of the uniqueness which mainly was the setback, so that is why Vice Chair Saadati and I supported RI-A, and I am apologetic that I didn't make that clear enough because it was a long meeting. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 13, 2003 · (1) On Page 6-5, second story regulations, a change was agreed upon; it states "shall require a second story exception". Are they allowed to have second stories but it will come to DRC as an exception. · (2) Relative to Page 6-6 regarding second story windows, was it going to be under the Eichler, or was their going to be option of an Eichler or taller tree. · (3) Said there was a privacy plan, and with the tree in the privacy plan, he questioned why they needed two louvers or tinted windows. · (4) Section 9 in Landscaping, clarify when we say we want a certain kind of landscaping in addition of new homes are done, can you explain what that means. · (5) Item 6-9, Item B No. 2, privacy, trees, ... what is it under R1 because I don't think RI is at 12 feet. Mr. Gilli: · Said that it was brought up by Chairperson Chen to make the sections that match R1 have a reference to R1. · Said that the setback for property line on first story is 20 feet, with an allowance to go to 10 feet if your usable rear yard area is equal to 20 times the lot width at the front setback line · (1) For a second story deck; that wasn't there originally in the group proposal because they wanted to have design review of all two story developments; but the Planning Commission said they wanted all the review to be based on R1; R1 only has review of certain kinds of two story; if you are over 35% total, but there is review of all decks. · (2) The Planning Commission wanted to have the Eichler regulation, which is the windows be fixed obscured, have the sill height, louvers, or one of those things. The section is under a guideline and if the applicant came forwaxd and proposed trees that were sufficient then the determination could be made that there is no impact from not meeting the guideline. · (3) If they did these things, had a tall enough height, had louvers, or all of the above, by R1 code, they would not have to do privacy planting. · (4) It means if you do an addition, you have to have a landscaping plan which says the purpose is to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street and adjacent properties. The landscaping may include shrubs, hedges, trees, or lattices. · (5) R1 is at 8 feet, and the Planning Commission agreed to allow the taller trees or have the taller trees in this zone. Com. Wong asked the Planning Commission to address the PR and R1-A. Com. Corr: · Said in terms of the title, suggested using the letter "L" for Linwood. · Said whatever makes sense in terms of the staff who has to work with it, should be, whether it be RI-A, PA-1 or RI*L, etc. Com. Miller: · Said they discussed the topic in a recent marathon session, making many changes in a short period of time to an ordinance that some spent a year on. · When reviewing it subsequently, he said he found that there were some sections that referred to Rls, some that did not refer to R1, but are identical to it, some close to it, and some different. It was difficult to see or feel that there were strong reasons at arriving at this new version. · Since that time he said he saw a petition of opposition by 33 members of the neighborhood which was referred to at the last hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 6 DRAFT October,3,2003 · One of the reasons this was done in the first place was because there was a feeling there was consensus in the neighborhood, and 33 signatures out of 68 is 49%, and it is hard to see that if 49% signed the petition, that there is consensus in the neighborhood. In addition to that there were a number of issues that were brought up by the residents from a process standpoint. · Said he attended a July meeting at City Hall of Linwood Acres study group and some people in opposition, and witnessed an incident where one of the members of the study group verbally and physically threatened one of the neighbors who opposed him, and he was withdrawn from the meeting by staff and continued to shout threats on his way out. · He referred to Mr. Biskupski's accusation at the September 22 Planning Commission meeting of violating the Brown Act by three commissioners and accusation of conflict of interest of himself (Com. Miller) for holding an open house in the neighborhood two years ago. Staff had advised Mr. Biskupski before the meeting that his allegations were baseless and inappropriate; yet he did it anyway, · He said these kinds of behaviors fall into the category of inappropriate behavior and the use of threats and false accusations and other actions of Mr. Biskupski; and could not help but wonder if these activities did not take place, that other members of that community may have signed the petition and there may actually be a majority who oppose it. · Said he felt if it was the case, and evidence shows that it is, he was not certain it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider their proposal as a basis for a recommendation to the Council. Chair Saadati: · Said they heard both sides of the item and came up with something that was close to R1 with the exception of some of the setback looking at the privacy issue that ~'ee height, but based on what I have read through here and the size of the lots as the staffpresented it, the lots are huge and even though we have a larger setback I front, and on the side, you can still put a good size house on these lots and my view we have head both sides and what we came up with should satisfy both sides and there was some inappropriate behavior, but we cannot take action against those people. · It is a reasonable recommendation to pass onto the City Council. · Regarding the label, one of the reasons he said he asked for RI, by putting an R1 in there, it indicates that there is a lot of R1 included. It doesn't have to be in the label; but it may take a long time to change the label. Chair Saadati: · Said if they decide to move forward with R1-A, that will go without any delay; Chair Chen recommendation was PR-l, and R1-A is close to PR-l, as long as there is a R1 in there. Com. Wong said he preferred RI-A; Com. Corr said it was acceptable also. Com. Miller: · Said he was still concerned that if there was no consensus, they would create something that was not a good precedent; creating added work for staff, adding to regulations unnecessarily. · Mr. Piasecki pointed out the only thing that is different about this neighborhood is the front setback. · Said it would make sense to say this neighborhood is the same as every R1, except keep the larger front setbacks. Why go into all the extra regulations and confusion? Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that he said the setbacks were different; the setbacks are greater not only in the front setbacks, but all the way around. The side setback in particular is different in this neighborhood. · Suggested that Com. Miller could address his concern by forwarding a separate communication to the Council saying that he has since received this petition and has concerns based on the process and the petition received and does not feel that there is a consensus. He said it could be done without violating the order of the Planning Commission by simply saying these are things that have come to his attention subsequent to the meeting. Com. Miller: · Said he could do it, but felt it was the Planning Commissioners' job to do their job, which is to evaluate all the data. · Said he felt they did not evaluate this one piece of very important data. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to continue the confirmation of the draft ordinance, re-notice and reconsider it so that people can come and discuss it further, and reach a better conclusion; and enable the Planning Commission to give a clearer recommendation to the City Council. Com. Corr: · Said that they were correct; that they crafted what they did because there was a consensus and he was not convinced even with the petition, that there will be a real consensus out of the neighborhood. · They listened to what the people had to say and hied to understand their real concerns and craft an ordinance that would address those. · Said he felt confident about what they did; but would not argue the point about the fact that maybe if people hadn't been intimidated, other people would have signed, and the result would have been different; while the same is true of any situation. · Said he would argue against the motion and would want to go ahead and conftrm what was done at the last meeting and put a title on it. · Said he did not have a problem with the Title of R1. Com. Mill~ asked Com. Corr to defme consensus if there is a petition with 33 signatures. Com. Con': · Said that when there is a group of people working together, consensus is a thing that is felt, not necessarily counted and when you keep going election back and forth and how many signatures did this group get, etc. we could go forever with everybody; stating now my petition is worded this way, do you agree with that. · Said they were not having an election; it is our responsibility as pointed out, to try and sort this thing out. · Said as in the original hearing, they should 'split the baby' -- make one street one way and one street the other because they couldn't get together; that is not practical either. That is what prompted crafting their own ordinance, so that there would be three proposals going to the City Council -- the task force proposal, the R1 from the other group and ours. Chairperson Saadati: · Concurred with Com. Corr, and said by bringing this back did not foresee being able to accomplish a lot more; and the neighborhood was 50/50 and going back did not feel it would change it to the extent that the recommendation would be changed. · Said he felt Chair Chen would concur with changing the title to R1-A and including almost 95% of the R1 requirement in there with the exception of setbacks. Com. Wong: · I am going to give it to staff since I was the lone commissioner who voted no; I want to go back the three reasons to my colleagues why I voted no and k/nd of agree with Com. Miller that. No 1 there is no consensus, it Was down the middle line; there was 33 signature from property owners and we need to verify that; am not sure if Mr. Gilli received a copy of it. But we need to ver/fy those 33 signatures, because that should be a super majority that agree, because whenever you rezone something, I think it is a big issue. · Second relates to the survey. I think that Com. Corr is correct in that regarding this task force that was put up, the majority of the members were in favor of a change, and the folks who wanted R1 were the minority · That is why I think that as a job of the Planning Commission that it is our job to make sure that we address all the items, and even tonight with the five or six items I brought up, it was a long evening and I wasn't really ready to decide and I wish that Chairperson Chen could ask me what I wanted before you made a motion to rezone it. I wanted to add my two cents but things were moving so fast that I regret that; I should have spoke up and said, no hold on, let me say how I feel. I feel that it is really important that our job is that we take a clear look at this and then before we pass it to city council or at least for me, I don't feel that comfortable passing it onto the City Council, so I hope you will reconsider. Com. Corr: · Said he was not convinced that more hearings and more meetings with this group of people would be a benefit; said he felt it should have been resolved in two or three months right away, and would have come to consensus. · I think there is a lot more going on than is presented to us, and so either we just leave it alone and leave it at the existing zoning, and don't touch it, or stick with what we crafted. Com. Miller: · Said he felt there were some things overlooked. · The reason for holding another hearing is because we could do this ourselves tonight, but I think it is appropriate that the public be there and have an opportunity to comment on what we are doing. · Said there were some issues they covered too quickly, such as side setbacks. The side setbacks in this ordinance as we crafted it make it extremely difficult to build a house with a second story. · Said he was not conv/need they did the best job; it was done quickly, at a late hour of the meeting, and he felt it was appropriate to review some of those things. · Said it could be accomplished at this meeting; but felt the public hearing is the more appropriate way to go. Chair Saadati: · Said it was not the first time that this came to the Planning Commission; two times before people wanted to change it to R1 and it did not go through. Planning Comm/ssion Minutes DRAFT Mr. Gilli: · Said over the past half century there have been 6 attempts to rezone it to R1 and they all failed. · Said he would like to add more on the issue of surveys. · Said he received a survey from the members of the neighborhood that want a special zoning; there are 53 home owners on the list who represent 33 properties which is about half the properties. · The survey was signed between the 6th of September and the 10th of September and he asked this group for this copy because he anticipated that the R1 group would submit their petition to one of the commissioners and not to staff. · If 33 properties want R1 and 33 properties want the group proposal, it is 50/50. · With the issue of second story side setbacks, that was discussed many times in the group; all of the two story houses that have just been built, meet the second story setbacks and yet they were able to build; you can have up to 1900 square feet on the second story; which is plenty for a second story. · With the group proposal, you can have over 1000 and you have 2000 square feet of room within the setbacks to place that 1000 square feet, if you maximize the size. Com. Miller said it was not practical to do that. Com. Wong: · Asked for the proposal for the 33 property owners from the group, what is staff's opinion since it is 50/50; do you see consensus in the neighborhood. Mr. Gilli: · Said he felt there would never be consensus in the neighborhood because there is always people adamantly opposed to RI, and there have been people who wanted to go to R1, so what the group tried to do is find a middle ground; what the Planning Commission did was take a neutral approach at finding where the middle ground should be and that is the best to hope for at this stage. Com. Wong: · Said even at 50/50 staff feels comfortable with the group proposal. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that Mr. Gilli said they would not get better than 50/50 no matter how it was split this, even with six more hearings; there would still be this lack of agreement. · Said Com. Miller's comments about does this reasonably work at the second floor, it is a 30 foot wide second story, you have roughly 1900 square feet within which to place your 1000 square feet of second floor area. You get that amount of flexibility because these happen to be large lots; if these setbacks were placed on smaller lots, Com. Miller would be absolutely fight, it would squeeze it down next to nothing. · The question is, do you feel reasonably comfortable that you have reached a reasonable compromise that reflects the views on both sides of this equation. · He said he felt everyone did an excellent job; the study group did as good as they could and the Planning Commission improved on it; and arrived at a good proposal. Com. Wong: Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 13, 2003 · Relative to the first FAR, agreed w/th Com. Miller in that it forces people to build a bigger first story but they want a bigger second story; that is one of the things overlooked, as well as setbacks and looking at the 50/50 ratio. · Said he was inclined to agree with Com. Con' that they perhaps should recommend no change at all. · Said that was why he was inclined to open the public hearing again, and maybe the majority and minority viewpoint likes what the Planning Commission wants; but would not know that until the public hearing was opened. Chair Saadati: · Said he heard discussion on both sides. · Said he was comfortable with the proposal as is, with the title change and agreed with what Mr. Piasecld said about spending as much time on the subject as any other item, with the result being somewhat fair, and should move ahead. Com. Corr: · Said he was hearing two different choices: (1) to have another hearing and let everyone talk about it; and (2) recraft it again. The essence of the motion is to have another hearing and take another look at recrafting it. Com. Miller: · Said he was concerned that they missed some things in their haste to get it done and it is appropriate to do it right, than to do it fast. Chair Saadati: · Said they were not dealing with rocket science, but an ordinance, and one needs to simplify it as to how it differs from an R1; which is setbacks, and everything else complies with RI with one exception of taller trees which could change under the R1 because they have had privacy issues with RI. · Issues were not truly addressed because it takes three years for trees to grow and the frosted windows have been suggested in the past and incorporated in homes. Overall it is an R1 ordinance. Com. Miller: · Said that the side setbacks are a major issue. Other issues include the peak height of a gable at 18 instead of 20 feet on the R1; there is a number of others also. · What is the reason to define this zoning to have an 18 foot when R1 is a 20 foot gable. Mr. Gilli: · Said it was a good observation and said he wished it had been made earlier because he felt it went with all the reductions by 2 feet; hence it needs to be 20 feet, because the direction of the Comrmssion was for height to match RI. · That is an item that was missed. Com. Miller: · Said there were others, and he could not over-emphasize that when you put a 20 foot side setback on either side of a 75 foot lot, you are really restricting the ability to put a functional second story on the house. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 13, 2003 Com. Miller: · Said the configuration of the rooms doesn't leave a lot of flexibility or creativity, and again it is not clear where the benefit is in doing that. Where is the benefit of having 20 foot setbacks on second story on both sides? Chair Saadati: · What is the maximum size of the house that can go on this, because that likely would be the controlling point. Com. Wong: · Said that it is still 45% FAR total to build on; the concern is with the configuration of the house because of the unique setback with this neighborhood. · Said he would like to take one more look at it. Mr. Gilli: · The maximum size of the house is 4200 square feet, and regarding the second story setbacks, because of the way the surcharge is required in RI, it is possible that you would be required to have 35 feet of second story side setback, if that is possible. The A1 zoning had 20 foot side setbacks on the second story, the houses that were recently built were built to that, so the group did not think that there was a sufficient reason to change it. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that the Planning Commission would need to ask that the item not be taken up by the City Council and be referred back to the Planning Commission to take the issue up again. · Cannot just continue since a recommendation has already been sent forward; the Council will likely embrace that if you felt that way as a Commission and it can be taken to their next meeting and ask that they refer it back to the Planning Commission, that you have questions about, either the process or new information. It accomplishes the same thing as the motion, but is worded differently. Ms. Murray: · Said that the motion to reconsider was appropriate; the motion to reconsider the process is how it would be done; it would go to the Council and be sent back. · She clarified that the request is for reconsideration of the item; technically it is not a continuance of the public hearing because the public hearing was closed. What we would have, is we would reconsider the item as a new item with a new public heating reopened. The word "continuing" is not appropriate, what you want to ask for is reconsideration. Com. Wong: · Said he accepted the friendly amendment. · Said when he talked with Mr. Kilian, he said regarding the Brown Act, it was not New Business, but under Old Business, No. 6, which is confirming to see if this is the correct language that is being conf'n'med. · Commissioners have the right as well as councilmembers to say that perhaps the evening was a long evening and maybe that wasn't what they really intended to pass because of the late hour of the meeting. Chair Saadati: · Said l:ds intention was, as if he voted again, would comes back with the same vote. Com. Con:: · Said his point in inquir/ng about how soon it would come back, because it would be November or December before it returned; is that there will be a committee of four members, with no swing vote; and it could continue on into the next year and drag it into the third year like the community. · What was approved last time, what was discussed tonight is what was approved, and that was the question before the Planning Commission tonight; is this what was approved, and the answer is "yes". · Said he felt Com. Miller was asking a different question. · If we keep asking the community to come back to the Planning Commission, consensus may never be reached, because each time the document for consideration will be different and people will keep changing their positions. Chair Saadati smnmarized: · At the last Planning Commission the vote was 4-1 on the application and needed to confirm or not confirm what has been discussed. It was clarified that the motion was to reconsider the entire application. (Vote: Failed: 2-2-0) (Ayes: Com. Miller and Com. Wong; Nayes: Com. Con: and Chair Saadati; Com. Chen absent) Mr. Piasecki clarified that the next step was to concur with the clarifications in terms of the September 22 action; that it is R1-A and that the gables can be 20 feet in accordance with the 2 feet that Com. Miller discovered. Com. Miller: · Said that the side setbacks should be the same as RI. He said he did not feel there was any discussion on the side setbacks at the September 22 meeting; it was passed over. Chair Saadati: · Said he considered the lot size, and was clear on the facts. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Chair Saadati, to confirm the draft ordinance before the Planning Commission tonight, with the two changes staff mentioned, the RI(IA)and the 20 foot gable. Com. Wong: · Said that he wanted to go with Plan B with Mr. Piasecki's idea and questioned if a minute order could be sent to Council to bring it back or have a more meaningful discussion now; regarding Com. Miller's idea that second story side setbacks were not discussed; would like to discuss second story windows; discuss second to first FAR; and some other minor issues. Vote: (2-2-0) Ayes: Com. Corr and Chair Saadati; Nayes: Com. Miller and Com. Wong; Com. Chen absent. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFI October 13, 2003 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to send a minute order to the City Council to send the draft ordinance back to the Planning Commission to relook at some issues that were overlooked; and would like to discuss second story side setbacks, the second story windows, second to first FAR; and other minor issues. Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that if you get into discussion, it is simply an unfinished business item to talk about clarifying what action was taken on September 22"a. If it is desired to get into the discussion items, a public hearing is needed. The substance of the motion may be that the Council send these three items back, go ahead and approve this wording but send the three items back; we can't have a quasi public hearing on these issues tonight. Amended Motion: Moved by Com. Wong, second by Com. Corr to send it all back in a minute order. The commissioners agreed to table the item to the next meeting. Com. Wong withdrew his motion. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to continue the draft ordinance to the October 27th Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent) r. Piasecki clarified that this evening's meeting was not a public hearing. None Mr, · Clarified could see the wording under Section sentence, Mr. 's point is if you can show that could be the guideline requirements, window. Com. Won he wanted it spelled that way. guidelines, the second sufficient screening then you C of the second story as he had not interpreted it REPORT OF TIlE Environmental Review Committee · Com. Con' reported that he the come to the Planning sio~ from BQ Quasi Public Single Famil, permit from Chinese ~ and meeting. Topics included items which will rezoning of a parcel on O'Ryan Place a request for zoning and a use , Financial property. · Com. Miller Planning that there were two complaints qexus study was also discussed. . assignment of BMR units. Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 27, 2003 DRAFT OLD BUSINESS: 3. Confirmation of the Draft Ordinance approved by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2003 for the Linwood Acres neighborhood rezoning. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2003 Mr. Gilli: · Stated that this item is a continuance from the last meeting to confirm what he transcribed as the Commission's decision on September 22. · At the last meeting, there was agreement that the most appropriate zoning designation is RI(A). That was a unanimous decision. · There were 2 failed votes at the last meeting: One: to confirm the draft ordinance document representing what was decided on September 22. Two: a motion to re-open the discussion on the Linwood Acres rezoning. · Due to noticing error, this item could not go to the Council on October 20 and was continued. · Explained that if the Commission decides to re-open the discussion, the earliest this item can be heard before the Planning Commission is November 24. The City Council meeting is on November 3, and Council will decide whether to act on the Commission's decision Of September 22 or wait until the Commission reconsiders its past decision. · Since the Commission's September 22 decision, the two groups have been meeting to find a middle ground. They have been unsuccessful in reaching agreement at this point, but he is hopeful they will be able to reach a compromise before the item goes to Council on November 3. · Mr. Gilli presented brief background information since it had been a full month since they had talked about this issue. · Staff's perception is that neighborhood has always opposed R1 zoning. In staff's opinion, the neighborhood does not receive protections that R1 Ordinance established in 1999 regarding two-story development. · What is happening in this neighborhood is replay of R1 discussions between long-time residents and newcomers. · Two things allowed staff to get information about the neighborhood: (1) A survey, done at a neighborhood meeting, represented 56 properties. Fifty-five percent of those who filled out the survey supported the group proposal. Twenty-five percent (about half of that group) supported a single-story overlay, which would limit all development to one-story. Thirty-five percent explicitly stated that they want R1 and ten percent were split. The survey allowed people to comment on specific issues. It was narrated so people could understand the purpose of each regulation. (2) A petition from the R1 group representing 64 properties showed a split of 53% supporting the group proposal and 47% supporting the R1 group. This is closer than the results of the survey and from staff point of view, that is a 50/50 split. The petitions did not allow people to comment on specific issues. There is no record of how the petitions were presented to people. · Some people in the neighborhood study group (which formulated the group proposal) claim that some of those who gathered signatures for R1 did not let people know what the survey was about. Mr. Gilli has received two letters from residents who signed the R1 petition, but did not know it was for RI. · Mr. Gilli explained that these are staff observations and his personal judgment of what is happening in the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 27, 2003 · People who support the group proposal, oppose RI, but half of the people that support the group proposal would support a single-story overlay. Those who support RI, oppose the group proposal, but not all of them oppose a special zoning. Staff does not know where those numbers lie. Unless another survey is done, staff will not have those numbers. · Mr. Gilli said that, in his opinion, the two sides should be able to reach a compromise that would be supported by the majority of the neighborhood. · Mr. Gilli presented a table of the Planning Commission actions on September 22. The table showed a breakdown of the group proposal and the Planning Commission recommendations. · Planning Commission recommendations had fewer regulations that would be unique and more than matched R1, with 3 items that were compromised between both groups. · The Planning Commission actions of September 22 served as a wake-up call to both groups. They are now talking and trying to reach a compromise. · Mr. G-illi stated that he felt re-opening the discussion would not help the groups reach a compromise. Com. Miller: · Asked for clarification of front setbacks: On a street that has sidewalks, from where to where is the 20-foot setback measured? Mr. Gilli: · Explained that there is always a section of public fight-of-way between the edge of the street and the start of the property line. It doesn't always matter whether or not there is a sidewalk. In the ease of this neighborhood, it is about 11 feet from the edge of the curb to where the front property line starts. Com. Miller: · Asked if this meant that in this neighborhood setbacks are 30 feet plus 11 feet to the street. Mr. Gilli: · Said that is correct. Com. Wong · Questioned Mr. Gilli about the people who stated they were confused about knowing they were signing an R1 petition. Is this fact or did he hear it from someone? Mr. Gilli · Said he received two letters from people who were not told they were signing an R1 petition. Com. Wong: · Said some of the presentation should have been given to the commissioners earlier, since is difficult to make a decision in five minutes without time to look at the materials. Mr. Gilli: · Stated that the table is the same information that is in the draft ordinance. In the ordinance, it is presented in word form, in the table it is in table form. The draft ordinance has been available for at least a month. Com. Wong Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 27, 2003 · Said this points out some of the things not discussed on September 22, and some of the things that were missed. · By reviewing this, he felt that they should go back and re-open the discussion to talk about some of the major items that they may have overlooked. Chair Chen: · Stated that she had specifically asked Mr. Gilli to prepare this information so it could be discussed at this meeting and a decision could be made about where to go from here. Com. Con' · Said that Mr. Gilli's thesis is that we developed a plan. There is the R1 plan and the group plan, and if we re-open discussion, Mr. Gilli thinks that we may hinder the neighborhood's ability to move ahead. Opposed to that, commissioners have heard that they missed the issues of setbacks and trees. Questioned whether or not it would hinder what the community is doing if the commissioners were to go back and discuss those issues and fine-tune their proposal. Mr. Gilli: · Stated that, in his opinion, the two groups are trying to negotiate in good faith among themselves and if they were brought back to the Planning Commission, they would stop trying to reach a compromise and would try to convince the Commission one way or the other. This is what happened before the Commission made a decision on September 22. Mr. Piasecki: · Advised the Commissioners that if they felt that some fundamental principle had been passed over in the process, that should be the basis for a recommendation for reconsideration, not whether or not the groups are going to negotiate with each other. If the Commissioners feel that they need more time, that should be the recommendation. Com. Miller: · Asked about the cost of different height trees as stated by communications. Mr. Nguyen in oral M/-. Piasecki: · Stated that those prices sound about right. Explained that it is about double to up-size a tree as much as they were describing. Com Wong: · Said that in the beginning there was A-1 and A-1 single-story overlay group in R-1. Earlier he did not hear an R-1 overlay. Questioned whether Mr. Gilli was just trying to give a summary. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the group proposal people agreed that they would all agree to the group proposal, rather than having a subset of the group trying to convince people to go with the one-story overlay. Reiterated that he was just presenting data that shows that 25% of the properties represented by people who filled out a survey wanted a one-story overlay. Planning Comm/ssion Minutes 7 October 27, 2003 Mr. Piasekci: · That group did not choose to organize or seek speaking time to push the single-story overlay. They folded their issues and concerns into the group proposal. However, there was a strong sentiment that leaned that way. Com. Wong: · Regarding the survey, because the majority group was swayed toward one direction, the other group didn't really have a say in the survey. Expressed concern that the survey was not r~resentative of the whole neighborhood. Com. Miller: · Stated that he saw the petition from the R1 group with 33 signatures. Questioned Mr. Gilli on how he arhved at the 53% for the group proposal. Mr. Gilli: · Explained that there were people on the R1 proposal who say they were not informed that they were signing an R1 petition, and they asked to remove their names. Com. Miller: · Said that was not the question he had asked. Questioned again how Mr. Gilli arrived at 53% of the group. Mr. Gilli: · Stated that he had taken the total of people who had signed the group proposal petition and the R1 petition and looked at properties that were represented. That totaled 64. Four properties are not represented. Fifty-three percent of the 64 properties were on one side, forty-seven percent were on the other side. Com. Miller: · Clarified that this is not 53/47 of the total number of properties, this is 53/47 of the total number of people who participated in a petition. Chair Chen: · Asked to go back to the slide showing the survey results. Of the 56 property owners that participated, 55% supported the group proposal and 35% did not. · Originally thought this was a solid number that showed that the group proposal was supported by a majority. At that time she had not seen the petition. After seeing the petition she was surprised by the amount of people who are opposed to the group proposal. · With so much more information coming in, they have a much better picture of who is on each side and there is no consensus. Now it is time for the Commission to come up with a proposal which would address the larger Cupertino district issue, but not just this small community's issues. · Stated that is why she backed out from the request to re-do the survey, and she would like for the Commission to take a look at the group proposal and the R1 proposal and to make the final decisions on what zoning district would best fit into the Cupertino area, and not just this small area, as to who wants what. · Outlined the process for discussion of this item: 1. Original intent of this item is to go back to the September 22 recommendation and confirm that it is what we wanted to do back on September 22. Asked Mr. Gilli to Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 27, 2003 prepare a summary list of what was agreed upon. 2. If there are questions, input or corrections regarding the ordinance which is drafted based on the September 22 recommendation, they need to come up for discussion. 3. Will hear the commissioners' input on the new information that was presented to them. This might change the decision that was made on September. 4. Will confirm that everything is correct as presented regarding the September 22 recommendation, then entertain comments about the new information and decisions that were made to change the September 22 recommendation. 5. Determine where we go from here, whether we bring the item back for continuation and reopen it for re-notification and re-public hearing or we finalize the recommendation from September 22. Chair Chen: · Asked if Commissioners would rather go over the summary list item by item and have each commissioner state his position on each item or to go over the entire package at one time. Com Corr: · Said he did not feel they needed to go over the package "with a fine-toothed" comb. · Said the main question is whether or not the things written here are representative of what the Commissioners said on September 22. · Stated that the next question is whether or not we are happy with our decision. It was late at night, and we went through and said the groups could not make up their minds, so we'll draft something. We went through and quickly did something. They had almost year to do it, we did it in minutes. · Said that the issue came back to us at the last meeting to ask whether or not this is what we agreed to. There were four commissioners present. Marty brought up the issue that there are some things that were put in the recommendation that should not be there. · Said he remembered the issue of the setbacks being brought up at the last meeting, but not the issue of the trees. · The question remains: Is that document representative of what we had done the previous meeting? He Said they felt that the document is representative of what they recommended, but that they also felt the document needs some "tweaking" and so were not able to come to an agreement. · Stated that they wanted to bring the issue back when all five of the commissioners are present to determine whether they should take another look at the document and perhaps make some changes. · Said this led to confusion in the community, because they assumed changes would be made at that meeting. That is not what was on the agenda. Like tonight, it is not posted on the agenda to actually do the changes tonight. It will be to determine whether or not we will bring it back for changing. · Explained that his notion is that what is on the document is what they said that night, but that there are two pieces that he would be interested in looldng at if the issue is re-opened--the setbacks and the trees. · Stated that if all the Commissioners agree that they want to look at those two issues or some other issues, then it should be brought back for another look. Otherwise, he stated that the document is what was said on September 22, and they should validate it. If he were to be here, he would vote to bring it back to talk about it, because there are some valid issues. · Said that in the meantime he would hope that the community would continue to discuss the issues and would settle the matter and the Commission wouldn't have to do it at all. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27, 2003 Chair Chen: · Said they all confirm that the document is what they talked about on September 22 and the ordinance does reflect what is on the summary list. · Said they would move into discussion of the specific elements that the Commissioners have expressed concerns about, based on the new information. If the decision is made that the document needs to be changed, it will be brought back before the Planning Commission for re-notification and the whole process. Com. Miller · Said that when they did the process, he was laboring under the two assumptions that have proven to be incorrect. The first assumption was that there was a consensus of the neighborhood. They all agree tonight that there is no consensus. The second assumption was that the uniqueness of this neighborhood is the setbacks. He said it is not clear to him that this is true. · He said that his concern is that they added more confusion rather than clarity with their recommendation. There was the group proposal and the R1 proposal, and then they added a new proposal which they had only spent two hours in the late evening putting together. · Stated that if they sent this to Council, Council would rightly have questions about what they were doing and why they were doing it. He did not feel he could defend the actions taken on September 22. · Said one positive aspect is that all the members of the community are now working to reach a compromise or a consensus. · Said it is appropriate to re-notice the hearing and allow the neighborhood to go back and see if they can get to a consensus, because the job would then be easier. · Said the other issue he had with their actions was that they did not allow the neighbors to comment on it. They did something that was different than either side wanted and is not sure they created something that anyone wanted. · Said there is a real advantage in reconsidering and allowing the neighbors to talk about the issues some more understanding the new situation that they need to compromise. He is hard pressed to force 50% of a neighborhood to accept a more restrictive zoning ordinance than everyone else in Cupertino is entitled to when only 50% of the neighborhood wants it and the other 50% doesn't. If they cannot reach a consensus the Commission has the harder choice of deciding to leave it as A1 or to go to R1 which is what everyone else is. · Said he is hesitant to impose their view of what is distinctive or not distinctive when they are finding it difficult to find out what is distinctive about the neighborhood. Chair Chen: · Said she thought the disagreement on the two proposals was obvious at the September 22 meeting. She was not under any impression that the proposal was supported by a majority. That is what resulted in a third proposal, which she feels is a middle ground for the two proposals and hopes that it can be acceptable to both part/es. · Asked Com. Miller if he felt that if there is a re-noticing and a re-public hearing, it will result in a very different outcome. Com. Miller: · Said that looking at other applications where there were two sides, we essentially encouraged the sides to cooperate and talk about it, and we found there was movement toward a middle Planning Commission Minutes l0 October 27, 2003 ground. He cited the Tovm Center project and said that when the two opposing forces realized they were not going to get their way, they got together and created a compromise. Said he hoped this would happen in this case. Chair Chen: · Asked if this same outcome could be achieved by the Council public hearing and the Council presentations. Com. Miller: · Agreed that the outcome could be achieved by the Council, but said part of the Commission's job is to get it as far as they can at this level, and to make it clearer and easier for the Council. He said he is not opposed to spending whatever time it takes to do that. Chair Chen: · Asked Com. Miller if his suggestion is to vote for re-notification and to restart the public hearing process. Com. Miller · Said that to reconsider would give the public the opportunity to comment on what we did, which is important because it was done without getting public input or comments on whether we created something that was better or worse. Said he is not sure either side likes what was done. · Having a public hearing to take feedback is important and gives the two sides the opportunity to sit down further and try to reach a compromise. Chair Chen: · Asked if, at the end of another public hearing, the groups cannot reach consensus and it is ready to move on to Council, would the Commission make a third recommendation or just go forward with no proposal and let Council decide which side it will take? · Said she does not see a real benefit for re-opening the issue for public hearing. Com. Corr: · Said he sees a benefit of re-opening it because it would give the opportunity for public input and also send a signal to community that they are working on a compromise and that they need to keep working on it. If they could not reach a compromise, the Commission would be prepared to present its proposal to the City Council. Com. Wong: · Stated that he concurred with Commissioners Miller and Corr that it would be nice to let the public reaffirm that this is what they want. Then they could send it to Council with both sides coming together and approving it, rather than facing another long process at the Council level. Com. Saadati: · Said that e-mails had been received on both sides of the issue--some like it the way it is and want it to go forward to the Council and some want it to change. He said that by sending it on to the City Council, it gives the community an opportunity to work together. If they want to make final refinements, the Council can make that decision. Planning Commission Minutes n October 27, 2003 Chair Chen: · Stated that she agreed with Com. Saadati and that, based on the information received from the community of Linwood Acres in the form of e-mails and phone calls, more people encouraged the Planning Commission to forward its proposal to City Council rather than to re-open the discussion. · Said that even if the Commission made the suggestion to re-open the heating, it is still in a position to review the zoning to see if it fits into Cupertino. · Stated that another part of the Commissioners' job is to see what the community really wants and to make decisions about whether or not the zoning fits into the larger Cupertino City. Com. Corr: · Asked Chair Chen if her recommendation is to send the document to City Council as it was done, which would send a message to the community to reach a consensus which would then be brought forward at the Council level. Also, the proposal could be changed at the Council level in terms of the trees and setbacks. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that another option would be for the Commission to pass a minute action and forward it to Council next week indicating that the two primary issues of contention seem to be sideyard setbacks and the size of privacy planting. In the event that there is a lot of controversy, or if the Council had difficulty deciding the issues, they could refer it back to the Planning Commission to resolve those remaining issues. This would allow the item to move forward with the red flag that there are remaining outside issues. Com. Miller: ·Said he felt this option is "passing the buck". He said he would like to do the job and then move on. Com. Wong: · Asked Com. Corr if he would be open to re-opening the discussion if it were limited just to the particular items of concern. Com. Corr: · Said that based upon the discussion from the last meeting and from some of the mail that has been received, there was concern about the setbacks--that because the neighborhood is so different, the setbacks need to be different. He said he concurred with Com. Miller's statement that there is not as much difference as they had thought, so this may not be an issue. His primary interest would be the trees. He questioned why the Commission should force a 12-foot tree on this neighborhood, when it does not force a 12-foot tree on anybody else. He stated that he would be amenable to following the R1 ordinance requirements for tree height. Other than that point, he was satisfied with what the Commission did. Com. Wong: · Stated that the one item he would want to bring back to the public hearing is the second-story regulation. He said he felt the Commission never delved into this issue. Chair Chen: · Said she was hearing a consensus to bring certain items back for discussion, refine the proposal, and then move forward. Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 27, 2003 · Asked if this was satisfactory to ali the Commissioners. Com. Corr: · Said he had no problem sending the document on to City Council, knowing that Council could refer it back to Commission, saying that the 12-foot tree requirement is out of line and Commission should knock it back to the R1 requirements and pass it through. Mr. Gilli: · Added a suggestion that the Commission could continue this item to November 10, with the direction to the community that Comrrdssion wants the groups to come to a compromise and present it at the meeting. Com. Saadati: · Said he did not feel there could be a guarantee that a compromise could reached, and said there would be a change in the Commission with Com. Con' leav/ng. Chair Chen: · Suggested that Commission pass the draft ordinance to City Council, and at the same time give direction to the community to come to agreement. Stated that there is also no guarantee that the City Council will vote for the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Gilli: · Stated that the Commission had the option to include in its minute order that it is the Commission's wish that they use Commission's recommendation as a starting point and come up with a compromise. If they did so, Commission would probably support it. Not wanting to have the process delayed, Commission is allowing it to go forward to Council. Chair Chen: · Said a scary thought is that Council may come up with a fourth recommendation, which would really confuse the community. She stated that she would suggest that Commission move forward and that the community groups come to an agreement. Com. Wong: · Asked Mr. Gilli when this would go to City Council if it did come back before the Planning Commission on November 10. Mr. Gilli: · Explained that it is akeady scheduled for November 3, so if Commission continued the item or decided to set another hearing, then Council would have to decide whether to accept what Commission did on September 22 or to wait until Commission has a chance to reach closure. If the Council decided to wait, it could be brought back to them on November 17. Com. Wong: · Asked if the emergency ordinance would expire on January 31, 2004. Mr. Gilli: · Explained the timeline, saying the last day for the first reading of the ordinance would be December 15. There are two Council meetings in November, the 3Ta and the 17th, and two Council meetings in December. The meeting of December 1st is the transfer of the new Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 27, 2003 Council person and Mayor Chang, and they will not schedule an action item at this meeting. If the neighborhood came back to ConUmssion on November 10, there would be two Council meetings where it could be heard. One would be November 17, at which Mayor Chang would be present. One would be on December 15, at which Mayor Chang would not be present. Said the optimistic viewpoint is that, if the community groups do agree, and the Commission gives its blessing to the agreement, it would make it easier for them to make a decision on the first night. Added that when the interim ordinance expires, the neighborhood would revert to Al. He said it would be possible for someone to immediately file for something under A1 that the neighborhood may or may not like. Said it is also possible that there could be resolution that is after the expiration, but before anything is filed. Added that this is only a guess. Chair Chen: · Stated that her impression is that A1 is not supported by anyone in this area, and that A1 is something they do not want to go back to. Mr. Gilli: · Said it is safe to say that 80 to 90 percent of the neighborhood agree that A1 is not right for them. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong to reconsider draft ordinance and set another date for public hearing. (Vote 2-3-0) Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Corr to send draft ordinance to City Council. (Vote: 3-2-0) Mr. Gilli noted that, for the purpose of clarification, it might be beneficial for the Commission to make an action on whether this document is the its official recommendation, unless they felt that was clearly implied in the last motion. Mr. Piasecki said he did not think it was clearly implied and that it would be good to have a separate action on whether th~s reflects the Commission s September 22 actlo . Chair Chen agreed that there should be a separate action. She stated that the title on page 3-2 was changed from P(A1) to Rl-a and that this is the consensus of the Commission. She asked if this was different from the original September 22 proposal. Mr. Gilli said that the change was a clarification that was made at the October 13 meeting. Chair Chen asked to amend page 3-4, Section 6, Item E, #2, by adding the words "of the Cupertino Municipal Code" after ...based on Section 19.28.060 B(3). On page 3-5, Item I, #3, the last sentence, Chair Chen asked to change the word "prohibit" to the word "avoid". Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Sadaati to affirm that the draft ordinance is the Commission's recommendation from September 22 and to incorporate the wording changes suggested by Chair Chen. Motion withdrawn. Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 27, 2003 Com. Wong and Com. Miller did not feel comfortable voting to confirm that draft ordinance is what they wanted to recommend, since they both voted to re-open the item for discussion. Mr. Piasecki said they wanted to make sure the ordinance reflected what the Commission said. He assured the Commissioners that a set of draft minutes would be presented to the Council before the November 3 meeting so the Commissioners' positions would not be misunderstood in any fashion. This would let the Council know that some of the commissioners wanted to hear more public comment and felt that they had moved too quickly in drafting the ordinance and that the draft ordinance does not reflect their intent. Eileen explained that a vote on the motion to confirm the draft ordinance was not necessary, so Com. Corr withdrew the motion. Mr. Piaseckl assured Chair Chen that the wording changes she recommended would be incorporated into the document sent to City Council. NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: · Com. Corr reported that there have been no meetings. Housing Commission · Com. Miller reported that there have been no meetings. Mayor's Monthly Meeting: No report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Piasecki said it is nice to see that Oakville Grocers is planning to come to Cupertino and that the vacant Wherehouse building will be reoccupied by Starbucks,T-Mobile and Panda Express. He stated that the City Council has authorized the Planning Commission to look at the RI ordinance and has specified where. He asked the ConUmssioners if they would want to begin the discussions at the meeting of November 24 or postpone the consideration of the R1 ordinance until January 26 to avoid conflict with the holiday season. Staff is ready to bring the item to the Commissioners at the date of their choosing. The Commission decided to delay the item until the January 26 Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: · Mr. Piasecki pointed out that there was a presentation from the Cupertino Union School District and the presentation was made at the October 20 meeting, so there is some information on student generation numbers from new development. OTHER: · Com. Wong reported that he and Com. Saadati went on a BART tour on October 17th with the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group to see infill sites in Hayward, Oakland and Berkeley. He Planning Comnnssion Minutes 15 October 27, 2003 said he has materials to present and encouraged Commissioners to go on next scheduled tour. Com. Saadati said the tour was very well-organized and very informative. · Chair Chen asked about an e-mail sent by Cddy Wordell regarding the General Plan Task Force. Mrs. Wordell explained that in about a month, a joint study session will be set with the City Council and the Planning Commission to review the Task Force recommendations and determine which of the those would actually change the draft that goes out for public hearing. · Com. Wong strongly encouraged a joint study session to study the General Plan. · Mr. Piasecki stated that there was a technical difficulty with joint study sessions in that, in the event they were not able to get a quorum of the Planning Commission, they would not be able to start the meeting. He explained that this may be a City Council study session to which the Commissioners are invited. Commissioners would not formally have a meeting, but would be invited to add input. · Mr. Piasecki reminded everyone that this was Com. Corr's last meeting. Chair Chen expressed the comn~ssion's thanks to Com. Corr for his leadership, experience and history he brought to the Commission. · Com. Corr expressed his enjoyment at serving the City of Cupertino over the years and wished staff luck in the future. · Mr. Piasecki said that fi.om staff's perspective, it has been a pleasure working with Com. Corr and that Com. Con' is a real gentleman who always has the best interest of the community at heart. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 2003 at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Nancy C. Czosek, Recording Secretary Angela Chen, Chairperson Steve Piasecki, Secretary EXIlIBIT It September 16, 2002 Cupertino City Council 29. 30. 31. This item was discussed earlier in the meeting. Review development regulations affecting Randy Lane and Larry Way Neighborhood (Al Zoning District) and conduct the first and only reading of Ordinance No. 1902: "An Interim Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adopting Interim Measures to Immediately Rezone Approximately 9.7 Acres, Consisting of Sixty-Eight Single-Family Residences, from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone to the P(A1) Planned Development Zone with Agricultural-Residential Intent and Declaring the Urgency Thereof." Senior Planner Colin Jung explained that although the R1 residential zone was amended in 1999 to address mass and bulk issues, the A1 zoning ordinance was not changed, and therefore does not have design regulations or design review. This interim ordinance would prohibit new construction, which would give staff time to work with the neighborhood residents to determine appropriate regulations for the neighborhood.' Chang/Kwok moved to enact the ordinance. Staff pointed out some typographical errors and recommended additional provisions. Chang/Kwok moved to withdraw the first motion, and moved to conduct the first and only reading and enact interim Ordinance No. 1902 as corrected, with staffs recommendations: "An Interim Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adopting Interim Measures to Immediately Rezone Approximately 19 Acres, Consisting of Sixty-Eight Single-Family Residences, from A1-43 Agricultural-Residential Zone and the R1-7.5 Single Family Residence Zone to the P(A1) Planned Development Zone with Agricultural-Residential Intent and Declaring the Urgency Thereof." Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. The additional staff recommendations adopted were as follows: Chapter 4. Regulations: 2. Requests for new construction shall be made to the Design Review Committee for design approval to allow for the development, subject to Chapter 19.28.080, 19.28.090 and 19.28.110 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that all additions must receive a special permit. Chapter 7. Pipeline: Applications for building permits filed prior to September 16, 2002 may be processed under the former zoning regulations in the A1-43 zoning district subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Consider canceling the meeting of January 6, 2003. Council concurred to cancel the first meeting in January. First reading of Ordinance No. 1903: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council of the City of Cupertino and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to enhance 1959 survivor benefits." 0ct-27-2003 07:33am From-RADIOLOGY 40S-Z366466 T-058 ? _no~.,3, F'OS6 i OCT 2 ? ~003 ] To: Peter Oill~ - Senior Plier Ci~ ofdup~o ~Y:-.. ] CC: Cupegino Ci~ M~r, Co~scl Members ~d Pl~ng Co~ssionets [rom: M~io ~di Date: October 22, 2003 Subject: K1 p~fion Mr. Gilli, Please remove my name from the R1 petition. I am in favor oldie ncip, hborhood group proposal and was not aware that the petition I was asked to sign supported the K1 proposal. Marlo Pdnaldi From-RADIOLOGY 408-Z386486 T-OSB P.002/003 F-OBB To: Peter Gilli - Senior planner City of Cupertino CC: Cupertino City M,~nager, Counsel Members and Planning Commissioners From: Philip Bush Date: October 22, 2003 i-< SCEIVED Subject: R1 petition OCT BY: Mr. G~lli, Please remove my name from the R1 petition. The petition that I signed was misrepresented to me by a member of thc R1 group. I was informed that the petition I signed was in support of the neighborhood group proposal. I have never been in support ora change in zoning to R1, not now and not for the past six attempts to have my neighborhood rezone& The individual who asked me to sign this petition was, and is, aware of my continued support for the neighborhood group proposal and I am disgusted that the R.1 group has chosen to attempt to sway the City of Cupertino -in such a fraudulent manner. Philip~Bush ..... Original Message ..... From: The Eaneff family [mailto:cseaneff@comcast.net] 2003 Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:20 PNI To: Peter Gilli; Chuck & Lorraine Eaneff; Donna Prosser; Donna Prosser (Work); Ed Auch; Ted Biskupski; Terry Griffin; Wes Weigel Subject: Re: public input tonight Peter, The City has ample evidence and knowledge of what appear to be fraudulent signatures on the R1 petition turned into the City. This is in addition to staff's personal knowledge that non resident stakeholders in the R1 group have lied and deceived neighbors throughout this process. Staff has personally observed in public meetings noticed and attended by the City lies being told to the audience in order to gain support for the R1 position. At this point over 5% of the signatures on the R1 were shown to be obtained by deception. When two of the signatories of the R1 petition signed letters to the City outlining the deception, the new petition came back without their signatures! The City has been told of countless stories in the neighborhood of residents being lied to or inappropriately pressured; that two story houses would not be allowed, that no windows would be allowed on the sides, that property values would decrease, that neighbors would not talk to each other unless R1 was signed, that your calculations of survey results are false, along with countless other misrepresentations, lies and falsifications. Staff has personally observed the deception, has written documentation of these problems, and has the ability to personally contact each and every signatory to verify their understanding of the issue and position on zoning. At this point staff has an obligation to it's resident's, City Council, City Management and stakeholders to document to Council the continued misrepresentations of these stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that the signatures on the R1 petition are as a result of an informed decision, rather there is ample evidence that a large percentage of these signatures were obtained as a result of misrepresentation, fraud or deceit. To do less would be ethically, financially, and politically imprudent for the City. The City has put a great deal of effort into this process and while it is shameful that staff will need to personally contact, appropriately inform, and gauge support for either R1, compromise or A1 zoning, it appears to be the only way to present accurate data to decision makers. To allow fraudulent information or information obtained as a result of these deceptions to be presented to decision makers can not be the position of our professional and ethical City government. Lorraine Eaneff CITY OF cu er t nO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. I AGENDA DATE November 3, 2003 SUMMARY: INITIATION OF REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS for territory designated as Monta Vista 02-07 consisting of: 1) the annexation to the City of Cupertino of 43.41 acres of unincorporated, residential, commercial, & industrial developed property generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Blackberry Farm and McClellan Road, commonly known as Monta Vista. 2) the detachment of same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council initiate reorganization proceedings for the territory designated Monta Vista 02-07, and set a public hearing date of December 15, 2003. BACKGROUND: Annexation Strategy On February 2, 1998, the City Council adopted an overall annexation strategy for three of the larger unincorporated pockets in Cupertino: Rancho Rinconada, Garden Gate and Monta Vista (Exhibit C). Subsequently, Rancho Rinconada and Garden Gate neighborhoods were successfully annexed. A proactive incremental annexation strategy was recommended for Monta Vista in 1998 because of overwhelming negative sentiment about annexation. An informal postcard survey conducted in 1997 showed residents and property owners against annexation at a ratio of 7 to 1 (16 respondents). In late 2002, the City & County distributed a Monta Vista Annexation Answer Book, held a neighborhood meeting and conducted a new postcard survey of City and County residents in Monta Vista with dramatically different results as described below. Printedo, RecycledP,~per I~l Monta Vista 02-07 Reorgan/zation November 3, 2003 Page 2 Respondent Type Incorporated M.V. Resident/Owner Favors Annexation 16 Unincorporated M.V. Resident/Owner 7 Note that in both surveys only a small percentage of the 200 households responded to the survey. Based on the survey results and input from the neighborhood meeting, staff believes a comprehensive annexation of the entire pocket would have a high probability of success. Public Outreach Last year, staff conducted extensive outreach with Monta Vista property owners and residents, which included: A) The marling of the "Monta Vista Annexation News" in early October 2002; B) The mailing of the "Monta Vista Annexation Answer Book" in late October 2002; C) A City-sponsored neighborhood meeting at the Quinlan Center on November 7, 2002; D) A web page on the City of Cupertino's website that provides information on upcoming meetings, answers to commonly asked questions, and documents on-line; and E) Attendance at resident-sponsored neighborhood meetings. DISCUSSION: Ci~_ Taxes and Fees In consultation with the City Attorney and in reliance on a legal opinion of the State Attorney General, the City will be conducting a proceeding similar to the Garden Gate reorganization in 2001. The City will not hold separate elections on the extension of City taxes to this area. Monta Vista residents and property owners will be fully informed of the extension of City taxes and fees to their area in the annexation public hearing mailer. The requirements of Proposition 218 (Taxpayers Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative) will be satisfied by the protest provisions available in annexation law, that is, legal protests to the Monta Vista annexation serve as proxy votes on the extension of City taxes to this area. Next Steps The next steps in the Monta Vista annexation process are as follows: Nov. 3, 2003: City Council initiates proceedings; protest period begins. Dec. 15,2003: City Council holds reorganization hearing. If less than 25% protest, then the Council orders the change in reorganization (i.e., approve the annexation). If protests are greater than Monta Vista 02-07 Reorganization November 3, 2003 Page 3 25% but less than 50%, then the Council must schedule an election. If more than 50% protest, than the reorganization is terminated. OR Est. early Jan., 2004 Under State "island annexation provisions," the City Council may, alternatively, order the annexation of the territory without an election. Historically, the City has not conducted island annexation proceedings, and it is doubtful the City could extend City taxes to such an area so annexed without a legal challenge under Proposition 218. If the Council is able to order the change of reorganization, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) executive officer should have certified the proceedings, making the annexation official. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager City Council Reorganization Initiating Resolution with Exhibit A: Monta Vista 02-07 Legal Description Exhibit B: Monta Vista 02-07 Annexation Map Exhibit C: Excerpts from City Council-adopted Annexation Strategy G: Planning/Pdreporffcc/mvannex I DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-207 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "MONTA VISTA 02-07", PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, MCCLELLAN ROAD AND BLACKBERRY FARM, AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 43.41 ACRES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is interested in annexing territory designated "Monta Vista 02-07"; and WHEREAS, the properties, consisting of 43.41_+ acres located in the unincorporated area generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, McClellan Road and Blackberry Farm, commonly referred to as Monta Vista, is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, the following City taxes and fees will be extended to this area upon annexation and the residents and property owners of Monta Vista will be duly notified in advance. The taxes and fees are: 1) The Utility Users' Tax, which is currently 2.4% of the natural gas, electricity, local and long distance telephone charges. Homeowners age 65 or over may apply for a utility users' tax exemption at City Hall. 2) The Storm Drainage Service Fee, which is currently $12.00 per single-family residential parcel, $144.00 per apartment, commercial, or industrial parcel, and $36.00 per vacant parcel, on an annual basis. 3) The Business License Fee applies if you have a home business in Cupertino. The annual fee is currently $100.00 for most home businesses. WHEREAS, this territory is inhabited and was prezoned on June 4, 1984 to City of Cupertino Pre-R1-8 zone, pre-R1-7.5, Pre-P(Res 4.4-12), Pre-P(Res 4.4-7.7), or Pre- P(ML); or prezoned on September 15, 1980 to City of Cupertino P(CN, ML, Res 4-12); and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review will complete an initial study and will complete the environmental review process for the reorganization; environmental review was previously completed for the prezonings of territory; and P~esolutlon ~o. WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Govemment Code Section 56757(c)(2), the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the County Assessor of Santa Clara County has found the boundaries of the proposed reorganization described in the aforementioned map and description conforming to lines of assessment or ownership; WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certifications have been paid; and WHEREAS, the reorganization does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; and WHEREAS, the reorganization is consistent with the adopted general plan of the City and its adopted annexation strategy for urban pockets; and WHEREAS, the city has complied with all conditions imposed by LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the city; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, the conducting authority recognizes under Government Code Section 56375.3, it may order an annexation of the territory without an election; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates reorganization proceedings and will consider annexation of the territory designated "Monta Vista 02-07" and detachment of that same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District at a public hearing on December 15, 2003. Re~olut{on No. 03-207 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 All of that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of Califomia, not previously annexed to the City of Cupertino and lying within the area delineated by a boundary that is described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of Parcel A as shown on that certain Record of Survey recorded on July 9, 1964 in Book 182 of Maps at page 5, Santa Clara County records, said point also being on the Southerly boundary of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "McClellan No. l- A"; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of said Parcel A and proceeding Northwest along the Westerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N20°30'09"VV 43.34 feet more or less to the intersection thereof with the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, 71.00 feet wide as shown on said map; thence leaving the WesteHy bour~,dary of said annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along the Southerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N90°00'00'W 201.70 feet more or less to a point on the Southeasterly comer of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Rifredi 63-9"; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along said Southerly boundary of annexation Rifredi 63-9 N90°00'00"W 125.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. l-A; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Rifredi 63-9 and continuing along said Southerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N90°00'00"W 93.82 feet to a point on the Westerly boundary of said annexation McClellan No. l-A; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of said annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along the Westerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N00°O0'00"W 29.93 feet more or less to the Southeasterly comer of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Mann/Adriana 80-32"; thence leaving the Westedy boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along said boundary of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 N90o00'00"W 35.00 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Mann 80-3"; thence leaving the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann/Adfiana 80-32 and continuing along said boundary of annexation Mann 80-3 S00°O0'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly boundary of said annexation Mann 80-3; thence continuing along said Southerly boundary N90o00'00"W 296.73 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of said annexation Mann 80-3; thence along said Easterly boundary S00°00'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the boundary of aforementioned annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann 80-3 and continuing along said Eastedy boundary of said annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 S00o00'00"W 298.12 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and the Southerly boundary of said annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 and continuing along the Southerly boundary of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 N90°00'O0"W 205.30 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and proceeding along said boundary of annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 N00°O0'00"W 198.12 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00'W 100.12 feet more or less; thence $00°00'00"W 198.12 feet more or/ess to a point on the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue; thence continuing along said Northerly boundary N90°00'00"W 300.45 feet more or less; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and proceeding along the boundary of annexation "Mann/Adriana 80-32" N00°00'00"W 328.15 feet more or less to a point on the monument line of Old Stevens Creek Blvd. as shown on that certain Parcel Map recorded May 26, 1983 in Book 513 of Maps at page 19, Santa Clara County records; thence continuing along said monument line and said boundary line of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 N90°00'00'W 220.00 feet more or less to a point on the monument line of Byrne Avenue as shown on said Parcel Map and the boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Byme 78-2"; thence leaving the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 and continuing along said boundary of annexation Byme 78-2 Ng0°00'00"W 20.00 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of Byme Avenue; thence continuing along said Westerly boundary S00°00'00"W 290.00 feet more or less; thence continuing along the boundary of said annexation Byme 78-2 N90°00'00"W 305.33 feet more or less to the Northwest comer of Lot no. 31 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 150, Stevens Creek Subdivision Map No. 2," as recorded in Book 5 of Maps at pages 4 and 5 Santa Clara County records, said point also being on the Easterly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Blackberry 91-0"; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Byme 78-2 and continuing along said Westedy boundary of said Tract Map and the Easterly boundary of said annexation Blackberry 91-0 the following courses and distances: S03°03'00"E 101.84 feet, S06°43'30"W 126.05, S15o04'00"E 95.58 feet, S01°41'30"E 92.22 feet, S06°15'00'E 48.91 feet, S28°53'00"E 140.96 feet, S04°26'30"E 139.81, S03o16'30"W 109.72, S08°29'30"E 101.39 feet, S46°15'30"E 47.28 and S00°00'00"W 462.56 feet more or less to a point on the Southwest corner of Lot no. 11 as shown on said Tract Map and the Northerly boundary San Fernando Avenue; thence continuing along said Northerly boundary and along the Southeasterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 S57°30'00"W 165.98 feet more or less to the Westerly boundary of San Femando Avenue; thence continuing along the Westerly boundary of San Fernando Avenue and the Southeasterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 S00°00'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to the Northeast comer of Lot 59 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 211 Stevens Creek Subdivision Map No. 4' as recorded in Book 7 of Maps at page 31 Santa Clara County records; thence leaving the Westerly boundary of San Fernando Court and proceeding along the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 and the Northerly boundary of said Lot 59 S69°11'30"W 124.90 feet more or less to an angle point on the Northerly boundary of said Lot 59; thence continuing along the boundary of said subdivision as shown on the aforementioned Map for Tract No. 211 and the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 the following courses and distances: S83°09'00"W 239.08 feet, S42°55'00"W 138.86 feet, S36o42'00"E 47.56 feet, S33°31'00"E 93.06 feet, S30°31'00"E 79.45 feet and S45°33'00"E 189.70 feet more or less to the Southwest comer of Lot 43 as shown on aforementioned Map for Tract No. 211; thence along the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation "Blackberry 91-0' the following courses and distances: S12o00'00"E 61.34 feet, S24o04'30'E 92.58 feet and S12°51'30'W 172.35 feet more or less to the Southwest corner of Lot 4 as shown on that certain map recorded in Book 649 of Maps at pages 41 and 42, Santa Clara County Records, said point also being on the Northern boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "D'Amico 72-6A'; thence leaving the boundary of aforementioned annexation "Blackberry 91-0' and continuing along said boundary of annexation "D'Amico 72-6A" and the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road Ng0°O0'00"E 351.37 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of aforementioned annexation "D'Amico 72-6A"; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and continuing along the Eastedy boundary of aforementioned annexation "D'Amico 72-6A" S00°00'00"E 40.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly boundary of McClellan Road; thence continuing along said boundary of McClellan Road and said boundary of aforementioned annexation "D'Amico 72-6A~ along a non-tangent curve to the left with a radial bearing of N00°00'00'E, a radius of 15,00 feet an internal angle of 90° and an arc length of 23.56 feet to a point of tangency on the Easterly boundary of said McClellan Road; thence continuing along said boundary of McClellan Road and the Eastedy boundary of aforementioned annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A" S00°00'00"E 205.24 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "McClellan 70-6"; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation "D'Amico 72-6A" and the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned McClellan Road and proceeding along said Northerly boundary of said annexation "McClellan 70-6" N90°00'00"E 164.00 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A"; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan 70-6~ and proceeding along said boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N00°00'00'E 240.24 feet more or less to a point on the center line of aforementioned McClellan Road; thence continuing along said center line of McClellan Road and said boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N90°00'00"E 861.62 feet; thence leaving said center line and proceeding N00°00'00'E 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and the Easterly boundary of Orange Avenue; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and continuing along said Easterly boundary of Orange Avenue and the boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. 1-A~ N00°00'00"E 339.90 feet more or less; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of Orange Avenue and continuing along the boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N90°00'00"E 130.00 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 50.00 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00"E 168.25 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 100.00 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00"E 161.87 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 170.50 feet more or less; thence N90o00'00"E 330.00 feet more or less; thence N00o00'00"E 1,782.75 feet more or less; thence continuing along the boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N20°30'09"W 159.13 feet more or less to the point of BEGINNING of this description. The parcels to be annexed within the above described boundary have a total area of 43.41 acres more or less and lie entirely within the County of Santa Clara, State of Califomia. Revised 9-18-03 J:LlOBStCup-Monta Vista annexationtLegalstOveralI-Revg-18, doc ~o~7 SHEET 4 TRACT NO. STEVENS CREEK MAP NO. 5 7-M-14 & 42 SHEET 5 I SHEET 2 I 10 11 P-M-20 AVE. P.N -M-46 13 STEVENS CREEK )IVISION NO. 1 -43 PM 280--M-20 TRACT MONTA VISTA P-M-21 TRACT NO. 651 KNOLL VISTA SUBDIVISION g LOMI NO. -24- OUVE AVE. 97 NOONAN SUBDIVISION 5-M-43 R.O.S. ALCAZAR AVE,~ NOONAN CT. 6 SHEET 1 82-M-5 300 NO. 2 SHEET 7 SHEET INDEX ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 Exhibit: B 1" = 400' REVISED SEPT. 18, 2005 + + + + + t + + +'"~ -"-'ou-oz" + + + + + + fi- -h + t + 4- + -h + + + + + + + + + + ~ + ~Ll1+ * GRANADA AVE. o-z + ++++ ++++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ 80-3" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ I"MANN/ADRIANA 80-32" "MANN 80-5" I NGE 68-4"! DENA "PASADENA 70-2" + + + + + + + + : + : ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~l' 'l ' I ~ ; I: i i'iMcqLE4gAi':4 NIO: ....... · :'RIFREDI 63-9" . .............. "PASADENA, )IMPERIAL/MONTA VISTA 80-35" ERIAL 67-1 ...... CRAN, DA SUREX ..... "McCLELLAN NO. 1-A"} 1" = 100' REVISED SEPT. 18, SHEET 1 OF I ' '~ ~,~OZ©ZC>Z'03 T . ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + + + ~ + ~ . ~ + + LEGEND: ~ m e ~, ,o ~¢ ,u o ,~ ~-,x, . .... DELINEATION LINE ~ ~ t 0 0 <Z, ~' ~> '~ ~ e 0 -' m, 0 PROPOSED ANNEXATION , ~ w~,~'- k'~ u %~ 0 LIMITS ~ CURRENT //x~//'//IiOZC' 0 0 <~' o CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS /</ ,i,' .-'~ *_, k, ~ k, 'L20 o> o 0 CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO ' ¢// / .. PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE ¢' ~/2/~< LOT 51, TR. 150 ,_~.x~ ,, , ,, ,, , , CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO // // // , , , , ......... , ,--~. ~ ~' ~n~- CREEKPER ANNEXATION78_17, "STEVENS ""'SEE'" "SHEETr' f "3 ' ' ' r , ' , ~ ' ' ' PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE 79_9" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 01-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 95-04" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO ANN *T,O. CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO "BLACKBERRY 91-0" REVISED SEPT. 18, 200~ SHEET 2 OF ~ / . ~ ~ , , AC. 32,387 SQ. FT. ~ ~ ~} ~ ~ ~ :~ V v ~ ' /'~ d~ q,~ , ~ ~, ~557-12-025 - -'~ '~ ~- -~ -~ - 1 = t00 P~OPOSED AN~EXA~ON : : ?: 0 ~xB~':~7-12-oo2 1 133 AC (49 345 Sn ~w,~~ '~ DOC ¢16448500 '~ ,, l -"SAN FERNANDO ~<.~ ........ , /~L~ ~ ., 03/ ,z uz~ 'v . <~ %,? ~, ~>,~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ J: I, [ -- 557-12-004 4¢~= ! J i ~ I ~ , J ,/~ v ,~,"~,~ PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON 0.165 SAN FERNANDO COURT / ¢ ¢, / r J, J' Jr, ~ _~ ~ ~ ,~<~> w~~t~' " ....AN~ C~URT~ ~J~1, ~, ~~2%,~: . ,, > ........ . ~ ........ ANNEXATION TO THE ' ' ' ¢ i '1 - ~ . , BYRNE 0 ~,.~~~~ ,.>"~/ //%;1~'Ts;~}:RNANDO 2.%> SAN FERNAND~ h~ ....... h L: ~CITY OF CUPERTINO ,/' ~ --~,*--~ (U ~) %/(~ ~v / . ~ I ?~A.' Ii : ¢1 ~i /i i i¢ " DfKNL' ~":% ,~ :.} %>~v/%~-~ ~ ~ ~ I / ,' '1 ~ /i ; 27 :.:.:.::::: .... ::::: .:.::.::.: : > < , ., ~..VA A :3 L') ~"BYRNE AVE. w. PROPOSrn¢~ ~~" ___ r , ~ .... ~PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON 1.196 ' ~ ~"~ 2 ~ . ~ ~¢ ~ 557-12-016 : ~ i 357-12-019 >>~'04~ A¢ r~~~~]~ ~"'- ..... ¢' ~i ~' 0 ~ A:,~ "SAN FERNANDO ~ ,: 5:7-~2-0~7 ~,!, I ' 557-12-018 557-12-055 X~X'x x: , , .'".,-." ;; .'? 00..©,~">.SEE SHEET z~?,~----~---t---L_~_];------/----:------_L_L_ L1 :~-L.-_-~,-~,~.:.:McCLELLAN ROAD'~-,'- - . ~ ~ ~ , / , , - .... ~ > , 88-06 '-.)~'-~ ~x) 0 0.~.~ <~ %? k~,~m~--~ , ,--~--~._~¢ , "[tYRhE AVENUE~ 357-14-011 557-14-009 ' ' %DOLORES~, :~ .~ ~% BLACKBERRY 91-0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r , --~ McCLELLAN 87-04 ~, ~ ....... ~ ~ z~7- ~-nz / /, % .~> L~ ~.?.~AV~ /% ~ (2,~:.~ /'b',~,, ,~,~=-~L~'~r~?,~- ~-~ I-~ ~.~-.~- ~ 557-14-010 ~ 557-14-008 ' 557-14-005 z//~./////y/.; ~ . ~ >.¢//..~.¢y/ ]¢'//~ ' //y//x/.¢//.'////////.'//.x.'////;///..'f~¢//~ ~ -~ ,. . ) - ./ · ¢- ~ . . . . . / .... //////////~ , . ' ,, /;~//~'/+'~ ~//fi~4 , '/"~ ~.'Z.~/2'x~,~'x~-~ ..... '~ //.~ ~ Y Y · ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, '//:/>%://,:, ~ ~ : , '/~:'..:'.:/. ;':'>' '.~'/.-',:/.'/ '"// ',:.',: V.'~'~ ] - ~ ~v~ '-':>'/'///:,:" ".'~ : ¢, ' : /,:,::-"..,'t: ','>?,;: ; ~+,:./:'%"]'::./?;;{:.::::" /::'.'.,: -- ~ :~,, · -:/://, , , A/>-.'. /.: :. ~:. . /. ~ , . ~ McCLELLAN ~ z, ': ~ ' ~:'" ~ ' ~ .... 70-6 · X'X~:?A///4//: ' , ', :- ':: ::~ ,/,:x: / , . : ~' :: ~7Z.4~.//~' ... / / x 'dE'.. '~:::: : X. . /',:. // 4 x '/' . . ./ :'/ , :, I : : : LEOEND: 1"= 100' " DELINEATION LINE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS a MONTA VISTA -02-07 CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS REVISED SEPT. 18, 2003 SHEET 5 OF "BYRNE 96-02" "DOLORES__ AVENUE 02-04" SEE "ALCAZAR AVENUE 89-07" PROPOSED ANNEXAllON 0.4-63 AC. (20,180 SQ. FT.)- "ALCAZAR AVENUE 357-14-033 ,57-14-072 AVENUE -11" _~ALCAZAR >(68S-M-8 "DOLORE', AVENUE 96-03" AVE. "ALCAZAR AVE. 98-04" PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON 1.081 AC. (4-7,089 SQ. FT.) "ORANGE AVENUE "ALCAZAR AVENUE ~;--~80-49" "ORANGE AVENUE ~89-06" DOLO + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "DOLORES AVENUE 357-14-047 aS-lZ"-A VE.. -"DOLORES 94-06% :McCLELLAN ROAD~ m m m "FUCHS 76-4"~ AVENUE 557-14-011 357-14--009 i ! 357-14-013 DOC # PCL A ~ ~ 357-14-010 357-1¢-006 357-14-005 428-M-5 "ORANGE McCLEL %' ~- %- 80-37" "HOWELL 76-! PROPOSED ANNEXAllON 0..345 AC. (15,010 FT.) "ALCAZAR AVE. 00-08" ~ "ALCAZAR ~97-10" A 557-19-009 E AVE, 00-10" · McCLELLAN NO. 1-A ::::NO0 N A N CT. LEGEND: DELINEATION LINE PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS &: CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS 100' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 REVISED SEPT. 18, 200,3 SHEET 6 OF 14 SEE SHEET 8 PROPOSED ANNEXATION OLIVE AVE. 5.896 AC. (256,835 SQ. FT.)] ABANDONED , --,z , - - ~ ........ .4~4x K ~PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON ~0: :~ ',, 'x x' x x' ~ w ~5~- ~-o4~ ~:- ANNEXATION TO THE . , ..... .. ...... · .... MONTA VISTA -02-07 / ' ~)~ T ~ i i DOC ~10201903 _~,' ' ' DOC ~16245520 ~ i ....... ~ ..... ~ PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON x x. ~57-m-025 ~ ~ ' ~ST-~S-046 ']'IMPERIAL AVENUE L . 0,232 AC, 00,125 SQ. ~.) "ALCAZAR AVENUE / / L~ ~ ~o , / VE ' "ALCAZAR AVENUE ~' ' "McCLELLAN NO. 1-A" "ALCAZAR AVENUE- 86_01" I LEGEND: DELINEATION LINE [['" "' L56'-, PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS ~ REVISED SEPT. 18, 200~ SEE SHEET 6 :::: ~ "c, ~--~x"~-~,~ :::SEE.SHEET 1" : 100' "LOMITA AVE. ~7-15" ~ ~ - C~ ~~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~~ ANNEXATION TO THE LO*ITA 84-2 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 5 :::::::::::::::::::::::: ~' ,xxx'xxxxx x ~ ~,, ~ ,., .. ,, ~ ..~ ~ ~ ,~_~_~ .~.~ ~ .~ ... ~ ~q ~, ~x LEGEND: X'"ORANOE X'~ 90L~2".W'O,}O~NXb~ ~"COVA 72-4"~(CX~}%~X~' ~' ~~~ r*~Z~ w">{~"b~* +*+~ ~S~Xy?~d~}{~ PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS ~%~~~ ~,, ,qx-U~j~~x + + + J~¢~~/~ .' CURRENT CUPERTINO CiTY LIMIT$ <--, ~~. . I ~ 557-18-025 ~ 557-18-006 ~ / // / / / x / / / / ~ "~ ~ 557 18 024 557-18-007 / x / / , / / ~j 557-18-008 / / / / / / / ~/ ~ 557-18-025 357-18-021 / / / / / / / x x/ / / .... ' "' '' "McCLELLAN NO. 1-A" 557-18-0~ PROPO~ ED ANNEXA~ON 557-18-009 / / / / / / / / / / / / / . .. ....' 3.757 C. (163,1;57 SQ. ~.) /,'ex x/////~x¢ -' "- X ~ mo '~'~ om ~:~ I I~l ~ om o~ o~ o~ ~,L~ ;"WRIGHT 74-6 .' "OLIVE AVENUE_ ~ 357-19-085 ';'"" ~90-05" "OLI~ AVENUE~ "PASADENA AVENU "IMPERIAL AVENUE- ~;~ DOC ~13689569 .'"?.'......".. FZs] 9>o,- ~ ~-o~"~ ~ ~-o," ~ , .:-.:... :.:--'"-:. ; ~ REVISED SEPT. 18, 2003 ~ .SEE SHEET 7 SHEET 8 OF 14 ";GRANADA / / / / / / / / / 557-17-054 : r-. LEi + + + + + 357-17-0~-5 + + + + + 357-17-04-6 ~ + + + + X > LOMITA AVE. ANNEXATION 0.821 AC. (35,750 SQ. FT.) 1" = 100' LEGEND: DELINEATION LINE PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS &: CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "GRANADA 75-4" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "PASADENA 70-2" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "PASADENA AVENUE 99-01" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 90-02" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 REVISED SEPT. 18, 2003 SHEET 9 OF 14 0 SEE SHEET 2 PROPOSED ANNEXA~ON 0.123 AC (5,363 SQ, FT.) SEE SHEET 1 PROPOSED AV SEE SHEET 11 LEGEND: PROPOSED ANNEXATION CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY ~ CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA AVENUE 88-12" ~--Z7~7-~CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO ~'~-~- PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA o o [] o PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 02-01" L~A,' ,'~~ CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "GRANADA AVENUE 95-05" AVE. ~ t 357-16-057 I J~ 357-16-058 '~ 357-16 - 059 qTS & -~. 357-16-061 LIMITS <l~ ( ~ PROPOSED ANNEXATION~ K ) < ¢ Z 1.126 '~'..~>W/ CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO 4..~t>,h~ <¢,~>|4 PER ANNEXATION "MIKUL ~'~ ~'~J/'eL 75-3" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAKAE 76-5" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA 80-4" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA AVENUE 97-07" 1" = 100' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-0'7 ICITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 82-04" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE 79-9" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 97-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "GRANADA AVENUE 89-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "GRANADA AVENUE 89-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 90-01" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA AVENUE 88-09" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA 71-15" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "GRANADA 89-03" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA AVENUE 87-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA 71-12" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 97-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE 68-4" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 90-02" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 00-04" REVISED SEPT. 18, 200.3 SHEET 10 OF 14 SEE SHEET 10 557-16- 557-16- 046 047 557-16-072 557-16-051 1" = 100' 557-16-o7o PROP ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 357-15-101 557-15-002 557-15-080 557-15-079 557-15-025 !ALMADEN AVE. LEGEND: PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS &: CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS SEE SHEET 12 "'"....." '.ill' CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 90-01" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA AVENUE 88-09" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA 94-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA AVENUE 92-06" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "HERMOSA 7t-12" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAKAE 76-5" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA 80-4" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA AVENUE 97-07" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA AVENUE 97-16" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA AVENUE 98-06" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 97-01" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 99-04" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 84--,3" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 84-1" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 82-04-" REVISED SEPT. 18, 200,5 SHEET 11 OF 1~- 1" = 100' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 LOMITA AVE. o.228^c. PROPOSED ANNEXATION 0.445 AC (19,371 SQ. FT.) PROPOSED ANNEXATION 0.162 AC. (7,062 SQ. FT.) I PROPOSED ANNEXATION 0.105 AC. (4,555 SQ. FT. z~,CL :528-M-54 SEE SHEET 1t PROPOSED ANNEXATION 9,936 SQ. FT.) PROPOSED ANN 0.128 AC. 560 SQ. FT.' PROPOSED AN~ NON AC. (13,650 FT.) W W W W 357-15-078 357-15-077 357-15-030 AV 357-15-035 357-15-049 0.456 SAN FERNANDO AVE.-,' SEE SHEET 13 CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO I~,~d CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA t]~' ~ ~ ~ ~ PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 97-07" AVENUE 95-06" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO p'q~',~2'~/x[~ CiTY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA 8~-- 5" AVENUE 97-16" F/CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN 80-13" + * i CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO · * *I PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA + + AVENUE 96-14" LEGEND: PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS &: CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO 00-09" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "8YRNE AVENUE 88-03" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 92-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 96-15" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN AVENUE 99-0:5" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 92-02" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALMADEN 89-11" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "LOMITA AVENUE 90-07" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 90-02" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO 88-07" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 00-05" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 81-04" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 97-15" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 84-1" REVISED SEPT. 18, 200.3 SHEET 12 OF 14 IT W W Z SEE SHEET 12 AN FERNANDO AVE,. o 357-15-054 357-15-055 357-15-056 ~- ANNEXAll( ~~ 4.300 (187,316 FT.) 357-15-076 357-15-075 + + 357-15-057 357-15-058 357-15--064 _CAZx AVE SEE SHEET 6 LEGEND: 557-15-110 DOC #10912005 L~ 357-15-061 ~ ~ }oc # W 357-15-062 iO 357-15-063 1" = 100' ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 + + + + ICITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 84-1" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO 88-07" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 98-12" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 01-08" PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS &: CURRENT CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 81-04" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVENUE 99-09" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALCAZAR AVENUE 89-07" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALCAZAR AVENUE 81-01" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ALCAZAR AVENUE 80-49" CITY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "ORANGE AVENUE 90-08" REVISED SEPT. 18, 2003 SHEET 15 OF 14 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N20'50'O9"W 43.34 L2 Ngo"oo'oo"w 201.70 L3 N90'OO'OO"W 125.00 L4 Ngo"oo'oo"w 95.82 L5 NOO'OO'OO"W 29.95 L6 N90'OO'OO"W 35.00 L7 SO0"O0'O0"W 30.00 L8 N90'OO'OO"W 296.75 L9 SO0"O0'O0"W 50.00 L10 SO0'O0'O0"W 298.12 L11 N90'OO'OO"W 205.30 L12 NOO'OO'OO"W 198.12 L13 Ngo'oo'oo"w 100.12 L14 SO0'O0'O0"W 198.12 L15 Ngo'oo'oo"w 300.45 L 16 NOO'OO'OO"W 328.15 L17 N90'OO'OO"W 220.00 L18 N90°OO'OO"W 20.00 L19 SO0'O0'O0"W 290.00 L20 Ngo'oo'oo"w 505.53 L21 S05'05'00"E 101.84 L22 S06'45'50"W 126.05 L23 S15'04'00"E 95.58 L24 S01 '41 '50"E 92.22 L25 S06" 15'00"E 48.91 L26 S28'55'00"E 140.96 L27 S04'26'30"E 1.59.81 L28 SO5' 16'50"W 109.72 L29 S08'29'30"E 101.39 L30 S46' 15'50"E 47.28 L31 SO0'O0'O0"W 462.56 L32 S57'30'00"W 165.98 L55 SO0'O0'O0"W 50.00 L54 S69' 11 '50"W 124.90 L55 S85'09'00"W 259.08 L36 S42'55'00"W 158.86 L57 S56'42'00"E 47.56 L58 S35'31 'O0"E 95.06 L39 S30"31 'O0"E 79.45 L4-O S45'35'00"E 189.70 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L41 S12"00'00"E 61.34 L4-2 S24'04'30"E 92.58 L45 S12'51'30"W 172.55 L44 N90'OO'OO"E 551,57 L45 SO0°O0'O0"E 40.00 L46 SO0'O0'O0"E 205.24 L4-7 N90'OO'OO"E 164-.00 L48 NOO'OO'OO"E 24-0.24 L4-9 N90"OO'OO"E 861.62 LSO NOO'OO'OO"E 30.00 L51 NOO'OO'OO"E ,559.90 L52 N90"OO'OO"E 1,50.00 L53 NOO'OO'OO"E 50.00 L54 N90"OO'OO"E 168.25 L55 NOO'OO'OO"E 100.00 L56 N90"OO'OO"E 161.87 L57 NOO'OO'OO"E 170.50 L58 N90'OO'OO"E 550.00 L59 NOO'OO'OO"E 1,782,75 L60 N20°,30'O9"W 159,13 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 REVISED SEPT. 18, 200.3 SHEET 1~ OF 14 Exhibit: C Excerpts from City-adopted Annexation Strategy Since a large scale, City-initiated annexation of urban pockets has not occurred in Cupertino in many years and since annexation policies and processes can be complicated, it may be desirable to establish some basic principles to guide the overall process before beginning prezoning and annexation hearings affecting individual pockets. Principle ltl: All of the residents within the three pockets should have an opportunity to'annex. Principle #1 is recommended in recognition of the fact that annexation opportunities such as those currently available are a very rare occurrence. Consequently, these opportunities should be afforded to all residents within the three pockets that have been the focus of this special joint City/County study. Principle lt2a: Annexation of pockets should result in logical City boundaries which are easy to service. Principle lt2b: Annexation of Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada should generally occur in large, contiguous blocks and not on a piecemeal basis. Parcel-by-parcel annexation should only be considered by the City when it results in logical City boundaries which are easy to service and does not create additional pockets. Principles #2a and #2b expresses the previous City Council's desire to not follow the incremental Monta Vista model in conducting annexations. The fragmented, confusing and inefficient system of government service responsibilities these checkerboard annexation patterns create has ongoing, adverse consequences for the community, the City, the County and other service providers. These adverse consequences will continue for decades until the entire pocket has been annexed. Residents and property owners suffer under such conditions since there is no single local government to which they can turn to address the concerns and needs of their neighborhoods. With checkerboard annexation patterns, even simple, local problems may require coordinated, interjurisdictional action disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem. Parcel-by-parcel annexations in Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada should be carefully scrutinized for their longer-term effects. Staff feels a piecemeal approach to annexation is only warranted under special circumstances and under certain conditions. For example, annexing a pocket area to ensure that the redeveloping use is consistent with the City's general plan land use policies. This situation is applicable to: 1) the unincmporated section of the Stevens Creek corridor in Rancho Rinconada which is developed with numerous older, single-family residences, but is planned for nonresidential or higher density residential in the City; and 2) the county- commercially zoned properties in Garden Gate (Party America site) which has been planned ibr a low density residential use or a public/quasi-public use in the City for more than a decade. 6 Principle #3: In Monta Vista, opportunities should be provided for individual property owners to annex (and where possible adjacent parcels, should be included to create logical annexation boundaries.) Because Sf past piecemeal annexation practices in Monta Vista over a long period of time, the . Opportunity to create some rational boundaries in Monta Vista has long since past. Due to Monta Vista's uniclue history, it is unrealistic to expect that all of Monta Vista can be annexed during this current effort.' Nonetheless, there are some Monta Vista residents who are interested in annexing to Cupertino and many others who have expressed no preference one way or the other. These residents should be provided with the opportunity to annex, notwithstanding the Opposition of others in their neighborhood. A measured, more proactive annexation approach by the City is warranted to solve the jurisdictional confusion and inefficiencies of the current situation. City staff also hopes to work with County staff to identify other strategies the County can implement to accelerate the annexation of Monta Vista. Principle #4: State Law Guides the Annexation Process Existing state law presents adequate and reasonable guidance in determining what level of community support is required for an annexation to occur--and it does so in ways that take into account the need for logical and efficient municipal boundaries, the need for efficient annexation processes, and the rights of the residents to have a meaningful voice in annexation decisions. State law implicitly recognizes that 100% community support for annexation is an unrealistic and · unattainable standard, and therefore does not require unanimous consent. State law also contains an implicit presumption that annexation of urban pockets is in the overall public good because it allows for more efficient delivery of services and clearer governmental responsibilities. Thus, it puts the burden of proof on opponents of annexation to demonstrate that there is significant community opposition, rather than on the proponents to demonstrate significant community support. It also contains the implicit presumption that voter silence means consent. Thus, those not expressing their explicit opposition to annexation are presumed to be providing their consent it to occur. If there is greater than 25% and less than 50% protest, the decision making authority is given to the voters to decide. Thus, if it is demonstrated that there is significant neighborhood opposition to annexation, it is the community itself that makes the annexation decision. The City Council can terminate the annexation process until the election is held. Once the election is held, the City is bound by the results of the election. 7 With regard to annexation elections, the traditional American practice of "majority rules" applies. So if more than 50% of the voters approve, the annexation is approved. Or, if more than 50% of the voters disapprove, the annexation is denied. Some Council members have expressed an interest in annexing only property owners that approve. This 100% approval approach is unrealistic and would result in a Monta Vista annexation pattern that is based on a property by property annexation of approving property owners. Note that State law does not provide for fonual elections for annexation of smaller pockets such as Monta Vista. The filing of protest petitions in opposition to the annexation substitutes for an election. Thus, if there is a greater than 50% written protest, the annexation is denied. Recommended General Annexation Procedures It is recommended that the following general procedural guidelines be used to facilitate City Council decision and neighborhood involvement in prezoning and annexation. i. Address One Pocket at a Time, starting with Rancho Rinconada, then Garden Gate and lastly Monta Vista Because of procedural differences and to minimize the potential for confusion, it is recommended that the City address one pocket at a time. Since Rancho Rinconada has the highest level of active neighborhood interest in annexing to Cupertino with supporters outnumbering opponents by a margin of 2 to 1, staff recommends beginning with Rancho. The support is scattered evenly throughout the area, so staff recommends the entire pocket be included in one annexation proposal. In Garden Gate, most residents have expressed no preference for or against annexation. No organized, active support has yet appeared within this neighborhood. A minority of residents opposed annexation. If the Rancho Rinconada annexation is successfully concluded, staff recommends sending a notice to property owners and residents of Garden Gate soliciting support for annexation. If there is a significant geographical difference in support, the Council could consider dividing the area in half along logical boundaries and hold hearings on each half separately. This would allow the majority on each side to decide whether it wants to annex or not. Annexation of parcels within Monta Vista will be the most problematic of the three areas due to the number of separate pockets (20), the hard core opposition of some long-time residents to annexation and possible state law limitations on the creation of additional pockets. It is quite likely that the effort expended will be greatly disproportionate to the number of parcels annexed. Staff recommends a measured, but more proactive annexation approach than used in the past, focusing on annexing those who want to be annexed, possibly along with some of those who are indifferent. The City should conduct city-initiated annexations only in those pockets that show a clear majority (silent and favoring) at no cost to the property owners. When Monta Vista property owners are required to annex because of private redevelopment activities, staff suggests 8 that notices be sent to the other pocket residents inviting them to piggy-back on the annexation at no cost to them. In addition, the City could agree to waive its annexation fees and pay the · County fees (about $2,700 total) if the annexing property owner could persuade sufficient pocket neighbors to also aunex to the City. The pros and cons of this approach can be discussed in detail at a subsequent City Council meeting. 2. Conduct City-Initiated Annexation Hearings at No Cost to Property Owners Throughout' th~ public outreach process over il~c past six months, it has been emphasized that there would be no costs to pocket residents if they annexed in conjunction with a city-initiated process~ Most costs are fixed and not geared toward the size of the annexed territory. Recommended Specific Annexation Procedures Rancho Rinconada City-Initiated AnneXations a. Since residents have already expressed a strong interest in annexation, hold City-initiated prezoning and annexation hearings for the entire area at no cost to property owners. b. If an election is required and annexation of the entire area fails, then examine if there was strong support in a sub-area contiguous to the City and annex that portion at a later date. (Note: State law requires the City to wait one year before bringing back a proposal to annex any or all of an area where annexation was rejected by the voters.) Property Owner-Initiated Annexations (including development-related annexations) a. No provisions should be made for parcel-by-parcel, property owner-initiated annexations in Rancho Rinconada, except for areas prezoned "P" where annexation is a requirement of redevelopment. b. Properties in unarmexed areas are allowed to developed in the County under County development standards. Garden Gate 1. City-Initiated Annexations. a. If the Rancho Rinconada annexation is successful, encourage Garden Gate residents to petition for annexation, then initiate prezoning and annexation of the entire area or in logical, contiguous blocks at no cost to property owners. 2. Property Owner-Initiated Annexations (including development -related annexations) a. No provision should be made for parcel-by-parcel, property owner-initiated annexations in Garden Gate, except to ensure that redeveloping uses are consistent with the City's General Plan policies, the amne×ation creates logical, contiguous, service boundaries and does not create additional p6ckets. Properties in unarmexed areas are allowed to developed inthe County under County development standards. Monta Vista City-Initiated Annexations a. Send invitations (with a return postcard) to all property owners inviting them to indicate their desire to be annexed (or not to be annexed). Based on responses, City should conduct annexation proceedings for those pockets or portions of pockets where a majority (silent and favoring) exists, at no cost to the property owners. ¸2. Property Owner-Initiated Annexations (including development-related annexations) a. For those parcels not annexed during this process, annex them as they are developed or as future owners request annexation. Invite pocket neighbors to piggy-back on applicant- annexation at no cost to the neighboring property owners. b. As an alternative, the City will waive its annexation fee and pay County and state annexation fees if the applicant persuades a sufficient number of pocket property owners to annex their properties with the applicant. c. City staff should work with County staff to devise additional County-implemented inducements to annexation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Endorse the described annexation strategy for the Cupertino unincmporated pockets of Monta Vista, Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada and that strategy include the following elements: A. Guiding Annexation Principles, B. The General Annexation Procedures and C. The Specific Annexation Procedures 2) Authorize staff to implement this strategy by initiating a prezoning hearing for Rancho Rinconada, and upon completion, remm to Council to initiate subsequent annexation proceedings for the area. Exhibit A: City-Initiated Annexation and Pre-Zoning Process Overview 10 CUPEI TINO__ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review bids and award contract for the Civic Center Audio Visual Equipment and Installation contract to Ceitronics, the responsive and apparent low bidder, for a base bid of $631,738 and four alternates with a value of $179,007, for a total contract amount of $810,745. BACKGROUND On September 5, 2003, the City advertised the Audiovisual (AV) Bid package in the Cupertino Courier and 18 building trade exchanges and directly contacted a list of 6 companies, which had previously expressed interest in the work. The AV scope of work consists of supplying a variety of equipment and connectivity between the Community Hall and the City Channel offices in City Hall. The dais, for example, will have 12 touch screen computer monitors with a number of features and options for each user that must be connected back to the City Channel. There will also be a number of cameras, lights and projectors for both the Council and the public's use during Council meetings whose remote operation must be integrated into the City Channel's operating system. Flexibility for both public and private events will be provided by a variety of combined data, video, power and voice connection ports throughout the Community Hall spaces. A total of four bids were received and opened on October 16, 2003, and publicly read in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The apparent low bidder was chosen, in accordance with the documents, by their base bid without altemates. Those base bids were considered very competitive as evidenced in the bid summary below: Bidder Ceitronics BBI Serbe Systems, Inc Engineer's Estimate Elcor Electric Bid Amount $ 810,745.00 $ 811,637.00 $ 821,543.00 $ 827,800.00 $1,076,382.00 Council action in July of 2003, authorized staff to use $200,000 of the bid savings from the Phase 2 Construction for AV equipment upgrades. As a protection against unforeseen market conditions in the bidding process, four (4) Additive Alternates were identified in the bid documents and were estimated to have a value of $162,400. The Ceitronics' bid for all four of those alternates is $179,007. Ceitronics has met the requirements of the City's Responsible Contracting Policy. The combination of Ceitronics' base bid and alternates, at $810,745, is below the Engineer's Estimate and is considered very reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT This action would require a one-time budget appropriation from Account No. 423-9222-9300 in the mount of $810,745. This cost is within the approved Civic Center Library Project budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council award the Civic Center Audio Visual Equipment and Installation contract to Ceitronics, the responsive and apparent low bidder, for a base bid of $631,738 and include the four alternates with a value of $179,007, for a total contract amount of $810,745. Submitted by: Attest as to bids received: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. ~ / Kimberly Smith(~ Director of Public Works'~' City Clerk Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager CUPER TINO__ City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Resolution No. D5-,20,~ authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the First Amendment to the Agreement with Nova Partners, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for additional Construction Management services on the Library and Civic Center Project for a total Agreement amount of $1,150,000. BACKGROUND On December 5, 2002, the City entered into an initial Agreement for Construction Management (CM) services with Nova Partners, a Palo Alto based professional services consultant in the amount of $850,000. This contract was to provide the initial work of construct ability reviews and value engineering during the design phase and for the first part of the construction. It was intended that once the construction project was underway, Nova's agreement would be amended to provide for services through project completion and closeout. The proposed First Amendment provides for the additional CM services beyond those identified in the initial Agreement and extends the period of service through project completion and closeout. Nova Partners has been very effective in predicting and avoiding potential construction problems and has also suggested additional actions that the City could take to reduce costs or complexity on the Civic Center project. Nova Partners assisted the City in developing the Phased construction of the demolition and rough grading of the site which allowed specialty contractors to competitively bid the work. Removing this phase of work from the overall project scope potentially saved the City $50,000 of General Contractor mark up. The separation of the phased work also provided the Phase II contractor with a clean and unencumbered site, saving the City several hundred thousand dollars, which was reflected in the very competitive bids received for the Phase II work. Additionally, Nova Partners has assisted the City in developing, assembling and bidding the Audio Visual equipment and construction package and is also assisting the City in the development of the Aquarium, Signage, Caf6, and Library FF/E packages. The continuation of these types of services as well as the construction oversight and inspection of the project will be provided under the scope of work in the first amendment to Nova's agreement. FISCAL IMPACT This action would require a one-time budget appropriation from the Civic Center Library Project 423-9222-9300 Fund in the amount of $300,000 and result in a total agreement o£$1,150,000 for Construction Management services. Agreement First Amendment $850,000 $300,O0O Total CM Services $1,150,000 This amount is within the $1,200,000 Construction Management services component of the project budget as previously reported to the Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution No. 03- 2t>g- , authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute the First Amendment to the agreement with Nova Partners, not to exceed $300,000, for additional Construction Management services on the Library and Civic Center Project. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-202 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH NOVA PARTNERS, FOR CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES ON THE LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, on December 5, 2002, the City entered into an initial Agreement for Construction Management services with Nova Partners, a Palo Alto based professional services consultant; and WHEREAS, this Amendment No. 1 provides for continued construction management services as identified in the initial agreement, the Audio Visual equipment and construction management; development of the Aquarium, Signage, Caf6, and Library FF/E packages; and services through the Civic Center project close- out phase, to final completion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 1 with Nova Partners in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for additional construction management services. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Cotmcil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTA1N: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-3366 davek~¢upertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: November 3, 2003 RECOMMENDATION Accept $75,000 from the Cupertino Library Foundation as donated by the Friends of the Cupertino Library. Approve plaque recognizing $75,000 contribution by the Friends of Cupertino Library for the Children's Story Room in the new Library. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2003 Kathy Stakey reported to City Council that the Friends of the Cupertino Library intends to donate $75,000 to the Cupertino Library Foundation to be used for furnishing the Children's Story Room in the new Library. On October 23, 2003, the Friends presented a check for $75,000 to the Foundation. Barbara Rogers advised me on October 23~ that the Foundation will be giving the $75,000 to the City on November 3, 2003. In accordance with the Council's policy, the City Manager met with Ms. Stakey and developed the following wording for a plaque recognizing this donation: "This Children's Story Room made possible in part by the generous donation of the Friends of the Cupertino Library." Respectfully submitted: David W. Knapp, City Manager Printod on l~ocyclocl Papor I ~-~ -- [ CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-325S Telephone: (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-3366 davek~cupenmo.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUMMARY Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consideration of a Council Policy to Recognize the City's Demographically Diverse Community BACKGROUND On October 3, 2003 during the Goals Workshop, the Council expressed an interest in developing a statement that reflected the City's recognition of its demographically diverse community. Acknowledging that such a statement would need to be based on some articulation of a policy on that subject, Mayor Michael Chang has some specific suggestions and has worked with city staff to develop a policy resolution to respond to the Council's interest. The proposed policy recognizes the dramatic demographic changes in Cupertino over the past several years. It reflects the value of our numerous cultures and the richness they bring to our community life. It also underscores the importance of including everyone and every group in the governance of the community. Staff has attempted to create a policy that is consistent with Mayor Chang's suggestions, responds to the Council's interest, and is consistent with current Califomia Law regarding employment, i.e., the selection, appointment and retention of city employees. While accomplishing the above objectives, the policy also poses some challenges. In the case of commissions, it requires, among other things, cultural diversity and may interfere with Council's ability to select the most qualified person for the job. More importantly, including commission appointments with employment selection in the same resolution may lead to misinterpretation of the City's hiring policy. Pnntod on Recycled Popor Hiring Policy Issues The City's hiring policy is to select the most qualified candidate from the widest candidate pool possible. Ultimately, fairness in appointing commissioners and hiring employees is critically important, and the City's efforts to advertise more widely have produced a pool of candidates which mom accurately approximates the community we serve. As the City Attorney has previously advised the Council, California Law has very specific limits regarding cultural or racial characteristics of any policy or process related to. employment. In particular, this policy seems to isolate one issue (diversity) that may give the impression that diversity itself is a criterion used in hiring decisions, which, as noted above, is not allowed by California law. Therefore any misinterpretation of the diversity policy statement with respect to hiring and employment can lead to expensive and time-consuming challenges to hiring decisions. These could include both discrimination or reverse discrimination claims. Although, it is completely fair and reasonable to select commissioners and employees who will best understand and serve the needs of our diverse community, it would be wrong to assume that it takes an employee from a particular culture to serve people of that culture. By including both areas (Commission Appointments and Employment) in the same resolution, the proposed policy taken as a whole appears to highlight out of proportion the cultural aspect of an employee's ability to serve the whole community. It is possible that unsuccessful, as well as successful, candidates for City employment may assume erroneously that race or cultural background had something to do with the selection process. This problem may be somewhat mitigated by separating these two areas and splitting the proposed resolution into two resolutions. Staff has provided the Council with two resolutions for consideration. One Resolution relates to the appointment of Commissions and Committees and the other relates to Employment. However, since it appeared, during the initial discussion, that the Council's original intent was to "embrace" (i.e., acknowledge and celebrate) the demographic diversity of the Cupertino Community, the City may be better served by adopting only one Resolution to that effect with the section relating to appointment of Commissions and Committees, and avoiding the issues relating to employment as noted above. Staff has attached Resolutions that represent the following three options: 1. Adoption of a single Resolution which includes selection of Commissioners and Committee members (Recommended); or, 2. Adoption of two separate resolutions, one relating to appointments of Commissioners and Committee members and one relating to employment; or, 3. Adoption of a single resolution incorporating both Commissions and Committees and employment. (Not Recommended) However, should the Council elect to proceed with the adoption of such a policy including references to employment, staff recommends that the action be accomplished with the two Resolutions (option 2 above) provided rather than a single resolution combining both areas. This action would be accomplished as follows: Council consideration of Resolution No. 03-~D3 , establishing a policy Embracing Demographic Diversity Which Exists Throughout the Community related to the Appointment of Commissions and Committees; and, Council consideration of Resolution No. 03- 201~ , establishing a policy Embracing the Demographic Diversity Which Exists Throughout the Community related to Employment of the City Work Force. Respectfully submitted: David W. Knapp, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-203 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING A POLICY EMBRACING DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY WHICH EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the City intends to provide efficient, effective and equitable governmental services to all of Cupertino, and WHEREAS, respect for all races, cultures, and other demographic differences is the foundation of Cupertino's future, and WHEREAS Cupertino's residents are its most important resource, their ethnic and economic diversity provides the living fabric that binds Cupertino together, and WHEREAS, the involvement and commitment of the entire Cupertino community produces a better quality of life with residents and city government working in partnership, and WHEREAS, it is vital in maintaining a high performing, productive city government in which each resident and each city employee is valued for his or her unique gifts and talents, that the city capitalize on the innovation inherent within the community and within city government, and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino recognize that diversity includes culture, race, gender, age and other important demographic differences within the City and that valuing each diversity is fundamental in the way the City provides services to its residents, and WHEREAS, the City believes that diverse city commissions and committees provide advantages offered by a variety of diverse perspectives and in increasing the City's ability to serve its diverse population. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: I. Commissions and Committees To foster comprehensive representations within advisory commissions and committees, one criterion for the selection of new members shall be that they represent the community by culture, race, gender, age, and location of residence within the city. B. In the conduct of their business, commission and committee members shall pursue the benefit of a variety of perspectives in making decisions. Commissions and committees increase the city's potential, effectiveness and creativity as an organization by offering a wide range of approaches and perspectives to addressing issues and solving problems. 2 II. Other means of communicating this policy to the general public The City of Cupertino's embracing of diversity will also be communicated and reflected through such means as festivals and events, public art, city publications and media programming. III. Dissemination and enforcement of this policy This policy shall be incorporated into the following: 1) All notices seeking commission and committee applications; 2) Shall be adopted by the City Manager as an administrative procedure, who shall be responsible for the implementation of this policy. From time to time, the City Manager will report the status of such implementation to the City Council; 3) Shall be posted at both the City Clerk's Office and at the City's Department of Human Resources. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 03-204 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING A POLICY EMBRACING DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY WHICH EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY (EMPLOYMENT) WHEREAS, the City intends to provide efficient, effective and equitable governmental services to all of Cupertino, and WHEREAS, respect for all races, cultures, and other demographic differences is the foundation of Cupertino's future, and WHEREAS Cupertino's residents are its most important resource, their ethnic and economic diversity provides the living fabric that binds Cupertino together, and WHEREAS, the involvement and commitment of the entire Cupertino community produces a better quality of life with residents and city government working in partnership, and WHEREAS, it is vital in maintaining a high performing, productive city government in which each resident and each city employee is valued for his or her unique gifts and talents, that the city capitalize on the innovation inherent within the community and within city government, and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino recognize that diversity includes culture, race, gender, age and other important demographic differences within the City and that valuing each diversity is fundamental in the way the City provides services to its residents, and WHEREAS, the City believes that diversity provides advantages, both intemally, in terms of the human resoumes potential offered by a variety of diverse perspectives, and externally, in increasing the City's ability to serve its diverse population. I. Employment The City will strive for a work force that is responsive to the service needs of the community by: Continuing to provide competent and quality service to accommodate the changing demographics of the community by identifying the needs of the public and how it views the services the City provides. Recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly capable and productive employees who are able to serve the changing needs of the community and to provide the best possible service to the community. Making certain that employees understand and appreciate the heritage and culture of many different groups and are responsive to the uniqueness of each individual within city government and the community. Specific programs which would insure that understanding and appreciation include, but are not limited to, l~esolutlon No. 0g-~O4 Page providing English to non-English translation services, instituting a program of pay differential for bi-lingual qualified employees who use non-English language in their jobs, and, if appropriate or necessary, the establishment of positions within the city government which require fluency in non-English languages. D. By building on the foundation of equality of opportunity as well as diversity to ensure fair representation and treatment of all employees. By instilling in the City's work force the value of diversity as a core organizational value which is practiced and communicated at all levels of the city and the community. II. Dissemination and enforcement of this policy This policy shall be incorporated into the following: 1) All notices seeking to recruit new employees; 2) Shall be adopted by the City Manager as an administrative procedure, who shall be responsible for the implementation of this policy. From time to time, the City Manager will report the status of such implementation to the City Council; 3) Shall be posted at both the City Clerk's Office and at the City's Department of Human Resources. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 03-205 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING A POLICY EMBRACING DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY WHICH EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY WHEREAS, the City intends to provide efficient, effective and equitable governmental services to all of Cupertino, and WHEREAS, respect for all races, cultures, and other demographic differences is the foundation of Cupertino's future, and WHEREAS, Cupertino's residents are its most important resource, their ethnic and economic diversity provides the living fabric that binds Cupertino together, and WHEREAS, the involvement and commitment of the entire Cupertino community produces a better quality of life with residents and city government working in partnership, and WHEREAS, it is vital in maintaining a high performing, productive city government in which each resident and each city employee is valued for his or her unique gifts and talents, that the city capitalize on the innovation inherent within the community and within city government, and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino recognize that diversity includes culture, race, gender, age and other important demographic differences within the City and that valuing each diversity is fundamental in the way the City provides services to its residents, and WHEREAS, the City believes that diversity provides advantages both intemally, in terms of the human resources potential offered by a variety of diverse perspectives, and externally, in increasing the City's ability to serve its diverse population. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: I. Commissions and Committees A. To foster comprehensive representations within advisory commissions and committees, one criterion for the selection of new members shall be that they represent the community by culture, race, gender, age, and location of residence within the city. B. In the conduct of their business, commission and committee members shall pursue the benefit of a variety of perspectives in making decisions. II. III. C. Commissions and committees increase the city's potential, effectiveness and creativity as an organization by offering a wide range of approaches and perspectives to addressing issues and solving problems. Employment The City will strive for a work force that is responsive to the service needs of the community by: Continuing to provide competent and quality service to accommodate the changing demographics of the community by identifying the needs of the public and how it views the services the City provides. Recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly capable and productive employees who are able to serve the changing needs of the community and to provide the best possible service to the community. Making certain that employees understand and appreciate the heritage and culture of many different groups and are responsive to the uniqueness of each individual within city government and the community. Specific programs which would insure that understanding and appreciation include, but are not limited to, providing English to non-English translation services, instituting a program of pay differential for bi-lingual qualified employees who use non-English language in their jobs, and, if appropriate or necessary, the establishment of positions within the city government which require fluency in non-English languages. D. By building on the foundation of equality of opportunity as well as diversity to ensure fair representation and treatment of all employees. By instilling in the City's work force the value of diversity as a core organizational value which is practiced and commtmicated at all levels of the city and the community. Other means of communicating this policy to the general public The City of Cupertino's embracing of diversity will also be communicated and reflected through such means as festivals and events, public art, city publications and media programming. 2 IV. Dissemination and enforcement of this policy This policy shall be incorporated into the following: 1) All notices seeking commission and committee applications; 2) All notices seeking to recruit new employees; 3) Shall be adopted by the City Manager as an administrative procedure, who shall be responsible for the implementation of this policy. From time to time, the City Manager will report the status of such implementation to the City Council; 4) Shall be posted at both the City Clerk's Office and at the City's Department of Human Resources. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3~d day of November, 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTA1N: ATTEST Members of the City Council APPROVED City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA DATE November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review of bids and award of contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks, Project No. 2003-01, to JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $397,400.00, and approval of a contingent amount of up to $95,000.00 for additional work that may be identified in the second half of the fiscal year as approved by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $492,400.00. BACKGROUND This project is an annual maintenance project funded through the City's annual street maintenance budget. The project consists of the removal and replacement of curbs, gutters and sidewalks by a City-hired contractor as needed throughout the year. It is proposed that the bid be awarded to the low bidder and an additional amount be set aside for additional work, which may be approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works. The following is a summary of bids received for the Maintenance of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks project: Bidder No Fault Asphalt Sposeto Engineering Engineer's Estimate JJR Construction, Inc. Base Bid $ 478,554.OO $ 399,160.00 $ 399,150.00 $ 397,400.00 The low bidder is JJR Construction, Inc. for the amount of $397,400.00. The engineer's estimate is $399,150.00. JJR Construction, Inc. has met the requirements of the City's Responsible Contracting Policy. FISCAL IMPACT This action would require expenditure from the approved street maintenance budget account no. 270-8403-7014 in the amount of $397,400.00 and additional expenditures thereafter in the amount of $95,000.00 if additional work is approved by the Director of Public Works. The approved total budget for this fund is $500,000.00. Printod on l~ocyclod Papor t ? --i STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council award the project contract for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks, Project No. 2003-01, to JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $397,400.00, and approve a contingent amount of up to $95,000.00 for additional work that may be identified in the second half of the fiscal year as approved by the Director of Public Works, for a total of $492,400.00. Submitted by: Attest as to bids received: ~ ~ ~/ Kimberly Smith Director of Public Works City Clerk Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consideration of Resolution No. 03-2~g: Amending Resolution 03-186 And Endorsing the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)'s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program and Its Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use. BACKGROUND On October 6, 2003, the City Council adopted a priority list of projects eligible for VTA Local Streets and County Roads Program grant funds, committed to a future local match for projects that achieve grant funds, and authorized forwarding the project priority list to VTA. The Council also adopted Resolution No. 03-186, which endorses VTA's Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program. As was pointed out in the original recommendation to adopt Resolution 03-186, endorsement of the CDT Program enables the City to be eligible for certain VTA program funds. After receiving a copy of the Council resolution, VTA has requested that the original resolution adopted by the Council be amended to include the following key items; Background and purpose statement, Policy or action statement, Description of the methodology to implement the CDT Principles in planning and public works projects (for example, through the General Plan, zoning, ordinances and policies), Recognition of cores, corridors, and station areas as identified in the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use (MBP) or by Cupertino as area for targeted growth and implementation of CDT principles and actions, Commitment to identify and preserve right-of-way for transportation facilities such as street, transit operations, stops and stations, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the planning and programming process, as applicable, practicable, and as opportunities permit, Actions ~ha~ the ~ufisd~cfion does, o~ ½n~ends ~o do, ~o suppor~ ~he devdopmen~ and provision of an integrated mulfimodal ~ranspor~ation system, and compacL walkable developments, and Statement of multi-jurisdictional commitment, cooperation, and coordination to recognize and consider participation in projects and processes tha~ have cross- border or regional significance. The attached resolution amending the related resolution approved by Council on October 6, addresses the items mentioned above. As stated in the previous staff memo on this subject, the principles embodied in the CDT Program and set forth in the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use (MBP) are largely consistent with Cupertino General Plan goals. Further, as previously stated, Council endorsement of the CDT Program will in no way supplant the goals and standards embodied in the City's General Plan or Standard Details and Specifications or preempt the City's land use authority. It is worth noting again, however, that success in obtaining those program funds will be based in part on a candidate project's compatibility with the principles embodied in the CDT program FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution No. 03-2~b: Amending Resolution 03-186 And Endorsing the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)'s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program and Its Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use. Submitted by: Submitte~ Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Director of Community Development Approved for submission to t~~avid W. Knal 11 City Manager DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-186 AND ENDORSING THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S COMMUNITY DESIGN AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ITS MANUAL OF BEST PRACTICES FOR INTEGRATING TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE WHEREAS, on October 6, 2003, the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopted Resolution No. 03-186 endorsing the Valley Transportation Authority Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to amend the resolution to more accurately reflect the concepts conveyed in the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), in partnership with the cities, towns and County of Santa Clara, has developed a Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program and a guiding Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use as the program's guiding document; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2002, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted the CDT Program (Resolution No. 02.11.35) as its primary program for integrating transportation and land use, and the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino participated in the development of the CDT Program and the Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino recognizes that, to effectively meet the current and future needs of its changing communities, transit, pedestrian, and multimodal roadway facilities must play increasingly important roles in the City's individual departments and actions by the Council; and WHEREAS, to better meet the current and future needs of its communities, the City of Cupertino desires a strengthened "transportation consciousness" between the VTA and the City that is reflected within the City's individual departments and actions by the Council; and WHEREAS, to optimize the City's investments in, and utility of, transportation and urban services infrastructure, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented developments should be located in urban cores, major transportation corridors, and transit station areas; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this endorsement is to convey on behalf of the City and Council a strong spirit of support for the concepts, principles, practices and actions conveyed in VTA's CDT Programs Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use; and Re~olution No. 0~-206 Page 2 WHEREAS, that it shall be the policy of the City of Cupertino to consider the concepts, principles, practices and actions conveyed in the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use in its planning, public works, and redev¢lopmcnt projects, and in its project development, review, and approval processes; and WHEREAS, that the City of Cupertino will consider the identification and evaluation of opportunities to provide an integrated and interconnected system of transit services, pedestrian facilities, bicycle routes, and multimodal roadways in the preparation of the General Plan, Specific Plans, Community Plans, District Plans and similar planning documents; and WHEREAS, that the City of Cupertino will consider opportunities for creating multimodal streets and implementing alternative street design standards and strategies, as defined in the VTA's Community Design and Transportation Program, and as identified and developed by City staff, in the preparation of the General Plan, Specific Plans, Community Plans, District Plans and similar planning documents; and WHEREAS, that the City of Cupertino will consider existing and proposed train stations, bus stops, and transit centers as "opportunity areas" for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, that the City of Cupertino recognizes the cores, major transportation corridors, and station areas as identified in the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use and by the City as key areas to target future growth and implement the CDT concepts, principles, practices and actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino recognizes the public value in identifying and preserving fight-of-way for transportation facilities such as streets, transit stops and stations, transit preferential facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in its planning and programming process, as applicable, practice able and as opportunities permit; BE IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino will seek opportunities for partnerships with VT A and neighboring jurisdictions to identify and pursue mutually beneficial studies, projects, and funding agreements. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ I Meeting Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorize the City Manager to execute a $3,000 contract with our city auditors, Maze and Associates, to test compliance with City guidelines used in the approval of housing units to BMR program participants by our subcontractor Cupertino Community Services (CCS). BACKGROUND The Purchasing Policy for the City of Cupertino provides that executive staff can authorize contracts up to $100,000 within the budget parameters approved by the City Council. Any contracts over $100,000 must be brought before Council for approval. At the goal setting session in October, several council members expressed the desire to be informed of various contracts executed by the city staff. Although the above contract is below the $100,000 limit, it is being presented for your information and review. The city has received several citizen complaints in regards to the allocation of BMR units by CCS. This compliance audit will provide the city with an independent assessment of the situation. This contract was discussed and approved by the Audit Committee on October 16th, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract and appropriate $3,000 from the BMR fund to pay for the expenditure. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper CUPEP INO. City Hail 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Agenda Item No. ~ Application: CP-2003-04 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Agenda Date: November 3, 2003 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to execute a $29,000 contract with Public Resource Management Group (PRM), to conduct a Development Fee Study. SUBJECT AND ISSUE The Purchasing Policy for the City of Cupertino provides that executive staff can authorize contracts up to $100,000 within the budget parameters approved by the City Council. Any contracts over $100,000 must be brought before Council for approval. At the goal setting session in October, several council members expressed the desire to be informed of various contracts executed by the city staff. Although the above contract is below the $100,000 limit, it is being presented for your information and review. PRM will be preparing an Overhead Cost Allocation Study and a Comprehensive Fee and Rate Study for land development services with the goal of establishing a consistent and objectively based fee and rate structure that meets the needs of the City. The study was approved as part of the revenue enhancements for the 2003- 2004 budget year. (---'/Steve ~asec! Director of Community Development Plarmer--~- App~or submission: David W. Knapp City Manager CUPEP TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014--3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. & ~ Meeting Date: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review proposals for animal control services, and Direct staff to negotiate a contract for animal control services effective July 1, 2004. BACKGROUND The city of Cupertino was one of seven cities that formed the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) to provide animal services in the areas of field, shelter and licensing. During the past year, several cities, including Cupertino, decided to withdraw from SVACA due to several unresolved issues and concerns over upcoming shelter operating and construction costs. In September of this year, City Council directed staff to request proposals for animal services from other providers and bring back recommendations for their consideration. The city received and staff reviewed proposals from the cities of Sunnyvale/Palo Alto and the city of San Jose. The attached power point presentation summarizes our findings and recommendations. In addition, staff took the liberty of including the SVACA services within the report so that Council could compare their service level and costs to those of the other two proposals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council review the attached proposals and authorize us to pursue contract negotiations with the City of San Jose Submitted by: 6ol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services A~~submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Animal Control Services · Subject and Issue · Rewew proposals for animal control services, and · Direct staff to negotiate a contract for animal services effective July 1, 2004 Animal Control Service Options · SVACA · City of San ]ose · City of Sunnyvale/Palo Alto SVACA · Provides for field, licensing & shelter · Duration for 15-20 years · Requires construction of shelter · Services available immediately through SVACA/Humane Society · ~loint Powers Scenario City of San .lose · Contract for field, licensing & shelter · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Flexibility to choose another provider · Requires internal shelter expansion · Services will be available 7-1-04 City of Sunnyvale · Contract field services · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Flexibility to choose another provider · Requires separate shelter provider · Services will be available 7-1-04 City of Palo Alto · Contract licensing & shelter · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Flexibility to choose another provider · Requires shelter expansion with public process/Council approval · Services will be available 7-1-06 with Humane Society used in the interim Service & Cost Co mparisons · Customer Convenience · Annual Operating Cost · One Time Shelter Cost · Hours of Operation · Service Level Comparison Customer Convenience Shelter Location: · SVACA - 8.88 miles; 16 m~nutes · San .]ose- 12.59 miles; 17 minutes · Palo Alto- 10.57 miles; 15 minutes Annual Operating Costs Palo Alto/ Annual Operating Costs: Field/Licensing/Administration SVACA a) Start Up Cost b) Overhead @ 15% c) San Jose Tallow (deer pickup)- Est d) San Jose Wildlife Center - Est Shelter a) Overhead @ 15% i Sunnyvale i San Jose $155,900$140,000$130,000i n/a' 70 ,000 n/a 21,000 n/ai incl 2,000 ncli 74,814 100,218 41,985i 15,033 n/ai b) San Jose is $135 per domestic animal (311) Total Less: Start up costs Total Ongoing Annual $230,715 $281,051 $171,9851 One Time Shelter Cost SVACA** San .lose Palo Alto** $957,273 $5oo,ooo $318,000 ** Amounts are best estimates and may change; process requires construction of a building and approvals Hours of Operation i Proposed , SVACA Pale Alto Fremont Humane Sec San Jose Adoptions: ~ ~ I Monday closed 11:00-5:30i closed 10:30-8:00'*i closedl 11:00-5:30! 11:00-5:30 10:30-8:00'* 1:00-7:00 j Wednesday 11:00-7:00 11:00-5:30 12:00-5:00 10:30-8:00'* 11:00-7:00i Thursday 11:00-5:30~'-i 11:00-5:30 12:00-5:00i 10:30-8:00'* 1:00-7:00i 12:00-5:00 · ' ** 10.30-8.00 1:00-7:001 11:00-5:30 closed closed · closed closed closed see below closed i Saturday iSunday Monday iTuesday Friday Saturday Sunday ~Holidays l#_of Hr~.~.~er Week 11:00-5:30 11: 00-5:30 11:00-5:301 cl°sed~_ _~_, ~ closed 34i 11:00-5:30 12:00-5:00 ~ ~ ~'07 12: 00-5:00 11:00-5:30 12:00-5:00 10:30-8:00'* i 11:00-7:00 11:00-7:00 10.30-8.00 11:00-7:00 32.5/39 i 25 63.5 45 11:00-5:30 11:00-4:00 10:00-6:00'* 11: 00-7:00 closedi closed 10:00-6:00'*i 12:00-5:00 closed~ closed see below close__ Service Level Comparisons · Types of Animals Covered · Response Times · Services Provided · Dead Animal Services · Licensing · Reporting Staff Recommendation · Pursue contract negotiations with City of San 3ose · Full service contract with one agency · Can accommodate Cupertino on 7-1-04 · Annual operating cost sawngs of 25.5% · One time shelter cost sawngs of $457,272 · Convenient location for customers · Similar service level comparisons Discussion and Questions Carol Atwood From: Sent: To: Subject: Cicirelli, Jon [Jon. Cicirelli@sanjoseca.gov] Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:43 AM Carol Atwood San Jose Animal Services ~i~l Shelter d~ng.d~ Hi Carol, Thanks for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. Attached is the schematic for the shelter and the site. The unfinished areas are all shaded in pink (top left and top towards the right). These equal 4,603 square feet of shell space. On the bottom of the page you can see the entire shelter site which includes a 1/2 acre dog exercise area (top right). The whole site is just over 4 acres. We will have staff in the building from 7am to llpm everyday that can accept stray or dead animals. Our public hours will include weekends and weekdays and will exceed any state requirements for public hours. Some of the programs we will offer include animal behavior classes, adoptions, educational seminars (dog, cats, exotics, wildlife, pet care, training), a low cost spay/neuter clinic ($5/cat), licensing, micro chipping, rabies vaccination clinics, a behavior hotline, wildlife rescue, connections to breed specific rescue groups, foster care, free housing for the pets of victims of domestic violence, and veterinarian references. We will coordinate special events like spay day, animal care fairs, adopt a shelter, adopt a shelter pet, outside adoption events, awareness campaigns on cruelty, pet owner responsibility and licensing campaigns, canvassing, fundraising, and mentor programs. Volunteer opportunities will range from greeting the public to training a dog. Adoption animals will be posted on the internet and on our website. We also will have a touch screen monitor in the front lobby so that visitors can search for their pets (or a type of pet) without walking around the entire facility. We will do promotional and seasonal marketing in order to enhance adoptions and decrease our euthanasia rate. We are already building collaboratives with over 60 area rescue groups and individuals so that our program is a community effort that will succeed. We will be providing prompt service and a friendly atmosphere. The field staff will be problem solvers and respond to the needs of the community. We will use surveys and questionnaires to gain feedback on our operations. The shelter will be clean and bright and a fun place to visit. At over 50,000 square feet, it will also be one of the largest in the US. The animals will be well cared for and receive humane care at all times - we even have soothing music and skylights in every animal area to try to make the stay more pleasant. Our organization will be a proactive and positive influence in the region and I think it is in Cupertino's best interest to be involved. In its 2001 edition of Animal Control Management, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) states "adequate funding of an animal care and control program costs at least $4 per citizen annually." the proposed rate, Cupertino residents would be paying approximately $3.64/person, in one of the most costly places to live. At I hope this answers your questions. If you have any more, please let me know. I look forward to your recommendation. Jon Cicirelli Deputy Director Animal Services PRNS Department, City of San Jose SITE PLAN: Not to Scale San Jose Animal Care Center Title: Revised Floor Plan - Rebid DATE: December 12 2001 SCALE: Not to Scale DIAGRAM: SKA~I EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE EXHIBIT (We have emailed this message to all City Council members on November 2, 2003) To: Cupertino City Council Members From: Grace and Tony Toy 10130 Crescent Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax) Email: tony.toy@ Sun. COM Date: November 3, 2003 Subj: Proposal for Marketing Strategy of New Sports Center to Increase Revenue Comment: The following message will be delivered at the November 3rd City Council meeting. We would like to provide detailed information to our City leaders and interested parties to pursue this matter. Please contact us. Last month, our City Council had allocated almost $2.5M for the renovation of the Cupertino Sports Center. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, in the Parks and Recreation Department, there is no one representing the interest of our City and therefore, the City loses over $100,000 in revenue every year. We are concerned. For over 10 years, we have been the biggest supporters of the Sports Center. We purchased the most guest passes and regularly bring in many friends to play tennis. Tony introduced so many co-workers that he initiated the Corporate rate. He brought in the whole men's 5.0 team. For a few years, Grace catered all the refreshment for the staffs Christmas parties. Since we know many tennis players, we handed out flyers and conducted tours of our facility. We rallied several successful membership drives in the early days when business was slow. We greatly advertise the Center so as to bring in more business and increase the City's revenue. We are very dedicated and know that it has strong potential. However, we have seen great obstacles. For over a year, we addressed our concern to the Department. On and off the record, several in authority have offered us a refund and asked us to quit. Here's the problem: Almost 10 years ago when our City purchased the Center, Mr. Gonzales was the manager. He was also a board member of the Cupertino Tennis Club, which was not affiliated with the Sports Center. The club members do not have a home court but yet they sponsor team tennis, of which Mr. Gonzales was a major player. He granted his club free use of courts. At that time, the Center had more courts than players. Each year there was only one league season and players could only play on one team. The club sponsored a few teams and the impact was insignificant. Over the last few years, the United States Tennis Association has greatly increased the number of leagues year round. Team tennis has become very big business and court fees are much higher. At the Center, the number of team tennis players has remained fairly steady at around 160, which is less than 20 percent of the users. Last year, they formed 30 teams; this year, 35 teams. Some players are on six or seven teams. They have extensive use of the best lit courts at prime-time, without restriction. Some tennis club officials even reserved courts for personal practice. If these teams were to play at Sunnyvale, each team would have to pay almost $1000 in court fees. Cities such as Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Santa Clara have increased court fees according to the high market demand. At the Center, team tennis is free. They use up extra staff hours to schedule the teams, service the frontdesk, and clean up the court sides. Their opponents even use our gym facilities and extra tennis courts. The Center is bearing extra expenses. We are still using the same fee schedule set forth by Mr. Gonzales, when he was providing personal favors to his club. Mr. Gonzales covered up the marketing value and our City has lost revenue for almost 10 years. The Sports Center only provides facilities, which is easier for the management. It does not conduct any programs, organize any social events, or mn any activities. Non-team tennis players do not know each other and we enjoy our privacy. Everyone pays about $350 and signs a yearly contract. We become passholders and can use the gym facilities, tennis courts, etc. However, our contracts did not disclose the fact that most of the prime-time courts were reserved exclusively for team tennis, for free. Staff conducts business behind closed doors and covers up the reservation sheets. Club officials are well connected with the Department and staff receive good reviews. Team players are insiders and non-team players are outsiders. Over 80 % of non-team players are subsidizing less than 20 % of team tennis players. Three months ago, Mr. Gonzales disappeared but his legacy continues to live on. The Parks and Recreation Department is still surrounded by club officials, who strongly influence the operation system and take advantage of it. Lately, the Department has started a process to consolidate and secure the old system. The staff has no intention to make room for more passholders and generate more revenue for the new facility. This evening we would like to propose a marketing strategy for the new Sports Center. Before the renovation, the Center had approximately 850 passholders. It had a huge membership turnover because it has very limited courts at prime-time. This is the key factor in determining its full capacity. With the new facility, we propose to open up all the courts at prime-time, which can comfortably accommodate an extra 300-400 longtime passholders, including family memberships. This segment of the market is still growing. It is very profitable and user-friendly. Passholders will renew their memberships when they have an equal chance to reserve all the courts at prime-time. The new facility can increase its capacity by 40 % and generate over $100,000 of extra revenue. It is feasible. We have the best facility at the best location. We are confident that the Mayor and the Council members will make decisions for the best interest of our City. RE: Linwood Acres From: Nagel, Malka To: Nagel, Malka Cc: Subject: RE: Linwood Acres Sent: 10/31/2003 4:28 PM Page 1 of 2 Importance: Normal Dear Council Member: There has been a haste and a lack of undarstanding of ail the issues in coming to a decision on Linwood Acres zoning. In the September meeting the Planning Commissioners, you failed to discuss the second story setback. In addition, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what was agreed to re: privacy issues. My recollection was that there was an option as to windows per Eichler ordinance OR trees and bushes. However the tree and bushes option implied that the homeowner had to get trees that were TOO large for the size of lots. These are the main sticking points for the R1 group. If this issue has to be brought back to Public H~fng, than so be it. The promise of why Linwood Acres should have a special zoning in the first place was narrowed down to one reason - "unique setbacks." Steve Piasecki could give NO other reason for rezoning this area something "special" outside orR1. However, after careful evaluation, the RI group has done some more research and has found that OUTSIDE of fi'ont setbacks being the same the side setbacks are ANYTHING but consistent. They have information to support this claim. In fact a lot of the setbacks are at 4 and 5 feet - similar to other parts of Cupertino. In addition, more than 33% of'the homes have been altered already. So again no consistency here. The current zoning that is being shown on County records, by the way, is R1-B2. This is the information that shows on the title of every property owner. I am sending you just ONE sample of this, but I have pulled records on all the properties and they all show the same thing. So you see, a lot of confusion for any future homeowner who sees RI as R1. Let's make this simple. There is NO reason why Linwood Acres should be zoned ANYTHING but Ri. Usually speciaI zonings are to save significant architectural styles such as enacted in OLD Town Santa Clara Quad with its beautiful Victorians and California Bungalows 6r Carmel's scenic routes. But none of this exists in Linwood Acres. It is but a simple neighborhood in a tract of homes surrounded by a school, companies, duplexes and larger homes and a freeway soundwall. In addition, because RE: Linwood Acres Page 2 of 2 there is no majority consensus in the neighborhood there is no reason whatsoever to further limit the property rights of these homeowners. It is not just about doing what is right for this neighborhood but it is also important to have consistent zoning in Cupertino. Malka Nagel Cupertino Resident Realtor - CB Cupertino =METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE= Santa Clara (CA) Owner CoOwner Site Address Mail Address Phone < < < OWNERSHIP INFORMATION > > > :Griffin Terry L & Margaret S Trustee :10727 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 :10727 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 :Owner:408-996-1149 Tenant: Parcel Nuraber Bldg Id No < < < SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION > > > Transferred :08/23/2000 Document # :15366017 Sale Price Deed Type : % Owned : Loan Aanount : Lender : Loan Type : Interest Type : Vesting Type : < < < ASSESSMENT A/qD TAX INFORMATION > > > Land :$113,430 Structure :$140,856 Other : Total :$254,286 % Improved :55 Exempt Type :Homeowners Exempt Amount :$7,000 Tax Rate Area :13003 02-03 Taxes :$3,086.40 < < < PRO~ERTY DESCRIPTION Census :Tract:5081.01 'Block:2 Map Grid ..837~ .... ~-"Z~nin~R1B2 Res S~ngle Famil~ Re~idencej~ Land Use :01 Res,Single Yamily Sub/Plat :Linwood Acres Un No 1 Legal :TR 754 LOT 33 > > > Total Rms Bedrooms Bathrooms Stories Dining Rm Family Rm Rec Room UtilityRm Water Src Elect Svc Gas Svc :7 :3 :2.00 1 1 1 < < < PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS > > > Bldg SF :1,916 Units : Lot SF :9,750 Patio :No Lot Acres:.22 Porch :No Lot Dimen:75x130 Elevator : CntlHt/Ac:Heat Only Lease SF : Pool :No Office SF: Fireplace: Sprinkler: Sauna : lstFlr SF:1,703 Dishwsher: 2ndFlr SF: Tennis Ct: 3rdFlr SF: FrameType:Wood Rental SF: YearBuilt EffYearBlt Garage Sp Garage SF Bldg Cond Bldg Class Bldg Shape GarageTyp WallHgt AddtionSF :316 02 041 :1951 :1951 :484 :Avg :5.5 :L-Shape :213 Information campiled frotn various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of #~formalion contained in this report. ') 10510 -- (]P 10511 - (~P 10510 - ? 10511 - ToshikoKawamoto Mrs Toyoko Egusa WarrenE3anine Holt Harold 3ohnson 10524 - 10525 - GP 10524 -- R~ 10525 - Cad & Elizabeth Orr Bonnie Due[] Vi~or Husers HJdeo~Ruth Fu~gawa 10540-RZ- 1054I'-R~ 10540-R~ 10541-R1 Yoon 3ae tim Robe~ 3emin ~an ~n Lin Chen Al Cads 10556-~P l 10557-R~ 10556-? Diana Umemoto Geoff Pau]sen Bob Vanhoy EfrainEBe~Linares ~0570 - GP ~0573 - SP 10570 - R3 1057~ - Ada]ine Marchese 3an&Ma~ O~rick Bong~im Song ' Chao Char]ie : x l r/ x ~0~87 - ~P ' ~0586 - RS 10587 - A1 INTERE~ED Dennis&Kay Chew Y, Wong Tony&Ma~ Wei-~n~ Lei Dan D'~ndrea HaroldSKathleen ~ujii Amber Emily Shih 10614 - Ri 10615 '- RI 10615 - Shahrokh Deilami Farah Andy Smith NOT HOME Hario and Narlys Ri~aldi 10628 - R1 10629 -- ~ 10628 -- ~ 10629 -- Hien Truong Anne Klm , ~ Sun, Wuxing Dongxu Yun-chun Yu 10642 - ~P u - 10642 - ~$ 0 10643 - NOT HOME Re~ Lida Osamu&Misao Seine ~0656 - R~ ~0657 - R~ ~0656 - R~ ~0657 - Thomas&Noeile .ath~s,~ X < I Th. anh Nguye;~,~ X~' Lora Rabbi~EHutch¢[/~X~//~ VJ~or&France .ue]ler~[VX ~0670 -Naybe R~ ~067~ - GP~ ~0670 - ~ / ~067L - Joe &Teri Koller /~ ArcadioESilvia E~anislao Jerome Vier Josephine Harper (o) Richard Chavez ~068~ - ~P ~0684 - ? ~0685 -- Daql E ~elissa ~acias Ted Biskupski Doris Haley ~)] Long Nguyen ~0698 - ~P ~0699 - ~P - ~ ~0699 - Kathleen & Roger Blume i~ X v [/~ ~ X ~ f/~' L°rraine&¢tl~ Cfi'eL E'aa~X:.v D°nna ~teve Pr°sser ~ O/~X ~ (/ 10712 - 107~3 - SP ~07~2 - ~P 10713 - Hafner, Chris Ed Auch Philip C. Bush Nathalie Bene~i ~0726 - N~ ~0727 - GP ~0726 - GP ~0727 - Weini Liem~am Liem Terq&Peggy Gri~n Wes. Weigel Zeljko ~avic Kaimio Ga~&Ka~umi Celine Leu~__ G~o[~ePaizis Matsunami l fi [ F ~' ~ * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Matsunami Gary H & Katsumi Parcel :316 02 040 Site :10741 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :09/14/1993 Mail :10741 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$305,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone---~ : Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1951 Pool:No ~dgSF:l,683 ~ Ac:.22 ............. : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA)~-~----=- ........... Owner :Griffin Terry L & Margaret S Trustee Parcel :316 02 041 Site :10727 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :08/23/2000 Mail :10727 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :0t Res,Single Family Residence ph.~--~l149 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1951 Pool:No ( BldgSF:l,916 % Ac:.22 / ~ ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara {CA)~:~-~-~=~ ...... Owner :Auch Edward S & Laura Parcel :316 02 042 Site :10713 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :07/24/1979 Mail :10713 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1951 Poo!:No ~BldgSF:2,0~4 ) Ac:.2 ...... . SetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) .' ................. * Owner :Sakino Ronald H & Lorraine F Trustee Parcel :316 02 043 Site :10699 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :07/24/2001 Mail :10699 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence P~6~e ~'i40~r255~A9351 Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:8 YB:1951 Pool:No ( BldgSF:2,1~-~ Ac:.22 ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA~u~.~ ........ * Owner :Biskupski Ted S Et A1 Parcel :316 02 044 Site :10685 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered ~_~/Q8~/1976 Mail :10685 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Prince- .... Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence P~ne Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1951 Pool:No\ ( BldgSF:l,884 ~j__ Ac:.22 * ............................ : Metro~an / Santa Clara (CA)~i---r~...-~-~ ...... Owner :Koller Joseph M/Teri D ~ Parcel ~"~'316 02 045 Site :10671 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :06/28/2001 Mail :10671 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:5 YB:1951 Pool:No BldgSF:i,408 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Nguyen Thanh H/Hao T Parcel :316 02 046 Site :10657 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :05/01/2003 Mail :10657 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1951 Pool:No BldgSF:l,332 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Eltejaein Mohammad R & Lida Parcel :316 02 047 Site :10643 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :05/12/1998 Mail :10643 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone/~q~408-25~-7755 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1951 Pool:No B~dgSF:2,981) Ac:. \ / * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) ~ ...... / ........ * Owner :Kyong Steven Y Parcel -'-!~02 048 Site :10629 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :02/28/2002 Mail :10629 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$600,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:4 22 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,031 AC:.22 information co~npiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of #~ormation contained in this report. * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Tsim Patrick & Teresa S Parcel :316 02 049 Site :10615 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :06/18/1999 Mail :10615 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$460,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:2 Bath:l.00 TotPu~:4 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:875 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Fujii 1998 Trust Parcel :316 02 050 Site :10601 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :06/12/2003 Mail :10601 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price f~ _~ Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence PhQ~ Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:9 YB:1955 Pool:No //BldgSF:i,8~9 ) Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Eastwood Denis M & Kay Site :10587 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10587 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No Bath:2.00 Parcel :316 02 051 Xfered :07/10/1981 Price : Phone :408-255-5946 BldgSF:l,545 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Orvick Matthew W/Janet E Parcel :316 02 052 Site :10573 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :05/24/2002 Mail :10573 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$775,000 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-446-2554 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1951 Pool:No BldgSF:l,360 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Paulsen Geoffrey L & Janine R Site :10557 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10557 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotP4n:8 YB:1951 Pool:No * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Zhem Robert P J '~ Site :10541 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10541 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:2 Bath:l.00 TotRm:4 YB:1952 Pool:No (CA) : ................ * Parcel :316 02 053 Xfered :08/22/1986 Pric~ ~ Phage~''' · :408-72~-1044 ~ BlOgSF:2,470 ) A0:.22 ~CA~ ~-~ ~__.-~ ~.~J ....... Parcel :316 02 054 Xfered : 12/20/2002 Price :$550,000 Full Phone : BldgSF: 936 Ac: . 22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Duell Bonnie J Parcel :316 02 055 Site :10525 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :11~/1985 Mail :10525 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence PhQn~ :408~9~6-~851 Bedrm:5 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1951 Pool:Yes ~ BldgSF:2,194/ Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Egusa Toyoko Parcel :316 02 056 Site :10511 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :07/22/2002 Mail :10511 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No BldgSF:t,592 Ac:.18 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) Owner :Kawamoto Toshiko Trustee;Kawamoto Family Site :10510 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10510 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1959 Pool:No Parcel :316 02 057 Xfered : 03/16 / i~'~ .......... Price .... ' .... Phone :'408-255-5695 BldgSF:i, 642 Ac Information compileddqom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no represenlations or ~earranties as to the accuracy or completeness o fin formation contained in this report. * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Orr Carl A & Elizabeth J Parcel :316 02 058 Site :10524 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :12/02/1998 Mail :10524 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-446-3506 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotP~m:6 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:i,400 Ac:.22 ~ ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Lim Yoon J & Jessica Parcel :316 02 059 Site :10540 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :08/1~12~0 Mail :10540 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price ~'~000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone /~!'~082257-57i5 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No Bi~SF:I,704,jAc:'22 · ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Umemoto Yoshio Parcel :316 02 060 Site :10556 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/01/1973 Mail :10556 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:i,ll0 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Marchese Adeline Trustee Parcel :316 02 061 Site :10572 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :10/~2~//h997 Mail :10572 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price ..... Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phou~ :4~'~252-81~8 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No ~ldgSF:l,644 // Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) ~--~.~___-=c~__ ........ Owner :Lai Wei-Ting Parcel :316 02 062 Site :10586 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/24/2003 Mail :10586 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$650,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotP~:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,389 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Andrews William & Mary Truste~% Parcel :316 02 063 Site :10600 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :03/25/1986 Mail :10600 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-252-4044 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,587 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Deilami Shahrokh & Barnia Farah Parcel :316 02 064 Site :10614 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :12/30/1996 Mail :10614 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$255,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-253-2617 Bedrm:2 Bath:l.00 TotRm:4 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:944 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Truong Hien Q & Chau Nghi Parcel :316 02 065 Site :10628 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :04/22/2002 Mail :3021 Linburn Ct San Jose Ca 95148 Price :$569,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone Bedrm:2 Bath:l.00 TotRm:4 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,080 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Andrews Rose T Trustee Parcel :316 02 066 Site :10642 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/20/1998 Mail :10642 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-252-0242 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,437 Ac:.22 lnfortl*ation compiled from various sources. Real Estam Soh~tions mahes no representations or ~arranties as to the accuracy or completeness o fin formation contained in this report. * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Mathews Thomas W & Noelle Site :10656 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10656 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1951 Pool:No (CA) : ................ * Parcel :316 02 067 Xfered : 03/29/2002 Price :$630,000 Full Phone : BldgSF: 1,346 Ac: . 22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Harper Josephine J Site :10670 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10670 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1951 Pool:No ~ ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Macias Melissa Site :10684 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10684 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No (CA) : ................ * Parcel :316 02 068 Xfered : 08/31/2001 Price ~00 Full Phone//~;~: 40 ~- ~ 9% - 9654 ~dgSF: 2,22y Ac: .22 (CA~ %: .... / ......... . Par~16 02 069 Xfered :05/16/2003 Price :$600,000 Full Phone : BldgSF:l,363 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Blume Roger C & Kathleen R Trustee Site :10698 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10698 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :02 Res,Duplex Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1952 Pool:No * ............................ : MetroS~an / Santa Clara Owner :Hartner Harland J & Cristina T Site :10712 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Mail :10712 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:2 Bath:l.00 TotRm:4 YB:1952 Pool:No ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Parcel :316 02 070 Xfered Price Phone [ : B ld~F:l,70~//Ac:.22 (CA) ~ Parcel :316 02 071 Xfered :01/01/1973 Price : Phone : 408-252-6940 BldgSF: 1,024 Ac: . 22 (CA) : ................ Owner :Liem Samuel K & Weini H Parcel .~-~l~ 072 Site :10726 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered /~06/20/~94 Mail :10726 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price/--:~$~8,000\Partial Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phon~ :4~253~1759 * ............................ : ~et~oSeaa / Santa Clara (C~) ~..~:---2~~'' ........ O~ner :Sato K±miko Parcel~-----:3.' ~6 02 0?3 $~te :10740 Randy ~n Cupertino 95014 ×£ered :07/15/1998 Mail :10740 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca 95014 Price :$220,500 Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1951 Pool:No BldgSF:l,146 Ac:.20 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Pickle Robert M & Leona Parcel :316 23 017 Site :10080 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/30/1976 Mail :10223 S Portal Ave Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :58 Com, Retail Not In Shopping Center Phone :408-252-5816 Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1964 Pool: BldgSF:l,324 Ac:.28 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Arora Nidhi/Vijay Parcel :316 23 067 Site :10094 Randy Ln Cupertino 95014 ~ Xfered :05/08/2003 Mail :10094 Randy Ln Cupertino Ca. 95014 Price :$820,000 Full Use :01 Res,Single ~amily Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:8 YB:1969 Pool:No BldgSF:2,119 Ac:.19 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Paizis George S & Zampia Trustee Parcel :316 02 005 Site :10741 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :02~1994 Mail :10741 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price/~~ Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Pho~ :408-2~-~268 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No (BldgSF:2,073 ~'/ AC:.17 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) ~_~---~~ / .......... Owner :Pavic Zeljko Parcel :316 02 006 Site :10727 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :03/25/2002 Mail :22621 Poppy Dr Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phon'e : Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1953 Pool:NoQ/BldgSF:l,8327 Ac:.22 Owner :Benetti Nathalie J Trustee Parcel :316 02 007 Site :10713 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :1~91 Mail :PO Box 2765 Cupertino Ca 95015 Pric~e~- Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence P~ne : Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No ( BldgSF:l,854 /] Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (C~ : .... Owner :Prosser Steve L & Donna M Parcel :316 02 008 Site :10699 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :03/17/1987 Mail :10699 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-255-8091 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:Yes BldgSF:I,602 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Nguyen Long & Dang Thuy Parcel :316 02 009 Site :10685 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :02/27/1997 Mail :10685 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence P~n'~ :4~8-257-~65 Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:9 YB:2002 Pool:No ~ BldgSF:3,125 ) Ac:. * ............................ : Metro~an / Santa Clara (CA)~.~i~T~r~-/-- .... * Owner :Johnson William G;Giovacchini Janis L Tr Parcel :316 02 010 Site :10671 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :09/04/1996 Mail :945 Pocatello Ave Sunnyvale Ca 94087 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 Totem:6 YB:1952 Pool:Yes BldgSF:I,618 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Muller Ana Life Estate Parcel Site :10657 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered ~04/15/2002~, Mail :10657 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Pric~.~ .~--~ Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Ph?~e :408-257-9394) Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No ~BldgSF:l,640 /~c:. * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA)~: ..... ~-~-~---~ Owner :Sekine Osamu & Misao Parcel :316 02 012 Site :10643 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :12/13/1984 Mail :10643 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-446-2284 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,422 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) Owner :Yu Yun-Chun & Shih Chi Hung Site :10629 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10629 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:10 YB:1953 Pool:No Parcel :316 02 013 Xfered :05/29/1998 Price ~.~000 Full ldgSF:3,026~ AC:.22 lnfor~nation compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness o fin formation contained in this report. * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Rinaldi Marl0 E & Marlys A Trustee Parcel :316 02 014 Site :10615 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/11/1991 Mail :10615 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-252-3120 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotP~n:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,172 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) Owner :Chen Sandy K Site :10601 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :1031 Payette Ave Sunnyvale Ca 94087 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1954 Pool:No * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Bell Vivian C Site :10587 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10587 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:5 YB:1954 Pool:No Parcel :316 02 015 Xfered :06/09/1989 Price ~$~_58-~Q 0_ Full ( dgSF:2,084 Ac:.22 (CA) ~-_~-_- - - -_~=~ ...... . Parcel :316 02 016 Xfered :01/18/1991 Price : Phone : BldgSF: 1,388 Ac: . 22 * ............................ MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Chao Yuan-Ju & Hsu Ya-Chin Site :10571 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10571 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1954 Pool:No {CA) : ................ Parcel :316 02 017 Xfered :04/25/1997 Price :$405,000 Full Phone :408-725-8560 BldgSF:i,200 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Linares Efrain & Berta Parcel :316 02 018 Site :10557 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered f~0--/-2~1986 Mail :10557 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence P~ne : Bedrm:4 Bath:3.00 TotRm:8 YB:1954 Pool:No { BldgSF:2,456 2 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) ~ Owner :Carls Albert G & Ruth Trust~ Parcel :316 02 019 Site :10541 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :04/08/1998 Mail :10541 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-257-5593 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,228 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Fukagawa Hideo & Ruth Trustee Parcel :316 02 020 Site :10525 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :01/29/2001 Mail :10525 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-554-8386 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:5 YB:1953 Pool:No BldgSF:l,228 Ac:.22 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Johnson Harold M Trustee Parcel :316 02 021 Site :10511 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :09/09/1998 Mail :10511 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,063 Ac:.17 Mail :10510 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRrn:7 YB:1952 * ............................. MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ..... -~ ...... ,~ .... * Owner :Holt Warren J/Janine Parcel :3'I'~ 02 023~ Site :10510 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered ~'0~730/1992 \ Price .. : Phone / : 408-252-299~ Pool:Yes Bl~gSF:l,685 ~c:.22 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warrantiex as to the accuracy or completeness o fin formation contained in tltis report. * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Huser Victor L Trustee Parcel :316 02 024 Site :18524 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :09/23/1996 Mail :10524 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-252-1088 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotP~n:7 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:I,506 Ac: .22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ * Owner :Kuo Brian Y &Chen Yen Lun Parcel :316 02 025 Site :10540 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :02/11/2002 Mail :10540 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-255-8235 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:I,506 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Van Hoy Robert A Jr & Christine P Parcel :316 02 026 Site :10556 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :08/04/1987 Mail :10556 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-257-0397 Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,282 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Song Bong C & Sim N Parcel :316 02 027 Site :10570 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered ~90 Mail :18570 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price .../'i$275,000~ Full Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phon~' :408-865-A541 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No ~dgSF:l,674 / Ac:.22 : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) N~i_.-~-~- ........ Owner :Denoce Craig W & Mary V Parcel :316 02 028 Site :10586 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10586 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:2.50 TotRm:9 YB:1952 Pool:No * ............................ : Metro~an / Santa Clara Owner :Nam~a Shizuo & Grace T Trustee' Site :10600 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10600 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.50 TotRm:8 YB:1955 Pool:No * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Hornung Joseph A/Sharon J Site :10618 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10618 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:2.00 TotRm:7 YB:1952 Pool:No * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Sun Dongxu & Dong Wuxing Site :10628 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10628 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotRm:6 Xfered : 06//~1999 Pric~.- ~630,0~0 Full t :408-25 -4055 ~ BldgSF:2,3~ Ac:.22 (CA} ~_ i r_r.=-~~' ........... . Parcel :316 02 029 Xfered :01/24/1995 P~ne ~ : 408-25~2280 ~ BldgSF:l,909 ~ Ac:.22 rca i-_ _- ....... Parcel --:316 02 030 Xfered :04/18/2003 Parcel :316 02 031 Xfered :03/28/1997 Price :$405,000 Full Phone : YB:1952 Pool:No BtdgSF:l,428 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Foulger Donald M Parcel :316 02 032 Site :10642 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :08/30/2000 Mail :6405 E Lowe Ave Fresno Ca 93727 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:2 Bath:l.50 TotRm:6 YB:1955 Pool:No BldgSF:i,612 Ac:.22 Information co;npiled from various sources. Real Estate Solltliol~ makes no representations or ~varranlies as to the accuracy or colnpleteness of inforrnation contained in this report. * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Rabbitt Lora Site :10656 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10656 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotP~m:5 YB:1952 Pool:No (CA) : ................ * Parcel :316 02 033 Xfered :04/23/2001 Price : Phone : BldgSF:i,ll0 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Estanislao Arcadio D & Silvia T Site :10670 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Mail :10670 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:10 YB:1953 Pool:No * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara Owner :Raley Doris M Trustee (CA) : ................ Parcel :316 02 034 Xfered :08/30/2001 Price Phonic~ 408- %[~- 4630 <ldgSF:2,198 > Ac:.22 (CA) ~--: ...... -~£ ....... Parcel :316 02 035 Site :10684 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered ~96 Mail :10684 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Pric~'~"~,/: ~, ~ Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Ph~e / : ~ Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotRra:5 YB:1952 Pool:No (BL~gSF:l,764 / Ac:.22 \ / * ............................ : etroS=an / Santa Clara CA;R.. : ........ ..... * Owner :Eaneff Charles S Jr & Lorraine D Parcel---~_:~]6.~2 036 Site :10698 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :05/05/1987 Mail :10698 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone : Bedrm:3 Bath:l.00 TotP~m:5 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,172 Ac:.22 ............................. : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Bush Philip C & Frances A Trustee Parcel :316 02 037 Site :10712 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :08/10/1990 Mail :10712 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-252-0665 Bedrm:3 Bath:2.00 TotPuu:6 YB:1952 Pool:No BldgSF:l,576 Ac:.22 * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA) : ................ Owner :Weigel Wesley W & Cathy A Tru~ee Parcel :316 02 038 Site :10726 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered Mail :10726 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price_~ Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence p~ : Bedrm:4 Bath:3.50 TotRm:9 YB:1952 Pool:Yes ( BldgSF:2,454 ~ Ac:.22 k * ............................ : MetroScan / Santa Clara (CA)~j~.--ii~T_r~~c~- ...... Owner :Lau Celine N Parcel :316 02 039 Site :10740 Larry Way Cupertino 95014 Xfered :11/07/1996 Mail :10740 Larry Way Cupertino Ca 95014 Price : Use :01 Res,Single Family Residence Phone :408-255-3604 Bedrm:2 Bath:2.00 TotRm:4 YB:1955 Pool:No BldgSF:l,160 Ac:.18 or warranties as to tile accltracy or completeness of inforrnation contaDied in this report. ti- 3-o3 Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (408) 777-3333 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: City Councilmembers City Manager, City Attorney Peter Gilli, Senior Planner November 3, 2003 Linwood Acres Neighborhood Rezoning Since the preparation of the staff report for this item, the following as occurred: 1. The leaders of each neighborhood group have met and reached a compromise position. 2. Each group has generally accepted the compromise. 3. Two points remain for discussion. Attached are amended documents for the City Council's review: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Legal Description Regulations reflecting the Compromise Comparison Table showing the relationship between the Compromise position, the Planning Commission recommendation and the other alternatives. EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description Lucille Avenue C/L IIIIlllllllllllll[ l' Illllllllllllllll 316 02 005 10741 Larry Way 316 02 006 10727 Larry Way 316 02 007 10713 Larry Way 316 02 008 10699 Lan'y Way 316 02 009 10685 Lany Wa 316 02 010 10671 Larry Way 316 02 011 10657 Larry Wa 316 02 012 10643 Lari3, Way 316 02 013 10629 Larry Way 316 02 014 10615 Lan3, Way 316 02 015 10601 Larry Way 316 02 016 10587 Larry Way 316 02 017 10571 Lan'y Way 316 02 018 10557 Larry Way 316 02 019 10541 Lan~ Wa), 316 02 020 10525 Lar~ Way 316 02 021 10511 Larry Way 316 02 023 10510 Lar~ Wa)' 316 02 024 10524 Larry Way 316 02 025 10540 Larry Way 316 02 026 10556 Larry Way 316 02 027 10570 Lar~ Way 316 02 028 10586 Larry Wa 31602029 10600 Lar~ Way 316 02 030 10618 Larry Way 316 02 031 10628 Lan7 Way 316 02 032 10642 Larry Way 316 02 033 10656 Lam/Way 316 02 034 10670 Lan'y Wa}, 316 02 035 10684 Lan'y Way 316 02 036 10698 Lar~ Wa), 316 02 037 10712 La~ Way 316 02 038 10726 Iau~y Way 316 02 039 10740 LatW Way 316 02 040 10741 Randy Ln 316 02 041 10727 Randy Ln 316 02 042 10713 Randy Ln 316 02 043 10699 Randy Ln 316 02 044 10685 Randy Ln 316 02 045 10671 Randy Ln 31602046 10657 Randy Ln 316 02 047 10643 Randy Ln 31602048 10629 Randy Ln 31602049 10615 Randy Ln 316 02 050 10601 Randy Ln 316 02 051 10587 Randy Ln 316 02 052 10573 Randy Ln 316 02 053 10557 Randy Ln 316 02 054 10541 Randy Ln 316 02 055 10525 Randy Ln 316 02 056 10511 Randy Ln 316 02 057 10510 Randy Ln 316 02 058 10524 Randy Ln 316 02 059 10540 Randy Ln 316 02 060 10556 Randy Ln 316 02 061 10572 Randy Ln 31602062 10586 Randy Ln 316 02 063 106~0 Randy Ln 316 02 064 10614 Randy Ln 316 02 065 10628 Randy Ln 316 02 069 10684 Rand, 316 02 070 10698 Rand, 316 02 071 10712 Randy Ln 316 02 072 10726 Rand, IBIT EXH EXHIBIT 2 - MODEL ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE Rl-a OVERLAY ZONE REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The following text shall be added to Chapter 19.28: 19.28.105 Development Regulations - (Rl-a). Rl-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties zoned Rl-a. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot size is ten thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line. C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no more than forty percent of the first floor~ except as follows: 1. A second floor ma,y be at least 700 sq. ft. in area. 2. In no case shall a second floor be more than 1~100 sq. ft. in area. D. Setback- First Story 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet. E. Setback - Second Story 1. Front Yard. The minimum fi'ont yard setback is thirty feet. 2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall be thirty-five feet~ with a minimum of fifteen feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is forty feet. 4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3) does not apply in this district. F. Second-story Regulations 1. Second story decks shall conform to(tt~e second-story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and ~ only. 2. The second-story shall not cantilever over a first-story wall plane. 3. The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story must be offset a minimum of three feet from the first-story wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid a two-story wall plane on the front elevation. G. Front Yard Paving. No more than 50% of the front yard setback area may be covered with a combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No more than 40% of the front yard setback area may be covered with an impervious b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of 12' at the time of planting. c. Front yard tree planting shall be placed such that views from second-story windows across the street to neighboring homes are partially mitigated. d. The Director may waive the front yard tree based on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing conflict with existing mature trees. Design Review Procedures and Process 1. Posted Notice. For all new construction, the applicant shall install a public notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly visible from the public street. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide firmly attached to a five-foot post. The notice shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. An 1 l"x17" illustration of the proposed house when viewed from the street. In cases where design review is required, the illustration shall be a perspective rendering and shall include the projected action date. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering prior to posting. Adiacent single-family residential properties shall receive a reduced- scale copy of the proposed plan set. ~o Findings. The Design Review Committee may approve a design review application for two-story development only upon making all of the findings below: a. The pro.iect is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The granting of this permit will not result in detrimental or in[urious conditions to property, or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The oroiect is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The proiect is consistent with the City's single-family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result in imoacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining oroperties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. (~.~ d.~ Lt~t~ Exhibit 3: LINIqOOD ACRES PROPOSAL: Comparison A1 Zone R1 Zone Group PC Draft Neighborhood Cate Proposal Ordinance Compromise Allowed & . ~ ;: M~. Floor Area ~ o/~ ~ ~ 4s~ of =t ~ot ~r~ 4S~ of =t ~ot ~ R1 RI Max. Total Floor Area 4,219 4,219 4,219 (sq. ft.) Max. Lot Covera e 45% of ~t lot area 45% of net lot area R1 R1 of t~ first sto~ or 35% of t~ fimt sto~ or 600 whicker is 600 ~. whicker is R1 ~cond Sto~ Area greater grea~r M~. ~cond Sto~ No m~imum LO~4 LO~4 Area (sq. ff.) , C~di~ona~ U~ Pemit to Page I of 5 Group PC Draft Neighborhood Category A1 Zone RI Zone Proposal Ordinance Compromise First Story Setbacks Front ' feet on t~ ot~r except~r small lots w~re t~ Side si~ setback of12 feet. 20 feet, setback can be Rear reduced to lO feet as Ionx remaim Second Story Setbacks lO feet on both sides + part Side 7 7 ~' exceptforflag lots that have 2O foot side setback must be added to the - -- o~tlrcnar~e ,~, ~,, second-stor~firontandside must be avvlied to a side. Total Front and Side 5:15 ill :: i!!i:~ 60feet Setbacks Rear 25feet Page 2 of 5 A1 Zone R1 Zone Group PC Draft Neighborhood Category, Proposal Ordinance Compromise p proposal is to take R1 BuildingEnvelope 12feet, measuredSfeet ~ ~ il Wall Height from theproperhj line R1 Max. Entry Height , ... , 14feet R1 Max. Height of a Gable the BuHding EnvelopeEnd Encroachment into 20feet gl Second r Regulations Page 3 of 5 A1 Zone RI Zone Miscellaneous Group Pro PC Draft Ordinance Neighborhood l foot minimum on second : i ~ ~ :an be impert,ious (concrete Front Yard Paving For thethird space setback at [east t~o feet from theother~ Blank wails facing ~~Basementsallowedandwill, Basements not count as flfor area if thelighta'ellsaren°t Variation from~,,~*~n regmanons : Extension of :~ ~ allowed inthelife of the nonconforming ~ ~ building_,can b_e no closer building lines on side ~arAs Page 4 of 5 A1 Zone Cate~or~ Landscaping & Privacy Protection Landscaping R1 Zone Privacy landscaping plans required for two-story additions Group Proposal PC Draft Ordinance Neighborhood Compromise Privacy Planting List of trees and shrubs. If neighbors are agreeable, planting can be changed or waived. Match R1, except as RI follows: RI Trees must be 8' tall, shrubs must be 6' tall when planted. Process Design Review Notification (one- story) Notification (two- story) Story Poles for two- story development Exceptions for Solar Design D R C approval of two-story additions with floor area ratio over 35% Two-story development with tloor area ratio over 35%, properties within 300 f~et notified Yes Yes RI Yes R1 Yes R1 RI R1 Page 5 of 5 Linwood Acres Neighborhood · 68 homes on two streets - Built in early 1950s - Large lots - average lot is 75' x 125' = 9,375 sq. ff. - Agricultural-Residential zoning (Al) · Larger front and side setbacks - Presently, 90% remain single-story · Part of Original Incorporation in 195,5. · In the late 1990s, the R1 added design review and privacy protection. The A1 zones were not amended. Linwood Acres Neighborhood · Past resistance to zoning change from A1 to R1. · Residents are educated on the nuances of zoning regulations. · No opposition to zoning change. - 64/68 properties support zoning change. Other 4 properties have not participated. Process · September 16, 2002 - City Council enacted interim ordinance - more restrictive of A1 and R1 applied. · October 2, 2002 - Neighborhood Meeting - Volunteer Study Group (held 36 one-hour meetings between Oct 02 and Oct 03) · July 8, 2003 - Study Group presents to the neighborhood · Surveys and Petitions - (50% support study group proposal, 50% support R1) · September 22, 2003 - Planning Commission Negotiation and Compromise · Group leaders used the Commission recommendation as a starting point. · Major Issue: - Provide ~ for new development while offering protection from adverse impacts: · Reduced side setbacks and increased second story area. · Design review for all two-story development and higher privacy standards. Compromise Alternative · Compromise has been generally reached. - Two discussion points remain · Heights - Building Envelope · Second-Story Side Setback · Staff foresees minimal impacts on City processes from the proposed compromise. Recommendation · Approval of: - The negative declaration, file number EA-2002-20. The rezoning application, file number Z-2002-03, subject to Ordinance No. 1927 incorporating the compromise position in the revised Exhibits 1 and 2, as amended by tonight's discussion. - Hold first reading of Ordinance No. 1927. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "MONTA VISTA 02-07", PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, MCCLELLAN ROAD AND BLACKBERRY FARM, AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 43.41 ACRES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is interested in annexing territory designated "Monta Vista 02-07"; and WHEREAS, the properties, consisting of 43.41_+ acres located in the unincorporated area generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, McClellan Road and Blackberry Farm, commonly referred to as Monta Vista, is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, the following City taxes and fees will be extended to this area upon annexation and the residents and property owners of Monta Vista will be duly notified in advance. The taxes and fees are: 1) The Utility Users' Tax, which is currently 2.4% of the natural gas, electricity, local and long distance telephone charges. Homeowners age 65 or over may apply for a utility users' tax exemption at City Hall. 2) The Storm Drainage Service Fee, which is currently $12.00 per single-family or duplex residential parcel, $144.00 per acre of apartment, commercial, or industrial par~4 land, and $36.00 per acre of vacant parcel land, on an annual basis. 3) The Business License Fee applies if you have a home business in Cupertino. The annual fee is currently $100.00 for most home businesses. WHEREAS, this territory is inhabited and was prezoned on June 4, 1984 to City of Cupertino Pre-R1-8 zone, pre-R1-7.5, Pre-P(Res 4.4-12), Pre-P(Res 4.4-7.7), or Pre- P(ML); or prezoned on September 15, 1980 to City of Cupertino P(CN, ML, Res 4-12); and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review will complete an initial study and will complete the environmental review process for the Resolution No. 03-207 reorganization; environmental review was previously completed for the prezonings of territory; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56757(c)(2), the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the County Assessor of Santa Clara County has found the boundaries of the proposed reorganization described in the aforementioned map and description conforming to lines of assessment or ownership; WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certifications have been paid; and WHEREAS, the reorganization does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services; and WHEREAS, the reorganization is consistent with the adopted general plan of the City and its adopted annexation strategy for urban pockets; and WHEREAS, the city has complied with all conditions imposed by LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the city; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, the conducting authority recognizes under Government Code Section 56375.3, it may order an annexation of the territory without an election; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates reorganization proceedings and will consider annexation of the territory designated "Monta Vista 02-07" and detachment of that same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District at a public hearing on December 15, 2003. Resolution No. 03-207 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Monta Vista 02-07 Reorganization 1) Annexation to Cupertino of 43.41 acres of unincorporated residential, commercial &. industrial property generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Blackberry Farm &. McClellan Road, commonly known as Monta Vista 2) Detachment of the same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District Blackbeny Farm Golf Course Stevens Creek Blvd Unincorporated Parcels Cupertino Parcels Profiles of the Cupertino Pockets Rancho Garden Monta Rinconada Gate Vista * Cre~ton Area 326 acres 112 acres ~ acres ~0 ac~s Parcels 1,572 372 193 147 Population (est.) 4,200 1,000 530 400 Status: Annexed: Annexed: UnLuc. Uninc 200 150 100 5O 0 1999 2001 * Includes unincorporated parcels bnly Rancho G arden Monta Creeton Rinconada Gate Vista PublicI O'_'t.-==ch & T;=d.;t.;_--n=! ~.-..-.:~v:t.; =.-..'""'-~,===. _~,-,,, initial Newsletter to Corrttnunity · A~mexation Answer Book · Neighborhood Meeting · Website Posting · Telephone and EmaJl Responses Small Group Meetings on Request Public Notice to Area(s) Affected Public Hearing · Public Hearing Opened · Public Testimony Taken · Written Protests Received Public Hearing Closed Written Protests Validated / Cotmted If< 25%protest*, annexation is approved If > 25% but < 50% protest, election is held* · Election Held If > 50% protest*, annexation is rejected ff majority approves, annexation is approved If majority opposed, annexation ks rejected Outreach & !s!~na_ ~nne.~._~t.~en Precess O~iion ( for islands under 75 acres in size) Initial Newsletter to Commtmity · Annexation Answer Book Neighborhood Meeting · Website Posting · Telephone and Email Responses Small Group Meetings on Request Public He~g Public Hearing Opened · Public Testimony Taken · Written Protests Received · Public Hearing Closed Annexation Ordered in. [ Recommendation Initiate reorganization proceedings for the territory designated IVlonta Vista 02-07 and set a public heanng date of December ~5, 2003 in accordance with the model resolution. SVACA · Dec~sion before Council · Continue with SVACA for animal field, licensing and shelter services, or · Withdraw effective 7-1-04 and pursue other options for animal services SVACA · Benefits of SVACA membership: · Excellent Field Services (7/01 - to date) · Shelter services contracted through the Humane Society & administered by SV^C^ (3 yr contract) · Theory of"controlling our own destiny" Concerns with SVACA · Projected operating cost of shelter is 94% above market ($262/animal vs $135/an~mal) · Cupertino's share of a shelter has increased from $662,000 to $975,000 in one year · Shelter options for consideration have been replaced by a vote to purchase property on the 9-22 Board agenda (without city rewew) · Amendments to the ~IPA Agreement are not in Cupertino's best interests · Members are abolished for questioning the status quo Cost of Service per Animal Proposed .1PA Amendments · SVACA has control to appropriate budget increases for Cupertino with a 2/3rds vote; · March amendment which brought all budget increases back to the member cities for approval was removed by the Administration without discussion at TAC or the Board · Our new voting share is 11.1% Timeline Changes · Original timelines · Shelter options by 9-30 · Rewew by member cities · Deadline to withdraw from .1PA by 12-31 ew Timelines as of 8-25 · Vote to purchase property on Board agenda of 9-22 · City commitment on shelter purchase by 9-22 Animal Control Service Options · SVACA · City of San .lose · City of Sunnyvale/Palo Alto · City of Cupertino/Palo Alto City of San lose · Contract for field, licensing & shelter · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Requires shelter expansion · Cost of contract to be received by 9-30 City of Sunnyvale · Contract field services · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Cost of contract to be received by 9-30 City of Palo Alto · Contract licensing & shelter · Contract duration is for 20 years with options to renew · Requires shelter expansion · Cost of contract to be received by 9-30 City of Cupertino · Provide own field services · Contract with Humane Society for short term shelter services · Contract with Palo Alto for long term shelter services Staff Recommendation · Withdraw from SVACA effective 6-30-04 · Notify SVACA that we will not be participating in the shelter · Pursue other options for animal services Discussion and Questions .XHIBIT Animal Control Servioe Level Comparisons Palo Alto/ SVACA Sunnyvale San Jose Types of Animals Covered Confined and healthy domestic animals X X X Injured or sick domestic animals X X X Injured or sick wildlife X X X Injured or sick deer (1) (1) X Dead animals - domestic and wildlife X X X Dead deer (1) (1) X (1 ) Separate contract Response Times Priority 1 calls - Person at risk or in danger 30 min or less 1 hr or less (3)Immediate (2) Priority 2 calls - Animal at risk or in danger 30 min or less 1 hr or less (3)2 hrs or less (2) Priority 3 calls - Non-emergency, next available officer 2 hours 24 hfs Same day (2) (2) after hours priority 1 = 1hr or less; priority 2= 4hrs or less; priority 3= 8 hrs or less (3) during business hours Services Provided Adoptions X X X Animal behavior classes not at this time X Behavior hotline 3rd party X Connections to breed specific rescue groups × X X Disaster/Evacuation assistance -no charge for animals X X Educational Seminars X X X Euthanization and disposal of animals not adoptable X X X File problem cases with the District Attorney X X X Foster care X X X Free housing for pets of fire and accident victims X X Free housing for pets of victims of domestic violence X w/limits X X Free rabies control information X X X Investigate and refer complaints for abuse or neglect X X X Investigate and refer complaints for dangerous animals X X X Investigate and refer complaints for vicious dogs X X X investigate complaints for bites or attacks to humans X X X Issue citations as necessary X X X Licensing X X X Lost pet database X X X Micro chipping X X X Online pictures of animals for adoption X X Pet grooming prior to adoption X as needed as needed Pick up owned animals X X X Provision for surrender and reclaim of animals X X X Quarantine & Monitoring of biter animals X X X Rabies testing of suspect animals X X X Rabies vaccination clinics X X X Shelter of abandoned, impounded, lost or stray animals X X X Spay/neuter clinics X X X Special event days X X X Tours X X X Trap rental/retrieval X X X Veterinarian care to stray, injured, sick or other impound~ X X X Volunteer opportunities X X X Web site for all stray and adoptable animals X X Wildlife rescue X X Dead Animal Services Identification & notification of death to owner X X X Scan animal for microchip identification X X X Disposal of animal X X X Drop boxes for after hour receiving X X Licensing Provide for dogs and cats X X X License animals reclaimed from shelter X X X Provide discounts for spay/neuter X X X Collect all fees as appropriate X X X Spay/Neuter incentive program X X X Free license with adoptions X X Reporting Provide monthly or quarterly reporting of animals X X X Provide monthly or quarterly fee collection information X X X Complete/submit the Annual Report of Local Rabies X X X Control Activities to SCC Public Health Dept g/admin services/service level comparisons EXHIBITS END HERE