The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 11-17-03CITY OF CUPEP TINO AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, November 17, 2003 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation declaring the week of November 23 - 29 as Family Week in Cupertino. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 2. Amend the minutes of October 6 to remove a speaker's address and clarify comments. 3. Approve the minutes from the November 3 City Council meeting. 4. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for October 31 and November 7, Resolution Nos. 03-208 and 03-209. November 17, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 5. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for November 7, Resolution No. 03-210. 6. Adopt a resolution declaring the intention to order a vacation for portion of roadway easement, Sheng Hwa Ho and Wei Tai-Fen Ho, 22279 Janice Avenue, APN 357-01-102, Resolution No. 03-211. 7. Accept municipal improvements (No documentation in packet): A. For grading, curb and gutter: Optimum Investments, LLC, 21870 Almaden Avenue, APN 357-15-029 B. For grading, curb and gutter: Steven Mayhew and Jeanette Mayhew, 21691 Lomita Avenue, APN 357-17-023 8. Adopt a resolution accepting an Improvement Agreement for Benjamin B.G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen, husband and wife, 22560 Ricardo Road, APN 356-01-006, Resolution No. 03-212. 9. Adopt resolutions for Quitclaim Deeds: A. Benjamin B.G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen, husband and wife, 22560 Ricardo Road, Apn 356-01-006, Resolution No. 03-213 B. Richard Shwe and Alma M. Shwe, husband and wife, as community property, 21840 Hermosa Avenue, APN 357-16-054, Resolution No. 03-214 10. Adopt resolutions for Grants of Easement for roadway: A. Benjamin B.G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen, husband and wife, 22560 Ricardo Road, APN 356-01-006, Resolution No. 03 -215 B. Richard Shwe and Alma M. Shwe, husband and wife, as community property, 21840 Hermosa Avenue, APN 357-16-054, Resolution No. 03-216 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Consider Application Nos. GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07, U-2003-11, EA-2003-14 for the Chinese Church in Christ located at 10455 Bandley Drive, APN 326-33-102: A. Adopt a Negative Declaration B. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building, Resolution No. 03-217 November 17, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Approve a Use Permit to locate a chumh in an existing, 37,120 square foot office building (23,000 square feet chumh use, 14,120 square feet office use) Rezone a 2.95 acre parcel from P(CG, ML, Res-4-12) (Planned Development(General Commemial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-12 dwelling units per gross acre) to (P(CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-12) (adds BQ, quasi-public) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1928: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning a 2.95 Acre Parcel From P(CG, ML, Res-4-12) Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-12 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) to P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12) (Adds BQ, Quasi-Public), 10455 Bandley Drive." 12. Consider Application No. MCA-2003-01 to amend Title 17 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding temporary signs, City of Cupertino, Citywide. (Continued from 10/20/03): Conduct the 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." 13. Consider Application Nos. Z-2003-02, TM-2003-02, U-2003-04, EXC-2003-06, and EA- 2003-09, Jane Vaughan/Menlo Equities, 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road, APN No. 316- 20-084. (The applicant has requested a continuance to December 15): A. Adopt a Negative Declaration Approve a Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.74 acre parcel into two parcels: 4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively Approve a Use Permit to construct a 107-unit condominium project and 6,450 square feet of new retail space Approve an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed heights above 36 feet E. Rezone a 7.74 acre parcel from P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to P(Planned Development) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1929: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning a 7.74-Acre Parcel From P(CG, O, ML, Hotel) or Planned Development With General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial and Hotel Uses to PCom, Off, Res) or Planned Development with Cormnereial, Office and Residential Uses." November 17, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 14. Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) presentation regarding attendance boundaries and projected number of students from new developments. (No documentation in packet). 15. Consider a fee waiver request from the Organization of Special Needs families in the amount of $780 for rental of the Cupertino Room in the Quinlan Community Center. 16. Adopt a resolution updating the Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay Area Employee Relations Service, Resolution No. 03-218. 17. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1931: "An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino Amending Certain Time Limitations With Respect to the Redevelopment Plans for the Vallco Project Area." 18. Fumiture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) for the Library: Consider the Schedule and Options for the purchase of the Fumiture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) for the new Cupertino Public Library Approve allocation of $25,000.00 from the Civic Center and Library End-of- Project Contingency to Prepare Bids for the Library Shelving 19. Pick a date for the Stevens Creek Trail Alignment field trip. (No documentation in packet). 20. Authorize the City Manager to execute a lease with Hunter Properties for the relocation of the City Attorney's offices. 21. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1930: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Cupertino Municipal Code Section 11.24.170, Parking Limitations on Certain Streets--Stevens Creek Boulevard between a point 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Avenue." ORDINANCES 22. Conduct the second 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 A1- 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." November 17, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 STAFF REPORTS 23. Receive a status report on the traffic studies in the neighborhood affected by the barrier gate on Pacifica Drive at Torre Avenue and the neighborhoods affected by the barrier gate on Kim Avenue near Kirwin Lane. 24. Receive a status report on the General Plan Task Fome recommendations and schedule. 25. Receive a report regarding the sports center marketing proposal presented by Grace and Tony Toy on November 5, 2003. 26. Receive a report regarding the change in field scheduling and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to staffto issue permits for Sunday play at Jollyman and Creekside parks. 27. Receive a status report on the Cupertino Civic Center and Library Project. (No documentation in packet). 28. Receive a status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures. (No documentation in packet). 29. Receive a status report on the RI ordinance update and schedule. 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 CiTY OF CUPE INO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, November 3, 2003 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre 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 Qualls, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Senior Planner Colin Jung, Associate Planner Peter Gilli, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 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). Mayor Chang presented the proclamation to Frank Jelinch and Dean Skeels. Proclamation presented to the Emergency Housing Consortium declaring the week of November 16 through 22, Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week in Cupertino. Mayor Chang presented the proclamation to a representative of the Emergency Housing Consortium. 3. Proclamation presented to the Cupertino Tournament of Bands. Mayor Chang presented the proclamation to representatives of the Cupertino Tournament of Bands. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Proclmation presented to Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jody Hansen. Mayor Chang presented a proclamation to Jody Hansen. Proclamation presented to Mahesh Nihalani in recognition of his support for the Chamber of Commerce Diwali Festival. Mayor Chang presented a proclamation to Mahesh Nihalani. POSTPONEMENTS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson, encouraged everyone to exercise his or her fight to vote the next day. He also referred to a letter from San Jose Water Company regarding increasing fees to cover infrastructure improvements and water quality. Levy said that the Cupertino customers were not supposed to be charged for those system-wide things. He said that the Public Works Director was asked to look into it but not enough information has been received from the water company yet. Eileen Fan said that she had purchased and driven a car for one month, and believed that a gas- tank leak was causing the release of toxic vapor, which made her ill for over 8 months. She said she had been trying to inform the appropriate agencies but without success. Mayor Chang asked the Public Information Officer to assist Ms. Fan in identifying the correct local government agency. Tony and Grace Toy distributed and discussed an email message they had sent to City Council on November 2 regarding the Cupertino Sports Center. They explained that team tennis players now have extensive use of the best-lit courts at prime time, without restriction. If those teams were to play at other facilities, they would pay much higher rates. However, at the Cupertino Senior Center, team tennis is free, but places demands on staff hours and facilities. Mr. and Mrs. Toy said that over 80% of the non-team players are subsidizing the 20% of team tennis players, and they proposed a different marketing strategy by opening up all courts at prime time, increasing pass holders, which could increase revenues by as much as $100,000. James Arnold expressed concerns with construction at DeAnza College. He said the EIR addendum glossed over traffic problems on Stelling; air pollution and safety concerns were not addressed; he said the aesthetics of the college were impacted; and there were plans to move tennis courts right in front of the neighborhood homes, which would create light pollution problems. He said he had also raised these concerns with the DeAnza College Board of Trustees. CONSENT CALENDAR November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 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 A1-43 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 thc Municipal Code." Community Development Director Steve Piasecki explained that the neighbors had initially formed two groups around the rezoning issue, but that they have now all agreed to a compromise which would change the rezoning from agricultural an R1 zone. Senior Planner Peter Gilli reviewed the staff report and gave a brief summary of the history of the rezoning issue. He said that one neighborhood group wanted to have flexibility in development rules and the other group wanted to have a level of protection from the impacts of new development. He said that just before the start of tonight's meeting, the two groups reached a full agreement on a compromise, making moot the memo regarding the two points remaining for discussion. An amended version of exhibit 2 of the ordinance was distributed. He referred to exhibit 3 showing the difference between the A1 zone, the R1 zone and the neighborhood compromise. The neighborhood agreed on the two additional points: 1) Having second-story setbacks on the side of 20 feet and 15 feet, which is close to Al; and 2) The building envelope wall height would be 12 feet at the side setback line, which is close to R1 zoning requirements, but not exactly the same. Piasecki explained that a special zoning district was requested in Linwood Acres because it is a unique subdivision that has had minimal street improvements, the homes have a similar design style, they have larger lots than the rest of the City neighborhoods (7500 vs. 9375), larger setbacks, and most of the homes are single-story. He said that other neighborhoods in the City might also see themselves as different and may seek to get special recognition of their differences. Terry Griffin, 10727 Randy Lane, confirmed that the neighborhood agreed with the compromise regarding zoning. He thanked Peter for his patience and help. He said he appreciated the neighborhood having its own zoning since it recognizes that the neighborhood is special. P.J. Kim, 10629 Randy Lane, said that he also was present to confirm the neighborhood's agreement with the zoning issues. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave, said that he understands the ordinance would restrict the size of the second floor level to less than the first floor level. He said that it's not really true that the second story has to be smaller than the first story because you can get exceptions to make the second story the size of the first story. He suggested that the Council do away with exceptions altogether. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Lowenthal/Jarnes moved and seconded to adopt a Negative Declaration. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the application subject to Ordinance No. 1927 incorporating the compromise position and the revised exhibits 1 and 2 as amended. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Mayor Chang reorganized the agenda to hear item No. 17 next. 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 for the Children's Story Room in the new Library City Manager David Knapp reviewed the staff report. Kathy Stakey, President of the Friends of the Cupertino Library, read the organization's mission statement, which included raising funds to enhance and improve the overall operation of the library, to focus public attention in a positive manner on library services, facilities, and needs, to help promote the use and enjoyment of the library, and to encourage the enjoyment of reading among young people. She presented a check from the Friends of the Cupertino Library for $75,000 to be used toward the library campaign. She also recognized librarian Mary Ann Wallace for her support of the organization's activities. She said that most of the money is raised through selling used books, and that private donations and memberships also help. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to accept the donation of $75,000 for the Cupertino Library. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 7 19. 20. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-203 as amended. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Rich Abdalah, 10455 Torre Ave., said that he previously served the County of Santa Clara in Employment Law. He urged Council not to adopt a policy on employment because it could be seen as filling quotas and might put the City at risk. He urged the City to consider these factors when hiring, but not to require them in a resolution. City Attorney Charles Kilian responded that employment has a much stringent standard. He said that it is legal to have a policy that says that this is a diverse community and that one of the things required of city employees is that they recognize the diversity and know how to deal with it. He also said that the policy is subject to misinterpretation, since no policy is free from potential litigation, but if the policy is read correctly and objectively, it will be interpreted as not requiring the hiring of people based upon those factors that could be seen as filling quotas. Knapp said that in hiring new people, he attempts to have the broadest range of qualified applicants for every opening, and that the only criterion for the selection is who is the most qualified applicant. James/Kwok moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-204 as amended. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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. S andoval/James moved and seconded to award the contract as recommended. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 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. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-206. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 8 21. 22. 23. 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). KwokdLowenthal moved and seconded to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Maze and Associates. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Authorize the City Manager to execute a $29,000 contract with Public Resources Management Group (PRM), to conduct a Development Fee Study. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Public Resources Management Group. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Review proposals for animal control services and direct staff to negotiate a contract for animal control services effective July 1, 2004. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood distributed a chart comparing service levels among Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, the Cities of Palo Alto & Sunnyvale, and the City of San Jose. She also reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, which compared the costs of each proposal. Sandoval asked that if the City contracts with San Jose and then decides to terminate the contract, would the City get to keep the cages, materials, and other assets that were purchased with the $500,000 one-time shelter cost. Atwood responded that the City could add into the contract an amortized life on the assets purchased up-front and get reimbursement for some of the costs if it decides to terminate. She also said that the contract that would be negotiated would have cost-containment issues, a long-term provision with options to renew, and specific performance requirements as to response time and reporting. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to direct staff to negotiate a contract for animal control services, to be effective July 1, 2004. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. ORDINANCES - None STAFF REPORTS - None November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 9 COUNCIL REPORTS Council members highlighted their activities and that of their committees, as well as various community events. Ihese included: A media event to be held when the Library £undraising committee reaches the one-half million dollar mark; a press conference regarding Fred Chan's donation for an aquarium at the library; the Urban League Institute meeting highlighted the City Center mixed-use development; the Asian Heroes Luncheon and the Chinese Historical Society dinner; progress made in integrated recycling and waste reduction; the first annual Duwali Festival of Lights; the Silicon Valley Manufacturer's luncheon about economics and the future of the State of California; a fundraiser for the Fremom Union High School District at BJ's Restaurant; the 25-year anniversary celebration for Channel 15; the ABAG general assembly meeting at which was discussed the role of regional control over budgets and transportation planning; the stares of the SVACA animal control authority and their recent purchase of land; and the measure to be placed on the March ballot to replace the parcel tax for the library with a 7- year community facilities district tax. Dolly Sandoval asked that the December 15 council meeting agenda include discussion on the possible restructuring of the Valley Transportation Authority board. The Council members concurred with this suggestion. CLOSED SESSION At 10:00 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session to discuss items 25 and 26, below. Item 24 was tabled. 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 - Government 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. At 10:55 p.m. Council reconvened in open session. The City Attorney announced that in the matter of Golden vs. City of Cupertino, the Council approved a settlemem along the lines discussed in closed session. He said that in the matter of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant, the Council gave direction to its representatives to proceed with negotiations along the lines discussed in closed session. November 3, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 10 ADJOURNMENT At 11:00 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. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-fiE 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 31, 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 1T 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: Lr~rector of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17tbday 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 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACC0~qqTING PERIOD: 4/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FL~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transac~.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003,' FUND ~ 110 - GENERAL FI/ND ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FU~/DEPT 1020 604562 10/31/03 M2004 1020 604563 10/31/03 1743 1020 604564 10/31/03 29 1020 604565 10/31/03 1884 1020 604565 10/31/03 1884 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604566 10/31/03 1795 1020 604567 10/31/03 2978 1020 604568 10/31/03 61 1020 604568 10/31/03 61 1020 604568 10/31/03 61 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 804569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 1020 604569 10/31/03 968 TOTAL C~CK 1020 604570 10/31/03 78 1020 604571 10/31/03 720 1020 604572 10/31/03 2495 1020 604573 10/31/03 3040 1020 604574 10/31/03 100 1020 604575 10/31/03 2063 1020 604576 10/31/03 2895 1020 604577 10/31/03 124 1020 604578 10/31/03 2953 1020 604579 10/31/03 1476 1020 604579 10/31/03 1476 TOTAL CHECK A-ACI HEALTH CLINIC 5506549 AC LL%4BER 5606620 LYI~E DIME AITKEN 5806449 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5606680 ALEEHTSONS-NORTHER~ DIVI 5806349 ALL CHEM SUPPLY CO INC 5208003 ALLIN CORPOP~TION OF CAL 6109863 ARTISTIC PLJtNT CP~EATIONS 1108501 ARTISTIC PI~ CREATIONS 1108504 ARTISTIC PL~ CRF~TIONS 1108505 BAP AUTO PA/{TS 6308840 BAP AUTO P~RTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PP~RTS 6308840 JOANN E~%~d~Ey 5806249 BATTERY SYSTEMS 6308840 CAROLINE BEACI~ 5806449 BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INC. 6104800 EMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 BRIDGE WIRELESS 1108501 BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003 CAJ~IFOR/qIA SAFETY & CLEA 1108408 ERIN CALI~GNAN 5805249 CA~ON DESIGN GROUP 110 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX INITIAL HEALTH EXAM PICKET FENCE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLIES 15978 SUPPLIES A25601 SUPPLIES A25029 40 HOURS SERVICE DIREC 0CT2003 PI~ CARE FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~IRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PORC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREENENT FOR BENTLEY SELECT MX ROA~ FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES A25273 LA~NDFILL SEPT2003 SUPPLIES t%25274 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECT RVW R23277 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 O.O0 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 PAGE 1 AMOUNT 60.87 3250.00 420.00 122.62 121.99 244.61 243.82 715.00 300.00 160.00 130.00 590.00 87.64 192.23 43.30 40.67 109.16 86.60 62.45 19.42 641.47 184.00 54.07 171.50 2591.51 1775.42 216.50 123506.77 246.32 465.60 240.00 960.00 1200.00 RUE DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 10/50/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FL~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" 1020 604580 10/31/03 146 CASH 1101065 1020 604580 10/31/03 146 CB. SH 1106265 1020 604580 10/31/03 146 CASH 5806249 1020 604580 10/31/03 146 C~H 5806349 1020 604580 10/31/03 146 CASH 5806449 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604581 10/31/03 148 C315H 1108407 1020 604581 10/31/03 148 C~LSH 2708404 1020 604581 10/31/03 148 CASE 2708405 1020 604581 10/31/03 148 C~H 1108201 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASH 6104800 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASH 1101200 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASH 1108830 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 C~H 1107200 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CJkSK 1108503 1020 604582 10/31/03 148 CASH 1104000 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CA~N 1100000 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASN 6308840 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASH 1101201 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 CASN 1104300 1020 604582 10/31/03 149 C~N 1108601 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604583 10/31/03 1453 C~ISTOPHER5 1108504 1020 604584 10/31/03 2846 CL~P 5806249 1020 604585 10/31/03 173 COCA-COI~ BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 1020 604586 10/31/03 175 COCA-COI~ USA 5606620 1020 604587 10/31/03 1606 COLONR SNOPPE D~{APERIES 1108501 1020 604588 10/31/03 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 1020 604589 10/31/03 2929 CSMFO 1104000 1020 604590 10/31/03 197 CTC FLYING, LLC 1101500 1020 604591 10/31/03 1579 1020 604591 10/31/03 1579 TOTAL CHECK CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108503 C~3PERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108501 1020 604592 10/31/03 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 5806449 1020 604593 10/31/03 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108407 1020 604594 10/31/03 3069 DA SILVA ENVIRObD4E~TAL 1108005 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PETTY CASH 10/13-27 0.00 23.37 PETTY C~H 10/13-27 0.00 16.23 PETTY CASH 10/13-27 O.00 71.37 PETTY CASN 10/13-27 0.0O 108.91 PETTY CASH 10/13-27 0.00 44.86 0.00 264.74 PETTY CASH 10/23-27 0.00 15.00 PETTY CASH 10/23-27 0.00 45.00 PETTY CASH 10/23-27 0.00 30.00 PETTy C~H 10/23-27 0.00 73.62 0.00 163.62 PETTY CAS~ 10/14-29 0.00 38.71 PETI~ CASH 10/14-29 0.00 5.00 PETTY CASH 10/14-29 0.00 5.00 PETTY CASH 10/14-29 0.00 24.00 PETTy CASH 10/14-29 O.00 44.00 PE]'][~C~H 10/14-29 O.O0 5.00 PETTY CASH 10/14~29 0.00 -0.25 PETTY C~H 10/14-29 0.00 19.99 PETTY C3kSH 10/14-29 0.00 4.64 PETTY CASH 10/14-29 0.0O 45.00 PETTY CASH 10/14-29 0.00 9.75 0.00 200.84 REPAIR DANCE FLOOR 0.00 450.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 332.50 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 294.15 FOUNTAIN MACHINE O.00 21.65 MINI BLINDS 0.00 160.21 GEOLOGIC REVW R23303 0.00 985.00 #24473 ATWOOD DUES 0.00 100.00 RE/~T N0V2003 0.00 4569.00 G-33 RENT NOV 2003 0.00 217.00 G-34 RENT NOV 2003 0.00 217.00 0.00 434.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOBERCULOSIS/TRYFI/ROS Fy 2003-2004 OPEN PNRC }lAS W/~TE PICKUP 15.00 414.18 124.50 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 - FINAMCIAL ACCO~ING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOU1TTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FUI~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "I0/27/2003. and "10/31/2003" PLT~D - 110 - GENEP~AL F~q~D CASN ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT PAGE ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 604595 10/31/03 2321 1020 604595 10/31/03 2321 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604696 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 1020 604596 10/31/03 209 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604597 10/31/03 1492 1020 604598 10/31/03 3071 1020 604599 10/31/03 2664 1020 604600 10/31/03 233 1020 604601 10/31/03 2578 1020 604601 10/31/03 2578 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604602 10/31/03 250 1020 604603 10/31/03 253 1020 604604 10/31/03 3068 10/31/03 2361 10/31/03 236i 10/31/03 2361 1020 604605 1020 604605 1020 604605 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604606 10/31/03 2361 DAVCO WATERPROFFING SERV 1108504 DAVCO WATERPROFFING SERV 1108504 DE AiqZA SERVICES INC 5708510 DE A~ZA SERVICES INC 1108314 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 DE AMZA SERVICES INC 1108508 DE i~/gZASERVICES INC 1108501 DE AMZ~ SERVICES INC 1108502 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 DE ANnA SERVICES INC 1108503 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE A~ZA SERVICES INC 5606620 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606640 DE A~ZA SERVICES INC 1108302 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108303 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108315 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606620 DENCO SALES COMPANY 2708403 DOLPHIN C"~TERS 5506549 KATHLEEN DUTRA 5806449 ECONOMIC DRIVING SCHOOL 5806249 ELEMENT K JOUPJ~;LLS 1103500 EUPHP~T ~USE~/M OF ART 5806249 EXCFLANGE LINEN SERVICE 1106500 FENCE 4 RENT 1108312 FIRST E~2gKCARD 1104000 FIRST BANKC~D 1103300 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 FIRST Bi~NKC;~D 1104000 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 856.96 ROOF P~PAIRS PER PROPO 0.00 7500.00 0.00 8356.96 JAMITORIAL 0CT2003 0.00 668.08 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 4438.26 JANITORIkL OCT2003 0.00 1385.66 J~ITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 343.41 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 6182.68 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 3500.12 J~NITORIAL 0CT2003 0.00 140.13 JA/gITORIAJ~ OCT2003 0.00 2852.65 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 1649.17 JAMITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 2685.20 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 1988.75 SHAMPOO CARPET 0.00 120.00 SHAMPOO CARPETS 0.00 300.00 JA-NITORIA~L OCT2003 0.00 446.18 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 446.19 JA/~ITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 739.71 JANITORIAL OCT2003 0.00 1479.42 JANITORIAL 0CT2003 0.00 739.71 JANITORIAL 0CT2003 0.00 1004.89 JANITORIAL SEP/OCT03 0.00 1827.00 0.00 33137.21 SUPPLIES A25277 0.00 58.13 TRIP 11/07 0.00 1375.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 812.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2870.00 DESIGN AUTHORITY 0.00 97.00 INSIDE ILLUSTRATOR 0.00 97.00 0.00 194.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2590.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 30.52 TEMP FENCE A25258 0.00 297.00 OCT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 53.14 0CT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 16.08 0CT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 243.18 0.00 312.40 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 83.35 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUIFTING PERIOD: 4/04 C~ECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FI/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_da~e between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 604606 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCD~{D 6104800 1028 604606 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4269212 1020 604606 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5606640 1020 604606 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 6104800 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604607 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BA~KC~J~D 1101000 1020 604607 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BJ~NKCDJ~D 1103500 1020 604607 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103500 1020 604607 10/31/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103300 TOTAJ~ CHECK 1020 604608 10/31/03 M2004 FONG, DAVID 1103300 1020 604609 10/31/03 2964 FORTEL TR~FIC, INC. 1108601 1020 604610 10/31/03 268 1020 604610 10/31/03 268 TOTAL CHECK FOSTER BROS SECL~ITY SYS 1108506 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108506 1020 604611 10/31/03 273 FREMONT UNION H.S. DIST. 5806449 1020 604612 10/31/03 274 FRY'S ELEC~0NICS 1108503 1020 604613 10/31/03 281 C~DENI2kND 6308840 1020 604613 10/31/03 281 GJLRDENI~ 1108408 1020 604613 10/31/03 281 GARDENI~ 1108407 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604614 10/31/03 296 K~EN GOTTLEIB 5806449 1020 604615 10/31/03 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 1103300 1020 604615 10/31/03 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 1106100 1020 604615 10/31/03 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 1020 604615 10/31/03 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GR3%INGER INC 1108303 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108303 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108561 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108504 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108315 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108830 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108504 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GP~INGER INC 1108501 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108503 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GP~INGER INC 1108504 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108503 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 GRAINGER INC 1108503 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 G~AINGER INC 1108502 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 399.75 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 15.95 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 45.95 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 -450.81 0.00 94.09 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 47.57 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 35.98 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 99.00 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 623.58 0.00 806.13 CAKES/MOON FESTIVAL 0.00 399.80 0.00 278.88 LOCK PASSAGE SET 0.00 87.81 KEY/LOCK SUPPLIES 0.00 216.80 0.00 304.61 M.VIEW RS POOL RENTAL 0.00 16289.75 SUPPLIES A25270 0.00 208.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN ECHC I~SCAPE SPLY A25276 LANDSCAPE SPLY A25280 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 82.37 380.88 458.97 922.22 2835,00 ADOBE PAGE~t~KER 0.00 527.18 ADOBE PAGEMAKER 0.00 79.02 ADOBE PAGEMAKER 0.00 538.01 ADOBE PAGEMAKER 0.00 422.18 0.00 1566.39 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 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25264 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25264 FY 2003-2004 OPEN ECHC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PCHC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC PARTS/SUPPLIES A~5265 FY 200342004 OPEN PDRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2804 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN EURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 242.22 66.25 -185.94 185.94 76.58 35.71 147.98 85,52 164.27 5.48 46.63 722.90 16.58 218.01 RHN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 4 FINANCIJtL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCO~/NTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" CASR ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 1020 604616 10/31/03 298 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604617 10/31/03 2546 1020 604618 10/31/03 315 1020 604619 10/31/03 325 1020 604620 10/31/03 2565 1020 604620 10/31/03 2565 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604621 10/31/03 2612 1020 604622 10/31/03 1898 102O 604622 10/31/03 1898 1020 604622 10/31/03 1896 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604623 10/31/03 1981 1020 604624 10/31/03 1630 1020 604625 10/31/03 2367 1020 604826 10/31/03 3067 1020 604627 10/31/03 377 1020 604628 10/31/03 382 1020 604629 10/31/03 ME2004 1020 604630 10/31/03 385 1020 604631 10/31/03 2300 1020 604632 10/31/03 400 1020 604633 10/31/03 1463 1020 604634 10/31/03 ME2004 1020 604635 10/31/03 1599 1020 604636 10/31/03 3011 1020 604636 10/31/03 3011 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT GRAINGER INC 6308840 GRAINGER INC 6308840 GRAINGER INC 6308840 GRAINGER INC 1108303 GEORGE THOMAS MCCARROLL 5606660 JILL HAFF 5806449 DANIEL HEDDEN 1106500 ~ERNING UNDERGROL%TD SUPP 1108830 HERNING O1VDERGROUND SUPP 1108830 AUTOMATIC RAIN CO. 1108312 AUTOMATIC RAIN CO. 1108321 AUTOMATIC RAIN CO. 1108407 INTERSTATE TP=AFFIC CONTR 2708404 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 KITSON, RICK 1103300 K~VT 19 1101031 PETER KOERLER 5806249 DAYTON PRINTING INC. 5506549 LA BRIE, MARC 1108201 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC PARTS/SUPPLIES A25264 BLUE PHEASANT RESTRM SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY STAFF 10/25 SUPPLIES BOLT ARM A28267 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC TRAFFIC PAINT A25253 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR AMOUNT 11.70 194.37 43.80 190.20 2268.20 675.00 525.00 150.00 335.66 303.10 638.76 300.00 160.70 196.19 199.13 556.02 303.10 8965.20 173.20 3034.16 156.00 1363.95 700.00 43.10 800.00 30791.44 1681.73 700.00 933.00 51.02 279.11 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCO~/NTING PERIOD: 4/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FIIND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FOND/DEPT TOTAL CHECK 1020 604637 10/31/03 1802 M~IA MUNISERVICES COMPA~Z i100000 1020 604638 10/31/03 2713 REBECCA MCCORZ~ICK 5806449 1020 604639 10/31/03 474 NATIONAL BUSINESS FLTR~IT 1106265 1020 604640 1020 604640 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 M2004 NCBPA 1108201 10/31/03 M2004 NCBPA 1108201 1020 604641 10/31/03 485 NEWMA/q TRAFFIC SIGNS 2708405 1020 604642 1020 804642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 1020 604642 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5706450 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104530 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5706450 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1106265 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108100 10/31/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 1020 604643 1020 604643 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 494 OFFICE DEPOT~ INC. 1101500 10/31/03 494 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 1101500 1020 604644 1020 604644 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 1190 RONALD OLDS 1103500 10/31/03 1190 RONALD OLDS 1103500 1020 604645 1020 604645 1020 604645 1028 604645 1020 604645 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 1108314 10/31/03 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 6308840 10/31/08 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 6308840 10/31/03 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 1108601 10/31/03 505 ORLANDI TRAILER 8308840 1028 604646 1020 604646 TOTAL CHECK 10/31/03 2444 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108101 10/31/03 2444 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108830 1020 604647 10/31/03 1952 PAPA 1108407 1106500 1020 604648 10/31/03 520 PAPERDIRECT INC ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 0,00 330.13 S.TAS AUDIT 2ND/2003 0.00 1250.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 420.00 STEEL CONTODR LITERATU 0.00 951.04 NCBPA DUES LA BRIR 0.00 20.00 NCBPA DUES MAKUTA 0.00 20.00 0,00 40.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 384.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 210.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 108.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 43.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 13.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 73.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 95.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 181,61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 49.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0,00 1082.48 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 73.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.00 300.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 55.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 200,87 0.00 2488.87 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 115.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 70.36 0.00 186.14 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 373.75 0,00 546,25 0.00 920.00 SUPPLIES A25279 0,00 249.93 SUPPLIES A25279 0.00 37.02 SUPPLIES A25279 0.00 212.90 SUPPLIES 24570 0.00 29.56 SUPPLIES AS5272 0.00 83.92 0.00 613.33 9/23-10/21 RICOCHET 0.00 -30.07 9/23-10/21 0.00 21514.79 O.OO 21484.72 2004 MBRSHP (11) 8.00 330.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 64.93 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIM~ 10:04:52 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOLr~ING PERIOD: 4/04 CRECK REGISTER - DISBIfRSEMENT FUI~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.tran$_date between "I0/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" PAGE 7 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 604649 10/31/03 526 1020 604649 10/31/03 526 TOTAL CHECK PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 1020 604650 10/31/03 545 JEFF PISERCNIO 5606640 1020 604651 10/31/03 1810 PLAYGROUND BY DESIGN, IN 1108303 1020 604652 10/31/03 M POPOVIC, SUEFAMA 580 1020 604653 10/31/03 II86 THE PRINTERS 5506549 1020 604654 10/31/03 2441 RENEE R3~SEY 5806249 1020 604655 10/31/03 M R3%ZD~2~, DIPTI 580 1020 604656 10/31/03 575 RECY-CAL SUPPLY 5208003 1020 604656 10/31/03 575 RECY-CAL SUPPLY 5208003 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604657 10/31/03 2482 ROBERT FOLLF TECNNOLOGY 6104800 1020 604658 10/31/03 M2004 ROBERTS, ~3~RK 110 1020 604659 10/31/03 599 1020 604659 10/31/03 599 1020 604659 10/31/03 599 1020 604659 10/31/03 599 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604660 10/31/03 602 1020 604660 10/31/03 602 1020 604660 10/31/03 602 TOTAL CNECK 1020 604661 10/31/03 2043 1020 604661 10/31/03 2043 1020 604661 10/31/03 2043 1020 604661 10/31/03 2043 1020 604661 10/31/03 2043 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604662 10/31/03 633 1020 604663 10/31/03 1337 1020 604664 10/31/03 1150 1020 604665 10/31/03 2875 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPM~N 1108315 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 1108303 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 1108314 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 1108315 ROYAL COACH TOUNS 5506549 ROYAL COACH TOLrRS 5506549 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108506 RUDE'S PEST M3%NAGEMENT 1108321 RUDE'S PEST M~AGEMENT 1108503 RUDE'S PEST M~AGEMENT 1108504 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108505 SANTA CL~ COUNTY SHERI 1106248 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANS 1108005 SAVIN CORPORg~TION 1104310 SAVIN CREDIT CORP 1104310 IMPROVE PLANS R22727 0.00 45.08 IMPROVE PLANS R22672 0.00 331.14 0.00 376.22 10/15-10/28 0.00 1956.00 SUPPLIES 24268 0.00 38.20 Refund: Check - FALL E 0.00 257.00 I2%BELS 0.00 210.01 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 690.00 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 100.00 NEW PLATES A25205 0.00 523.93 RECYCLE TRAy AIND BOX 1 0.00 1466.46 0.00 1990.39 C.FUNDERBLTRK 10/17 0.00 864.00 REFD DEVELOP FEE 0.00 500.00 SWINGS A25263 0.00 161.67 SWINGS A25263 0.00 161.66 SWINGS A25263 0.00 161.67 SWING C~AINS A25231 0.00 611.58 0.00 1096.58 SAN JUAM OAKS 0.00 735.89 SAM FR3%NCISCO 0.00 678.11 JACK LONDON SQUARE 0.00 1174.93 0.00 2588.93 OCTOBERFEST i0/i1 0.00 1333.16 QTRS 1 & 2 FY04 0.00 26740.00 J4234900847 8/2-11/02 0.00 5887.81 H3720300010 NOV2003 0.00 1057.60 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOL1]NTING PERIOD: 4/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUlqI3 SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" FLg~D - 110 - GENERAL FLr~ CASR ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604666 1020 604667 1020 604667 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604668 1020 604669 1020 604670 1020 604671 1020 604671 1020 604671 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604672 1020 604673 1020 604674 1020 604675 1020 604675 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604676 1020 604677 1020 604678 1020 604678 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604679 1020 604688 1020 604681 1020 604682 1020 604683 1020 604683 TOTAL CRECK 10/31/03 2189 10/31/53 647 10/31/03 2016 10/31/03 2129 10/31/03 2129 10/31/03 2129 10/31/03 652 15/31/03 681 10/31/03 684 10/31/03 1883 10/31/03 1883 SETI~ESS TOURS 5506549 ELIZABETH SHANNON 5856449 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOL 1108501 SIERRA ORGANICS COMPANY 1108303 SIERRA ORGANICS COMPARY 1108315 SIERRA ORGANICS COMPANY 1108314 10/31/03 529 10/31/03 2863 10/31/03 1825 10/31/03 1825 SIERJkA SPRINGS WATER CO. 1101500 CONNIE 5AArDA STEVENS 5806449 CHERYL STODDARD 5806449 SUNGARD PENTA~TION INC. 6109856 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC. 6109856 SUNG~qD PENTAMATION, INC 1104100 SUNN~fVALE-CUPERTINO 1101500 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 10/31/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 10/31/03 2045 SVCN 5208003 10/31/03 2187 T.C.S.A. 2708405 1020 604684 10/31/03 700 1020 604684 10/31/03 700 1080 604684 10/31/03 700 1020 604684 10/31/03 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108407 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1158315 PAGE ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT FALL SOFTB/tLL T-SHIRT 0.00 1446.20 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 300.00 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 300.00 0.00 600.00 SONOMA NOV1-3 0.00 380.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR O.O0 840.00 TIME/MATERI~kLS 0.00 611.00 PLeAYGROUND MATERIALS 0.00 729.31 PLAYGROUND MATERIALS 0.00 729.32 PLAYGROUND MATERIALS 0,00 728.32 0.00 2187.95 EMPLOYEE DRINK WATER 0.00 15.02 SERVICE AGREEMENT POR 0.00 1382.60 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 525.00 SCO. UPGPJkDE USERS/ADMI 0.00 15971.00 SC0 UPGRADE USERS/ADMI O,O0 3324.75 0.00 19295.75 SEMINAR/T.MAO 0.00 150.00 E.MURRAY MCLE 0.00 28.00 BR3kKE PARTS ]%25246 0.00 354.49 SUPPLIES A2527I 0.00 49.80 0.00 404.29 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 24.75 COMPUTER RECYCLE 10/8 0.00 252.00 DUES YR2004 (8) 0.00 120.00 45% FP BOND 0.00 6300.00 SUPPLIES 24128 0.00 63.71 SUPPLIES A25248 0.00 118.63 0.00 182.34 FY 2003-2004 OPEN BURC 0.00 324.89 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 405.67 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 76.30 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 76.30 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMEi~ FLg~D SELECTION CRITERIA: trans&ct.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" FUND - 110 - GENER3%L FUND C~H ACCT C~ECK NO 1020 604684 1020 604684 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 10/31/03 ?O0 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108314 10/31/03 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108302 1020 604685 10/31/03 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 I020 604686 10/31/03 708 NANCY ~7{OMPSON 5806449 1020 604687 10/31/03 M2004 I~3AN, SEER~ 110 1020 604688 10/31/03 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 6308840 1020 604689 10/31/03 2665 ERIN TURI 5806249 1020 604690 10/31/03 1578 UNITED RENTALS 1108303 1020 504690 10/31/03 1578 UNITED RENTALS 1108303 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604691 10/31/03 1852 VALLEY ATHLETIC 1108315 1020 604691 10/31/03 1852 VALLEY ATHLETIC 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604692 10/31/03 737 1020 604692 10/31/03 737 TOTAL CHECK VALLEY CREST TREE COMPAN 1108303 VALLEY CREST TREE COMPAN 1108303 1020 604693 10/31/03 738 VALLEY OIL COMP;~NY 6308840 1020 604693 10/31/03 738 VALLEY OIL COMP%NY 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604694 10/31/03 742 COSETTE VIAOD 5806349 1020 604695 10/31/03 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 1020 604695 10/31/03 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 1020 604695 10/31/03 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 1020 604695 10/31/03 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 TOTAL UEECK 1020 604696 10/31/03 766 1020 604697 10/31/03 768 1020 604698 10/31/03 774 1020 604698 10/31/03 774 1020 604698 10/31/03 774 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604699 10/31/03 M2004 1020 604700 10/31/03 2988 WEST BAY S~3MP REMOVAL I 1108408 WEST GROUP PAY~NT CENTE 1101500 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 WESTERlg HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 W~ERE-TO-GUIDE 5506549 MARK WRIGHT 5806449 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC PRESCHOOL SPLY 25427 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR REFD DEVELOP ~4AINT FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CONES/B-CADES A25259 SUPPLIES A25260 BASKETB~-LL NETS 25275 BASKETBALL NETS 25275 CAMPHOR EACG 24" C~PHORS FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC AFTERSCHOOL SPANISH OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES STL~4P GRINDING LGL SEC. 2003 UPDATE FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC WHERE TO GUIDE 2Y~S SERVICE AGREEMEHT FOR SALES 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 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 9 AMOUNT 76.30 76,30 1035,46 35.79 472.50 875.33 93.96 2248.00 216.50 514.19 730.69 58.13 58.12 116.25 934.41 1401.62 2336.03 3657.13 530.48 4187.61 640.00 6.47 26.41 7.98 33.54 74.40 1612.00 37.89 698.21 734.49 1404.92 2637.62 60.00 1924.00 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04:52 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING q-IL) 10/30/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transacc.trans_date between "10/27/2003" and "10/31/2003" CASH ACCT CRECE NO 1020 604701 1020 604702 1020 604703 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT 10/31/03 M 10/31/03 962 10/31/03 2786 XIA, ZHONG 580 LIN]DA YELAVICH 5506549 YUAN CKIH DANCE OF AMERI 5506549 PAGE 10 .... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT Refund: Check - Return 0.00 300.00 VOL TRAINING REF~TS 0.00 17.94 SEPT OCT 2003 0.00 256.00 0.00 406389.19 0.00 406389.19 0.00 406389.19 RUN DATE 10/30/03 TIME 10:04;52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-209 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 NOVEMBER 07, 2003 WI-IEREAS, 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 Servi~c~s PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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 q-la. ii/o6/ot ACCOGNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT F~ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" FO1VD - 110 - GENEP~ FUND CASH ACCT CEECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FLrND/DEPT 1020 604704 11/07/03 3073 ;%BA SERVICES INC. 1108506 1020 604705 11/07/03 7 A~AG PI~ CORPORATION 1104540 1020 604706 11/07/03 2982 ABLE UNDERGROL~rD 2109612 1020 604706 11/07/03 2982 ABLE ~INDERGROUND 2109612 1020 604706 11/07/03 2982 A~LE ~q~DERGROUb~D 1108312 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 604707 11/07/03 858 ACI HOLDINGS, INC. 1100000 1020 604708 11/07/03 2276 ~%L}IAMBRA 1106265 1020 604709 11/07/03 96 ARROWHEAD ~ SPRING WAT 5606620 1020 604710 11/07/03 M AZJ~YA, OFER 580 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 966 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 966 EAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 EAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 604711 11/07/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 TOT;iL CHECK 1020 604712 11/07/03 720 BATTERY SYSTEMS 6308840 1020 604713 11/07/03 M2004 BEACON AWARD FOUA~ATION 1103500 1020 604714 11/07/03 M2004 BEACON AWARD FOUNDATION 1103500 1020 604715 11/07/03 100 EMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 1020 604715 11/07/03 100 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104308 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604716 11/07/03 867 BRIAN KANGAR FOULK 2709430 1020 604717 11/07/03 127 THE CA-LIFORxNIA CHA~L 1103500 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 1020 604718 11/07/03 132 TOTAL C~4ECK C~IFOP~NIA WATER SERVICE 1108407 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108508 CALIFOR/gIA WATER SERVICE 1108407 C~IFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108314 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108508 CItLIFO~NIA WATER SERVICE 1108314 1020 604719 11/07/03 2232 1020 604719 11/07/03 2232 C~IAGA, LOLr~ES 110 CARIAGA, LOORDES 110 PAGE 1 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT CLEAN/INSPECT A25230 0.00 111.00 SL055129 VARSILIEVA 0.00 786.12 STORM DRAIN IMPROV GAR 0.00 16100.00 TIME/MATERIAJ~S 0.00 720.00 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 360.00 0.00 17180.00 JLrLY-SEPT 2003 0.00 143460.94 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC DRINKING WATER 0.00 67.75 0.00 144.92 0.00 100.80 Refund: Check - Return FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 88.46 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC 0.00 45.47 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0,00 24,55 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 48.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 8.00 18.58 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PORC 0.00 58.89 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PEFRC 0.00 50.95 FY 200342004 OPEN PURC 0.00 206.50 0.00 541.40 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 48.66 E>FfRY FEE (BEST PSA) 0.00 85.00 ENTRY FEE (BEST MTG) 0.00 85.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 647.61 FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~C 0.00 229.28 0.00 876.89 P.O.#00030281 CARRYOVE 0.00 256.00 PROGRi~ING NOV2003 0.00 253.34 8/21-9/19 0.00 3695.72 8/21-9/19 0.00 467.15 9/19-10/21 0.00 3963.14 9/19-10/21 0.00 2450.94 9/19-10/21 0.00 456.65 8/21-9/19 0.00 2329.15 0.00 13362.75 C SUPPORT 0.00 306.50 S SUPPORT 0.00 103.84 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TINE 10:23:28 - FIN~%NCIAL ACCOL~TTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FI/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.tran$_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 6204550 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1101000 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1101201 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1103500 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1104000 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1104510 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1104510 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 1109511 1020 604720 11/07/03 149 CASH 6104800 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604721 1020 604722 1020 604722 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604723 1020 604724 1020 604724 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604725 1020 604726 1020 604727 1020 604728 1020 604728 1020 604728 TOTAL CHECK 11/07/03 3074 11/07/03 1057 11/07/03 1057 11/07/03 1156 11/07/03 176 11/07/03 1606 11/07/03 2917 11/07/03 1407 11/07/03 194 11/07/03 194 11/07/03 194 1020 604729 11/07/03 198 1020 604729 I1/07/03 198 TOTAL CHECK CENTURY SCHOOL 1104510 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SEEVIC 110 CERIDIA~ BENEFITS SERVIC 110 1020 604730 11/07/03 1034 1020 604730 11/07/03 1034 TOTAL CHECK COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 1020 604731 11/07/03 209 1020 604732 11/07/03 M2004 1020 604733 11/07/03 1242 1020 604734 11/07/03 220 COLOUR SHOPPE DRAPERIES 1108505 COMTEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOG 5708510 CUMMING HENDERSON TIRE 6308840 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108303 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606660 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 DAILY JOUR/~AL CORPORATIO 1101500 DAILY JOUR/~AL CORPORATIO 1101500 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DIEHL, EVANS & COMPANY, 1104100 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104310 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 PAGE 2 .... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 410.34 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 3.00 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 10.00 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 10.72 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 30.14 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 32.04 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 8.99 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 7.50 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 2.00 PTY CASH 10/27-11/03 0.00 32.46 0.00 136.85 TEST/TERESA MO *FLEX DEP/240125 *FLEX HLTH/240125 0.00 120.00 0.00 349.94 0.00 522.42 0.00 872.36 0.00 129.85 0.00 294.96 0.00 227.70 0.00 522.66 CHA #E7013899 #E7013899 MINI BLIND 0.00 63.65 MICROPHONE/A25256 0.00 212.08 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 253.66 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 21.65 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 2.92 SUPPLIES 0.00 432.45 BUS FOR SU~94ER CAMP 0.00 1299.31 BUS FOR SU}94ER CAMPS 0.00 3881.41 0.00 5180.72 S.F.DAILY JOURNAL 0.00 660.33 NO CALIF COURT RULES 0.00 278.00 0.00 938.33 S~a24POO RUG/DAY CARE 0.00 95.00 SE95TR 12/18 AUGUSTINE 0.00 175.00 SHIPPING LABELS (5K} 8.00 611.93 REGISTER ART SCIENCE 0.00 30.00 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND C~H ACCT CRECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT PAGE 3 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 604735 11/07/03 2578 1020 604736 11/07/03 1912 1020 604737 11/07/03 242 1020 604738 11/07/03 243 1020 604739 11/07/03 1949 1020 604740 11/07/03 260 1020 604740 11/07/03 260 1020 604740 11/07/03 260 1020 604740 11/07/03 260 1020 604740 11/07/03 260 TOTkL CHECK 1020 604741 11/07/03 2361 1020 604741 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 1020 604742 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604743 11/07/03 2361 1020 604743 11/07/03 2361 1020 604743 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CRECK 1020 604744 11/07/03 2361 1020 604744 11/07/03 2361 1020 604744 11/07/03 2361 1020 604744 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604745 11/07/03 2361 1020 604745 11/07/03 2361 1020 604745 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CNECK 1020 604746 11/07/03 2361 1020 604746 11/07/03 2361 1020 604746 11/07/03 2361 TOTAL CHECK ELESCO:EMERGENCY LIGRTIN 1108504 EMPLO~NT DEVEL DEPT 110 EMPLO~NT DEVELOPMENT 110 EVENT SERVICES 1108503 FEDEP3~L EXPRESS CORP 1103500 EEDER3%L EXPRESS CORP 1108601 FEDEPJ%L EXPRESS CORP 4239222 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 4269212 FEDER~ EXPRESS CORP 1108501 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 FIRST BANKC~D 1108314 FIRST BAMKCAXD 1108314 FIRST BANKCARD 1108503 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 FIRST BANKCARD 4209546 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 FIRST BANKC~D 1108905 FIRST BAMKCARD 5506549 FIRST BANKC3%RD 5506549 FIRST BA/qKCARD 5506549 FIRST BI~NKC2~D 5806349 FIRST BANKCARD 1106647 FIRST BANKCARD 1106265 FIRST BAMKCARD 5706450 FIRST BANKC3%RD 1108504 FIRST BANKCARD 1108505 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 FIRST BA-NKCARD 1106647 FIRST BANKC~D 5606680 FIRST B]~NKC~D 5806649 WINDOWS PROF RENEWAL 0.00 137.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 47.06 SIT/932-0014-5 0.00 18795.66 SDI/776-5260-0 0.08 295.09 REHTAL 10/01-10/31/03 0.00 162.36 CO~/RIER SERVICE 0.00 5.62 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 16.46 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 27.64 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 15.98 COUEIER SERVICE 0.00 22.15 0.00 87.85 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 4.08 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 17.26 0.00 21.34 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 242.61 STATE~4ENT 0CT2003 0.00 214~88 STATE~4ENT 0CT2003 0.00 180.77 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 91.18 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 102.82 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 63.59 0.00 895.85 STATEMENT 0C~f2003 0.00 48.72 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 535,87 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 47.80 0.00 632.39 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 16.30 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 16.60 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 86.59 STATEMEi~T 0CT2003 0.00 4099.30 0.00 4218.79 STATE~4ENT 0CT2003 0.00 107.54 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 21.65 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 25.20 0.00 154.39 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 156.36 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 102.94 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 200.87 0.00 460.17 RUN DA~ 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBL~SEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" FUI~D - 110 - GENEP~AL FUND ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604747 11/07/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108303 1020 604747 11/07/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 1020 604747 11/07/03 2361 FIRST BANKC~D 1108506 1020 604747 11/07/03 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108509 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604748 1020 604749 1020 604750 1020 604751 1020 604751 TOTAL CHECK 11/07/03 262 11/07/03 M2004 11/07/03 298 11/07/03 2630 11/07/03 2630 1020 604752 11/07/03 2546 1020 604753 11/07/03 M2004 1020 604754 11/07/03 M2004 1020 604755 11/07/03 M 1020 604756 11/07/03 M2004 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 1020 604757 11/07/03 334 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604758 11/07/03 1898 1020 604759 11/07/03 343 1020 604760 11/07/03 354 1020 604761 11/07/03 M2004 1020 604762 11/07/03 1009 1020 604763 11/07/03 2928 FIRST PLACE INC 4239222 FOI~DkRIO, STEVEN 110 GRAINGER INC 1108830 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 GREGORY B. BRAGG & ASSOC 6204550 GEORGE THOMAS MCCARROLL 5606660 GL~MONDSON, KIM 110 GWOZDZ, BARBARA 110 HAUSLER, COLLEEN 580 HERSHEL GOLDEN SR., 1104540 HOME DEPOT/OECF 1108303 HOME DEPOT/GECF 5606620 HOME DEPOT/OECF 1108409 HOME DEPOT/GECF 2708404 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108508 NOME DEPOT/GECF 1108407 NOME DEPOT/GECF 2708405 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1106265 NOME DEPOT/GECF 5606640 HOME DEPOT/GECF 5606640 HOME DEPOT/GECF 1108314 AUTOMATIC PAIN CO. 1108303 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 J CRANFOF/} & ASSOCIATES 5806449 J M O'NEILL, INC. 110 J.A. SEXAUER INC 1108505 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1108601 PAGE 4 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 357.74 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 217.45 STATEMENT OCT2003 0.00 939.47 STATEMENT 0CT2003 0.00 188.18 0.00 1702.84 BRASS PLATE/AQUARIUM 0.00 63.87 REFD DEV. MAINT FEE 0.00 500.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 58.03 REVW SERV SEPT2003 0.00 357.23 CLAIMS ADM 0CT2003 0.00 1575.00 0.00 1932.23 REPAIRS/BLUE PHEASANT 0.00 1185.00 REFD DEV MEINT FEE 0.00 1000.00 REFD DEV MAINT FEE 0.00 Refund: Check ~ FALL E 0.00 1000.00 100.00 LIABILITY CLAIM 0.00 100000.00 PARTS/SUPPLIES 13073 0.00 42.91 P~TS/SUPPLIES 15979 0.00 113.57 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24181 0.00 30.94 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25255 0.00 127.54 PkRTS/SUPPLIES 24127 0.00 38.24 PARTS/SUPPLIES 22487 0.00 29.13 PANTS/SUPPLIES A25268 0.00 124.16 PARTS/SUPPLIES 25424 0.00 11.33 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15980 0.00 219.61 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15983 0.00 291.42 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24249 0.00 20.17 0.00 1049.02 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PORC 0.00 719.63 *ICMA 0.00 6418.26 FALL SOFTBALL PLAQUES 0.00 336.66 REFD ENCROACH BOND 0.00 500.00 STRAINER/SINK 0.00 91.61 SUPPLIES A25030 0.00 131.08 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOL~TrING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" FUND - 110 - GENER3%L FI/N~D 1020 604764 1020 604765 1020 604765 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604766 1020 604767 1020 604768 1020 604769 1020 604770 1020 604773 1020 604782 1020 604782 1020 604782 1020 604782 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 11/07/03 M KIM, MYONG OK 580 11/07/03 3067 K~ 15 1101031 11/07/03 3067 K~ 15 1101031 11/07/03 396 FRILLIP M LENIHAN 5806449 11/07/03 M LI, PI CHIN 580 11/07/03 M LOCKWOOD, JULIA 580 11/07/08 2912 LUCKY I & I PORTABLE SER 5208003 11/07/03 1264 MELLO PIPELINE 2109612 11/07/03 ME2004 MERTENS, CHRIS 1108201 11/07/03 444 MINTON'S LLrMBER 1108303 11/87/03 2567 MISDU 110 11/07/03 M MONGE, ROSARIO 580 11/07/03 465 MOL%VTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108303 11/07/03 1751 P~3NIFINANCIAL 3655301 11/07/03 302 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 11/07/03 M NEJAT, FARIBA 580 11/07/03 485 NEWi~ TRAFFIC SIGNS 2708405 11/07/03 M2004 NGUYEN, RUNG 11/07/03 2639 NOVA PARTNERS INC 4239222 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103500 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104530 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103500 ..... DESCRIPTION Refund: Check - FALL E MGMNT FEE AUG2003 MGMNT FEE OvJLY2003 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - FALL E Refund: Check - FALL; RENTAL INSTALL ~ INLETS ON PESTICIDE LICENSE P;kRTS/SUPPLIES 13074 J TRYBUS 385960533 REFDS 236894 & 236895 LO%NDSCAPE SUPPLIES 10/16/02-9/30/03 *NAT'L DEF Refund: Check - Return FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC REFD DEV MAINT FEE PUBLIC WORKS CONTR3%CT OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 222281126-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 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 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O,O0 0.00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 139.00 2809.16 904.16 3713.32 87.50 288.00 26.00 7500.00 60.00 33.63 223.00 32.42 1750.00 15573.63 300.00 573.00 350.52 58846.82 188.48 59.23 2.71 9.07 75.02 4.44 216.82 86.73 20.79 5.74 39.79 75.43 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FU~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604782 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 604782 11/07/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103500 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604783 11/07/03 494 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 1101500 1020 604784 11/07/03 501 OPERATING ENGINEERS #3 110 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCHID SUPPLY ~L~WARE 1108314 1028 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY H3%RDWARE 1108312 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCI{APdDSUPPLY NARDWARE 1108407 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCILkRD SUPPLY H3~RDWARE 2708405 1~20 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCIL~ SUPPLY F~ARDWARE 1108503 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORC}{ARD SUPPLY FL~WARE 1108503 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY H3~DWARE 1108312 1020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCHID SUPPLY ~aJ{DWARE 1108303 i020 604785 11/07/03 981 ORCHID SUFFLYH~-RDW~.RE 1108406 1020 604785 I1/07/03 981 ORCI{ARD SUPFLY]~f{DWARE 2708404 TOTAL CHECK ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT COFFEE SUPPLIES 0,00 100.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 224.72 0.00 1107.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 72.47 UNION DUES 0.00 729.81 PAMTS/SUPPLIES 24256 0.00 35.70 PARTS/SUPPLIES 27293 0.00 22.72 PARTS/SLFPPLIES 24501 0.00 48.66 FARTS/SUPPLIES 24569 0.00 17.77 PARTS/SUPPLIES 20201 0.00 30.56 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24133 0.00 17.87 PARTS/SUPPLIES 27294 0.00 49.16 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25266 0.00 157.11 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25278 0.00 256.07 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25261 0.00 294.27 0.00 929.89 1020 604786 11/07/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS EMPLR 0.00 1028 604786 11/07/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS EMPLY 0.00 TOTAL CRECK 0.00 58.64 216.60 275.24 1020 604787 11/07/03 M2004 FAROOJIAR, DENNIS PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC REFD DEV ~4AINT FEE 0.00 2444.53 1020 604788 11/07/03 513 1020 604788 11/07/03 513 1020 604788 11/07/03 513 TOTAL C~ECK PACIFIC G;~ & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC G~ & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108506 9/27-10/27 1108602 10/01-10/29 0.00 1108407 10/01-10/29 0.00 0.00 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 1020 604789 11/07/03 513 TOTAL CHECK 1108830 9/27-10/24 5208003 9/27-10/24 0.00 5606620 9/27-I0/24 0.00 5708510 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108602 9/27-10/24 0.00 5606640 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108303 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108312 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108314 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108315 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108407 9/27-10/24 O.OO 1108501 9/27-10/24 1108503 8/27-10/24 0.00 1108504 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108505 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108506 9/27-10/24 0.00 1108507 9/27-10/24 0.00 0.00 22.39 39.28 2.26 63.93 62.37 9.47 1552.73 3479.72 2646.14 211.40 5417.33 576.77 469.96 602.06 345.40 4602.46 8935.44 1762.77 8235.82 3261.08 212.16 1452.71 43835.79 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between -11/03/2003- and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604790 11/07/03 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108505 1020 604791 11/07/03 2686 PARTITION SPECIALTIES, I 1108505 1020 604792 11/07/03 527 PENINSULA BUILDING MATER 1188830 1020 604793 11/07/03 533 PERS LONG TERM C~E PROG 110 1020 604794 11/07/03 546 PITNEY BOWES INC 1104310 1020 604795 11/07/03 2651 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGS~T, 5606640 1020 604796 11/07/03 2902 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 1108314 1020 604797 11/07/03 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108602 1020 604797 11/07/03 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108830 TOTAL UBECK 1020 604798 11/07/03 838 ROADLIICE PRODUCTS INC 2708404 1020 604799 11/07/03 600 ROTO-ROOTER SEWER SERVIC 5606660 1020 604800 11/07/03 2876 SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOU~A 1104000 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/87/03 625 SAR JOSE WATER COMP/~NY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S/tNJOSE WATER COMPA~ 5606620 1020 604505 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA2~ 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1028 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/qY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/{JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~N JOSE WATER COMP~MNY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 525 SAN JOSE WATER COMP/MNY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP/I/~ 1108312 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAR JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE HATER COMP/M~Y 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAFIY 1108488 1020 604805 11/07/83 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPlexlY 1108504 1020 604805 11/07/83 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108383 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE HATER COMPAJ~IY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606640 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S/~IN JOSE WATER COMPAi~Y 1108504 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX SERVICE CALL 10/20 0.00 AMOUNT TIME/MATERIALS 0,00 285.00 0.00 0.00 SUPPLIES 15863 PERS LTC/2405 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 OCT 2003 MAINTENANCE 0.00 CONCRETE BASE/A25282 0.00 138.57 177.24 249,24 14947.92 206.76 BLANEY /LND SCB POLE KN 0.00 3667.00 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 204.00 0.00 3871.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 632.61 SERVICE 10/9 0.00 113.00 SL~SCRIPTION 0.00 70.95 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 825.04 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 76.61 8/19-10/21/03 0.00 215.96 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 115.17 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 42.47 9/22-10/22/03 0,00 42.47 9/22 10/22/03 0.00 35.29 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 15.36 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 9.18 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 42.47 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 461.56 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 172.60 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 1205.54 9/22-10/22/03 0,00 91.83 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 390.70 8/19-10/21/03 0.00 126.97 9/23-10/23/03 0.00 117.86 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 92.77 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 98.15 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 82.00 8/20-10/21/03 0.00 233.16 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 2004.23 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 29.91 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 2095.13 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 9.00 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 204,04 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF C~PERTIN0 PAGE ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT F~/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............ FUND/DEPT 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPA~ 5606620 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~kNY 1108312 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~-NJOSE WATER COMP~J~Y 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAwNJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~%NJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~NY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 626 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP;LNY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S/~NJOSE WATER COMP;kNY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~kNY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~%NJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S/~/~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP;~Y 5708510 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/qY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAi~Y 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108505 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108505 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/qJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/~JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPARY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~kNJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPARY 1108315 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAArY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPS%NY 1108315 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604885 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/qY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~kNY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPS%NY 5708510 1820 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP;~NY 5606620 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAi~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 135.84 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 1182.21 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 1S70.03 8/26-10/29/03 0.00 173.57 8/26-10/29/03 0.00 320.98 8/26-10/29/03 0.O0 55.19 8/27-10/29/03 0.00 2546.75 8/27-10/29/03 0.00 49.74 8/28-10/30/03 0.00 1838.81 8/27-10/29/03 0.00 20.43 8/27-10/29/03 0.00 122.61 8/27-10/29/03 0.O0 113.44 8/27-11/29/03 0.00 11S.26 8/27-10/29/03 0.00 1680.47 8/20 10/21/03 0.00 275.20 8/26-10/29/03 0.00 140.74 8/19-10/23/03 0.00 212.20 8/29-10/21/03 0.00 172,89 8/19-10/21/03 0.00 140.59 8/26-10/29/03 0.00 38.82 8/28-10/29/03 0.00 113.44 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 293.78 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 9.00 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 36.50 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 1049.53 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 170.46 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 2498.15 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 119.51 9/24-10/22/03 0.00 1337.04 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 1622.77 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 1393.46 8/26-10/28/03 0.00 211.79 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 36.S0 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 1964.92 9/19-10/22/03 0.00 74.92 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 37.99 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 91.83 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 90.93 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 10.97 8/19-10/21/03 0.00 40.82 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 145.68 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 22.73 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 15.55 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 121.48 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 36.50 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 29.91 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 9.00 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 14.56 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 67.60 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 15.55 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOY31~TING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSE16ENT EIYND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S2%N JOSE WATER COMPA~Y 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~/Y 5606620 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPleXlY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~N JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA/qJOSE WATER COMPA~Y 1108303 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108303 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER CQMP~ 1108503 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA~ JOSE WATER COMP~NY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SA~/JOSE WATER COMP~NY 1108507 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP;LNY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPbJ~Y 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108302 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP2%NY 1108314 1020 604805 11/07/03 625 S2~NJOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604806 11/07/03 979 CITY OF SAN JOSE 1107501 1020 604807 11/07/03 1873 SANTA CLARA CNTY FIRS DE 1104510 1020 604808 11/07/03 626 SA/qTA CL~ CO DEPT OF R 1102100 1020 604808 11/07/03 626 SANTA CL~ CO DEPT OF R 1102100 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604809 11/07/03 256 SA/qTA CI~ CODI~Ty 110 1020 604810 11/07/03 2222 SA~A CI~ COLTNTY BAR A 1101500 1020 604810 11/07/03 2222 SbaNTA CI~ COUNTY B~kR A 1101500 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604811 11/07/03 633 SANTA CIaAI{A COUI%TTY SHERI 5806349 1020 604812 11/07/03 2692 SBC 1108504 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101000 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1102100 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101500 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104300 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1103300 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1103500 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104000 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104100 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104200 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104510 1020 604819 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104530 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104400 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 9/22~10/22/03 0.00 42.47 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 171.74 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 37.99 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 306.35 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 821.46 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 755.05 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 1982.69 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 405.06 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 110.71 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 205.64 9/22 10/22/03 0.00 184.30 9/22 10/22/03 0.00 80.20 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 760.43 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 563.00 9/22-10/22/03 0.00 557.62 9/26-10/28/03 0.00 9.00 0.00 39575.60 CODE S~R A.DORSETT 0.00 140.00 0.00 CPR TP~INING SUPPLIES 180.00 CITATIONS AUG2003 0.00 3100.00 CITATIONS SEPT2003 0.00 3580.00 0.00 6680.00 V ORTEGA 563312780 0.00 688.00 2004RNWL C.KILI~%N 0.00 248.00 2004 ILNWL E.MIJRR~Y 0.00 271.00 0.00 919.00 QUINI~ CTH 10/17 9/27-10/26 0.00 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SEHV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SEHV SEP03 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 433.10 77.80 183.83 153.19 337.02 273.82 61.28 91.91 91.91 183.83 91.9I 183.83 30.64 214.47 91.91 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 - FIN~CIAL ACCOUNTING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604815 11/07/63 511 SEC/MCI 1106100 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1106265 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106529 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1106500 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1107200 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1107301 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101200 1020 804815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107302 1020 604815 i1/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108504 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107501 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107502 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1107503 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108001 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108101 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108102 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1106265 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108503 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108507 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 5706450 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108601 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108602 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 5208003 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 2308004 1020 604815 11/07/03 611 SBC/MCI 5788510 1020 604816 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108201 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 6104800 1020 604515 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606640 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1106647 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SEC/MCI 1108511 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 604815 11/07/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108407 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604816 11/07/03 2907 SIGNAWEST SYSTEMS 1108505 1020 604817 11/07/03 M2004 SIMONINI, RICK 110 1020 604818 11/07/03 1724 SISTER CITIES INTER~ATIO 1103300 1020 604819 11/07/03 665 SOUTH BAY ~fETROPOLITAN 5806449 1020 604820 11/07/03 677 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 1020 604821 11/07/03 2045 SVCN 1020 604821 11/07/03 2045 SVUR 1104300 1104300 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX TELEPHONE SEHV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.08 TELEPHONE SEEV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SEEV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SEEV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEPO3 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.0O TELEPHONE SERV SEP03 0.00 0.00 ~OUNT 214.47 490.21 61.28 30.64 367.66 275.74 61.28 122.55 398.30 30.64 122.55 153.19 290.08 30.64 687.54 828.45 61.28 306.38 367.66 122.55 30.64 30.64 245.11 212.82 582.13 153.19 30.64 61.28 275.74 61.28 14.60 9201.95 SERV C3%LL/FIRE A~ 0.00 275.00 REFD DEV MAINT FEE 0.08 416.50 MBRSHIP DURS 2003 0.00 575.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2827.44 *PERS DEF 0.00 4130.64 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 49.50 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.80 49.50 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 - FINANCIAX ACCOUbTfING 11/06/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBUNSEMENT FL%TD SELECTION CRITERIA: transac~.~rans_date between "11/03/2003" and "11/07/2003" FL~ 110 - GENEP~ FUND ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT T~.RGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108315 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108314 TARGET STORES 5806349 TARGET STORES 1106265 TENG I10 TENJI INCORPORATED, A CA 4239222 TOGNETTI, PAUL 1108201 TREASURER OF AL~EDA COU 110 UNITED WAY OF SANTA CL~ 110 ONIVERS~L DIALOG, INC. 1103300 VCI TELECOM INC 4209534 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108501 VERIZON WIRELESS 1103300 VERIZON WIRELESS 1102403 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTI 2709443 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTI 2709443 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX FY 2003 2004 OPEN PUEC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC SUPPLIES 25426 SUPPLIES 25426 DEV MAINT FEE REFD PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT P.TOGNETTI LICENSE A LOPEZ JR 566398126 UNITED WAY TR3~SLATE 9/28-10/1M PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT #309369653 OCT2003 NEW PRONE #309369653 #608881609 OCT2003 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORMS CONT~CT REFD DEV MAINT FEE Refund: Check - FALL E PAGE 11 AMOUNT 0.00 99.00 0.00 2774.53 0.00 1920.69 0.00 4695.22 0.00 8.11 0.00 10.77 0.00 18.88 0,00 1000.00 0 . 0O 4378.85 O.O0 60.00 0.00 253.84 0.00 112.10 0.00 916.65 0.00 59764 . 50 0.00 75.63 0.00 487.61 0.00 563.24 0 . 00 73 . 12 0.00 1000.00 0.00 1173.60 0.00 2173 . 60 0.00 719.78 0 . 00 324 . 0O 0.00 630999.04 0.00 830999.04 0.00 630999.04 RUN DATE 11/06/03 TIME 10:23:29 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 03-210 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 November 7, 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 $ 443,285.50 Less Employee Deductions $(119~431.99) NET PAYROLL $ 323,853.51 Payroll check numbers issued 71333 through 71561 Void check number(s) Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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 RESOLUTION NO. 03-211 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER A VACATION OF A PORTION OF A ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PURSUANT TO SECTION 8320 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND PROVIDiNG FOR NOTICE THEREOF; 22279 JANICE AVENUE WHEREAS, that certain portion of roadway easement more particularly described in description and map attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibits "A" and "B", is deemed unnecessary for present and prospective use; and WHEREAS, the City Council elects to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 8320 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interests that the City Council initiates the vacation of said easement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares its intention to vacate the aforesaid roadway easement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the 5th day of January, 2004, at 6:45 p.m., in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, is the time and place fixed for hearing on the above proposed vacation; law; That the aforesaid date is not less than 15 days from passage of this resolution pursuant to 3. That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be published in the manner prescribed by law, and shall cause certified copies to be posted along the line of said property proposed to be vacated at least 10 days before the date of hearing and no more than 300 feet apart with a minimum of 3 being posted. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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" GRANTOR: City of Cupertino, California Grantees: Sheng Hwa Ho and Wei Tai-Fen ~{o, husband & wife. Ail that certain real property situated in the City of Cuper- tino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of lands of Sheng Hwa HO and Wei Tai-Fen Ho as said lands are described in Grant Deed recorded on March 7. 2003, Document No. 16868879, Santa Clara County Official Records, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said lands, distant thereon N0°16'lT"E 5.00 feet from the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence along said Easterly line, continue N0°16'lT"E 5.00 feet; thence along a line which is parallel with the centerline of Janice Avenue and distant therefrom 30 feet, right angle measure, S89°51'47"W 16.00 feet; thence parallel with said Easterly line, S0°16'17"W 5.00 feet; thence along a line which is parallel with said centerline of Janice Avenue and distant therefrom 25 feet, right angle measure, N89°51'47"E 16.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 80 square feet, more or less. Refer to Exhibit "B", Plat, which is hereby made a part of this description. Date: October 24, 2003 Prepared by: Edward J. Hahamian Civil Engineer APN: 357-01-102 Address: 22279 Janice Ave., Cupertino, CA 30/ 20' Llz/¢d d/z: ~Z2 7~ JA~I ICE AVE ~¢' X H i ~ I T ".~"-' PLAT /°/AT TO RESOLUTION NO. 03-212 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS BENJAMIN B.G. LEE AND DELIA P. YUEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 22560 RICARDO ROAD, APN 356-01-006 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, Benjamin B.G. Lee And Delia P. Yuen, husband And wife, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 22560 Ricardo Road and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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. 03-212 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION: Benjamin B.G. Lee And Delia P. Yuen Husband and wife 22560 Ricardo Road A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 6,160.00 SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 6,160.00 SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 2,385.00 TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FiVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS E. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin 2 $ 441.61 FOUR HUNDRED FORTY ONE AND 61/100 DOLLARS F. One Year Power Cost: N/A G. Street Trees: By Developer H. Map Checking Fee: N/A I. Park Fee: ZONE II N/A J. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A 110-4554 Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As Specified in Item #21 of Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 03-213 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM BENJAMIN B.G. LEE AND DELIA P. YUEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 22560 RICARDO ROAD, APN 356-01-006 WHEREAS, Benjamin B.G. Lee And Delia P. Yuen, husband and wife, have executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Qaiiclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS APN 356-01-006 22560 Ricardo Road Benjamin B. G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen~ Husband and Wife~ hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTOR", this ~ day of ~cz-7" ,2003, hereby grant, bargain, assign, convey, remise, release and forever quitclaim unto the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTEE", its successors and assigns, all the right, title, interest, estate, claim and demand, both at law and in equity, and as well in possession as in expectancy of the GRANTOR as owner of Lot 63 of that certain subdivision of real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and specifically described in the map thereof filed in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara on the llth day of April 1917 in Book P of Maps at Page 16~ to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley for beneficial use upon the lands overlying said underground basin, and GRANTOR hereby irrevocably authorize GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, on behalf of the GRANTOR and its successors in ownership of overlying lands in the said lots to take from said underground basin within the said lots any and all water which the owner or owners of said overlying lands may be entitled to take for beneficial use on said lands and to supply such water to such owner or owners or others as a public utility; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument shall be deemed to authorize GRANTEE to enter upon any of the lots delineated upon the above described map or to authorize GRANTEE to make any withdrawal of water which will result in damage to any building or structure erected upon said lots. This assignment, conveyance and authorization is made for the benefit of Lot 63 within the above described subdivision and shall bind the owner o£said lot within said subdivision. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this instrument the day and year first above written. OWNERS: Be/njar~in B. G. Leo/` Delia P. Yuen (Acknowledgment and Notarial Seal Attached) RESOLUTION NO. 03-214 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM RICHARD SHWE AND ALMA M. SHWE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY, 21840 HERMOSA AVENUE, APN 357-16-054 WHEREAS, Richard Shwe And Alma M. Shwe, Husband And Wife, As Community Property, have executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of th_e City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS APN 357-16-054 21840 Hermosa Avenue Richard Shwe and Alma M. Shwe, Husband and Wife~ as commuuity property~ hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTOR", this day of ,2003, hereby grant, bargain, assign, convey, remise, release and forever quitclaim unto the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTEE", its successors and assigns, all the right, title, interest, estate, claim and demand, both at/aw and in equity, and as well in possession as in expectancy of the GRANTOR as owner of Lot 63 of that certain subdivision of real property situate in the County of Santa C/ara, State of California, and specifically described in the map thereof filed in the Office of thc County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara on the 1 lth day of April 1917 in Book P of Maps at Page 20~ to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley for beneficial use upon the lands overlying said underground basin, and GRANTOR hereby irrevocably authorize GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, on behalf of the GRANTOR and its successors in ownership of overlying lands in the said lots to take from said underground basin within the said lots any and all water which the owner or owners of said overlying lands may be entitled to take for beneficial use on said lands and to supply such water to such owner or owners or others as a public utility; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument shall bc deemed to authorize GRANTEE to enter upon any of the lots delineated upon the above described map or to authorize GRANTEE to make any withdrawal of water which will result in damage to any building or structttrc erected upon said lots. This assignment, conveyance and authorization is made for the benefit of Lot 63 within the above described subdivision and shall bind the owner of said lot within said subdivision. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this instrument the day and year first above written. OWNERS: Richard Shwe Alma M. Shwe (Acknowledgment and Notarial Seal Attached) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ,~ County of st. orSOnally known to me red to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the persons whose name~ ~s/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heCsh~they executed the same in' bis/her/their authorized capacit~), and that by -h;'s~n'er/their signature~.~ on the instrument the person~ or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted, executed the instrument. · OPTIONAL Though the information below i~ not required by/aw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent rsmoval end rsa~tachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document /~I-~'AJ 3~"~ -/~ - ~?-~..,~ . DocumentDat,: .~)d /~1 ~"'~ ;~ Number of Page,: /~_'~'0 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Nar~e: [] Individual E] Corporate Office~:-- Title(s): [] Partner-- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney in Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: RESOLUTION NO. 03-215 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM BENJAMIN B.G. LEE AND DELIA P. YUEN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 22560 RICARDO ROAD, APN 356-01-006 WHEREAS, Benjamin B.G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen, husband and wife, has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 22560 Ricardo Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES APN 356-01-006 22560 Ricardo Road Beniamin B. G. Lee and Delia P. Yuen, Husband and Wife~ grant to the CITY OF CUPERTINO for public roadway purposes, together with the right to construct, repair, operate, and maintain any and all public utilities and improvements which shall be or become necessary for preservation of the public safety, welfare or convenience, the hereinafter described property which is situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as described as follows: (See Exhibit "A" & "B") IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed this ~ffday of Oc~:-ff , 2003. (Notary ackf~enf f'o Ye ~at[ached) Owners: Bedjami~ B. G. L6e / Delia P. Yuen Lea & Sung Job No. 2020476 Exhibit "A" Legal Description - Street Dedication All that certain property situate in the CITY OF CUPERTINO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, being a portion of lot 63 as shown on that certain map entitled "Map of the 9t~ Addition Monta Vista" filed in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, in Book P of Maps at page 16, also shown on that certain Record of Survey filed in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara in Book 702 of Maps at Page 21 and as shown on Exhibit B, made a part hereof, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of said parcel, said comer also being a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Ricardo Road; thence along said right-of-way line North 88°05'17" East 100.00 feet to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel; thence along the Easterly line of said parcel South I°58'41'' East 5.00 feet; thence along a line parallel with and distant 5.00 feet Southerly, measured at right angles to said right-of-way line South 88°05' 17" West I00.00 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Parcel; thence along said Westerly line North 1°58'43'' West 5.00 feet to the point of Beginning. Containing 500 square feet, more or less. RICARDO ROAD l,__~ VAmP, S) --& k SCALE. 1" ' 20' AREA TO BE DEDICATED /-- (soo s.F.) , .~CA.DO ROAD P.O.B, ~ RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ~ N 88'05'17' E 100.00' (N) 5.~' D~ICA~ ~P~NO 2495 INDUSmI~ P~WAY ~T 2~560 RIC~DO RO~ HA~D, C~FORNIA 94545 (s~o) ss~-~ss CUPERTINO, CA FAX (510) 887-3~g J~ 2020476 10/~/03 SC~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 03-216 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM RICHARD SHWE AND ALMA M. SHWE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY, 21840 HERMOSA AVENUE, APN 357-16-054 WHEREAS, Richard Shwe And Alma M. Shwe, Husband And Wife, As Community Property, has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 21840 Hermosa Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th 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 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES APN 357-16-054 21840 Hermosa Avenue Richard Shwe and Alma M. Shwe~ Husband and Wife~ as community property~ grant to the CITY OF CUPERTiNO for public roadway purposes, together with the right to construct, repair, operate, and maintain any and all public utilities and improvements which shall be or become necessary for preservation of the public safety, welfare or convenience, the hereinafter described property which is situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as described as follows: (See Exhibit "A" & "B") WHEREOF, executed this /'3I- day of P00q, 2003. WITNESS Owners: Richard Shwe Alma M. Shwe (?Votary acknowledgment to be attached) STREET DEDICATION PORTION OF LANDS OF SHWE TO BE DEDICATED TO CITY OF CUPERTINO 21840 HERMOSA AVENUE All that certain Real Property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of Lot 63, said point being on the southerly Right of Way line of Hermosa Avenue as shown on that certain Map entitled "Map of Subdivision "A" Monte Vista", which Map was recorded April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Maps, at page 20 in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara; thence East along the Northerly line of said of said lot a distance of 100.15 feet to the Northeast comer of said lot; thence South along the Easterly line of said lot a distance of S.00 feet; thence West, parallel with the Northerly line of said lot a distance of 100.15 feet to the Westerly line of said lot; thence North along the Westerly line of said lot a distance of 5.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.0115 acres more or less 21840 HERMOSA AVE. EAST I00./~' --- /-7-//_; LANDS OF SHWE LOT 63 MAP OF SUBDIVISION "A" MONTE VISTA BOOK P, PAGE 20 APN 357-16-54 0.2088 ACRES GROSS 0.1973 ACRES NET EA,ST 100.15" A PLAT TO ACCOMPANY A DESCRIPTION WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. ~ SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ~ ' No. 79~8 408-867-0244 t,I EXp: 12/3~/03 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of On~ ~1 ~¢~ ,beforeme, J~lC pe~onally appeared pemonally known to me p~ved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the personj~ whose name~ ~'~/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hc/c. hc/they executed the same in' h!:/hcr/their authorized capacityj~, and that by h4c,/h~r/their signature~] on the instrument the pemon~, or the entity upon behalf of which the persor~ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal end reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: /~/Td~' Document Date: ,~ t/ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capaclty(ie.s) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [] individual [] Corporate Office~ -- Tit~e(s): [] Partner -- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney ip Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: CITY OF CUPEI(.TINO AGENDA NO. // 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA DATE November 17, 2003 SUMMARY: Approval of a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building Rezoning of a 2.95 acre parcel from P(CG,ML, Res-4-10) (Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) to (P(CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-10) ( adds BQ quasi-public) Use permit to locate a church in an existing, 37,120 square foot office building (23,000 square feet church use, 14,120 square feet office use) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends: 1. Approval of a Negative Declaration EA-2003-14 2. Approval of a General Plan Amendment GPA-2003-02 3. Approval of a Rezoning Z-2003-07 4. Approval of a Use Permit U-2003-11 BACKGROUND: Project Data: Site Area: Building Size: 2.95 acres. 37,120 square feet (23,000 church use, 14,120 office use) Existing General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Proposed General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Quasi- Public/Residential Printed on Recyc/ed Paper ( [ ~ [ GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07, U-2003-11, EA-2003-14 Page 2 November 17, 2003 Existing Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) - Planned Development (General Corrtmercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 units/ac). Proposed Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-10) - Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Quasi-Public, Residential 4-10 units/ac.). Parking: See parking discussion in report Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: On September 2, 2003, the City Council authorized setting a public hearing to consider a General Plan amendment for this application. The Chinese Church in Christ proposes to locate its church activities in a portion of an existing single- story office building. Surrounding uses are office, except for residential uses to the west. As noted in the zoning description, the current zoning in this area allows multiple uses: commercial, light industrial and residential. However, the proposed church is a quasi-public use that requires both General Plan and zoning changes. The Planning Commission recommends approval (3 yes-1 abstain) based on the public hearing held November 10, 2003. Proposed church activities are: Friday 7:30 - 10:30 Approximately 260 attendance Sunday 9:00 - 2:00 Approximately 260 attendance Future increases: 2005 345 attendance 2006 395 attendance 2007 454 attendance 2008 520 attendance DISCUSSION: Please see the Planning Commission staff report for a full discussion of the following issues. Land Use: Compatibility with the surrounding area is an issue. The North De Anza area already allows a mix of uses, so it is not a tightly constricted office/industrial area. A 23,000 square foot church does not significantly disrupt the integrity o£ the office/industrial area. Mitigation in terms of providing adequate parking GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07, U-2003-11, EA-2003-14 November 17, 2003 Page 3 and filling in the landscaping is proposed to address impacts on the surrounding area. Traffic and Parking: A traffic and parking study concludes that there are adequate parking spaces for the beginning attendance numbers, but additional spaces would be needed as the church grows: REQUIRED PARKING AVAILABLE PARKING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) SPACES (peak) SPACES 260 attendance: 118 164 46 520 attendance: 230 164 (66) A condition of approval (#3) addresses the need to provide additional parking as attendance increases. Planning Commission Issues: The Planning Commission amended conditions as shown below: · All rows in the rear parking lot could be used for parking. · Two rear doors can be used for exiting and entering. · More landscaping mitigation is required; an arborist shall make recommendations regarding tree trimming of the trees at the rear property line. · Specify congregation allowed to go up to 350 participants in Friday evenings and Sunday; otherwise attendance should not exceed 200, except for four events per year. · Review in five years regarding parking; parking may be reviewed at any time if problems occur. Public Issues: The applicant presented additional information about noise impacts based on a noise study, which concluded that church noise is less than the ambient noise level (Exhibit E). The applicant states that they average three persons per car. They provide parking control and shuttle service. A number of adjacent office property owners and businesses expressed concerns about the change in use and parking, as well as noise and traffic congestion. The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce's Legislation Action Council opposes the rezoning, and characterized it as quasi-public "spot zoning"in an office/industrial area. Many members of the public, including church members, expressed support for the church use. One adjacent residential property owner expressed concerns about the trash enclosure location and tree trimming. One public member II '-3 GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07, U-2003-11, EA-2003-14 November 17, 2003 Page 4 questioned why the religious communities aren't planning among themselves to plan for the transition of underutilized churches. Staff Issues: Staff initially recommended, as did the Environmental Review Committee, that the parking not be allowed along the rear property line adjacent to the residences, to mitigate the noise disruption from Friday evening and Sunday activities. The Planning Commission did not require this mitigation. With the elimination of General Plan policy 2-80, all quasi-public uses now require a General Plan amendment and rezoning to be considered in other than a BQ zone. Such proposals should be evaluated based on their neighborhood impacts and not automatically denied because they are different. Consequently, staff does not consider requests for quasi-public uses to be a conventional form of "spot zoning." Enclosures: City Council Resolution 3-217 and Ordinance 1928 Planning Commission Resolutions 6215, 6216, 6217 Staff report from Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Aerial Exhibit C: Project Description Exhibit D: Trip Generation and Parking Study Exhibit E: Noise Report (provided by applicant) Initial Study Negative Declaration Letters from Adjacent Property Owners and Church supporters Plan Set Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:plarming/pdreport/cc/ccU-2003-11 RESOLUTION NO. 03-217 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO ADOPTiNG A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL TO OFFCE/1NDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/QUASI-PUBLIC/RESIDENTIAL IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDiNG, LOCATED AT 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated applications for a General Plan Amendment as described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices were given in accordance with the procedure ordinance of the City of Cupertino and the City Council has held at least one public hearing on the matter; and WHEREAS, the Application No.: GPA-2003-02, request to amend the general plan land use element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment, application no. GPA-2003-02 is hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ORDINANCE NO. 1928 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING A 2.95 ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, ML, Res-4-12) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL 4-12 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE) TO P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12) (ADDS BQ, QUASI-PUBLIC), 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE. WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2003-07) for the rezoning of properties to P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12) (adds BQ, Quasi-Public); 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 recomanended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12) (adds BQ, Quasi-Public); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 17~ day of November, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 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 R1-10 N O~ 0~' 06" W 3~9,70' ~ OFSTREET ~(INERT Architects 2033 Concourse Orbe Son Jose, Colifornb 95131 Telephone 408.9¢4.91 P ( CG, ML, RES 4-10 ) ZONING PLAT MAP EXisTING ZONING: P(CG, ML, RES 4-10 ) ADJACENT ZONING: P ( CG, ML, RES 4-10 ), R1-10 PROPOSED ZONING: P ( CG, ML, BQ. RES 4-10 } CHINESE CHURCH 1N CHRIST 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE CUPEKTINO CA. 95014 S3.LVIDOSS¥ ACRES: 2.94 SCALE: 1"=60~ 1 0/01//2003 8F~:7~T £80~/90/II GPA-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6215 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/QUASI-PUBLIC/RESIDENTIAL IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED AT 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Project Location: GPA-2003-02 (EA-2003-14) Liang Tsai Lin/Chinese Church in Christ Cupertino Brown Investment 10455 Bandley Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a General Plan Amendment, for the site described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and considered public testimony from citizens and interested groups; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan amendment is necessary to bring a site with an existing quasi-public use into conformance with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that there will not be significant environmental impacts since the site has an existing quasi-public use built in conformance with hillside policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for General Plan Amendment are hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. GPA-2003- 02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6215 GPA-2003-02 November 10, 2003 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this l0th day of November 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: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ ?DREPORT\ RES \ GPA-2003-02 res.doc Z-2003-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6216 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF 2.95 ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, ML, Res-4-12) (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL 4-12 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE) TO P(CG, ML, BQ, RES4-12) (ADDS BQ, QUASI-PUBLIC), LOCATED AT 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Z-2003-07 (EA-2003-14) Applicant: Liang Tsai Lin/Chinese Church in Christ Location: 10455 Bandley Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the 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 property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 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. Resolution No. 6216 Z-2003-07 November 10, 2003 Paee 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-2003-07 (EA-2003-14), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I APPROVED EXHIBITS The recormmendation of approval is based on the Zoning Plat map exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this l0th day of November 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: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Plan ning I PDREPORT\ RES \ Z-2OO3-O7res.doc RI-IO N 0~ 02' 0~" W 349~70' EXHIBIT A J~INERT Architects Telefox .¢o8.94~..~116 ~0 qD~d P (CG, ML, RES 4-I0) ZONING PLAT MAP I-'XISTING ZONING: P( CG, ML, RES 4-10 ) ADJACENT ZONING: P ( CG, ML, RES 4-10 ), R1-10 PROPOSED ZONING: P ( CG, ML, BQ. RES 4-10 CHINESE C~-PJRCH TN CHI~ST 10455 BANDI. EY DRIVE CUPERTINO CA. 95014 S3i¥IDOSS~ O31 ACRES: 2,94 SCALE: 1"--60' 10/01/:OOo 87. :~T U-2003-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6217 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN AN EXISTING 37,120 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING (23,000 SQUARE FEET CHURCH USE, 14,120 SQUARE FEET OFFICE USE), LOCATED AT 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: U-2003-11 (EA-2003-14) Liang Tsai Lin/Chinese Church in Christ 10455 Bandley Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and Resolution No. 6217 U-2003-11 November 10, 2003 Page 2 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(s). U-2003-11 (EA-2003-14), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Chinese Church in Christ, 10455 Bandley Drive, dated September 19, 2003 including sheets SK-0 - SK-3 submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 2003, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS The applicant is allowed to go up to 350 participants during the Friday evenings and Sunday mornings, into the early Sunday afternoon, and up to four (4) times per year. At all other times, the applicant shall limit the occupancy on site to no more than two hundred (200) persons. In the event they need to exceed that number, they will need to come back to the Planning Commission and amend the use permit. At such time as church attendance exceeds the 165 parking spaces on site (approximately 350 attendees), either a parking agreement with adjacent property owners or a parking study documenting the ability of the subject property to accommodate additional attendees shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. In no case shall the total number of participants exceed 520 without amending the use permit. If adjacent properties are utilized for parking, a pedestrian safety plan shall be approved, which may include crosswalk lighting if applicable. LANDSCAPING PLAN A plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development for restoration of landscaping in the rear parking lot, to be installed prior to occupancy. The applicant Resolution No. 6217 U-2003-11 November 10, 2003 Page 3 will retain an arborist to evaluate the pine trees and suggest measures to cap the size of the trees and ensure that the trees are healthy and provide a sufficient screen for the adiacent properties. LIGHTING PLAN A plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development for parking lot lighting, to be installed prior to occupancy. TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure at the rear property line shall be demolished and relocated near the building, to the specifications of the Public Works Department. REAR EXITS To reduce noise impacts on adjacent residences, all but two rear entrances/exits shall be for emergency purposes. "No parking zones" near the emergency exit doors shall meet the specifications of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The parking lot shall be re-striped to make up for any parking spaces lost to meet those specifications. SIGNAGE No signs are approved as part of this application. A master sign program consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The signs shall be consistent with signage in the surrounding office/industrial area. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW There shall be an automatic review of the use permit in five years, and possibly earlier review should complaints be received that there are parking problems on the site. Said reviews would look at imposing further mitigations including, but not limited to, parking agreements with adjoining properties, re-striping to add more parking spaces and/or limitation on the maximum number of participants allowed on the site to correspond to the existing parking. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) Resolution No. 6217 Page 4 U-2003-11 November 10, 2003 I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. /s/Ralph Quails Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November, 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: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:\ planning\ PDREPORT\ RES\ U-2003-11 res.doc /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07, U-2003-11, EA-2003-14 Agenda Date: November 10, 2003 Applicant (s): Liang Tsai Lin/Chinese Church in Christ Property Location: 10455 BandleyDrive Application Summary: Approval of a General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building Rezoning of a 2.95 acre parcel from P(CG,ML, Res-4-10) (Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 dwelling units per gross acre) to (P(CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-10) ( adds BQ quasi- public) Use permit to locate a church in an existing, 37,120 square foot office building (23,000 square feet church use, 14,120 square feet office use) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: 1. Approval of a Negative Declaration EA-2003-14 2. Approval of a General Plan Amendment GPA-2003-02 3. Approval of a Rezoning Z-2003-07 4. Approval of a Use Permit U-2003-11 Project Data: Site Area: 2.95 acres. Building Size: 37,120 square feet (23,000 church use, 14,120 office use) Existing General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Proposed General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Corrumercial/Quasi- Public/Residential Existing Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) - Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 units/ac). File No. GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07 U-2003-11 Page 2 November 10, 2003 Proposed Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, BQ, Res 4-10) - Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Quasi-Public, Residential 4-10 units/ac.). Parking: See parking discussion in report Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: On September 2, 2003, the City Council authorized setting a public hearing to consider a General Plan amendment for this application. The Chinese Church in Christ proposes to locate its church activities in a portion of an existing single-story office building. Surrounding uses are office, except for residential uses to the west. As noted in the zoning description, the current zoning in this area allows multiple uses: commercial, light industrial and residential. However, the proposed church is a quasi-public use that requires both General Plan and zoning changes. Proposed church activities are: Friday 7:30 - 10:30 Approximately 260 attendance Sunday 9:00 - 2:00 Approximately 260 attendance Future increases: 2005 345 attendance 2006 395 attendance 2007 454 attendance 2008 520 attendance DISCUSSION: Land Use: The church use would be different from the existing uses in the area, which raises issues about the compatibility of a church with the surrounding office and residential uses. Staff believes that the church is an appropriate use for several reasons. The building and site will have very little change from the existing appearance, so it will fit in well visually. The North De Anza zoning already allows a mix of uses, so it is not a tightly constricted office/industrial area. Adjacent property owners also raised valid concerns about compatibility, as reflected in the enclosed letters. Staff agrees that it is important to maintain the integrity of the North De Anza area as an office/industrial center, but that a 23,000 square foot church use does not disrupt that integrity. Monitoring future land use changes, however, will be important should changes be proposed. File No. GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07 U-2003-11 Page 3 Novemt)er 10, 2003 Compatibility of the church with the adjacent residential uses is another issue. The most active times of proposed church activities are Friday night and Sunday, which are normally Iow office use times. Residential neighbors will be more aware of these activities because they are likely to be at home. The church held an open house and invited adjacent residents to attend; church representatives did not report any neighbor concerns to staff. Staff wrote letters to adjacent residents requesting to hear from them if they had concerns. One neighbor responded with concerns about the parking lot; however, a subsequent letter indicates he does not have any concerns. Traffic and Parking A "Trip Generation and Parking Study" was prepared by Robert L. Harrison, transportation planning consultant (Exhibit D). Regarding traffic, the report concludes that the project would have a less than significant impact on vehicle trip generation. In particular, at the time on weekdays when traffic is most congested, the early morning and late afternoon peak hours, the project would generate less traffic than would the existing use of the project site. At the times of highest church activity, the local street system operates with little congestion and the project trips could be served by the surplus street capacity available at these hours. Regarding parking, the report concludes that the maximum attendance of 520 persons and assuming 10 employees could be accommodated by the on-site parking of 164 spaces, using the Cupertino Municipal Code parking requirements. However, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) research, a larger number of spaces would be required: 230 spaces. Mr. Harrison states that the ITE requirement is more realistic and appropriate. The table below summarizes parking supply and demand. REQUIRED PARKING AVAILABLE PARKING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) SPACES (peak) SPACES 260 attendance: 118 164 46 520 attendance: 230 164 (66) Parking Mitigation: The consultant suggests mitigating the parking deficit for maximum attendance by working with adjacent property owners to establish formal agreements to permit the use of the adjacent parking lots on Friday evenings and Sundays. The consultant identified the issue of parking lot impacts on adjacent residences. The subject site is separated from the residential neighborhood by a minimum height 6' - 6" solid masonry wall. There is no ground level visibility from the neighborhood and the project parking lot. There are four residences with second floor windows that overlook the project parking lot. The consultant suggests that because the light and noise from the parking lot would be generated late in the evening on Fridays and on Sunday File No. GPA-2003-02, Z-2003-07 U-200M1 Page 4 Novemver 10, 2003 mornings, the potential for impact should not be ignored. He recommends that on-site parking be restricted to the street side lot and to a single row of parking against the rear of the project building, and to the street side lots of adjacent properties. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) considered the parking issues. In recognition of the City's responsibility to protect the broader and longer-range interests of adjacent residents, ERC recommends parking mitigations to provide adequate parking supply and to reduce the impacts on adjacent residents. This option does not allow parking in the row adjacent to the residences, and it requires availability of parking in adjacent sites as attendance increases. Conditions of approval reflect these parking mitigations. The applicant will be required to ensure that attendees and employees park in the designated parking areas; permanent barriers to parking in the row adjacent to residences will need to be installed. Site and Landscaping Plan: Two improvements will need to be made to the site and landscaping plans. One is that a trash enclosure will need to be constructed adjacent to the building, and secondly, landscaping will need to be installed in a vacant rear parking lot planter. Fiscal Impacts: Conversion of office to church use raises the issue of loss of revenues from the office uses. Staff estimates that the net benefit of office uses, based on city-wide analysis, is $.50 per square foot. The church would utilize 23,000 square feet of office space, resulting in a hypothetical loss of $11,500 per year (23,000 x .50). This result does not consider any off-setting revenues that might result from the church uses, such as members dining in Cupertino before or after church activities. Staff does not consider this a significant fiscal impact. File No. GPA-2003-02, Z~g003-07 U.2003-11 Page 5 Novemver 10, 2003 Enclosures: Model Resolutions Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Aerial Exhibit C: Project Description Exhibit D: Trip Generation and Parking Study Initial Study Environmental Review Committee Recommendation Letters from Adjacent Property Owners Plan Set Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen-'~. G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT I pcUsereports \ U-2003-11.doc EXHIBIT A l'~t :l EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Project Description for Planning Permit Application Date: Sept. 24~, 2003 The Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) requests for proposed: 1. General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property located at 10455 Bandley Ddve from the exiting "Of/ice/Industrial/Commercial/Residential" to the "Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential/Quasi-Public". 2. Rezoninq of the 2.95 acre parcel from P(CN, ML, Res 4-12) to P(CN, ML, BQ, Res 4-12) 3. Use Permit to allow a quasi-public use (church) in a major portion of an existing office building The existing and proposed use of the buildinq is as follows: Ground Floor Existing Use 37,120 s.f. Office (vacant) Proposed Use 23,000 s.f. church offices and assembly 14,120 s.f. Office The proposed church use schedule is as follows: Weekdays Weekdays, Saturday Friday 8am-5pm varies time and date 7:30 pm - 10:30 pm Saturday vades during the day Sunday 9 am - 2 pm Office Staff (approx. 10) Sisters, Senior and Youth fellowships (approx. 50) Bible Study and children classes (less than 300 in the beginning of use, may grow to 500*) Special events only (once a year or so for 500*) Assembly (less than 300 in the beginning of use, may grow to 500*) *CCIC estima~s15%annualgmwthofthecongregation ~ raach 500in ~ughly 5yeam. year2004--260 year2005--345 year2006--395 year2007--454 year2008--520 Building design and traffic study are based on the assembly of 500 people. Staggering schedules for meetings and classes will be adhered to in order to maintain total amount of people at less than 500 at all times. Use of additional parking space, beyond the current 164 of 10455 Bandley building, from a neighbor (10260 Bandley Drive, owned by Lazaneo Investment and managed by Cortana Corp.) has been granted. An existing pedestrian walkway connecting the 2 buildings provides for safe walk across Bandley Drive. Safety & Parking Control Committee will be formed by the church, to ensure compliance of parking in designated space and direct people across street. Representative of Chinese Church in Christ (CClC): Liang-Tsai (LT.) Lin, Elder (408-328-3517 - work, 408-364-2242 - CCIC) Transpoffatlon Planning and Prolect Management EXHIBI~ D 2370 Vista Del Mar Lane Tiburon, Calif0mia 94920 Tel 415435-2871 Fax415 435-0118 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Prepared for the City of Cupertino Prepared by Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Table of Contents 1. Introduction Project Description Summary of Major Findings 2. Project Impact Analysis Standards of Significance Existing Streets and Parking Trip Generation Parking Impacts Neighborhood Impacts 3. Mitigation Measures Appendix Calculation of Trip Generation and Parking Page 1 1 3 3 4 5 6 11 List of Tables 1. Vehicle Trip Generation 2. Peak Parking Spaces Occupied 3. Project Site and Nearby Parking Supply 4 5 8 Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 1. Introduction This is a trip generation and parking study for the proposed use ora portion of the office building at 10455 Bandley Drive by the Chinese Church in Christ. The existing office land use designation would need to be amended to accommodate the church use. Project Description The project would be located at 10455 Bandley Drive, about midway between the intersections of Bandley Drive with Lazaneo Drive and Mariani Avenue. The existing office building has a total space of 37,120 square feet (sq.ft.). The Chinese Church in Christ proposes to use 23,000 sq.ft, for church offices and assembly. The remaining 14,120 sq.ft, would stay in office use. The project sponsor expects that the initial attendance for an average Friday evening or Sunday service would be 260 persons. Friday evening service would begin at 7:30 p.m., ax°~er the peak traffic congestion hours, and end by 10:00 p.m. Sunday sen, ices would be fxom 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Future attendance on Fridays evenings and on Sundays is projected to grow to 520 persons by 2008. Summary of Major Findings · The Chinese Church in Christ use of 10455 Bandley Drive will have a less than significant impact on vehicle trip generation. * Impact I. The projected furore maximum attendance at the project would generate a peak parking demand that would exceed the available on-site parking supply. · Mitigation 1. To mitigate the potential excess parking demand, the project sponsor should have formal agreements with adjacent property owners for the use of off-street parking that is normally available in the evening and on weekend days. Robert L. Harrison Transpodation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 2 Impact 2. Church use of the parking lots at the rear of the project site could have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mitigation 2. To mitigate the potential impact of the project on the adjacent neighborhood, parking for the project should be restricted to the street side lot at the project site, to a single row of parking against the rear of the project building and to the street side lots at the adjacent properties. Based on Mitigation 1, adequate parking to serve the expected initial number of attendees would be available in the lot at the front of the project plus the row of parking against the rear of the project building plus the street side lot at the property to the south of the project. To serve the projected future growth in attendance, the project sponsor should also have agreements for the use of additional parking at the office buildings to the north of and across the street fi.om the project site. RotTert L. Harrison Transporta~on Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 3 2. Project Impact Analysis The traffic impact of the project is based on the study of the project generated trips as compared to the trip generation of the existing approved use of the project site. Parking impacts of the project are studied in terms of the projected number of cars to be parked at peak service times as compared to the spaces available in off-street parking lots. Standards of Significance The following criteria are established based on standard professional practice. An impact of the project will be considered significant if any of the following conditions are met: · The project vehicle trip generation at peak traffic hours exceeds the trip generation of the existing use of the project site. * The project does not meet the parking space requirements of the City of Cupertino and/or parking is not adequate in number or design to serve the proposed project. * The project trip generation or parking requirements would have an unacceptable impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Existing Streets and Parking Bandley Drive is a three lane north-south local service street. The street provides one lane to serve each direction of traffic flow and a center turn lane to serve left tums in and out of the many driveways located along the street, There is no on-street parking permitted on Bandley Drive near the project site, Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Bandley Drive, A crosswalk with curb cuts is provided at the project site near its northerly driveway. A second crosswalk is provided 420 feet to the south opposite 10441 Bandley Drive. Robert I_ Ham'son Transportaffon Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page Off-street parking is provided onthe project site and on adjacent properties. On the project site there are 121 spaces at the rear of the building, 35 spaces in front of the building and 8 spaces on the north side of the building for a total on-site parking supply of 164 spaces. The office building to the south of the project at 10441 Bandley Drive provides 193 on-site parking spaces. To the north of the project site, the office building at 10475 Bandley Drive provides 103 on-site parking spaces. These adjacent parking lots are contiguous with the project parking lot and are served in part by the same driveways that serve the project site. The office building across the street ~om the project site at 10460 Bandley Drive provides 120 off-street parking spaces. In addition, this parking lot is connected with the much larger lot provided for the building at 10335 De Anza Boulevard. In total, over 300 spaces are available in the lots across from the project site. Trip Generation Project vehicle trip generation is estimated using the research compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the publication Trip Generation. The ITE trip generation data is based on the square footage of each use studied. A summary of the trips generated by the existing and proposed uses of the project site is shown in Table 1. Detailed calculations of trip generation are shown in the Appendix to this report. Table 1 Vehicle Trip Generation Existing Uses~ Proposed Uses Office ChurCh Total Office Church Total 37,120sf 0 sf 37,120sf 14,120sf 23 000sf 371120sf Weekday= 409 0 409 155 210 365 Weekday Peak Hour 58 0 58 22 17 39 Sunday= 36 0 36 14 746 760 Sunday Peak Hour 5 0 $ 2 218 220 Notes: 1 - Ex~sting uses assumes full occupancy of the approved office area. 2 - Church use on Friday nights equal to Sunday data, Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Genera~n, 6th Ed. The proposed uses of the project site would generate fewer weekday vehicle trips than would the existing use. In particular, at the time on weekdays when traffic is most congested, the early morning and late afternoon peak hours, the project would generate tess Waffle than would the existing use of the project site. Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 5 On Sunday the project would generate more trips than would the existing use The project would also generate more trips on Friday evenings after 7:00 p.m. However, in the evening and on Sundays the local street system operates with little congestion and the project trips could be served by the surplus street capacity available at these hours. The impact of the project on vehicle trip generation would be less than significant. Parking Impacts City of Cupertino Zoning Code Parking Requirements. The parking requirements of the Cupertino Zoning Code for churches are one space for each four seats plus one space for each employee. Assuming the seat count would be equal to the maximum attendance of 520 persons projected for the Friday night and Sunday services and assuming 10 employees, the parking requirement under the Code would be 140 spaces. The existing on-site parking lot supply of 164 spaces would be adequate to provide the parking required under the Code for the maximum projected attendance condition. Peak P~ldng Demand Project parking demand is estimated using the research compiled by the ITE in the publication Parking Generation. The ITE parking generation data is based on the estimated attendance of the church use and on the square footage of the office use. A summary of the peak parking required by the existing and proposed uses of the project site is shown in Table 2. Detailed calculations of parking demand are shown in the Appendix to this report. Office 3~,120~ Weekday~ 101 Sunday~ g 260 A~endance -- 520 Affendance -- Table 2 Peak Parking Spaces Occupied Existing Uses~ Proposed Uses Church Total Office Church Total 0 sf 37,f20sf 14,120sf. 23.000sf_ 37,120sf 0 101 65 32 97 0 9 6 ..... -- 112 118 .... 224 230 Notes: 1 - Existing uses assumes full occupancy of the approved office area, 2 - Weekday church use assumes 10 staff plus 50 person fellowships. 3 - Church use on Friday nights equal to Sunday attendance. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. parldng Genera#~n, 2nd Ed. Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 6 Church use on weekdays assumes parking for a 10 person staff and fellowships of about 50 persons. Church use on Sundays and on Friday nights is based on the initial attendance estimate of 260 persons and on the projected future maximum attendance of 520 persons. The peak occupied spaces on weekdays for the proposed use would be less than the peak parking for the existing use, 97 versus 101 spaces respectively. Project weekday peak parking demand would be less than the available 164 on-site parking spaces. The impact of the project on weekday parking demand would be less than significant. The project peak parking demand on Sundays and on Friday nights to serve the initial attendance of 260 persons, 112 church spaces plus 6 office spaces, could be accommodated in the available 164 space on-site parking lot. The parking impact of the initial attendance at the project would be less than significant. The parking demand for the projected future maximum church attendance of 520 persons, 224 church spaces plus 6 office spaces, would exceed the capacity of the on-site parking lot. As defined by the sis, nifieance criteria above, this means the project would have a significant impact on parking. Mitigation to offset the impact of the project is described in the mitigation section of this report. Neighborhood Impacts At the rear of the project site is a residential neighborhood. Fargo and Hartford Drives are residential streets that cul-de-sac at the rear property line of the project site. Dunbar Drive and Garden Gate Drive are residential streets that cul-de-sac at the property lines of the adjacent parking lots to the north and south of the project site respectively. The project site and the properties to the north and south of the project are separated from the residential neighborhood by a minimum height 6' - 6" solid masonry wall. There is no ground level visual connection between the neighborhood and the project parking lots. There are four residences with second floor windows that overlook the project parking lot. Existing trees buffer the visual connection between these windows and the parking area. From some of these windows it would be possible to observe increased parking lot activity on Friday nights and Sunday mornings due to the project. Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 7 While separated by a solid raasonry wall, the somewhat muffled sounds of parking lot activity at 10:00 p.m. on Friday nights and on Sunday mornings may be heard in the residential neighborhood. At times other than Friday nights and Sunday mornings, the project would generate less parking activity as compared to the approved office use. Despite the existing solid masonry wall, the impact of the project on the adjacent neighborhood may be significant. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to quantify the potential for parking lot lights to be seen or noise to be heard in the residential neighborhood. However, because this light and noise would be generated late in the evening on Fridays and on Sunday mornings, the potential for impact should not be ignored. To minimize any potential impact, the project sponsor should implement the programs described in the mitigation chapter of this report. The project site offers no potential to provide a short-cut for traffic attempting to avoid normal routes. The project would have no si~tmificant impact on short-cut traffic patterns. Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 8 3. Mitigation Measures The project has been found to cause a significant adverse impact on parking and a potential adverse impact on the adjacent neighborhood. Mitigation to these impacts is described below. Impact I. The projected maximum attendance of 520 persons at Friday evening and Sunday morning services would generate a parking demand that would exceed the available on-site parking supply. Mitigation Measure 1. The project sponsor should work the adjacent property owners to establish formal agreements to permit the use of the adjacent parking lots on Friday evenings and on Sundays. As shown on Table 3, the total parking supply on the project site and on the immediately adjacent properties is 460 spaces. Assuming normal office employee patterns, over 90%, or about 415 of these spaces, would be available on Friday evenings and Sunday mornings. The total spaces available on the project site plus the adjacent properties would be more than sufficient to serve the projected Friday evening and Sunday morning parking requirements. ProDertv Project site - 10455 Bandley Drive 71 93 Adjacent to the project site 10441 Bandley Drive - South of Project 83 130 10475 Bandley Drive - North of Project 3._~3 70 Project and adjacent property SubTotals t67 293 Across the sa'eet from the project site 10460 Bandley Drive - 120~ -- Totals 287 293 Note 1: Ail of the parking at this site is located away from the rear of the project. Source; Robert L. Harrison Tran. spodafion Planning Robert L. Harrison Transporta~on Planning Table 3 Project Site and Nearby Parking Supply Front Side Parking & Rest of the A ainst bm'ldin in Rear ~ Total Parldno 164 193 103 460 120 580 September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page 9 Impact 2. The use by project attendees of the parking lots at the rear of the project site and/or of adjacent properties may adversely impact the residential neighborhood located adjacent to the rear property line of the project site. Mitigation Measure 2. In addition to the requirement of Mitigation Measure 1 to secure agreements for the use of the parking lots on the adjacent properties, the project sponsor should also restrict parking to the street side portion of these parking lots and to a single row of parking against the rear of the project building. Parking noise and activities in the street side lots should not be noticeable to residents of the neighborhood at the rear of the project site. Parking against the rear of the building would be a minimum of 110 feet from the project's rear property line and masonry wall. As shown on Table 3, at the front of the project site, against the rear wall of the project building and in the front parking lots immediately adjacent to the project, there are 167 spaces. Allowing for typical weekday evening and Sunday office use, 150 of these spaces would be available for church use on Friday nights and on Sundays. This parking supply would be sufficient to serve up to 290 attendees at the church or more than adequate to serve the initial Friday evening and Sunday morning attendance of 260 persons expected at the project. To serve the future maximum attendance projected for the project, additional street side parking would be needed. As also shown on Table 3, 120 spaces are provided in the lot across the street fi:om the project at 10460 Bandley Drive. On Friday evenings and on Sundays it is estimated that 108 of these spaces would be available for church use. The total parking supply including the front lot and single row of parking against the rear of the building on the project site, at the front of adjacent properties, and on the property across the street, would be 287 spaces. Of these, 260 would be available for church use on Friday nights and on Sundays. This available parking could serve up to 600 attendees at the church or more than enough to serve the future projected maximum church attendance. The use of the parking supply across the street from the project would require pedestrians to cross Bandley Drive from the parking lot to the project site. There is an existing crosswalk provided on Bandley Drive fi:om the north driveway at 10460 Bandley Drive to near the north driveway of the project site. This crosswalk, combined with the typically low traffic volumes on Bandley Drive at the hours of church services, would provide a safe pedestrian crossing of the street. To minimize vehicle traffic at this crosswalk, the church should request that all drivers using the northerly driveways at the project site and at 10460 Bandley Drive to enter or leave the parking lots from the north. Similarly, all drivers using the southerly driveways would be required to enter and leave from the south. Robert L. Harrfson Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page Other Considerations The following measures are not required to offset si~ificant impacts of the project but ifimplemanted would reduce its overall effect on the local area. * Reduce vehicle trips and parking demand by assisting the congregation to maximize carpools. This could include assigning a volunteer coordinator to distribute information on earpooling and to match members with similar routes to church. · Seek volunteer drivers to provide earpool and/or vanpool service from various residential neighborhoods to and from the church. · Instruct clmrch members on the need to minimize all noise in the parking lots. Conversation should be kept low. Vehicles should not be nm at idle. Arrivals and departures should be made as directly and quickly as possible. All drop-offs and pick-ups should be made at the from of the building. * To minimize peak departure activity, members should be dismissed in a staggered fashion to the greatest extent possible. Library Parking. The restriction of church parking to the front side of the property would negate any potential conflict with the parking requkements of the Cupertino Branch of the Santa Clara County Library which is temporarily located adjacent to project site at 10441 Bandley Drive. The current library hours could conflict with the project use on Sundays. The library is open from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Access to the library is from the rear of the building and most library parking is in the lot at the rear of 10441 Bandley Drive and to a lesser extent in the lot at the rear of the project site. If the church parking is limited to the front of the project site and to the single row of parking against the rear of the building, there would be no conflict with parking for the library. Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning September 2003 Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking Study Page APPENDIX Robert L. Hartfson Transportaffon Planning September 2003 City of Cupertino Chinese Church in Christ Trip Generation and Parking 10455 Bandley Drive Trip Generation Existing Use office Use Church Use Total Quantity (Sq. Ft,) 37, f20 0 37,120 Weekday Average Trip Rate 11.01 9.11 Trips 4O9 0 409 Weekday Peak Hour (between 7am and 7pm) Average Trip Rate 1.56 0.72 Trips 58 0 58 Sunday Average Trip Rate 0.98 Church use fitted curve = Ln('r) = 0.593 Ln(X) + 4.756 Trips 36 0 36 Sunday Peak Hour (of the Generator) Average Trip Rate 0.14 9.49 Trips 5 0 5 Peak Parking Spaces Occupied Chuch Attendance Weekday Office Use = 4.s~ 101 [Ln(P) = 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.253] Church Use = [10 Staff'+ 0.43(50 attendees)] Total Peak Parking Spaces Occupied Existing Use office Use Church Use 0 Sunday Office Use = 9 Weekday x (Sun PkHr / Weekday Pk Hr) Church Use = 0 Average Parking Rate (Sp/Attencl) 0.43 Total Peak Parking Spaces Occupied Total 101 9 Trip Generation. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 6th Ed, Pa~ng Generation. Institute of Trar~sportat[on Engineers. 2nd Ed. Proposed Use office Use Church Use Total f4,120 23,000 37, ~20 11.01 9.11 155 210 365 1.56 0.72 22 17 39 0.98 s.~ 32.45 14 746 760 0.14 9.49 2 218 220 Proposed Use Office Use Church Use 260 520 65 4.17 32 32 97 97 (Also Friday Evening Service) 6 112 224 118 230 Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Subject: Lin, Sam [sam.lin@intel.com] Monday, November 10, 2003 2:37 PM Ciddy Wordell FW: Preliminary Noise Analysis EXHIBIT E Ciddy, Good afternoon, I just received the report from Jeff Pack for the noise study, to submit to you for your reference. Thanks. ~Sam would like ..... Original Message ..... From: Jeff Pack [mailto:jeffpack@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:29 PM To: Lin, Sam Subject: Preliminary Noise Analysis Hi Sam, I've calculated the total noise levels that would be produced by traffic in the parking lot of the planned church. The analysis assumes the use of 168 parking spaces, which include the 37 spaces along the west property line. The City has two sets of standards; The Noise Element limits noise to 60 dB CNEL at residential land uses. The CNEL is a 24-hour average descriptor. The Noise Ordinance limits noise by the duration and the time of occurrence of the noise: For a noise that lasts more than 30 minutes/2 hrs, the limits are 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime. Noise that lasts less than 15 minutes/2 hrs is limited to 65 dBA and 55 dBA. Noise that lasts no more than 10 minutes/2 hrs is limited to 70 dBA and 60 dBA. Noise that lasts for no more than 5 minutes/ 2 hrs is limited to 75 dBA and 65 dBA. Noise that lasts for no more than 1 minute/ 2 hrs is limited to 79 dBA and 69 dBA. Daytime is 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., nighttime is 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Since the church services on Friday are planned to end at 9:30 p.m., the parking should be fairly empty by 10:00. A car leaving the parking lot (people opening the doors, getting in, closing the doors, starting and revving the engine, and driving away) is about 14 dB higher in level than a car driving in and parking. This is due mostly to cranking of the engine and accelerating. Anyway, 168 cars driving in and parking in a half an hour period, then leaving an hour and a half later will generate a worst-case noise exposure of 32 dB CNEL at the first floor exterior elevations (rear and side yards) and 40 dB CNEL at the second floor setback of the most impacted adjacent residence. Thus, the noise exposures are within the 60 dB CNEL limit of the Noise Element. In terms of the Noise Ordinance limits, the calculations of cars entering and leaving can be done two ways; one extreme would be if all the cars enter and leave at the exact same time and the other extreme would be if all of the cars entered and left is succession. If all of the cars leave simultaneously, the noise levels would be 60 dBA at the first floor elevation and 68 dBA at the second floor elevation. The duration of the noise source would be 50 seconds. The limit for this scenario is 79 dBA, i.e, 60 dBA + 19 dBA for a less than 1 minute duration source. Therefore, the will be no noise excesses. The other scenario of all cars leaving in succession would be 44 dBA at the first floor and 52 dBA at the second floor. The duration would be slightly over 30 minutes, thus the limit would be 60 dBA. Again, there will be no noise excess. The existing ambient sound levels during the planned hours of church service are 48 dBA (quiet background) and 50-52 (average background) on Friday evenings, and 48-49 dBA (quiet background) and 50-52 dBA(average ! background) on Sundays. The average noise levels produced by vehicles in the parking lot, including the 37 spaces in the back row, will be significantly less that the existing average ambient sound levels. The use of the 168 spaces including the back row will have no negative noise impact to the neighbors and the noise exposures and noise levels will be in compliance with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. The complete report should be ready some time Thursday. Thanks for being understanding about my personal situation. If you have any questions, please call or write back. I should be around all day today. Please forward this email to Ciddy Wordell. I don't have her address. Thanks. Sincerely, Jeff Pack Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. 2177 Northampton Dr. San Jose, CA 95124 Tel: (408) 723-8900 Fax: (408) 723-8099 2 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Project Location: Chinese Church in Christ 10455 Bandley Drive I0 taffUse Only A File No. EA-2003-~,I~t~¢ ~ ase File No. U-2003-11, Z-I o3-7 / pA-2003-02 / Project Description: General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office buildin.q. Rezoninq of a 2.95 acre parcel from P(CG~ ML, Res-4-12) to P(CG,ML~BQ, Res-4-12). Use permit to locate a church in an existinq 37,120 square foot office buildin,q (23~000 square feet church use, 14t120 square feet office use) Environmental Setting: Existinq office buildin.q surrounded by other office buildings to the north, south and east and sinqle family residential homes to the west PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - _2.95 acres Building Coverage - % Exist. Building - 37,120_s.f. Proposed Bldg. - same s.f. Zone - G.P. Designation - Assessor's Parcel No. 326-33-102 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] S. De Anza Conceptual [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual [] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [] Stevens Creek Blvd. SW& Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. Employees/Shift - Parking Required Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - FAR- Max. Parking Provided YES [] NO [] CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 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. City Aerial 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. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health Eo OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsu[a Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 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 District OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara ValleyWater District Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A, Complete all 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 pa.qe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. 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: SSUES: [and SuppoSing 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 s~nic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state s~nic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,~] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighffime views in the area? [1,16,44] I.a-c: This is an existing building and no e~erior changes are proposed. I.d Parking lot lighting will be needed and will be designed to minimize lighting impacts on adjacent residences. 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 Conse~ation as an optional model to use in assessing impa~s on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Conved Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Impo~an~ (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] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] [and Supporting Information Sources] 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] I.a-c No agricultural lands ara involved. III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air )ollution 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 mcraase 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 thrasholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive raceptora to substantial pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Craate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IIl.a-e Air quality would only be affected by car use, which will be less than that of the allowed office use. 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] = ISSUES: I [and Supporting Information Sources] I i b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 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 corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery 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] IV.a-f The building is not located near any environmentally sensitive areas. 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 §15064.57 [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique , geologic feature? [5,13,41] I ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] V. a-d No exterior changes are proposed and no cultural resources are affected. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-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 I disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] i VI. a-e This is an existing building, and it is-- [and Supporting Information Sources] not in a fault zone. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 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-quarter 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 significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 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, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] wildlands?[1,2,44] VII a-h None of the above impacts apply. 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 planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) 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? [2,36] 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? [2,36,36] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [2,36,36] VIII. a-j None of the above impacts apply. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would i the project: F ![and Supporting Information Sources] o.~--~ ~ E e,~ 'E~ ~ ~[=~° -~u~-~'-~--E _E~' a) Physically divide an established [] [] [] [] i community? [7,12,22,41] I 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] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] [] [] [] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] IX a-c The proposal does not conflict with any plan except the General Plan, and that is being changed as part of this application. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: i 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] X. a-b Neither impacts apply. XI. 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? i Id) A substantial tempora~ orperio_clic_ ........................................................................................................... ? ISSUES: [and SuppoSing Information Sources] increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicini~ above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) Fo~ a project lo.ted within an airpo~ land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within ~o miles of a public airpod or public use airpo~, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the p~oject expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] Xl. a and d Noise levels are not expected to ex.ed those allowed by the Municipal Oode. However, the large number of people and ~rs coming and going at times of day not ~pical to o~ce uses will expose residents to unexpected noise levels at night and on weekends. MITIGATION PROPOSED: Emergency ent~/exit only at rear of building. Limited pa~ing allowed in rear parking IcL Trash collection area near building, not near residences. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 8) Induce substantial population gro~h in an area, either dire~ly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through e~ension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displa~ substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of cepla~ment housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XlI. a-c None of the impacts apply. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial [and Supporting Information Sources] ~._~ _1=e~~-- .~o° e'- ~' ~ ._~--E _E 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 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] [] [] [] [] XII. a-c None of the impacts apply. XIV. 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] XII. a-c Neither of the impacts apply. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is [] [] [] [] substantial in relation to the existing traffic load 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 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] 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 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 equipment)? [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] XV. f Parking mitigation required: No parking against wall adjacent to residences. No parking in back row adjacent to residences. Require use of other site as church attendance increases. XVI. 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 env ronmenta effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the [and Support ng Information Sources] 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 so d waste d sposa needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] XV a-g None of the impacts apply. 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Fl 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 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ['1 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. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature / Print Preparer's Name ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION be Comp eted bye ty 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. airperson Date Date CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on November 17, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-14 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-07, GPA-2003-02, U-2003-11 Liang Tsai Lin/Chinese Church in Christ 10455 Bandley Drive DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a 2.95-acre parcel from P(CG, ML, Res- 4-12) Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-12 dwelling units per gross acre) to P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12)(adds BQ, quasi-public). General Plan Amendment to locate a church in an existing office building. Use Permit to locate a church in an existing 37,120 square foot office building. (23,000 square feet church use, 14,120 square feet office use). FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated 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/ne g EA 2 00 314 BERG & BERG ENTERPRISES, INC. ! 0050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 (408) 725-0700 - fax (408) 725-1626 11/3/03 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CC: Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission Re: Church Application, 10455 Bandley Drive Ms. Wordell, City Council and Planning Commission Members: Cupertino has always been very strict in enfoming its zoning ordinances and following the general plan. We strongly oppose any spot use or zoning no matter how well-intentioned. We are very understanding of the need for zoning for churches. Existing buildings in the center of any R & D campus are not an acceptable location for churches. Numerous conflicts could surface and create conflicts at any time, but parking has been an almost daily problem in almost every instance and this problem is totally beyond even the best intentions of the City and the church. While existing churches in R & D areas have made major efforts to solve these parking problems, they exist on nearly every site. The church on Bubb Road has been in violation of its permit for years with the City having no means of enforcing its permit except to close down the church which is a very unpleasant option. In over 10 years, the City of Cupertino has not faced its problem of not having any land zoned for churches and other similar uses. The City has continued to take no action to solve the problem and this results in extreme pressure on the City for spot zoning and inappropriate uso of office and light industry buildings every time we have a temporary downturn and low prices for R & D properties. This application for allowing a church to use an R & D property on Bandley Drive is a potential violation of CEQA, bad planning, bad faith use of zoning and general plan for the sole reason that the price is cheap and the property is available. This type of general plan amendment is inconsistent with the balance of the general plan and at least requires an EIR. Do not use the 10 year failure of the City to solve the church problem as another justification to spot zone another area and create a whole new set of problems. Please don't put the churches or the R & D building owners in this position, solve the real problem. Zone some property for church use, using available raw land, such as Vallco and reject this application. Carl Berg Berg & Berg Developers 408-725-0700 RONALD B. RANKIN 24 SOUTH FORTY PIER SAUSALITO, CA 94965 Voice/Fax 415. 331.6550 Email rbrankin@mac, com Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Ms. Ciddy Wordell Planning Director Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 OCT 3 1 ?fl03 ~ BY:. ~ Ms. Wordell Devcon Associates XVI 10381-10443 Bandley Drive Cupertino, California I am writing to object to the church use proposed for the Office/R&D building immediately North of our subject Devcon Associates XVI buildings. We have been trying to relet space at the 10381 building for well over a year, and of late have found prospective office tenants who have reacted negatively to a church next door. Certainally a church when in session would require over two ' times the cars than the property's parking lot could handle at the designed 250 SF of floor area per parking space, causing overflow onto our property and the one to the North. Thank you for your consideration of our position on this matter. Sincerely Devcon Associates XVI Ronald B. Rankin General Partner Copy to: Barry Fernald Property Manager RONALD G. BOYER 140 Shawnee Pass Portola Valley, Ca.,94028 10/31/03 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Dear Ms Wordelh RE: Church Application 10455 Bandley Drive I am th...e own~..r of the prope .r'~y at,20675 Lazaneo. I wish to express my great concern and opposition to tne presence or a cnurcn at the above mentioned address. My forty years of r.eal e?tate e~nce has shown me clearly that churches and high quality industrial areas ao not mix. ~ua~ity tenants will select other areas resulting in a general reduction of rent and property values. Some of their concerns are the following: Parking - There is never enough parking regardless of standard indicators and there is no way to guarantee parking control. Local property owners might need posts and chains or on-site personnel. Environmental - Industrial tenants may in the future work after hours and on weekends with normal toxic industrial chemicals. The presence of these materials near church members can be dangerous. I purchased this property in Cupertino approximately two years ago because I felt it was prime industrial property and would have long range potential. I have turned down marginal uses because they did not meat those standards. Once a non compatible use is introduced it is extremely difficult for the City to reject other such uses. It is a slippery slope leading to reduced property values. I have had a vacant building for over a year and have paid over $60,000 in property taxes plus a lot more to carry my building during that time. I will continue this painful process as long as the quality of the neighborhood and its long run prospects am preserved. Approving this application would not preserve that quality. Sincerely, Ronald G. Boyer Ms, Ciddy Wordell Conununity Development Department - Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 Oct. Re: 10/8/03 ERC meeting on Chinese Chumh in Christ (CCIC) application for general plan amendment, zoning change and permit issuance to use 10455 Bandle¥ Drive as a church CC: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development, City of Cupertino Mr. David Knapp, City Manager, City of Cupertino Mr. Chuck Corr, Planning Commission, City of Cupertino Ms. Dolly Sandoval, Council Member, City of Cupertino Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, City of Cupertino Dear Ms. Wordell, I appreciate your time for our fu'st phone conversation almost fight before the ERC meeting on the October 8~. I also made an inquiry to CCIC after I talked to you on the next day and learned that the recommendation from the ERC meeting was to restrict CCIC members from parking at the entire back row against the existing masonry wall in order to minimize the so called "nuisance noise" to resideminl neighbors. I was quite surprised that the City was over-reacting about this issue. I've stated to you on both phone calls that I have no problem with CCIC parking in this area on Friday nights or Sunday mornings. All I have suggested is to recommend CCIC selecting this back row area as the last priority for its parking since you were inquiring about the noise issue that I might have. I've experienced many other worse cases of noise issue in this area such as shipping trucks idling noise(Pluris and Ducati), air supply tracks pumping noise(Apple Computer), night shift company's employee and janitor traffic/parking noise, garbage dumpster services noise and extensive Public Library traffic/parking noise(7 days a week)! CCIC church states that they will only have regular assembly meetings twice a week and will only bring peace and harmony to the neighborhood instead of disturbances. I am supporting the CCIC application because it will be very hard to find any other better neighbor to use this building. I insist my input should be correctly presented to the Planning Department, Planning Commission sad City Conneil Members-* If ERC recommendation has been determined in favor of depriving CCIC's fight to park at the designated area as indicated above, based on the reason of "nuisance noise impact", then I'd like to request a face-to-face meeting with all related parties on this subject. I will illustrate personally and answer any questions. Being the neighbor directly behind the subject parking lot, I should make the best judgment and the most influence to your consideration of such noise issue. IfI don't care, what does the City care? In fact, I welcome CCIC to be my future neighbor and prefer a church to a Library or a hi-tech company! Sincerely Yours, Eric Hwang Address: 20697 Hanford Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-6612219 Chinese Churdl i~ Chri$l 1490 Saratoga Avenue San Jose, CA 95129 Tel: (408) 364-2242 ]:ax: (408) 364-2226 September 30th, 2003 Mx. Robert Hecox Mrs, Cynthia A. Bartlett-Wong Apple 1 Infinite Loop, MS:35-4RE Cupertino, California 95014 NOV 1 0 2003 p;~r: ............. Dear Robert and Cynthia: we at Chinese Church In Christ, San Jose (CCIC-SJ) appreciated very much your meeting with us last Tuesday (9/23/03) and shaxed your concerns regarding the use of 10455 Bandley Drive as a potential site for our new church, CCIC Cupertino. Our goals are to sene the community and be a good neighbor when building this new church. Therefore, we hope to address your concerns that were raised during our conversation, as listed below: 1- Parking - CCIC Cupertino is willing to execute an agreement with Apple to the effect that we will not, in any circumstance, use any parking space belonging to Apple. As I mentioned in our conversation, we would have our own patrol on Sunday mornings and Friday nights (our 2 major assembly time periods) m make sure that vehicles from our congregation would not park in Apple parking lot(s) or block common drive way(s). 2. Liability - As we will not use parking space or any other facilities within the boundaries of Apple properties, Apple's potential liabilities of any accidents, injuries or thefts that may occur to our congregation people or their properties should be non-existent. To further address this concern, however, CCIC Cupertino is willing to execute necessary legal documents to indemnify Apple from such potential liabilities. 3. Apple's desire to keep Bandley Drive as a business/industrial environment - As one of the buildings on Bandley Drive has already been functioning for quasi-public purpose, namely the Cupertino City Library. it seems that such use has not created dissention or hindered synergy typical among businesses in the Bandley Drive vicinity. With part of our existing and majority of our future congregation residing in Cupertino, this building is situated perfectly to service the local community. 4. Potentially ltmit~g Apple's ability to use or expand its existing buildings - Although this was a bad experience you had with another neighbor/ng church in Santa Clara, you confirmed this concern would not apply in our case. I would like to further stress CClC's commitment and desire to be a good neighbor and its willingness to make every reasonable effort to work with Apple, as well as other neighbors to achieve these goals. we look forward to again meeting with you to further discuss your concerns, and perhaps create solutions to satisfy Apple. Please feel free to contact Mr. Lou Yang at 408-309-9960. Sincerely yours, "~L~nmn~-Tsai Lin, '~' Elder CCIC Cidd /Wordell From: Sent: To: Subject: Chen, Angela [Angela. Chen@sanjoseca.gov] Monday, November 10, 2003 9:53 AM Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki FW: RE 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for church use. PublicHeari ng, 11/10/03 FYI and record. ..... Original Message ..... From: LLin102999@aol.com [mailto:LLin102999@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:38 PM To: angela.chen@ci.sj.ca.us; mmiller@interorealestate.com; GWong212@aol.com; taghi.saadati@ci.sj.ca.us; charles corr@sjusd.kl2.ca.us Cc: lli~@plxtech.com Subject: RE 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for church use. Hearing, 11/10/03 Public Dear Planning Commission Members, Regarding public hearing on 11/10/03 for church use of 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, we at Chinese Church In Christ (CCIC) have the following responses to those conditions recommended by the city staff and some concerns raised by neighbors: 1. Parking: we respectfully request that the planning conunission consider using the factual number of 3 persons per car obtained from statistical data of actual church operations over many years. This number is very reasonable since it is between NTI research (2.1 per car) and Cupertino city ordinance (4 per car). With 165 spaces available on the site, sufficient for the capacity of 500 people which is our projected maximum number in 5 years. we are self 2. Concerning noise issues, we have hired a professional acoustic engineering firm to measure noise level in the surrounding area during busy daytime hours on parking lots of both the library building and 10455 Bandley building. The results are less than 50 dB, way below Cupertino city ordinance of 55 and 65 dB. The main factor being that the masonry wall along property line at the back of both buildings is actually more than 8 feet above ground (instead of 6'6'' as reported by city study.) Further, there is a set back of 15 feet between the last row of parking stalls and the wall, plus the mature, dense and tall trees by the wall have effectively mitigated any noises. We therefore respectfully request that Commission remove the condition that restrict use of the last row of parking stalls nearest to the wall. 3. Limit industrial use: Some business building owners are raising the 1 potential limit of industrial use, such as production with toxic chemicals, by our church being there. However, the large residential homes are already existing and are concerned more if such hazardous material is stored or applied nearby. We are not a limiting factor at all. To support our application, our church members residing in Cupertino has signed a letter addressing to all of the Co~umission and Council members. These signatures were collected only within 15 minutes after our Sunday service and represent only part of our 200+ members who are residents of Cupertino. These signed letters will be delivered to you during the hearing on 11/10/03. We would appreciate very much your kind consideration of above requests at the 11/10/03 public hearing. Sincerely, Liang-Tsai Lin Elder, CCIC San Jose 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Lin, Sam [sam.lin@intel.com] Monday, November 10, 2003 2:30 PM Ilin@plxtech.com; Lin, Sam; sam.weng@comcast.net; Sam_Wang@dot.ca.gov; Angela. Chen@sanjoseca.gov; Lou_P._Yang@issi.com FW: Preliminary Noise Analysis Just come back to my office and receive the report from Jeff, he left me a VM asking me to also forward to Ciddy Wordell as his personal testimony for tonight's hearing. Sam ..... Original Message ..... From: Jeff Pack [mailto:jeffpack@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:29 PM To: Lin, Sam Subject: Preliminary Noise ~nalysis Hi Sam, I've calculated the total noise levels that would be produced by traffic in the parking lot of the planned church. The analysis assumes the use of 168 parking spaces, which include the 37 spaces along the west property line. The City has two sets of standards; The Noise Element limits noise to 60 dB CNEL at residential land uses. The CNEL is a 24-hour average descriptor. The Noise Ordinance limits noise by the duration and the time of occurrence of the noise: For a noise that lasts more than 30 minutes/2 hrs, the limits are 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime. Noise that lasts less than 15 minutes/2 hrs is limited to 65 dBA and 55 dBA. Noise that lasts no more than 10 minutes/2 hrs is limited to 70 dBA and 60 dBA. Noise that lasts for no more than 5 minutes/ 2 hrs is limited to 75 dBA and 65 dBA. Noise that lasts for no more than 1 minute/ 2 hrs is limited to 79 dBA and 69 dBA. Daytime is 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., nighttime is 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Since the church services on Friday are planned to end at 9:30 p.m., the parking should be fairly empty by 10:00. A car leaving the parking lot (people opening the doors, getting in, closing the doors, starting and revving the engine, and driving away) is about 14 dB higher in level than a car driving in and parking. This is due mostly to cranking of the engine and accelerating. Anyway, 168 cars driving in and parking in a half an hour period, then leaving an hour and a half later will generate a worst-case noise exposure of 32 dB CNEL at the first floor exterior elevations (rear and side yards) and 40 dB CNEL at the second floor setback of the most impacted adjacent residence. Thus, the noise exposures are within the 60 dB CNEL limit of the Noise Element. In terms of the Noise Ordinance limits, the calculations of cars entering and leaving can be done two ways; one extreme would be if all the cars enter and leave at the exact same time and the other extreme would be if all of the cars entered and left is succession. 'If all of the cars leave simultaneously, the noise Yeuels would be 60 dBA at the first floor elevation and 68 dBA at the second floor elevation. The duration of the noise source would be 50 seconds. The limit for this scenario is 79 dBA, i.e, 60 dBA + 19 dBA for a less than 1 minute duration source. Therefore, the will be no noise excesses. The other scenario of all cars leaving in succession would be 44 dBA at the first floor and 52 dBA at the second floor. The duration would be slightly over 30 minutes, thus the limit would be 60 dBA. Again, there will be no noise excess. The existing ambient sound levels during the planned hours of church service are 48 dBA (quiet background) and 50-52 (average background) on Friday evenings, and 48-49 dBA (quiet background) and 50-52 dBA(average background) on Sundays. The average noise levels produced by vehicles in the parking lot, including the 37 spaces in the back row, will be significantly less that the existing average ambient sound levels. The use of the 168 spaces including the back row will have no negative noise impact to the neighbors and the noise exposures and noise levels will be in compliance with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. The complete report should be ready some time Thursday. Thanks for being understanding about my personal situation. If you have any questions, please call or write back. I should be around all day today. Please forward this eraail to Ciddy Wordetl. I don't have her address. Thanks. Sincerely, Jeff Pack Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. 2177 Northampton Dr. San Jose, CA 95124 Tel: (408) 723-8900 Fax: (408) 723-8099 ..... Original Message ..... From: "Lin, Sam" <sam.lin@intel.com> To: "Jeff Pack (E-mail)" <jeffpack@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:04 AM Subject: FW: Seller's support of parking across street and the 3 other churc members to support Jeff, I am trying to book 30 min. slot next Monday in between 10:30 to 3:00, This is to understand your report and key data in case you can not make it for 7: 00 p.m. hearing, I will have 2 more people from Church to join us in the tele-conf., can you let me know what's your best time and we'll accommodate your schedule. Thanks. p.s., can you als0 forward me your reference please? ..... Original Message ..... From: Lou P. Yang@issi.com [mailto:Lou P. Yang@issi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:14 PM To: Lin, Sam Subject: RE: Seller's support of parking across street and the 3 other churc members to support I am available on Monday until 3:30 p.m.. After that, a Board meeting will take me all the way to 6:30 p.m. or so and I plan to go straight to the hearing when the meeting is done. Please don't forget to get Jeff's credentials so I can put it on the ppt file. Lou Cidd Wordell From: Sent: To: Subject: Chen, Angela [Angela. Chen@sanjoseca.gov] Monday, November 10, 2003 11:42 AM Steve Piasecki; Ciddy Wordell FW: Monday night's meeting ..... Original Message ..... From: D. Michael Foulkes [mailto:foulkes@apple.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:50 AM TO: Planning Commissioners Cc: Jody Hansen; Bob Hecox; Keith Lewis; Cathy Hutchinson Foster; sdowling@apple.com Subject: Monday night's meeting Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I will be attempting to call you individually today, but wanted to give you a heads up that we will be strongly opposing item number 4 on Monday's agenda (relating to the rezoning and general plan amendment for the property located at 10455 Bandley Drive). As you know, Apple is a very acconunodating neighbor, however, we must oppose this project based upon 4 factors: 1. The General Plan must stand for something. The general plan is the blueprint of the community and the citizens need to be able to rely upon it. Placing a non-conforming use (a use not allowed by current area zoning) in the center of a light industrial zone will have a significant negative impact on all the neighboring uses, and will erode the value and function of the commercial/light industrial facilities on Bandley Drive. 2. Parking - The facility has far below adequate parking for the proposed use. There is no on-street parking. This non-conforming use will create major problems for all the surrounding land owners and tenants as well as significantly increase liability costs. Apple has experienced this problem elsewhere in Cupertino when similar spot zoning changes have been made without the requirement of adequate parking. 3. Environmental impacts not researched. A parking study has been done, which shows parking to be inadequate during demand periods (even with inflated passenger per vehicle numbers). While this problem needs to be remedied, we believe other issues have not been evaluated and mitigated such as concerns of traffic congestion, noise and light pollution, and economic impact/property tax loss. To our knowledge, an initial environmental assessment evaluating those factors was not done (we are currently checking with the City Attorney). Further, we believe that the necessity for additional off-site parking if the property is rezoned, along with the other factors, present a significant additional and adverse environmental impact in the area. Accordingly, we believe that an environmental impact report must be required or that all negative impacts associated with the requested rezoning be specifically addressed and mitigated. 4. Long term impact to Apple and other businesses. The only area in Cupertino contiguous to Apple's main facilities to expand is along Bandley Drive. In fact, this year we have increased our workforce and have required 100,000 new square feet of office just off of Bandley. Placing a non-conforming use squarely in the middle of that area with the related problems will significantly decrease our ability to grow there. It also ! sets the stage for repeated problems between the various owners/tenants of the buildings along Bandley that would not occur in a uniformly zoned area of Cupertino. While we appreciate and support the needs of the proposed occupant of the building, we believe that spot zoning is both bad public policy and will create problems both for the existing businesses and for the proposed new entity. I look forward to seeing you all on this evening, and can be reached today if you have any questions at 408-974-2503. Very truly yours, Mike D. Michael Foulkes Manager, State and Local Government Affairs Apple Computer, Inc. 408.974.2503 Itsuo Uenaka 1138 S. De Anza Blvd. San Jose, CA 95129 NOV ] 0 2003 November 7, 2003 Ms Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Church Application, 10455 Bandley Drive Dear Ms Wordell, City Council and Planning Commission Members I represent the Uenaka Family Limited Partnership, owners of 10475 Bandley Drive, the property to the immediate North of the property under discussion. Our building was completed in 1980 and has been occupied by Apple Computer, Inc. ever since. This property was a portion of the location of Cupertino Nursery, established by the Uenaka family in 1948 and relocated in 1985. We object to any change in zoning which would be incompatible with the present uses of properties in this area and which may compromise the integrity and value of these properties. We believe that the lack of parking is a serious problem. Since the on-site parking for our building meets the current requirements for parking, we cannot concede the use of our parking to any adjoining properties, and thereby limit any future tenancy in our building. Please do not put us in the position of having to police the integrity of our own parking facility every Friday and Sunday as well as those other days that there may be special church celebrations and occasions. Thank you for your consideration, Itsuo Uenaka Planning £omm~sslon City of Cupertino 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Use Permit Application, Chinese Church in Christ {CCIC] ] 0455 BQndley Ddve, Cupertino, CA Public Hearing, ] 1/] 0/03 November 8. 2003 V 1 0 2003 Dear Planning Commission Members. I reside immediately behind the masonry wail, separating ] 0455 Bandley building and our residential area. This is to let you know that I strongly suppod the unconditional approval of Chinese Church in Christ application for use permit and zoning change of this building. Also I don't have any issue with the potential "noise" from the church members' parking on Friday nights and Sunday mornings. In fact, church people coming or leaving church are with a peaceful mind so they will be quieter than others. I am very concerned about the industrial use of the business buildings with toxic chemicals. So a church is perfect for our neighborhood as this 10455 Bandley building will never ever become a production site with hazardous material. I sincerely welcome CClC to join our community. Very Truly Yours, Shen, Ming Yang and Lin-Ye 20805 Hanford Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 I'd 88~-9~(80~) ~£O:II 80 SO ~0/38/2803 ~0:20 40839588~8 P&GE 8~ NOV ! ~) ?nn~ J J Leu P, Yang 03 00:01 Hi, Mr. Fernald, To: riches~pacbell,net Subject: Information for Mr. Femald on CClC Thanks for calling me bac~ today and discuss your concarns regarcling our application to build a church right by your building on Bandley. I have attached some pictures, list of our servicas/activities and a testimony from a neighbor (of our current SJ church building), The pictures show how our SJ church has been patrolling for parking to ensure no "invasion" into restrictive areas (e.g. streets in residential area behind our building and certain stalls of next door bank building reserved for ATM users - we have paid a rent for the rest, otc.). We have even operated shuttles across Saratoga Ave. so our congregation could use the parking lot located at Pinn Brother building (see the testimony). All these have been in place and been well managed by a traffic control c~mmittee, for 10 years of our history in this SJ building. There are another 3 sister churches in the Bay Area we have built over the last 30 years, and our principles have always been: 1) to plant a new church in a new geographical location when each growing to a certain size, 2) to become a community church to serve local people and 3) to bring peace, harmony and God's blessings to the neighborhood. We are willing to sign an agreement with you to prohibit our parking on your lot and indemnify you for any liabilities caused by our people. The potential traffic jam on the shared driveway may be minimized by our off-peak operating hours (Friday nights and Sunday mornings) and my idea of "one-way" direction (in or out only). For the poterffial limit of production use of your building, we feel strongly that the residential homes surrounding the Bandley buildings will be a bigger concern than us, We are only there for 6 to 7 hours per week end only on weekends. But the residents are there 24/7. We will be glad to meet you on Monday and further elaborate the above as well as answer any questions. Please let me know if you have available time for us, My cell no. is 408-309-9960. Regards, Lou File1 .TIF 18,'30z2003 10:20 400395~D18 PAGE 03 Pinn Brothers Office Park 1475 Sarat0ga Avenue, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 951~9 Tel: 408-252-9131 / Fax: 408-252-2632 October 7, 2003 Lou Yang CCIC 1490 Saratoga Avenue San Jose, CA 95129 Dear Lou, This letter is written to confirm that Chinese Church in Christ has indeed been a good neighbor in its use of our parking lot on Sunday mornings. The Church sets aside marked spaces for our few tenants that work Sundays and utilizes a van pool to pick up its parishioners and take them across very busy Saratoga Avenue. We have had no problems of any kind with Sunday parking lot use and would recommend this use of empty parking lots by Churches for Sunday services. Alan R. Pinn Owner Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Use Permit Application, Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA Public Hearing, 11/10/03 November 8, 2003 [N,Qv ~ 0 Z~03 Dear Planning Commission Members, My name is Theodore Tedijanto and I live in the vicinity of the 10455 Bandley building. This letter is to express my strongest support for the unconditional approval of the Chinese Church in Christ application for use permit and zoning change of such building. I don't have any issue with the potential ~noise' from the church members' parking on Fdday nights and Sunday mornings. In fact, church people are quieter than the others and will not cause any nuisance at all. Also, unlike the other industrial use of the business buildings, church will not enter any production of toxic chemicals, which makes the community safer. I sincerely welcome CCIC to our neighborhood. Very Truly Yours, Theodore Tedijanto 20818 Dunbar Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408-863-0017 FROM : SIUAL PHONE NO. : 408 4921393 Now. 10 2003 09:42AM P1 Planning Commission Ci~ of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupe~ino, CA95014 November 9,2003 0V 1 0 Z003 / RE: 10455 Dandley Ddve, C, upertino, CA for church dse. Public Hearing, ll/10/03 Dear Members of Planning Commission, We are the resident; of Cupertino and we support the approval of the applica~on by COd (Chinese Church in Christ) for the use Permit and zoning changes at i0455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. We believe the proposed site is an ideal location for a community-based organization such as CC[C. Our rE~a$ons : ?~ 75:':';' 1) Cuper{Jno resident of.CCIC would nr~.have'to cornmube ogt o,f ~:,t~q.w,.o~shiR the Lord or ,. receive spiritual support - not to mention elimina'dng unneCeSSary t~ffic for the db/. ' - 2) We are in a congregation with primarily our feJlow Cupertino residents - the benefits ~'nduding the conver~Jence Jn mutua! support, fellowship and building a peer group for our young children etc. 3) The city has very diverse ethnic groups, a church like CCI¢ which offers services for Chinese/Asian from overseas will bring peace and harmony to our city, and 4) CC. IQ: has an excellent youth program where our youth could receive guidance and care during thfs turbulent growing-up period. 5) The Bandley location is right in the middle of a residential-and industrial area, making it ideal to act as a transiUon buffer between the two zones. A mi'~ed uSe will also permit the possibility of sharing the parking spaces at difr~rent times (week days vs. weekends). In summary, we strongly desire yOUr suppo~ to uncondiUonally approve the CCIC application ~r zoning change and use permit. Sincerely Yours, Signature Name Address t' leJephone Plannin j Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: i0455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for church use, Public Hearing, 11/10/03 November 9,2003 Dear Members of Planning Commission, We are the residents of Cupertino and we support the approval of the application by C¢IC (Chinese Church in Christ) for the use Permit and zoning changes at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. We believe the proposed site is an ideal location for a community-based organization such as CQC. Our reasons are: 1) Cupertino residents of CCIC would not have to commute out of city to worship the Lord or receive spiritual support - not to menUon eliminaUng unnecessary traffic for the dty. 2) We are in a congregation with primarily our ~low Cupertino residents - the benefits including the convenience in mutual support, fellowship and building a peer group for our children etc. 3) The city has very diverse ethnic groups, a church like C~IC which offers services for Chinese/Asian from overseas will bring peace and harmony to our city, and 4) CC~C has an excellent youth program, through which our youth could receive guidance and care during this turbulent growing-up pedod. 5) The Bandley location is right in the middle of a residential and industrial area, making it ideal to act as a transition buffer between the two zones. A mixed use will also permit the possibility of sharing the parking spaces at different times (week days vs. weekends). In summary, we strongly desire your support to unconditionally approve the CC]C application, for zoning change and use permit. Sincerely Yours, Signature Name t Address Telephone [0 '~ 660~LL80~ 'ON XVJ Planning Commission & City Council City of Cupertino November 9, Cupertino, CA 95014 /~NOV!o~o0~3 / Zoning Change ~d Use Pemit Application by Chi~ese Ch~ch in Christ (CCIC) For 10455 .Bradley DHve .Cupe~ino, C& ~blic He~n~ I I/10/03 ~d 11/I 7/03 Dear ,Member o~Plan~ng Co~iss~on ~d City CounCil, We hereby ~onfirm that we ~e the residems oF Cupe~ino ~d we suppo~ ~e unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use pe~it ~d zoning change at 10455 Bandl~ Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yours, ~dress ,er. Planning Commission & City Council City o£ Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9, 2003 RE: Zoning Change and Use .Pc~rnit Application by Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) for 10455 Bandley Drive, Cuperti.no, C& Public Heating, 11/10/03 and l 1/I 7/03 Dear Memb*r of Planning Commission and City Council, We hereby confirm that we are the residents of Cupertino and we support the unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use perrait and zoning change at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yo~ trs, Planning Commission & City Council City o£Cupe~ino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9, 2003 RE: Zonb~g Change and Use Permit Application by Cl-finese Church in Christ (CCIC) for 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA, Public Heating, 11/10/03 and 11/17/03 Dear Member of Plarming Commission and City Council, We hereby confirm that we are the residents of Cupertino &nd we suppo~ the unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use permit and zoning change at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yours, Planning Commission& City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 9501.4 November 9, 2003 Zoning Change and Use Permit Application by Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) for 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA, Public Hearing, 11/I0/03 and 11/I 7/03 Dear Member of Planning Commission and City Council We hereby confirm that we are the residents of Cupertino and we 'suppoa the unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use permit and zoning change at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yours, Planning Commission & City Council City of Cupert. ino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9 2003 RE: Zoning Change and Use Permit Application by Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) for 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA, Public Hearing, 11/10/03 and 11/17/03 Dear Member of Planning Commission and City Council, We hereby confirm ~hat we are the residents of Cupertino and we support the unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use permit and zoning change at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yours, Signature Nme Address Telephtne Planning Commission & City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Tot-re Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9. 2003 Zoning Change and Use Permit Application by Chinese Church in Christ (CCIC) for 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA~ Public Hearing, ! 1/10/03 and I 1/I 7/03 Dear Member o£Planning Commission and City Council, We hereby confirm that tve are the residents of Cupertino and we support the unconditional approval of CCIC application for the use permit and zoning change at 10455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. Sincerely Yours, .,,. Planning Commission City of Cupertino 7.0300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9,2003 RE: 10455 'Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for churCh.use. Public Headng, ~,~tJl0/03 Dear Members of Planning Commission, We are the residents of Cupe~dno and we support the approval of ~he a@plical:ion by CCIC (Chinese Church in Christ) for the use Permit and zoning changes at 104:~5 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. We believe the proposed site is an ideal location for a community-based organization such as CC]C. Our reasons are: · · ~.) Cupertino residerlt of CCIC wou!d not have to. comrr~j~.:.out:.of,cib/to worship the Lord or r~ceive spiritual sup~:)rt - not to mentioh eliminating unneceSsarY traffic for the city. 2) We are in a congregation with primarily our fellow Cupertino residents - the benefits ~ncluding the convenience in mutual support, fellowship and building a peer group for our young children etc. 3) The city has very diverse ethnic groups, a church like. O~C which off, rs services for Chinese/Asian from overseas will bdng peace and harmony to our city, and 4) CCIC has an excellent youth program where our youth could receive guidance and care during this turbulent growing-up period. 5) The Bandley location is dght in the middle ufa residential-and industrial area, making it ideal to act as a transition buffer between the.two zones. A mixed use will also permit the pessibility of sharing the parking spaces at different times (week days vs. weekends). ' Ih summary we ~bong. ty desire Your support to unconditionally approve the CCIC application for zoning change and use permit. ' ' Sincerely Yours, Signa~um~,/? Name Address ' Telephone Planning Commission City of Cu~Cdno 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 November 9,2003 RE: 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for church use. Public Hearing, 11/10/03 Dear Members of Planning Commission, we are the residents of Cupertino and we support the approval of the application by CCIC (Chinese Church in Christ) for the use Permit and zoning changes at 10455 Bendley Drive in Cupertino. We believe the proposed site is an ideal location fi~r a community-based organization such as CCTC. Our reasons are: 1) Cupertino resident of CC~C would not have to commute out of ciL'y to worship the Lord or receive spiritual support - not to mention eliminating unnecessary traffic for the city. 2) We are in a congregation with primarily our fellow Cupertino residents - the benefits including the convenience in mutual support, fellowship and building a peer group for our young children etc. 3) The city has very diverse ethnic groups, a church like CC~C which offers services for Chinese/Asian from overseas will bdng Peace and harmony to our city, and 4) CCIC has an excellent youth program where our youth could receive guidance and care during this bJrbulent growing-up period. 5) The Bandley location is right in the middle of a residenUal and industrial area, making it ideal to act as a transition bufT~r between the two zones. A mixed use w~ll also permit the possibility of sharing the parking spaces at different times (week days vs, weekends). In summary, we Strongly desire your support to unconditionally approve the CCIC application for zoning change and use permit. Sincerely Yours, 18/38/2883 89:49 4883958818 PAGE 83 PJanning Commission City ofCupe~ino t0300TorreAvenue Cupertino, CA 950[4 November 9,2003 RE: 10455 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA for church use. Public Hearing, 11/10/03 Dear Members of Planning Commission, we are the residenf~ o? Cupertino and we support, the approval of Ohe application by CCIC (Chinese Church in Christ) for the use Permit and zoning changes at ~0455 Bandley Drive in Cupertino. We believe the proposed site is an ideal location for a community-based organization such as CCIC. Our reasons are: :t) Cupertino resident of CC[C would not have to commute out of city to worship the Lord or receive spiritual support - not to mention eliminating unnecessary traffic for the city. 2) We ar8 in a congregation with primarily our fellow Cupertino residents - the benefits including the convenience in mutual support, fellowship and building a peer group for our young children etc. 3) The city has very diverse ethnic groups, a church like CC~C which offers services for Chinese/Asian from overseas will bdng peace and harmony to our city, and 4) CC[C has an excellent youth program where our youth could receive guidance and care during f:his tud~u/ent grewfng-up period, 5) The Bandley location is dght in the middle of a residential and industrial area. makina it ideal ABBREVIATIONSSYMBOLS s,L ,TE,L~ -.L., 10455 BANDLEY DRIVE ~,,vEo EO,'~"L~'A~'O~ '~, '~ 0".~. CUPERTINO CA 95014 PROJECT SCOPE PROJECT BUILDING DATA PROJECT N~E "~'~ .... ~'~'~'~ ...... ~'~*"~ TENANT IMPROVEMENT PHASE I GENE~L NOTES VIClNI~ MAP PROJECT CONSULTANTS PROJECT PARKING DATA '~ ~* '~ ~" ~ ~ ........... ~ ~ ~ LOCATION ~P D~WING IND~ COVER SHEET I! BANDLEY DRIVE SITE PLAN SITE pLAN APPLE COMPUTER .? LANDSCAPE pLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN FLOOR PLAN Ft~OOR PLAN !10455 Bandley Drive, Cupedino ±37,120 Square Feet m STEVENS CREEK BLVD. F~ EXHIBIT C Divisible to + 14,000 Square Feet 100% HVAC Mostly Open Office/R&D, Perimeter Private Offices, Several Tiled Floor Lab Areas, Lunchroom, Showers 4/1000 Parking Grade Level Loading Walking Distance to Stevens Creek Blvd. Shops and Restaurants Excellent 280 and 85 Access Floor Plan on Next Page Call Agents to Show 02 5746'9/02 CITY OF City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 I~AX (408) 777-33~3 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No.: Agenda Date: November 17, 2003 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: MCA-2003-01 City of Cupertino City of Cupertino City-wide Application Summary: AMENDMENTS to Chapter 17.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding temporary signs. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Consider application MCA-2003-01 with re-evaluation of the ordinance after three years. 2. Conduct the f~rst reading of Ordinance No. I q ~k~ BACKGROUND: At its October 20, 2003 meeting, the City Council heard from the public and other interested parties about proposed amendments to Chapter 17.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regulating temporary signs (Exhibit A). The City Council directed staff to increase public notification of these proposed ordinance amendments and to review and make changes, i/possible, that would: · Reduce the temporary sign area and sign height to address issues of visual clutter; · Allow temporary signs in the corner triangles at intersections and sidewalk site triangles at driveway openings where visual clearance is needed for reasons of safety; · Place time restrictions on the removal of certain signs; · Increase the number of allowed off-site open house signs; · Control the number/density of temporary political signs; and Printed on Recyc/ed Pap~r / ~?'~1 Ordinance Amendments Affecting Temporary Signs Nov. 17, 2003 Page 2 · Obtain the concurrence of adjacent property owners and residents for temporary signs placed in the public right-of-way. DISCUSSION: The proceedings of the October meeting were reported in the Cupertino Courier and debated by readers in the "letters to the editor" section of the newspaper. The revised ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney, Public Works Department and Code Enforcement Division. They are agreeable to the changes with the Council's understanding that allowing temporary signs in the public right-of-way will increase the City's liability exposure, the number of resident complaints and code enforcement costs. The following additions/revisions were made to the ordinance amendments: · Changed the maximum allowable sign area back to four (4) square feet per sign side, which is in the current ordinance; · Added a maximum height of three (3) feet restriction to all temporary signs placed in the public right-of-way; · Allowed temporary signs under three (3)-feet in the corner triangle and sidewalk site triangle. This is currently allowed in the existing sign ordinance; · Changed the maximum sign length to 3 feet; Placed advisory language in the ordinance, encouraging sign placers to seek approval from adjacent private property owner(s) and resident(s) before placing signs in the public right-of-way; · Restored sign removal times for garage sale and open house signs, not temporary political signs; · Increase the number of open house signs from three (3) to six (6); · Added an exemption for the seasonal banners the City places on its light poles on Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. Staff has discussed neighbor control of temporary signs with the City Attorney. He has advised that the City cannot grant authority to property owners and residents to veto or regulate the content of temporary signs placed in the public right-of-way in front of people's homes. Advisory language has been placed in the ordinance expressing the City's wishes, but this language is not enforceable. 2 Ordinance Amendments Affecting Temporary Signs Nov. 17:2003 Page 3 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner SU, B~D~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Dav~/~W Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Ordinance No. [ ~) Lb Exhibit A: Staff report to City Council dated Oct. 20, 2003 3 (c~ ............ o,. text is deleted text; underlined text is new text.) ORDINANCE NO. 1926 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDiNG CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE CITY'S ORDiNANCE CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGNS WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has previously banned temporary signs from the public right-of-way for purposes of preventing visual clutter and minimizing liability concerns; and WHEREAS, there are temporary events, such as, festivals, garage sales, elections and residential open houses of importance to the community, neighborhoods and residents that rely on temporary signs to provide information and directions for potential participants; and WHEREAS, these temporary events are primarily in residential and institutional districts that do not have the public exposure and permanent signs found in commercial districts; and WHEREAS, these temporary events do not need permanent signage, but it is in the interests of the City of Cupertino to allow temporary signage for the reasons aforementioned; and WHEREAS, there are locations in the public rights-of-way where temporary signage of limited size and quantity should not obstruct the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians, not obstruct handicapped accessibility, not interfere with public signage and utility structures, and not obstruct sight lines for comer triangles or driveway site triangle; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLTPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment Chapter 17.32 of the City's ordinance code is hereby amended to read as follows: § 17.32.010 Temporary Signs--- LOCATION. AI~. No person shall paint, mark, or write on, post, attach or otherwise affix, any temporary sign to or upon any public property, sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, fence, wall, public playground equipment and/or facilities, street lamp post, hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, railroad bridge or crossing, pole for electric light or power or telephone or telegraph (or other communication service) or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or police telegraph system or upon a lighting system, public bridge, drinking fountain, street sign o~-traffic sign, traffic control pole or cabinet, utility transformer Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 2 vaults, or any other building, structure or device permanently affixed on public proper .ty. Additionally, no temporary sign shall be placed, posted or otherwise affixed in the public right- of-way, except as provided in this section. The public right-of-way generally includes the median, street~ gutter, curb, sidewalk and landscaped strip on 0ublic property., extend: be~:'nd '"~ ~:a ..... n, ae,,,~ ~ ....... ,~ B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary described in Section 17.32.010(A) above, temporary signs may be placed upon the public right-of-way as prescribed in the subsection below: 1. Shall only be located in the public right-of-way of a residential or institutional district, as defined in this Title. 2. Shall be no larger than four square feet of sign area per sign side with no more than two sides per sign. 3. Shall be no more than three feet tall measured from the grade of the sidewalk or adjacent ground level. 4. Shall have a maximum length of any part of the sign of three feet. C. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, all temporary signs, whether or not located in the public right-of-way: 1. Shall not be located on the street or on street medians. 2. Shall not be illuminated. 3. Shall not be located on private property without the oral or written consent of the owner or other person entitled to possession of said property. 4. Shall maintain at least 36 inches of clear and continuous width along a sidewalk or pathway plus any other area needed for handicapped accessibility. 5. Shall not restrict in any way the safe vision of any vehicular or pedestrian traffic or obstruct any directional or safety sign or other sign permitted by the City. :'g ! · 7. All parts of the sign shall be set back a minimum of eighteen (18) inches fi.om the face of the curb or from the edge of the street~ bicycle or vehicle travel lane, whichever is the greatest distance from the edge of the street, bicycle or vehicle travel lane. D. Persons who place temporary, signs in public rights-of-way are encouraged to notify and seek concurrence of adjacent proper .ty owner(s) and resident(s) before placing temporary, signs. E. The provisions of Section 17.32.010(B), (C) & (D) shall not be applicable to the following: 1. The maintenance of signs affixed or painted upon public or private motor vehicles; Ordinance. No. 1926 2. The maintenance of signs affixed to Santa Clara County Transit District bus shelters; 3. The maintenance ofbarmers affixed to the top of the city-owned stanchions located at a site over Stevens Creek Boulevard between Wolfe Road and Portal Avenue; and 4. The maintenance of banners affixed to the top of the city-owned light poles located over Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards; and 5. The maintenance of hazard markers or emergency signs. (1) ~' ~;~" ;° ~:~:+oa tc fa",:r square .... (2) Off site signs sh"2! nat be !aeated an private praperty v,,itha,,:t ara! ar ,,v:Stten § 17.32.020 FLAGS. A. Special-event flags and streamers may be permitted on a temporary basis in all commercial districts in conjunction with a grand opening or special promotional activity. Flags will also be permitted in residential zones to identify model homes which are part of a new development. B. No special-event flag may be higher than 20 feet above ground level. C. No more than two flag poles shall be permitted for each model home for a maximum of one year. D. The number of flags or streamers permitted for a commemial activity shall be subject to the approval of the Director in conjunction with a comprehensive plan for the special-event promotion. Flags and streamers may be permitted for a two-week period. E. Special event flags or streamers shall be completely removed not later than five days after the special event to which they pertain is scheduled and are otherwise governed by the provisions of § 17.32.090. § 17.32.030 GARAGE SALE SIGNS. A. Signs advertising a bona fide garage sale activity, as defined in Chapter 5.16 of this municipal code, shall be permitted which are less than eight square feet in area and six feet in height. These signs are to be located on the property where the sale is being conducted. B. Three additional garage sale signs may be allowed in the public right-of-way in accordance with the restrictions stated in Section 17.32.010. subject ta the ~ 17.22.0!0B and C. (C) Garage sale signs may be posted 24 hours prior to the event, but must be removed by sunset the last day of the sale. Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 4 § 17.32.040 TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS. A. Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter to the contrary, temporary political signs are permitted in all zoning districts of the city, require no permits or approvals from the city, and are subject only to the following restrictions. 1. Like all other temporary signs, they are allowed in the public right-of-way pursuant to section 17.32.010(A), Gl), and (C); ~-~;~'~ c....~ ~.~ .... ;.~,~;~ ^~ 2. Like all other temporary signs, they sha!t shall not be located on private property without the oral or written consent of the property owner or other person entitled to possession of said property; 3. Like a!! ~ther spec'~a! event tem~vra.'3' sin'.s, Temporary political signs must be completely removed not later than five days after the election to which they pertain. The city, pursuant to the provisions of [ [ 17.52 of this Municipal Code, may cause such signs remaining after expiration of the appropriate five-day period to be removed; 4. Like all other temporary signs, if the Director of Public Works finds that any temporary political sign otherwise permitted is an immediate peril or menace to pedestrian or vehicle traffic, he or she may cause it to be removed summarily pursuant to !i 17.52.040(C) ov of this Municipal Code. § 17.32.050 PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT SIGNS. A. New projects under construction, including subdivisions of five units or more, may be permitted signs which state the name of the project and/or the contractors and developers involved with its construction. The signs shall be subject to the approval of the Director. B. No more than two freestanding signs containing the name of the project, the owner, address and telephone number, leasing information, dates of anticipated completion and a listing of the contractors involved in the project are permitted for each project. C. Each sign shall be no larger than 32 square feet per side and no taller than six feet in height. D. Project announcement signs may be permitted for a maximum of one year or until all of the units are sold, whichever comes first. Extensions may be granted by the Director if the project has not been completed. § 17.32.060 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SIGNS. A. Subject to the restrictions contained in [ 17.32.010, real estate signs shall be permitted in all zones for the purpose of announcing house sales, rentals and open houses. B. On-Site Requirements. Each parcel with a unit for sale or rent is permitted one sign per street frontage, with a maximum of two signs per parcel. Only one sign may be building-mounted. Each sign is limited to four square feet per side. Freestanding Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 5 signs shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be subject to the requirements stated in ii 17.32.010. C. Off-Site Signs Announcing House Sales or Rentals. Signs located off-site announcing house sales or rentals are subject to the same requirements as on- site signs, as stated in division (B) above and § 17.32.010. D. Off-Site Open House Signs. Each parcel with a unit for sale is permitted a maximum of thrum six open house signs subject to the requirements stated in 5 17.32.010. E. All open house signs shall be removed by sunset. § 17.32.070 SALE, RENT OR LEASING SIGNS. A. Sale, rent or leasing signs shall be permitted in all zones except residential zones. Signs for residential zones are stated in § 17.32.060. B. The signs may include the name of the real estate agent or owner, the address, phone number and any other pertinent information. C. Each parcel shall be allowed to display one sale/rent/lease sign on each public street frontage. Each sign face shall be limited to 32 square feet, with a maximum of two faces per sign. Each sign shall be limited to a height of six feet. "V' shaped signs are prohibited. D. A building mounted sale/rent/lease sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding sale/rent/lease sign. One building mounted sign may be placed on each building elevation facing an adjacent public street; provided that, a freestanding sale/rent/lease sign as described in division (C) above is not displayed concurrently on that public street frontage. The sign shall be restricted to 32 square feet of face area and shall be located and displayed in accordance with the provisions of [ 17.24.080 of this title regarding clearance, obstruction and roof-line line level. E. Signs for purposes of sale, rent or lease shall be permitted for display off site. Display of off-site signs shall be confined to private property, subject to the approval and cooperation of the property owner upon whose property the off-site sign is to be located. The off-site signs shall be limited to one sign per street frontage, with a maximum of two signs per off-site parcel. The off-site signs shall have a maximum of two faces, and shall not exceed 32 square feet in area per face, nor exceed a height of six feet. The location of the off-site signs is subject to § 17.32.010. F. (1) For sale/rent/lease signs may be installed up to 30 days prior to any tenant vacancy. (2) Immediately following the close of sale, rent or lease of the space or building the sale, rent or lease sign shall be removed. G. For sale/rent/lease signs may not reasonably obstruct the visibility of any permanent ground sign. § 17.32.080 SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. A. Subdivision directional signs for developments within the city may be permitted in all zones other than residential, to direct customers along the most direct route through the city. Subdivisions not in Cupertino shall not be permitted subdivision directional signs. Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 6 B. A total of three such signs per subdivision shall be permitted within the city as determined by the Director. C. Each sign shall not exceed six feet in height and 32 square feet in area and have no more than two sign surfaces. 'V" shaped signs are prohibited. D. The signs may be permitted for a one-year period or until all units are sold by the subdivision developer, whichever comes first. Extensions may be granted by the Director if the project has not been completed. E. The location of subdivision directional signs shall be subject to ~ 17.32.010. F. Applications for subdivision directional signs shall include a list of all other existing signs for the same subdivision, indicating the sign surface area and street location of each sign. § 17.32.090 TEMPORARY AND SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS AND PROMOTIONAL DEVICES. The Director may issue a permit for temporary special event signs, banners, pennants or balloons and promotional devices in all commercial, industrial, office or institutional districts subject to all criteria set forth in this section. A. (1) Each business may be permitted use of one temporary special event sign subject to the tenant schedule in divisions (C) and (D) below. Each business may have the use of temporary signs for a maximum of 120 days in a calendar year, but not to exceed 30 days during any permitted period. Each business may be granted a maximum of 12 permits in a calendar year. A minimum period of two weeks shall be required before a subsequent permit is granted. (2) One additional temporary sign and one additional promotional device may be allowed during the first year &operation for a new business entity for purposes of announcing the grand opening of the business entity. (3) A portable freestanding temporary sign shall not exceed six feet in height and 32 square feet per face, with a maximum of two faces. Portable temporary free~anding signs, such as 'A" frame or sandwich board signs, may not be set into the ground and must be removed at the close of business each day. (4) A temporary banner shall be building mounted only, shall have only one face not exceeding 100 square feet in area and shall be placed on the building in accordance with the limitations specified in § 17.24.080 regarding clearance and roof-line level. B. (1) Special promotional devices, such as large balloons or searchlights, may be approved for a maximum three-day p6riod or five days for grand openings, four times within a calendar year, subject to the following: (a) Parking is not displaced; (b) The device is compatible with adjoining uses; of major concern is proximity to residential properties; (c) The device is not located in a landscaped front setback area; (d) Tethered balloons used for special promotional purposes may not exceed a height of 25 feet above the building where the special event is occurring; and (e) Meets the tenant schedule in divisions (C) or (D) below. (2) The Director, shall review a requested use of any special promotional device, such as seamhlights, hot air balloons, fides, traffic/parking directional signs within the Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 7 public right-of-way and the like, in relation to the type of activity and the appropriateness of the activity to the surrounding neighborhood. (3) There is no specific limitation on the number of traffic/parking directional signs which may be used on a site on the specific day of the special promotional or temporary event. (4) However, the Director shall review the number and placement of signs requested to be placed in the public right-of-way and may restrict the number and placement of such signs in order to ensure that adequate sight distance and traffic safety clearances are maintained as required in [ 17.32.010. C. A temporary sign and center-wide event signs may be permitted in accordance with the following schedule: Number of Tenants Number of Signs Permitted Three tenants to six One tenant display or tenants one center display Seven tenants to 13 One tenant display, plus tenants one center display 14 tenants to 20 Two tenant displays, tenants plus one center display 21 tenants to 27 Three tenant displays, tenants plus two center displays i28 tenants or more Four tenant displays, plus four center displays D. (1) Shopping centers with approved electronic readerboard signs shall only be allowed building mounted banners. (2) Freestanding temporary or special event signs for individual tenants are not allowed. (3) Special event signs for center-wide special events are allowed in accordance with the following schedule: Number of Tenants Number of Signs Permitted 20 to 27 tenants Two center displays Ordinance. No. 1926 Page 8 E. (1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this chapter, but subject to any maximum duration regulations contained in this chapter, all special event temporary signs must be completely removed not later than five days after the conclusion of the special event to which they pertain. (2) The city, pursuant to § ~ 17.52 of this Municipal Code. may cause the signs remaining after expiration of the appropriate five-day period to be removed. § 17.32.100 WINDOW SIGNS. A. Window signs shall be permitted in all commercial zones. B. The total area of any window obscured by any combination of permanent and temporary window signs shall not exceed 25% of the window surface. C. (1) Signs within a window shall be considered temporary if they remain on the window for less than 30 days and shall not be subject to review. (2) Window signs intended to remain on display for more than 30 days shall be considered permanent window signs, as regulated by [ 17.24.090. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. iNTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO EXHIBIT A City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue CuperlZno, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 i~AX (40/3) 7/Y-533(5 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No.: Agenda Date: October 20, 2003 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: MCA-2003-01 City of Cupertino City of Cupertino City-wide Application Summary: AMENDMENTS to Chapter 17.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding temporary signs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Consider and provide input on the draft ordinance OR 2a. Approve application MCA-2003-01 on a 3-year trial basis and then re-evaluate the ordinance at that time. 2b. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. I BACKGROUND: In 1997, the City Council adopted amendments to the sign ordinance that banned all temporary signs (including temporary political signs) from the public right-of-way and public property in order to eliminate the visual clutter associated with such signage and avoid the liability risks posed by the allowance of such signage on public lands. At that time the City Council determined, upon the advice of the City Attorney, that in order to regulate temporary political signs, it must prohibit all temporary signs on public property and in the public right-of-way. DISCUSSION: Earlier this year, City Council members and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce asked City staff to draft an amendment to the sign ordinance to allow temporary signs in the public right of way. Commurdty Development staff has drafted the attached ordinance amending chapter 17.32 of the City's ordinance regarding temporary signs. The ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney, Public Works Department and Code Enforcement Division. The Public Works Department has provided comments which are included below in a separate section. General Locations The draft ordinance limits the location of temporary signs to residential and institutional districts which includes the residential areas zoned: R1, IL,M_S, R2, R3, R1C, A and Al, and the "institutional" areas zoned: BA, BQ PR and FP. The latter category includes public parks, public schools, churches, government lands and Deep Cliff Golf Course. Residential and institutional uses are largely located on less-traveled streets and need off-site signage for participants to locate temporary events on these properties. Also, these properties typically do not have permanent signs to advertise these temporary events. Commercial, office and industrial districts are excluded because these uses are located on more highly trafficked streets with greater public exposure and ample opportunities for permanent and temporary signage. Specific Locations The draft ordinance identifies locations in the public right-of-way that are unsuitable for temporary signs. These prohibitions are necessary to provide for the safety of pedestrians and motorists, This includes: · The street and street median, · Portion of the sidewalk or pathway needed for pedestrian travel and handicapped accessibility, · Any area that restricts the safe vision of any vehicular and pedestrian travel such as corner triangles and driveway site triangles, · Any obstruction of any directional, safety or other sign permitted by the City. The ordinance also provides for a minimum 18-inch setback of the sign from the face of the curb or street, whatever is the greater distance from the street. This is needed for safe clearance for bicyclists and passengers opening their car doors from on-street parking. Exhibit A depicts suitable locations for temporary signs in the public right-of-way. Please note that the public right-of-way is not clearly delineated in most areas. For example, in neighborhoods with a monolithic sidewalk, the public right-of-way can be 2 Iz-13 as much as 13 feet away from the face of the curb. Many residents perceive this portion of the public right-of-way as part of their property and may object to having an off-site, temporary sign placed in theLr "front yard". It should be the responsibility of the sign placers to educate the property owners about the location of the public right of way. Advantages of Temporary_ Sign Ordinance Amendments The ordinance amendments will allow residents, realtors and event organizers to provide off-site directional signage in the public right-of-way to garage sales, open houses, and community and private events. Unlike events in commercial areas, such temporary events are often in less-trafficked areas, and often rely on off-site exposure to direct participants to the events. Other possible beneficiaries include: election volunteers who could place directional signs to a polling location, churches who could advertise fund-raising activities, and political sign companies, who will have more leeway in the placement of temporary political signs. Disadvantages of Temporary_ Sign Ordinance Amendments The City Attorney has already opined that the City carmot adopt regulations that discriminate in favor of one type of temporary sign over another type, that is, the regulations must be "content neutral". In general, temporary directional signage must be treated the same as temporary political signs. If the ordinance amendments are adopted, staff expects there will be increased resident complaints about "sign clutter,' particularly around election times. The most likely locations of this sign clutter will be busy residential neighborhood collector streets: Foothill, Stelling Road, Bubb Road, Miller Avenue, Bollinger Road, Rainbow Drive and McClellan Road, and probably streets around schools. There will be commensurate increases in code enforcement costs in order to address complaints and enforce code regulations for illegal signs. There will be increased liability exposure for the City from persons who may be injured as the result of a temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way, whether it is legally or illegally placed. Public Works Department Comments The Public Works department has reviewed the proposed ordinance and has raised two concerns about allowing temporary signs of any kind within the public right-of-way. First of all, there will be some effort required to enforce the provisions in the proposed 3 ordinance that will undoubtedly increase if temporary signs are allowed in park strips, even under the restrictions proposed. The more significant concern raised by Public Works is the risk of liability exposure to the City if a person is injured as a result of a temporary sign on a park strip or sidewalk. While experience in other cities suggests that this risk is not great, it is much more difficult to defend the City in such a circumstance ff the ordinance allows the placement of temporary signs, even under certain enforceable criteria, than if there is a complete prohibition of such signs in the right-of-way. However, the Council may wish to proceed with the proposed sign ordinande and allow the placement of tempqrary signs in the right-of-way, understanding this risk, no matter how minimal it may be. In that event, Public Works has indicated that the restrictions for placing these signs in the proposed ordinance are appropriate and would help minimize that risk. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Ordinance No. Exhibit A: Suitable Locations for Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way EXHIBIT A: (sheet 1) ~u~table Location for Temporary Si~Im in Public Right-of-Way t 100' Street Centedine $t~ns am prohibited on sidewalks. / / / / Signs prohbtted in ' Comer TrianEle 100' Signs must be at least 18' from the face of the crab. 5t~s are prohibited on street trees and utitity poles. EXHIBIT A: (sheet 2) ~uJtab(e Location for Temporary L~Jca~,ty 8'to 13' ~'~ ~.~ Si~ns must be at least 18' from the face of the cud0 or the ed~ of the street. PubtJc Signs prohbll~l fa Sidewalk Signs am prohibited on sidewalks. Signs am prohibited on street trees and utility poles. CUPEI TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 950~4 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: November 17, 2003 Application: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Applicant (s): Menlo Equities Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast corner of the intersection of Wotfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) The applicant requests a continuance to the December 15th 2003 City Council meeting to prepare their project plans and coordinate their presentation (see attached copy of email). RECOMMENDATION Options for the Council include: 1. Continue the item as requested by the applicant to the meeting of December 15, 2003. 2. Open the public hearing and take testimony and then continue the item to the meeting of December 15, 2003. 3. Hear the item and take action. If the Council chooses Option 3, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the following: 1. Negative Declaration, EA-2003-09 2. The Use Permit application, U-2003-04, subject to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213. 3. Rezoning application, Z-2003-02, subject to the model resolution and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211. 4. Tentative Map application, TM-2003-02, subject to the model resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212. 5. Heart of the City Exception, EXC-2003- 06 to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet, subject to the model resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: 103,110 square feet (existing) 107 units 30 units/gr.acre 6,450 square feet Maximum 37.5 for maIn buildings and 44 feet (tower for Building B) Printocl on Rocyoled Papor / '~ '~ Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Men/o Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 2 Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) P(Comm, Off, Res) Heart of the City Yes. No. Rezoning required to allow residential uses. Yes with exception to allow heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 45 feet. Negative Declaration. Application Summary: The project proposes construction of two new buildings consisffng of 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. The site has two existing buildings with 103,110 square feet of office uses. The project as proposed will require the following approvals: 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. 2. Rezoning to change from P (CG,O,ML,Hotel) to P(Com, Off, Res). 3. Use Permit - to construct two buildings totaling 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. Tentative Map - to subdivide one existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 and 3.2 acres. The following table provides additional project information: Existing 103,110 s.f. 2-story~ 34 ft. Office 3-story- 45 ft. Building A 3 stories- 37.5 Meets Heart of the Retail 2,576 s.f. ft. City exception Residential 8 units requirements. Building B 3 stories - 36 ft. Meets Heart of the Retail 3,810 s.f. building and City exception Residential 99 units 44 ft. tower, requirements. Total 103,110 s.f. 6,386 s.f. 107 units BACKGROUND At their meeiing on October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission meeting voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project. Comments included increasing opportunities for active open space, providing a play structure in the larger court area and provision of a spa in the pool area. Two members of the public spoke at the meeting. Both were appreciative of the project architecture and features but indicated a preference for more active open space. A discussion of open space has been provided later in the report. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 3 DISCUSSION This report provides a brief summary of major issues. A detailed discussion is provided in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. General Plan and Zoning The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site is currently zoned P(CG,O, ML,Hotel) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel) and does not allow residential uses. The site is proposed to be rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) to allow existing office use and the proposed commercial and residential uses. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the General Plan land use designation as indicated above. Heart Of The City Specific Plan Height Exception Building A has a height of 37.5 feet and Building B has a height of 36 feet for the main building and about 44 feet for the tallest tower element. Therefore, Building A and the tower for Building B require an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for structures incorporating underground parking structures and sloping roofs provided they do not exceed a 6:12 slope. Both the proposed buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs, which meet the requirements for the height excep~on. Streetscape The project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard has two rows of existing ash trees with a monolithic sidewalk along the curb. The area west of the project entry is more or less level with the sidewalk, while the area east of the driveway is mounded up above the sidewalk and street level. The project proposes to keep the Ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the project site where there is no mounding. Per the Heart of the City s~reetscape requirement, a new pathway will be provided between the trees and the existing monolithic sidewalk at the edge of curb will be replaced with turf. In the area east of the entry, the project proposes removing eleven ash trees, removing the mound and monolithic sidewalk and providing a new streetscape with a double row of new ash trees and a sidewalk in between. A report by the City's consulting arborist, Barrie Coates and Associates (Exhibit A) recommends removal of the existing ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei) in front of the retail east of the driveway and replacement with ash trees of the Fraxinus americana variety since they will look similar, be easier to prune, be less damaging to the sidewalk and increase species diversity. Open Space The project proposes to enhance the northeast comer of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with a plaza consisting of landscaping, benches, a sculpture and special paving. Exterior plazas with landscaping, pedestrian lighting, outdoor dining, planters and water 3 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 4 features are planned in front of the retail spaces and at the corners of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The open space in the new buildings consists of six interior courtyard spaces and exterior plaza spaces. Building B has one passive courtyard area with landscaping, seating and a water feature. Building B has five courtyards; one with a grass area and play structure for children, another with a pool area that can be accessed by residents and employees of the office complex and three smaller passive areas with landscaping, seating and water features. The courtyard space in the office area will be enhanced with seating and sculptures and will be used by office- goers in the daytime and residents after office hours. The applicants are also proposing a special colored asphalt area in the north parking lot that can be closed off to form a volleyball court during evening hours and weekends to add an active recreation element. Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. (Exhibit B) indicates that the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,176 daffy trips with 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project will not result in a level of service below LOS D at the analyzed intersections (Exhibit B- page iii), which is within the minimum acceptable operating level of service for intersections in Cupertino. Shared Parking There are 342 spaces currently on the site (252 surface spaces and 90 spaces in the office underground garage). The project proposes to increase parking to a total of 521 spaces (113 in the office garage, 200 spaces in the residential garages and 208 surface parking spaces). The new residential and retail uses and the existing office use will share parking facilities, except for the underground office parking, which will be available only for the office use. The parking ordinance requires 601 spaces for the project site not accounting for shared parking. A shared parking analysis indicates that the maximum amount of parking necessary for the project will be 521 spaces. In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available to the office and retail uses, at least 75 spaces in the Building B garage should be available to the office and retail users during the day. In order to ensure accessible parking for the retail uses, 24 spaces on either side of the entry drive on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be available to retail users from 9AM to 9PM: The above requirements have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. School Impacts An evaluation by the school districts (Exhibit C) indicates that the project will not have a significant impact: · Cupertino Union School District (Elementary and Middle School) - The districts estimates a maximum yield of 54 K-8 students. The district has indicated that it can accommodate the addition of these students without significant impact. · Fremont Union School District -The district expects four high school students at Cupertino High School from the project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project will be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. 4 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 5 Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner SUBMI ED ~ . ~ctor of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager ENCLOSURES Email from applicant requesting continuance of the project to the City Council meeting of December 15, 2003 Model Ordinance for Z-2002-02 with Exhibits 1 and 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213 for U-2003-04 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214 for EXC-2003-06 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212 for TM-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211 for Z-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Initial Study Negative Declaration Plan set Staff report to Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. Draft minutes of Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003 (related to project) Exhibit A: Arborist report from Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003. Exhibit B: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fettr and Peers dated February 2003. Exhibit C: Communication from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District dated October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively. Exhibit D: Acoustical Analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003. G: I Planning I PDREPORTI pcUsereports I U-2002-O6.doc Aarti Shrivastava From: Jane Vaughan [vaughan@menioequities.com] Sent; Tuesday, November 11,2003 2:04 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Steve Piasecki Cc: Jim Yee (E-mail) Subject: Cupertino Courtyard Council Hearing Steve: We would like to delay presenting our project to the City Council for approval until the next available Council Meeting, which I understand is on December 15th. This delay will allow us more time to prepare our plans/video and insure that everything is well coordinated. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thank you. Jane Vaughan Menlo Equities 490 California Avenue, 4th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 326-9300 main phone 650 289-1703 direct 650 326-9333 fax 650 255-3753 mobile vaughan@menloequities.com This electronic mail message (and any attachments hereto) are for ~he sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged inforrna~ion. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited, if you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies o~ the original message (and any attachments thereto) Thank you 11/12/03 ORDINANCE NO. 1929 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING A 7.74-ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL USES TO P(COM, OFF, RES) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES. WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2003-02) for the rezoning of properties to P(Com, Off, Res); 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 and Exhibit 2 as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 is hereby rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) or Planned Development (Commercial, Office, Residential); and that Exhibit 1 attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. iNTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 17h day of November, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of _, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit 1 ZONING PLAT MAP SCALE: 1 "= 200' J 65' 639.51' k4 .oo' REZONE 7.74 AC FROM: P(CG, O, ML, HoteO TO: P(Res, Comm, Off) 69--7.69' STEVENS CREEK, BOULEVARD_ ---- 981 Ridde' Pork Ddve, Suite 100 ~J~~'~[ $=n Joe,. CA 95131 ~8~7-9100 ~,.~ . ~ · ~n~ ~8/~7-9199 (FAX) Subject CUPERTINO FII~I~CIN. ZOfllk~ PLAT MAp Job No. 0:36049 Ely DCB Onte 10-15-03Chkd. kiBP SHEET 1 OF 1 Exhibit 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of CupeKino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as folJows: All that certain real property, being e portion of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on August 3, 1987 In Book 576 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, Records of Santa Clare County and being a portion of Parcel 4 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record June 19, 1973 in Book 325 of Maps, at page 12, Records of Santa Clara County, situate In the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clare, State of Callforcia, more particularly described as follows: That portion of said Pamel 1 and that portion of said Parcel 4, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning stthe Southeast comer of said Parcel 4, said point being on the Northerly right-of- way line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, as shown on said Parcel Map filed In Book 325 of Maps, st page 12; thence Weeter/y along said Northerly right-of-way and along the Southerly line of said Parcel 4, South 89° 36' 00" West 215.00 feet to a point on a line being a parallel with and Westerly 215.00 feet, measured at fight angles frorc the Easterly boundary line of said Parcel 4, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said parallel line and its prolongation thereof North 00° 24' 00" West 527.78 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, shown as 'N. 88° 54' 46~ E. 835.00' on said Parcel Map filed In Book 576 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, distant Westerly 195.49 fast from the Easterly terminus of said Northwesterly line, as measured along said Northwesterly line. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the underground water with no right of surface entry as granted to California Water Corcpany, by Deed recorded December 7, 1987 In Book K381 of Official Records, page 1279. INCLUDING that portion of the public road described as follows; From the True Point of Beginning South 00° 24' 00" East 45.00 feet to the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard; Thence along the center line of Stevens Creek South 89° 36' 00" West e distance of 697,69 feet to the Intersection of the center line of Stevens Creek and the center line of Wolfe Road; Thence aion~ the center line of Wolfe road North 01° 05' 14" West a distance of 564.50 feet; Thence North 88° 54' 4~ a distance of 65.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Pawel 1; Thence alon$ the Westerly property line of said Parcel I South 01 ° 05' 14' East a distance of t12.12 feet t~ the Northerly line of said parcel 4; Thence along the Northerly line of said Parcel 4 South 89° $6' 00" West a distance of 11.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; Thence aion/I the Westerly property line of said Parcel 4 South 01' 05' 14' East a distance of 348.75; Thence along a radial curve to the left with radius of 60.00 feet, a distance of 93.53 feet through a cet~tral angle of 89? 18' 4E'; Thence along the southerly property line of said Parcel 4 North 89° 36' 00' East a distance of 584.94 feet to the True Point of Beginning. APN; 316-2~034 ARB: 316-19!034.04, 038.03, 039.08, 036.01,037 U-2003-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6213 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 107 UNITS AND 6,450 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WOLFE ROAD AND STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan, as amended, and the purpose of this rifle. 3. The project fulfills the Heart of the City goals of creating a high-quahty mixed-use development with a distinct community image. 4. The mixed-use development, park, and retail activity will promote pedestrian activity in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. U-2003-04 is hereby recommended for approval; and Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application U- 2003-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two mixed-use buildings consisffng of 107 units and 6,400 square feet of retail space. PROIECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Commtmity Development. 4. SECURITY PLAN FOR PARKING GARAGE A security plan for the parking garages shall be prepaxed by the applicant and approved by the Sheriff's Department prior to final occupancy. If the project is phased the plans shall be approved for each phase. 5. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by dedicating 15% of the units. The applicant shall record a covenant, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, to be recorded simultaneously with the filing of a building permit. 6. DESIGN The project will require approval of the design by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall provide the following design changes: a. General: i. Base -Buildings shall have a real stone base (base shall be as indicated in the elevations of the plan set dated October 20, 2003) compatible with the color and materials of the buildings. ii. Roof - Alternative roofing materials including slate or slate composite shall be provided instead of the proposed metal roof. iii. Windows - All windows shall be inset at least three inches from the exterior wall surface. Window material shall consist of an aluminum storefront system for the retail portion for the residential portion. iv. Colors and materials of the buildings shall be reviewed as part of the Design Review process. U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6213 Page 3 v. Lightkng - A comprehensive lighting plan will be provided to detail accent lighting on buildings, signage and landscaping and will not cause spillover to neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Lighting shall include streetlights and pedestrian-scaled lighling with banner arms along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, pedestrian lighting with banner arms within the project, uplights and provision for holiday lighting for trees on the project site and street trees and exterior lighting on the buildings. vi. Lighting standards for decorative streetlights and pedestrian scaled lights along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road and in the project site shall be Holophane Atlanta series with Atlanta fixture. The streetlights shah be reviewed by the Public Works Department and a maintenance agreement shall be signed as necessary. vii. Plaza - The applicants shall provide additional details and enhancements for the plazas along the retail frontage and entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard. viii. Comer Plaza - the plaza at the comer of Wolfe and Stevens Creek Boulevard shah be enhanced with a gateway feature, landscaping, lighting, water feature and art feature. ix. All sections of the parking lot, driveways, courtyards and plazas in the site plan shown with special paving treatment shah be pavers on sand/gravel (per the Department of Public Works requirements). x. The temporary volley ball/basket ball court in the north parking lot shall have adequate lighting, provisions for installing a net/backboard and shall be differentiated with special paving. PARKING LOT LIGHTING Lighting in the parking lot shall be approved by the Director of Community Development for compliance with applicable regulations prior to issuance of building permits. PARKING GARAGE The width of the parking garage entry shall be no larger than 20 feet in keeping with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Garage ramps shall comply with building code and fire code requirements. OPEN SPACE The project shall comply with the Heart of the City Specific Plan for private and common open space requirements for commercial and residential projects. 10. BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL The Director of Community Development shall review the final building permits for full conformance with this approval and the design approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management and parking plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 4 12. STREET TREES The ash trees to the west of the entry drive along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be retained. The ash trees to the east of the entry drive along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be removed and replaced with the Fraxinus americana variety. All recommendations in the report by Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003 shall be followed based on the replacement and retention unless otherwise indicated by the City Council. 13. LANDSCAPING i. The proposed landscaping plan and tree schedule shall be reviewed by the City arborist for landscaping and tree types and locations. ii. Additional trees shall be added along entry drive from Stevens Creek Boulevard, along property lines and at least one tree per every five spaces shall be provided in the parking lot. iii. Replacement trees - All the new trees shall be 48" box size minimum except for trees on parking decks which shall be 24" box size. iv. Protection plan - As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: · For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. · No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. · No trenching within the critical root zone area would be allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. · Wood chip mulch shall be' evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-inch depth. · All trees retained shall be deep root fertilized (using a solution of 22-14-14) after the trees have been removed. Fertilizing shall be repeated annually for five years injected into root zone by hydraulic spray equipment. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and relocated and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of each building. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. If the project is constructed in phases, the trees affected by each phase shall be considered. v. Tree protection Bond - A tree protection bond in the amount of $15,000 for each ash tree along Stevens Creek Boulevard and specimen trees on the site to be retained shall be provided prior to issuance of building permits. If the project is constructed in phases, the trees affected by each phase shall be considered. vi. The final landscaping and tree protection plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 5 14. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan that describes the parking system used by retail, residential, and office uses shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development. The applicant shall provide an updated plan for any tenant changes that result in changes to the parking requirements. If actual parking demand exceeds the estimated demand, the parking management plan shall include valet or tandem parking to maximize parking areas. Valet parking shall be free of charge to users. 15. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT A grant of easement for parking and amendment to the CC&Rs shall be submitted with the building permit and shall be recorded for use of parking spaces between buildings as indicated below: i. Building B garage - 75 spaces on the upper level shall be available for general use by the public and office uses from 9AM to 5PM. ii. Retail - 24 surface parking spaces on either side of the entry drive off Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be made available for retail customers from 9AM to 9PM. The text of the easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and the easement shall be recorded prior to final occupancy for each building affected by this condition. 16. RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN[BIKE) The applicant shall record a deed restriction for each lot created by the new development for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easements between the new lots created by the development. The applicant shall also record ingress/egress easements between adjacent properties to the east and north to be implemented at such time that the City can require the same of adjacent property owners. The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building occupancy for each building affected by this condition. 17. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES i. The applicant shall implement the TDM measures recommended in the Transportation Impact Analysis for Cupertino Financial Center by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. dated October 2003. ii. The applicant shall install the following mimmum bicycle parking facilities per Section 19.100 of the Municipal Code in locations to be approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits: Existing office - 18 Retail - 2 bikes (Class III near the plaza and parking area for retail) Building A - 4 bikes (underground garage for Building A) Building B - 40 bikes (underground garage for Building A) 18. HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN STREETSCAPE ~ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT The project shall implement the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan streetscape features along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 6 19. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD/I, VOLFE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road recommended in the Traffic analysis by Fehr and Peers, Inc., dated October 21, 2003. ii. The driveway entry on Wolfe Road shall be maintained in its original location or in a location satisfactory to the Director of the Public Works Department. iii. The applicant will also work with the City to provide trees, wherever possible, in the median across property frontages on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. iv. The improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults, backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. Said equipment locations shall be determined prior to issuance of building permits. 21. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so as not to be visible. Screening material shall match building features and materials. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 22. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Pedestrian easements over the sidewalk areas (portion on private property) and through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building occupancy. 23. AIR QUALITY The following measures shall be followed during construction to ensure dust control: a. Use dust-proof chute for loading construction debris onto trucks. b. Water all active construction areas at lest twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions. c. Cover all truck hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or ensure that all trucks hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction areas. e. Sweep daily or as often as needed with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites to control dust. f. Sweep public streets daily or as often as needed to keep streets free of visible soil material. g. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 7 h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff onto public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 24. NOISE a. The placement of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be indicated on plans and a review shall be provided by an acoustical specialist with recommendations for noise attenuating measures ff necessary so that noise levels meet limits established in the Noise ordinance. b. Noise abatement measures in the recommendations of the Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003 shall be followed. Qualifying common and private open space required by the Heart of the City Plan shall be situated in a location that provides acceptable noise levels. The building permit plans shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant for compliance with necessary noise control treatments and a report shall be issued prior to issuance of building permits. c. Noise generating activities associated with demolition and construction of the proposed project would temporarily elevate noise level in the area surrounding the project site. d. All grading, construction and demolition activities shall comply with Section 10.48.040 of the City of Cuperffno Noise Ordinance. 25. SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Cupertino Sardtary District that adequate capacity is available for the project or the applicant shall pay for the appropriate mitigation costs to provide the required capacity and shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the District. 26. NOTICE OF FEESr DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code SeclJon 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 27. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 28. CURB AND GUI'I'£R IMPROVEMENTS Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page $ Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 29. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 30. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shah be located as required by the City. 31. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 32. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 33. GRADING Grading shah be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 34. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify how much runoff will be directed to our storm drain facilities. Measures including the CDS unit, pavers and bioswales to be installed on-site and measures during construction including straw waddles will be included within the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 35. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 36. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shah comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 37. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 9 inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construct/on permits. Fees: a. PW Plan Checking and Inspection Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units b. Grading Permit Fee: 5 % of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units c. Map Fee: $ 520.00 d. Storm Drain Fee: $11,286.00 e. Power Cost: TBD (**) f. Park fees: $ 826,200 g. Development Maintenance Dep.: $1,000 ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. b. C. Faittfful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 38. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 39. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 40. FIRE ACCESS LANES Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as fire lane easements on the final map and shall meet Central Fire District standards. 41. NOI/NPDES PERMIT The developer shall attain a NOI/NPDES permit will be required for their site. Please see attached. (Item 1) 42. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Pre and post-development (BMPs) shall be included within every plan set to the maximum practicality. All BMPs shall be Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 ?age 10 identified on plan set. 43. TRAFFIC STUDY A traffic study shah be required to address the construction of the 107-unit condominium project and the 6,450 square feet of new retail space. 44. WOLFE ROAD ACCESS DRIVEWAY The Wolfe Road site access driveway shall not be moved north. If moving the driveway north cannot be avoided, such a move shall be mLrdmized, and the resulting effect on the southbound left turn lane into the site and the northbound left turn lane at Vallco Parkway analyzed. The final location of the access driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. 45. TRAFFIC STUDY The Transportation Demand Management measures and mitigations for the project parking deficiency in the Traffic Impact Analysis by Fehr and Peers dated October 21, 2003, shall be put into effect. 46. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Ralph Qualls Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 Res01ut4on No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 11 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadafi and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of CommunityDevelopment /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission i: \ Plam~ing \ PDREPORT I RES \ U-2OO3-O4res,doc RESOLUTION NO. 6214 EXC-2003-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEART OF THE CITY PLAN TO ALLOW TWO BUILDINGS TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM 36 FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF 43.5 FEET. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, in order to provide design flexibility in situations when unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards; and WHEREAS, the buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs (not exceeding 6:12 slope), which satisfies the requirements for a height exception. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Exception for this application: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, Application no. EXC-2003-06 is hereby recommended for Resolution No. 6214 EXC-2003-06 October 27, 2003 Page 2 approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2003-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEESr DEDICATIONS~ RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begtm. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission L: \ Planning I PDR EPO RT \ RES \ EXC-2003-06 res.doc 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6212 TM-2003-02 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATiVE MAP TO TO SUBDIVIDE ONE EXISTING PARCEL OF 7.74 ACRES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS OF 4.47 AND 3.2 ACRES IN A P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) ZONING DISTRICT SECTION I: PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC~2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a. That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b. That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f. That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not coMlict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. 6212 TM-2003-02 October 27, 2003 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 TM-2003-02 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2003-02, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. USE PERMIT U-2003-04 CONDITIONS Conditions of approval 1,3, 7, 11-14-15, 17, 18 as applicable, 19, 21, 24 and 26-43 for Use Permit U-2003-04 shall apply. NOTICE OF FEES~ DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Resolut40n No. 6212 TM-2003-02 October 27, 2003 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission I:~Plmmh~g~PDREPORT~ RES~ TM-2003-02res.doc Z-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6211 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A-7.74-ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL USES TO P(COM, OFF, RES) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the 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 property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testLmony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2003-02 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-2003-02, as set forth Resolution No. 6211 Z-2003-02 October, 27, 2003 Page 2 in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Exhibit 1: Zoning Plat map and Exhibit 2: Legal Description. ALLOWED USES i. Commercial uses shall include those allowed in General Commercial zone and shall be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Such uses shall be subject to development standards in Municipal Code Section 19.56 unless superseded by the Heart of the City Specific Plan or the approval for this project. ii. Office uses shall be compatible with adjacent residential uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27m day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission L: 1 Planning I PD REPORT\ RES \ Z-2003-02 res.doc Exhibit ZONING PLAT MAP SCALE: 1"=200' 65' ~-11.00' REZONE 7.74. FROM: TO: 659.51' AC P(CG, O, ML, Hotel) P(Res, Comm, Off) 584.94' 69_,.7.69' _ _ STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD 981 Ridder Pork Drive, Suite 100 S~n Jo~e. CA 95131 4438/4.87--9100 408/467-9199 (FAX) Subject . CUPERTINO FINANCIAL Z~l~e .PLAT ~ Job No. 036049 By DCB Date lO--1,T-O3Chkd. MBP SHE:ET 1 OF 1 Exh'tbit 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: All that certain real property, being e po,'tion of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Pamel Map filed for record on August 3, 1987 in Book 576 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, Records of Santa Clare County and being a portion of Parcel 4 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record June 19, 1973 in Book 325 of Maps, at page 12, Records of Santa Clara County, situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clare, Stats of Cai;fomia, more particularly described as follows: That portion of said Pamai 1 and that portion of said Parcel 4, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning ~t the Southsast corner of sa~d Pamel 4, said point being on the Northerly right-of- way line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, as shown on said Parcel Map filed In Book 325 of Maps, at page 12; thence Westerly along said Northeriy right-of-way and along the Southerly line of said Pamel 4, South 89° 36' 00" West 215.00 feet to a point on a line being a parallel with and Westerly 215.00 feet, measured at right angles from the Easterly boundary line of said Parcel 4, said point aisc being the True Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said parallel line and its prolongation thereof North O0° 24' O(P West 527.78 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, shown as 'N. 88* 54' 46'' E. 835.00" on said Parcel Map filed in Book 576 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, distant Westerly 195.49 feet from the Easterly terminus of said Northwesterly line, as measured along said Northwesterly line. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the underground water with no right of Surface entry as granted to California Water Company, by Deed re(x)rded December 7, 1987 In Book K381 of Official Records, page 1279. INCLUDING that portion of the public road described as follows; From the True Point of Beglnnlng South O0° 24' 06" East 45.00 feet to the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard; Thence along the center line of Stevens Creek South 8~° 36' 00" West a distance of 697,69 feet to the Intersection of the center line of Stevens Creek and the oenter line of Wolfe Road; Thence along the center line of Wolfe road North 01 ° 05' 14" West a distance of 564.50 feet: Thence North 88° 54' 46" a distanoe of 65.00 feet to the Northwesterly comer of said Parcel 1; Thence signs the Westerly ~operty line of said Pamel 1 South 01 ° 05' 14= East a dlstanco of 112.12 feet t~ the Northerly line of said parcel 4; Thence along the Northerly line of said Pamai 4 South 89° $6' O(Y' West a distance of 11.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; Thence aion.~l the Westerly property line of said Parcel 4 South 01° 05' 14~ East a distance of 348.75; Thence along a radial curve to the left with radius of 60.00 feet, a dlst~loe of 93.53 feet through a cel~trai angle of 89? 18' 46"; Thence along the southerly property line of said Pamel 4 North 89° 36' 00' East ~ distance of 584.94 feet to the True Point of Beginning. APN: 316-2~084 ARB: 316-19~034.04, 038.03, 039.08, 036.01,037 CITY OF CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department INITIAL. STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only lEA File No. EA-2003-09 ICase File No.U-2003-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: [Attachments Project Title: Menlo Equities Project Location: 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road Project Description: The proiect consists of two new three-story mixed-use buildin~qs consistinq of 6400 sq.ft, of retail and 107 residential units with a 200-car underqround ¢]arafqe on a site with two existinq office buildinqs totalinq 103,000 sq.ft. Environmental Setting: The site is currently a parkinq lot and part of a 7.74 acre developed property consistin~ two one and two-story office buildings. The block to the north consists of a parkin~ lot for the Vallco Mall. The area to the east consists of a vacant parcel the Vallco Mall to the west and one and two story office and commercial uses to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 7.74 acres Building Coverage - 35.81% Exist, Buildings- 103,000s.f. Proposed Bldg.- 6,400s.f. retail and 107 units Zone - P - Planned Devpt.. Office G.P. Designation -Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Assessor's Parcel No, -316-20-O84 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 30 units/qr.ac. Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type ¢¢4 Unit Type #5 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sf, Price 4 Own 1 NA Own NA 6 1 +den Own NA 8 2 Own NA 59 2 townhouse Own NA 30 3 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] Heart of the City Specific Plan If Non-Residential, Building Area - 6,400s.f. Employees/Shift -__Parking Required 601 spaces Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - [] S. De Anza Conceptual [] S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual [] Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape FAR- 30.5% for office Max. Parking Provided 521 spaces YES [] NO [] INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIS A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. AppendixA- 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. City Aerial 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 ' CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distdct 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 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 District OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara 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 OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Fie[d Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series 48. Geological Analysis by Treadwell & Rollo, Orinda, CA, August '11, 2003. 49. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Clayton Group Services, Pleasanton, CA, July 10, 2003. B. C. D. E. F. C. ~ISTRUCTIONS Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. 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. 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. 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 page. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Aff'~davit. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,/'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ,/'Location map with site dearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: _~ c-~ o · - .--- '= '= ISSUES: [and SuppoSing Information Sources] I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [5,9,24,4~ ,44] b) Substantiatly 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? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] Item b&d - Les3 Than Siqnificant Impact There are no existing significant scenic elements on the project site. While the redevelopment of this site wilt create a new source of light within a developed setting, light levels associated with the proposed retail and residential uses are not expected to adversely effect day or nigh~ime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources am significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conse~ation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Conve~ Prime Farmland, Unique D Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Impo~ance (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] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a W[lliamson Act contract? [5,7,23] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] 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] Item a-c - No Impact The project does not impact agricultural land or resources. III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air >ollution 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 ~ncrease 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 )ollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] ISSUES: ~ I- "' [and Supporting Information Sources]o._°~ _E e,~ ~ o~ --~ .~ _E _E Items a- c - Less than Siqnificant Impact The proposed project would have limited air quality impacts resulting from the minor )o[lutant emissions related to traffic generated by the proposed project. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) generally does not recommend that a detailed air quality impact analysis be prepared for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. The project is expected to generate approximately 1146 average daily trips, which does not trigger a detailed air quality impact analysis under these BAAQMD guidelines. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, which in turn is consistent with the Clean Air Plan, therefore, no cumulative air quality impacts are expected to result from this project. The impact of dust generated by grading and excavation construction activities will be limited by a condition of approval requiring watering of newly disturbed sur[aces and covedng of haul trucks to minimize dust generation. Items d-e - No Impact The project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors (children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed development will not have any operations that will subject customers, employees or neighbors to objectionable odors. 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 [] [] FVl [] riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 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 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ,rdinance? [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] [] [] Item e - Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation Incorporation The project has 149 trees on the site and proposes removal of about 90 trees in the building footprint and parking ~ot areas. The project proposes 300 new trees as mitigation which will result in a total of 359 trees on the site. Trees that meet the criteria of specimen trees in the City's code will be retained or relocated to the extent possible. If specimen trees are removed, three trees will be planted for each tree that is removed. Item a-d, f- No Impact The project is proposed on a developed site and will not impact threatened or endangered biological resources. The project includes landscaping, which will provide additional vegetation on the site. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans cover the project area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in [] [] [] E~ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.57 [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 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] Item a-d No Impact The project is currently developed with commercial uses and is not in a sensitive archeological area of the City. There are no historical resources on the site. 6 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-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. [2,14,44,48] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,5,10,44,48] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44,48] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44,48] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44,48] 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 ~n on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39,44,48] 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? [2,5,10,44,48] 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 disposai of waste water? [6,9,36,39,44,48] 7 iSSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Item afl-iii), c-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact According to the Cupertino General Plan, the site is in a VF-2 and a VF-5 zone for which specific hazards may include ground shaking, ground failure and possible inundation from the Calabazas Creek. According to a geological report by Treadwell & Rollo dated August 11, 2003, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure is Iow but that the presence of moderately to highly expansive soil at the ground surface may subject near-surface slabs on grade to vertical movement due to moisture changes in the soil, causing cracking. The report makes several recommendations for excavation, shoring, foundations, retaining and blow-grade walls, slab-on-grade floors, seismic design, and site grading. The recommendations will be made conditions of approval for the project. Also, per the General Plan requirements, the project will be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and will require a soils report and a detailed soils/structural evaluation to certify adequacy of normal UBC earthquake regulations with recommendations for more stringent measures if required. This will help avoid or minimize )otential damage from seismic shaking. The project is proposed on an existing parking lot with a relatively steep slope along the northern property line. However, adherence to the UBC and earthquake regulations will help avoid or minimize landslide impacts. Item a(iv)e - No Impact The site is served by an existing sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: [] [] [] [] a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 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-quarter 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 )ursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = E E · -- significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] 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 result., in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project 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, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] Item b,d - Less Than S~qnificant Impact A Phase I Environmental Assessment by Clayton Group Services on July 10, 2003 indicated that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) as defined by ASTM. Items a,c,e-h- No Impact The proposed project will not generate additional hazardous waste, increase risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The current project site is not listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport). Therefore, there would be no related impacts on people residing or working in the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or [] [] [] [] waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] 9 ISSUES: = ~ = zo ~= [and Supporting Information Sources] ~._-~ c= ~E~ '- _E~ ~.U3 ~ -JU3 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] c) Create or contribute runoff water which [] [] [] [] would exceed the capacity of existing or )lanned stormwater drainage systems or )rovide substantial additional sources of )olluted runoff? [20,36,42] d) Otherwise substantially degrade water [] [] [] [] quality? [20,36,37'] e) 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] f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [] [] [] [] structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] g) 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] h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or [] [] [] [] mudflow? [2,36,38] Item a, c,d- Less Than Siqnificant Impact Items b,e-h - No Impact The project is in a B flood zone as per the FIRM maps dated May 1, 1980. As indicated above, the project site is fiat. The new buildings and parking lot will be located on a portion of the site that is currently occupied by a parking area on a developed site. The proposed development will not result in a net increase of impermeable surface. Ail construction will also be required to provide additional features to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. 10 ISSUES: ~ I.-- o .c = ~- [and Supporting Information Sources] ~e ~' u~ ~ .-.~ (~ O the project: a) Physically divide an established [] [] [] [] community? [7,12,22,41] 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] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] [] [] [] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] Items a-c - No Impact The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan which defines the site as Office/Industrial/Commercial/ResidentiaL The project however requires a Zoning change from P(CG,O,ML, Hotel) to P(Res, Comm, Off, Ind, Hotel) to allow residential development. However, since the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan, which already allows residential uses, the project will not have significant impacts. 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] Items a-b - No Impact Mineral resources are not known to exist on the project site. XI. 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 11 [and Supporting Information Sources] 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? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic [] [] [] [] increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project ~ocated 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] 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 eve s? [8,18] 12 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Item a - Less Than Siqnificant Impact With Mitiqation Incorporation A noise analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., dated September 12, 2003, indicates that all eight units in Building A and six units facing Stevens Creek Boulevard in Building B will be subjected to exterior noise levels of 68 to 69 dB, The study concludes that the construction will be adequate to achieve an indoor DNL of 45 dB (State Building Code). The study makes the following recommendations that will be part of the conditions of approval: 1: French doors in Plan 7 lofts in Building B should be replaced with sound rated window assemblies. 2. Since all dwelling unit windows located within 250 feet of the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline would need to be in the closed position to achieve the DNL 45 dB standard, an alternate source of ventilation would be required for these dwelling units with a mechanical engineer review required. The study indicated that the DNL would be less than 60 dB in the courtyard recreation and ~ool areas which would meet the City's General Plan requirements. Item b-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project will not be subject to significant levels of groundborne noise levels and vibrations. The proposed development of the project site will intensify the use of the lot, which is likely to result in increases in the ambient noise levels that exist in the project area. Increase in noise levels would be periodic and will not substantially increase over curren ambient noise levels. Items e,f - No Impact The project is not within a two-mile radius of any public airports or private airstrips. Xll. 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 roads 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] 13 ISSUES: ~~_~,_ I.- -= ~ ~- [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ =._ ~ ,~ .=,~ --E --E = Item a -Less Than Siqnificant Impact The development of a mixed-use (office/retail/residential) project on the site is consistent with the General Plan, which included an analysis of population and housing and was reviewed in an EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or create a demand for housing that would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Items b-c - No Impact The proposed project would not displace existing housing. There are currently no residential units on this site - it is a parking lot in an office development. Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the )rovision 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 other performance objectives for any of the 3ublic 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] [] [] [] [] Item a -Less Than SigniFicant Impact The project is located in an urbanized area served by municipal services, including fire ~rotection, police protection, and maintenance of public facilities such as roads. An infill project of this type and size will not significantly change or impact 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 [and Supporting Information Sources] '~ ~ == · o~ .- o ~ ~_E E · --- .~ ~ ,- -- might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] ~tern a -No Impact The project incorporates some active and passive spaces in keeping with the minimum requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Additionally, the redevelopment of the project site has been accounted for in the City's General Plan, which examined recreational opportunities. The project will be required to pay park fees to provide additional park facility needs generated by the development. There are no existing recreational facilities on the project site. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is [] [] [] [] substantial in relation to the existing traffic load 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)? [4,20,35,44,48] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, [] [] [] [] a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44,48] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [] [] [] [] including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,48] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a [] [] [] [] design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44,48] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [] [] [2,19,32,33,44,48] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [] [] [17,44,48] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [] [] [] [] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34,48] 15 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Items a-b - Less Than Siqnificant Impact With Mitiqation Incorporation A Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. to assess the potential traffic, circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project. The analysis indicates that the project will general a total of 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP-monitored intersections. Also, the project will not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment that currently operates at LOS F. The study makes two recommendations to relocate the Wolfe Road driveway and to realign the parking and median at the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard. These will be part of the conditions of approval for the project. The project will not have an impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Items c-g - No Impact The proposed project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns because the project, which includes the construction of a two-story office building and one-story retail/restaurant building, is not tall enough to affect air traffic patterns. The Fire Department has determined that emergency vehicle access will be adequate. Items c-q - No Impact (contd.) The City's parking code requires 601 parking spaces. A parking study by the Traffic consultant indicated that the project would need 521 spaces. The applicant is proposing to )rovide 521 parking spaces. The Code allows approval of a shared parking plan under conditions including provision of a detailed traffic study, ownership by a single entity, and )ianned development zoning. The project meets the above conditions. Therefore, the parking on-site is considered adequate. The proposed project will provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. In addition, the project site's proximity to public transportation (VTA bus lines) is expected to facilitate use of public transit. 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 coutd cause significant ;nvironmental effects? [36,22,28,36] 16 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] 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 )ermitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [5,44] g) Comply with federal, state, and local [] [] [] statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [5,44] Items a-f- Less than Siqnificant Impact Sanitary sewer service is available, but the Sanitary District has indicated that a flow study will be required to determine capacity. The applicants, like other users of the system, will be required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition requires that if necessary improvements are required, they shall be completed 3rior to building occupancy. The project is not expected to increase demands that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, since the project will be required to comply with BASMAA guidelines, it is expected that there will be reduction of runoff into the stormwater system. The General Plan states that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated it has the ability to meet the long term water needs of Cupertino water retailers based on the maximum growth potential of municipalities in the district. Since the project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Code, the projects impact on water usage is expected to be less than significant. Item q - No Impact The project will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) I-- 0~ 0 ISSUES: e = ~ 'E .- o~ ~- z° [and Supporting Information Sources] '"o ._~--E e~ u,-- ~ '=.- oo ~ ~ _E E --~ ~_.c e.- - 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental [] [] [] [] effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT 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. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature .j~-~- Print Preparer's Name .,.¢/¢,ET/ ~//,~//."/)$T,,~5')q 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have/)been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DE~f_ARATI/ONT'~cluding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the .pr~posed ~oje_c,/~'nothing further is required. aluator Date Date 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 17, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-09 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, TM-2003-02 (EA-2003-09) Jane Vaughan/Menlo Equities 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a 7.74-acre parcel from P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) to P(Plarmed Development). Use Permit to construct a 11T-unit condominium project and 6,450 square feet of new retail space. Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels: 4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively. 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/negEA200309 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, Agenda Date: October 27, 2003 TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Applicant (s): Menlo Equities Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: 1. Negative Declaration, EA-2003-09 2. The Use Permit application, U-2003-04, subject to the model resolution. 3. Rezoning, Z-2003-02. 4. Tentative Map application, TM-2003-02. 5. Heart of the City Exception, EXC-2003- 06 to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential 103,110 square feet (existing) 107 units 30 units/gr.acre 6,400 square feet Maximum 37.5 for main buildings and 44 feet (tower for Building B) P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) P(Comm, Off, Res) Heart of the City Yes. No. Rezoning required to allow residential uses. Yes with exception to allow heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 45 feet. Negative Declaration. Application Summary: The project proposes construction of two new buildings consisting of 6,400 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. The site has two existing buildings with 103,110 square feet of office uses. The project as proposed will require the following approvals: 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. 2. Rezoning to change from P (CG,O, ML,Hotel) to P(Com, Off, Res). 3. Use Permit - to construct two buildings totaling 6,400 square feet of retail space and 107 residential urdts. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2, o-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 2 4. Tentative Map - to subdivide one existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 and 3.2 acres. BACKGROUND The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the project plan at a study session on August 4, 2003, and provided the following comments: · Like mix of uses and project features - The project incorporate a mix of uses and has enhanced features including open space, landscaping and provision of high quality materials. · Compatibility with the existing office buildings - Building A (see plan set) has been moved back to align it with the existing office building along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Also, the facades along Stevens Creek have been designed to transition from the office park look of the existing buildings to the mostly residential architecture of Building B. · Height and density - The height of the facades along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been reduced to be compatible with the General Plan. A detailed discussion of building heights is provided later in this report. The proposed number of units has been decreased from 120 to 107 units. The density is 30 units/acre, which is lower than the 35 units/acre allowed in this area. · Concerns about building extending into the 1.5:1 slope from curb required by the General Plan - The buildings have been redesigned so that they do not extend into the 1.5:1 slope from curb. Therefore, a general plan amendment is not required for the project. · The project should provide more green and open space - Additional landscaping and active outdoor alternatives have been provided in the site design. · The retaining wall along the northern section of the property should be visually attractive with breaks in the height and landscaping - The retaining wall has been divided into two sections to reduce the visual mass, and landscaping and decorative railings have been designed to make it visually more appealing. Members of the public expressed concerns related to traffic, height of buildings, density and the general plan amendment for the project. Most of these issues have already been discussed above. DISCUSSION Project Description The project site is 7.74 acres and consists of 103,110 square feet of existing office uses in two buildings with heights of two and three stories. The project proposes to construct two residential/retail buildings as follows: 2 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-;- 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-86 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 3 Existing 103,110 2-story- 34 ft. Office s.f. 3-story- 45 ft. Building A 3 stories- 37.5 Meets requirements Retail 2,576 s.f. ft. for exception to Residential 8 units Heart of the City. Building B 3 stories - 36 Meets requirements Retail 3,810 s.f. ft. building for exception to Residential 99 un/ts and 44 ft. for Heart of the City. tower. Total 103,110 6,386 s.f. 107 units General Plan The General Plan designation is Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential and allows the uses proposed by the project. The project includes 107 residential units and 6,400 square feet of commercial use, which will be allocated from the residential and commercial pool for the Heart of the City (which currently has 222 units and about 141,000 square feet of commercial allocation). The project also proposes maximum building heights of up to 45 feet (including the tower elements). The proposed density of the residential units is 30 units/acre, which is less than the maximum allowed density of 35 units/acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan. Rezoning The project site is currently zoned P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel) and does not allow residential uses. The site is proposed to be rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) to allow existing office use and the proposed commercial and residential uses. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the General Plan land use designation as indicated above. Tentative Map The applicant proposes subdividing the existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 for the existing office and 3.2 acres for the two residential buildings. The surface parking will be divided between the two parcels. As required by the conditions of approval, shared ingress/egress and shared parking easements will be recorded to ensure adequate circulation and shared parking between the properties. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-Z 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 E×C-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 4 Heart Of The City Specific Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines for development on sites along most of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The following table is a comparison between the development standards and the proposed mixed use, multi-unit residential development. Use Density Setback Height Setbacks Front Sides - Bldg A Bldg B Rear Streetscape Garage/Parking Lot Driveway Setback Open Space Private open space Public open space Subsurface Garages Office/Residential/Retail 35 du/gr, acre 1.5:1 36 ft. Maximum 45 ft. through an Exception 50' Lot>200' frontage. 9 feet from 26 ft. landscaped easement 20ft. to property line and 30ft. between buildings 20 ft. ~26 feet of landscaped easement from curb with ash trees, grass and sidewalk along both street frontages. 5 feet from adjoirdng properties 3 feet from adjacent buildings 150 sq. ft./du = 16,050 sq.ft. 60 sq. ft./du (no dimension < 6 ft.) May not exceed 5 ft. above grade Residential/Retail 30 du/gr, acre 1.5:1 Bldg A - 37.5 ft. Bldg B 36 ft. height and 44 ft. towers. 14 to 26ft. from 26 ft. landscaped easement (S) 5 ft.(W) & 190ft.(E) 38' (W) & 20 ft. (E) 70 ft. bet. bldgs. 20 ft. (N) Easement to be modified to have a 6 ft. sidewalk between ash trees with turf along Stevens Creek Boulevard. 25 feet on WoLfe Rd. 190 ft. on Stevens Creek Boulevard. 16,500 sq.ft, hard & softscape 60 sq. ff./du (no dimension < 6 ft.) Max. 5 ft. above grade. C C C C - with exception. C Planned mixed-use may reduce side setbacks between on-site buildings. C C C C Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 E×C-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 5 Garage Entries Maximum width of 22' openings 20' C - with condition of approval to reduce widths to 20 ft. Traffic Flow 2 curb cuts, if one-way One curb cut each C on Wolfe Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. Height Exception Building A has a height of 37.5 feet and Building B has a height of 36 feet for the main building and about 44 feet for the tallest tower element. Therefore, Building A and the tower for Building B require an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for structures incorporating underground parking structures and for sloping portions of roofs provided they are gable roofs not exceeding a 6:12 slope. Both the proposed buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs, which meet the requirements for the height exception. Streetscape The Heart of the City Specific Plan designates the area of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the project site as an "Ash Grove" and recommends planting of new ash trees and retention of existing ash trees. The project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard has two rows of existing ash trees with a monolithic sidewalk along the curb. The area west of the project entry is more or less level with the sidewalk, while the area east of the driveway is mounded up above the sidewalk and street level. The project proposes to keep the Ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the project site where there is no mounding. Per the Heart of the City streetscape requirement, a new pathway will be provided between the trees and the existing monolithic sidewalk at the edge of curb will be replaced with turf. In the area east of the entry, the project proposes removing eleven ash trees, removing the mound and monolithic sidewalk and providing a new streetscape with two rows of new ash trees and a sidewalk in between. A report by the City's consulting arborist, Barrie Coates and Associates (Exhibit A) recommends removal of the existing ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei) in front of the retail east of the driveway for the following reasons: 1. It will be difficult to install pavement with standard cuts of 9-12 inches between the ash trees without cutting into the roots and making the trees unstable. 2. This species of ash is difficult and expensive to prune. There is evidence of fallen or broken limbs possibly caused by lack of pruning, which is likely to be a safety issue in the future. 3. Roots of this ash are the most destructive to the hardscape of any ash species. The report makes the following recommendations: Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. ~3-04, MeMo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 6 1. If the existing ash trees are to be retained, the pathway surface and base material must be installed on top of the existing grade. 2. Replacement ash trees should be Fraxinus americana variety since they will look similar, be easier to prune, be less damaging to the sidewalk and increase species diversity. Based on the arborist's report, staff recommends that the ash trees west of the project entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard be retained. Staff also recommends that the mounding east of the project entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard be removed and replaced with a double row of Fraxinus americana ash trees and sidewalk in between the trees. The recommendations of the arborist will be included in the condition of approval along with the final recommendation of the City Council. DESIGN Site Plan The existing office buildings are located in the southwest corner of the lot. The proposed project consists of two buildings; one located along the east corner of the lot and Building B located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between the existing office and Building B with parking to the north (rear) of the site. The main entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard is oriented toward the retail and residential buildings and incorporates plazas and outdoor dining on either side of the entry along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The entry driveway is enhanced with pavers and three rows of trees on either side of the drive. Parking for the retail is provided on either side of the entrance driveway. The Wolfe Road entrance is oriented toward the office, service and residential uses. The parking lot incorporates pavers at entries and intersections and has trees to shade the parking spaces and to provide greenery. Trellised walkways are also provided from the office building to the parking lot to the north. Architecture The proposed three-story buildings are designed with retail facing Stevens Creek Boulevard and residential units above. The design is an eclectic style that incorporates a number of architectural influences. Building B has a dominant French Empire style. Building A has simple lines and loft-style units that compliment the existing office buildings. Building B consists of three building clusters separated by courtyard spaces along its length. Both buildings are articulated with awnings, balconies and trellises. The retail portions of both buildings have taller plate heights and storefronts with awnings to create inviting pedestrian facades. Plazas along the retail frontages and at the corner of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard incorporate outdoor dining and help create an entry into the project site and activate the street. Building B is designed with pitched roof and tower elements at the corners of the retail space. The east and west elevations consist of three building elements separated by entry features into courtyards to add variety to the facades. Each of the building elements is articulated with entry stoops to ground floor residences, balconies, awnings, window treatment and towers. Materials consist of a metal roof, stucco walls, vinyl windows for the residential portion and painted metal railings. Staff believes that consistent with the predominantly French Empire style of the Building B, slate or slate-type material be used 6 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 E×C-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 7 for the roofing instead of the proposed metal. A material board will be available at the meeting. The project was reviewed by Larry Cannon, the City's architectural consultant who was generally pleased with the project a~d site design but had some design recommendations, most of which have been incorporated by the applicant. Staff has additional recommendations including a stone base for Buildings A & B and a lighting plan including decorative street lights and pedestrian scaled lights. The consultant architect and staff recommendations will also be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The project will require review by the Design Review Committee for incorporation of the above changes. Open Space The project proposes to enhance the northeast corner of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with a plaza consisting of landscaping, benches, a sculpture and special paving. Exterior plazas with landscaping, pedestrian lighting, outdoor dining, planters and water features are planned in front of the retail spaces and at the corners of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The open space in the new buildings consists of six interior courtyard spaces and exterior plaza spaces. Building B has one passive courtyard area with landscaping, seating and a water feature. Building B has five courtyards; one with a grass area and play structure for children, another with a pool area that can be accessed by residents and employees of the office complex and three smaller passive areas with landscaping, seating and water features. The courtyard space in the office area will be enhanced with seating and sculptures and will be used by office- goers in the daytime and residents after office hours. The applicants are also proposing a special colored asphalt area in the north parking lot that can be closed off to form a volleyball court during evening hours and weekends to add an active recreation element. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A traffic report was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. on October 21, 2003 (Exhibit B). The proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips with 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour IMps. The project's impacts on the level of service (LOS) at various intersections was analyzed using existing conditions, background conditions (including traffic from approved but not constructed developments), project conditions (including traffic from proposed projects) and expected growth conditions required by the Congestion Management Agency (increasing existing volumes by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the expected project completion date of Fall 2005 and adding traffic from approved projects and the proposed project). The proposed project will not result in a level of service below LOS D at the analyzed intersections (Exhibit B- page iii), which is within the mLrdmum acceptable operating level of service for intersections in Cupertino. Additionally, the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP-mordtored (Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program) intersections under the City's Transportation Impact Analysis and/or the Santa Clara County CMP Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines. 7 Applications: Z-2003-02, U- J3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2~03-09, TM-2003-02 Pa e8 Parking The new residential and retail uses and the existing office use will share parking facihties, except for the undergrouhd office parking, which will be available only for the office use. There are 342 spaces currently on the site (252 surface spaces and 90 spaces in the office underground garage). The project proposes to increase the size of the underground office garage by 23 spaces. Building A will have 14 spaces and Building G will have 186 spaces in underground garages for each of the buildings. There will also be 208 surface parking spaces, bringing the total parking on the site to 521 spaces. The parking ordinance requires 601 spaces for the project site not accounting for shared parking. A shared parking analysis and parking surveys conducted by Fehr and Peers, Inc., indicates that the maximum amount of parking necessary for the project will be 521 spaces. Municipal Code Section 19.100.40F(2) states that the Planning Commission can approve'a shared parking plan that results in less parking than required by code under the following conditions: · The land use consists ora shopping center office or industrial development, which is ozoned or managed by a single entity - The development is currently managed by a single entity. · The applicant has submitted a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply - The parking analysis indicates that a maximum of 521 spaces will be required for the entire site based on the various studies. The project provides 521 spaces, which is adequate. In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available to the office and retail uses during the day, at least 75 spaces in the Building B garage should be available to the office and retail users during the day. In order to ensure accessible parking for the retail uses, 24 spaces on either side of the entry drive on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be available to retail users from 9AM to 9PM. The above requirements have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. · The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a planned development zone or via an exception for a project zohich is not located in a planned development zone - The project is in a planned development zone and will comply with conditions of approval as part of this use permit. Based on the above analysis the project meets the shared parking requirement. A condition of approval also requires Transportation Demand Management measures for the office employees (preferential parking, Eco Passes, Guaranteed Ride Home program, and on-site amenities such as ATMs) and a parking management plan to be prepared and approved by the Director of Community Development before issuance of building permits to reduce parking demand. Bike Parking The following indicates bike parking required for the new retail and residential buildings per the City's code: · Retail - 2 spaces (Class II) · Building A - 4 spaces (Class I) · Building B - 40 spaces (Class I) Applications: Z-2003-02, U- ~3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 ?~e 9 Pedestrian Paths The design of the site includes well-defined pedestrian areas and pathways around and through the site. The pathways and sidewalks connect the site to the interior courtyards and amenities in the existing and proposed buildings and will be open to the public at all times. A condition of approval requires the applicant to record pedestrian easements to allow public access to and through the site. School Impacts The project as revised proposes 107 attached units. The following impacts have been identified by the school districts (Exhibit C): · Cupertino Union School District (Elementary and Middle School) - The districts estimates a maximum yield of 54 K-8 students: The elementary school will be Sedgewick Elementary School and the middle school assignment will take place after the fifth middle school has opened. The district has indicated that it can accommodate the addition of these students without significant impact. · Fremont Union School District -The district expects four high school students at Cupertino High School from the project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project will be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. As indicated above, the existing facilities will accommodate the students from this project and school impact fees will be paid. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the school system. Noise The City's General Plan states that for residential zones, noise levels should not exceed 60dB for exterior outdoor recreational areas and 45dB for the interior spaces. According to the acoustical analysis (Exhibit D) four loft units (on the second and third floors) in Building A and six units (on the second and third floors) in Building B facing Stevens Creek Boulevard will be subjected to noise levels of 68 dB and 69 dB respectively. The noise levels for units greater than 250 feet away from Stevens Creek and for the interior courtyard areas meet the noise criteria in the General Plan. The analysis recommends that the French doors for the loft units be replaced with window units for greater soundproofing. It also recommends that all units within 250 feet of Stevens Creek Boulevard have mechanical ventilation to allow circulation of air when doors and windows are closed. The recommendations have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. Affordable Housing Per the revised plans, 107 units are proposed. Per the City's Below Maxket Rate (BMR) requirement, 25% of the units or 16 units are required. The for-sale units are required to serve median and moderate-income families. Fifty percent of the BMR units shall be available for each income level. Landscaping and Tree Removal Of the 149 existing trees on the site, the project proposes to remove 109 trees in the building and reconfigured parking lot areas and in the existing office courtyard. None of the trees 9 Applications: Z-2003-02, U. J3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 10 proposed to be removed are specimen trees. The applicant is proposing to plant 319 new trees around the site and in the office courtyard. In addition to the 40 trees to be retained the project will have a total of 359 trees. Staff recommends that all the proposed tree types and locations be reviewed by the City consultant arborist and that proposed trees have a minimum planting size of 36' box size (except for trees on parking garage decks which shall be 24" box). Conditions are included in the model resolution to this effect. The conditions also address protection for existing trees during construction. A review of the ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been provided earlier in this report. 'Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer service is available, but the Sanitary District has indicated that a flow study will be required to determine if improvements will be necessary. The applicants, like other users of the system, will be required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition requires that if necessary improvements are required, they shall be completed prior to building occupancy. Storm Water Quality Management The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires local agencies to reduce impervious surface and incorporate storm water quality design techniques in their new projects. The current project site is a paved asphalt parking lot. The project will increase landscaping, utilize pavers and bioswales and thereby reduce impervious surface area. Therefore, there will be no negative impacts to the storm drain system. Submitted by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Plarme~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Commtmity Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution for U-2003-04 Model Resolution for EXC-2003-06 Model Resolution for TM-2003-02 Model Ordinance for Z-2003-02 with Attachment A and B Initial Study Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Plan set Exhibit A: Arborist report from Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003. Exhibit B: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated February 2003. Exhibit C: Communication from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District dated October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively. Exhibit D: Acoustical Analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003 G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\pcUsereports\ U-2OO2-O6.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 2~ to residents north of Homestead, which is another reason for the requested height of the pole and the location. Said that in terms of co-location, Metro PCS is always open to working with carriers to form agreements. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Saadati to approve application U-2003-08. (Vote: 5-0-0) Z-2003-02, TM-2003-02 U-2003-04, EXC-2003-06, EA-2003-09 Jane Vaughan/ Menlo Equities Rezoning of a 7.74 acre parcel from P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to P(Planned Development) Tentative map to subdivide a 7.74 acre parcel into two parcels: 4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively Use permit to construct a 107-unit condominium project and 6,450 square feet of new retail space Exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed heights above 36 feet. Tentative City Council date: November 17, 2003 Property located at 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road Aarti Sttrivastava, Senior planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Stated that the project is a use permit to construct 107 residential units and retail space at the northeast comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road at the Cupertino Financial Center. · Said the project also includes a rezoning to change the current zone to allow residential uses, so it would be changing from a P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to planned commercial office and residential. · Also included in the application is a tentative map to subdivide the existing lot into two parcels and a heart of the city exception to allow building heights up to 44 feet. · Explained that the site plan shows the existing buildings at the bottom, left-hand comer and the new buildings are shown on the right hand side. One of the buildings shown is a small, 8-unit retail/residential building and the other is a larger building that has 99 units. · The project has retail facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, with an entry drive off Stevens Creek that has been relocated a little to the west, and another that has been relocated a little to the north. · The parking lots have been reconfigured and the entry drive has been enhanced with trees and enhanced paving to make it more inviting to the retail, residential and office development. · Provided a list of comments from the City Council/Planning Commission study session of August 4th. 1) Liked the mix of uses and some of the project features 2) Asked for compatibility with the existing office 3) Expressed concerns about height and density 4) Expressed concerns about buildings that were extending into the slope required by the General Plan of 1.5 to 1 slope 5)Requested the addition of more open space 6)Requested that the retaining wall to the north be landscaped to reduce its mass · Said the project has reduced the original proposed number of units by 13. The application originally requested 120 units and it now requests 107. · Heights have been lowered, especially in the front, where the buildings are now compatible with the General Plan. · Buildings no longer extend into the slope. · There has been some increase in the open space. The applicant has tried to reconfigure and add usability to the open space. Planning Commission Minutes s October 27, 2003 Explained the drawing showing the project from the Rose Bowl site, which is the eastern section and shows a sloping dirt and landscaping bank. The project will fill in the sloped portion, creating a tall wall at the northern end. The applicant is planning to break up the wall into two sections and landscape that portion so the height will appear more visually attractive than if it were just a long, tall concrete retaining wall. The height differential is approximately 10 feet, so there will be a two-foot planted height, and then an 8-foot height with a decorative fence above that. Presented a quick breakdown: 1) Existing office of about 103,000 square feet 2) Building A will have 8 units and 2,500 square feet of retail 3) The heights for Building A are approximately 37.5 feet 4) Building B will have less retail and 99 units 5) The 3-story section of Building B will be 36 feet in height, with a tower element that will go up to 44 feet 6) All of the elements meet the requirements for the exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which allows sloped portions of roofs and some architectural elements to extend above the 36 feet. The towers are an architectural element and therefore meet that exception. Stated that the land use designation for this location is office/industrial/cornmercial/residantial. The project is compatible, because it proposes commercial and residential uses. It is also within the allowed number of housing units in the current General Plan. Thirty-five units per acre is the maximum allowed, and this project proposes thirty units to the acre. Said the maximum height allowed by the General Plan is 45 feet and the height of the tower, which is the tallest part, is 44 feet. The project will require rezoning, but it will be compatible with the General Plan. Spoke about the 31 ash trees along the frontage of the site. The applicant proposes to remove 11 ash trees by the entry drive and in front of the retail portion of Building B and retain these ash trees along the rest of the frontage west of the entry drive. The city arborist reviewed the ash trees and made a recommendation that the trees to the east be removed and the trees to the west be retained, since it is difficult to install standard pavement in between the trees which is what the Heart of the City Plan requires. Currently there is a monolithic sidewalk adjacent to the street Said the arborist also reported that this species of ash tree is more difficult on hardscape, so there would be some lifting of pavement and that the species is more expensive to prune. There is already evidence of limbs that have fallen and may be a safety issue. Arbor/st recommends that the existing ash trees be removed and replaced with the species Fraxinus Americana. Variation is good, because if there is an insect or pest issue, it would not destroy all the trees in one shot. This type of tree is easier on hardscape, so pavement would not be lifted. If the berm section were to be kept and the new walk put in, the arbor/st recommends that it be floating over the grade and that they don't grade into it, because he does not want the trees and roots to be impacted. Staff recommends that the recommendations be followed. There are 149 trees. The project proposes to remove 109 and retain 40 of the existing trees. None of the trees are specimen trees and most of them are in the locations of the buildings and the parking lot that will be reconfigured. A total of 319 trees are proposed to be planted, so there will be more trees than there were originally. Looking at the site, there is a large parking lot to the east of it. The parking lot extends beyond this property line. There are some changes in the asphalt pavement which show where the property line ends. The entire parking lot is not part of the property. Com. Corr: · Asked to whom the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27, 2003 Ms. Shrivastava: · Answered that the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs to HP. · Presented brief overview of project, showing existing building and proposed new buildings. The new building with 8 units follows the flat rooflines off the existing buildings, with one portion attached. After that are the entry drive and the trees and the project transitions into a more residential character with sloping roofs. · Explained that the sloping roofs were necessary to ensure the building met the slope line requirement for the General Plan. · There will be retail along the entire frontage of the new building. · The north elevation show ho~v the building is broken into two parts with a courtyard in between. · Showing the east elevation, she gave information about Building B. It is a large building, so it is broken up into three parts with entries into the courtyard. It has a residential character, with sloped roofs and has articulation with balconies and turrets. · Explained the west elevation which showed the courtyard between the two buildings. · Stated that a condition requires review of the project design by the Design Review Committee review various details. Staff also recommends that the buildings kave a stone base and that slate or slate-like material be used for the roofing, instead of the proposed metal roofing. · Said that all of the colors and materials will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. · Discussed open space within the project: 1) Internal Courtyards a) Landscaped courtyard b) One containing a swimming pool c) Series of passive courtyards, which have landscaped areas and seating. 2) Plazas surrounding retail portions of site 3) Twenty-foot side yard, proposed to be landscaped with a path that could add to outdoor seating. 4) Re-landscape the existing courtyard between the existing office buildings, to be used by the office personnel and by the residents during and after office hours. 5) Series of lighting or visual connections that would provide people a way to follow those connections into and out of the open spaces. 6) One area of parking lot to be closed after office hours and weekends to be used as volleyball, basketball court, etc. Pavement would be in a different color and material would be available to set up nets for active outdoor activity. · Said that the project is projected to generate approximately 1176 daily trips, out of which 93 would be a.m. peak hour and 103 would be p.m. peak hour. · Said there would not be a substantial change in intersection level of service. None will reduce below Level D, which is the General Plan limit. · Discussed parking, saying that the project utilizes a shared-parking concept. If individual uses were broken out and the City's parking requirements were added, the project would require approximately 601 spaces. It provides 521 spaces, which is what the shared parking study recommends. · 113 of those spaces would be located in the underground parking. The surface parking is about 208 spaces, and a total of 200 spaces would be available in the residential areas. · Explained how the parking process would work, saying that during the daytime about 75 of the spaces in Building B would be available to general users, so the offices would be able to get all 362 spaces that would be required of it during the daytime. Approximately 26 spaces /3 Planning Commission Minutes lo October 27, 2003 (showed colored green on the plan) would be available for retail. Staff is recommending that these spaces be marked for retail from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., so they would be easily accessible to retail customers. There would be a balance of 134 spaces available for residential use during the day. After hours, the City requires 2 spaces for every unit and there would be 2 spaces for every unit in the underground parking garage. Again there would also be the 26 available for the retail, and a balance of approximately 295 for guests or other people wishing to park. Looking at the shared parking, during and after hours, it would be a very comfortable exchange of the use of common space for one use or the other. Section 19.100 (of the Cupertino Municipal Code) does allow approval of a shared parking plan if the entire project is managed by a single entity, if there has been a detailed parking study and if it is in a planned development zone. This project satisfies all of the requirements. Discussed site access on Wolfe Road: The project proposes to move the entry access approximately 90 feet north of its current location. That might reduce the amount of stacking available into the Vallco mall, because additional stacking needs to be provided for the project traffic turning into the site with the new location. Spoke with traffic consultant who recommends that the access to the site be moved a bit further to the south, in order to ensure adequate stacking for the site and for Vallco. One condition of approval requires additional analysis and the Public Works Department is aware of this requirement. Staff feels the project will probably have an access drive somewhere between the two recommended locations. Discussed e-mails received regarding school impacts from the school districts. Approximately 54 are expected at the elementary and middle school levels and the school district has indicated that that number of students could be accommodated comfortably at Sedgewick Elementary and the new middle school that is being built. The Fremont Union School District expects 4 new students from the project, so there are no significant impacts predicted for Cupertino High School. A noise analysis indicates that the French doors for the loft units should he replaced by double- insulated doors and that all residential units within 250 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard should have mechanical ventilation to ensure there is adequate circulation when the doors and windows are closed. Approximately 15% (16 units) of affordable housing would be available through this project. Since it is proposed to be a for-sale product, about 50% would be put aside for median/moderate income levels. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, the Rezoning, Tentative Map and Heart of the City Exception. Com. Wong: · Asked about impact to Vallco Rosebowl property by installing the proposed retaining wall, and Vallco's future plans for the Rosebowl site. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said that, at this point, there has been talk about residential use, theaters, and a number of other things, but there is nothing final yet. Staff assumes Vallco will use the area that has been dug into possibly for underground parking, with something built at the level the street is on. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that the area that has been dug is actually too deep, depending on how many levels of underground parking they may need. This is not uncommon where there is a property owner adjacent to another one and where there is a slope that must be retained without infringing Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 27, 2003 upon what can occur on the adjoining property, but it can be assumed that there w/Il be one or tWO levels of parking underground under a mixed-use building (potentially office and/or residential) over retail. Com. Wong: · Referring to page 2-3, asked why the applicant wants to do a Tentative Map and divide the property. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that it was her belief that the applicant wants to separate the residential from the office. Com. Wong: · Expressed concern about the removal of the ash trees, saying that removing trees in Cupertino is not the thing to do here. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that the arborist went through the plans thoughtfully and some of his suggestions, including replacing the trees with a different type bears merit. If all the trees are the same kind, and they get hit by an insect or pest, all of the trees would come down. It is always a good idea to add some variety. The trees look very similar, but would probably not be affected by the same kind of pests. Mr. Piasecki: · Reiterated Ms. Shrivastava's earlier point that for the viability of the retail, we would like to enhance the visibility into the stores and shops. The existing berm is quite high and would cause limited visibility into the retail store fronts. Com. Wong: · Questioned the number of bedrooms in the complex and the number of parking stalls are proposed per unit. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said that at this point, there are at least two parking stalls per unit, referring back to the shared parking arrangements. · There are a total of 107 units proposed. Explaining how the parking would work after hours, she stated that there are a total of 200 parking spaces in the underground parking garage. There would be an additional 27 spaces available in adjacent areas, giving a total of 227 spaces. The applicant needs to provide 214 spaces Com. Wong: · Asked if these are assigned parking spaces. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the way it normally works is that each unit would have one assigned parking space at the bottom levels and on the top level, the spots are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Given that after hours, there would be approximately 300 surface parking spaces in addition to the underground parking, staff does not expect parking to be a problem for residents trying to get to underground parking. Com. Wong: Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 27, 2003 · Asked for a breakdown of the number of three-bedroom, two-bedroom and 1-bedroom units in the total 107 units. Ms. Shrivastava: · Answered that there will be about four 1-bedroom lofts, twenty-two will be three-bedroom units and the rest will be two-bedroom units. They will all be for sale. Com. Wong: · Quoting from page 2-9 of the staff report regarding developer fees, asked how the school impact fees for Fremont Union High School District are calculated. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that developers must pay impact fees at the rate of $.98 per square foot of new building. Multiplying 148,000 square feet by $.98, the school district will get approximately $150,000 for in impact fees for the projected 4 new students in the high school district. · Explained that the fees are paid directly to the school districts, so it is not necessary to include school impact fees as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that the high school will also get property tax enhancement. Because of the enhanced value of the property, the district will get this as an on-going revenue. Staff does not have all all of the definitive numbers yet. They are attempting to sit down with them to define the revenues, as well as the operating and capital costs to accommodate the expected new students. In the event that the numbers don't match, staff will suggest that in the future we have impact fees to accommodate students. These units were are units that were anticipated in our current General Plan, which has been in effect initially since 1993 and was updated two years ago. The District did not raise the impact fee issue, which staff would be glad to do if there is in fact an impact. Just as we would ask a developer to provide funds for a right turn lane or whatever was needed if his project impacted an intersection, if there are impacts on the school systems, we would want to find a way to mitigate those impacts. Com. Corr: · Stated that through the developer fees, the Fremont Union High School District would get funds to use for facilities. The City will not issue a building permit until the applicant comes in with an affidavits from both districts saying the fees have been paid. Com. Wong: · Asked what the setback is on Stevens Creek Boulevard for the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Said that retail Building B appears closer to the street, and he questioned whether it fell within the ordinance requirements. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that Building B is approximately 40 feet back. The Heart of the City requires it to be 35 feet. Trying to address cormnents from the City Council and Planning Commission that they align the buildings, the applicant set it back further than the requirement. Com. Wong: · Asked if there will be sidewalk cafes in the project. Planning Commission Minutes ~3 October 27, 2003 Ms. Shrivastava: · One condition of approval is that the applicant provide details to the Design Review Committee of the plaza areas of the project and how they will be treated. There will also be an enhancement at the comer plaza that leads to the bridge that goes through to the office building. At this point, they are showing special paving and an art feature. Staff feels this is almost a "gateway" entry into the City beyond Vallco. Mr. Piasecki: Commented that there are no signed leases yet, so there is no assurance that there will be sidewalk cafes, but they have accommodated it with outdoor plaza space in front of the retail and staff has heard from retail experts that about 70% of the new leases tend to go toward restaurants or cafa spaces, because that is what is selling currently. Com. Wong: · Asked how this project will tie into the HP property and Vallco. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that it is expected that the landscaped side yard would tie in well with any development that might occur at the HP site. The right to have reciprocal bike and pedestrian ingress and egress easements from one site to the other has been preserved. · Since there are no specific plans from the HP development, it is difficult to know exactly what will be there. It is always the development that comes in later that has to try to fit into the existing development. Com. Wong: · Stated that it seems the application meets the open space requirements, but asked if there is a way to add more open space such as an open courtyard between the buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the applicant does meet the 150 square feet of common open space and 60 square feet of private open space per unit required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The private open space is usually met by balconies. · The developer will also be paying approximately $900,000 toward the development of parks. There is a requirement in the General Plan Amendment for the HP property for a three-acre park east of the site. With the bike and pedestrian connections from this project, it is hoped that there will be connections to that park. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked if the renderings of the buildings depict the real colors. Ms. Shrivastava: · The renderings do depict the real colors. The material shown at the base is a rusticated stucco treat- ment. Staff would rather see real stone as the base with stucco above that. Vice Chair Saadati: · Questioned if there is a reason for all of the buildings being the same color. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that this is one of the reasons Design Review is being required. There needs to be more Planning c0rmmssi0n Minutes October 27, 2003 refinement on the colors and materials. If there are recormnendations from the Commission, they will be brought to the Design Review Committee. Vice Chair Saadati: · Questioned the justification for staff's suggestion for slate roofing and the inquired about the cost. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that staff suggested "slate-type" materials. Some of the newer materials emulate slate, and staff would be willing to look at them. Staff felt the metal proposed metal roof was not conducive to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Since this is predominantly a residential building, staff wanted to see a more high quality material for the roof. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that part of the intent of both the base in stone and the roof in slate or slate-like material is to add more texture to the building. Standing metal seamed roofs can appear very flat without the texture and depth that real stone materials or slate have. · The Design Review Committee will compare the metal roof and the slate roof and determine which is better suited. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked if there was a requirement for the traffic study to go as far as the De Anza intersection. Ms. Shrivastava: · Staff wanted to include this intersection as an informational item only, because it is such a highly impacted intersection. The traffic study shows that this project will not further impact the De Anza Boulevard intersection. Com. Miller: · Stated that he is concerned about breaking up the open space into small courtyards among fairly tall buildings. Asked how useful the space is and how much air and light the spaces get. · Asked if the open space areas would contain grass or would be asphalted over. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that one of the larger courtyards has some grassy areas. One open space area is the pool area and the other smaller areas are more passive and would contain potted planting or in-ground planters, but not grassy areas. · Stated that this is one of the reasons that the existing courtyard area be redone and that there be visual cues to lead people into the area where there is a nice water feature in the middle. Com. Miller: · Asked if the asphalt in the existing courtyard would be removed. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the asphalt would not be removed, but the area would be re-landscaped with larger trees. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that the existing material is not asphalt--it is a concrete tile material. The idea in the new areas is to get some textured patio tile type material. There will not be asphalt in those areas. Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 27, 2003 Com. Miller: · Asked if the applicant had considered combining all the separate courtyards into one larger courtyard where something more substantial could be done. Ms. Shrivastava: · Responded that they had looked at several options for the placement of open spaces. They did not want to refigure the buildings, but looked at the space in between. Consideration was given to having a green space in the center, but for traffic navigation purposes, it was determined that planting trees three-deep in the parking areas would add the feeling ora green area. Com. Miller: · Asked if the underground parking in the residential section will be gated. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that there will one space assigned to every unit, so if it were to be gated, it would be gated up to that point. The upper level would be left open, so other people could access it. · The upper level would be open for guests or office people--unless they could not find space in the surface parking area, it is not expected that they would park in the underground area. Chair Chen: · Asked how the side setback is viewed. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the side setback to the east is 20 feet, which is a requirement of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Chair Chen: · Said her question pertains to page 2-4, column 4 that the planned m/xed-use may reduce side setbacks between on-site buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that information pertains to the setbacks on the west. Just to the property line, the setback is 5 feet, but there is more space between the buildings. It is somewhat of a technicality, because the distance measured from the building to the property line is only 5 feet, but because there will not be a structure or a wall on the property line there is actually more space between the structures. That is why mixed-use developments that share sides are allowed to reduce the setbacks. Chair Chen: · Questioned the meaning of a planned mixed-use reducing the side setbacks between on-site buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that this is the situation she was explaining. When there are buildings on one project site--even though there is a 5-foot side setback--because there is a larger separation between the buildings, that is allowed. This project is in conformance with the requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 27, 2003 Chair Chen: · Asked what type of retail is projected to be brought in to require the 26 parking stalls designated for retail parking. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said she had used the City's parking requirement of 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail. That came to about 26 spaces, and since that number fit so well into the area as you enter, staff wanted to reserve it for retail parking. It is difficult to make shoppers who want to pop in and buy something to have to search all over the site and in underground garages. It is better to reserve parking right in front of or across from the retail. Jane Vaughan, development partner with Menlo Equities: · Stated that they had tried to revise the site plan and the design to meet the Planning Commission suggestions from the August study session. · Said that the Rosebowl area is so deep that it accorrm~odates two levels of underground parldng. Looking at what is permitted by zoning on that site, more than likely only one level of underground parking will be used, and the rest will be filled in. · Will be meeting with HP representatives to make sure HP's plans facilitate this project. · Said they need to get a construction zone to build the 107 units. The lender wants to split the properties so there will be a different lender for each side. This lender is an office building lender, not a construction 1/ability lender for condominium for-sale units. Requesting a tentative map to subdivide the property is for financial purposes. · Said the school fees will be determined by the school districts. They will not be able to get building permits for the project until they show they have paid the fees. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group representative: · Went over the site plan, reiterating some of the details Ms. Shnvastava had presented. 1. Maintaining existing 103,000 square feet of office space 2. Conforming to the General Plan 3. Providing 6, 400 square feet of retail space along Stevens Creek Blvd. 4. Adding 107 units of for-sale housing to the City's housing stock 5. Looking at the density of 30 units per acre · Said they want to provide a variety of housing opportunities for potential residents by providing one and two bedroom loft-type units, two bedroom townhouse units and two and three bedroom fiats. · Some of the two bedroom units are a bit different--some are geared for families, with the bedrooms together. Some are more of an extended-family type, with a bedroom suite on one side of the unit, a living space in the center, and another bedroom suite on the far side of the unit. · There will be 16 BMR units in the project. · Providing site amenities for the residents and the community. Some of the uses are available for residents of Cupertino, such as the activities area in the parking lot which can be used for basketball, volleyball, etc., and which would be open to the public. · Said they are trying to activate Stevens Creek Blvd. with retail and public spaces. · Said they had made adjustments to the plans to make it compatible to the General Plan, such as pushing one of the buildings back and redesigning another building to have a more residential scale. This also provided townhouse style units, which were not in the plans before. · Said they tried to get a smooth transition from the commercial to the residential scale. · Stated that by breaking up the open space area into three "pods", it provides opportunities for Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003 connecting access points, which ~vere not in the original plans. Also, by having smaller courtyards, rather than one large one, there are different spaces that can be used by different people at different times. A large courtyard would be more restrictive. Current plans show an active pool area, and a specific area that is for younger kids. This gives a variety of uses in the breakdown of the courtyards. Listed the sizes of the courtyards: one is approximately 70 feet by 60 feet and another is about 50 feet by 80 feet. The original plans did not propose a pool. The current plans show a pool in one courtyard area. There is a lot of variety and scale to the open spaces. Ms. Janet Hittle, representative of Gazardo: · Said that they are trying to find a nice, vertical sculpture piece for the comer "gateway" element. · There will be a plaza at the gateway where it crosses into the office building. It will be up-lit for the sculpture piece and they are considering small lighting fixtures in the landscaping to create interest at the comer. · Said the same type of bench that will be used on the comer plaza will be used in the office plaza that will be renovated. There will be movable tables and chairs and some potted plants that would flank the benches on the plaza. · Would like to replace the existing honey locust trees, which are mismatched in size, with something more uniform that would create a nice, even canopy. · Said that the sport court would be painted. There would be sleeves for volleyball/badminton equipment. The basketball stanchions would be portable. They ~vould be stored on-site and moved out for playtime. · Explained that for the larger plaza, there would be a central fountain, a playhouse~epending upon how many children are there, they did not necessarily want to have an active play facility. The playhouse would be suitable for young children, but would also be nice for older people to view. · The planter walls would have different heights of planting to give scale within the open spaces. · Said the project proposes to add small fountains to the smaller courtyards. · Stated that the pool area would provide space for lounge chairs, tables and chairs and possibly barbecues. The idea is that this area would be accessible to the office people as well, so they could swim during their breaks, lunch, etc. · Said that they are considering adding a trellis feature in front of the retail space. There is a water feature around the comer that would flank the tables. · Showed on the site plan the vehicular circulation from Stevens Creek going through the site and also off of Wolfe Road. Pointed out access to existing parking garage, and to the garages in Buildings A and B. · Said that they are creating strong connections from Stevens Creek onto the site and around it, so people can walk through, around the pool area, off the podium and across the courtyard to connect to the existing office space. · There is connection from the retail up onto the podium and thc~n up to the walk that goes all around the perimeter. · Pointed out on the drawing that putting the walkway on top of the existing berm would obscure view of the retail area, and said that the retail is an important aspect of the project. Reviewed another portion of the drawing that shows the proposed reduction of the existing berm and the planting of the new ash trees which would allow a view of the retail activity in that area. · Showed the proposed retaining wall, which would be a stepped retaining wall consisting of a two-foot high lower wall and an eight-foot high upper wall with landscaping in between and a metal guard rail on top to keep people from falling over the edge. Jim Yee: · Said that one of the main things they were trying to do is create an active environment with a vibrant streetscape. Planning Commission Minutes is October 27, 2003 · Explained that, relative to colors, technology has not mastered the ability to accurately reproduce color when the drawings are reproduced. The color board shows the true colors. There are three distinctive color palettes. The building which fronts on Stevens Creek is a slight green/gay color. Another building is more of a beige color, so there is color variahon--it just does not show up on the digital reproductions. · The intent was to break down the building scale with a break between the buildings and color variations. Addressing the architectural styles, pointed out the existing two-story office and the loft units above the retail and showed the transition to the residential scale with the townhouse units with the roof that ties back from the bulk of the building. · This project copies the diverse architectural styles along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Said the building mass is broken down with a very defined pedestrian access through the building and through the plaza areas. · Stated that one of the conditions of approval is the use of stone for the base. Explained that their intent is to provide a stone base on the commercial areas where they front Stevens Creek and then go to more of a rusticated stucco finish on the balance of the project. · Said they would be willing to work with staff to get something acceptable for the roofing material. · Said their goal is not to do an inexpensive project and the metal roofing they had proposed is actually fairly expensive. Slate is even more expensive, so they will be looking to find an acceptable slate-type material for the roof. · Showed on the plans how the residential buildings slope down to a two-story mass along Stevens Creek BNd. and pointed out the visibility of the active retail. · Stated that there are not a lot of retail areas that have plazas in front of the buildings and this project would provide opporttmities for tenants such as bookstores or coffee shops or cafes. · Said he hopes this project would be a nice addition to the City. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked what the pool capacity is and how they arrived at the size of the pool to serve the 107 units. Ms. Hittle: · Explained that the size of the pool was limited, because it is on a podium situation with a parking garage below. The pool is approximately 20 feet by 40 feet---approximately 800 square feet. In situations like this, they have found that a lot of people use the pool as a "dipping" pool. Rather than putting in a small or large spa, this pool is something someone could theoretically swim back and forth in, but it also provides a good place to just "hang out." Com. Miller: · Asked about the pricing of the units. Ms. Vaughan: · Said their marketing study indicated that they should sell from the low 400 thousands to the high 500 thousands, depending on the size of the unit. For a single bedroom unit, it would be in the low 400 thousands. The BMR unit would be $194,000 to be precise. Said they intend to be entry level for Cupertino with their prices. · The three-bedroom units would be in the high 500 thousands, the two-bedrooms would be anywhere from $450,000 to $550,000, depending on size. These units vary a lot in size, even for a two-bedroom. Com. Wong: · Asked if there would be enough area to fit a small spa near the pool. Said he felt it would be a nice amenity for the residents. Planning Commission Minutes 19 October 27, 2003 Ms. Hittle: · Said they had looked at that prospect, but the limited space would prohibit a spa. Com. Corr: · Said he feels it is really important to have both the townhomes and flats as presented in the floorplans. He said that due to constraints of space, most of what is being built today is what he refers to as "stackers"-- with the garage under, with stairs up to the living area and then more to the dining area and cooking level and then up to the bedroom level. · Said he is concerned that as we move forward in adding housing in the City, the variety of housing that we have isn't going to meet all of the needs. Seniors need flats. Said he was very pleased to see that the applicant is building those in the project. Ms. Vaughn: · Addressing Com. Corr's comments, said that their marketing study indicated that most of the people who would be likely to purchase these units would be either pre-children or post-children, so Com. Corr's comment was very valid. Com. Corr: · Asked if"Cupertino Courtyard" is going to be the name of the project, since there is already a Courtyard in Cupertino. Ms. Vaughan: · Said they were open for suggestions, but they wanted to keep the word "Cupertino" for marketing purposes, because "Cupertino" has cachet in the marketplace. · Said they will try to find another suitable name since "Courtyard" has already been used in Cupertino. Mr. Yee: · Said he wanted to make one additional statement concerning open space. The original plans that were presented at the August study session showed about 20,000 square feet of open space. The current plans a little over 30,000 square feet, so there is a big change provided in the amount of open space. Chair Chen: · Asked about the height of the buildings that front Stevens Creek Blvd. and asked the height of the highest structure. Mr. Yee: · Pointed out the buildings closest to Stevens Creek which is about 26 feet in height. The building that is set approximately 52 feet is about 36 or 37 feet in height. The tower elements are approximately 44 feet in height. The residential buildings are about 36 feet in height. Chair Chen: · Asked if it is correct that the tower elements are in the middle of the property and not visible from the street. Mr. Yee: · Responded that it is correct that the tower elements would not be visible from the street. The tower elements are there to enhance and reinforce the pedestrian entry points into the courtyards. Mr. Norm Hacld'ord, 10346 Tomita Way, Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 20 October 27, 2003 · Said he was pleased to see the project intends to meet the General Plan. Said his only concern is that it is being split into two parcels. · Addressed aspects of the project such as the office amenities, improved park, basketball court, shared parking, etc., and said he hopes the properties will not be sold separately at some time in the future because now they are tied together. · Said he thinks that if the properties are separated one day, the five-foot easement should be made central between the two properties. · Does not want the office buildings to decide to expand someday and be able to take away from some of the amenities that have been provided for the community. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it is accepted practice that one lender will take the office portion and one lender will take the residential portion. All of the amenities will be integrated into a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that will be placed on the property--including the ingress-egress for pedestrians and bicycles, the allowance for the residents to use the office components in terms of the open space and for the office tenants to be able to use some of the amenities in the residential portions. They are linked by virtue of the CC & R's, and the common property is not a necessity to make sure that linkage occurs. Mr. Yee: · Said that one reason for the parcel split is that when there is a for-sale situation, there is a HOA (Homeowners Association). · The parcel split makes an easily definable line for the area that the HOA maintains for its dues. · If this were a rental development, there would be one parcel for the entire project, but as a for-sale development, it needs to be subdivided so there are two distinct entities where it can clearly be defined what the costs are in terms of maintenance: Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, Cupertino: · Said he was encouraged when he heard one area was going to be for small children, but the picture showing the attractions for the small children, it seemed to be a subset of Serra Park on Hollenbeck. · The student figures for kindergarten through 8th grade show about 54 children. Asked how many children are in the 0-5 years class. These children are not yet in school, and their mothers will want to take them out and do something with them. · Said that Memorial Park on a workday, during working hours, is jammed around the play equipment. The rest of Memorial Park is practically empty at that time. The same is true of Linda Vista Park. · Said he does not see the type of equipment that small children would use in the proposed plans. · Asked how the developer plans to keep the children across the street from coming to use the swimrmng pool in this project. Asked if it would be a locked facility with only tenants having keys. Would the high school tenants be able to bring their friends home on noon hour? · Said he did not see places for kids to play stick ball or stoop ball, or other activities for the small kindergarten through 8th grade children. · Said he is concerned about what is to be done with open space. Asked if it is an architectural feature that makes the property look good when it is being sold, or if it is a place where people who live there can go to be outdoors with their children and do things--such as sit under a tree and read a book. · Asked if parents could let their children go to play in the courtyards and be able to keep an eye on them and talk to them from their houses or flats, or if the play areas so isolated that no one can get to them. · Said it seems that it has been forgotten that there are people living in these houses, and that the people have children and that the children should have places to play. Chair Chen: Planning Commission Minutes 21 October 27, 2003 · Asked the applicants if they are planning to put any play equipment or mini-playground in the back area where the playhouse is planned to be. Ms. Vaughan: · Said that the school district calculates the possibility of children based on the number of units in the project. · Said they had done a full market study based on location, design and profile of the buyer. This profile of the buyer for this particular case is prior to having children and post having children. · Said many of the buyers will probably be connected to Vallco or to the office park at the project, so the developers are looking at amenities that could be used by children, but would still be attractive to adults walking by if there are no children to use the facilities. · Said that the pool flexes for very young children to adults. The pool must have a fully-fenced gate and it must have secured access. Com. Corr: · Said he is pleased with the variety of housing in the project. · Said that over the years, people have said they did not want a lot of housing here--if we don't build it, people won't have a place to go and won't come here. · Compared it to a flood control saying that we know eventually a flood will come--and in the same way, people will come to this valley and they will need places to live. Said that our choice is to ignore the Situation or we can plan ahead and design a variety of housing to accommodate future residents. · Cautioned that the playhouse needs to be sturdy and secured to prevent damage and vandalism. Com. Wong: · Said he was hesitant about the project about first, but supports it now. · Said he likes the variety of housing and the design of the buildings. · Supports a slate or slate-type material for the roof, because Cupertino expects a quality building. · Said this is a good project for "smart growth" in Cupertino, because Cupertino has encouraged mixed-use, and we need the density to encourage light rail transit or high occupancy buses. · Said the project will blend in well with the lip property and with Vallco. · Stated that he still has a concern about parking, with one stall designated per unit and one open space. Said he is not a fan of shared parking, but the layout looks pretty nice. · Said there is a tradeoff on density---by having this much density, there may not be as much light and air, but if the density is lower, the project will not have as many BMR units. · Expressed concern about the cost of living--feels that even with the units at $200,000 for BMR, it is still rather high. Com. Saadati: · Said he is pleased with the variety of units and the architecture. · Said he pleased that the open space has been increased and the building have been moved back in response to the study session comments. · Said he supports the project and is looking forward to seeing it built. Com. Miller: · Said he likes the idea of the front courtyards and the possibility of having sidewalk cafes. · Said the architecture is done nicely and provides good relief and variety. · Supports slate material for the roof rather than metal. Plarming Commission Minutes 22 October 27, 2003 · Stated that he appreciates Mr. Levy's comments, and said he tried to address that issue earlier in terms of having some larger spaces or combining some of the space in the smaller courtyards into a larger area for children. · Said that one of the reasons that Cupertino allows higher density is to bring the price of housing into a more affordable range, so he is looking for projects that can bring the price down. Chair Chert: · Said she agrees with her colleagues comments concerning the project. · Said she is especially pleased to see the pedestrian circulation plan that opened up the whole space. · Said she feels it is a very excellent design and supports the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to approve Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06, EA-2003-09 (Vote 5-0-0) 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 Comrrfission 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 BARRIE D. COA, Ag$OC AT[g Hodd cuturol Consultants 23535 Summi[ Road Los 6arcs. CA 95033 408J353-1052 EXHIBIT A September 11, 2003 Am-ti Shrivastava Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Fraxinus uhdei along Stevens Creek Blvd. Dear Ms. Shrivastava, After discussing the question of removal of evergreen ash on Stevens Creek Blvd., with you last month and receiving your faxes on the subject last week, may I offer the following: The ever~een ash (Fraxinus uhdei) along Wolf Road and Stevens Creek Blvd., are important statements in the landscape but I certainly agree that those in front of the proposed retail shops should be removed. It would not be possible to make soil cuts for installation of new pavement in the space in which the trees stand without cutting so many tree roots that the trees would decline or become unstable. This species of ash is difficult and expensive to prune, but if it is not pruned (once it reaches this stage of maturity) branch drop is predictable. In other words, it is not possible to make these trees entirely safe. There is evidence of many broken limbs in the recent past. There are better trees to use in this setting. c. Roots of this ash are the most destructive ofhardscape of any ash species. 2. I suggest removing as many of these mature ash as necessary along Stevens Creek Blvd., but replace them with another ash species to provide continuity of texture. Other ash species considered would/should not have equivalent pruning or root damage characteristics. Suggested species include: Frccrinus americana 'Autumn Purple' Pink and lavender fall color in October, mining dark red in November. Evergreen Ash, Stevens Creek Blvd. SEP ,9, 9 ZOO3 ] 1 ¥: .... --Ob Fraxinus t~ennLqD2[vanica 'Patmore' Yellow fall color Few pest problems. Well formed structure. If possible I suggest using some of each of the two to increase species diversity at the site. They will appear similar enough to most people that the difference will not be noticed. If the pathway is to be installed between the two rows of trees along Stevens Creek Blvd., the pathway surface and its base material must be installed on top of the existing grade with headers at the sides of the path to retain the base material and surface. The standard 9-12" deep soil cuts used in most path installation would cause serious damage to the roots of the adjacent trees, and possibly make them unstable due to loss of buttress roots. Respectfully submitted, Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Pictures Sketch BDC/sl Evergreen Ash, Stevens Creek Bird. 2 Fraxmus uL. ~t Along Stevens Creek BLvd., and \ ~f Rd. Photo 1 - Included bark is a typical defect in evergreen ash. ? Photo 2 - Limb broken out of evergreen ash. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 1 i, 2003 Frc~*/nus u}. .i Along Stevens Creek BLvd., and If Rd. Photo 3 - A limb ripped out. ~' Photo 4- Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Fraxinus ui, i Along Stevens Creek BLvd., and' If Rd. Photo 5 - Aggressive roots. '~ Photo 6 - Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Fraxinus ut~,~ei Along Stevens Creek BLvd., and ,. affRd. Photo 7 - Aggressive roots. 1' Photo 8 -Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arbor[st September 11, 2003 Frazinu$ u. __,el Along Stevens Creek BLvd., and olf Rd. Photo 9 - Aggressive roots. ?' Photo 10 - Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 p~.thway ~ ~ C~lz- CUPERTINO COURTYARD /,~lZkll (~ I:Z,~. I IITIFR FeT/~ii411,1¢ W/ct- ~-Y.i ~TI I~ LoW $l~14 W~L~ MENLO EQUITIES I GUZZARDo PARTNERSHIP~tr_ n~r ~, ~003 · PLANT LIST PROPOSED TREE PLANTING PLAN L-5 CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES I MENLO EQUITIES ~Bkr G~G~T~ZZ. ARDO N~IPm(. TREE INVENTORY L-6 I MENLO EQUITIES CUPERTINO COURTYARD BY MENLO EQUITIES .,~BkF GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIPmC- 10050 & 10080 NORTH WOLF ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CUPERTINO COURTYARD COVER SHEET AO MENLO EQUITIES 23 SPACES 17SPACES N88°54'46'~ 639.58' 48 SPACES 8SPACES 30 SPACES UNIT 2 UNIT 3 EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING UNIT 3r 54.00' EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING o©O °¢~ CUPERTINO COURTYARD n LOT I RETAl~ (2,576 SF.) UNIT 6 ABV. BUILDING A N89°36'OO'E 58494' 697,69* N89~3~OO'E !090 ¢'!' STEVENS CREEK BLVD. LO) 2 UNIT 3Ar AREA UNIT3A RETAIL (3,810 SF.) UNIT 7 ABV. BUILDING B MENLO EQUITIES] .'. BKF SITE DATA GUZZARDO PAR'Ild ERSHIPINC. SCALE: 1"=30'-0" MENLO EQUITIES CUPERTINO COURTYARD J MENLO EQUITIES I ~Bkf MENLO EQUITIES ..... [] MENLO EQUITIES 3 SPACES F~ BUILDING B 16 SPACE5 .,. Bkf GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIPINC. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES GARAGE LEVEL PLAN PARTIAL BUILDING B SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES BUILDING B UNIT 3r J UNIT L~r UNIT Zr I MENLO EQUITIES I .'. BKF I~I~ZZARDO PARTNERSHIPiNC. Landscape A~hI~CCS · Land FISRT LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A & PARTIAL B SCALE: 1/16"= 1 '-0" A4 MENLO EQUITIES .'. BkF BUILDING B UNIT 2 UNIT 3r UNIT4 mE GUZZARDO 'ARTNERSHIPmc. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES FIRST LEVEL BUILDING PLAN PARTIAL BUILDING B SCALE: 1/16'= 1'-0" AL~ CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES ~ UNIT 3r BUILDING B UNIT UNIT Ir UNIT UNIT ! MENLO EQUITIES .,. BKF GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~Nr- SECOND LEVEL BUILDING PLAN BUILDING A & PARTIAL B SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" A6 I MENLO EQUITIES .'. BkF UNIT UNFI? 2B BUILDING B UNIT4 ~ UNIT3 UNIT 3r LrNIT 3r GNIT 2A GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~NC. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES SECOND LEVEL BUILDING PLAN PARTIAL BUILDING B I MENLO EQUITIES .,. BKF B~I.~ZZARDO PARTNERSHIPINC. BUILDING A CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES ROOF pLAN BUILDING A & PARTIAL B SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" A8 MENLO EQUITIES '.. BKF BUILDING B THE GUZZARDO ARTNERSHIPtNC- CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES ROOF pLAN PARTIAL BUILDING B A9 DECK UNIT 2- TYP. DECK UNIT 2- TYP. ~ IST LEVEL ONLY CUPERTINO COURTYARD M. DED KITCHEN UNIT lB u~os~rr KITCHEN UNIT 1- TYP. u2~s~r J MENLO EQUITIES J '.. BKF 1~UZZARDO PARTNERSHIPmc. UNIT PLANS SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" '"'°"*~' AIO MENLO EQUITIES POWOEE KJTCHEN MENLO EQUITIES .'. BKF l~ZZARDO PARINERSHIP~NC CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES UNIT 5- TYP. 493SQFT 3RD I~VlgL UNIT 5A UNIT 5- TYP. 343 SQ Fl' 2ND LEVEL UNIT 5A 358 SQFT UNIT 5- TYP. ~ mn L UNIT 5A UNIT PLANS SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" UNIT 5B FAMILY ~M. UNIT 5B 2RD LEVEl, PiN[NO UNIT 5B ~7~ m n GUZ7.ARDO PARTNERSHIP~"c- UNIT 6A 3s~s~rr CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES UNIT 6A 675 SQ FI UNIT 6- TYP. 657SQlrr UNIT PLANS SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: 5B9,001 I MENLO EQUITIES .'. BKF 'CHE GUZZARDO PARTN ERSHIPII~C. UNIT 7A 446 SQFT UNIT 7- TYP. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES L J UNIT 7A DEN 973 SQ Fl' 14 h p- PEN PECK UNIT 7- TYP. UNIT PLANS SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" OECK LIVING UNIT 8 UNIT 8 CUPERTINO COURTYARD DEN M, DE{:) UNIT 8A I MENLO EQUITIES .'. BkF GUZZARDO 'ARTNERSHIPmc UNIT pLANS SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0' A16 MENLO EQUITIES BUILDING A NORTH-SOUTH SECTION GAP-AGE MENLO EQUITIES '.. BkF GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~NC. RETAJL LTN]~ 3 LTN~T 3 CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES BUILD1NG B NORTH-SOUTH SECTION BUILDING SECTION & SETBACK RELATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" A17 I MENLO EQUITIESI BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION '.. BkF /~I~ZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~Nc. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES BUILDING A EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: .589 001 A1 8a SOUTH ELEVATION @ STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MENLO EQUITIESI '..;Bkf GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIPINc. Landscape Archlte~s · Land Planners SOUTH ELEVATION @ STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: 589.001 A18b MENLO EQUITIES .'. BkF BUILDING B NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~.c. CUPERTINO COU MENLO EQUITIES RTYARD BUILDING B NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8"-- 1'-0" OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: 589001 A19a MENLO EQUITIES '.. Bltf BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIPtac. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: 589001 A19b BUILDING B WEST ELEVATION MENLO EQUITIES[ THE GUZZARDO PARINERSHIP~Nc. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES BUILDING B WEST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-0" A20 CUPERTINO FINANCIAL CENTER J MENLO EQUITIES J GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP;Nc EX[STING TOPOGRAPHY 1" = 50' OCT 16, 2005 PROJECT NO: 5~9 001 MENLO EQUITIES so,. ..... c,~ C- ~ [ MENLO EQUITIES I CUPERTINO FINANCIAL CENTER SECTION A GRADING PLAN 1" = 30' OCT 16, 2003 PROJECT NO: 58g.001 2671 Crow Con~n Rd. MENLO EQUITIES 925.8~7.o286s°"" ..... ~^~,~,~ C-~ WAc. u- CUPERTINO COU MENLO EQUITIES RTYARD MENLO EQUITIES] .'. Bkf I~I~ZZARDO PARTNERSHIPINC Landscape Architects · Land Ptanners PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN OCTOBER 17 2003 PROJECT NO: 589001 L1 SECTION THROUGH PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 1/4"= 1'0"- TC±185,08 SECTION AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE 1/8"= 1'0"- CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES LOW PLANTER WALL ¥ LINE BW±175.00 RETAIL J SIGHT LINE MENLO EQUITIES BkF THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP~c. PLAZA NEW WALK EXISTING TREES STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION AT RETAIL B WITH EXISTING TREES 3/16"=1 '-0" SIGHT LINE SECTIONS pLAZA NEW WALK "TREES SECTION AT RETAIL B WITH PROPOSED NEW TREES 3/16"=1 '-0" L-2 EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING ~s~ o~cE BUILDING ~T~ (2~76 SF.) UNIT6 ABV. .......... ~' MENLO EQUITIES I UNIT 2 UNIT 2r UNIT 2r l.r~ll lr U~IT3 ~3r KEY: [ RECdPOOL CUPERTINO FINANCIAL CENTER MENLO EQUITIES UNIT UNIT 3A RETAIL (3,~10 SF.) [ STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ~ZZARDO I PARTNERSHIP inc. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION VEHICULAR CIRCULATION CIRCULATION DIAGRA~ 6 ~'~ ~o ~o L-3 FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the PROPOSED MENLO EQUITIES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (Cupertino, California) Prepared for: City of Cupertino October 2003 FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS [) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter PaRe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ i I-INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 - EXISTING AND EXPECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................... 5 Existing Roadway Network ........................................................................................................ 5 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................. 5 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................. 6 3- EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 10 Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 10 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................... 10 4 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 14 Background Traffic Estimates ................................................................................................. 14 Background Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 14 5 - PROJECT CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 19 Project Traffic Estimates ......................................................................................................... 19 Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 24 Project Intersection Impacts .................................................................................................... 24 Mitigation of Project Intersection impacts ................................................................................ 25 Freeway Segment Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 25 Freeway Impact Criteria .......................................................................................................... 25 Site Access .............................................................................................................................. 26 On-Site Circulation .................................................................................................................. 28 Parking .................................................................................................................................... 28 6 - EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 31 Expected Growth Traffic Estimates ......................................................................................... 31 Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 31 7 - CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 34 Intersection Impacts ................................................................................................................ 34 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................ 35 Technical Appendices LIST OF TABLES Table PaRe ES-1 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................... iii 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay12 2. Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................... 13 3. Approved Projects ................................................................................................................... 17 4. Background Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 18 5. Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................................................... 20 6. Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ........................................ 25 7. Project Freeway Segment Analysis ......................................................................................... 27 8. Parking Required vs Parking Demand .................................................................................... 29 9. Parking Demand Rates from ITE and Surveys at Bay Area Office Buildings and Apartment Complexes .............................................................................................................................. 29 10. Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES FiRure PaRe 1. Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 2 2. Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 3 3. Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... 7 4. Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................................... 8 5. Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................... 9 6. Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 11 7. Locations of Approved Projects ............................................................................................... 15 8. Background Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 16 9. Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................... 21 10. Project Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................... 22 11. Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 23 12. Expected Growth Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 32 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Menlo Equities residential project in Cupertino, California. The purpose of the analysis Ps to identify the likely transportation impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. The existing project site consists of 103,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project will add 107 condominium units and 6,400 square feet of retail space to the existing site. The project site is bounded by Vallco Parkway to the north, Finch Avenue to the east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south and Wolfe Road to the west. The expected completion date of the project is Fall 2004. Access to the project site will be provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both of these driveways prohibit left-turns out. A. Analysis Scenarios The impacts of the proposed project were estimated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) which is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. The operations of twelve (12) intersections were evaluated using the TRAFFlX software package, which is the adopted method for all agencies within the County. The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Scenario 4: Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date (Summer 2005) plus approved trips plus Project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency. The potential impacts of the project on freeway segments on Interstate 280 were also investigated. Issues regarding site access and parking were also addressed. B. Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates to the corresponding land use type and development size from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Buildout of the project, as proposed, is estimated to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak-hour trips and 103 PM peak-hour trips. The trip distribution patterns for the project components were estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. The project-generated traffic was assigned to specific freeways, streets, intersections, and turning movements to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. · Fehr&Peers ]~7 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October ~00~ C. Intersection Levels of Service Using the information supplied by the City of Cupertino (existing counts, approved/pending projects, and signal timings), data obtained in the field, and the proposed project uses, level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted for Existing, Background, Project, and Expected Growth Conditions. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for each scenario are presented in Tables ES-1. The minimum acceptable operating level of service for an intersection in the City of Cupertino is LOS D, with two exceptions. The city's General Plan states that the acceptable threshold the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections is LOS E+ (with no more than 60 seconds weighted delay)~. The minimum acceptable level for CMP-monitored intersections is LOS E. However, the City thresholds govern in terms of identifying impacts. D. Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were identified according to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes: 1. The level of service at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or 3. The level of service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection to be LOS E or worse with more than 60 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay, or 4. Degradation of the level of service at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or better under Background Conditions to LOS F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. for each LOS than the previous 1985 HCM methodology. LOS E+ (60 seconds of weighted delay) is equivalent to the 4-5 seconds of weighted delay used in previous studies. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table ES-1 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service Existing Back~lround Project Expected Growth Peak Dela~ ' Delay Delay i :~ A in Cdt. ~, ~, in Crit. [ Delay Intersection Hour (sec) [LOS= (sec)~ i LOS2 (sec) LOS Dela¢ V/C4 :~ (sec)1 LOS2 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 35.4 D+ 37.8 D+ 37.8 D+ 0.2 0.001 38.6 D+ De Anza Blvd. s PM 33 9 C- 36.1 I D+ [ 36.0 I D+ i 0 1 _,0~1,~ i..._.~:? ..... ~.± W01feRd./ ~M .... ~'~ ' ~0 .... ~: 00 0.002 ', 35.3 D+ Homestead Rd. PM 34.8 C ~ 35.4 D+ 35.6 D+ 0.1 0.004 34.8 ~if~ ~) ~ ~ 22 3 ~ C+ 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ ~ 0.0 0.003 22.6 C+ Pruner dge Ave PM 38.3 ~ D+ 38 5 D+ 38 6 D+ 0.1 0.002 39.7 L D Wolfe Rd. / AM 20.0 B- 20.9 C+ 20.9 C+ 0,5 0.003 22.9 ~ C+ 1-280 Ramp (nodh)s PM 13 0 B 13 2 B 13 5 B 0 1 0.003 13.9 B W0ifeRd~/ ] AM ' ~ B" i~ B ~3~7 B 0i 0~007 i3~ B 1-280 Ramp (south s PM 8 0 A 8 0 A 8 1 A 0 0 0.000 8.1 A W~ife R~) ~M ~ 9.7 ~ 9.8 ~ ~5 9~8 Vallco Pk~. ~ PM 21 I C+ 20 9 C+ 20 8 C+ -0 1 0.005 21.1 C+ s~e~n~ ~ Bi~ ~M 3~ - 38 ~ D~ 38~4 D~ ~ 3 0~ 38~9 Wolfe Rd. 5 PM 43.3 ~ D 44.7 D 44.8 D 0.4 0.005 45.7 D Stevens Creek Blvd~ / AM ~ ig~ B~ ~9~6 B; ~ ~ ~9~ Finch Ave. PM 18.8 B- 18.9 B- '= 19.1 B- 0 1 0.003 19 2 B- Homestead Rd~ ~ AM ~8~ ~ B~ '~8.~ ~ ~8~9 B- 0 0 0.001 18.9 B- Tantau Ave. PM 17 9 B 18 0 B 18 1 B 0 0 0.002 18.3 B- ~eve~s-Cre~k BIv~.~ ~M 2~ ~ C~ ~2~ 'c~ ~2~5 ~ ~0 0~0~ ' ~2 5 Tantau ~ve, PM 17 6 B 17.6 B 17 7 B -0 9 0 005 r, 17.7 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / ~M 19~6 i~ B: ~9~ B: b~ 0~0°2 i~8 L~re~9 E~p, (S) S PM 26 2 C 26 4 C 26.4 C 0 1 0 003 26.6 C Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 40.7 D 40.8 D 40.9 D 0.1 0.002 :: 41.3 D Lawrence Exp. (N)s PM 36.5 D+ 36.7 D+ : 36.9 D+ 0.1 0.003 37.2 D+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or 2000 HCM methodology for stop-controtled intersections. a Increase in average critical movement delay baleen Background and Project Conditions. 4 Increase in critical volume to capaci~ ratio baleen Background and Project Conditions. s CMP Intersection Fehr & Peers. iii Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2009 According to these criteria, the project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP- monitored intersections. E. Otherlssues Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA. These include: · Project impacts on surrounding freeway segments · Project site access and on-site circulation · Parking Freeway segments on 1-280 were evaluated to identify potential project impacts. The results of the analysis indicated that the project would not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment that currently operates at LOS F. Access to the project site will be provided by a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways would prohibit left-turns out. The driveways would be relocated so that the left-turn pocket lengths on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard atthe driveways would be reduced. Based on a queuing analysis, the project should provide 100 feet of storage in the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket, and 75 feet of storage in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket. Lengthening the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket would reduce the northbound left-turn lane at the Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway intersection, which may impact future northbound volumes and queues depending on the future development of Vallco Fashion Park. Lengthening the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket would reduce the westbound left-turn lanes at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road intersection by 40 feet. However, a queuing analysis showed that the westbound queues would not be impacted by this change. At completion of the project, there would be 521 parking spaces, which is 80 parking spaces less than the City's requirement of 601 parking spaces. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and the ULI Shared Parking rates, there will need to be 521 parking spaces. The proposed supply would provide sufficient spaces to meet the estimated parking demand. Since the project would still provide less parking than the City's code and the parking demands are estimated, it is recommended that the proposed project implement a Transportation Demand Management and Parking Management Program to reduce its parking demand. Menlo Equities Res/dential TIA October 2002 CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Transportation impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Menlo Equities residential project located on the northeast corner of the Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection in Cupertino, California. The proposed project consists of adding 107 condominiums and 6,400 square feet of retail to an existing office complex. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Access to the project site is provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways prohibit left-turns out. The proposed project site plan is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The operations of key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. The following 12 intersections were analyzed for this project: Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard* Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue Wolfe Road/l-280 Northbound ramps* Wolfe Road/I-280 Southbound ramps* Wolfe RoadNalloo Parkway Stevens Creek BoulevardRVolfe Road* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue Homestead Road/Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Southbound off-ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Northbound ramps* CMP-designated intersections are denoted with an asterisk (*) The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Scenario 4: Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date of Summer 2005 plus approved trips plus project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency. Homestead Rd. Fwy Homestead Rd, Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site KEY: Study intersections N Not to Scale Pp Menlo Equities Residential Project F~ & P~s T,,~O,T,~O. CO.S~L~,~.TS SITE LOCATION October 2003 Figure '1 I MENLO EQU~TmS I CUPERTINO COURTYARD STEVENS CREEK BLVD. MENLO EQUITIES Menlo Equities Residential Project FEHR & PEERS PROJECT SITE PLAM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure 2 1035-607 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2002 Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA including freeway impacts, site access, and parking. The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. The existing and expected transportation system serving the site, including the roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service, is described in Chapter 2. The existing operating conditions of the key intersections are presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the approved developments in the area and traffic operations for Background Conditions. Chapter 5 describes the methodology used to estimate the project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system (intersections and freeway segments). In addition, site access, on- site circulation, and parking are addressed in this chapter. Expected Growth Conditions are presented in Chapter 6. The conclusions and recommendation of this transportation impact analysis are presented in Chapter 7. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING AND EXPECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This chapter provides a description of the existing transportation system in the vicinity of the project site and expected improvements or modifications. The transportation system includes roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Roadway system operations are presented in Chapter 3: Existing Conditions. A. Existing Roadway Network Interstate 280 (I-260) and State Route (SR) 85 provide regional access to the project site. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road provide local access to the project site. Descriptions of these roadways are presented below: 1-280 is an eight-lane freeway (three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction) located north of the project site. 1-280 extends northward to San Francisco and southward to U.S. 101 in San Jose. Regional access between the site and 1-280 is provided via the Wolfe Road interchange. Ramp metering is utilized on both northbound and southbound on-ramps during peak periods. SR 85 is a six-lane north-south freeway located to the south and west of the site. This freeway includes two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction and extends northward to U.S. 101 in Mountain View and southward to U.S. 101 in San Jose. Access to SR 85 is provided via interchanges at Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the site. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west arterial roadway that extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino to 1-880 in San Jose. East of 1-880, this roadway becomes San Carlos Street and includes four travel lanes. This facility serves a major commercial corridor in the South Bay Area. Wolfe Road is a four- to six-lane divided arterial roadway located west of the project site that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard to U.S. 101 in Sunnyvale. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, this street is known as Miller Avenue, and north of Homestead Road, this roadway is known as Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road. Twelve (12) intersections were selected for analysis in this study based on traffic projections and the VTA guideline of 10 project trips per lane. Existing intersection lane configurations used in the LOS analysis are presented on Figure 3. B. Existing Transit Service Bus transit service in Santa Clara County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Commuter rail service (CaiTrain) is provided from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Joint Powers Board. The existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 4. Rail service and the individual bus routes are described below: Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between Downtown San Jose and the San Antonio Shopping Center via Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. The hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 12:30 am with 15- to 60-minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 15- to 60- minute headways between 6:00 am and 12:00 am. Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and Sunnyvale. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm with 20- to 60-minute headways. Weekend operations Fehr & Peers Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 are provided on 30- to 60-minute headways beb,veen 7:00 am and 9:30 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. Route 36 is a local bus route that provides commute service between East San Jose and Vallco Fashion Park. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm with 60° minute headways. This route does not provide service to the study area on weekends. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Pruneddge Avenue near the site. Route 51 is a local bus route between Vallco Fashion Park and Mountain View. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm with 30-minute headways. Saturday operations are provided on 60-minute headways between 9:00 am and 7:00 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Homestead Road near the site. Route 55 is a local bus route between Great America and De Anza College. The hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm on weekdays with 20- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 30- to 60- minute headways between 8:00 am and 9:30 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 55 operates on De Anza Boulevard west of the project site. Route 81 is a local bus route between East San Jose and Vallco Fashion Park. The hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm on weekdays with 20- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 30- to 60- minute headways between 6:30 am and 10:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 81 operates on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue near the project site. Route 101 is an express bus route between San Jose and Palo Alto. This mute operates nodhbound between 5:45 am to 8:30 am and southbound between 3:30 pm and 7:00 pm with 30-minute headways. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 101 operates on Wolfe Road and 1-280 near the project site. Ca/Train provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, CalTrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The Sunnyvale and Lawrence stations are the closest stations to the project site. Bus Route 26 provides the most direct connection between the site and the Sunnyvale station. There is no direct bus route between the project site and the Lawrence Station, but there is an employer shuttle that serves employers near Vallco Fashion Park and the Lawrence station. C. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities are comprised of bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike routes (Class Ill). Bike paths are paved pathways for use by bicycles that are completely separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for bicycle use by special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are designated with signs only and require bicyclists to share the traveled way with motorists. In the vicinity of the site, bike lanes are delineated on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. Bike routes are designated on Miller Avenue. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 5. Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks and pedestrian signals at intersections, Near the site, sidewalks are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Vallco Road, and Finch Road. Signalized crossings are provided on Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard and at Vallco Parkway. D. Expected Improvements and Modifications There are no roadway improvements expected within the study area. Fehr & Peers 6 KEY: O = Study Intersections xx (xx) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes (~ = Signalized Intersection Project Site N Not to Scale StevensCreekB;vd. 3_~ /I 280Fw'f EB I -. mttr~ ttr~ Menlo Equities Residential Project FEHR & PEERS TRAaSpoRTATION CO~ISULTANTS EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS October 2003 Figure 3 Homestead Rd. Homestead Rd. Junipero Serra Fwy e Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site KEY: ~ = VTA Route N Not to Scale Menlo Equities Residential Project ]:; £ H B. ~Z. D ]~ £ RS EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES October 2003 Figure 4 Homestead Rd. Serra Fwy e Ave. Homestead Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site KEY; ~ ~ = Bike Lanes I~aam = Bike Route N Not to Scale '~ Menlo Equities Residential Project F £ H R (~ P E E RS EXISTING BIKE ROUTES TRANSPORTATIO~I CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure ~ Menlo Equities Resident/a/TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS Operations of the existing transportation system are documented in this chapter. Changes in operations resulting from traffic added by approved developments are presented in Chapter 5. A. Existing Traffic Volumes Intersection operations were evaluated for both morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak traffic conditions. Available traffic counts were obtained from the City of Cupertino and supplemented with counts conducted in July 2003. The counts sheets are included in Appendix A. The supplemental counts, since they were conducted during the summer, were adjusted to include school traffic by comparing them to counts that were conducted while school was in session. Based on the volume comparison, the through movements on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard were increased. Figure 6 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes for all of the key intersections. B. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The operations of the key intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Levelof Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or oversaturated conditions. The level of service methodology, for signalized intersections, approved by the City of Cupertino, evaluates a signalized intersect/oh's operation on the average control vehicular delay as described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjustments to the saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections was calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for the City of Cupertino is LOS D, except at two intersection locations. According to the City's General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and the De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 60 seconds weighted average control delay)2. The same operations methodology is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The level of service standard for CMP-designated intersections is LOS E. However, in Cupertino, the City's thresholds are used to identify intersection impacts. VTA and the City recently updated their LOS methodology to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which uses different delay thresholds for each LOS then the previous 1985 HCM methodology. LOS E+ (60 seconds of weighted delay) is equivalent to the 45 seconds of weighted delay used in previous studies. Homestead Rd. KEY: 0 = Study tntersemions XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes (388) 487 (314) --~ 831 (463) ---~ ~18( Project Site 29 (57} -~ ~ ~.E.~_~ N Not to Scale ~---374 (458) 14(9) 822 {1155) 215 (80) b--- ~, 8 (5) ,,~-- 563 (866) 999 (1456) 526 (409)-'~ ~---254 (268) · ~1~809 (1121) Menlo Equities Residential Project ]~ E H E (~ P E E RS EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES October 2003 Figure 6 tD lOI Menlo Equities Residential TIA October ~009 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Vehicular Delay · Average Control Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service Description (SecondsI A Operations with ver~ Iow de[ay occurring with favorable progression _< 10.0 and/or short cyc e engths. B+ Operations with Iow delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 12.0 B 12.1 to 18.0 B- short cycle lengths. 18.1 to 20.0 C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 23.1 to 32.0 C- a~Rear. 32.1 to 35.0 D progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles 39.1 to 51.0 D- sro9 and individual cyc e fa ures are noticeable. 51.1 to 55.0 E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are 60.1 to 75.0 E- freguent occurrences Op~{i~ ~it~'~bi~ b~6~{~ ~ i~ ~i ~i~ occurring due > 80 0 F to over-saturation, poor progression, or ve~ Ion~ cycle lengths. Source: VTA's CMP Traffic Level of Se~ice Analysis Guidelines, June 2003, and Transpo~tion Research Board, Highway Capaci~ Manual, Special Repo~ 209, 2000. TO evaluate current operations of the key intersections, existing volumes, existing lane configurations, and signal phasings and timings were used as inputs to the LOS calculation methods. The results are presented in Table 2 and the LOS calculation sheets are presented in Appendix B. 12 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 2 Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Count Delay Intersection Hour Date (sec)~ LOS2 AM 10/10/02 35.4 D+ Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza Blvd. 3 PM 33.9 C- Wolfe Rd / Homestead Rd. [ AM [ 7/10/03 34.8 C PM 34.8 C wolfe Rd. / Prunerioge Ave. 38.3 D+ Wo,,e Rd./,-280.am, t0,15/02 0'0O Wolfe Rd. / 1.280 Ramp (south)3' ¢~ 10/15/02; ~7 ~ PM 21.1 C+ Stevens Creek Blvd / Wolfe Rd. 3 AM 10/15/02 37.1 D+ PM 43.3 ; D Stevens Creek Blvd. / Finch Ave. PM 7/9/03 18.8 ' B- Homestead Rd. / Tantau Ave. PM 7/10/03 17.9 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. PM 7/9/03 , 17 6 B Stevens Creek Blvd./Lawrence Exp. (N)3 ~ 7/9/03 ~'; & Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay exprossed in seconds per vehicle 2 L~~~aicuia~i~nsperf~rm~dusingthe2~~~Highway~apacityManua~m~th~~~~~g~withadjust~dsaturati~nfi~w rates. 3 These are CMP intersections. Under existing peak-hour conditions, all of the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. According to Policy 4-2: Traffic Capacity and Land Use Limitations in the City of Cupertino General Plan, LOS D is the minimum acceptable operating level for all intersections with the exception of the two aforementioned intersections. Based on City of Cupertino criteria, all of the key intersections currently operate at acceptable levels. According to VTA guidelines, the minimum acceptable operating level at the four CMP intersections is LOS E. Since all study locations are operating at LOS D or better, the CMP study locations operate at acceptable levels. Fehr & Peers 1:~ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 4 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine the background traffic volumes and the results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions. A. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinity of the site to existing volumes. A list of approved, but not yet constructed, development projects was obtained from the City. Table 3 summarizes these developments and the corresponding trip generation estimates for each. The locations of these projects are shown on Figure 7. The resulting background traffic volumes are presented on Figure 8. B. Background Intersection Levels of Service Table 4 presents the LOS calculation results for the study intersections under Background Conditions. These calculations assume no changes to the existing intersection lane configurations and include background traffic volumes. The LOS calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers 14 Homestead Rd. Fwy A~ Stevens Creek Blvd. AAA A Project Site e Ave. Homestead Rd. Stevens Creek Blvd. KEY: A = Approved Project Location (See Table 3 for description) N Not to Scale f~ Menlo Equities Residential Project F]E H R (~. P £ £ RS LOCATIONS OF APPROVED PROJECTS October 2003 Figure / Stevens Creek B~vd. KEY: Study intersections XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes 496 (321) ~'~ ~ 831 (493) '-~ ~ Project Site Not to Scale ~858 (689) ~375 (462) 14 (9) --~ 861 (1183) · 215 (80) -'~ · ---581 (910) i~'- 134 (129) I ~33 (84) 66 (63) .,~ ~ ,, 1854(1708) 1017 (1470) 831 (415)-~ 573 (1319~·~ ~,-- 254 (268) ~-~814 (1135) Menlo Equities Residential Project ~ ~ ]-{ fL ~ ]~ E E fL$ BACKGROUND PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES October 2003 Figure 8 -rob Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 200~3 Table 3 Approved Developments AM Peak PM Peak Project Name Location Description Hour Trips Hour Trips 1. Bill Marci 10056 Orange Avenue 12,395 s.f. office/retail 80 62 2 d.u. apartment 2 Granada Mixed-Use 2,665 s.f. denta off ce 0 · Avenue [ Stevens Creek Blvd. ' 56 d.u. townhouse 25 30 3. Taylor Woodrow and Imperial Avenue 4. Extended Stay DeAnza Bird· and I- 100-room hotel 58 66 America 280 5. Verona Apartments Stevens Creek BIvd· 206 d.u. apartment 150 173 and DeAnza Bird· 7,000 s.f. retail 6. Civic Park/Town DeAnza Blvd. end Mixed-use 236 250 Center Rodrigues Avenue 7. Cupertino Public Torre Avenue in the 40,000 s.f. IJbrapJ 28 178 Library Civic Center Rodriguee Avenue near 8. Campo de Lozano the Biltmore 8 d.u. townhouse 4 4 Apartments 9 Traviene Pinn Brothers 46 d.u. condominiums 20 25 · ~ and B aney Avenue 10. Market Place Stevens Creek BIvd· 25,600 s.f. retail 164 126 Expansion and Portal Drive ................................................... ~(~i~i'~iP~ 771 924 Source: City of Cupertino Department of Public Works (September 2003). 17 Menlo Equities Residential TIA Ocfober 2003 Table 4 Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Delay Intersection Hour (sec)= LOS2 Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza Blvd.3 AM 37.8 D+ PM 36.1 D+ Wolfe Rd. / Homestead Rd. PM 35.4 D+ Wolfe Rd. / Pruneridge Ave. PM 38.5 D+ Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (north)3 AM PM 13.2 B ............ 13.7 Wolfe Rd./1-280 Ramp (south)3 AM B PM 8.0 A ................... ..... AM Wolfe Rd. / Valico Pk~. PM 20.9 C+ ................ AM Stevens Creek BIvd / Wolfe Rd. 3 '. PM 44.7 D ~tevens Creek Blvd. / Finch Ave. PM 18.9 B- Homestead Rd,/Tantau Ave. PM 18.0 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. PM 17.6 B ................... Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (S) PM 26~4 C ..... ..... AM Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (N)3 PM 36.7 D+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. 3 These are CMP intersections, The results of the operations analysis indicate that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of traffic from approved developments. Under Background Conditions, all of the CMP-monitored intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels according to VTA guidelines. There is no substantial change in LOS caused by the addition of background traffic at any of the key intersections. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 5 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed Menlo Equities residential and retail development on the surrounding roadway system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the Project is described. Then, the distribution of project-generated traffic to the roadway system is discussed. The operations of the intersections were analyzed under Project Conditions (background volumes plus traffic generated by the Project) with level of service calculations. The impacts cf the Project are identified by comparing the results of the level cf service calculations for Project Conditions to the results for Background Conditions. Freeway impacts, site access, on-site circulation, and parking are also addressed in this chapter. A. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated on both a daily and a peak-hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site are estimated. Project-generated trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of this analysis process are described in the following sections. 1. Trip Generation The project includes 107 condominium units and 6,400 square feet of retail space. The amount of traffic generated by each land use component of the proposed project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates and corresponding inbound/outbound splits to the corresponding land use type and development size. Trip rates were obtained from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition). Reductions for internalization due to the mixed-use nature of the project were applied per VTA guidelines. No pass-by trip reductions were taken for the retail, therefore, the trip generation estimates for the retail uses are conservative. The trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are presented in Table 5. The Project is estimated to generate a total of 1,176 new daily trips, 94 new AM peak-hour trips (33 in/61 out) and 103 new PM peak-hour trips (60 in/43 out). 2. Trip Distribution The trip distribution patterns for the various land use components of the project were estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The major travel directions for residential and retail project-generated traffic to approach and depart the project site are illustrated on Figure 9. 3. Trip Assiqnment The trips generated by the different land use components of the proposed mixed-use development were assigned to the roadway system based on the corresponding directions of approach and departure shown on Figure 9. Figure 10 presents the peak-hour project trip assignments.by turning movement at the key intersections. The project trips were added ~o the traffic volumes for Background Conditions to achieve turning movement volumes for Project Conditions, as shown on Figure 11. 19 Fehr & Peers ~ -I 0 d~ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 Land Use Table 5 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates AM Peak Hour Daily In I Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total Trip Generation Ratest Proposed Condominiums 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.18 0.54 Proposed Retail3 111.27 4.76 4.27 9,04 4.27 4.76 9.04 Trip Generat on Estimates Proposed Condominiums 627 8 39 47 ' 39 19 58 .... ( ~i ~7.. ~ ~i_t§)~ Mixed-Use Trip Reduction (13 %) -82 -1 -5 -6 -5 -2 -7 (Condo .t~.Retai[) Proposed Retails 712 31 28 59 28 31 59 (64~0 square f99t) Mixed-Use Trip Reduction -82 -5 -1 -6 -2 -5 -7 (F~t.a. t9 cop.dq) ................ Total Net New Trips 1,176 33 61 94 60 43 103 ~ Rates are vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet or per unit ~ Source: Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers}. ~ pM peak-h~urtdpratesweredeterminedbyaveragingtheratesbetweensh~ppingcenterandspecia~tyretai~center~ AM peak-hour trip rates for retail uses were assumed to be the same as the PM peak-hour trip rates. Source: Fehr & Peers September 2003 , ¢o Fehr & Peers / ~ l / ~ Ho~nestead~Rd. Fwy 0% / 4% J_ 10% / 10% 0%/5% 5%/5% Homestead Rd. 5%~0% 0% / 5% 10% / ~ Stevens Creek Blvd. I 5%10% 15% / 15% Stevens Creek Blvd. Project I 15% I 10°~ Site 0% I 6% ,..,,_ ~ I10%/ 15% KEY: ~ 5% / 0% = Residential / Retail N Not to Scale Menlo Equities Residential Project FEHR & PEERS TEANSPOETATZON C0~ISULTANTS PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION October 2003 Figure 9 KEY: Study Intersections XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes .~ ~',.-- 1 (0) ~ 6 (5) reverts cCeek B~wl 4 (6) ~ ~' Project Site N Not to Scale (1) (2) ~ ~1 10(19) Stevsfls C~s~k 18 (13) ~ ~ 5 (9) 9 (7) ~, ~ Menlo Equities Residential Project FEHR & PEERS ,.^~s,o.~,~,Io. co.su~r~.rs PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT October 2003 Figure 10 KEY: Study Intersections XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes J~2~(391) ~_.~ 18 (28) m .~ ~ ~ 517 (766) 20(18)J~,~ ? 616 (752)---~ Project Site 61681 _JI 2(13) ~ ~-~ 3(26) -'~ 67(64) 81 (88) N Not to Scale I ~.,- 858 (689) ~¢~--378 (466) g42 (917) 110 (182) 14 (9) -~ 878 (1195) ~ 215 (86) '-~ J~---16 (5) ~[~593 (928) ~-"-- 134 (129) o~ ¢ j ~' 1880(1721) 1029 (1478) 533 (416)*~ 582 (1326)~ ~'~=- 254 (268) 620 (1144) Menlo Equities Residential Project ]:; ~ H R. ~ ~o £ £ ~LS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES October 2003 Figure 11 1035-607 /,~ -II ~ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 B. Project Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections with Project traffic to identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Table 6. The changes in critical movement delay and critical volume-to-capacity ratio for these intersections due to the addition of Project traffic are also presented. The intersection LOS calculation sheets and comparison reports (for critical movement delay) are included in Appendix B. All of the City's intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. All of the study intersections operate acceptably under Project Conditions according to both City of Cupertino and CMP guidelines. C. Project Intersection Impacts The results of the LOS calculations for Project Conditions were compared to the results for Background Conditions to identify significant project traffic impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the addition of project traffic caused: 1. The level of service at a Cupedino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or 3. The level of service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection to be LOS E or worse with more than 60 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay, or 4. Degradation of the level of service at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or better under Background Conditions to LOS F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. According to these criteria, the project will not cause a significant intersection impact at any of the City or CMP intersections. Fehr & Peers Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 6 Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Intersection Peak Delay Delay /~ in Crit. A in crit. Hour isec/~ LOS2 (sect LOS Dela~ta VIC Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 37.8 D+ 37.8 D+ 0.2 0.001 .De An~aB.!xd:4 P~ ~ 36.1 D+ ~6.0 , D+ 0~! :~:~.(~! Wolfe Rd, / AM 34.9 C- 35.0 C- 0,0 0.002 ._~om e..~ ~ ~_~te__,a~ ~__ ............... .~. ~5_.~ _g.~ 3~.~ D+ 0.! 0.00~ Wolfe Rd. / AM 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ O.0 0.003 .pr..~e_~Eidgg. A~9~ ................. ~M 38 5 ~ 3~ 6 D+ .~ 0 1 0 002 Wolfe Rd. / AM 20.9 C+ 20.9 C+ 0.5 0.003 I-~8~, ~ ,~y~ p,(n_., odb~.4 __ pM 13.2 B Wolfe Rd. / AM 13.7 B 13.7 B 0.1 0.007 ~]-..~8. ~ R.~m~ ~Sou~)~, pM 8-0 A 81 A 0 0 0 oo0 Wolfe Rd. / AM 9.7 A 9.8 A 0.0 0.005 ,~]~,o Pk.. _~: pM 20r9 ~ 20.8 : ~t 'O.! 0.O05 Stevens Creek Blvd / AM 38.2 D 38.4 D+ 0.3 0.004 Wolfe Rd. 4 PM 44.7 D 44.8 D 0.4 0.005 Finch Ave. PM 18.9 B- 19.1 B- 0.1 0.003 Homestead Rd. / AM 18.7 B- 18.9 B- 0.0 0.001 Tantau Ave. PM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.0 0.002 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 22.2 C+ 22.5 C+ 0.0 0.004 Tantau Ave PM 17 6 B 17 7 B -0 9 [ 0 005 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 40.8 D 40.9 D 0.1 0.002 Lawrence Exp. {N)4 PM 36.7 D+ 36.9 D+ 0.1 0.003 Notes: ~ Whole interse~ion weighted average ~ntrol delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ~ LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway C~paci~ Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of se~ice analysis program. 3 increase in average critical delay be~een Background and Project Conditions. ~ Intemections monitored by the Santa Clara VTA within the Ci~ of Cupe~ino. D. Mitigation of Project Intersection impacts Since the project does not result in any significant intersection impacts, no mitigation measures are required. E. Freeway Segment Levels of Service According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent of the freeway segment's capacity must be evaluated. Segments of 1-280 were reviewed to determine if a significant amount of project traffic would be added to these freeway segments. Mixed-flow lanes and HOV lanes were anaJyzed separately. Capacities of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for mixed-flow lanes and 1,800 vphpl for HOV lanes were used in the analysis. It was assumed that the project trips using HOV lanes would be similar in proportion to existing use of HOV lanes. F. Freeway Impact Criteria The CMP defines a project as having a significant impact on a freeway segment if: Fehr & Peers 25 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 1. The addition of project traffic causes the operating level of a freeway segment to deteriorate from LQS E (or better) under Existing Conditions to LOS F; or 2. The number of new trips added by a project to a segment already operating at LOS F under Existing Conditions is more than one percent of the freeway segment capacity. Table 7 presents the capacities of each freeway segment and the estimated number of trips added to each segment Dy the Project. The proposed Project would not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment. Therefore, the project's impact to 1-280 is less than significant. G. Site Access This section addresses site access for the proposed project. The site plan prepared byThe Dahlin Group dated October 14, 2003 showing the location of the project driveways and the internal circulation system is presented on Figure 2. Site access to the project site is currently provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Raised medians on both streets prohibit left-turns out of the driveways. Both driveways will be relocated as par[ of the project. The Wolfe Road driveway will be moved approximately 90 feet to the nodh and the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway will moved appreximately 70 feet to the west. Left-turn pockets are currently provided on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard for vehicles turning left into the project driveways or making U-turns. Moving the driveways will reduce storage available at both left-turn pockets. A queuing analysis was conducted to determine what storage length is needed for both [eft*turn pockets. Observations were conducted in September 2003 at the Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard driveways during the AM and PM peak hours to evaluate existing queuing conditions. At the Wolfe Road driveway, maximum queues of 3 cars and 2 cars were observed during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. Vehicles were also observed making U-turns at this location. At the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway, there were very Iow volumes using the left-turn pocket, so the queue was never more than 1 vehicle. The existing southbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road driveway provides 130 feet of storage, which would accommodate 5 to 6 vehicles, assuming 20 to 25 feet per vehicle. The eastbound left-turn lane at the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway currently provides 100 feet of storage, which would accommodate 4 to 5 vehicles. The future maximum queue was calculated by comparing the demand volumes to the service flow rates. The service flow rates were obtained from level of service calculations. The estimated maximum queue with the project in place is 4 vehicles at the Wolfe Road driveway and 2 vehicles at the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway. Since the Wolfe Road driveway will be a primary access into the project site, it is recommended that a minimum of 100 feet should be provided for the southbound left-turn pocket. In addition to providing storage for left-turning cars, the left-turn pocket will also need to provide adequate deceleration length. This can either be accommodated by lengthening the left-turn pocket which would shorten the northbound Wolfe Road left-turn lane at Vallco Parkway or by keeping the existing Wolfe Road driveway location. Vallco Fashion Park is currently underutilized, therefore, the existing northbound left-turn queues are very short. It is expected that Vallco Fashion Park will be redeveloped in the future, however it's not possible to estimate future traffic volumes and queues for northbound Wolfe Road at this time. The Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway is expected to be a more secondary driveway. Therefore, the eastbound left-turn storage length should be a minimum of 75 feet. This can be accomplished by moving the proposed driveway 40 feet to the east or shortening the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road intersection by 40 feet. A queuing analysis of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road intersection indicates that shortening the westbound left-turn lanes would not impact the westbound queues. Fehr & Peers 26 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Freeway Segment Peak Direction Hour Table 7 Freeway Segment Analysis Existing~ Average Lanes Volume Speed Density LOS2 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza NB AM 3 6,550 59 37.0 D 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza NB PM 3 5,540 66 28.0 D 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza SB AM 3 5,350 66 27.0 D 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza SB PM 3 6,600 55 40.0 D 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza NB HQV AM 1 1,470 67 22.0 C 1-260 SR 85 to De Anza NB HOV PM 1 540 67 8.0 A 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza SB HOV AM 1 870 67 13.0 B 1-280 SR 85 to De Anza SB HOV PM 1 940 67 14.0 B 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe NB AM 3 6,090 35 58.0 F 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe NB PM 3 5,660 65 29.0 D 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe SB AM 3 4,950 66 25.0 D 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe SB PM 3 5,100 21 81.0 F 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe NB HOV AM 1 1,540 67 23.0 C 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe NB HOV PM 1 470 67 7.0 A 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe SB HOV AM 1 1,270 67 19.0 C 1-280 De Anza to Wolfe SB HOV PM 1 1,140 67 17.0 C 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence NB AM 3 5,590 27 69.0 F 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence NB PM 3 4,950 66 25.0 D 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence SB AM 3 4,950 66 25.0 D 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence SB PM 3 6,240 40 52.0 E 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence NB HOV AM 1 2,210 54 41.0 D 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence NB HOV PM I 670 67 10.0 B 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence SB HOV AM 1 740 67 11.0 B 1-280 Wolfe to Lawrence SB HOV PM 1 1,340 67 20.0 C Project Trips Project Volume Density LOS2 % Impact3 11 6,561 37.1 D 0.15 8 5,548 28.0 D 0.12 5 5,355 27.0 D 0.07 11 6,611 40.1 D 0.16 2 1,472 22.0 C 0.13 1 541 8.1 A 0.04 1 871 13.0 B 0.05 2 942 14.1 B 0.09 10 6,100 58.1 F 0.15 6 5,668 29.1 D 0.12 5 4,955 25.0 D 0.07 11 5,111 81.1 F 0.15 3 1,543 23.0 C 0.15 1 471 7.0 A 0.04 1 1,271 19.0 C 0.07 2 1,142 17.1 C 0.13 2 5,592 69.0 F 0.03 4 4,954 25.0 D 0.05 4 4,954 25.0 D 0.06 3 6,243 52.0 E 0.05 1 2,211 40.9 D 0.05 0 670 10.0 B 0.03 1 741 11.1 B 0.04 1 1,341 20.0 C 0.04 Lanes, volume and density from VTA 2002 CMP Monitoring Data. LOS based on density presented in CMP monitoring report. Based on segment capacities of 6,900 vehicles per hour (vph) for the mixed-flow segments and 1,800 vph for the HOV lane segments. Significant impacts are indicated in bold. 27 Fehr & Peers Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 All of the streets in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks on both sides, thus providing adequate pedestrian access. The site also has good bicycle access via the bike lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. H. On-Site Circulation Currently, there are two office buildings on the project site. The project will add two residential/retail buildings (Buildings A and B) to the project site. The site plan has been designed with three underground parking garages. The southern office building currently has underground parking with two entrances. With the proposed project, this parking garage would be enlarge to the west with the parking spaces on the western end reconfigured and the southern garage entrance would be closed. With the reconfiguration, 111 parking spaces would be provided under the office building. Based on the number of spaces, one garage entry/exit would be sufficient for this garage. Both of the new buildings will have underground parking. Building A will have 13 spaces underneath. Building B would have 186 spaces located underneath. Circulation within the parking garages and on-site would be adequate. I. Parking The project site currently has 342 parking spaces. With completion of the proposed project, the project site would provide 211 surface parking spaces, 111 parking spaces underneath the southwestern office building, and 199 parking spaces underneath the two residential/retail buildings for a total of 521 parking spaces. Of the total spaces provided, 123 will be compact, 197 will be unistalls, and 11 will be handicapped. 107 of the 199 spaces located under the residential buildings will be reserved and assigned to each residential unit. The adequacy of the proposed parking supply was evaluated by assessing the city's code requirements, the surveyed existing parking demand, parking demands surveyed at other office buildings, and shared parking. City Code Requirements The City requires 1 space for every 285 square feet of office space and 2 spaces for every residential unit. For retail uses, the parking requirement is 1 space per 250 square feet. Applying the city code requirements to the existing and proposed uses yields a parking requirement of 601 spaces. The proposed project would not meet the City's parking requirements. On-Site Parkinq Surveys Parking occupancy surveys were conducted at the project site during a morning and afternoon in August 2003 to determine the existing parking demand. The surveyed peak parking demand was 185 parked vehicles. The building occupancy at the project site was 88 percent. Since the parking surveys were conducted in the summer, the parking demand was increased by 10 pement to account for vacations. The peak parking demand was divided by the amount of occupied space to determine the office space parking demand rate per 1,000 square feet. The resulting rate is 2.25 parked vehicles per 1,000 s.f. This parking rate was then applied to the entire office building size to determine the parking demand with full occupancy. The office buildings are estimated to have a future peak parking demand of 232 parked vehicles. Typically the parking supply (number of provided parking spaces) is designed to be about 10 percent greater than the peak demand to account for vehicle circulation, bringing the estimated supply for the office buildings to 255 spaces. Adding the required parking spaces for the apartments, and retail space results in an estimated parking supply of 495 parking spaces. Table 8 summarizes the parking survey data and the peak parking estimates. Although the project would provide less parking than required by the City, the proposed parking supply would meet the estimated peak parking demand. Fehr & Peers Menlo Equities Residential TIA 0cfober 2002 Table 8 Parking Required vs, Parking Demand Estimated Land Use Size Parking Required Parking Demand/Supply Office1 103,110 s.f. 361 232/255 Condos2 107 units 214 195/214 Retail2 6,400 s.f, 26 24/26 Total 603 451/495 Notes: Projected demand based on existing peak demand observed in August 2003. Supply is 10 percent greater than demand. Supply based on City parking requirements. Source: Fehr & Peers September 20031 Other Parking Surveys Fehr & Peers conducted parking surveys or has received the results of parking surveys conducted at office buildings in other Bay Area cities. In addition, parking surveys were recently conducted at several apartment complexes in the South Bay. The peak parking demand rates from these surveys and parking demand rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2® Edition, are presented in Table 9. Table 9 Parking Demand Rates from ITE and Surveys at Bay Area Office Buildings and Apartment Complexes Demand Rate Source (spaces per 1,000 g.s.f, or per d.u.) ITE Parking Generation Office Park 2.52 General Office Building 2,79 Apar[ments 1.21 Surveys of Office Buildin~Is in Bay Area Oracle (1,195,000 g.l.s.f.) Mountain Bay (151,000 g.l.s.f.) Greylands Business Park 475,000 s.f.) Inktomi (280,000 s.f.) Visa I (287,000 s.f.) Visa II (297,000 s.f.) Altera (205,000 s.f.) Surveys of Apartment Complexes in the South Bay Mansion Grove (828 d.u.) Villa Serra (336 d.u) Cupertino Park Center (120 d.u.) Rate is based on gross leasable area or dwelling unit 2.58~ 2.53~ 2.64 2,25 2.28 2.55 2.49 1.40 1.54 1.40 The peak parking demand rates for office space range from 2.28 to 2.79 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Applying the highest rates to estimate the office parking demand yields 287 parked vehicles. Adding ten percent yields a parking supply of 316 spaces for the office space. The surveyed apartment rates were 1.40 and 1.54 spaces per dwelling unit. Applying the highest rate to the number of condominiums yields a peak parking demand of 165 spaces. Adding ten percent yields a supply of 181 spaces for the condominiums. The retail space (based on City code requirements) would require an additional 28 spaces for a total of 525 spaces. The amount of parking provided is twelve fewer Fehr & Peers 29 Menlo Equit/es Res~dent~al TIA October 2003 spaces than the amount of parking needed based on ITE and other survey rates. However, these ITE and surveyed rates do not account for the shared parking interaction between the office spaoe and the residential and retail uses. The residential and retail uses will not reach it peak parking demand simultaneously with the office space. Therefore, there will be an additional small reduction due to the mixed-use nature of the site and the ability to share parking. The following section discusses the shared parking analysis. Shared Parkinq A shared parking analysis was conducted to determine whether the hourly variations in the parking demands of the different uses would reduce the number of parking spaces needed for the site. Each use in this mixed-use development has unique parking characteristics; they generate parking demand at different rates and the peak demands occur at different times of the day. For example, offices have their peak parking demand during the late mornings and early afternoons while condominiums reach their peak parking demand in the middle of the night. Thus, the overall peak demand for a mixed-use development as a whole is less than the sum of the peak demands of the individual uses. The hourly parking demands for the office space, condominiums, and retail space were estimated separately using their differently hourly variations and peak parking demand rates. The ITE parking generation rate for the office space was used (to be conservative since the site survey was Iow), and the ULI Shared Parking rates were used for the condominiums and retail space. The results are presented in Table C-1 in Appendix C. The overall peak parking demand is estimated to be 449 parked vehicles. Since 107 parking spaces are reserved for the residents and not available for shared parking, these spaces were removed from the available supply, which leaves 414 parking spaces available for shared parking between the office, residential, and retail uses. It was assumed that half of the residential parking demand would use the assigned parking spaces and the other half would use the shared parking spaces. The office, retail, and the residential would have a combined peak parking demand of 376 parking spaces for the shared spaces. The corresponding supply (adding ten percent) for the available shared spaces is 414 spaces. Adding the 107 reserved residential spaces, the total parking supply on the site should be 521 spaces. Therefore, there would be adequate parking available for the proposed uses. Conclusions The 521 spaces provided on site at the completion of the project do not meet the city's code requirements. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and !he ULI Shared Parking rates, there will be sufficient parking available. However, since the parking demands are estimates, it is recommended that the project sponsor implement a Transpodation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management Program, which would help reduce its parking demand. Given the types of uses proposed for the project site and the availability of transit and free parking in the surrounding area, the most effective elements of the TDM program would include preferential parking, on-site amenities such as ATMs and drycleaning and VTA Eco Passes with a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. In addition, a parking management plan, which may include valet or tandem parking, can be implemented to maximize parking areas if the actual parking demand exceeds the estimated demand. Fehr & Peers 30 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2002 CHAPTER 6 - EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Expected Growth Conditions. Expected Growth Conditions are defined as existing volumes that are increased by an annual growth factor through the project's completion date, plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed project. The project is expected be occupied by Summer 2005. The analysis of Expected Growth Conditions is required under the CMA's guidelines and is focused on the CMP-monitored intersections. A. Expected Growth Traffic Estimates Expected Growth volumes were estimated by expanding existing volumes by applying an annual growth rate of 1.2 percent (or 2.4 percent over a two-year period from the count date), and adding traffic from approved developments and the proposed project. Expected Growth traffic volumes are presented on Figure 12. B. Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations and the results are summarized in Table 10. The intersection LOS calculation sheets for this scenario are included in Appendix B. Under Expected Growth Conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. According to VTA standards, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level under Expected Growth Conditions. . 31 Fehr & Peers I?' -I?--I StevensCreekSl'~d. KEY: Study Intersections XX (XX): AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes 848 (472) --.~ ~ Project Site -- ~ 202 (67) 67 (64) --~~ N Not to Scale pmreridge Ave 39 (20) ~ ~' ~ ~ (190) 1687(1742) ~-875(703} ]~'--259 (273) ~11 830 (1157) 542 (423)'''~ ~ 584 (1345/ b ~o~'~' Menlo Equities Residential Project F E H P,_ & P E E KS EXPECTED GROWTH PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure 12 1035-607 [3 -I?_2. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 10 Expected Growth Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak ~ Delay Intersection Hour (sec) LOS2 Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza Blvd. 3 AM 38.6 D+ PM 36.9 D+ AM 35.3 D+ Wolfe Rd. / Homestead Rd. PM 34.8 C- AM 22.6 C+ Wolfe Rd. / Pruneridge Ave. PM 39.7 D Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (north) 3 AM 22.9 C+ PM 13.9 B Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (south)3 AM 13.8 B PM 8.1 A ,~ 9.8 A Wolfe Rd. / Vallco Pkwy. PM 21.1 C+ Stevens Creek Blvd / Wolfe Rd. 3 AM 38.9 D+ PM 45.7 D AM 19.7 B- Stevens Creek Blvd, / Finch Ave. PM 19.2 B- AM 18.9 B- Homestead Rd. / Tantau Ave. PM 18.3 B- - ~,~ ...... 22.5 C+ Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. PM 17.7 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (S) 3 AM , 19.8 BC,- ~ .... 28.6 AM 41.3 D Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (N)3 PM 37.2 D+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle ~ LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. 3 These are CMP intersections. Fehr & Peers 33 Menlo Equities Residential TIA Ocfober 2002 CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed Menlo Equities project is estimated to generate 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak-hour trips and 103 PM peak-hour trips. The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The operations of the key intersections in the vicinity of the site were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date (Summer 2005) plus approved trips plus project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency, A. Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were evaluated according to criteria of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. 1. City of Cupertino Intersections According to the City's LOS impact criteria, a project is defined as causing a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes an intersection to operate LOS E or F or exacerbates LOS E or F operations by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds. The results of the analysis showed that the project development would not have a significant impact on any of the study intersections. 2. CMP Intersections For CMP intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact when the addition of project traffic causes an intersection to operate at LOS F or exacerbates LOS F operations by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds. According to these criteria, the project will not have a significant impact at any of the six CMP-monitored locations. Thus, no intersection roadway improvements are required. Fehr & Peers 34 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 B. Other Issues Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA. These include: · Project impacts on surrounding freeway segments · Project site access and on-site circulation · Parking The proposed project would not add sufficient traffic to the surrounding freeways to cause a significant impact according to criteria established in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. Access to the project site will be provided by a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways would prohibit left-turns out. The driveways would be relocated so that the left-turn pocket lengths on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard at the driveways would be reduced. Based on a queuing analysis, the project should provide 100 feet of storage in the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket, and 75 feet of storage in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket. Lengthening the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket would reduce the northbound left-turn lane at the Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway intersection, which may impact future northbound volumes and queues depending on the future development of Vallco Fashion Park. Lengthening the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket would reduce the westbound left-turn lanes at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wotfe Road intersection by 40 feet. However, a queuing analysis showed that the westbound queues would not be impacted by this change. At completion of the project, there would be 521 parking spaces, which is 80 parking spaces less than the City's requirement of 601 parking spaces. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and the ULI Shared Parking rates, there will need to be 521 parking spaces. The proposed supply would provide sufficient spaces to meet the estimated parking demand. Since the project would still provide less parking than the City's code and the parking demands are estimated, it is recommended that the proposed project implement a Transportation Demand Management and Parking Management Program to reduce its parking demand. Fehr & Peers 35 Aarti Shrivastava From: Sent: To: Subject: EXHIBIT C Hausman Rick [Hausman_Rick@cupertino,k12.ca.us] Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:50 PM Aarti Shrivastava RE: Menlo Equities project, Cupertino - 107 units Arti, Sorry it took so long! The high estimate of the yield from that new development is 5& students. The school we would assign them to would be Sedgwick. When our fifth middle school opens in August 2005, the 87 sixth graders at Sedgwick move to their middle school, leaving ample room to accommodate the new development students at Sedgwick. Therefore, CUSD does not contemplate a problem at this time. Respectfully, Rick Hausman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services -/4 Aarti Shrivastava From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Fox [don_fox@fuhsd.org] Friday, October 10, 2003 2:32 PM Aarti Shrivastava RE: Menlo Equities, Cupertino Good Afternoon Aartl, As identified in the District's "Development Impact Fee Justification Report" dated February 19, 2001, the Student Generation Rate for multi-family dwellings is 0.029 or 2.9 students per one hundred dwellings. By applying this factor, the District would expect approximately 4 students from this 117 unit project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project would be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. Based on the information you have provided, the students would be attending Cupertino High School. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me ak 408-522-2244. Don Fox Director of Business and Property Services C h a r les M Salter EXHIBIT D Consultants i~ Acoustics Audio/Visual System Design and Telecommunications California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 Charles M Salter, PE David R Schwind, FAES Anthony P Nash, PE John C Freytag, PE Michael DToy, PE Philip N Sanders Jason R Duty Joey G D'Angelo Julie A Malork 12 September 2003 Jim Yee Dahlin Group 2671 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Fax 925.837.2543 Subject: Cupertino Courtyard -- Acoustical Consulting CSA Project No: 03-0249 Dear Jim: This letter presents the results of our revised environmental noise analysis for the subject project. We understand, based on our review of the current site plan, that the project will now consist of 107 units of new condominiums located north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, the primary source of noise at the site. Wolfe Road, to the west, does not contribute significant noise levels at the site. The proposed types of condominiums would consist of both fiats and loft style dwelling units. In summary, the City and State's indoor noise standards can be achieved with sound-rated windows and exterior doors at the loft style condominiums located along Stevens Creek Boulevard. NOISE MEASUREMENTS On 8 to 10 Juiy 2003, we conducted two 24-hour noise measurements to document the existing noise environment at the project site. At a distance of 70 feet north of the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline and 11 feet above the site elevation, we measured a DNL~ of 69 dB. The approximate setback of the proposed residential Building A from the roadway centerline would be 110 feet. For the four Plan 6 lofts located at the second and third floors of this building facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, we calculate that the DNL would be 68 dB. The approximate setback of the proposed residential Building B from the roadway centerline would be 90 feet. For the six Plan 7 lofts located at the second and third floors of this building facing and nearest Stevens Creek Boulevard, we calculate that the DNL would be 69 dB. To account for up to a 25% increase in traffic volumes, we added one decibel to the existing noise levels used in our calculations. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)--The A-weighted noise level which corresponds to average human sensitivity to sound. The DNL sound level corresponds to an energy average during a 24-hour period. A 1 O-decibel penalty is applied during the hours Of 10 pm to 7 am due to increased human sensitivity during the night. An A-weighting is applied to the rnicrophone signal to approximate human sensitivity to different frequencies, i.e., pitch. Jim 12 September 2003 Page 2 A second 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at the northern end of the project site to document the noise exposure to 1-280. At this location, we measured a DNL of 58 dB. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA The applicable indoor noise standard for the project is included in the Noise Element of the Cupertino General Plan. Section 1208 of the State Building Code requires that a DNL of 45 dB or less be maintained in habitable rooms of new multi-family residential developments that are exposed to an outdoor DNL greater than 60 dB. The City considers a noise exposure less than DNL 65 dB to be "normally acceptable," while a DNL between 60 and 70 dB is considered "conditionally acceptable." We are assuming that the City's outdoor noise goal of DNL 60 Io 65 dB would be applicable for the project's common outdoor use areas, the recreation/pool areas. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS Since the two proposed residential buildings near Stevens Creek Boulevard would be exposed to a DNL in excess of 60 dB, an indoor DNL of 45 dB or less would need to be provided for the lofts. For this analysis we determined, based on information shown in the exterior elevations drawings, that the exterior wails of the lofts would have approximately 50% and 40% windows and exterior doors for Buildings A and B, respectively. Also, we understand that the exterior wall assembly would consist of a 3-coat stucco finish. To achieve the City and State's indoor noise standard, the lofts in the two buildings near Stevens Creek Boulevard would require the following sound ratings: Table 1: Required Sound Ratings Loft Location Window STC Windows and exterior doors facing 34 (36 at Four Plan 6's Stevens Creek Blvd. comer rooms) in Building A Windows perpendicular to Stevens 31 Creek Blvd. Windows and exterior doors Four Plan 5's facing and perpendicular 28 in Building A to Stevens Creek Blvd. Windows and exterior doors facing 33 (35 at Six Plan 7's Stevens Creek Blvd. comer rooms) in Building B Windows perpendicular to Stevens 30 Creek Blvd. Currently the drawings for Building B show French doors for Dens of the Plan 7 lofts. Since we are not aware of any sound-rated French doors, this door type will need to be Jim Yee 12 September 2003 Page 3 reconsidered. Other dwelling units at the project would not require sound-rated exterior assemblies. However, all dwelling units windows located within 250 feet o£the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline would need to be in the closed position to achieve the DNL 45 dB standard. Therefore, an alternate source of ventilation would be required for these dwelling units. A mechanical engineer should review this aspect of the project. At the northern side of the site, the noise exposure from 1-280 would be less than DNL 60 dB. Therefore, no noise mitigation for the exterior assemblies of the buildings would be necessary. At the recreation/pool areas we calculated that the DNL would be less than 60 dB, the lower limit of the suggested outdoor noise goal for common outdoor use areas. Acoustical shielding would be provided by the proposed building structures located between these areas and the roadways. Therefore, no additional noise mitigation is necessary. This concludes our environmental noise analysis for the subject project. Please send us updated floor plans and exterior elevations when they become available if you need us to refine our recommendations again. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, ALTER ASSOCIATES, -Michael D. ~ Principal Consultant INC. cc: Jane Vaughan Menlo Equities Fax: 650.326.9333 MDT/ch p: 03-0249_03Sepl2MDT_Cupcrtino Courtyard.doc CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torte 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 17, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider a fee waiver request from the Organization of Special Needs Families in the amount of $780 for rental of the Cupertino Room in the Quinlan Community Center. BACKGROUND With the adoption of the 2003/04 budget, the City Council suspended fee waivers for room rentals at the Quinlan Community Center. The fee structure for rental of the facility provides a significant discount for nonprofit organizations. The Council elected to continue to provide support to festivals. Attached is a request received from the Organization of Special Needs Families for a fee waiver in the amount of $780.00. Staff has advised the group of your decision during the budget review, but the group is requesting your reconsideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that any change to the fee waiver policy be made during review of the proposed 2004/05 budget. To grant this fee waiver now would be inconsistent with what has been done throughout this fiscal year. This could be perceived as unfair by those organizations that have paid the nonprofit rate beginning July 1, 2003. SUBMITTED BY: There~ Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: David Knapp, City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l~e waivers\org of spe needs lam I 11703.doc Pr#lted on Recycled Papel ~ ~ I 0611112013 20:41 FAX ~002/002 Organization of Special Needs Families 108:23 Willowbrook Way, Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: (408) 996-0858 Fax: (408) 996-0850 Website: www.osl'amilies.org 501 (¢) (3) Non-Profit October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Reft Appeal for facility rental waiver Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, The Organization of Special. Needs Families (OSF), a non-profit organization, based at 20920 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA. 95014, runs a weekly program, which incorporates both educational and recreational activities for chikken with special needs every Saturday and Sunday from 1-5pm. All enrolled children with special needs are grouped by age and rotate through four stations, which include Sensory Integration Station, Music Station, Computer Station, and Physical Exercise Station. OSF provides support, resources and weekly activities to f~milies with special needs children. Currently e~ollment is 40 students with special needs whose ages range from 2 to 45. OSF also has trained local community members, most o£them local high ~chool student, to work as one- on-one teaching assistant. Helpers receive uaining, which covers basic concepts of special ~ucation and techniques of applied behavior analysis. Volunteers who work with children of special needs are committed, eating individuals drawn by the intrinsic ~ewards of working with this unique population. While we are proceeding ahead, we are planning our first Outreach event where we are promoting multi-cultural unity and harmony. All participants would have the opportunity to share and appreciate eukural differences which reflect the diversity of our eonurmnity. The party is scheduled for November 16, 2003 from 5pm - 10pm at Quinlan Center of Cupertino Room & Social Room where the Cupertino Room can host the meeting while the Social Room provides care for children. I would like to ask your kindness to waive this $780.00 facility usage to support OSF, a Cupertino-based non-profit organization. Most of our families, like me as Cupertino residents, will appreciate your generous support. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Yours, Lihuei Wei President CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3227 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Agenda Item No. 1~9 Meeting Date: November 17, 2003 SUBJECT & ISSUE Adopt an updated Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay Area Employee Relations Service. BACKGROUND The City of Cupertino is a member of the Bay Area Employee Relations Service (BAERS) Joint Powers Authority. BAERS maintains a database of salary, benefit and labor contract information from 41 member agencies consisting of bay area cities, counties and special districts. Each member agency is provided with access to the database which is continuously updated by BAERS. The City uses this data to support employee relations functions and to determine salaries, benefits, and related policies that affect both represented and non-represented employees The Joint Powers Agreement, established in 1987, is being updated to reflect changes in service and delivery methods. Initially, core services consisted of providing hard copy bargaining agreement summaries, salary ranges and benefit costs. BAERS has come along way providing member agencies with the ability to generate on-line salary and benefit surveys for 40 job classifications, access to current labor agreements, and where known, future dates of salary/benefit enhancements. The Agreement acknowledges BAERS responsibility for maintaining and enhancing the structure and content necessary for an Interact web site that now serves as the primary vehicle for sharing compensation and related information among members. The new Agreement makes few changes to existing working relationships and structure. The County of Santa Clara serves as the host agency and functions as the employer for BAERS staff. BAERS is not intended to operate as a separate entity with its own employees. The Agreement continues to vest policy control in a Board comprised of one representative from each of the 41 Member agencies. A Management Committee will continue to analyze issues and make policy, budget and fee recommendations to the Board. Other changes include the following: Article 9 (Management Committee) was modified to require a representative from the County; Article 18 (Liability) added language to clarify that the County, like all other members, is not liable for the use of information by other parties to the Agreement; Article 16 (Responsibilities of the Members) provides guidance in the event that a California Public Records Act request is received; and Article 25 (Amendment) was modified to require that all but one section of the Agreement could be modified by a two-thirds vote of the full membership (as opposed to a simple majority). Printea on Recy¢led Paper I(gg - [ The requirement for a three-fourths vote in respect to by-laws amendments remains unchanged. BAERS is an excellent example of what cities and counties can accomplish by working cooperatively. The cost for the City to independently gather and verify data used in the employee relations process would far exceed the annual BAERS fee of $6,180. ~SCALIMPACT Funding for the City's participation in BAERS is included in the adopted fiscal year 2003-2004 operating budget. Approval of the new BAERS Joint Powers Agreement has no fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving an updated Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay Area Employee Relations Service. Submitted by: /Sandy Abe Human Resources Manager Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING AN UPDATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is a member agency of the Bay Area Employee Relations Service (BAERS), and BAERS provides the City with reliable data to analyze and determine salaries, benefits and related policies that affect both represented and non-represented employees; and WHEREAS, the BAERS Joint Powers Agreement has been updated to reflect changes in services and delivery methods; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, that the City Council approves the Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay Area Employee Relations Service as presented in Exhibit A, and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, by the following vote: VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 09/12/03 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS .................................................................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 1-DEFINITIONS ..................................................................... ~ ................................................. 2 ARTICLE 2-PURPOSES ............................................................................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 3-PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT ..................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 4- POWERS OF THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE ....................... 3 ARTICLE 5- METHOD BY WHICH TIlE PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 6- BOARD OF DIRECTORS ................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 7- POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ................................................................. 3 ARTICLE 8-MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ................................................................ 4 ARTICLE 9-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 10-POWERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ..................................................... 5 ARTICLE 11-MEETINGS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ................................................. 6 ARTICLE 12-OFFICERS OF BAERS ....................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE 13-ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS ........................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE 14-RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONIES ................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE 15-RESPONSIBILITIES OF BAERS ..................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE 16- RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MEMBERS .................................................................... 8 ARTICLE 17-NEW MEMBERS .............................................................................................................. 10 ARTICLE 18-LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 10 ARTICLE 19-WITHDRAWAL ...................... ~ ......................................................................................... 11 ARTICLE 20- EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL ........................................................................................ 11 ARTICLE 21-CANCELLATION ............................................................................................................. 11 ARTICLE 22-TERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................ 11 ARTICLE 23-PROVISION FOR BYLAWS AND MANUAL ............................................................... 12 ARTICLE 24-NOTICES ............................................................................................................................ 12 ARTICLE 25-AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE 26-SEVERABILITY ............................................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE 27-ARTICLE HEADINGS .......'. ............................................................................................. 13 ARTICLE 28~TERM OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................................ 13 ARTICLE 29-FULL AGREEMENT ........................................................................................................ 13 BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12103 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE This agreement is made and entered into on January 1, 2004, by and among the public entities organized and existing under the Constitution or laws of the State of California, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Members" or "Parties" and individually as "Member", which are parties signing this Agreement. RECITALS Whereas, California Government Code Section 6500 et seq. provides that two or more public agencies may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and Whereas, the parties are public agencies as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 6500 dealing with Joint Powers Agreements; and Whereas, each of the parties to this Agreement are actively involved in employee relations; and Whereas, the parties have common powers and authority to collect, refine, analyze and use information, research and assistance in their respective employee relations; and Whereas, each of the parties to this Agreement desires to join together with the other parties for the purpose of consolidating confidential information, research, and assistance fimctions and services in preparation for and use for labor negotiations and other authorized uses, in order to realize economic and operational efficiencies. Whereas, the name of the Intergovernmental Employee Relations Service has been changed to Bay Area Employee Relations Service to reflect the expanded membership base of the nine bay area counties, Now, therefore, for and in consideration of all the mutual benefits, covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 1-DEFINITIONS BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12/03 The following de£mitions shall apply to the provisions of this Agreement: (a) Agreement shall mean the Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay Area Employee Relations Service. (b) BAERS shall mean the Bay Area Employee Relations Service. (c) Board of Directors or Board shall mean the governing body of the Bay Area Employee Relations Service. (d) County shall mean the County of Santa Clara. (e) Management Committee shall mean the Management Committee of the Bay Area Employee Relations Service Board of Directors. ARTICLE 2-PURPOSES This Agreement is entered into by the Members pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Government Code Section 6500 et seq. in order to consolidate information, research and assistance functions and services in preparation for and use for labor negotiations that are necessary and relevant to the operation of the respective employee relations of the parties. By this Agreement, the parties do not create an agency or entity separate from the parties themselves The method of implementing these purposes and executing these powers is to provide employee relations services in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof through the staff and facilities of the County of Santa Clara. ARTICLE 3-PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT Each party to this Agreement certifies that it intends to and does contract with all other parties who are signatories of this Agreement and, in addition, with such other parties as may later be added as parties to and signatories of this Agreement pursuant to Article 17. Each party to this Agreement also certifies that the deletion of any party from this Agreement, pursuant to Article 19 and 20, shall not affect this Agreement nor the intent to contract as described above with the other parties to the Agreement then remaining. BAERS AGREEMENT ARTICLE 4- POWERS OF THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE BAERS shall have the powers common to its Members and is hereby authorized to do all acts necessary for the exercise of said common powers, including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: (a) To provide for the delivery of employee relations services through County employees and at facilities of the County; (b) To incur debts, liabilities or obligations in accordance with a duly approved budget; (c) To levy and collect fees and charges, including administrative and operating costs, as provided by this Agreement or by law; (d) To exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement, or otherwise as authorized by law. ARTICLE 5- METHOD BY WHICH THE PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BAERS shall provide for the delivery of employee relations services using employees of the County and at facilities of the County. ARTICLE 6- BOARD OF DIRECTORS BAERS shall be governed by the Board of Directors which is hereby established and which shall be comprised of one representative from each Member. Each Member shall have one (1) vote. Each Member shall also designate an alternate who shall serve in the absence of its regular representative. The alternate shall have the authority to attend, participate in and vote at any meeting of the Board of Directors when the regular member for whom he or she is an alternate is absent from said meeting. ARTICLE 7- POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Board of Directors shall have the following powers and fimctions: (a) To establish priorities in the performance of services. (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) ~GRILEMENT 9/12/03 To approve and adopt the annual fiscal year operating budget (July 1 through June 30) of BAERS. To receive and review periodic accountings of all funds under Article 13 and 14 of this Agreement. To have the power to conduct on behalf of BAERS all business of BAERS. To elect from its Members pursuant to Article 9 of this Agreement, a Management Committee to which it may delegate authority to make and implement any decision that the Board is authorized to make under this Agreement, except the following: 1. Action that would require an amendment to this Agreement, under Article 25 herein; 2. Change in the fee schedule; 3. Action that would financially obligate the parties in any way, except as set forth in Article 10; 4. Selection of the President, Vice-President and members of such Management Committee. To review all acts of the Management Committee, and shall have the power to modify and/or override any decision or action of the Management Committee upon a majority vote of a quorum of the Board of Directors, unless this would interfere with a legal obligation made by the Management Committee and result in BAERS liability. To adopt Bylaws for the conduct of its business consistent with this agreement and with all applicable laws. To have such other powers and functions as provided by this Agreement. ARTICLE 8-MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (a) Meetings. The Board of Directors shall establish its regular meetings. It shall hold at least two regular meetings annually, at a time and place determined by the Management Committee. The Board may hold special meetings as required. (b) (c) (d) BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12/03 Minutes. BAERS shall keep minutes of regular and special meetings of the Board of Directors and shall as soon as possible after each meeting, forward a copy of the minutes to each member of the Board. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A vote of the majority of those members present at a meeting shall be sufficient to constitute action by the Board of Directors. Compliance with the Brown Act. All meetings of the Board of Directors, including regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (a) Co) ARTICLE 9-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE There shall be a Management Committee of the Board of Directors, which shall consist of seven (7) members, one of which shall be the County. Two of the members of the Management Committee shall be the President and Vice-President. The other members of the Management Committee shall be elected by the Board of Directors pursuant to the conditions and terms provided in the Bylaws. The President of the Board of Directors, or the Vice-President in his or her absence, shall also serve as the President of the Management Committee. Compliance with the Brown Act. All meetings of the Management Committee, including regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ARTICLE 10-POWERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE The Management Committee of the Board of Directors shall have the following powers: (a) To prepare the operating budget of BAERS for each fiscal year, subject to review, modification and approval by the Board of Directors, as provided for in Article 8. (b) To receive and act upon reports of any sub- committee established by the Board of Directors. (c) To create Bylaws as necessary. 5 BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12/03 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) To review new members for acceptance or rejection. To solicit performance feedback of BAERS on a regular basis and provide the information to the County. In conjunction with a representative of the County, to establish annual performance objectives for the Director, Bay Area Employee Relations Service. The Management Committee shall annually evaluate the performance of the Director, Bay Area Employee Relations Service against the performance objectives established. The County shall consider Management Committee input in the formal County performance evaluation of the Director, Bay Area Employee Relations Service. In the event the position of Director, Bay Area Employee Relations Service becomes vacant, the Management Committee and the County shall jointly participate in the recruitment and selection process of a new Director. The Management Committee shall make a hiring recommendation to the County, which has the sole authority to select the new Director, Bay Area Employee Relations Service. Have such other powers and functions as are provided for in this Agreement or as delegated by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE Il-MEETINGS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE The meetings of the Management Committee shall be held at least twice a year at a time and date set by the President. ARTICLE 12-OFFICERS OF BAERS (a) President. The Board of Directors shall elect a President, to hold office for a one-year term, except as hereinafter provided and until a successor is elected. In the event the President ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors held after such vacancy occurs, ha the absence or inability of the President to act, the Vice President shall act as President. Should the Vice President not be available, the Management Committee shall name an Acting President who shall serve until the next regular Board meeting. The President serves at the pleasure of the Board, (b) (c) BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12)03 and receives no compensation for these services. Reasonable expenses incurred on the Board's behalf are reimbursable. Vice President. The Board of Directors shall elect a Vice President, to hold office for a one-year term, except as hereinafter provided and until a successor is elected. In the event the Vice President so elected ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors held after such vacancy occurs. In the absence or inability of the President to act, the Vice-President shall act as President. The Vice President serves at the pleasure of the Board, and receives no compensation for service. Reasonable expenses incurred on the Board's behalf are reimbursable. Other. The Board of Directors may create other offices as needed (a) (b) (c) (d) ARTICLE 13-ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS Annual Budget. The Board of Directors of BAERS shall adopt an annual operating budget pursuant to Article 7 of this Agreement. Funds and Accounts. The County shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice and as recommended by the Management Committee. Books and records of BAERS shall be open to inspection, with reasonable notice, by representatives from Member agencies. County's Fiscal Report. The County, within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to the Board of Directors and each Member. Annual Audit. The County shall provide for an annual audit of the accounts and records of BAERS. The audit shall meet the minimum requirements prescribed by the State Controllar for special districts by the California Government Code. (a) ARTICLE 14-RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONIES The County shall have the custody of and disburse BAERS funds according to the policies and directions of the Board of Directors. 7 /¢-/I (b) BAERS AGREEMENT The County shall assume the following duties described in California Government Code Section 6505.5 including: 1. Receive and issue receipts for all money for BAERS and place it in the County treasury in the account of BAERS; 2. Be responsible for the safekeeping and disbursement of all of BAERS money so held by the County; 3. Pay any other sums due from BAERS only upon warrants signed by the public officer performing functions of Controller; and Report in writing, 15 days after the close of each fiscal quarter, to the members the amount of money held for BAERS, the amount of receipts since the last report, and the mount paid out since the last report. ARTICLE 15-RESPONSIBILITIES OF BAERS BAERS shall perform the following functions in discharging the responsibilities under this Agreement: (a) Develop and maintain a confidential Internet based database containing employee relations data as set forth in the Bylaws for use by Members. (b) Perform other special services as requested by individual Members related to collection, refinement and analysis of data, and other such research and assistance functions essential for labor relations as set forth in the Bylaws; and (c) Have such other responsibilities as deemed necessary by the Board of Directors or Management Committee in order to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. (a) ARTICLE 16- RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MEMBERS Responsibilities. Each Member shall have the following responsibilities: 1. To appoint a representative and an alternative representative with knowledge of the Member's labor relations to the Board of Directors, pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement. 8 (b) BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12/03 Each Member shall appoint an employee to be responsible for responding to requests for information, and to serve as liaison to BAERS. Each Member shall pay all fees in accordance with the fee schedule, adopted annually pursuant to the Bylaws, including fines that may be assessed for not meeting member obligations. Each Member shall provide BAERS with information related to salaries, benefits, labor settlement information as stated in the final Memoranda of Understanding and other data as may be necessary for BAERS to carry out services provided under this Agreement. 5. Each Member shall comply with all bylaws, rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Directors and Management Committee. Confidentiality. Each Member shall have access to all data and information collected by BAERS in preparation for and during periods of labor negotiations that are necessary and relevant to the operation of the respective employee relations of the parties. Each Member agrees to treat such information in confidence and for use only for the purposes contemplated in the Agreement. A Member shall not release any of the information to any entity or other party except in the course of labor negotiations or as consented to by the County. This shall not preclude a Member fi.om such limited reproduction and distribution of such information within its own agency as is necessary for such Member's employee relations activities, nor shall it preclude a Member from using the information for purposes of discussing same with other Members. In the event that a Member receives a California Public Records Act request, subpoena, court order, or other legal document requiring release of the information, or is informed that such document is being requested, the Member shall notify the County in order to permit the County to review the matter and provide a recommendation to insure uniform responses. In its discretion, the County may seek a protective order or other similar order. Members shall be responsible for maintaining effective procedures and controls in respect to web site password security. The Board may authorize BAERS to release data from the web site or documents in its possession for sale to management officials of non- member public jurisdictions with the understanding that the Liability provisions in Article 18 shall apply. 9 BAERS AGREEMENT 9/12/03 ARTICLE 19-WITHDRAWAL A Member of BAERS may not withdraw as a party to this Agreement and as a member of the BAERS for a one-year period commencing with the effective date of its participation in BAERS. Following the one-year irrevocable cormmitment to the BAERS, a Member may withdraw only at the end of the fiscal year, provided it has given BAERS at least three months written notice of its intent to withdraw from this Agreement. ARTICLE 20- EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL The withdrawal of any Member from this Agreement shall not terminate this Agreement and no Member by withdrawing shall be entitled to payment or return of any deposits, any consideration of property paid, or donated by the Member to BAERS, or to any distribution of assets. ARTICLE 21-CANCELLATION BAERS shall have the right to cancel any Member's participation in BAERS for non- compliance with the terms of the JPA upon a three- fourths vote of the entire Board of Directors in a regular or special meeting of BAERS where a quorum is present, and with at least 30 days written notice to the Member. Any Member so canceled shall, on the effective date of the cancellation, be treated the same as if the Member had voluntarily withdrawn from BAERS and may be subject to a prorated fee. ARTICLE 22-TERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION (a) This Agreement may be terminated with (b) 1. The written termination request of three-fourths of the Members, tendered at least six months prior to the end of the fiscal year; or 2. The written termination request of the County, tendered at least six months prior to the end of the fiscal year, and, In the event that this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section (a) of this Article, BAERS shall continue to exist for the purpose of 11 /(¢ -/.5-" (c) (d) BAERS AGREEMENT 9112103 disposing of any claims, distribution of assets and all other functions necessary to terminate the affairs of BAERS. Upon termination of this Agreement, all property of the BAERS shall become the property of the County, under the following terms: 1. Each Member shall be entitled to an electronic copy of the web- based data created for BAERS. 2. Funds of BAERS shall be distributed among the Members in accordance with and proportional to their base annual fee, as defined in the Fee Schedule. The Management Committee is vested with all powers of BAERS for the purpose of dissolving the business affairs of BAERS. The decisions of the Management Committee under this article shall be final. ARTICLE 23-PROVISION FOR BYLAWS AND MANUAL The Board shall cause to be developed Authority Bylaws to govern the operations of BAERS. Each Member shall have electronic access to any Bylaws developed under this Article. ARTICLE 24-NOTICES Notices to Members hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to the administrative office of the respective Member via first class mail, facsimile or electronic mail with receipt confirmation. ARTICLE 25-AMENDMENT This Agreement may be amended at any time by a two-thirds vote of the full membership of the Board of Directors, with the exception of an amendment to Article 22, which shall require a three-fourths vote of the entire Board of Directors. Signatures shall not be required on any such amendment by those Members, if any, whose Director did not approve the amendment; however, such Members shall nonetheless be bound by the amendment as if it were approved by all Members. 12 ARTICLE 26-SEVERABILITY BAERS AGREEMENT If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the same will either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken ifn0t so conformable, so as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. ARTICLE 27-ARTICLE HEADINGS All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only. ARTICLE 28-TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is effective on January 1, 2004 and shall continue until and unless terminated as provided in Article 22. ARTICLE 29-FULL AGREEMENT The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties. There are no oral understandings or agreements not set forth in writing herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have first executed this Agreement by authorized officials thereof on the date indicated below: Agency: By: Title: Date: Approved as to form and legality: By: Title: Date: BAERSAGREEMENT91203 13 cUPEI TINO 10300 Tone 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 17, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adopt an ordinance by the Cupertino City Council amending certain time limitations with respect to the redevelopment plan for the Vallco Project Area. BACKGROUND In August 2003, the legislature passed SB 1045, which became effective September 1, 2003. SB 1045 allows Redevelopment agencies to amend plans to extend by one year the time limit of the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to repay indebtedness or receive property taxes by adoption of an ordinance of the legislative body rather than the statutory plan amendment process. SB 1045 requires that Redevelopment agencies pay a total of $135 million to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (EFAF). For fiscal year 2003-04, the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency's payment to the ERAF will be $1,280.00. To assist agencies with covering that unexpected financial burden, the legislature authorized agencies to extend by one year the last date to undertake redevelopment activity within a project area and the time limit to repay indebtedness or collect tax increment. The California Community Redevelopment law, as amended by SB 1045, allows the City Council to make these amendments by ordinance rather than by the standard plan amendment process. The effect of extending these time limits will benefit the Agency by providing one additional year of tax increment receipts within the Redevelopment Project Area. These time limit extensions will also allow for an additional year for conducting redevelopment activity. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending certain time limitations with respect to the Redevelopment Plan for the Vallco Project Area. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Ap~bmission: David W. Knapp City Manager DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1931 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE VALLCO PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, Section 33681.9 of the Health and Safety Code was added by SB 1045, which took effect on September 1, 2003, and requires the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") during the 2003-04 fiscal year to make a payment for deposit in Santa Clara County's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, in the amount of $1,280; and WHEREAS, Sections 33333.2 and 33333.6 of the Health and Safety Code were amended by SB 1045 to provide that when an agency is required to make a payment pursuant to Section 33681.9, the legislative body may amend a redevelopment plan to extend by one year the time limit of the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to repay indebtedness or receive property taxes. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO: Section h The redevelopment plan for the Vallco Project Area is hereby amended to extend by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan. Section 2: The redevelopment plan for the Vallco Project Area is hereby amended to extend by one year the time limit on the repayment of indebtedness or receipt of property taxes, if applicable, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670. Section 3: If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 4: The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this ordinance by the Council and cause the same to published once in a newspaper of general circulation, and it will take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 17h day of November, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Capertino the __ day of 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor CUPEP TINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE November 17~ 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consideration of Schedule and Options for the purchase of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) for the new Cupertino Public Library Approve Allocation of $ 25,000 from the Civic Center and Library End-of Project Contingency to Prepare Bids for the Library Shelving BACKGROUND The original proposed budget for the Cupertino Civic Center and Library project was $25,500,000. However, in acknowledging the downturn in the economy and other urgent demands on the Capital Improvement Program, in August of 2001 the City Council approved the budget for the design and construction of the project in the amount of $24,300,000 which was the maximum funding available for the project, recognizing that this budget would necessarily reduce the size of the project. The library community urged Council to construct a larger facility than could be supported with available City ftmds, promising to raise the additional funding required. In order to construct the larger facility, Council agreed to proceed with the understanding that the library community would raise the additional $1,200,000 to fully fund the project. As the design development proceeded, the $1,200,000 was identified as the source of funds for the FF&E in the Library for two reasons. First, the total estimated cost for FF&E outside of items built in to the facility under the construction project was very close to that amount, and, second, the purchase of the FF&E could begin later in the schedule sometime after the construction of the building had started. Council was advised at several junctures that the decision point for the FF&E would be somewhere in the October-November 2003 timeframe. As that time is now here, this report and these recommendations are provided to address that issue. Printed on Recycled Paper End-of-Proj ect Contingency As noted in previous reports, in order to ensure that the construction bids received for the Library and Civic Center project would be within the adopted budget, a number of items were removed or downgraded in the project during the value-engineering phase. On August 4, 2003, following award of the Phase 1/construction project, the Council was advised that the balance of available funding for items to be added back to the project was $1,555,000. Staff had recommended adding back eight items that had previously been removed totaling $1,055,000 and a further recommendation to set aside the amount of $500,000 as an end-of-project contingency which could be reviewed again at the mid- point of construction in March 2004. The Council considered various options and selected and approved the top five add-backs in the total amount of $705,000, therefore leaving a balance for the end-of-project contingency of $850,000. In addition, during the discussion of the project status report at the October 20, 2003 Council Meeting, it was suggested that staff and Council member Lowenthal and Mayor Chang meet with the Library Foundation to discuss the status of fundraising for the FF&E. That meeting was held on October 29, 2003 and conclusions from that meeting are included in this report. Scope and Cost of the Library FF&E The staffs of the City and the County Library Department developed a comprehensive scope for the FF&E to properly furnish and equip the new library facility. (The FF&E for the Community Hall is included in the project budget.) There are four components or "packages" for the Library FF&E which are typically bid and purchased separately because of the different vendor specialties and a fifth component for the design and specifications. The description and cost of each is as follows: 1. Shelving for Collections $ 550,000 Shelving for all the various library collections is commonly called the "stacks". They are placed throughout the facility in each of the collection areas, i.e., children's section, reference, adult collections, etc. This shelving package also includes the architecturally designed end panels and certain lighting fixtures attached to the shelving frames. 2. Office and staffsection fumishings and equipment $ 200,000 This includes standard cubicle partitions, electrical fixtures, office furniture, storage and equipment for the back of the house activities including offices for the library staff, furniture for each cubicle, conference space and break room. 3. Library patron reading and work spaces $ 300,000 This package includes tables and chairs, lighting, electrical connections for patrons to read and work in both stack areas and reading and workroom throughout the library facility, furniture and seating for the reference and children's areas, and includes several outdoor seating groups in the library interior courtyard. 4. Main Lobby and Reference Lobby Furniture $100,000 This includes seating and reference tables, seating in the lower level main lobby with group seating in the upper level reference desk area. 5. Design and Bidding for Purchase. $150,000 This item involves all consultant costs for developing design details for all specifications, plans and estimates and preparing bid packages for the purchase of the FF&E noted above. Total Library facility FF&E Cost $ 1~300~000 In compiling the list of items needed and the costs to purchase all new FF&E, the Library Department had estimated that there may be potentially up $100,000 of FF&E from existing sources that could be re-used in the new facility. This potential is not reflected in the above estimates. If this used furniture and equipment could be installed in the new building the cost of the total FF&E could decrease by up to $100,000. The Library Foundation has established a fund raising goal of $1,500,000 including the cost of the campaign. If that goal is realized the FF&E costs will be fully funded. Currently the Foundation reports that they have raised $150,000 to date. This includes a recent donation of $75,000 from the Friends of the Library presented to the Council on November 3, 2004. Schedule of Design, Fabrication and Delivery of FF&E November 17: Council consideration of providing $ 25,000 (portion of item 5) from the end-of-project contingency to develop the bid package (Consultants, City and Library staff) and advertise for vendors. February '04: Council awards contract to shelving vendor (Item 1). The estimate of cost for the shelving is $475,000 and the end panels are $75,000. A total of $550,000 in fimding will be required at that time from the fund-raising effort or the City will have to seek another source to either advance the funds (to be reimbursed by subsequent fund- raising) or fund it outright. Additionally, approximately $125,000 (balance of item 5) will be required to design and spec the balance of the FF&E in the Library at that time. March 04: The balance of the FF&E purchase (Items 2,3 and 4) will need to be made at this time, estimated cost $600,000. Total Funding for FF&E including design: $1,300~000 Options for FF&E The construction project is currently on schedule and staff is confident that it will remain so through the October 2004 completion. Therefore the above schedule dates for the FF&E purchase and installation are fairly certain. A final decision for the funding of the shelving and other FF&E packages must be made no later than February 2004. There are very few options available to the City at this stage of the project if the fundraising campaign is not successful within the timeline and funding requirements noted above. In that event, most if not all courses of action that may be considered will require unpopular and undesirable decisions. These may include one or more of the following: · reevaluating and downsizing the entire FF&E scope to an affordable budget. · downgrading the furnishings and/or installing used fumiture from other sources. as a minimum, using funds from the end-of-project contingency to acquire the shelving package and furnish the balance with used furniture until funds are raised through the campaign. Under the circumstances within which the budget was approved in August of 2001, none of these options would normally be acceptable to the City for this important facility, nor do they represent a course of action that the City should be forced into. However, the City has less than 4 months to identify and act on a course of action to provide, however minimally, sufficient FF&E to ensure a functioning and operational library when it opens in October of 2004. Staff recommends that the Council conduct a workshop with all stakeholders in January of 2004. Staff will, working the County Library staff, develop and present a report for Council consideration with appropriate recommendations in January of 2004 to determine a course of action based on the situation at that time. However, in order to maintain the current schedule, staff is recommending that the Council authorize the allocation of $25,000 fi.om the end-of-project contingency to develop the purchase and bidding document for the shelving package, without which the library will not be able to operate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the allocation of $25,000 from the end-of-project contingency for the bid and purchase package for the library shelving, leaving a balance of $825,000 in the end-of- project contingency. Set a workshop in January 2004 to discuss and determine a course of action for the furniture fixtures and equipment for the Library facility, including the funding for the purchase and installation of the shelving. Submitted by: ~o~r 'oQf~c~r;orks Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager cu er t no office of the City Attorney 10320 S. DeAnza Blvd.,//ID Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: (408) 777-3403 Fax: (408) 777-3401 Charles T. Kilian City Attorney Eileen Murray Assistant City Attorney November 12, 2003 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Relocation of City Attorney Offices Dear Mayor and City Council: Hunter Properties, the owner of a portion of Town Center, is preparing to demolish the building which is currently occupied by the City Attorney's offices in order to begin construction of the next phase of its new development. Deke Hunter has proposed an early move to another office space within Town Center (the City's existing lease does not expire until January 1,2005). After some negotiation, Mr. Hunter has submitted a proposal for the lease of an office suite of comparable size located at 20410 Town Center Lane (about 50 yards closer to City Hall than the current office.) The term of the proposed lease is five years with the City having an option to renew at fair market rent for an additional five years. Because the City is accommodating Hunter Properties construction schedule, Hunter Properties will pay for the actual moving costs entailed. The initial base rent for the first year will be $2.15 per square foot (which is. 10~ less per square foot than Hunter Properties' standard rent for similar office space in the complex). In 2004 the monthly rent will be $3,225, as opposed to the present lease amount of $4,797 for our current space. The new rent is all-inclusive, which means that it includes all new tenant improvements, new carpet and painting, utilities, and janitorial services. The base rent is The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council November 12, 2003 Page 2 subject to modification based upon a CPI (first year $2.15 psf; second year $2.26 psf; third year $2.37 psf; fourth year $2.49 psf, and fifth year $2.67 pst}. The base rent is also subject to modification based upon a pro-rata share of any increases in the landlord's general operating expenses, such as taxes, building insurance, and common area maintenance. Based upon information provided by the City's Finance Department, it is estimated that Cupertino would save approximately $22,000 during the 2004 calendar year since the proposed new rent is $1.00 per square foot less and the City will no longer be required to provide janitorial services as it does now. I have reviewed the proposed rent with both the City Finance Department and with an independent local real estate broker, Roxana Baker of Grubb and Ellis. Attached is a list of comparable rents in the aroa. Based upon this review, it appears that the proposed rent is reasonably comparable to other office complexes in the area. I request that the City Manager be authorized to execute a new lease with Hunter Properties incorporating the above terms. I will be happy to answer any questions at the next council meeting. Sincerely, City ^ttomay CTK/dej cc: Dave Knapp o20- Grub] El]is. Facsimile Solutions Worldwide Title: Company: FaxNumber: 777- ~'~7"~0 / From: Number of Pages: (Inclu~llng cover shoot) Regarding: ROX~NA BAKER, Senior Associate Direct Line 408.453.2311 em~: Cn'~bb & EIt~ Company Noah Firs; $~reet Suite I00 San Jose, CA 951 {2-4543 108.452.5900 408,137.0499, fax NOt;-OE,-2003 12:07 ~ u:,~:I I ;=. 40-~ 43'7 043g P.04/05 C upetino Comps I~'opegy Solutions Worldwide properly Type: Class I~ Trane. Type: Le~so~ Menlo Eqaities Prope,-fy Type: Clas~ B Trane, Type: L~ T~: ~ ~nt~ Asking Ra~' $1.09 MGR$ .. i/~C ~%[..~e, .~ Qu:nn Orlhopedic PhvSica, Therapy Pmper~y Type: C~a~*s 6 Tre~t Type: Lessee: C~perli~o P hy~ic, ai Therapy NIA $1.96 FS/GR$ Lessor: C.C. POOh Property Type: Class B Tre~a, Type; Direct Lease F~el~lgt~ Type: C3GSG B Trerm. Type: Direct Lease Trans. Sl~e: 2,2~ ~ C~aef ~fe: NIA L~ee Z~: 36 ~n~ Asktn~ Rear ~'A ~ R~E NfA ~ ~w~ce: N/A ~. t~0 S ~ ~gl ~d, CU~O~, CA ~CUDe~ T~n C~tlr ~ Props'iX Type: C~ass 8 rrens. Type: D~q~ol Lease Lessee: Software Research o2o -/-4 Gupe lno Gomp Roxena BaKer 11/6/2003 Property Solutions Woddwide Execut/~ Date: 5/1t2003 £ff~tlve Rate: $2,00 Net ~ E L Mae Term: 30 mo~ths A~klng Rate: N/A PG&E { , Pmper~y Type: Cla~ B iran& Type: Sub Lease Lessee: Fortemedia Tren~, s~e: 5,6~ mf Con~ot R~e: $260 FS/GRS ~u~ De~: ~112~03 E~I~ Rate: $2,7~ F~GRS L~F: ~ Cupertine, CA Type: ~ass g Trane. Type: Direct Lease $~e; 5,818 rsf ~n~et ~utl~ De~e; ~112~3 E~tlm Rata: ~2,25 FWGRS T~: ~ ~s 10. 20863 S~evene Cl#k Bird, Cupe~no, CA Leasee: Ralink stewna Creek Offi~ent~r Properly Ty~e: ~as~ B Treas. Type: Direct Lease Treh& Size: 2,[i45 ~f C~bect Rate: N/A ~e~t[~ ~: ~14/2~3 E~rlm Rata, $2.16 FS/G~ L~ T~: ~ m~B ~klng Rate: N/A 11, 10050 N Foothill Bird, Suit~ 200, C;up~l~, Silv~he ExecutiVe Center Cupe~Jne CA P~y ~: Cla~ B Trmn~ Ty~' D~mct L~: EYI Fr~ ~: Cl~s B Tr~e. Ty~; ~i~ TOTAL P. 05 Ir544,915 81.749 5.3X 3~,626 21.~ 416,37fi 27.0~~m2~i 0 '2~,00C 135,~ 5,451,774 524,4~ 96% 5~,~6 I0.~ 1,1~,444 ~ ~ 0 34,~ 175,197 CUPE INO Ci~ HM1 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX:(408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM ::~ ~' I AGENDA DATE November 17, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE First Reading of Ordinance No. lCl~o: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending CMC, Section 11.24.170, Parking Limitations on Certain Streets - Stevens Creek Boulevard between a point 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Avenue. BACKGROUND On October 14, 2003, the owners of the Stanley Square commercial development on the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Imperial Avenue met staff to facilitate resolution of several outstanding issues concerning the development. Among the issues to be resolved was the development's need to augment local parking for its tenants. The owners pointed out that there is parking allowed along the curb on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to their site that could be utilized by their tenants, but the existing 15- minute time limit on parking in that area is not compatible with their current tenants' needs. Since the 15-minute limit had been put in place to accommodate a tenant who was no longer a part of the development, the City, seeing no other mason to maintain the 15-minute limit agreed to recommend that the time limit be increased to two hours. The last amendment of Section 11.24.170, Parking Prohibition of the Cupertino Municipal Code in 2001, left the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard in a zone extending 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Avenue as a parking zone limited to 15 minutes parking from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. In order to allow a less limited amount of stmet parking for retail businesses in the immediate area, the proposed ordinance would allow the time limit on parking on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard in a zone extending 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Avenue to be increased from the current 15 minute limit to a two hour limit. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 03- : "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending CMC, Section 11.24.170, Parking Limitations on Certain Streets - Stevens Creek Boulevard between a point 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Avenue. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 1930 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.24.170, PARKiNG LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS--STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN A POINT 150 FEET EAST OF PASADENA AVENUE TO IMPERIAL AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to delete the following: Period of Time (Consecutive Side of Street Minutes) Hours Street Portion Exceptions Stevens 15 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. South Between a point 150 Sundays and Creek feet east of Pasadena Holidays Boulevard Avenue to Imperial Avenue THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to add the following: Period of Time (Consecutive Side of Street Minutes) Hours Street Portion Exceptions Stevens 120 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. South Between a point 150 Sundays and Creek feet east of Pasadena Holidays Boulevard Avenue to Imperial Avenue INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November, 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino this day of , 2003 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 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 wtth the C~ty s general pla land use map, proposed uses and sun'ounding 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 17th 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 1 Legal Description 3160200~ 10727 Larry Way 316 02 009 10N3 Lany Way 316 02 013 10629 La~ Way Lucille Avenue C/L % t ~ .................. 316 02 020 10525 ~ Way r ~ 31602029 106~ La~ Way 31602031 10628 Lar~ Way 31602032 10642 Larry Way ~ ! 31602036 10698 La~ Way ~ .... ~ 31602041 10727 ~ndy nn 10713 Randy Ln ~ 316 02 045 10671 ~ndr Ln ~~ffi 3160204831602 ~7 10~3 Randy 316 02 05O 10601 ~ .... ~ 316 31602060 10556 Randy Ln ~ 316 02 062 10586 Randy Ln ~ 316 02 066 10~2 Randy ..... ! 316 02 0671~56 ~ndy ~ ' / .... -F~ 7_.~ :Memtt.D~ve oa~ ~'~ 316020n 1~2 ~ndy Ln Assessor'; Parcel Number EXHIBIT 2 The following text shall be added to Chapter 19.28: 19.28.105 Development Regulations - (Rl-a). R1 -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 he 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 may 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 front 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 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. 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 surface such as concrete or asphalt. H. Heights. 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. An twelve-foot high vertical line measured from natural grade and located ten feet from 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. I. Variation from the R1 and Rl-a regulations shall require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code in the R 1-a district. J. Design Review. All two-story development shall require discretionary review from the Design Review Committee. Discretionary review processes shall be based on Section 19.28.090 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except as amended by this ordinance. K. 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. All second story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four feet, with a minimum four-foot two-foot-depth and ten-foot six-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. 3. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(a) shall be considered a guideline in the Rl-a district. 4. Section 19.28.060 E (5)(b) shall not apply to the Rl-a district. 5. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property. L. 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. 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 M. Landscaping. 1. exception, either before or after such property become part of the City. 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. 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. d. 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. 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. Landscaping plans for two-story development shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass, bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.060 H of 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 at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. An 1 l"xl 7" 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. 2. Adjacent single-family residential properties shall receive a reduced-scale copy of the proposed plan set with the mailed notice. 3. 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 project 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 injurious conditions to property or improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The project is generally compatible with the established pattern of building forms, building materials and designs of homes in the neighborhood. d. The project 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 impacts on neighbors. e. Significant adverse visual and privacy impacts as viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the maximum extent possible. CUPEP INO_ 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDAITEM ~t~ ~,~ AGENDA DATE November 17, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Status report on the traffic studies in the neighborhoods affected by the barrier gate on Pacifica Drive at Torre Avenue and the neighborhoods affected by the barrier gate on Klm Avenue near Kirwin Lane. Set the January 20, 2004 Council Agenda for discussion of the traffic report and recommendations on the barrier gate on Pacifica Drive at Torre Avenue and the existing petition for permanent closure of Silverado Avenue with notification of the surrounding neighborhoods. BACKGROUND Pacifica Drive and Silverado Avenue Beginning in the mid 1980's, the neighborhoods adjacent to City Hall along Pacifica Avenue expressed to the City considerable concern over cut-through traffic on Pacifica from the nearby major street network. A number of years of dialogue between the neighborhoods and the City culminated in a January 1986 action by the City Council to close Pacifica Avenue to through traffic during the morning and evening peak hours. Initially, City staff placed barricades across the road during peak traffic hours to comply with the Council's direction. Placing and removing the barricades on twice-daily basis was very time consuming and diverted maintenance staff from primary responsibilities. To minimize the diversion of staff time and the associated costs, the Public Works Department designed and constructed an automatic steel gate, which by its operation closed the street during the peak hours. In May of 2001, a majority of the residents on Silverado Avenue petitioned the City requesting that Silverado be closed to through traffic. Since that request is linked to the operation of the Pacifica gate closure, both matters will be considered in the report to Council on January 20, 2004. Printod On Rocycled Paper On April I0, 2002, the Pacifica gate was severely damaged by a public safety vehicle in pursuit of an urgent life threatening call, rendering the gate inoperable. Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2002, staff advised the City Council it may wish to revisit the gate issue, both because the legal status of traffic gates has been called into question and traffic circumstances have changed considerably since the decision was made to install the gate. Since the gate was installed, a number of traffic improvements have been made to move traffic through the area. State Route 85, the West Valley Freeway, opened in 1994 and diverted a substantial number of through trips off of City streets. In addition, signal and turning lane improvements have been made on De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard, both of which have expedited traffic movements around this area. Upon the recommendation of Public Works, the City Council directed staff to leave the gate on Pacifica Drive open, conduct the appropriate traffic studies to reevaluate the issue in light of the changing circumstances, and return with recommendations on the gate. In April and May 2003, traffic counts were conducted in the neighborhoods affected by the operation of the Pacifica Drive gate, both with the gate open and closed. Public Works is completing its analysis of the data collected to provide Council with a report and recommendations on January 20, 2004, Kim Street and Kirwin Lane One other location where the City approved the use of a mechanical gate to divert peak hour traffic is Klm Street between Bollinger Road and Kirwin Lane. The gate was installed in 1993 in response to similar traffic cut-through issues associated with San Jose's development of the Home Depot store on De Anza Boulevard at Bollinger Road. Issues of the Kim gate's continuing viability while similar to those surrounding the Pacifica gate also have some additional neighborhood issues regarding the permanent closure of Klm street that will need to studied separately when the relevant traffic data is collected. Staff will begin traffic counts in the Klm Street area early in 2004 and report back to Council with recommendations on the Kim Street traffic gate in the spring of 2004.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept this status report and set the January 20, 2004 City Council meeting as the time for discussion of the traffic report and recommendations on the barrier gate on Pacifica Drive at Torte Avenue and the existing petition for permanent closure of Silverado Avenue with proper notice to the surrounding neighborhoods. Submitted by: Director of Public Works A~ submission: D~id W. Knapp City Manager 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPEI TINO NO. Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA DATE November 17, 2003 SUMMARY: Receive a status report on the General Plan Task Force recommendations and schedule. RECOMMENDATION: No action is requested at this time. This is an information item. DISCUSSION: The General Plan Task Force met nearly every Wednesday night between July 9 and October 15; recommendations were completed on October 15. Staff is compiling and reviewing the recommendations, and has set Wednesday night, December 10, 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. at the Senior Center, for a meeting with any interested Task Force members to review their final document and the future schedule. Staff plans to schedule a meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission in January to determine how the Task Force recommendations will be addressed in the public hearing draft of the amended General Plan. Members of the Task Force will present their recommendations, as well as the results of a survey conducted by a Task Force member regarding Task Force satisfaction with the recommendations and process. Although City Council responses to the Task Force recommendations are not sought at this time, some of the significant recommendations are: · Delete reference to providing a better jobs/housing balance: some Task Force members thought the jobs/housing balance was overstated, and also that housing should not replace potential economic resources (office/industrial, commercial). · Modify the development allocation: reduce the potential housing to the existing General Plan level (approximately 2,340 new units above existing 2000 units). Two options for the location of housing units are presented for consideration: one allows some housing at Vallco, none in the Crossroads; the other allows no housing at Vallco or the Crossroads. Commercial development Status on General Plan Task Force November 17, 2003 Page 2 is the same as the existing General Plan; office is the same as the draft General Plan. · Reduce housing densities: Generally reduce opportunities for 35 dwelling units per gross acre to 25 (e.g., Stevens Creek Boulevard, North De Anza). Reduce Homestead Road from 50 to 35 du/gr.ac. · Reduce opportunities for mixed-use development: (see above). · Reduce heights: No height exceptions; no height greater than 60 feet; City Center - 45 feet; Homestead/Stelling, Vallco Park South, Crossroads ~ 35 feet; Rest of City - 30 feet. · Increase emphasis on economic development: an economic development plan is recommended. · Delete Household Income categories: These are the housing units necessary to meet ABAG's estimate of Cupertino's new construction need by income category (Very Low Income, Low Income, etc.) · Delete reference to reducing the number of through traffic lanes. · Delete reference to lowering the traffic Level of Service to accommodate pedestrians. · Appoint a Task Force or Commission to develop a comprehensive Sustainability and Resource Plan. A Minority Report on Mixed Use Development, Building Density and Below- Market Rate Housing was prepared and signed by 14 Task Force members. It will be presented to the City Council along with the Task Force recommendations. Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Submit~d by~ Director of Community Development A~by: D vid W."l napp City Manager G:plannmg/pdreport/cc/cctask force update CITY OF CUPEI TINO Parks and Recreation Department Agenda Item Number STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: November 17, 2003 SUBJECT Receive a report regarding the Sports Center marketing proposal presented by Grace and Tony Toy on November 5, 2003. ISSUE On November 5, 2003, Grace and Tony Toy, under Omi Communications, proposed that the Cupertino Sports Center could generate an additional $100,000 in revenue per year if Team Tennis use of the courts during prime time hours was eliminated. Per the Toy's proposal, this change would open the courts up and enable the center to attract mom pass holders. For your convenience, the proposal they distributed at the November 5 meeting is attached. Some important points: · All members of the Cupertino Tennis Club that participate in Team Tennis are annual pass holders. They are required to purchase an annual pass, whether or not they play year-round. Therefore, they are not displacing players that would otherwise purchase an annual pass. · It is true that players from other cities compete on our courts with Team Tennis players, and that they are not pass holders. However, Cupertinians receive reciprocal treatment at other facilities and, consequently, play elsewhere half of the time. This frees up space at the Sports Center. · During prime time hours, the Cupertino Tennis Club will have access to a maximum of five courts (of 17 total courts) during the months of April through August and a maximum of three courts from September through February. BACKGROUND Attached are minutes from the 1994 City Council meeting and the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting where current policies were considered and instituted. The Cupertino Tennis Club was initially formed in the 1970's as a co-sponsored club. The club used courts throughout Cupertino. When the City purchased the Sports Center, the matches were moved there and court number one, the stadium court with bleachers, was used for competition play. Initially, the club members paid an hourly rate for court usage, but as membership grew, November 17, 2003 Page 2 of 2 staff was asked to evaluate the fairness of the Team Tennis hourly rate. The outcome, as revealed in the attached minutes, was that all tennis club players were required to purchase annual passes. Staff has contacted private tennis facilities and other municipalities to see how our fees compare for tennis club usage. The summary is attached. Because club members are required to purchase an annual pass, the fees they pay for court time are considerably higher than fees paid by members participating in other cities. This is only fair given the amenities they have access to within the Sports Center. Conversely, our municipal sports center fees are significantly less than private clubs. The Toy's have made numerous six-minute presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission: December 2, 2002, February 6, March 6, June 5, July 10, and August 7, 2003. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Commission held public hearings with pass holders in November 2002 and again in October of this year to discuss various issues raised by the Toys. The Commission recommended that a committee of pass holders be formed to evaluate the reservation system (specifically the reservation of courts for Team Tennis play) and that committee has been formed. Tony Toy is a member of the committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No Council action is needed at this time. Staffwill forward any recommendations for changes made by the pass holder committee, if appropriate. SUBMITTED BY: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\sports center\reports\business plan to cc I 11703.doc To~ From: Date: Subj: (We have emailed this message to all City Council members on November 2, 2003) Cupertino City Council Members Grace and Tony Toy 10130 Crescent Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax) Email: tony.toy@ Sun.COM November 3, 2003 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. MARKET ANALYSIS Private Agencies Estimate # USTA members Cost per year Annual Revenue San Jose Swim & Racquet Club 150 $1,200 $180,000 Courtside 150 $3,000 $450,000 Los Gatos Swim & Racquet Club 150 $1,320 $198,000 Almaden Valley Athletic Club 150 $648 $97,200 City-Owned Club Estimate # USTA members Cost per year Annual Revenue City of Cupertino 150 $350 $52,500 City Parks and Recreation Estimate # USTA members Court cost per hour Annual Revenue Mountain View 150 $6.00 $900 Sunnyvale 150 $9.00 $1,350 Milpitas 150 $15.00 $2,250 Los Altos 150 $2.00 $300 11/12/2003 March 7, 1994 Cupertino City Council Page 9 · T~C!ty Clerk read the title of the ordinance. It was moved by Counc. Sorensen, seco~ac~d by Counc. Dean and passed with Counc. Bautista abstaining to read Ordinant~ 1638 by title only and the City Clerk's reading to constitute the second thereof. It was moved by Counc. Sorensen, seconded by Counc. Burnett, and with Counc. Bautista abstaining and Mayor Koppel voting no that Ordinance No. be enacted. NEW BUSINESS 12. 13. Acceptance of resignation direction to staff regarding the Public Safety Commission and The City Clerk reviewed the staff report. they should appoint one of the two current candidates, additional applications to be submitted. It was moved seconded by Counc. Dean, and carried with Counc. Bautist~ interview the two current candidates at 6:30 p.m. before the Counc. Bautista indicated that if interviews were to be held, he open up the applic~tlnn prnco~ tn nthor applle~nt~ a~ xx~oll discussed whether or allow Sorensen, no to re- to Review and authorization of Cupertino Sports Center revised rate schedule. Counc. Burnett and Dean abstained from participating and voting on this item because they are members of the Sports Center, and at 8:40 p.m. they took seats in the audience. The Parks and Recreation Director reviewed the staff report and said that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorsed staff's recommendation with the exception of eliminating the two-tier structure for residents and non- residents. He distributed a memorandum dated March 4, 1994, which summarized the action of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City Manager said that it was important to make the Sports Center viable and able to stand on its own economically. Mr. David Clapper, 10400 Byme Avenue, objected to the recommendation that United States Tennis Association (U.S.T.A.) members must become passholders. He said that his taxes benefit the Sports Center, and many people will be eliminated because of the cost of the passholder requirement. The City Manager explained that in the past the U.S.T.A. had been heavily subsidized for the use of the facility, and both residents and nonresidents had priority during the prime hours and received favorable rates. Staff's recommendation would still allow U.S.T.A. to reserve courts at prime time, but at the minimum all members should be passholders. Council and staff discussed the months and days which were reserved for U.S.T.A. play. March 7, 1994 Cupertino City Council Page 10 Mr. Paul Hughes, 7995 Folkestone Drive, discussed his participation on U.S.T.A. and the number of times that he had used the facility for league play practice. He said that the passholder requirement would triple the fees he would have to pay and that was excessive. Mr. Ed Hirshfield, Community Liaison for the Cupertino Tennis Club, explained that the amount of time a person would play at the Sports Center would depend upon several factors, including how that person ranked on the team and how many qualifying matches were played, etc. Mr. Wade Smithson, 11741 Regnart Canyon Drive, said he was on the U.S.T.A. team and was also a member of the Sports Center, and he joined because many of his friends were members. If the U.S.T.A. members were required to become passholders and not all of them chose to do so, they would not be able to have their team play. He asked that U.S.T.A. team play be allowed even if 100% of the U.S.T.A. members did not become passholders.. Mr. Frederick W. Tierney Jr., 10591 Stokes Avenue, said that similar sports centers did not require annual fees to play on their courts. He suggested that consideration be given to requiring day, monthly, or quarterly passes for residents instead of annual passes. Mr. Ed Hirshfield, 734 Stendhal Lane, represented the Cupertino Tennis Club (C.T.C.), said he was generally in favor of staff's recommendation, and in favor of a single-rate structure since they were trying to encourage as many passholders as possible. He said he had reservations about requiring U.S.T.A. members to be passholders, but would let Candace Walsh address that issue. Ms. Candace M. Walsh, President of the Cupertino Tennis Club, said that the Club's members were both for and against the proposal to require passes for U.S.T.A. members. She asked Council to consider, on a one-year trial basis, allowing players on the U.S.T.A. to purchase a pass on a month-to-month basis so they may play during the U.S.T.A. league season. It would favor the club because it would give them more teams and it would favor the Sports Center because those people who paid fairly high month-to-month rates might find it more economical to purchase an annual pass. Mr. Phil Zeitman said he believed people were less concerned about raising rates and more concerned about keeping the Sports Center open and affordable. He stated support for the staff-recommended modifications. He noted that U.S.T.A. was tying up a lot of courts, and in order to consider the Sports Center as a business proposition it was important to charge U.S.T.A. players the same rates as the other players paid. He added that U.S.T.A. members could still play at Memorial Park even if they did not use the Sports Center. Mr. Hershfield and the Parks and Recreation Director discussed the regulations governing the use of Memorial Park for league play. March 7, 1994 Cupertino City Council Page 11 Counc. Sorensen said that was an issue of economics and the Sports Center has to pay for itself. The City paid a premium for that property and had to recognize it was not a profitable club, and Council would be remiss if they did not go along with the staff recommendation and at least give it a try because otherwise they would just have to keep subsidizing it. Mayor Koppel referred to an earlier comment by the public that taxpayers should not have to pay to use the Center, and pointed out that Council members discussing this item were also paying taxes and they did not play there. The people who used the facility were the ones who should pay for it because the City could not continue to subsidize it at the level they had been. Counc. Bautista stated support for the idea of some differentiation between residents and non-residents, such as a single annual pass with a $50 dollar difference which would be a decrease for both categories. He said that if the U.S.T.A. tournament was April through July, and the individuals played a month before and after, that would be a six-month pass that is almost cost of an annual pass. He added that there is a premium for the ability to reserve courts. He said he supported all the recommendations except eliminating the two-tier (resident and non-residential) differential. Counc. Sorensen stated that she could not support the elimination of the two tiers at this time. She said that, with proper marketing, it could get by if additional residents join, and she wanted to try staffs recommendation for a year. Mayor Koppel agreed with Counc. Sorensen regarding the need to retain the two- tier rates. She suggested that they try out staffs recommendations for a one-year period and then revisit the issue, and reconsider the rate structure at that time. Counc. Sorensen moved to accept staffs proposals, as follows: (1) Eliminate the "Two-Tier" (Resident/Non-Resident) rate structure for monthly and annual passes. Retain the differential for day use fees; (2) Add an annual fee for Juniors (17 years and younger) of $240.00; (3) Add an annual fee for Seniors (62 years and older) of $315.00; (4) The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $10.00/hour (currently $7.00/hour) per court for all C.T.C. sponsored activities other than U.S.T.A. leagues and practices; (5) City Council has determined that all C.T.C./U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an annual pass. In return, it recommended that those purchasing an annual pass be allowed to join C.T.C. without impacting the Club's residency requirement for co- sponsorship; and (6) An annual pass holder may purchase one block of ten (10) guest passes per year for $60.00. A guest must be accompanied by the pass holder who purchased the guest pass. Counc. Bautista seconded, and the motion carried with Counc. Burnett and Dean abstaining. At 9:25 p.m. Counc. Burnett and Dean were present. CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA I0300 Torte Avenue, Cupert/n0, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF TH~ REGULAR MI~ETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Council Chambers March 3, 1994 CALL TO ORDER 1. meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 7:00 p.m. SALUTE TO ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Hendrickson, Hopkins, Quinlan, Buhler Director of Parks and Recreation Recording Secretary INTRODUCTIONS 4. Director welcomed new commissioner o the Commission. ELECTIONS 5. Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to 1994-1995. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the nomination in favor. br Chairperson for 6. Commissioner Lohmiller made a motion to nominate Vice-Chairperson for 1994-1995. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the nomination. All in favX0rN, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 7. None OLD BUSINESS ... 8. None Ew BUSINESS Director stated, "The issue before the Commission this evening is to review, discuss and form a recommendation to City Council regarding the rate structure at the Cupertino Sports Center. We are nearing the end of a two year management contract and at this point we have been very pleased with the programs and the level of services that have been provided there, but the financial situation continues to be a challenge. Staff went to City Council several weeks ago to seek direction for the upcoming negotiations and one of the positions that Council took was to make it clear their commitment to keep the facility and the current services operating and continuing. They want to continue providing the facility essentially as it has been operating. We have learned that what we have PRC #150 Approved 4/'7/94 Call to order Flag Salute Roll Call Election of Chair & Vim-Chair 2upe~ino Spouts Center there is a hybrid. As a hybrid, it is more than a typical municipal center, but by the same token it is less than many 0fthe private racquet clubs. Wl en it comes to the marl et place we are competing with the private clubs. The challenge becomes how do you set the rates. We think that the existing rate structure is essentially viable and is competitive for our product. But there are a few glitches in it that we are recommending be adjusted at this time. (Director showed an overhead slide that showed the rate structures) Fifty-percent of the passholders come in under the annual couples pass. Any two people can buy a couples pass together. One of the things that is in this recommendation is to change that approach. We are suggesting that a single annual pass be reduced from $360 to $350, but that there not be a break for a couple annual pass. Another recommendation has to do with the two-tier resident/non- resident rate structure. There is a decided distinction between the current resident rate and the current non-resident rate. We are suggesting for monthly and annual passes that the two-tier system be eliminated. Fewer than 17% of the passes sold have been to non-residents. We realize that that is contrary to public policy, but in this case, we feel that it is necessary for us to make this change. Other changes that are being proposed (items #2 & #3) are to offer a junior rate at $240 (17 years and younger) and a senior rate at $350 (62 years and older). (Item #4) Currently the Cupertino Tennis Club is charged $7.00/hour for their C.T.C. sponsored activities. We are suggesting that rate move to $10.00/hour. (Item #5) City Council has already made the decision that C.T.C. and U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an annual pass. In return for this, we are recommending that by purchasing an annual pass, a non-resident be allowed to join C.T.C. without impacting the Club's residency requirement for co-sponsorship. (Item #6) An annual passholder may purchase one block of ten guest passes per year for $60.00. We recognize that passholders like the privilege of bringing guests. We want them to be able to continue to do that. Some of the programs in the past turn guests into permanent guests. It was economically viable to remain a guest for a full year." Director added, We are keeping the distinction of the resident/non-resident fee for the day-use pass." Director turned it back to the Chair. Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "How does the senior rate affect this?" Director Dowling replied, "That's why the number was set at 62. Our Senior Center takes applications at age 50, but we feel that 62 is more consistent with what others are doing. And in terms of numbers, we don't see it as a detriment to the bottom line." Commissioner Buhler asked, "What is the current cost to Cupertino residents for maintaining this Center? What are they subsidizing over and above this rate structure?" Director Dowling replied, "Currently the General Fund is not subsidizing the day-to-day operation. The General Fund is subsidizing the debt service." Commissioner Quinlan asked, "Would you identify the day-to-day operation?" Director Dowling stated, "The day-to-day operation is ail of the programs, services, and expenditures such as utilities and staffing. All of those day-to-day operational costs are the burden of the contractor. There is some deferred maintenance that the City does have responsibility for, in terms of court resurfacing and additional lighting. But the operational stuff as it relates to programs is born by the contractor. The big ticket is the debt service and that number is about $900,000.00 per year to pay off the acquisition cost. I can't give you a per resident cost, but that is what it is costing the City to own the property. But keep in mind that property was not purchased just for tennis, nor for just racquetball, nor fituess. It was purchased as an extension of Memorial Park." Commissioner Quinlan added, "As I understand it, in addition to or included in that figure, we also have about $100,000 deficit each year because of the building itself. Is that correct?" I Page 2 Sports tale s~'ucture (eont'd) Dxrector replied, "The operator does. The operator's burden this year was somewhere between $68,000 and $100,000 deficit. We believe that if we were providing a traditional tennis court reservation and lesson program, we would have an entirely different rate structure. The rates would be considerably less, but so would our overhead. We wouldn't need the 15,000 square foot building. If that is what we had, we could certainly move closer to a self-supporting or revenue producing situation. We think with this rate structure there will still be some subsidy out of the General Fund, based upon recent experience. If given the fact that we still have the building in operation, if we do these rate changes and we have at least a 15% growth in all areas, including lessons and reservations, will get us close to breaking even next year." Commissioner Hopkins added, "You are hoping for a non-residential growth, is that me?" Director added, "That is correct; that is the target that must be tapped." Chairman Hendrickson opened it up to the audience for comment. Ed Hirschfield, (734 Stendahl Lane) member of the Cupertino Tennis Club board. "We feel that the adjustments that are being recommended are fair. We support the even-handed approach to non- residents. The only restriction we are having some difficulty with and would like to see one aspect modified slightly is the requirement that people [U.S.T.A. players] be annual passholders. We think it would be beneficial for you to allow there to be monthly passholders on a team. We would like to encourage the City to consider allowing teams with some members of the team with monthly passes to also qualify for playing at the Sports Center. We think that not having a different non-resident fee benefits the residents because it brings mom income to the Sports Center." Commissioner Lohmiller asked Ed Hirschfield, "What percentage of the CTC members are passholders now?" Ed Hirschfield replied, "I believe that our present population of CTC members is 600 and the percentage that are passholders is in excess of 20%. Is that correct?" Director Dowling stated he believed it was closer to 10%. Rich Haggerty, resident of Cupertino and member of Cupertino Tennis Club. "Staff's recommendations overall are very good. The percentages of couples is quite high. Many of those couples do not live in Cupertino. The primary mailing list goes to the Cupertino address but the partner is not a Cupertino resident. This facility cannot be supported alone by Cupertino residents. There is a feeling among some that the Tennis Club is not doing enough, that we aren't supporting it to the full extent that we should. I wish to contradict that heavily. There would be heck of a lot less activity there and a lot less visitors there if it wasn't for the C.T.C. I would like to encourage you to allow these monthly passholders to play on USTA teams at the Sports Center. The day pass rate going from $7.00 to $10.00 is a very fair amount. I don't have a problem with that at all. Many of the passholders are not going to be bringing in as many guests because they can only buy one block of passes." Candace Walsh, President of the C.T.C.. "I have written two letters recently. My letter of February 4, 1994 to Dick Lohmiller had to do with the 51% variance. (Item #5 of the additional modifications). You are limiting USTA adult league members/players from Cupertino to passholders at the Sports Center. A situation exists now that you have someone willing to buy an annual pass to be able to play on a USTA team, but can't play on the USTA team because that person cannot join the Cupertino Tennis Club because at the time we have more than 49% of our membemhip being non-residents. What we would like to propose is that you allow anybody buying a pass to be counted in the 51% residency requirement for the Tennis Club to have a Cupertino address. In other words that annual passholder is buying the address at the Sports Center for purposes of counting our 49%/51% requirements. My letter of Feb. 25 requests that you consider allowing month-to-month passholders for U.S.T.A. players." Page 3 Sportz C~ntcr rate (eont'd) Ed Hirschfield Rich HaggeV:y Candacc Walsh Chairman Hendrickson brought the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Quinlan stated, "I concur with Council on item #5. Under the circumstances, I think it is a very sound decision. If the Council should determine that they would want to change that in any way, in response to the Cupertino Tennis Club, I would suggest that if they allow monthly fees that it be for residents only. I have a concern still about the tax payers in this community subsidizing people playing tennis from other cities that are playing tennis here. I understand that this facility is somewhat sub- regional in context. I understand that if we would do a closer job of accounting by separating part of the building, that there is a good possibility that the fees being proposed would cover the cost not only of the day-to-day operation but also resurfacing the courts and replacement. If we can't get some kind of accounting on this that would separate that out, then I would recommend that we keep the differential in fees." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "The Cupertino Sports Center was purchased to preserve the property, but in reality it is a tennis center and it is a community tennis center. It didn't operate or function well as a private club and it sure isn't going to function as we have it structured now. As long as the building is in the equation, I don't think there is a chance of this facility working whatever fee structure you come up with. We have too much there to expect our local taxpaying citizens to pay what they have to pay to handle those that like the amenities. Since we are subsidizing it, I don't think it is fair for Cupertino taxpayers to have to subsidize non-residents. (Record will show that Commissioner Buhler will abstain from voting on this issue because he is a passholder at the Cupertino Sports Center and this may be a potential conflict of interest.) Commissioner Hopkins stated, "I support the rates being the same for residents and non-residents because we are running a deficit now of $60,000 to $100,000 and if equalizing the rates would bring in revenue then the residents would be subsidizing the facility for a lesser amount so I would like to see this tried." Commissioner Quinlan moved that as long as Cupertino tax payers are subsidizing operational expense of the tennis facility, that there be a two-tier system, with non-residents paying a higher rate. Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. Commissioner Hopkins added, "In terms of rates, I think they should be the same. I like Commissioner Quinlan's idea about giving preferential treatment to Cupertino residents. Vote: 3 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstaining. Motion carried. Hendrickson - aye, Quinlan - aye, Lohmiller - aye, Hopkins - nay, Buhler - abstaining Commissioner Lohmiller moved that we accept the recommendations for the additional modifications as presented by staff, with the exception of item #1. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Vote: 4 in favor, I abstaining. Motion carried. Lohmiller - aye, Quinlan - aye, Lohmiller - aye, Hopkins - aye, Buhler - abstaining 10. Commissioner Quinlan because ofa potentital conflict of interest is abstaining ~and voting on agenda item #10 because he is a board me~ . Director Dowling stated, The l'SSUe befo~mission this evening is not to come to a decision whether or ~~~ the issue simply is to he~~ct staff to either pursue opmg the concept with the other two jurisdictions or to direct staffnot to proceed." Page 4 Spo~ center rate s~'ucture (cont'd) Motion Motion Ropes Course concept in a city park CITY OF CUPEI TINO Parks and Recreation Department Agenda Item Number SUBJECT STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: November 17, 2003 Receive a report regarding the change in field scheduling and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to staff to issue permits for Sunday play at Jollyman and Creekside Parks. ISSUE Staff was asked to revisit the scheduling of youth sports teams on City and Cupertino Union School District fields to allow some Sunday play under our permit system. Pursuant to Section 13.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the permitting of parks and recreation facilities has been delegated to staff. BACKGROUND Past practice precluded Sunday permitting of City and Cupertino Union School District fields for regularly scheduled league games. Youth sports groups were permitted to schedule fields for Sunday play to accommodate tournaments, a maximum of two times per year. This practice began in the early 1990's when the City first renovated the sports fields under the Joint Powers Agreement. At that time, public meetings were held and residents requested a "break" from noise, traffic, and parking associated with living near a school. The compromise reached was to restrict the issuance of permits for Sunday play. Last year, residents near Hyde School asked the City to more actively enforce the no Sunday league play policy and, consequently, City Code Enforcement Officers began regularly patrolling all fields. At that time, we learned that there was organized play occurring on Sundays throughout the City. Staff met with league representatives, Code Enforcement, and maintenance staff to draft a proposal for limited Sunday permit play. The requirements/conditions listed below resulted from those discussions; they have been reviewed by City departments and user groups. On November 6, the Parks and Recreation Commission took public comment on the proposal. Block leaders in affected neighborhoods were notified of the proposed change and were asked to spread the word and report back to the Commission. November 17, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Proposed Policy And Changes To Current Field Use Practice The Commission's goal was to balance field use, league needs, maintenance concerns, and respect for the surrounding neighborhoods' quality of life. Proposed Sunday permit requirements/conditions include: · Applications for Sunday permits will be accepted for Creekside and Jollyman Parks · Sunday permits will be granted during the respective organizations' primary seasons: o Soccer has priority in the fall (Sept. 1 to Nov. 15) o Baseball has priority in the spring (Feb. 15 to July 31) · Exceptions will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis · Two Sunday special permits per organization per year will be authorized by staff to accommodate tournaments · Fields will be closed for restoration and reseeding from November 15 to February 15 of each year · Sunday access to fields will be granted no earlier than 9 a.m., with games beginning no earlier than 10 a.m. · This policy is proposed to go into effect March 1, 2004 STAFF COMMENTS In the shortest Commission meeting in recent record (35 minutes), the Commission recommended these changes and staff will begin implementing them. There was no opposition to this proposal. No Council action is required. Staff wanted to advise Council of this change. SUBMITTED BY: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\policies\field use sunday play 111703.doc CITY OF cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Agenda Item No.~ SUMMARY Community Development Department Agenda Date November 17, 2003 SUMMARY: Report to the City Council about the scheduling of hearings to discuss changes to the R1 Ordinance. DISCUSSION: The City Council authorized the Planning Commission to work on specific aspects of the RI Ordinance on October 6, 2003. In general, the review will address the following: Review Processes: what will be reviewed and how it will be done · Second Story Regulations: floor area and setbacks · Improving Privacy Mitigation · Minor Technical Adjustments On October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission chose to begin their review on January 26, 2004, instead of the earliest available date, which was November 24, 2003. The Commission made this decision to avoid the holiday period, which should allow for more of the public to participate, and to allow time for the vacant seat on the Commission to be filled. An informational piece has been placed in the November issue of the Cupertino Scene informing residents of the January 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. This piece will be in the December and January issues as well. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager PrJntocl on Reoyolod Papor EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE EXHIBIT o~a~l ~o,~m State of the Club - 2003 Cupertino Tennis Club Who and what are we? - A Cupertino Parks & Recreation co-sponsored Club founded ~ 1975 - A Community Tennis Association supporting the US Tennis Association's Constitution's goals .... to promote the development of tennis as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness ... .... to encourage, through tennis, the development of health, character and responsible citizenship. Cupertino Tennis Club Who do we sen/e? - 221 members in 2003 · 171 CSC passholders who play USA League Tennis · ~ 10 CSC senior passholders -who play in non-USA league competition · ~ 50% of tennis-playing passholders Cupertino Tennis Club LISA League Tennis is a major activity - 24 teams were led by 18 volunteer Captains in 2003 - 9 teams with 137 players in Spring leagues - 7 teams with 120 players in Summer leagues - 8 teams with 96 players in Fall leagues 2 Cupertino Tennis Club How does CTC support USA League Tennis? - Coordinating the formation of teams - Coordinating with Parks & Recreation staff the scheduling and allocation of courts - We value greatly the support of our USA League program by CSC staff and the City's Parks & Recreation Commission Cupertino Tennis Club 2 USTA Tournaments sponsored in 2003 - Cupertino 3.5 NTRP Summer Classic in July · 123 entrants · played at CSC and Sunnyvale Middle School - Cupertino 3.0 NTRP Tournament in August · 93 entrants · played at CSC, Sunnyvale Middle School and Los Palmas Tennis Center - The success of these events is wholly dependent on our corps of willing and dedicated volunteers 17 N o'~rnb~r, 2003 Cupertino Tennis Club We are financially independent - CTC membership and activity fees cover our operating costs - In 2003 we contributed $1300 to CSC supporting half the cost of needed sun shades. - Purchased score-keeping devices for use by all CSC tennis players at end of 2002 - Paid court fees of $1370 for tournament use N°'ember 2~3 20O3 Slate of the Club Presentation 7 Cupertino Tennis Club Growing pa/ficipation in CSC - In 2003 we funded and managed 2 activities created to attract newcomers to CSC and tennis - Sunday drop-in tennis - providing opportunities · for social play linking newcomers to others already established in league and other activities · for family play - spouses, parent & child - Ladder play - a channel allowing newcomers to extend their range of playing contacts and to establish a valid rating for League play Cupertino Tennis Club · Growing participation in CSC - These activities were successful - while CTC membership is down 10 from 2002, we actually lost 59 and added 49 members - of these 49 we believe ~ 20 became new CSC passholders - we limited our promotional activities in 2003, choosing to develop a process for integrating new players Cupertino Tennis Club · 2004 - growing in the NEW Sports Center Our members warmly congratulate the City and its staff for their success in completing the new Sports Center ahead of schedule/. Cupertino Tennis Club 2004 - growing in the NEW Sports Center - participating in the Grand Opening event - working with Lifetime Tennis, USTA and P&R staffs to create a promotional event early in 2004 - continuing Sunday Drop-In and Ladder activities to attract and integrate newcomers into CSC's tennis programs - sponsoring a combined USTA Tournament in August RONALD G. BOYER 140 Shawnee Pass 2XH i B iTo o, Valley, Ca..94028 11/12/03 [IOV 1 2 2003 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK City Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Church Application 10455 Bandley Drive Dear Sirs: am the owner of the property at 20605 Lazaneo Drive (corner of Lazaneo and Bandley). ~ am enclosing my letter to the Planning Commission in opposition to the application for a church at the above referenced location. In addition to the concerns mentioned in the attached letter I am concerned about the future preservation of the prime industrial environment. Just as it is inappropriate to put an industrial facility in a residen'dal area so it is inappropriate to put a church in an industrial area. The uses are ~ncompatible and the reasons are obvious. The church on Bubb Road manifests all those problems. The verbal commitments made at the beginning have not held. The church membership has grown and with it the parking causing problems for the tenant, Apple Computer. The parking ratios used by the City were wrong and the City is of no help in monitoring or correcting the problem. This is likely to be the case again. Although the Chinese Church in Christ consists of very reputable people with good intentions th.e future compatibility with the existing industrial neighborhood is uncertain at best. Faced with a difficult environment Apple Computer or any other quality tenant will · simply opt for a less trouble free area perhaps in Sunnyvale. If this use is permitted the onlv safe cotion is to issue a temporary use permit which exoires in five years, At the end of that time adherence to commitments and comDatibilitv with the surrounding ~re~ r,4n be assessed. An extension can be easily granted if merited. Without this, as in the case of Bubb Road, there is no control. Sincerely, ,,9' Ronald G. Boyer November 14, 2003 Dear Council Members EXHIBIT As a Realtor and homeowner in Cupertino I would like to express my ideas re: Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temperate Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House Signs. But the Council must understand that Open House signs are for the benefit of the Seller. In Cupertino, most of our buyers browse through Open Houses before they actually purchase a home. The Open Houses provide them a convenient way to do their house search. While we pay thousands of dollars in newspaper advertising, we have found consistently that are foot traffic from open houses are through our signs. Eliminating these signs would have major consequences to the seller of the house. Most recently a fellow Planning Commissioner sold his home in Cupertino - Chuck Corr. I am sure he benefited greatly from the number of people who came to see his house on the Saturd~ and Sunday prior to the offer presentations. I am sure he was pleased that he received many offers, as opposed to one. The number of offers a seller receives on a home is directly correlated to the number of people who first see the home. Staff proposes eliminating signs on Stevens Creek. Let me give you an insight as to how that may affect future home sellers. I will take Michael Chang's home as an example here. If a Realtor could NOT put up a sign on Stevens Creek, than we would lose a major source of feeding potential buyers to his home. In terms of the number of signs allowed they must be increased. IN this case I will take Mr. Lowenthal's home. How many signs would it take from Bubb road to help indicate his exact house location? More than 3. Staff also argues that our signs are too big. Our signs are 3 feet tall erect. The printed area is only 24" x 24" on each side. We have to open up the A frame for the sign to stand. This is far less than 3 feet. I would like for staffto provide data as to how many children, riding on their bikes were run over because of a Realtor's sign. At the last meeting, a neighbor from the Foothill area showed you photos of numerous signs on Foothill Blvd. I have lived 1 block from Foothill over a year now, and I don't know what she is talking about. The only signs I have ever seen are a few Realtor signs indicating open houses. Our typical open houses are on Saturdays and Sundays from 1:30 - 4:30. That is not to say tha sometimes we don't run over those times. IF we do, than it usually isn't more than one hour. Q~ signs are picked up after each open house. We do not leave them overnight. They have no purpose in the dark. Every Thursday we have agent's tour from 9:30 - 12:30. Sometimes a fe~ Open House signs are put out. We try not to put a sign in front of a wheelchair access. AS to the cities that have strict rules, well so is it. But Sunnyvale, San Jose, Campbell, Gilroy, Santa Clara are just a few friendly cities who do not have Realtor sign regulations. I don't live i~ Saratoga for a reason and you, as Council members do not need to use that city as your model (..._~ don't believe you are using those cities as examples when you are addressing building heights, densities, and housing numbers). As to policing, the City of Cupertino has one of the strictest sign ordinance policing policies. Several of my colleagues, including myself, have had our signs illegally taken by Code Enforcement. Than we had to go througk the trouble of coming into City Hall, paying $5 to retrk each sign from your Public Works Station out on Mary. Not only is this rule illegal, as your attorney has stated, but it is time-consuming and troublesome for your Public Works Departme~ In your field station, I am sure you will find many Realtor signs that were never picked up. Our job is to sell houses. We use whatever tools we have to get the job done. Having Open House signs on street corners for several hours during a weekend actually benefits the community, the future buyer and the former resident. Thank you, Realtor, CB Cupertino 17 year resident PS I have included some petitions gathered from other Realtors who work in Cupertino. My concerns are the same as others. Qty. "Wind Stabilizer Bar" "Wind Stabilizer Bar" TOM MORMAN REALTORe E-Mail: tmorman @cbnorcat,com RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE (408) 872-3135 DIRECT LINE (408) 996-1100 BUSINESS (408) 996-0849 FAX (408) 666-0581 CELL 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 12029 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408) 996-1100 BUS (498) 996-0849 FAX Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a s, afety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Owned And Operated By NRT Incorporated, Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I suppor[ Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our s[andard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that th¢.¥ are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. you, CB ~ Cupertino DENTIAL BROKERAGE PATRICK JOHNSON REALTOR® E-Maih patrick.johnson @cbnorcal.com (408) 777-3839 DIRECT LINE (408) 996-0100 BUSINESS (408) 996-9068 FAX (408) 410-9139 MOBILE www. califor nJamoves.com 21269 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 610 Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Council Member EXHIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. ..~.~n k you, Rd~oses Realtor CB - Cupertino 'ii,,, Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. Them am 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24' on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member EXHIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. CB - Cupertino , Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino EXHIBIT Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Stacy Martin Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of C)ffsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, David Hunt Realtor CB - Cupertino - Stevens Creek Dear Council Member EXHIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Rea~tor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkabitity. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are ptaced. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Firouz Eghbali Realtor CB - Los Gatos-South Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I suppor[ Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino OCT-ZZ-03 IZ:00 FRO~ T-glo P.OZ/OZ F-liS Dear Council Member ¥HiB T Thank you for c~)nsidedng Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance ~n the selling of homes. No matter t~ow mucl3 advertising we cio, the majority of people w~o come to our open houses come off the signs There are 4 issues that you must consider- 1, Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street cerner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access er impede walkability. 3. Tl~e signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thorc,ughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can dnly be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standarcl A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but aroactually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" × 24" on each s~de. We have a lot of money invested in the signs thai we currently own and feel that they ara large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard, I hope you take these issues into account wl3en you are voting on a f~nal measure. Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor 1 support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they .are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino FXHIBIT Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank yo~,, , c -Cupertino RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE Xt! BIT 110 FIRST STREET LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 (650) 948-0456 BUS (650) 948-3749 FAX Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feet that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Penny Lam Realtor CB - Cupertino Owned And Operated By NRT Incorporated. RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE 110 FIRST STREET LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 (650) 948-0456 BUS (650) 948-3749 FAX October 22, 2003 Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor Coldwell Banker - Los Altos Downtown Owned And Operated By NRT incorporated. Dear Council Member EXHIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they .are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Tha~nk you, Judi Seip Realtor Coldwell Banker - Cupertino 0CT-24-2003 18:89 Dear Council Member COLDWELL BRNKER F×HIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: Ex and the number of Offsite Open House signs to a! least six. 1. ThPe site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesnt work. We must be 2. able to place our signs as dose as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walk, ability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet talt erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a tot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they*are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Realtor CB - Cupertino TOTRL P,02 Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member E×HIB{T Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Joe Moses Realtor CB - Los Gatos Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member EXHIB Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they a_re large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Dear Council Member EXHIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they .are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. / I~ealtor , ~.~..-.'~CB - Cupertino October 22, 2003 Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Coldwell Banker 10105 S. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Qur standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they-are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor (j CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 -the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not toe large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. Thank you, Realtor ~'~ CB - Cupertino Dear Council Member £×HIBIT Thank you for considering Ordinance #1926 - the Proposed Temporary Sign Ordinance. As a Realtor I support Open House signs. They provide assistance in the selling of homes. No matter how much advertising we do, the majority of people who come to our open houses come off the signs. There are 4 issues that you must consider: 1. Expand the number of Offsite Open House signs to at least six. 2. The site distance triangle as proposed by staff doesn't work. We must be able to place our signs as close as possible to the street corner where the signs are the most effective. We take careful precautions not to block handicap access or impede walkability. 3. The signs must be allowed on major thoroughfares including Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd. Precluding heavy thoroughfares will have detrimental effects on signing to homes that can only be accessed off those main streets. 4. Our standard A-frame signs stands 3 feet tall erect, but are actually shorter when they are placed. The printed area is 24" x 24" on each side. We have a lot of money invested in the signs that we currently own and feel that they are large enough for buyers to see, yet not too large to cause a safety hazard. I hope you take these issues into account when you are voting on a final measure. CB - Cupertino EXHIBIT CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION 11/17/03 ? Fremont Union High School District District operations FUnding · Property tax based · NOT per pupil formula · More students dilute funding per student · Vulnerability due to State's fiscal crisis FundingExample 01-02 02-03 03-04 Students(I)8,664 Revenue/ea.(2) $6,137 Average daily attendance Revenue limit, property tax and "Basic Aid" sources 8,860 $6,321 9,O28 $6,105 Com rehensive HighSchools · Cupertino · Fremont · Homestead · Lynbrook · Monta Vista Other District Facilities · Sunnyvale H.S. site · District Office complex eAdult Education Facility Modernization~ · In the final stages at most schools · Significantly ahead of original schedule · Work at Monta Vista may go into 05-06 · Capacity considerations ,~.~. Enrollment Projections · Utilize data from feeder districts · Past history vs. future forecast - Economic issues - New development - Changing demographics - General Plan changes Development Implicatrons · One district-wide student generation factor - New MFR (apartments, etc.) yield = .029/unit - New single family residences = .195/each · Developer fees help mitigate facility issues nta Vista Growth Projections · Current enrollment: 2274 · Current 5 year growth expectation: +124' · 08-09 Enrollment estimate: 2398 *estimated 12/2002 Cupertino Growth PrOjections eCurrent enrollment: 1505 e5 year growth expectation*: +93 e08-09 Enrollment estimate: 1598 Estimated 12/2002 .~_Summary:' Challenges eTax base funding for programs eResource dilution due to growth eFacility impaction MARKET ANALYSIS Private Agencies Estimate # USTA members Cost per year Annual Revenue San Jose Swim & Racquet Club 150 $1,200 $180,000 Courtside 150 $3,000 $450,000 Los Gatos Swim & Racquet Club 150 $1,320 $198,000 Almaden Valley Athletic Club 150 $648 $97,200 City-Owned Club Estimate # USTA members Cost per year Annual Revenue City of Cupertino 150 $350 $52,500 City Parks and Recreation Estimate # of Court Hours Court cost per hour Annual Revenue Mountain View 1010 $6.00 $6,060 Sunnyvale 1010 $9.00 $9,090 Milpitas 1010 $15.00 $15,150 Los Altos 1010 $2.00 $2,020 11/17/2003 EXHIBITS END HERE