12-06-2016 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
CITY COUNCIL
5:30 PM
Special Non-televised Closed Session (5:30) Immediately Followed by a Televised Study Session
(Approximately 6:00); Followed by Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION AND
STUDY SESSION) AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City
Council is hereby called for Tuesday, December 06, 2016, commencing at 5:30
p.m. for a closed session in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California 95014 and immediately followed at approximately 6:00 p.m.
by a study session in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, CA 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting
business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special
Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community
Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph
(1)of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City
of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of
Transportation, et al.
STUDY SESSION - Immediately following Closed Session (Approx. 6:00 PM)
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
2.Subject: Aircraft Noise Study Session
Recommended Action: Conduct study session and provide direction to staff
Page 1
1
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
Staff Report
A - November 2016 Select Committee Report
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1.Subject: Study Session on Wireless Facilities within the Public Right of Way
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council conduct a study session
and provide direction on the proposed use of public street light poles to mount small
cellular facilities
Staff Report
A - “Bridging the Gap – 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook”
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.Subject: Presentation of Teen Commission FY 16-17 Work Plan
Recommended Action: Receive presentation of Teen Commission FY 16-17 Work
Plan
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on
any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases,
State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted
on simultaneously.
3.Subject: Approve the November 15 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the November 15 City Council minutes
Page 2
2
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
A - Draft Minutes
4.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 7, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-129 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 7, 2016
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
5.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 14, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-130 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 14, 2016
A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
6.Subject: Accept resignation of Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu and direct staff
to fill the unscheduled vacancy with the annual Teen Commission recruitment in
May 2017
Recommended Action: Accept resignation of Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu and
direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancy with the annual Teen Commission
recruitment in May 2017
Staff Report
A - Resignation letter
7.Subject: Establishment of Friendship City Relationships
Recommended Action: Review and consider 11 applications establishing Friendship
City relationships with Luoyang, People’s Republic of China; Qingdao, People’s
Republic of China; Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; Shenzhen, People’s
Republic of China; Suzhou, People’s Republic of China; Wuhan, People’s Republic
of China; Yilan, Taiwan, Republic of China; and Zhaoqing, People’s Republic of
China; and Guro, Seoul, South Korea
Staff Report
Attachment A-Jiangmen Friendship City Application
Attachment B-Luoyang Friendship City Application
Attachment C-Nanchang Friendship City Application
Attachment D-Qingdao Friendship City Application
Attachment E-Shanghai Friendship City Application
Attachment F-Shenzhen Friendship City Application
Attachment G-Suzhou Friendship City Application
Attachment H-Wuhan Friendship City Application
Attachment I-Yilan Friendship City Application
Attachment J-Zhaoqing Friendship City Application
Attachment K-Guro Friendship City Application
8.Subject: Enter into a subordination agreement with River City Bank and Joint
Page 3
3
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
Powers Authority members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to sign the subordination
agreement with River City Bank and Joint Powers Authority members of the Silicon
Valley Clean Energy Authority
Staff Report
A - Subordination Agreement
9.Subject: Budget adjustment regarding the Apple Campus 2 contracts
Recommended Action: Approve the budget allocations necessary to execute the
approved contracts in order to complete work at Apple Campus 2 through the end of
Fiscal Year 2017
Staff Report
A - Budget Allocations
10.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Amami Shima Sushi Corp,
19068 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for
Amami Shima Sushi Corp, 19068 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Staff Report
A - Application
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
11.Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 19.08, Definitions, of
the Municipal Code to add definitions of “financial institutions” and “banks” that
expressly exclude payday lending and check cashing businesses with the intent to
disallow such uses from operating within the City of Cupertino. (Application
No(s): MCA-2016-04; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
16-2157, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the
Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Section 19.08.030, entitled “Definitions”
to add the definition of “financial institutions” and “banks” to expressly exclude
payday lending and check cashing businesses with the intent to disallow such uses
from operating within the City of Cupertino”
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance No. 16-2157
12.Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code
regarding the regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make
other conforming changes for clarification and internal consistency. Application
No(s): MCA-2016-03; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide
Page 4
4
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
16-2158: "An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino to amend
Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping, and Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20, Permitted,
Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones, regarding the
regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other conforming
changes to Table 19.20.020 for clarification and internal consistency"
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 16-2158
13.Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal
Code related to accessory dwelling units to conform with State Law and for
internal consistency. (Application No. MCA-2016-05; Applicant: City of
Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
16-2159 “An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title
19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter
19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in
Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural (A) and Agricultural -
Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) Zones), Chapter
19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), and Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in
R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), in response to recently adopted State legislation
regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law, and for internal
consistency"
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 16-2159
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14.Subject: Appeal of Kimberly Sandstrom Appeal Regarding Eligibility to Purchase
Below Market Rate (BMR) Unit (Continued from November 1)
Recommended Action: Approve Resolution No. 16-101 regarding the appeal of Ms.
Kimberly Sandstrom and affirming the recommendation of the Housing Commission
regarding the eligibility of Ms. Sandstrom to purchase a BMR unit
Staff Report
A- Summary of Conflict of Interest Investigation
B- Draft Resolution
C- Housing Commission Resolution 16-06
D- Excerpts from BMR Manual Regarding Income Calculation
E- Referenced Regluations (24 CFR 5.609(b) and (c)
F- Technical Guide for Determining Income
G- Attachments and Other Documents Provided by Appellant
H - Sandstrom presentation
Page 5
5
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
15.Subject: Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule Amendment
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-131 approving an amended Fiscal
Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule, effective February 6, 2017
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Proposed Amendment to Schedule C – Planning Fees (redlined)
C – Proposed Schedule C – Planning Fees
D - Proposed Amendment to Schedule E – Recreation Fees (redlined)
E – Proposed Schedule E – Recreation Fees
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
16.Subject: Consider upgrading the City’s municipal electric accounts to 100%
renewable and carbon free GreenPrime service with Silicon Valley Clean Energy
upon service launch, which is scheduled to occur in April 2017
Recommended Action: Direct Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) to upgrade the
City’s electricity accounts to GreenPrime service, upon service launch in April 2017
Staff Report
17.Subject: Request from the Taipei Friendship City Committee for City to Sponsor
a Smart City Conference in May of 2017 (continued from October 18)
Recommended Action: Sponsor the proposed Smart City Conference
Staff Report
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
18.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 6
6
December 6, 2016City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6;
litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90
days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal
law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested
persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the
City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply
with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City
Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?
page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any
disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance.
Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas
and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available
in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours
and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino
web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item
that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during
consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on
this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council,
and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed
to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City
Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public
comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please
limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 7
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2189 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/18/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of
Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject:ConferencewithLegalCounsel-ExistingLitigationpursuanttoParagraph(1)of
subdivision(d)ofGovernmentCodeSection54956.9.Nameofcase:CityofSaratoga;Cityof
Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2198 Name:
Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/28/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Aircraft Noise Study Session
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - November 2016 Select Committee Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Aircraft Noise Study Session
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Aircraft Noise Study Session
Recommended Action
Conduct study session and provide direction to staff.
Background
The Mayor and City Councilmembers requested a study session to discuss aircraft noise
issues after hearing complaints from Cupertino residents. Representatives from Anna
Eshoo’s and Mike Honda’s offices have been invited to attend the meeting.
The aircraft noise stems from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen
program, which has shifted some flight patterns south and over more populated areas in
the South Bay. The FAA states that the changes were made to enhance safety and improve
efficiency.
In April, U.S. Representatives Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18), Sam Farr (CA-20) and Jackie Speier
(CA-14) formed the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, which has been working
with local stakeholders to develop regional solutions to address aircraft noise. The Select
Committee is also comprised of 12 local elected officials.
On November 17, 2016 the Select Committee released a 27-page report with
recommendations to Congress (Attachment A). The recommendations include:
Flying at higher altitudes
Flying over locations with fewer people
Avoiding noisy flight maneuvers
Implementing noise reduction retrofits where possible.
The report also identifies other potential solutions, long-term issues, and process issues.
Numerous resident-base community groups have been created across the Bay Area,
including the Peninsula and South Bay. Some examples include:
Quiet Skies NorCal: http://quietskiesnorcal.org/
Quiet Skies Los Altos Hills: http://www.quietskieslosaltoshills.org/
10
Quiet Skies Woodside: http://quietskieswoodside.org/
Save Our Skies Santa Cruz: http://www.sossantacruz.org/
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Brian Babcock, Public Information Officer
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Select Committee Report
11
Report of the
Select Committee on South
Bay Arrivals
Approved November 17, 2016
12
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
GLOSSARY 1
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES 3
SECTION 1: FAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE, FEASIBILITY GROUPS 1 – 6 4
1.1 SFO Class B Amendment 4
1.2 Transition the SERFR STAR Back to the BSR Ground Track Prior to EPICK 5
1.3 Increasing Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE Until at Least
the NIITE Waypoint 7
1.4 Create a New South Transition for the NIITE SID 7
1.5 Increasing Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on CNDEL Until at
Least the CNDEL Waypoint 8
1.6 Improve Aircraft Set Up and Sequencing Between Facilities 9
SECTION 2: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT 10
COMMITTEE
2.1 Airbus A320 Aircraft Family Wake Vortex Generators Retrofit 10
2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO 10
2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon) 11
2.4 Overnight Flights 12
2.5 MENLO Waypoint 13
2.6 Raise the Floor of Altitude Control Windows on SERFR 15
2.7 Increase the Altitude and Profile of Descents into SFO 15
2.8 Increase All Altitudes 16
2.9 Aircraft Vectoring 16
2.10 Runway Usage 17
2.11 Modify BRIXX Procedure into San Jose International Airport 18
2.12 Modify NRRLI Waypoint on the First Leg of SERFR 19
2.13 San Jose International Airport Reverse Flow: Aircraft Arrivals 20
2.14 Redirect Southern Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO 20
2.15 Fan-in Overseas Arrivals (OCEANIC) into SFO 21
2.16 Herringbone Approach to SFO Arrivals 22
2.17 Return to Pre-NextGen Procedures, Altitudes, and Concentration 22
13
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED
SECTION 3: LONGER TERM ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE 23
3.1 Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation 23
3.2 Restricted/Special Use Airspace 24
3.3 Noise Measurement 24
3.4 Capacity Limitations 25
3.5 Aircraft Speed 25
SECTION 4: PROCESS ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE 26
4.1 Who Makes Recommendations to Whom 26
4.2 Need for Before/After Noise Monitoring 26
4.3 Ensuring Compliance 27
APPENDIX A: VOTE RECORD A1-A2
APPENDIX B: MAP OF KEY WAYPOINTS B1
APPENDIX C: MAPS OF SELECTED FLIGHT PATHS C1-C5
BSR and SERFR C1
NIITE C2
CNDEL C3
BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD C4
BRIXX C5
14
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
S. J OSEPH S IMITIAN
S ANTA C LARA C OUNTY S UPERVISOR , D ISTRICT F IVE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimitian.com
November 17, 2016
The Honorable Anna Eshoo
Congresswoman, 18th District
698 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Honorable Sam Farr
Congressman, 20th District
701 Ocean Street, Room 318C
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The Honorable Jackie Speier
Congresswoman, 14th District
155 Bovet Road, Suite 780
San Mateo, CA 94402
Dear Honorable Members of Congress:
With this letter I convey to you the final Recommendations of your Select Committee on South Bay
Arrivals.
These Recommendations reflect the work of the 12 Member Committee and their 12 Alternates (see
Attachment A), empaneled by you, over the course of almost two dozen meetings during the past six
months (see Attachment B).
While your original charge to the Committee was essentially limited to the six sets of “feasible” actions
identified as part of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Northern California Initiative, the
Committee also considered other potential solutions suggested during the course our hearings, and
offered Recommendations where appropriate (see Section 2).
The Committee also identified a number of “longer-term issues” for deliberation and potential action
in the future (see Section 3); as well as a number of “process issues” that the Committee thought worth
highlighting (see Section 4).
15
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress
November 17, 2016
Page 2
While this report runs almost 30 pages in length, our Recommendations might succinctly be
summarized as:
Fly at higher altitudes;
Fly over locations with fewer people;
Avoid noisy flight maneuvers; and,
Implement noise reducing retrofits where possible.
While the Committee has not made any effort to “rank order” or prioritize Recommendations,
there are two I feel it appropriate to highlight for your consideration.
First, the very challenging and high profile issue of whether or not to abandon the SERFR flight
procedure/path in favor of a flight procedure/path along the ground track formerly used for the BSR
flight procedure/path (see Item 1.2).
The Committee did in fact recommend such a change on an 8-4 vote as a near-term remedial action
(consistent with other criteria set forth in Recommendation 2 of Item 1.2). It is important, however, to
note that the Committee has also recommended (on a 12-0 vote) the identification and development of
a better procedure and path for the long-term (as noted in Recommendation 4 of Item 1.2).
The Committee earnestly hopes that the need for this longer-term effort will not be overlooked in the
understandable desire to provide near-term relief.
Second, the Committee also took note of the fact that the creation of an ongoing body to assess and
address airport noise issues in the three county area is in many respects essential to the successful
implementation of the Recommendations contained in this Report; and to addressing issues likely to
arise in the future.
Finally, this letter would be incomplete if it did not express thanks to the many who made this effort
possible and productive. That, of course, includes you, the three Members of Congress who empaneled
the Select Committee, and your staffs, who lent considerable support throughout the effort.
Thanks as well to the 12 Members of the Select Committee and their 12 Alternates. It should be noted
that in virtually every meeting of the Select Committee all 12 seats were filled; most often by the 12
Members of the Committee, but with exemplary service from their Alternates as needed.
At least two thirds of the Alternates participated in the process in some significant way, allowing the
Committee to be fully functioning throughout its six month tenure, and providing additional and
valuable expertise and perspective to the process.
16
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress
November 17, 2016
Page 3
Technical support was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, whose staff was on hand at
each and every one of our three community meetings, 10 working meetings, and five technical briefings
to both listen and respond to questions.
As you well know, the process began with considerable public skepticism about the ability and
willingness of the FAA to engage in a meaningful way. I must tell you that the staff of the FAA was
exemplary in its persistence, patience, and professionalism throughout the process.
Special thanks to the City of Palo Alto for hosting the Committee’s 10 Working Meetings, and for the
considerable multimedia support that entailed as well.
But perhaps most importantly, thanks go to the members of the public who first raised these issues,
who organized to make themselves heard, who testified in great numbers (approximately 250 in our
first three Community Meetings, and approximately 130 at the subsequent Working Meeting of the
Committee set-aside for public comment), and whose written comments – in the form of comment
cards, letters, and emails – exceed more than 3,500 to date.
These various public communications were essential to informing the understanding of the Committee
as we crafted the Recommendations we now present to you.
Having conveyed these Recommendations to you, we now ask that you continue your engagement with
the FAA to ensure their timely implementation to the fullest extent practicable.
The Committee believes these Recommendations have the potential to provide real relief. We hope that
relief arrives sooner rather than later.
Sincerely,
S. Joseph Simitian
County Supervisor, Fifth District
Chair, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
17
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter – Attachment A
List of Members and Alternates, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Member Alternate
Supervisor Joe Simitian
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Mike Wasserman
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Councilmember Ann Wengert
Town of Portola Valley
Mayor Elizabeth Lewis
Town of Atherton
Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald
City of Saratoga
Councilmember Jean Mordo
City of Los Altos
Vice Mayor Gary Waldeck
Town of Los Altos Hills
Vice Mayor Gregory Scharff
City of Palo Alto
Supervisor Bruce McPherson
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Mayor Donna Lind
City of Scotts Valley
Supervisor John Leopold
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
President George Purnell
Happy Valley School Board
Councilmember Don Lane
City of Santa Cruz
Mayor Cynthia Matthews
City of Santa Cruz
Mayor Ed Bottorff
City of Capitola
Councilmember Dennis Norton
City of Capitola
Supervisor Dave Pine
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Councilmember Jeffrey Gee
City of Redwood City
Mayor Mark Addiego
City of South San Francisco
Councilmember Bob Grassilli
City of San Carlos
Councilmember Sam Hindi
City of Foster City
Councilmember Peter Ohtaki
City of Menlo Park
Vice Mayor Larry Moody
City of East Palo Alto
Mayor Donna Rutherford
City of East Palo Alto
18
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter – Attachment B
List of Meeting Dates, Times and Locations; Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Date Time Location
Organizational Meeting
May 6, 2016 2:00pm San Francisco International Airport
Community Meetings
May 25, 2016 6:00pm Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium
June 15, 2016 6:00pm Sequoia High School, Redwood City
June 29, 2016 6:00pm Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts
Working Meetings
July 15, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
July 22, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
August 4, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
August 18, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
September 1, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
September 29, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
October 13, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
October 27, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
Public Comment
November 3, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
November 17, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
Technical Briefings
May 20, 2016 1:00pm Teleconference
May 23, 2016 3:00pm Teleconference
October 13, 2016 10:00am Palo Alto City Hall, Council Conference Room
October 20, 2016 11:00am Teleconference
November 14, 2016 9:00am Teleconference
19
1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
GLOSSARY
Air Traffic Control (ATC): A service operated by the appropriate authority to promote the safe,
orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.
Altitude MSL: Aircraft altitude measured in feet above mean sea level.
Arrival and Departure Procedures: Refers to a published procedure. Once the procedure is
assigned, the procedure is designed to be flown with minimal to no communication with Air Traffic
Control (ATC).
Decibel: In sound, decibels measure a scale from the threshold of human hearing, 0 dB, upward
towards the threshold of pain, about 120-140 dB. Because decibels are such a small measure, they
are computed logarithmically and cannot be added arithmetically.
Day Night Sound Level (DNL): DNL is a measure of the annual average noise in a 24-hour day.
It is the 24-hour, logarithmic- (or energy-) average, A-weighted sound pressure level with a 10-
decibel penalty applied to the nighttime events that occur between 10:00pm and 7:00am.
DNL Contour: The "map" of noise exposure around an airport. FAA defines significant noise
exposure as any area within the 65dB DNL contour; that is the area within an annual average noise
exposure of 65 decibels or higher.
Fixes: In aviation, a fix is a virtual navigational point that helps aircraft maintain their flight path.
Fix is a generic name often interchanged with waypoint or intersection.
Fleet Mix: The mix of differing aircraft types operated at a particular airport or by an airline.
Frequency Weightings: Used to allow a sound level meter to measure and report noise levels that
represent what humans hear. These are electronic filters within a sound level meter that are used
to adjust the way in which the instrument measures the noise. The most commonly used Frequency
Weightings are ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘Z.’DNL incorporates only “A” weighted decibels.
Glide Slope: Generally a 3-degree angle of approach to a runway. Provides vertical guidance for
aircraft during approach and landing.
Ground Track: The path an aircraft flies over the ground.
Hold Procedure (Holding): A predetermined maneuver which keeps aircraft within a specified
airspace while awaiting further clearance from ATC.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight.
20
2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
NextGen: An encompassing term for the ongoing, wide-ranging transformation of the United
States' national airspace system. It has sometimes been described as an evolution from a ground-
based system of air traffic control to a satellite-based system of air traffic management.
Optimized Profile Descent (OPD): An arrival procedure that is designed to allow aircraft to use
idle engine power and reduce level-offs during descent.
Procedures, general: A published, standardized set of instructions that an aircraft can fly with
minimal input from ATC. Procedures are designed with strict separation criteria from other
procedures.
Runway: A long strip of land or water used by aircraft to land on or to take off from. For aircraft
arriving to San Francisco International Airport, the primary Runways used are Runway 28 Right
(28R) and 28 Left (28L), which are parallel to each other.
Sequencing: The lining up of aircraft into a single flow by ATC so that all aircraft are separated to
appropriate criteria. This is normally mentioned in association with landing.
Standard Instrument Departure (SID): A published IFR departure procedure from an airport
printed for pilot/controller use in graphic form to provide obstacle clearance.
Speed Brakes: Moveable aerodynamic devices on aircraft that reduce airspeed during descent and
landing.
Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR): A published IFR arrival procedure to an airport printed
for pilot/controller use in graphic form.
Time Based Flow Management: TBFM uses time instead of distance to help air traffic controllers
sequence air traffic by directing aircraft to be at a specific location at a specific time, which
optimizes arrival flow.
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON): FAA air traffic facility that uses radar and non-
radar capabilities to provide approach control services to aircraft arriving, departing, or transiting
airspace controlled by the facility.
Vector: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar; i.e., a series of
instructions from ATC directing an aircraft between two end points.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual
conditions. The term “VFR” is also used to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater
than the minimum VFR requirements.
Waypoint: A waypoint is a predetermined reference point in physical space used for purposes of
navigation. It is also known as a fix.
21
3
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
1. Minimizing aircraft noise must be a priority of the FAA when designing procedures, and
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) when vectoring flights. Airline efficiency may have to be
compromised to some degree to minimize noise exposure on the ground.
2. Aircraft noise should not be an afterthought in FAA planning and operations; nor should
aircraft noise be moved randomly without regard to the relative noise burden experienced
by communities below. A small number of communities should not be disproportionately
affected when there are ways to avoid or disperse aircraft noise.
3. Reducing aircraft noise at night is an urgent priority. Given the availability of airspace in
the nighttime hours, it should be an extremely rare occurrence that a flight path is disruptive
to the community. Further, “nighttime” should be defined as 12 midnight to 6:00am, but
should be expanded to include the hours of 11:00pm-12:00am and 6:00am-7:00am
whenever possible.
4. When designing new procedures, the FAA must include affected communities as
stakeholders. Aircraft noise not only disrupts quality of life but also has significant and
well documented adverse impacts on the health and well-being of individuals residing
under flight paths, particularly children.
5. No matter how effectively the airspace, or any specific procedure, is re-designed, the value
of the change will only be as helpful as the extent to which it is followed. ATC should
adhere to published procedures except when safety considerations require vectoring. The
rate of adherence to published procedures should be monitored.
6. Meaningful metrics for measuring aircraft noise should be used when working with the
Committee’s Recommendations. Limiting the metrics to use of DNL is inadequate and
unacceptable. A baseline of aircraft noise should also be established. The recent agreement
between the FAA and the Massachusetts Port Authority (which owns and operates three
airports: Boston Logan International Airport; Hanscom Field; and Worcester Regional
Airport), to use real-world single-event noise data from communities in order to develop a
supplemental noise metric to measure and track noise and flight concentration is a
development the Committee supports and points to as an example of a meaningful metric.
7. Reducing the noise impacts caused by NextGen should be a priority.
8. The FAA should demonstrate its ongoing commitment to working with communities
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, including, but not limited to, the three counties
represented on the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, by: (a) monitoring resultant
noise levels following implementation of Recommendations from the Select Committee;
(b) participating with successor committees to the Select Committee; and (c) leading all
future procedural, waypoint, and flight path development activities undertaken in response
to continuing health and noise issues associated with local air traffic in consultation with
the affected communities.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
22
4
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 1: FAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE, FEASIBILITY GROUPS 1
THROUGH 6
In November 2015, the “FAA Initiative to Address Noise Related Concerns in Santa Cruz/Santa
Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties” was released. Known as the Northern California
Initiative, or NorCal Initiative, it included a number of proposed technical solutions that were
brought to the FAA to analyze, study, and/or evaluate. On May 16, 2016, the results of Phase 1 of
the NorCal Initiative was released, consisting of a Feasibility Study (Study) of the proposed
technical solutions. The FAA then grouped the solutions deemed feasible into six groups, as
discussed further below in Section 1 of this Report.
1.1 Feasibility Group 1: SFO Class B Amendment
Class B airspace is the restricted airspace around the nation’s busiest commercial airports designed
to ensure a higher level of safety for aircraft landing at the airport. It can be visualized as an upside
down wedding cake. The airport is at the center of the cake topper with the airspace reaching to
10,000 feet over the airport in a series of concentric circles. To the south, SFO’s Class B airspace
reaches roughly to the junction of Summit Road/Skyline Boulevard/Highway 17 (approximately
35 miles from SFO) in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The FAA has advised the Committee that there is an identified problem in that the SFO Class B
airspace, as currently configured, does not fully provide containment of the entire flight path (the
so called “SERFR procedure”), which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz
Mountains (see Appendix C, Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). As a result, aircraft are required
to “level off” to stay within the airspace (or “cake”). Leveling off, however, means aircraft are
taken off their Optimized Profile Descent (OPD), or idle descent to final approach. This change in
glide path requires aircraft to use speed brakes, increase thrust, or take other actions which in turn
generate more noise. This leveling off is presently occurring just off the Capitola coastline (near
the point in space known as the EPICK waypoint), as well as over the Mid-Peninsula.
Feasibility Group 1 contains proposals to amend the SFO Class B airspace to fully contain the
SERFR procedure by altering the size or shape of the airspace (or the size or shape of the cake
layers) to keep aircraft inside the airspace (or cake) and on their OPD. Once the SFO Class B is
amended, the expectation is that more flights will fully execute an OPD and no longer need to
make altitude and speed adjustments, thereby reducing the noise exposure near the Capitola
coastline (i.e., the EPICK waypoint) and over the Mid-Peninsula.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 1.
Additionally, any changes to the SFO Class B airspace to fully contain the
SERFR procedure should also allow OPD arrivals on any other arrival
procedure from the south that might replace, or supplement, the SERFR
procedure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 1 encompasses seven of the items in the Study: 1.d.i; 1.d.ii;
2.b.i; 2.c.iii; 2.d.ii; and, 3.d.ii.
23
5
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.2 Feasibility Group 2: Transition the SERFR Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR)
Back to the BSR Ground Track Prior to EPICK
Feasibility Group 2 contains proposals to move the arrival procedure from the south, back west to
a similar ground track previously used for the BSR procedure. This design would put the SERFR
flight path back over the BSR ground track, roughly 3-4 miles to the west of where the path
currently reaches the Santa Cruz County coastline (near the City of Capitola) (see Appendix C,
Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). However, it should be noted that even with a “return to the
BSR ground track,” aircraft would not actually fly the same conventional procedure as the previous
BSR. The BSR procedure predated NextGen and did not use satellite-based navigation. NextGen
uses satellite navigation and Optimal Profile Descents (OPD). These Optimal Profile Descents
include some waypoints with an altitude control “window” providing a range of altitudes (from
lowest to highest; e.g., 7,000 feet to 9,000 feet) that aircraft must be within when crossing the
waypoint. In addition, and speaking generally, the pre-NextGen flights were relatively dispersed
as compared to present-day NextGen procedures which consolidate, to a greater degree, flights
along a narrower path.
The FAA has advised the Committee that a new flight procedure that is GPS-based and that
contains an OPD could be designed to fly the old BSR ground track, as suggested in the proposals
in Feasibility Group 2.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that arrivals into SFO from the south use
the BSR ground track for a new NextGen procedure that incorporates the
criteria contained in Recommendation 2 below.
(Vote: __8__ Aye, __4__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the new NextGen procedure for arrivals
into SFO from the south be implemented as soon as feasible and include the
following criteria:
1. Results in noise modeling of the proposed new procedure that has an
equivalent or less DNL noise exposure along its entire route when compared
to the noise modeling of the BSR 2014 procedure;
2. Uses flight altitudes at least as high as (and preferably higher) than the
historic BSR procedure along its entire route;
3. Starts from a point over the Monterey Bay and reaches the shoreline at an
altitude no lower than 12,500 feet mean sea level;
4. Utilizes a new BSR waypoint equivalent to the EDDYY waypoint at or
above 6,000 feet to ensure flights cross the MENLO waypoint at or above
5,000 feet and maintain idle power until the HEMAN waypoint;
5. Prioritizes and adheres as closely as possible to an OPD terminating at the
HEMAN waypoint;
6. Incorporates a modification to Class B airspace if needed;
7. Uses flight altitudes that are as high as possible while still allowing idle
power flight;
8. Is designed to avoid the use of speed brakes; and,
24
6
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
9. Will be subject to future capacity limitations, particularly during nighttime
hours and when vectoring exceeds current levels.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that within three months of completing
implementation of the new procedure described in Recommendations 1 and 2
above, the FAA will meet with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee referred to in Item
3.1, Recommendation 1, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address
Aircraft Noise Mitigation) to review whether the new procedure has resulted in
an equivalent or less DNL noise exposure along its entire route when compared
to 2014 noise modeling of the BSR procedure. The permanent entity referred to
in Item 3.1, Recommendation 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to
Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation) will continue to monitor the implementation
of the new procedure. The Committee further recommends that the FAA work
with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, the permanent entity, and the affected
communities to make adjustments to the new procedure, if needed, to reduce its
noise exposure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 4: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA, in consultation with the
permanent entity and the community, search for and develop a new flight
procedure for arrivals into SFO from the south that: (a) meets each of the criteria
in Recommendation 2 above; (b) takes maximum advantage of areas of non-
residential use, such as unpopulated mountainous areas, industrial areas,
parkland, cemeteries, etc; and (c) reduces noise exposure to the maximum
extent possible. The Committee further recommends that this procedure be
implemented as soon as feasible; however, the Committee recognizes that it
will take considerably longer to implement than the procedure referenced in
Recommendations 1 and 2 above.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 2 encompasses two of the items in the Study: 1.f.i and 3.d.ii.
25
7
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.3 Feasibility Group 3: Increasing Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE
Until at Least the NIITE Waypoint
Feasibility Group 3 applies to nighttime operations on the NIITE procedure (which does not
include all flights at night). These flights depart SFO over the San Francisco Bay (Bay), reach the
NIITE waypoint in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then turn to the northeast to fly out of the Bay
Area over several East Bay communities (see Appendix C, Page C2: Map of NIITE). About 35
percent of NIITE flights are currently turning early. Because the flights turn earlier, they are at a
lower altitude when they turn; and consequently may generate more noise exposure on the ground.
Feasibility Group 3 contains proposals to increase the percentage of these eastbound NIITE flights
that remain on the path until reaching the waypoint, thereby reducing early turns which cross land
at lower, noisier altitudes. The FAA has advised the Committee that the result should be less noise
exposure for some East Bay communities; such change, however, is not expected to provide
benefit to residents in the three-county area served by the Committee. The Committee’s
understanding is that the proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route more arrival
traffic over the BDEGA East leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the middle of the
night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 3.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 3 encompasses five of the items in the Study: 2.a.ii.a; 2.a.ii.c;
2.g.ii; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
1.4 Feasibility Group 4: Create a New South Transition for the NIITE Standard
Instrument Departure (SID)
Feasibility Group 4 also applies to nighttime operations on the NIITE procedure (which does not
include all flights at night). These flights depart SFO over the San Francisco Bay (Bay), reach the
NIITE waypoint in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then turn to the northeast to fly out of the Bay
Area over several East Bay communities (see Appendix C, Page C2: Map of NIITE). The NIITE
procedure does not provide a path for nighttime departures headed to southern destinations.
Currently, nighttime SFO departures headed to southern destinations use the SSTIK departure
procedure. These nighttime operations on the SSTIK departure procedure depart SFO over the San
Francisco Bay (Bay) to the northeast and quickly loop back around over the Peninsula
communities of Brisbane, San Bruno, and South San Francisco to head to southern destinations.
Because flights currently departing on the SSTIK procedure make a quick loop from the Bay down
over the Peninsula, they do so with related noise exposure for the Peninsula communities below.
A number of these communities have asked if other flight paths might be explored.
Feasibility Group 4 proposes that nighttime SSTIK departures use the NIITE procedure up to the
NIITE waypoint, which is in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then the aircraft would head west
out over the Golden Gate Bridge. By keeping the SSTIK departures over the Bay and Pacific
26
8
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Ocean, the aircraft are able to gain altitude over unpopulated areas. As a result, when they are
eventually flying over the San Francisco Peninsula on their way to southern destinations they will
do so at a higher altitude (and will thus be quieter). The Committee’s understanding is that the
proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route more arrival traffic over BDEGA East
leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the middle of the night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 4.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 4 encompasses six of the items in the Study: 1.f.iii; 2.a.ii.a;
2.f.i; 2.g.ii; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
1.5 Feasibility Group 5: Increasing Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on
CNDEL Until at Least the CNDEL Waypoint
The CNDEL is a departure procedure from the Oakland International Airport, with aircraft heading
northwest over the San Francisco Bay (Bay) to the CNDEL waypoint which is located off the
northwesterly end of Alameda Island (see Appendix C, Page C3: Map of CNDEL). Under the
current procedure/path, aircraft reach the waypoint and then turn west and south over Brisbane and
South San Francisco. Sixty percent of the CNDEL departures are currently turned before the
CNDEL waypoint. This means they reach the San Francisco Peninsula sooner and at lower
altitudes. These turns are due to spacing and sequencing the CNDEL aircraft with other departing
aircraft in the Bay Area airspace.
Feasibility Group 5 contains proposals to increase the percentage of CNDEL departures that stay
on the procedure longer and do not turn prior to the CNDEL waypoint, thereby reducing the
number turning before the CNDEL waypoint and crossing land at lower, noisier altitudes. The
Committee’s understanding is that the proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route
more arrival traffic over BDEGA East leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the
middle of the night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 5 with the
goal of having 100 percent of CNDEL departures stay on the procedure longer
and not turn prior to the CNDEL waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 5 encompasses eight of the items in the Study: 1.a.ii; 1.b.i;
1.b.ii; 1.c.ii; 2.a.ii.a; 2.a.ii.b; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
27
9
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.6 Feasibility Group 6: Improve Aircraft Set Up and Sequencing Between Facilities
Aircraft are sequenced to ensure they arrive on the final approach course safely and at repeated
intervals allowing for airport operational efficiency. Existing metering tools aid in this air traffic
management, but aircraft “vectoring” (turning aircraft off the assigned procedure) and “holding”
(a maneuver designed to delay an aircraft already in flight while keeping it within a specified
airspace) affect a substantial number of flights, especially in congested airspaces such as the San
Francisco Bay Area. Vectoring also is a source of noise; it often involves aircraft turning and
changes in speed, with increased noise exposure on affected communities.
Feasibility Group 6 contains proposals to use new, more effective, time-based flow management
tools currently in development to allow for better sequencing (i.e., spacing) of aircraft to reduce
the percentage of aircraft that are vectored or held prior to the final approach path to SFO. New
metering tools are not an immediately available fix; however, the technology to create Terminal
Sequencing and Spacing (TSS), or Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM), is in development. In
the future, the expectation is that such technological advances will allow for aircraft flows to be
taken into account and assigned an order well in advance of final approach. The benefit of such
technological advances are two-fold: (1) reduced percentage of vectored or turned aircraft and
related noise exposure; and (2) greater ability to leave aircraft on Optimized Profile Descent
(OPD), with an idle descent that is quieter.
The Select Committee hopes that the FAA will support the implementation of TSS or TBFM even
if that means delaying some take-offs at the airport of origin. When implementing TSS or TBFM,
the FAA should use it to relieve the concentration of flights over impacted communities (as
opposed to increasing flights in so-called noise corridors). In particular, TSS or TBFM should be
used to reduce vectoring in the area of the MENLO waypoint.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 6.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 6 encompasses five of the items in the Study: 3.b.i; 3.b.ii;
3.c.i; 3.c.ii; and, 3.d.ii.
28
10
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 2: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
In the course of the Select Committee’s deliberations, a number of additional potential solutions
were identified. Each of these proposed “Other Potential Solutions” is discussed further below.
2.1 Airbus A320 Aircraft Family Wake Vortex Generators Retrofit
Airbus’s A320 family of aircraft built before 2014 makes a whistling (or whining) sound on
approach due to wing design. The Committee was advised that the whistle (whine) can be reduced
by mounting a small air deflector on each wing. The cost of such technology is reportedly modest
($3,000-$5,000 per aircraft). The noise reduction from the retrofit has been claimed to be from
between 2 to 11 decibels depending on the phase of flight and angle of the aircraft along the
approach. Roughly 35 percent of the aircraft arriving and departing SFO need the retrofit.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that the Airbus family aircraft arriving or
departing SFO undergo the retrofit at the earliest possible opportunity. The
Committee takes notes of the fact that one major airline flying into and out of
SFO has proposed to retrofit its fleet over the next 2-3 years. While the
commitment to retrofit is welcome news, the Committee finds that the time
period is unnecessarily and unacceptably long.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO
SFO arrivals from points north arrive via the BDEGA arrival procedure/path. Arriving aircraft
reach a point roughly over Daly City and then continue south flying past SFO, using either the
Peninsula (the so-called West leg) or San Francisco Bay (the so-called East leg), to essentially
make a U-turn and land on Runways 28L and 28R, respectively (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map
of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). The FAA has advised the Committee that the
BDEGA East leg shares the final approach path into SFO with aircraft arriving from the east on
the DYAMD arrival procedure. Aircraft using the East leg, or over-the-bay route, obviously have
a dramatically reduced noise exposure versus aircraft using the West leg, which fly over the highly
populated Mid-Peninsula.
In years past, there was a roughly equal split of aircraft using the West and East legs of the BDEGA
arrival procedure/path. The FAA has advised the Committee that ten years ago, in May 2006, the
“split” between the two legs was 52 percent West leg and 48 percent East leg. In May 2016,
roughly 70 percent of the arriving aircraft used the Peninsula (the so-called West leg), while
roughly 30 percent of arriving aircraft used the San Francisco Bay (the so-called East leg). This
overutilization of the Peninsula or West leg negatively affects the highly populated Mid-Peninsula
communities.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that aircraft flying on the BDEGA
procedure utilize the so-called East leg (over the San Francisco Bay) as much
as possible, in order to minimize noise over the Peninsula. The Committee
29
11
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
further recommends that the FAA assess the potential of formalizing this
procedure so that it is more likely to be used.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee recommends that all aircraft flying on the BDEGA
procedure during nighttime hours, when air traffic flows are reduced, use the
East leg, unless safety considerations prohibit such a flight path.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon)
Aircraft fly in the vicinity of the Woodside VOR, a ground-based navigational aid, to arrive at
SFO. Aircraft activity in this area includes aircraft arrivals from numerous origin points, including
but not limited to OCEANIC arrivals, which come in from the west from overseas (See Appendix
C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
Based on discussions between and among SFO, the FAA, the SFO Airport/Community
Roundtable, and local elected officials, a new noise abatement procedure was implemented at the
Woodside VOR in July 1998. Pursuant to this procedure, for those flights routed over the
Woodside navigational beacon, “traffic permitting,” air traffic controllers shall clear SFO
OCEANIC arrivals to cross the Woodside VOR at or above 8,000 feet mean sea level.
The Committee received numerous reports from the community that this agreement is not currently
honored. There are reports of aircraft flying over the Woodside VOR at altitudes appreciably lower
than 8,000 feet, including at night when residents are particularly sensitive to noise. The
Committee also found that there is an authorized Ocean Tailored Arrival (OTA), which
specifically allows arriving OCEANIC aircraft to be at or above the Woodside VOR at 6,000 feet.
This OTA is also used in the overnight hours when residents are particularly sensitive to noise.
The FAA has advised the Committee that while OCEANIC flights represent just four percent of
the daytime traffic arriving into SFO, OCEANIC flights represent thirty-six percent of the flights
arriving at SFO at nighttime.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that per the current noise abatement
procedure, aircraft comply with the obligation to cross the Woodside VOR at
8,000 feet mean sea level, traffic permitting. The Committee further
recommends that this altitude restriction, to the greatest extent possible and
traffic permitting, also be applicable to all vectored flights that are in the
vicinity of the Woodside VOR.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee recommends revision of the Woodside VOR Ocean
Tailored Arrival to honor the existing noise abatement procedure to cross the
Woodside VOR at 8,000 feet.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
30
12
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Recommendation 3: The Select Committee recommends further restrictions to prohibit any
overnight crossings at the Woodside VOR below 8,000 feet.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.4 Overnight Flights
Reducing noise at night is an urgent priority. Between midnight and 6:00am the number of flights
into and out of SFO is significantly reduced. As a result, there is considerable potential for aircraft
to be rerouted over unpopulated or less populated areas, specifically the San Francisco Bay and
Pacific Ocean, instead of the San Francisco Peninsula.
Currently the management of SFO implements a number of overnight noise abatement procedures
that are beneficial to the communities surrounding SFO. These procedures include, but are not
limited to, prohibitions on “run-ups” of mounted aircraft engines for maintenance or test purposes
between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am daily with limited exceptions and the use of auxiliary
power units when aircraft are parked at the gate.
Separately, SFO also employs Nighttime Preferential Runway Use, which maximizes flights over
water and minimizes flights over land and populated areas between 1:00am and 6:00am.
As discussed elsewhere in this Report, the Select Committee has made a number of additional
Recommendations to mitigate in-flight aircraft noise during the night, including: Item 1.3
Increasing the Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE Until at Least the NIITE
Waypoint; Item 1.4 Create a New South Transition for the NIITE SID; Item 1.5 Increasing
Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on CNDEL Until at Least the CNDEL Waypoint;
Item 2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO; Item 2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon);
Item 2.8 Increase All Altitudes; Item 2.10 Runway Usage; and, Item 2.14 Redirect Southern
Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO).
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that all efforts be made to reduce in-flight
aircraft noise over populated areas during “nighttime” hours when residents
need a reprieve from aircraft noise so that they can sleep, including, but not
limited to, the Recommendations made elsewhere in this Report. For purposes
of this Report, “nighttime” should be defined as 12:00am to 6:00am, but should
be expanded to include the hours of 11:00pm-12:00am and 6:00am-7:00am
whenever possible.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that during “nighttime” hours, air traffic control
make every effort to direct arrivals into a single stream to Runway 28R to
reduce the noise exposure on the bayside communities of Redwood City and
Foster City.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
31
13
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the FAA, SFO, and industry users continue
their efforts to establish new additional overnight noise abatement procedures
within the next six months. This work should be done in consultation with other
relevant stakeholders.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.5 MENLO Waypoint
The MENLO waypoint is located several city blocks south of the intersection of Willow Road and
Highway 101. It is the final waypoint on the SERFR arrival procedure/path, which is an arrival
procedure into SFO from the south that approaches the airport from the Santa Cruz Mountains
(See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). Aircraft on the
SERFR arrival procedure/path then cross the MENLO waypoint to join the final approach path
into SFO. The altitude of the MENLO waypoint is currently 4,000 feet. Given its location over a
highly populated area, the location and altitude of the MENLO waypoint are problematic and a
source of many community complaints.
The FAA has advised the Committee that in June 2016, an average of 183 aircraft arrived each
day into SFO on the SERFR procedure/path, representing 30 percent of the arrivals into SFO. The
FAA has also advised the Committee that currently 50 percent of the aircraft on the SERFR arrival
procedure/path are vectored off the procedure/path prior to the MENLO waypoint. As discussed
in Item 2.9 in this Report (Aircraft Vectoring), the vectored SERFR aircraft are eventually
sequenced for merging onto the final approach into SFO. The FAA has also suggested that the
Committee take note of the fact that there are other aircraft in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint
that are not related to the SERFR arrival procedure/path. These “other aircraft,” the FAA pointed
out, represent 85 percent of the aircraft in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint.
With all this in mind, it has been suggested that the altitude of the crossing at the MENLO waypoint
be increased. It has also been suggested that a different final waypoint be established for the
SERFR procedure, located to the east and/or north of the current MENLO waypoint (presumably
over a less populated area and at a higher altitude). This suggestion could involve establishment
of a new waypoint, or the use of existing waypoints, such as the ROKME or DUMBA waypoints.
These waypoints are located in the San Francisco Bay, just to the north and south of the eastern
shoreline of the Dumbarton Bridge, respectively. Under this suggestion, aircraft would cross at
one of these waypoints, which would be at a higher altitude as compared to the current altitude at
the MENLO waypoint, before joining the final approach into SFO.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the altitude of flights over the
MENLO waypoint be 5,000 feet or higher.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the FAA design a new procedure for arrivals
into SFO from the south using the MENLO waypoint. The recommended
procedure would cross the EDDYY waypoint (or equivalent) above 6,000 feet,
continue at idle power to cross the MENLO waypoint at or above 5,000 feet,
32
14
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
and maintain idle power until the HEMAN waypoint (or other ILS 28L
interception point). Such a procedure should also be designed to avoid the use
of drag devices such as speed brakes.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 3: The Committee further recommends that all air traffic in the vicinity of the
MENLO waypoint (including vectored traffic from other procedures) be kept
at altitudes equivalent to those in Recommendation 1 above, even if not crossing
directly over the MENLO waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 4: In order to facilitate Recommendations 1 and 2 above, the FAA should review
whether the angle of the 28L glide slope can be increased in order to increase
the altitude at the HEMAN waypoint, or equivalent.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 5: Finally, the Committee recommends that the FAA assess the feasibility of
establishing a different waypoint for entry to the final approach into SFO on the
SERFR arrival procedure (or any procedure that may replace it for arrivals from
the south). A different waypoint could be established and located either to the
east and/or north of MENLO, or by using existing waypoints FAITH, ROKME,
or DUMBA. The new waypoint should be at a location that allows flight over
compatible land uses (i.e., over water or sparsely populated land masses) and at
a high enough altitude to ensure noise exposure of approaching aircraft is
minimized. The Committee acknowledges that this Recommendation
potentially involves working with stakeholders to revise the San Jose
International Airport Class C airspace to maintain safety clearance
requirements if the FAITH or ROKME waypoint options are pursued.
The Select Committee does not recommend that a different final waypoint be
established for the SERFR procedure (or any procedure that may replace it
for arrivals from the south), either through the establishment of a new
waypoint or by using an existing waypoint, if such an action simply results in
“noise shifting.”
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
33
15
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.6 Raise the Floor of Altitude Control Windows on SERFR
An altitude control window at a waypoint provides a range of altitudes (from lowest to highest;
e.g., 7,000 feet to 9,000 feet) that aircraft must be within when crossing the waypoint. The FAA
has advised the Committee that the range of altitudes is provided because the aircraft fleet mix
varies. The last leg of SERFR has only one altitude control window, at waypoint EPICK (just
offshore from Capitola on the Santa Cruz County coast) with a range of 10,000 feet to 15,000 feet
(See Appendix C, Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). By reducing the size of that window by
2,000 feet, so that its range is 12,000 feet to 15,000 feet, aircraft would be at a higher altitude when
crossing the EPICK waypoint.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA decrease the size of the
altitude windows on the SERFR procedure or path so that aircraft crossing
EPICK do so at a higher altitude.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: It is suggested that the arrival procedure for SERFR, or any subsequent route
in this sub-region, be designed, if possible, to allow aircraft to reduce speed
early, while over the Monterey Bay; beginning their Optimized Profile Descent
into the Santa Cruz area and beyond in a fashion that affects fewer people.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.7 Increase the Altitude and Profile of Descents into SFO
An approach slope is the descent path that aircraft follow on final approach to land on a runway.
An approach slope is also known as a glide slope, as the path is ideally a gentle downward slope.
A commonly used approach slope in modern aviation is 3.0 degrees from the horizontal.
At SFO, the two main landing runways are 28L and 28R, and they are parallel to each other.
Runway 28L has a glide slope of 2.85 degrees, while Runway 28R has a glide slope of 3.0 degrees.
The variation in the glide slopes is a function of the two runways being parallel to each other.
Other airports use a steeper glide slope. For instance, the Frankfurt airport is using 3.2 degrees
while London City airport uses a glide slope of 5.5 degrees.
If the glide slope on both Runways 28L and 28R at SFO were increased, even if only by 0.15
degrees each, it would allow descending aircraft to begin their descent at a higher altitude, thereby
reducing noise exposure on the ground.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA determine the feasibility of
increasing the glide slopes of SFO Runways 28R and 28L to the maximum
extent consistent with safety and the Committee’s goal of noise mitigation.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
34
16
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.8 Increase All Altitudes
Aircraft noise is noise pollution produced by any aircraft or its components. The noise is generated
during the various phases of a flight, such as when the aircraft is: (a) on the ground while parked
using auxiliary power units; (b) while taxiing; (c) during takeoff; (d) while over-flying enroute;
and (e) during landing. Aircraft noise is also generated both underneath and lateral to departure
and arrival paths. This latter form of aircraft noise has been the primary source of complaints since
the March 2015 implementation of NextGen. At the risk of stating the obvious, the higher the
altitude of departure and arrival paths, the quieter the experience is on the ground. Or, in other
words, aircraft at higher altitudes tend to be quieter.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that to the greatest extent possible, while
still ensuring the safety of the aircraft, that the altitude be increased for all flight
procedures/paths into and out of SFO.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.9 Aircraft Vectoring
Vectoring is assigned verbally by FAA air traffic controllers, and generally involves turning
aircraft off the assigned procedure/flight path. Vectoring of SFO arrivals over the Mid-Peninsula
is common and principally generated from three sources: (1) arrivals from the north (BDEGA);
(2) to a lesser degree, overseas arrivals from the west (OCEANIC); and (3) the roughly 50 percent
of the arrivals from the south (SERFR) that are currently vectored off the SERFR procedure/path
(See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). These arriving
aircraft are vectored to properly sequence them for merging onto the final approach into SFO. It
should be noted that while noise generated by vectoring in the first two instances (i.e., BDEGA
and OCEANIC) occurs in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint, the location of these operations
is unrelated to the presence of the MENLO waypoint, as discussed further in Item 2.5 in this Report
(MENLO Waypoint).
Vectoring can be a source of substantial noise. If the vectoring directive from Air Traffic Control
to the pilot includes a change in speed, a turn, and/or an altitude restriction, an increase in noise is
a likely result. On the other hand, if the vectoring directive is unrestricted, with the pilot not being
given a speed or altitude restriction, it is unlikely that noise will result. The FAA has advised the
Committee that vectoring is done for safety reasons, and that the specific directive provided is
dependent on the variables present. Consequently, according to the FAA, it is not predictable what
the noise exposure will be from vectoring.
Yet, vectoring is the source of many of the noise complaints presented to the Committee by the
community. This is due in part because the aircraft vectoring over the Mid-Peninsula do so at low
altitudes. In addition, the topography of the Mid-Peninsula is uneven. To further complicate the
matter, while some members of the community have complained that vectoring is a source of noise,
others warn that efforts to keep greater numbers of aircraft on the established flight paths
concentrates even greater amounts of noise on those who live or work under the established flight
track (this is the issue some advocates refer to as “sacrificial noise corridors”). So, if you vector,
35
17
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
you create noise over a relatively wide area; if you don’t, you concentrate a greater amount of
noise on a relative few (a smaller number) who are already heavily burdened.
It has been suggested that the altitude at which aircraft are vectored over the Peninsula be
increased, to reduce the noise exposure experienced on the ground. It should be noted, however,
that the FAA has advised the Committee that increases in the altitude of the BDEGA West leg
vectored aircraft could require the aircraft to fly somewhat further south, in order to safely descend
and make the U-turn to join the final approach into SFO.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA identify locations that have
the most compatible land uses for vectoring, such as over the Pacific Ocean or
San Francisco Bay, and vector the SFO arriving air traffic in those locations to
reduce noise exposure experienced on the ground.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the FAA raise vectoring altitudes to
maximum feasible altitudes over the Mid-Peninsula, with a focus on higher
altitudes in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.10 Runway Usage
SFO operates on two sets of parallel runways that intersect midfield at a ninety-degree angle.
Approximately 83 percent of the time aircraft depart on either Runway 01L (left) or 01R (right)
and arrive on either Runway 28L (left) or 28R (right). Under this flow of traffic, SFO’s acceptance
rate for arriving traffic is 60 aircraft per hour. This arrival rate can be accommodated because with
good visibility and weather, aircraft land side-by-side on Runways 28L and 28R as the pilots are
able to see the other aircraft arriving on the parallel runway and can maintain visual separation.
The arriving traffic to Runway 28L is closer to the western edge of the San Francisco Bay (Bay),
proximate to the bayside communities of Redwood City and Foster City. Runway 28R is farther
removed from those communities. Greater use of Runway 28R has a reduced noise exposure for
these bayside communities; however, the FAA advised the Committee that, for the most efficient
operations at SFO (i.e., accommodating the greatest number of aircraft), Runways 28L and 28R
are used simultaneously.
As detailed in this Report (Item 2.4 Overnight Flights), during the overnight hours the overall
amount of air traffic is dramatically reduced. It has been suggested that, to the extent possible, 100
percent of nighttime flights should be directed by Air Traffic Control (ATC) in a single stream to
Runway 28R to reduce the noise exposure on the communities of Redwood City and Foster City.
It has also been suggested that regardless of the time of day, and when conditions permit
(including, but not limited to, the number of operations), ATC should direct aircraft to use Runway
28R. This includes use of the “noise friendlier” offset approach, which takes aircraft farther into
the Bay before joining the final approach to SFO. Use of the offset approach not only benefits
36
18
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Foster City and Redwood City, but because aircraft are joining the final approach farther into the
Bay, it could allow for higher altitudes while the aircraft are crossing over the Mid-Peninsula area.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that all feasible measures be taken to
reduce the noise exposure to bayside communities, including Foster City and
Redwood City, by directing air traffic to Runway 28R whenever possible.
During the important overnight hours, every effort should be made to create a
single stream of traffic, and to assign that traffic, safety permitting, to fly a
“noise friendlier” offset approach to Runway 28R.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.11 Modify BRIXX Procedure into San Jose International Airport
The BRIXX arrival is an arrival procedure/path from the north into San Jose International Airport
(SJC) which runs down the Peninsula, roughly over La Honda and Boulder Creek before turning
and flying south and then turning east and north (essentially a big U-turn) to join the final approach
into SJC (See Appendix C, Page C5: Map of BRIXX). The BRIXX path intersects with the SERFR
arrival path (which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains), roughly just
to the north of Mount McPherson in the Santa Cruz mountains.
The FAA has advised the Committee that, under NextGen, BRIXX basically overlaid a
predecessor path, which was named GOLDN. The change to a satellite based navigation flight
path, as opposed to the prior ground track flight path, resulted in the BRIXX arrival path becoming
more concentrated; with vectoring moving southward, and moving closer to the designated flight
path. The FAA further advised the Committee that roughly 76 percent of the BRIXX flights are
vectored or turned off the path prior to the point where BRIXX intersects with SERFR. These
changes resulted in complaints from residents in affected communities.
It has been suggested that these complaints be addressed by: (1) moving the intersection of BRIXX
and SERFR farther to the north and east, potentially to waypoint EDDYY, which is located roughly
over the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve; and (2) increasing the altitude of BRIXX so
that it is above the altitude of the SERFR arrival path.
The FAA has advised the Committee that these potential solutions raise a number of concerns.
First, moving the flight path as suggested potentially moves noise further into the already impacted
Mid-Peninsula area and places arriving aircraft at too high of an altitude too close to SJC. In order
for those aircraft to safely land, the aircraft would have to fly even further south to make the
necessary turn to the east and the north to join the final approach into SJC, potentially resulting in
new noise exposure. Increasing the altitude of BRIXX also potentially limits the FAA’s ability to
consider other potential solutions the Select Committee might advance, such as raising the altitude
on SERFR.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that, following implementation of changes
to the current arrival route for aircraft from southern destinations, the FAA shall
consider a new BRIXX procedure that maintains the highest possible altitude
37
19
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
at the point where it (BRIXX) intersects the new arrival route from the south.
The FAA should make every attempt to raise the altitude high enough such that
the DNL under the new intersection (where BRIXX and new arrival route from
the south) is lower than the DNL under the current intersection (where BRIXX
and the current SERFR route cross). The FAA shall review any proposed new
BRIXX procedure with any successor committee as recommended in Item 3.1,
Recommendations 1 and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to
Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation), and the affected communities.
(Vote: __10__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __2__ Absent or Abstain)
2.12 Modify NRRLI Waypoint on the First Leg of SERFR
In the Carmel Valley (Monterey County), aircraft joining the SERFR arrival procedure/path turn
over the Valley to reach the NRRLI waypoint. That turn has created adverse noise exposure on the
ground. Prior to the March 2015 implementation of NextGen procedures, aircraft flew over the
Carmel Valley in a straight line. It has been suggested that the NRRLI waypoint be moved to where
the SERFR procedure/path intersects the coastline near the City of Seaside along the Monterey
Bay.
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution, however, has the potential to
move existing noise to another community. For that reason, the Select Committee has not endorsed
this solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed solution, or a
variation thereof, could be effectively implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
38
20
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.13 San Jose International Airport Reverse Flow: Aircraft Arrivals
Under normal conditions, aircraft arriving at San Jose International Airport (SJC) arrive from the
south and depart heading north. During inclement weather, or a significant change in wind
direction over the San Jose area, the takeoff and landing approaches are temporarily reversed with
aircraft arriving at SJC from the north and departing to the south. This “Reverse Flow” brings
arriving aircraft in at lower altitudes to the west of SJC, over the communities of Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. It has been suggested that the “Reverse Flow” approach could
instead arrive from the east of SJC, using a “Normal Flow” departure procedure that is not used
during “Reverse Flow” conditions.
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution, however, has the potential to
move existing noise to another community (a community not represented by the congressional
districts that established the Select Committee). For that reason, the Select Committee has not
endorsed this proposed solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed
solution, or a variation thereof, could be effectively implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.14 Redirect Southern Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO
As previously noted, SERFR is a southern arrival procedure/flight path into SFO (i.e., approaching
SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains). Flights on the SERFR procedure include
(among others) aircraft from the southwest, such as Phoenix and Houston. In June 2016, the
SERFR carried an average of 183 aircraft per day, or 30 percent of the arriving aircraft into SFO.
It has been suggested by some that these aircraft from the southwest be removed from the SERFR
arrival procedure, and instead use an eastern approach into SFO. Under this suggestion, aircraft
would either use the existing DYAMD arrival procedure (which is for flights arriving at SFO from
the east with a flight path that enters the Bay roughly between Fremont and Milpitas), or use a new
procedure crossing the FAITH waypoint (which is located at the intersection of Hostetter Road
and Morrill Avenue, east of Interstate 680 in East San Jose) (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of
BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution raises a number of potential
concerns. In June 2016, the DYAMD already carried the greatest percentage of daily air traffic
into SFO, an average of 253 aircraft per day, or 41 percent of the arriving traffic into SFO. The
DYAMD arrival procedure also shares the final approach path into SFO with aircraft arriving from
the north (on the BDEGA procedure), specifically the 30 percent of BDEGA arrivals that use the
San Francisco Bay approach (the so-called East leg). Increasing the aircraft load on the DYAMD
procedure as suggested reduces the opportunity to shift aircraft from the BDEGA Peninsula (so-
called West leg) approach onto the BDEGA San Francisco Bay approach (so-called East leg). For
that reason, the Select Committee has not endorsed this solution {see Item 2.2 in this Report
[Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO]}.
39
21
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
With regard to creating a new procedure using the FAITH waypoint, the FAA has advised the
Committee that this flight path has the potential to conflict with departures out of San Jose
International Airport and move existing noise to another community (a community not represented
by the congressional districts that established the Select Committee). For those reasons, the Select
Committee has not endorsed this solution. However, it has been noted that the existence of an
overnight curfew at San Jose International Airport might accommodate a new procedure using the
FAITH waypoint as a potential solution in the overnight hours. The FAA may, therefore, wish to
examine whether this proposed solution, or a variation thereof (e.g., at night), could be effectively
implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.15 Fan-in Overseas Arrivals (OCEANIC) into SFO
The OCEANIC arrival procedure into SFO comes in from the west from overseas locations, such
as Asia, and Hawaii, with aircraft converging into a single path at the PIRAT waypoint which is
off the coast. Once on a single path, the aircraft cross the San Francisco Peninsula at the Woodside
VOR, a navigational beacon located in the Woodside area, and proceed to the final approach into
SFO (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
It has been suggested that the arriving OCEANIC aircraft could instead be “fanned-in” into the
area of the Woodside VOR, using that point and other new waypoints to achieve dispersion of the
arriving aircraft. The FAA has advised the Committee that it lacks the technology, i.e., metering
tools, to implement this proposed solution. The presence of Special Use Airspace (SUA) along the
coastline at this location (which restricts civilian aircraft from using that airspace), further
constrains the FAA. The FAA has advised the Committee that while this solution might be feasible,
there are a very low number of OCEANIC flights (roughly 31 flights per day in June 2016) per
day. In addition, the FAA has advised the Committee that this solution also potentially moves
noise to other communities. For these reasons, the Select Committee has not endorsed this solution.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
40
22
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.16 Herringbone Approach to SFO Arrivals
It has been suggested that noise exposure along a specific corridor/flight path could be reduced if
flights joined the path at various points, thus creating a “herringbone” or “trident” effect.
The “herringbone” or “trident” is a multiple approach concept for dispersion of arrivals to reduce
the number of overflights along a single path. Using this concept, Air Traffic Control would be
instructed to distribute arriving aircraft to multiple transition locations along the arrival path, hence
the “herringbone” or “trident” patterns.
It has also been suggested that the herringbone approach could be applied to the SERFR arrival
procedure, which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains. The FAA,
however, has advised the Committee that it currently lacks the technology, i.e., metering tools, to
implement this proposed solution. The congested San Francisco Bay Area airspace, with three
major commercial airports in close proximity to each other, also potentially limits the applicability
of this solution. Finally, the FAA has advised the Committee that a herringbone approach would
likely result in an increase in vectoring. For these reasons, the Select Committee has not endorsed
this solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed solution, or a
variation thereof, could be effectively implemented once the needed technological tools have been
developed.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.17 Return to Pre-NextGen Procedures, Altitudes, and Concentration
A continuous thread to the public input received by the Committee was to simply return conditions,
including aircraft procedures, altitudes, and concentration, to “how they were before NextGen.”
While the Committee is sympathetic to this input, the FAA has repeatedly indicated that changes
to the San Francisco Bay Area airspace pursuant to NextGen are not reversible. The FAA has
repeatedly advised the Committee that the 2012 federal legislation reauthorizing the FAA required
the FAA to adopt and use advanced technology to modernize the air transport system. For these
reasons the Select Committee has not endorsed this proposed solution. However, the Select
Committee recommends the implementation of a number of solutions to improve NextGen, as
discussed throughout this Report.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
41
23
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 3: LONGER-TERM ISSUES
In the Select Committee’s deliberations several longer-term issues were identified that went
beyond the timeframe of the Committee’s work plan. Each of these longer-term issues are of
significance and the Committee recommends that resolution be pursued in as timely a manner as
possible via appropriate channels.
3.1 Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation
In the San Francisco Bay Area airspace, noise-related concerns are not confined to a single
commercial airport. The three major commercial airports (SFO, Oakland International-OAK, and
San Jose International-SJC) that ring the San Francisco Bay (Bay) have a combined 136 arrival
and departure procedures (i.e., paths). These arrival and departure procedures crisscross the Bay
and impact the three county area represented by the members of Congress who established the
Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. This presents an obvious challenge to those affected by
and/or attempting to mitigate aircraft noise. As an example, Santa Cruz Mountains’ residents
affected by the SERFR arrival procedure from the south into SFO are also affected by the BRIXX
arrival procedure from the north into SJC.
The need for a permanent entity to address these multi-county impacts became readily apparent to
the Committee in the course of its work.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee consisting
of two Members/Alternates from the Select Committee (or others yet to be
named) from each County/Congressional District be convened by the three
members of Congress who empaneled the Select Committee over the short-term
to continue work on the issues identified in this Report, including the
framework of the longer term entity referenced in Recommendation 2
immediately below. More specifically, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee would
consider: (1) the financial, administrative, and technical resources needed to
support the permanent entity; (2) funding of the permanent entity; and (3)
structure of the permanent entity. Among other tasks, the Ad-Hoc
Subcommittee would also receive reports, if any, on the implementation of the
Recommendations included in this Report. The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee would
consult with the FAA, SFO, and local jurisdictions in developing a framework
to support the permanent entity going forward and report to the Members of
Congress with its recommendation within 120 days.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee strongly recommends that a permanent entity be
established to address issues of aircraft noise in the three county area on an
ongoing basis, and to provide a forum for community input. The Select
Committee’s schedule did not permit time to develop a recommended
governance structure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
42
24
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
3.2 Restricted/Special Use Airspace
Special Use Airspace (SUA) are areas designated for operations that require restrictions on aircraft
not participating in those operations. These operations are often of a military nature. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, there are SUA restrictions (military) along much of the Pacific coastline that
constrain the FAA’s flexibility to expand or restructure the use of civilian airspace.
Recommendation: While the Select Committee is not questioning the need for or importance of
Special Use Airspace (SUA) in our region, the Committee recommends that the
FAA review the SUA in our area with an eye towards better balancing special
use restrictions and civilian aviation needs, particularly in the congested San
Francisco Bay Area airspace.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.3 Noise Measurement
Following the March 2015 changes to the San Francisco Bay Area airspace that implemented
NextGen performance based navigation technology and new flight procedures/paths, it became
readily apparent to the Committee that the FAA’s established noise measurement metrics are
inadequate. They do not represent what is being experienced by people on the ground.
The existing metrics do not adequately identify or acknowledge ground level noise exposure, even
when noise at the reported levels is enough to be noticeable and disturbing to the public. The
shortcoming exists in large measure because the cumulative noise level (over a 24-hour period) is
not high enough to technically constitute a “significant impact.”
More specifically, the use of a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) alone is ill-suited to assess
ground level impacts, particularly from the standpoint of amplitude, duration, time of occurrence,
and repetitiveness (concentration of flight paths). In addition, noise analysis at a community level
(i.e., over a relatively broad swath) results in a blending of noise that does not reflect more
localized impacts. Measuring noise more locally and precisely (e.g., at the census block level)
would avoid this “blending” and diluting of noise exposure. The Committee also notes that, on the
national level, numerous studies of alternative noise metrics highlight the deficiencies of DNL.
Further, the FAA’s metrics rely on A-Weighting to measure sound pressure levels (e.g., the way
the ear hears), commonly expressed in dBA. A-Weighting was originally intended only for the
measurement of low-level sounds. Yet it is now commonly used for the measurement of
environmental and industrial noise, including aircraft noise, as well as when assessing potential
hearing damage and other noise health effects at all sound levels. However, because A-Weighting
is applicable to only low levels, it tends to devalue the effects of low frequency noise in particular.
Other frequency weighting, such as “C-” and “Z-” Weightings are available. Use of these
frequency weightings yields measurements of all noise, instead of only a small fraction of it.
43
25
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the congressional Quiet Skies Caucus to require
the FAA to lower the acceptable DNL threshold from the current level of 65, and to use
supplemental metrics that characterize the true impact of airline noise experienced by people on
the ground; and further encourages broader congressional consideration of these efforts.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the U.S. Congress require the FAA
to adopt supplemental metrics for aircraft noise that characterize the true impact
experienced by people on the ground.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.4 Capacity Limitations
The Select Committee understands that the growth in air traffic for the Bay Area is projected to
increase by approximately 2 percent per annum. While overall capacity limitations have not been
reached at San Francisco International Airport, the availability of additional daytime flight
capacity is limited, and it is anticipated that future traffic growth can only be accommodated during
nighttime hours. The impact of additional flights during overnight hours is significantly greater to
those on the ground, and requires stricter nighttime regulations to avoid sleep interference, as
discussed further in Item 2.4 in this Report (Overnight Flights). Longer term, increased traffic
levels may necessitate implementation of capacity limitations, such as longer in-trail spacing
between aircraft or assigned gate slots.
Recommendation: The Select Committee believes these capacity issues should be considered by
any successor committee, as recommended in Item 3.1, Recommendations 1
and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise
Mitigation).
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.5 Aircraft Speed
The issue of aircraft speed and its impact on noise arose late in the Select Committee’s
deliberations.
Recommendation: The Select Committee believes the issue of aircraft speed and its impact on
noise should be considered by any successor committee, as recommended in
Item 3.1, Recommendations 1 and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing
Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation).
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
44
26
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 4: PROCESS ISSUES
In its deliberations, the Select Committee identified three process issues of note that warrant further
consideration and follow-up.
4.1 Who Makes Recommendations to Whom
In the face of widespread concern about aircraft noise over portions of three counties, the Select
Committee was empaneled to provide recommendations to Members of Congress on appropriate
measures to eliminate or mitigate noise where practicable. The Committee members understood
and accepted that assignment, and this Report represents the Committee’s best effort to offer such
recommendations.
That being said, the mitigation of aircraft noise is a highly technical matter. The Committee was
wholly comprised of (elected) lay people. Charging a group of elected lay people with the
responsibility for making recommendations in this area seems less than ideal, particularly when
the FAA has the requisite expertise and responsibility to manage aircraft traffic in the public
interest.
Simply put, notwithstanding the FAA’s good faith effort to provide technical expertise to the
Committee, the Committee’s view is that the process is fundamentally backwards – the FAA
should be going to Members of Congress and their affected constituencies with proposals for
review and comment, not the other way around.
Recommendation: Should a similar process be employed here or elsewhere in the country in the
future, the Select Committee recommends that, to the greatest degree possible,
the FAA be charged with the responsibility for identifying and proposing
solutions to mitigate noise concerns, and that community groups and elected
officials be consulted for review and comment, and to offer additional
suggestions.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
4.2 Need for Before/After Noise Monitoring
The lack of aircraft noise monitoring prior to the implementation of NextGen hampered the
Committee’s (and the public’s) ability to measure and document the actual impacts of the changes
that were implemented in March 2015. Looking ahead, the Committee is concerned that if the
FAA fails to perform “before and after” noise measurements related to the implementation of
Recommendations contained in this Report, there will likewise be an inability to measure, analyze
and verify, and document the desired improvements. Accordingly, the Select Committee offers the
following Recommendation.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA and/or SFO monitor and
document noise exposure of any feasible solutions before and after FAA
45
27
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
implementation to ensure impacts are verified, and to determine whether results
are of a discernible benefit.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends the implementation of a set of regional noise
monitoring stations that will adequately monitor aircraft noise levels at
carefully selected points in the San Francisco Bay Area and the three
Congressional Districts represented on the Select Committee. Collected data
shall be made available to citizens upon request.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
4.3 Ensuring Compliance
The Committee received significant comment from both the public, and the elected official
members of the Committee, about prior understandings, directives, or agreements, including those
regarding altitude restrictions, not being adhered to. Such comments suggest the need for
compliance monitoring with respect to previously agreed to efforts, and with respect to newly
identified noise mitigation efforts.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends careful documentation and ongoing
compliance monitoring for any set of solutions accepted and implemented by
the FAA. The Committee recommends that the Members of Congress ensure
that the FAA takes the appropriate steps to measure and guarantee ongoing
compliance.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
46
A1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX A: Vote Record
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Si
m
i
t
i
a
n
,
C
h
a
i
r
Le
o
p
o
l
d
,
V
i
c
e
Ch
a
i
r
Pi
n
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
Ad
d
i
e
g
o
Be
r
n
a
l
d
Bo
t
t
o
r
f
f
Hi
n
d
i
La
n
e
Mc
P
h
e
r
s
o
n
Mo
o
d
y
Wa
l
d
e
c
k
We
n
g
e
r
t
To
t
a
l
UP Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
1.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R1 N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 8-4-0
1.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.2 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.6 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.6 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.9 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.9 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.11 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -- Y Y -- Y 10-0-2
2.12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
47
A2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Si
m
i
t
i
a
n
,
C
h
a
i
r
Le
o
p
o
l
d
,
V
i
c
e
Ch
a
i
r
Pi
n
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
Ad
d
i
e
g
o
Be
r
n
a
l
d
Bo
t
t
o
r
f
f
Hi
n
d
i
La
n
e
Mc
P
h
e
r
s
o
n
Mo
o
d
y
Wa
l
d
e
c
k
We
n
g
e
r
t
To
t
a
l
2.13 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.14 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
2.15 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.16 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
2.17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.1 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.1 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.2 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
48
B1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX B: Map of Key Waypoints
49
C1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BSR and SERFR
50
C2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: NIITE
51
C3
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: CNDEL
52
C4
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD
53
C5
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BRIXX
54
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2103 Name:
Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/17/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Study Session on Wireless Facilities within the Public Right of Way
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - “Bridging the Gap – 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook”
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Study Session on Wireless Facilities within the Public Right of Way
RecommendthattheCityCouncilconductastudysessionandprovidedirectiononthe
proposed use of public street light poles to mount small cellular facilities
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™55
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Study Session on Wireless Facilities within the Public Right of Way.
Recommended Action
Recommend that the City Council conduct a study session and provide direction on the
proposed use of public street light poles to mount small cellular facilities.
Discussion
The Public Works Department has been approached by three separate companies
interested in utilizing City infrastructure, most notably City street lights, to mount small
cellular facilities which would improve cellular service within the City. The three
companies who have approached the City are Verizon, Mobilitie and Crown Castle.
The City understands that AT&T is anticipating to apply for facilities in early 2017.
This City has been negotiating with Verizon for several months, but has not yet reached
mutually agreeable terms regarding lease rates and other points. Both Mobilitie and
Crown Castle have recently initiated the negotiation process.
On November 2, 2016, the Cupertino Technology, Information and Communications
Commission (TICC) was presented information on small cellular facilities. TICC
Commissioners expressed interest in having small cellular facilities to enhance the
existing cellular network within the City, and provided various recommendations
regarding a master license agreement between the City and potential Licensees. These
recommendations were either already incorporated into the draft master agreement, or
were added based on their recommendations. The TICC wanted to ensure that any
build-outs are managed so as to accommodate as many different carriers as possible,
which may result in co-location of facilities and/or City management of facility spacing.
Additionally, there was discussion of what potential options there may be to have the
City build out the infrastructure for this network, and have carriers rent facilities from
the City.
56
Currently, the City proposes to manage these small cellular facilities through a
negotiated master license agreement which would be approved and accepted by the
City Council prior to implementation, and the City would issue a separate
encroachment permit and a site license agreement for each proposed small cellular
facility location. The City anticipates requiring the licensee to notify nearby residents
prior to issuance of the permit in order to field any questions, and to inform residents of
the build out and services available to them, including possible options to have the
service provider test for electromagnetic emissions in their home, if desired.
Public Works will coordinate with the Community Development, as well as with the
Licensees, to establish guidelines for screening the small cellular facilities to ensure
visual aspects of the facilities are acceptable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Senior Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A- “Bridging the Gap – 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook”
57
SILICON VALLEY
Bridging the Gap
21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook
SEPTEMBER 2016
58
This report was prepared by David Witkowski, Executive Director, Wireless
Communications Initiative at Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Jill Jennings created the
report’s layout and design; Duffy Jennings served as copy editor.
Joint Venture would like to thank the following people for their contributions and
support of this project:
• William J. McShane II, Connected City Experience, Philips Lighting
• Joe Madden, Mobile Experts LLC
• Randall Schwabacher, AT&T
• Omar Masry AICP, City & County of San Francisco
• Chetan Sharma Consulting
JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY
Established in 1993, Joint Venture Silicon Valley brings together established and
emerging leaders—from business, government, academia, labor and the broader
community—to spotlight issues, launch projects, and work toward innovative solutions.
For more information, visit www.jointventure.org
For more information or to contact the Wireless Communications Initiative
go to www.jointventure.org/wireless.
AUTHOR CONTACT INFO
David Witkowski
Executive Director, Wireless Communications Initiative
wireless@jointventure.org
(408) 298-9333
Acknowledgments
2 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 59
Introduction 4
Factors Driving Change 7
Societal Value of Wireless Broadband 10
Mobile Network Densification 12
Wireless Telecom Legislation 19
Wireless Telecom Roadmap – What Does The Future Hold? 24
Recommendations for Municipal Governments 27
Recommendations for Carriers, Operators, and Utilities 30
Takeaways for Municipal Leaders 31
Glossary of Terms 32
Works Cited 34
Table of Contents
3Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook60
Introduction
Wireless technologies offer an exciting opportunity to connect people, solve
problems in our cities, and make our lives better. This briefing was written
primarily for municipal employees, public officials, and civic leaders to help
guide their understanding of these technologies. This document will cover
much ground. We’ll look at what’s driving the need for wireless data, the societal
value of wireless data networks, the technologies that are being deployed to
build those networks, and the regulatory environment for wireless facilities that
govern how carriers and local governments must interact. We’ll close with an
overview of some new technologies that will likely be deployed in years to come,
and some forward-looking recommendations for both local governments and
wireless carriers.
Wireless networks have come a long way since the first portable cellular call was
made on the streets of New York City in 1973. In 1997, at a wireless conference
hosted by Stanford University, a telecom executive famously declared, “voice is
the killer app” and for a time this was gospel truth – until the Blackberry with its
mobile email and rudimentary mobile browser became the must-have tool for
businesspeople and then consumers. In 2010 sales of smartphones with Apple’s
iOS or Google’s Android OS exploded, and the Blackberry went from a must-
have gadget to e-waste in less than a year. Data was in fact “the killer app” as
consumers switched their communication method from voice to texting and rich
media.
Figure 1: Smartphone Sales by Year
Source: Wikipedia, Gartner, IDC, Kantar Worldpanel
Just over a decade after the economy was rocked by the collapse of the Dot-Com
Boom, Silicon Valley has reinvented itself as the center of the Mobile Economy
and the Sharing Economy. Every company from the “Four Horsemen” (Google,
Apple, Amazon, and Facebook) down to the smallest seed-funded startup
“Just over a
decade after the
economy was
rocked by the
collapse of the
Dot-Com Boom,
Silicon Valley has
reinvented itself as
the center of the
Mobile Economy
and the Sharing
Economy.”
4 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 61
has built its strategy around smartphone apps, cloud computing, and mobile
networks – creating enormous demand for fast ubiquitous wireless coverage.
A running joke in venture capital during 2016 is that an investment pitch deck
must contain the phrase “Our vision is to be the Uber of…” to be fundable, and
given the number of startups which are providing cloud-connected smartphone
apps this may be somewhat true. Sharing Economy companies like Uber rely
on wireless networks to request rides, locate passengers, provide safety by
confirming identities, track vehicle movement for insurance purposes, and
for completing payment and driver/passenger reviews in real time. Without a
reliable and robust wireless network, Uber and hundreds of other new Mobile
Economy companies could not exist.
Mobile network operators, faced with skyrocketing demand that presented
both an enormous opportunity and a seemingly impossible technical challenge,
began shifting their deployment strategies away from voice telephony to
mobile data for smartphones. Network operators have attempted to meet
both consumer demands and regulatory requirements in a rapidly changing
technology and economic landscape. The wireless networks of the 21st century’s
first decade were designed to carry voice and small amounts of data, not to
provide broadband data at speeds that rival or exceed wired broadband rates.
Mobile is a competitive business, and subscribers unhappy with their carrier’s
network performance can easily switch their phone number and service to
another provider – the industry term for this is churn. Carriers are so desperate
to win customers that they’ll offer hundreds of dollars to cover early termination
fees and free phones worth hundreds of dollars – just to get subscribers to sign a
12 month contract.
Figure 2: Global Mobile Data Usage (per month)
Source: Mobile Experts LLC
“The wireless
networks of the
21st century’s
first decade were
designed to carry
voice and small
amounts of data,
not to provide
broadband data
at speeds that
rival or exceed
wired broadband
rates.”
5Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook62
To build a wireless network, spectrum must first be leased in a highly
competitive auction conducted by the Federal Communications Commission
– and this cost is not trivial. Wireless spectrum purchased during the spectrum
auction known as “AWS-3” cost the bid winners over $44 billion, paid up front to
the U.S. Government, and that was a relatively small auction – just one of many
over the past three decades. (FCC AWS-3 Auction Results, 2015) Having paid for
spectrum, the carriers then have to invest in wireless facility siting studies, pre-
application meetings, permit applications, and engineering designs/redesigns.
The equipment, personnel, and tools to install wireless networks are all funded
up front. It takes years of monthly subscriber revenue before the carriers can
realize a profit on these capital and operational expenses.
Every time a call is dropped or a data connection is too slow, the wireless carrier
risks losing a customer to churn. If an area often experiences dropped calls or
slow data, a carrier will want to fix that problem – and that means upgraded
equipment or new sites, which must be permitted by local governments. And
that interaction hasn’t always been positive.
Given the urgency placed on carriers to enhance networks, reduce churn, and
meet users’ demand for faster data it was probably inevitable that conflicts
between carriers, operators, and local governments would arise. Carriers and
operators feel that some local governments have treated applications for
wireless facilities with either disdain or outright hostility, and that application
processes are often unclear or arbitrary, and subject to repeated demands
for eleventh-hour revisions. Local governments feel that some carriers and
utilities have been dishonest in their applications, built systems that don’t
match the application’s plans and rendered drawings, or failed to heed requests
for integration with local design and architecture standards. Each side has
their horror stories, and certainly each side has made mistakes. Our shared
goal should be to move beyond those mistakes and go forward together in
partnership between industry and local governments, to create world-class
wireless networks that will support current needs and pave the way for future
innovation. Fast and ubiquitous wireless networks are critical resources for
our country’s citizens, and failing to provide them is no different than failing
to provide clean drinking water, natural gas, sewage service, or electricity. Yet
we must also respect the need for minimalist, quiet, and aesthetically-pleasing
infrastructure.
“Fast and
ubiquitous
wireless networks
are critical
resources for
our country’s
citizens.”
6 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 63
Factors Driving Change
User Demand for Mobile Data
By any measure, the demand for mobile data is enormous and not likely to
slow down. Ericsson’s 2016 Mobility Report estimates the consumption of data
on mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, and mobile-enabled PCs) in North
America was 1.3 Exabytes (1 Exabyte equals 1 billion Gigabytes) per month in
2015, and forecasts this will increase to 9.1 EB per month by 2021. Smartphones
will drive the majority of that usage, increasing by 7x today’s consumption. In
2015, the average smartphone in North America consumed 3.7 GB of data per
month, and this will increase to 22 GB per month by 2021. (Ericsson AB, 2016)
These usage rates are driven heavily by the Mobile Economy – a fundamental
shift in user behavior in communication and commerce from PCs connected by
wired internet to smartphones and tablets connected by mobile networks. In
2014 the Mobile Economy ecosystem contributed 3.5% of the economy in North
America, at a value of $670 billion. This is projected to increase to $750 billion by
2020. (GSM Association, 2015)
Figure 3: Economic contribution of mobile ecosystem to North American economy
Source: GSMA Intelligence
Users Want More for Less
While the number of users and the amount of mobile data they consume
has gone up, market forces have driven down the average revenue per user.
According to the Cellular Telephone Industry Association’s 2015 Annual Survey,
in 1993 the average revenue per user was $76.55, but in 2015 it was only $44.65.
(CTIA, 2015) Free-market competition between carriers has been very successful
in making wireless networks more affordable for more citizens, but it places
enormous downward revenue pressure on the carriers.
Spectrum Scarcity
Spectrum is the term for the range of electromagnetic frequencies which are
used to provide wireless services. Spectrum is like land – there’s only so much of
it. Every bit and byte of information we consume over a mobile network requires
“In 2014 the
Mobile Economy
ecosystem
contributed 3.5%
of the economy
in North America,
at a value of
$670 billion. This
is projected to
increase to $750
billion by 2020.”
7Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook64
a certain amount of spectrum to make the connection. As of 2016 the amount
of spectrum allocated to LTE use for wireless broadband data in the USA is over
2 GHz, which is barely enough to support our current mobile data usage. Like
constructing a high-rise building to make efficient use of land, we can make our
use of spectrum more efficient – but this approach has limits. One approach
to improving spectrum efficiency is densification – reusing the spectrum from
large macro towers that cover many square miles in systems that cover a few
city blocks, the inside of a building, or even a single room. Known collectively
as Heterogeneous Networks or HetNets these don’t replace the large macro
towers, but are supplemental to them – focusing scarce spectrum resources into
areas where people tend to use the most data.
There are two types of spectrum; licensed and unlicensed. Licensed spectrum
is leased by regulatory authorities (such as the FCC) to users, who then use the
spectrum for various purposes. In most cases, the commercial lease holders of
licensed spectrum must pay the government for an exclusive right to use that
spectrum, the spectrum must be used to provide a “public good” such as wireless
data networks, and the lease holders have legal standing to file a complaint
against anyone who interferes with those systems. Unlicensed spectrum is the
other type of spectrum – it’s provided at no charge to the general public for use
in consumer devices and conveniences such as garage door openers, cordless
phones, and Wi-Fi networks in homes and businesses. The general public doesn’t
need a license to use this spectrum, but they also have no standing to pursue
claims or file complaints about interference.
Smart Cities and the Internet of Things
Along with the rise in mobile subscribers and data usage, machines and
autonomous devices are increasingly connected to the network. This so-called
Internet of Things or “IoT ” is predicted by the Ericsson Mobility Report to reach
15.7 billion devices in 2021. While not a firm definition, IoT typically refers to
connected cars, sensors (including cameras), displays and actuators, utility
metering and control, industrial systems, and consumer electronics. Systems
that use IoT technology often form the basis of municipal Smart City systems for
transportation, resource management, public safety, and other civic applications.
IHS Markit Technology forecasts the installed base will grow to 69.5 billion units
in 2025 and device shipments will grow to 18.1 billion units in 2025. (IHS Markit,
2016)
“One approach
to improving
spectrum
efficiency is
densification
– reusing the
spectrum from
large macro
towers that cover
many square
miles in systems
that cover a
few city blocks,
the inside of a
building, or even
a single room.”
8 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 65
Figure 4: IoT Devices - Installed Base & Device Shipments
Source: IHS Markit Technology, Internet of Things Devices & Connectivity Intelligence Service, 2Q 2016
2G / 3G / 4G / 5G
In the early days of digital cellular telephony, the definition of a wireless
system’s “generation” was not standard and was used primarily as a marketing
device. As the first analog cellular systems gave way to new digital cellular,
the newcomer was called Second Generation or 2G. The UN’s International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) began seeking international agreement
on, and publishing recommendations for, standardized definitions that next-
generation systems would have to meet. The Third Generation or 3G family of
standards was known as IMT-2000. (International Telecommunications Union,
2011) The ITU defined recommendations for the 4G family standards as IMT-
Advanced which was standardized as “Long Term Evolution” or LTE, and the 5G
family of standards will be known as IMT-2020. (ITU, 2016)
The Long Road to 5G
Much has been written about 5G, the next evolution of mobile broadband.
Targeted by the ITU for final publication in 2020, 5G will contain many features
that support high-speed data, increased spectrum efficiency, and support the
Internet of Things. 5G deployments will be driven by carriers and network
operators, and will require significant up-front investments from them.
Meanwhile LTE continues to evolve, with new features added every year. In
the past, technologies like 4G have taken several years to reach dominance
– in fact, most analyst forecasts show that 4G subscriptions won’t exceed
combined 2G + 3G subscriptions until 2021. By 2021 there will be about 150
“In the past,
technologies like
4G have taken
several years to
reach dominance
– in fact, most
analyst forecasts
show that 4G
subscriptions
won’t exceed
combined 2G +
3G subscriptions
until 2021.”
9Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook66
million 5G subscriptions – a small number relative to the massive number of 4G
subscriptions. (Ericsson AB, 2016)
Figure 5: Mobile Technology Lifecycles (North America)
Source: Chetan Sharma Consulting
Societal Value of Wireless Broadband
Wireless Voice and Broadband are Not Luxuries
Consumers are increasingly giving up wired telephones and even wired
broadband in favor of mobile networks. This is especially true of younger people
but also in economically disadvantaged communities. The reason is simple –
given a limited household budget, the convenience of a mobile device both at
home and away from home outweighs the inconvenience of lower data rates
and possible dropped calls.
Increased Demand for Wireless Connectivity
Twice a year the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes
the Wireless Substitution Report via the Centers for Disease Control, based
on data from the National Health Interview Survey. These reports have
consistently shown an increase in the rate at which people are giving up wired
phones for wireless. Estimated results from the May – December 2015 survey
show that nearly one-half of all households nationally (48.3%) did not have a
landline phone but did have at least one wireless phone. Looking nationwide
approximately 47.7% of all adults lived in households with only wireless phones,
and 57.7% of all children lived in households with only wireless phones. These
numbers are notably higher for the western U.S. region (including California)
“Consumers
are increasingly
giving up wired
telephones
and even wired
broadband in
favor of mobile
networks. This
is especially
true of younger
people but also
in economically
disadvantaged
communities.”
10 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 67
where wireless-only rates exceed 51%. The results from other demographics
are striking. Almost 3 in 4 adults (72.6%) under the age of 29 did not have wired
phones. 68.8% of renters were wireless only, as were 78.8% of adults living with
roommates. 60.5% of Hispanic families and 64.3% of families below the poverty
line did not have wired phones. (Centers for Disease Control, 2016) This trend
towards wireless-only connectivity is likely to continue for many years to come.
Figure 6 : Percentages of adults and children living in households with only wireless telephone service: United States,
2003-2015
Note: Adultes are aged 18 and over; children are under age 18.
Source: NCHS, National Health Interview Survey
Wireless Broadband is a Primary Internet Access Tool
Giulia McHenry, Chief Economist, Office of Policy Analysis and Development for
the U.S. Department of Commerce, published a blog article which showed that
American households are rapidly shifting their broadband connectivity from
wired (cable, DSL, etc.) to wireless. (McHenry, 2016) The article’s source data
comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Computer and Internet Use Supplement”
to the Current Population Survey (CPS), which includes data collected for the
NTIA in July 2015 from nearly 53,000 U.S. households. The results of this survey
are striking – Households with annual incomes below $25,000 are 29% likely to
be accessing the internet via only mobile broadband, and households between
$25,000 and $49,999 annual income are 24% likely to be mobile-only. Survey
data from The Field Poll in 2016 found that 14% of California residents connect
to the internet only through a smartphone. For households earning less than
$22,000 per year, the rate is 25%. (CETF, 2016)
“Households
with annual
incomes below
$25,000 are
29% likely to
be accessing
the internet via
only mobile
broadband.”
11Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook68
Broadband Access Reduces Unemployment
In March 2016, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers issued a
briefing which showed that access to the internet reduced the duration of
unemployment periods. In households with access, the likelihood someone
would be employed again within 12 months was almost 50%. In households
without access, the rate was only just above 30%. (White House Council of
Economic Advisors, 2016) This should be no surprise – job posting and job
application are increasingly done online and via email. Lower income earners
are often employed in temporary positions – and with increasingly more
lower-income workers employed in Sharing Economy and Gig Economy jobs
the timeliness of their response to openings is critical. A slow mobile data
connection can prevent a ride-share service driver from claiming a passenger.
A missed email or phone call means a temporary worker doesn’t learn about
an opportunity to get work, and the job goes to someone else. Given what we
know from McHenry’s NTIA article, it becomes clear that failure to provide a
robust mobile broadband network has a direct and asymmetrical impact on our
nation’s most vulnerable citizens.
Unconnected Cities
It’s easy to think the problem of unconnected citizens only exists in third world
countries or remote towns in the mountains, but this is incorrect. Research
published in 2016 shows that over 25% of residents in major U.S. cities such as
Los Angeles and New York don’t have readily available access to the internet.
(Maravedis & Wi-Fi 360, 2016)
Mobile Network Densification
Densification and Heterogeneous Networks
Densification is the term for adding equipment to augment existing mobile
networks and provide additional capacity in areas of high usage. Densification
technologies include Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Small Cells.
Because these are different from large macro towers but operate in cooperation
with them, a densified network is sometimes called a Heterogeneous Network
or HetNet.
“Research
published in 2016
shows that over
25% of residents
in major U.S.
cities such as Los
Angeles and New
York don’t have
readily available
access to the
internet.”
12 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 69
Figure 7: Small Cell and DAS Sites Add Capacity to Existing Networks
Source: Joint Venture Silicon Valley
Why are HetNets Important?
Usage of mobile data occurs where humans congregate, and 80% of mobile
data is consumed while the user is relatively fixed in location. Draw a box on a
map, highlight the areas where 90% of the data is used, and 95% of the map will
be dark – we don’t typically consume large amounts of data while standing in
the middle of an empty field. We use data in our homes, workplaces, vehicles,
restaurants, shopping malls, and sports venues. Of course, when people
congregate in areas and use data all at once the amount of data available is
averaged over the users – resulting in slow connections and poor performance.
HetNet technologies allow network designers to concentrate resources and
serve high demand areas with dense populations. Of course, usage in any
given area can vary by day of the week, time of day, or the season. A beachside
tourist area needs lots of capacity on weekends during summer, a bit less during
summer weekdays, and almost no capacity during the middle of a week in the
dead of winter.
HetNet Ordinances and Codes
Some ordinances written during the early days of cellular telephony don’t
differentiate between the smallest wireless facility attached to a utility pole
and a 70-foot-tall macro tower – and this is a mistake. HetNet systems are very
different than large macro tower systems, and should be covered under separate
ordinances and codes that account for those differences.
“Usage of
mobile data occurs
where humans
congregate, and
80% of mobile
data is consumed
while the user is
relatively fixed
in location.”
13Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook70
Municipal ordinances and codes sometimes encourage co-location (the term for
wireless facilities from multiple network operators that are attached to the same
physical structure) by requiring minimum separation distances between wireless
systems. In the early days of cellular telephony this separation might have
made sense, but HetNets can be located closer together without creating safety,
interference, or performance issues. Sometimes these outdated separation
ordinances force network operators to locate HetNet facilities in undesirable
locations, which is neither ideal for optimizing network performance nor a good
investment for the network operator. Municipal governments should revise
separation ordinances to allow closer placement of HetNet facilities to adjacent
sites.
Distributed Antenna Systems
Distributed Antenna Systems or DAS systems are created when multiple
antenna nodes are attached via coax cable or fiber to centralized radio
equipment – hence the term “distributed.” Connection of the radio equipment
to the core network is typically done via fiber optics. DAS systems are most
often used indoors to provide robust coverage inside convention centers, large
buildings, and shopping centers. There are also outdoor DAS (o-DAS) networks
– typically along driving routes where the terrain is difficult to cover with
macro towers, and in parks and sports stadiums. The benefit of DAS is that the
antennas are typically small and simple to install. The downside of DAS is that
the signal levels from each antenna need to be balanced and adjusted to ensure
uniform coverage and avoid gaps.
Small Cells
The definition of what constitutes a Small Cell is not yet standardized. This
creates a challenge for municipal governments when they try to create telecom
ordinances and do planning to manage applications for wireless facilities that
fall under federal and state laws. One common definition is that a Small Cell
is a self-contained wireless access node. There are several types of Small Cell
technologies:
• Femtocells that cover a single room
• Picocells that cover several rooms
• Microcells that cover buildings and large areas
• Metrocells which are typically used in outdoor environments to cover
community areas parks or residences over a few square blocks
“The definition
of what
constitutes a
Small Cell is not
yet standardized...
One common
definition is that a
Small Cell is a self-
contained wireless
access node.”
14 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 71
Small Cells are used in HetNets to provide densification so another common
definition of a Small Cell is based on the signal coverage area, described by the
Small Cell Forum as “typically [having] a range from 10 meters to several hundred
meters”. (Small Cell Forum, 2016)
The benefit of Small Cells is that each acts as an independent node of a network,
under control of the carrier’s monitoring and control system. The downside is
that fiber and power must be run to each node, and because the equipment
comprises both the radio and the antenna, the total volume needed to house
each node is larger than DAS. The rate of deployment for Small Cells by carriers
will grow exponentially over the next five years. Analysis by Mobile Experts LLC
forecasts that carrier-owned Small Cell installs will reach nearly 1.5 million units
per year worldwide by 2021. (Mobile Experts LLC, 2016)
Will HetNets replace large macro towers?
HetNets are intended to augment existing networks, not replace them. Although
most typical mobile usage occurs in a small area, occasional use can occur
anywhere and failure to provide wide area coverage creates a public safety issue.
Large towers provide connection continuity as users move from one HetNet
node to another, ensuring the smooth transfer of the voice or data connection
between nodes. We still need the macro tower network to provide this wide
area coverage, and the rise of Small Cells and DAS should not be seen as an
opportunity to tear down large macro towers. Large towers are also used for
other purposes such as public safety (police, fire, and medical) two-way radio,
private microwave networks, and wireless internet service providers who provide
a competitive alternative to wired broadband.
Definition of Small Cells by RF Power
Some industry definitions of Small Cells are based on Radio Frequency (RF)
power output levels, which are smaller than those in large macro towers. Other
definitions are based on the Small Cell’s Effective Radiated Power (ERP) or
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP), which are calculated after adding in
antenna gain and subtracting system losses. The gain or loss of RF power in a
system is rated in decibels – a logarithmic measurement of ratio, abbreviated
“dB”. (This should not be confused with “Audio Decibels” a term used to measure
the loudness of sounds.) Output power may be given in either Watts, or in units
of dBm.
Calculations of RF power, system losses, and antenna gain are complex. If you
don’t have an electrical engineer with a wireless background on staff, it’s strongly
recommend you hire or retain one as a consultant or contractor.
“HetNets
are intended
to augment
existing networks,
not replace
them...Large
towers provide
connection
continuity as
users move from
one HetNet node
to another.”
15Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook72
Wireless Network Offload
Even with HetNet technology for densification, the availability of RF spectrum
is a key component in how much information can be passed over a wireless
network. In 2008, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) told the
Federal Communications Commission that mobile carriers would eventually
need an additional 800 MHz of RF spectrum (on top of the aforementioned 2
GHz already in use by the industry) to keep up with projected demand. (CTIA
Filing to FCC, 2009) Unfortunately, this amount of spectrum is simply not
available, and the costs to acquire it would be very high. FCC is trying to shift
some of the old television spectrum to the wireless carriers, and the estimated
costs (as of July 2016) for reclaiming only 100 MHz of this TV spectrum is $86
billion. (FCC 600 MHz Auction, 2016)
To deal with rising user demand and limited spectrum carriers have begun
to look at other ways to increase capacity, using a technique called Offload.
Offloading refers to the process where the mobile network instructs the user’s
device to connect via equipment running in unlicensed spectrum under the
carrier’s control. So for example, if a subscriber wants to watch a streaming video
the network would serve that request by determining if an offload site is within
range, and if so divert the user’s data connection to obtain the data via the
offload network, leaving the carrier’s network free to handle other traffic.
Figure 8: Mobile Network Offload Using Wi-Fi
Source: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, June 2012
Wi-Fi
Most of us know Wi-Fi as the technology we use in our homes and offices to
connect devices wirelessly to a local area network. Wi-Fi is based on the IEEE
802.11 family of standards, and has evolved many times over since its first
release in the early 1990s. At the technology level modern Wi-Fi shares many
traits with mobile broadband standards such as LTE – the differences between
“Even with
HetNet technology
for densification,
the availability of
RF spectrum is a
key component
in how much
information
can be passed
over a wireless
network.”
16 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 73
them are that Wi-Fi was originally designed as a consumer technology to easily
create local private networks, whereas LTE was designed as a network operator
technology operating under centralized control to create wide-area commercial
networks.
Wi-Fi is great for attachment of nearby semi-stationary devices, but unlike LTE
it does not work well when the device is moving quickly. This is because the
Wi-Fi standard does not provide a mechanism to shift a device’s connection to
another access point when the signal becomes weak, and the range of a Wi-Fi
access point is in practice no more than 250 meters. This creates a condition
known as “fail before fix” – a device will remain attached to a Wi-Fi access point
until the signal is completely gone and only then will it begin looking for a better
option. One can imagine how this would play out while driving down a street
or highway – by the time a device attached itself to an access point, it would be
out of range. In contrast, cellular telephony and data networks provide devices
with a list of nearby sites, and when the signal from a nearby site grows strong
enough the device requests a handoff to a nearby site.
Historically one drawback of Wi-Fi has been that it didn’t allow roaming – the
ability to use the Wi-Fi networks of other operators when you’re not in range
of a network where you have an account. To use another network you have
to connect manually, often with a password. Over time your smartphone’s
list of Wi-Fi networks grows, and that list has to be managed manually. This is
changing as Wi-Fi network operators deploy a technology called “Hotspot 2.0” or
“NGH 2.0” that allows your phone to automatically attach to any NGH 2.0 hotspot
that has an agreement with your operator. Not many smartphones are capable
of supporting NGH 2.0, but this will change as new phones are released.
Wi-Fi can be used as an offload technology under control of the carrier network,
in a process called LTE - Wi-Fi Link Aggregation or LWA . LWA Wi-Fi nodes are
typically co-located with the carrier equipment, usually built into the Small Cell
housing. While initially a popular idea, the challenges of managing two parallel
networks has greatly reduced the likelihood that LWA will become dominant,
and network operators have been shifting focus away from LWA towards other
techniques.
LTE Unlicensed
Mobile operators are strongly considering deployment of LTE Unlicensed or
LTE-U, which is an offload technique that uses LTE signals in the unlicensed
bands. LTE-U is attractive to network operators because it’s purely LTE; there
are no auction costs to the operator, and no license application process for
using unlicensed spectrum. Handoff and roaming are easily done, as they’re
already part of the LTE standard. However because the spectrum is unlicensed
the operators have no ownership rights, so if an LTE-U system experiences
“Wi-Fi was
originally
designed as
a consumer
technology to
easily create local
private networks,
whereas LTE was
designed as a
network operator
technology
operating under
centralized
control.”
17Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook74
interference from another system the operators must work out their differences
privately or resolve the problem through technical means.
The question of whether LTE-U can politely co-exist and share unlicensed
spectrum with Wi-Fi is still being considered – after extensive debate between
the Wi-Fi and LTE-U vendors a coexistence test plan is due to publish in
September 2016, and some early test results have been published, but
comprehensive results will not be available for some time.
Another offload technique uses Wi-Fi connections under control of the carrier
network, in a process called LTE - Wi-Fi Link Aggregation or LWA . These Wi-Fi
nodes are typically co-located with the carrier equipment, usually built into the
Small Cell housing.
In April 2015, the FCC created the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or
CBRS, a 150 MHz allocation in the 3.5 GHz band intended for use by Small
Cell equipment. Because the CBRS band overlaps with some existing satellite
communication systems, the CBRS band defines three tiers of users: Incumbent
Access (IA), Priority Access (PA), and General Access (GA). IA users are federal
entities like the Department of Defense, arms of the military, etc. PA users
will have to pay for preferential access to CBRS, and in return they’ll receive
protection from GA users. GA users will be able to use CBRS for free – very
much like the current unlicensed bands – but GA will have to stop transmitting
if a PA user claims priority to the frequencies. In CBRS, the priority system is
managed by a central licensing database, and this licensing system is still under
development.
To date, only IA and PA users have been authorized to use the band. In order to
use CBRS spectrum, the user’s equipment must first be able to determine if other
users have priority, which means that another data network must be accessible.
It remains to be seen if GA use of CBRS will ever become a reality. In the long
run, it’s expected that the CBRS band will be able to provide a large amount of RF
bandwidth for carriers seeking to serve user demand, and that CBRS Small Cells
will dominate by 2021. (Mobile Experts LLC, 2016)
Figure 9: Federal Government Tiering Structure for 3.5 GHz Small Cell Band
Source: Joint Venture Silicon Valley
“Mobile
operators
are strongly
considering
deployment of
LTE Unlicensed
or LTE-U, which
is an offload
technique that
uses LTE signals
in the unlicensed
bands.”
18 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 75
Backhaul is Critical for Wireless Broadband
Every node in a wireless network, from the smallest femtocell to the largest
mountain-top macro tower, requires a connection to the carrier’s data network.
For femtocells and picocells, this is typically done with Ethernet connection via
an in-building network. For metrocells, microcells, and DAS deployments, fiber
optic connections are used. If neither fiber nor Ethernet are available, wireless
connections may be used. This connection of a wireless site facility to the
operator’s core network is called backhaul.
A common technology for backhaul is fiber optics. There are two kinds of fiber
optic networks – lit fiber and dark fiber. If a section of fiber optic and the
associated network hardware is owned by a company that then sells capacity
on that system to more than one user or network operator, the fiber is said to be
“lit.” If a section of fiber optic cabling is leased solely for one network operator,
or is installed by a utility for later use by a customer, the fiber is said to be
“dark.” In almost all cases, mobile network operators want dark fiber because
this gives them control and allows them to ensure the highest levels of service
quality. If dark fiber is not available then it needs to be installed – either via
aerial runs along poles, into existing conduit, or via new conduit. Underground
construction is time consuming, expensive, and potentially disruptive to
existing underground systems – so installing conduit for future use during other
construction projects is increasingly popular.
The availability of dark fiber and conduit is a key enabler to making the transition
to HetNets a reality. Network operators will typically take advantage of any dark
fiber and conduit they can obtain. Conduit and fiber are relatively inexpensive
to install when the work is done during other construction projects, and can be
used for future municipal purposes such as business park build-outs, smart city
networks, and providing broadband at home to citizens.
Wireless backhaul is an emerging technology that can be used where
aerial runs or conduits are not available. These systems use extremely high
frequency channels (in the 60 – 70 GHz range) to pass large amounts of data.
Due to limitations in how RF signals behave at these frequencies, designing
and deploying a wireless backhaul network requires a level of engineering
sophistication beyond that of fiber optics, and as such in most cases it remains a
more complex solution that’s used only when fiber and conduit not available.
Wireless Telecom Legislation
Overview & Background
Since the early days of cellular telephony the federal government has sought to
encourage deployment of a robust nationwide wireless network. The federal
government, recognizing the economic and social benefits of that network,
“Every node
in a wireless
network, from the
smallest femtocell
to the largest
mountaintop
macro tower,
requires a
connection to
the carrier’s data
network.”
19Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook76
enacted laws that attempt to facilitate and encourage deployment. In some
cases states such as California have encapsulated the federal laws and extended
them. Some may argue that these laws are beneficial – others may disagree.
A full treatment of these laws and their application to real-world situations
is beyond our scope, but this handbook provides an overview of the most
consequential ones.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) was the federal
government’s first attempt to help create a foundation for the wireless
communications revolution we’re now experiencing. The 1996 Act contained
provisions concerning the placement of towers and other facilities for use in
providing personal wireless services. Section 704 of the 1996 Act governs
federal, state, and local government oversight for placement and construction of
“personal wireless service” facilities. (FCC, 1996)
“Personal wireless services” as defined in the 1996 Act included commercial
mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless
exchange access services.
“Commercial mobile services” are defined in Section 332 of the Communications
Act and the FCC’s rules, and include wireless telephone services regulated under
Part 22 of the FCC’s rules, SMR services regulated under Part 90 of the FCC’s rules,
and PCS regulated under Part 24 of the FCC’s rules. (FCC, 1996)
The 1996 Act states that local governments may not take actions to discriminate
against or outright prohibit (or have the effect of prohibiting) personal wireless
service facilities, preempts any local government attempts to regulate on the
environmental effects of RF emissions, and requires local governments to act
“within a reasonable time” on requests to place, construct, or modify personal
wireless service facilities.
Section 332 – The FCC “Shot Clocks”
The problem with the 1996 Act was that “reasonable time” was left to
interpretation. A wireless carrier seeking to solve a critical coverage problem
might consider approval within 30 days reasonable, while a local government
greatly concerned with historical preservation or responding to a citizen
opposition group’s concerns about the health effects of wireless technology
might consider an application process lasting 5 years or longer to be reasonable.
So in 2009 the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling stating that 90 days is a
presumptively reasonable timeframe for processing collocation applications
(“collocation” defined as adding equipment to an existing wireless facility), and
“The federal
government,
recognizing the
economic and
social benefits
of that network,
enacted laws
that attempt
to facilitate
and encourage
deployment.”
20 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 77
150 days is reasonable for anything that is not a collocation application. These
have become known as the “Shot Clocks” because, like in professional sports,
they compel action within a certain period of time. It should be noted that the
90- or 150-day timeframes are based on calendar days, including weekends
and holidays, from the date that an application is filed. The clock governing
an application may be paused or “tolled” by mutual written consent of both
the applicant and the local government, or if the local government notifies the
applicant in writing (via a Notice of Incompleteness or “NOI”) that the application
is incomplete. Section 332 imposes several requirements on local government if
issuing a Notice of Incompleteness:
• The NOI must specify the code provision, ordinance or publicly stated
procedures that require the missing information to be submitted;
• The NOI cannot impose new application requirements;
• Supplemental NOIs issued against NOI responses must be based on the
original NOI.
Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act 2012
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 made provisions in Title
VI that expedite the availability of spectrum for commercial mobile broadband.
The provisions in Title VI – also known as the Public Safety and Spectrum Act
(the “Spectrum Act”) contained legislation known as Section 6409(a) that further
clarifies how the local governments must respond to applications governed by
the 1996 Act and the FCC’s Shot Clocks. Section 6409(a) also adds a requirement
to approve minor modifications on existing “eligible facilities” within 60 days;
however this applies only to an “eligible facilities request.” (Congressional
Research Service, 2014)
Section 6409(a) defines an “eligible facilities request” as any request to modify
an existing cell tower or base station that involves collocating new transmission
equipment; removing transmission equipment; or replacing transmission
equipment. These modifications could include changes that increase the width
or girth, but do not “substantially change” the height of a wireless facility, i.e., a
tower or monopole.
Section 6409(a) does several things in relation to the 1996 Act and the Shot
Clocks. First, it says that the Shot Clock applies regardless of any local moratoria.
Second, it says that the Shot Clock starts to run when an application is first
submitted, not when it’s deemed complete. The clock is tolled only after
the local government notifies the applicant within a specified time that the
application is incomplete and that the notice of incomplete application must
“specify the code provision, ordinance, application instruction, or otherwise
publically stated procedures that require the information to be submitted.”
Under Section 6409(a), a decision to deny a personal wireless service facility
“The clock
governing an
application may
be paused or
“tolled” by mutual
written consent
of both the
applicant and the
local government,
or if the local
government
notifies the
applicant in
writing.”
21Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook78
application must be done in writing and the denial must be supported by
substantial evidence in a written record.
For many local governments, Section 6409(a) creates a key and critical issue
because they have not created codes, ordinances, instructions, and procedures
for managing modern wireless facility applications. This is especially true for
DAS and Small Cell technology, which are fundamentally very different from
applications for large macro towers that local governments have managed
in the past. Smaller communities that have relied on wireless signals from
adjacent towns or wireless facilities on private property will likely be faced
with applications to install DAS and Small Cell facilities on utility poles or in
the public right-of-way – and many are not ready to respond to these kinds of
applications. Regardless of readiness, the Shot Clock will start running when
these applications are submitted, and local governments should begin preparing
now to respond to them by adopting ordinances and updating codes to cover
the growing use of DAS and Small Cell facilities in the public right-of-way.
California AB 57
For California’s local governments, there’s an additional twist to the Section
6409(a) and Shot Clock story. In October 2015, the state passed a law that
further limits the ability of local governments to apply discretion in approval
of wireless service facilities. Following the “Deemed Approved” approach of
California’s Permit Streamlining Act, a wireless facility subject to Section 6409(a)
that is an “eligible facility” and has not been justifiably denied is “deemed
approved” if the applicable FCC Shot Clock timeframe runs out. (150 days
for new installations, and 90 days for co-locations.) Unlike under the Permit
Streamlining Act, AB 57 does not allow the Shot Clock to be paused due to
delays in conducting a complex environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This means that local governments should
be prepared for these applications well in advance, and be prepared to act on
applications in a timely manner, or risk lawsuits for failing to respond under the
law.
It’s important to note that AB 57 has a few exception cases. It does not apply:
• to actions by the California Coastal Commission or other state review agencies
such as the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;
• to City/Town properties such as parks and city-managed campuses;
• or to facilities at fire stations.
Application Processes, Checklists, Codes and Ordinances
When developing codes, ordinances, instructions, and procedures for handling
wireless facility applications, local governments should be very specific about
“This is
especially true for
DAS and Small Cell
technology, which
are fundamentally
very different
from applications
for large macro
towers that local
governments
have managed
in the past.”
22 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 79
what constitutes a “complete application” and be very clear about what must be
contained in a complete application. These requirements should be backed up
with ordinances, and supported by published instructions and procedures. Local
governments should publish a wireless facility pre-application checklist, and
publish a clear and comprehensive application process.
CPUC Rulemaking 14-05-001
In October 2015, the California’s Public Utilities Commission issued a proposed
decision on Rulemaking 14-05-001 for “Decision Regarding the Applicability
of the Commission’s Right-Of-Way Rules to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
Carriers” which sets rules for placement of wireless facilities equipment on utility
poles, cabling and interconnections in ducts and conduits, and attachments in
the public right-of-way. The decision amends the CPUC’s right-of-way rules to
provide commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers with nondiscriminatory
access to public utility infrastructure, equal (with one exception) to the access
afforded previously to CLEC and CATV providers. As of this writing, the decision
has not been finalized. (CPUC 14-05-001, 2015)
The likely outcome of this ruling (if published as proposed) will be additional
requests to install Small Cell antennas on the tops of utility poles. Systems like
this already exist, with equipment either on the pole or in a ground-level vault,
and antennas mounted to the side or top of the pole. CPUC R-14-05-001 will
provide a streamlined process for wireless carriers to work with pole owners.
Done well, these installations can add value with minimal community impact.
Done poorly, they can generate resident complaints and concerns about
aesthetics.
“When
developing codes,
ordinances,
instructions,
and procedures
for handling
wireless facility
applications, local
governments
should be very
specific about
what constitutes
a “complete
application.””
23Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook80
“HetNet
technology
provides the best
opportunity for
carriers to make
the most efficient
use of limited RF
spectrum in the
face of exponential
growth in mobile
data usage.”
Figure 10: Good and bad examples of HetNet deployments
Credit: Philips Connected City Experience Credit: Omar Masry, AICP
Wireless Telecom Roadmap – What Does The
Future Hold?
Increased Deployment of HetNets
For the reasons previously outlined in this handbook, local governments should
prepare for applications to install DAS and Small Cell facilities, especially on
utility poles in the public right-of-way. HetNet technology provides the best
opportunity for carriers to make the most efficient use of limited RF spectrum in
the face of exponential growth in mobile data usage, and Small Cell technology
is a key component in deployment strategies for major carriers.
LTE in the Unlicensed Bands
Local governments, especially those that have deployed – or are considering
deployment of – Wi-Fi networks in the 5 GHz band should closely monitor the
trials and co-existence tests of LTE-Unlicensed. We don’t know yet how well Wi-Fi
24 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 81
and LTE-U will behave in large-scale real-world deployments, and procedures for
how to test for and mitigate interference are still under development.
Wi-Fi Carriers & Voice-over-Wi-Fi
We expect that in parallel with deployment of LTE-Unlicensed, there will be
a growth in the use of Wi-Fi networks as an alternative to traditional mobile
carriers. We’ve seen a rise in Wi-Fi First business models where the subscriber’s
phone seeks out Wi-Fi as a preferred network for both voice and data, only falling
back to cellular when necessary – and this will place pressure on Wi-Fi network
providers to deploy faster networks with more capacity. Roaming agreements
between Wi-Fi providers will allow users more flexibility to access networks in
more places, and this may provide an opportunity to monetize Wi-Fi networks to
offset capital and operating expenses. Wi-Fi First carriers charge subscriptions
rates well below traditional carriers, so these phones offer a great opportunity
to provide wireless telephone service to lower-income citizens who may not
qualify for discounted telephone rates. Unfortunately, the Wi-Fi standard suffers
from limitations which prevent it from achieving its full potential as a carrier-
grade connection technology. Managing logins for large numbers of users is
challenging, the ability to roam from one network to another without having to
login again is largely non-existent, and users have to maintain and manage their
own list of known networks. Wi-Fi lacks an authentication method, and without
authentication it’s fairly easy for a hacker to record user data by pretending
to be a trusted Wi-Fi network. Unlike cellular data standards, Wi-Fi does not
have a “handoff” mechanism, which means when a user moves from one Wi-Fi
access point to another the connection is interupted for a brief period of time.
Yet the popularity of Wi-Fi as a replacement for wired Ethernet has led to wide
proliferation of systems, which tend to interfere with each other, leading to
reduced performance.
Wi-Fi for IoT
Several cable companies are deploying Wi-Fi networks through line-attach
equipment and public-facing hotspots on leased gateway equipment in homes
and businesses. While not typically fast enough to support high-bandwidth
usage for large numbers of users, these Wi-Fi networks are potentially good for
handling Internet of Things traffic, which is typically less bandwidth intensive
and more tolerant of network latency. Evolutions in the standards family that
governs Wi-Fi have been released that make it more suitable for IoT applications.
Dedicated IoT Networks
Competing with Wi-Fi and mobile data networks for IoT are several proprietary
standards, collectively known as Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) systems. Because
“We expect that
in parallel with
deployment of
LTE-Unlicensed,
there will be a
growth in the use
of Wi-Fi networks
as an alternative
to traditional
mobile carriers.”
25Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook82
they were designed specifically for IoT applications, they can be better in terms
of power consumption, which is often a key design criterion for IoT systems. The
downside is that in many locations the networks do not yet exist, so siting and
permitting effort will be required. In most cases LPWA facilities are small, with
equipment cabinets less than 12 cubic feet and antennas about 3 feet long,
and thus have minimal aesthetic effect. Local governments should consider
implementing streamlined review processes for LPWA equipment and sites.
FirstNet – LTE for Public Safety
The Spectrum Act of 2012 contained legislation and funding for what is now
called FirstNet™ – a nationwide LTE network dedicated for use by public safety
and First Responders. As of this writing FirstNet has just completed its RFP
process and decisions are expected in late 2016, after which the network must
be built. While the federal government allocated over $7 billion in funding
for FirstNet the final amount needed will be much higher, so the question
of ongoing revenue and build-out funding remains to be answered. Once it
reaches the deployment phase, FirstNet will provide a unique challenge to local
governments because the locations of FirstNet’s wireless facilities are dictated by
the needs of public safety, not commercial carriers seeking to serve the public.
Local governments that are averse to allowing wireless deployments may find
themselves being forced to approve a FirstNet site based on public safety needs.
FirstNet technology will look very much like the existing wireless networks,
and will use HetNet architectures to provide wide-area coverage from large
macro towers, and DAS or Small Cell equipment to provide speed and spectrum
efficiency in populated areas.
Early 5G Trials
5G is interesting and potentially very valuable, but 4G LTE technology will be
around for many years to come. News stories about early 5G testbeds and
trials will increase as we get closer to 2020, after which we’ll begin to see some
deployments, but it will be at least another decade before 5G begins to overtake
4G deployments, and 5G subscriptions will not overtake 4G subscriptions until
at least 2031. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be planning for 5G, just that we
should have reasonable expectations for when those systems will reach mass
deployment, and not expect that they’ll be prevalent in the next few years.
“FirstNet’s
wireless facilities
are dictated by
the needs of
public safety,
not commercial
carriers seeking
to serve the
public.”
26 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 83
Recommendations for Municipal Governments
Understand and Adapt to New Telecom Legislation
The FCC Shot Clocks, Section 6409(a), and state laws such as California’s AB
57 are the laws of the land. Local governments must carefully consider and
prepare for responding to wireless facility applications given the rules passed.
The alternative is a lawsuit, which nobody wants and only serves to suppress
cooperation on the shared goal of creating world-class wireless networks for
our citizens. Local governments must be diligent about creating tools such
as a comprehensive pre-application checklist, and publish clear application
instructions that “specify the code provision, ordinance, application instruction,
or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be
submitted.” (Reference to Section 6409(a) on the Spectrum Act 2012)
At a minimum, local governments should determine if their existing codes and
ordinances address wireless facilities in the public right-of-way – and should
quickly take action to create those codes and ordinances if they do not. Due to
the unique nature of HetNet facilities, these new codes and ordinances should
be separate from any existing ordinances that pertain to large macro towers and
equipment.
Recognize the Societal Value of Wireless Broadband
The economics of the Digital Divide are plain and striking – internet use by
households below $75,000 median income drops off exponentially. (White
House Council of Economic Advisors, 2016) Elementary and secondary school
teachers are increasingly requiring students to complete and submit work
online via cloud-based tools such as Office 365™ and Google Docs™. Wireless
is increasingly the sole method of internet access for low-income households.
(McHenry, 2016) How will children of low-income families compete without
access to broadband? Access to wireless broadband is critical, and both
governments and carriers have a shared social responsibility to ensure equitable
access for all citizens.
The California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) commissions an annual survey
of the state’s Digital Divide. (CETF, 2016) 74% of survey respondents cited
costs of access or equipment as their reason for not having broadband access.
The 2016 survey found broadband adoption rates well below the overall state
average of 84% for:
• Households earning less than $22,000 (68%)
• Adults 65 or older (56%)
• Spanish-speaking Latinos (69%)
“Access
to wireless
broadband is
critical, and both
governments
and carriers have
a shared social
responsibility to
ensure equitable
access for all
citizens.”
27Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook84
• Not a high school graduate (63%)
• Adults who identify having a disability (71%)
In the past, the thinking was that mobile users are demographically affluent
– the stereotypical multi-tasking businessperson with a smartphone, but
today’s reality is otherwise. Mobile devices have replaced laptops and PCs
in many homes. Families in poverty, unable to afford both mobile data and
wired broadband, often opt for mobile data only. Wireless telecom and mobile
broadband are not luxuries for the wealthy - they are critical systems for all
citizens struggling to keep up with (or join) the 21st century. Fast reliable wireless
broadband coverage is not a convenience for the privileged few – it is a vital
resource which must deployed for use by all citizens.
Some municipal governments view telecom projects as an opportunity to
increase revenue, which is misguided. Municipal governments need to view
communication networks no differently than water or electricity projects, and
they should consider legitimate requests for safe and aesthetically-reasonable
communication equipment projects not as a revenue source, but as an
opportunity to improve quality of life and bridge the Digital Divide.
Install Conduit, Adopt Dig Once Policies, and Allow Micro-
Trenching
The rate at which we consume digital data shows no signs of slowing down.
The best technology for carrying large amounts of data is fiber optics. Installing
conduit at every opportunity is an inexpensive way to invest in our future, and
conduit installed should be oversized and doubled-up whenever possible to
facilitate future growth.
Local governments should create “Dig Once” policies that encourage conduit
installation, and should create “Opportunity Alert Systems” that notify wired
and wireless telecommunication companies when permits are issued for
underground work that could allow conduit to be installed. Local governments
should also create codes and ordinances that allow for “Micro-Trenching” – a less-
disruptive installation process which allows fiber to be deployed using flexible
ducts laid into a saw cut only 1.25” wide. (Broadband Properties, 2009)
Stay Informed and Educated
Wireless communications is a complex topic, and it’s constantly changing.
People who’ve spent their careers in the field struggle to keep up. There’s
no dishonor in admitting that you need help, and there are good sources of
information and support that can be retained to help guide strategy and tactics.
It’s important to stay connected with the wireless community. A good way
to do this is to attend local conferences, educational seminars, or hosting an
“Municipal
governments
need to view
communication
networks no
differently than
water or electricity
projects.”
28 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 85
informational session with your review and hearing bodies – this helps build a
network of contacts that can offer advice and help to understand technologically
feasible options and tradeoffs.
Unfortunately in many instances a lack of mutual understanding has arisen
between wireless carriers/operators, residents, and municipal governments
– causing protracted negotiations and permitting processes that took
many months or even years to complete, and delaying projects to the
point where projects have become unprofitable or even impossible. Some
local governments, acting to appease objections of residents, have treated
applications for wireless facilities with disdain or even outright hostility.
Municipal government leaders often sit through hours of citizen objections
as to why a site should not be located in a certain spot. The reasons for these
objections are often based in fears of new technology, concerns over aesthetics,
fears about the impact of wireless facilities on property values, etc.
This “not-in-my-back-yard” perspective, which gives excess weight to the
opinions of a vociferous minority at the expense of the needs of all citizens,
led to industry lobbying for legislation at both the federal and state level
designed to force local governments to publish their application criteria up
front, not change application criteria in mid-process, make decisions within a
set timeframe on applications, and to require negative decisions to be made
on a reasonable and equitable basis. It’s unfortunate that these laws have to
exist, but they at least will prevent the kinds of stalemates which have too often
occurred, and which have prevented us from having the best wireless networks
in the world.
The complexities of managing telecom applications and permitting will only
increase as the wireless telecom industry moves from applying for permits to
erect or modify a single macro towers covering many square miles to applying
for permits to deploy densified HetNet networks where many small sites (each
covering only a few blocks) are to be installed – often in the public right-of-way
on street lights, signs, utility poles, and other street furniture. By approaching
these densified networks not as a problem but as a joint opportunity to improve
our networks, we can overcome this challenge and move forward with new
technologies that benefit our citizens and local economies.
There’s no dishonor in asking for help. Wireless networks are not simple things.
Even senior engineers who’ve been doing telecom for decades struggle to keep
up with new technologies. Leaders in all departments (planning, public works,
economic development, real estate, utilities, etc.) should not be embarrassed to
admit what they don’t understand, and should bring in qualified help as needed
when sorting out options.
“By approaching
these densified
networks not as a
problem but as a
joint opportunity
to improve our
networks, we can
overcome this
challenge and
move forward with
new technologies
that benefit our
citizens and local
economies.”
29Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook86
Recommendations for Carriers, Operators, and
Utilities
Understand the Complexities of Local Government
Carriers and network operators need to understand that municipal governments
are responsive to all citizens, and are charged with balancing often-conflicting
edicts to move their cities and towns forward in a progressive manner while
honoring and maintaining the area’s local history and heritage.
Communicate Clearly and Credibly With Citizens
Carriers and network operators need to communicate well with local residents
and then commit to hearing out their concerns – even if those concerns might
seem ridiculous or uninformed. They need credibly and straightforwardly to
educate the public about the value of communications, technologies which are
or will be used, and how these have evolved from voice-only to voice & data
systems.
Commit to Bridging the Digital Divide
It’s easy and profitable to focus deployment resources on higher-income
areas. The harder thing, but the right thing, is to commit to building networks
into underserved areas to help bridge the Digital Divide and protect our most
vulnerable citizens. It may be that these networks are less profitable, or even
take a small loss, but the goodwill they create will ease tensions and concerns,
which helps everyone in the long run.
Work to Build and Maintain Trust
Carriers and network operators need to be hyper-vigilant about ensuring that
what gets built matches the application and design documentation. They
need to actively work to ensure that projects are not done with unpermitted
modifications, consider the needs of citizens and neighborhoods, and avoid
shoddy workmanship. Do everything possible to avoid building wireless
facilities that conflict with architectural or historical preservation efforts. They
should choose and use equipment that is smaller, quieter, and minimally visible
– and always be pushing their component vendors to develop products that
help meet these goals. Communications and openness with residents and
local governments about even small changes are the keys to building trust
–changes slipped in under the radar are almost always discovered and this
gives opposition groups a lot of ammunition to protest new projects, which is
ultimately counter-productive.
“Carriers
and network
operators need
to understand
that municipal
governments
are responsive
to all citizens,
and are charged
with balancing
often-conflicting
edicts to move
their cities and
towns forward
in a progressive
manner while
honoring and
maintaining the
area’s local history
and heritage.”
30 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 87
Takeaways for Municipal Leaders
1. Heterogenous Networks (DAS and Small Cells) are coming. Ask your Planning
and Public Works Directors if they have a review process in place for wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way. If there is no defined process, work with
your City Attorney to craft one (or borrow an example from another city) that
meets your needs.
2. Inventory your assets. Get a sense of what utility poles, light poles, and
conduit routes your municipality does and does not own. Are certain areas
under jurisdiction of another government agency?
3. Reach out. Talk with your local electric utility provider about options for
metering wireless facilities, and ways to avoid the need for bulky electric
meters or disconnect boxes on sidewalks or poles. As electric power providers
often go through rigorous review to update standards, have this conversation
early on.
4. Educate. Hold an information session for active community groups, as well as
elected leaders and appointed bodies that may have an interest: e.g. Planning
Commission, Design Review Boards, Historic Preservation Commission.
Provide photo examples of DAS and Small Cell sites installed elsewhere. Invite
carrier and utility representatives.
5. Update Infrastructure. Evaluate whether limited-area microtrenching can be
used to minimize fiber optic deployment costs and reduce the need for major
street trenching activity. This option can benefit both cellular providers, wired
broadband and cable TV providers, as well as independent/community-based
internet service providers and government agencies. Also, consider creating
Dig Once policies to expand opportunities to build fiber optic infrastructure
over time. Remember that, for the most part, wireless facilities still require
fiber optic backhaul. Fiber and conduit are relatively cheap compared to labor
and construction costs, so it’s an investment worth making to install fiber and
conduit while streets or sidewalks are opened up.
31Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook88
Glossary of Terms
Term Definition
2G Second generation cellular.
3G Third generation cellular.
4G Fourth generation cellular.
5G Fifth generation cellular : an ITU recommendation governed by the IMT-2020 standard.
3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project, a standards body.
ARPU Average Revenue Per User : a measure of system revenue relative to the number of users – to be profitable,
ARPU must be higher than the costs of building and maintaining the network.
Bit A single unit of digital information.
Byte A block of 8 bits.
Broadband Data which transfers at minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (Per the FCC’s 2015 definition).
CBRS Citizens Broadband Radio Service : a 3.5 GHz band communications standard for Small Cells, used in the USA.
Cellular A wide-area wireless technology consisting of many sites interoperating as a network, for the purposes of
providing voice and data communications.
Churn A rough metric of the rate at which subscribers change from one carrier to another.
Co-Location The installation of wireless equipment and antennas for multiple technologies and/or competing carriers to a
single tower or wireless facility.
DAS Distributed Antenna System : can be indoor (typically just called DAS) or outdoor (usually called o-DAS).
Dark Fiber Fiber optic cabling which is unused and reserved for future use.
dB Decibel, a unitless ratio of gain or loss.
dBd Decibels of antenna gain relative to a simple dipole antenna.
dBi Decibels of antenna gain relative to a theoretical point-source antenna.
dBm Decibels of power gain or loss relative to a milliwatt of RF energy.
EB Exabyte, 1x1018 bytes.
FCC Federal Communications Commission.
FirstNet™A nationwide network of LTE sites reserved for use by public safety and critical infrastructure users.
GB Gigabyte, 1x109 bytes.
GHz Gigahertz, 1x109 hertz.
Gig Economy The economic shift of workers away from full-time long-term employment to transient short-term jobs or “gigs”
– sometimes called the Contractor Economy.
Handoff The process by which a wireless voice or data connection is seamlessly transitioned from one site to another.
HetNet Heterogeneous Network : a system of dissimilar wireless technologies operating as a whole.
Hz Hertz (cycles per second) : a measure of frequency.
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers : a standards body.
IoT Internet of Things : the connection of stand-alone nodes, systems, and devices to the internet.
IP Internet Protocol : the standard for data communications over the internet.
IT Information technology.
ITU International Telecommunications Union – the technology standardization and coordination arm of the United
Nations.
Lattice Tower A type of communications tower constructed from a lattice of metal sections – can be either guyed (GT) or
self-supporting (SST).
Lit Fiber Fiber optic cabling which is operated by a company that sells capacity on that fiber to multiple users.
32 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 89
Term Definition
LPWA Low Power Wide Area : An Internet of Things communications technology that uses low-power, low data rate
communications for devices.
LTE Long Term Evolution : the name for the “4G” radio interface standard published by 3GPP.
LTE-A LTE Advanced : a higher performance version of LTE.
LTE-LAA LTE-License Assisted Access : a 3GPP-compliant LTE-U technology.
LTE-U LTE-Unlicensed : a technology to run LTE waveforms on the 5 GHz unlicensed spectrum band.
Macro Site or Tower A large tower (either guyed or freestanding) which supports communications equipment and antennas.
Mbps Megabits, 1x106 bits per second.
MBps Megabytes, 1x106 bytes per second.
MHz Megahertz, 1x106 hertz.
Mobile Economy The exchange of goods and services delivered to consumers by smartphone apps.
Monopole A type of wireless tower.
MSO Multiple System Operator : an operator of multiple cable or direct-broadcast satellite television systems.
mW Milliwatt, 1/1000th of a watt.
NFV Network Functional Virtualization.
NGH Next Generation Hotspot : a standard that allows Wi-Fi devices to use foreign networks without needing to
manually log in.
Offload A network enhancement technique where requests for large amounts of data (such as streaming video) are
handled by a parallel network – usually through a Small Cell or Wi-Fi node.
RF Radio Frequency.
Roaming The automatic sharing of networks, used to provide subscribers with a larger number of available sites without
requiring user intervention.
SDN Software Defined Networking.
Sharing Economy
Ride-sharing from individual contractors (as an alternative to taxi or livery services), Home-sharing from
private citizens (as an alternative to hotels or motels), and other models – these are managed and enabled by
smartphone apps and mobile networks.
Small Cell
A type of communications equipment which operates at lower power levels than a macro site. Small Cells
typically cover areas from a single room up to several hundred meters in radius. They are often attached to
other structures such as building roof perimeters, street lights, and utility poles.
Spectrum The range of RF frequencies used by a wireless system.
VoLTE Voice over LTE.
VoWiFi Voice over Wi-Fi (sometimes referred to as “Wi-Fi calling”).
Watt A measure of power, used to define RF power levels.
Wi-Fi Wireless Fidelity : the IEEE 802.11 standard for data communications.
Wi-Fi First
A type of wireless subscription model where the subscriber equipment prefers to use Wi-Fi calling (VoWiFi)
for voice connections. If Wi-Fi is not available, the voice call is handled by a cellular carrier via a roaming
agreement.
Wireless Telecommunications of voice or data using RF methods.
33Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook90
Works Cited
Broadband Properties. (2009, May/June). Retrieved August 2, 2016, from Broadband Prop-
erties: http://www.bbcmag.com/2009issues/may-june09/BBP_MayJune09_MicroTrench-
ing.pdf
Centers for Disease Control. (2016, May). (S. J. Blumberg, Ph.D. , & J. V. Luke, Eds.) Retrieved
July 5, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201605.pdf
CETF. (2016, July). Retrieved Aug 2, 2016, from California Emerging Technology Fund:
http://www.cetfund.org/files/CETF_Annual_Survey_2016.pdf
Congressional Research Service. (2014, March 12). (L. K. Moore, Ed.) Retrieved July 5, 2016,
from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43256.pdf
CPUC 14-05-001. (2015, October). Retrieved July 6, 2016, from California Public Utilities
Commission: https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:59:0::NO
CTIA. (2015, December 31). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-
source/default-document-library/ctia-survey-2015.pdf
CTIA Filing to FCC. (2009, September 29). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from https://ecfsapi.fcc.
gov/file/7020039747.pdf
Ericsson AB. (2016, June). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from https://www.ericsson.com/res/
docs/2016/ericsson-mobility-report-2016.pdf
FCC. (1996, April 23). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://wireless.fcc.gov/fact1.pdf
FCC 600 MHz Auction. (2016). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/
public/projects/1000
FCC AWS-3 Auction Results. (2015, January 3). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from https://apps.
fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-131A1.pdf
GSM Association. (2015, October 27). Retrieved August 3, 2016, from https://www.gsmain-
telligence.com/research/?file=10bf6e45b6a9705c44b78b7d566f76e6&download
IHS Markit. (2016, July). IoT Devices - Installed Base & Device Shipments. IHS Markit Tech-
nology. (IHS Disclaimer: Results are not an endorsement of Joint Venture Silicon Valley.
Any reliance on these results is at the third party’s own risk. Visit www.technology.ihs.com
for more details.)
International Telecommunications Union. (2011, April 4). About mobile technology and
IMT-2000. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://www.itu.int/osg/spu/imt-2000/technol-
ogy.html
International Telecommunications Union. (2016). ITU global standard for international
mobile telecommunications : ´IMT-Advanced´. (International Telecommunications Union)
Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg5/rwp5d/imt-
adv/Pages/default.aspx
Maravedis & Wi-Fi 360. (2016, June 20). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://worldwifi-
day.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Research-%E2%80%9CMapping-the-Urban-
Unconnected%E2%80%9D.pdf
34 Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook 91
McHenry, G. (2016, April 19). Evolving Technologies Change the Nature of Internet Use. Re-
trieved July 5, 2016, from National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/evolving-technologies-change-nature-internet-use
Mobile Experts LLC. (2016, April). (J. Madden, & K. Mun, Eds.) Retrieved July 5, 2016, from
Mobile Experts LLC: http://www.mobile-experts.net/Home/Report/57
Small Cell Forum. (2016). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from Small Cell Forum: http://www.small-
cellforum.org/about/about-small-cells/small-cell-definition/
White House Council of Economic Advisors. (2016, March). Retrieved July 5, 2016, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160308_broadband_cea_is-
sue_brief.pdf
35Bridging the Gap: 21st Century Wireless Telecommunications Handbook92
SILICON VALLEY
100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 310
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 298-9330
info@jointventure.org | www.jointventure.org
93
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2133 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/3/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Presentation of Teen Commission FY 16-17 Work Plan
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Presentation of Teen Commission FY 16-17 Work Plan
Receive presentation of Teen Commission FY 16-17 Work Plan
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™94
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2192 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/18/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Approve the November 15 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Approve the November 15 City Council minutes
Approve the November 15 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™95
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 6:00 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang called the City Council meeting to order in Cupertino City
Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Councilmembers Darcy
Paul and Rod Sinks. Absent: Gilbert Wong.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1)
of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code 54956.9; Caixing Xie and Wei Xie vs. City of Cupertino,
Gunes Aybay and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case #16-CV-295371
Mayor Chang announced that Council gave direction to staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Barry Chang re-convened the Regular City Council meeting in Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Barry Chang, Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Councilmembers Darcy
Paul and Rod Sinks. Absent: Gilbert Wong.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
2. Subject: Present Certificates of Recognition to volunteers at the Silicon Valley
Korean School (SVKS) out of Cupertino High School
Recommended Action: Present Certificates
96
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
2
Mayor Chang presented Certificates of Recognition to volunteers at the Silicon Valley
Korean School (SVKS) out of Cupertino High School.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jon Willey talked about Ethics Week, November 6-12.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vaidhyanathan moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
presented with the exception of item number 17 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes:
Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wong.
3. Subject: Approve the November 1 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the November 1 City Council minutes
4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 19, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-116 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending August 19, 2016
5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending August 26, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-117 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending August 26, 2016
6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 2, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-118 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 2, 2016
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 9, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-119 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 9, 2016
8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 16, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-120 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 16, 2016
9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 23, 2016
97
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
3
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-121 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 23, 2016
10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending September 30, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-122 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending September 30, 2016
11. Subject: Treasurer's Investment report for Quarter ending June 30, 2016
Recommended Action: Accept the Treasurer's Investment report for Quarter ending
June 30, 2016
12. Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending September 30, 2016
Recommended Action: Accept the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending
September 30, 2016
13. Subject: Approval of First Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager's First Quarter Financial Reports for
Fiscal Year 2016-17; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 16-123 approving First Quarter
Budget Adjustments 3. Adopt Resolution No. 16-128 amending the Unrepresented
Employees' Compensation Program
14. Subject: Increase hourly rates to the part-time salary schedule to comply with new local
Minimum Wage rate and market wages
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-124 increasing hourly rates for part-
time employees, splitting a classification into three classifications, and eliminating two
classifications
15. Subject: Declare weeds a nuisance and set hearing date of January 17 for objections to
proposed removal
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-125 declaring weeds a nuisance and
setting a hearing date of January 17 for objections to proposed removal
16. Subject: Approval of the destruction of records from the Recreation & Community
Services (Quinlan Community Center) Department
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-126 approving the destruction of
records from the Recreation & Community Services (Quinlan Community Center)
Department
98
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
4
17. Subject: Open Space Area Agreement between the City and the Cupertino Union
School District
Recommended Action: Approve a new fifteen and one half (15.5) year Open Space
Area Agreement, with an option to mutually extend an additional five (5) years,
between the City of Cupertino and the Cupertino Union School District; and authorize
the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to carry out the
agreement
Staff answered questions from Council.
Steven Scharf spoke on this item.
Paul moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to approve a new fifteen and one half (15.5)
year Open Space Area Agreement, with an option to mutually extend an additional
five (5) years, between the City of Cupertino and the Cupertino Union School District;
and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all necessary documents to
carry out the agreement. The motion carried unanimously with Wong absent.
18. Subject: Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Gary Jones and direct
staff to fill the unscheduled vacancy with annual recruitment in January
Recommended Action: Accept resignation of Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Gary
Jones and direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancy with annual recruitment in
January
19. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for OH Cupertino, Inc (dba Bull),
10493 S. De Anza Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for OH
Cupertino, Inc (dba Bull), 10493 S. De Anza Boulevard
20. Subject: 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2017-104 contract award
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady
Paving Company, in the amount of $3,352,709 and approve a construction contingency
of $335,000, for a total of $3,687,709
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
21. Subject: Amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code Title 16, Buildings and
Construction, for the purposes of adopting, amending and implementing the 2016
99
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
5
California Building Standards Code and Fire Code and making local exceptions
(effective January 1, 2017).
Recommended Action: 1) Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; 2)
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 16-2155: an “Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapters 16.02, 16.04, 16.06, 16.16,
16.24, 16.40, 16.54, 16.58, and 16.80 and repealing Chapter 16.42 of Title 16 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the 2016 California Building, Residential,
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Historical, Fire, Existing Building Code,
Green Building Standards Codes with Certain Exceptions, Modifications, and
Additions”
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to read Ordinance No. 16-2155 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second read ing thereof. Ayes: Chang,
Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wong.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to enact Ordinance No. 16-2155. Ayes:
Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wong.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
22. Subject: Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the regulation,
location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other conforming changes for
clarification and internal consistency; (Application No. MCA-2016-03; Applicant: City
of Cupertino; Location: Citywide). Continued from the October 4, 2016 meeting
Recommended Action: 1) Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and
2) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-2158 “An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino to amend Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping, and Table
19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural
and Residential Zones, regarding the regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in
the City and to make other conforming changes in Table 19.20.020 for clarification and
internal consistency”
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Assistant Planner Ellen Yau reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.
Staff answered questions from Council.
100
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
6
Mayor Chang opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke:
Alysa Sakkas and students from Rolling Hills 4-H Club
Mayor Chang closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to amend the location to be 8’ from side
and rear property lines and driveway easements. Chang offered a friendly amendment
to restrict the number of hives based on square footage. Vaidhyanathan withdrew her
second and Chang seconded the motion.
Mayor Chang reopened the public hearing and following individuals spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Mayor Chang closed the public hearing.
Sinks modified his motion to amend the location to be 8’ from side and rear property
lines and driveway easements and go with staff recommendation regarding the
number of hives per square footage. Chang withdrew his second and Paul seconded
the modified motion.
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to read Ordinance No. 16-2158 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof with the amendment
to the location to be 8’ from side and rear property lines and driveway easemen ts.
Ayes: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
Wong.
23. Subject: Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to accessory dwelling
units including, but not limited to approval processes, size, location, and parking as
required by State Law and for consistency. The amendments will apply citywide.
Application No(s): MCA-2016-05; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide
Recommended Action: 1. Find that that proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and
2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-2159 “An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino
Municipal Code including but not limited to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.20
(Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones),
101
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
7
Chapter 19.24 (Agricultural (A) and Agricultural - Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter
19.32 (Residential Duplex (R-2) Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation),
and Chapter 19.112 (Second Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones)", in
response to recently adopted State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units for
compliance with State Law, and for internal consistency
Written communications for this item included emails and letters to Council and a staff
PowerPoint presentation.
Assistant Planner Gian Martire reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Staff answered questions from Council.
Mayor Chang opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke:
Larry Wilson
Jennifer Griffin
Nicole Montojo on behalf of Silicon Valley at Home
Paula Wallis
Mayor Chang closed the public hearing.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to read Ordinance No. 16-2159 by title only
and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes:
Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wong.
24. Subject: Extension of the moratorium on non-medical marijuana dispensaries,
marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport
and deliveries
Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are
exempt from CEQA; and 2. Enact Ordinance No. 16-2160: “An Interim Urgency
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino extending a Temporary
Moratorium on non-medical marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities,
commercial cannabis activities and marijuana transport and deliveries within the City
of Cupertino pending completion of an update to the City’s Zoning Code”
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
102
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
8
Principal Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Chang opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Mayor Chang closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to read Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 16-
2160 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the only reading
thereof. Ayes: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None.
Absent: Wong.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to enact Interim Urgency Ordinance No.
16-2160. Ayes: Chang, Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None.
Absent: Wong.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
25. Subject: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual & Five-Year Report - Fiscal Year 2015-2016
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the Five-Year and Annual Review of the City of
Cupertino’s Development Impact Fees (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.); and 2.
Adopt Resolution No. 16-127 approving the Five-Year and Annual Development
Impact Fee Reports and Making Required Findings
Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report.
Paul moved and Sinks seconded to 1. Accept the Five-Year and Annual Review of the
City of Cupertino’s Development Impact Fees (Government Code Section 66000 et
seq.); and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 16-127 approving the Five-Year and Annual
Development Impact Fee Reports and Making Required Findings. The motion carried
unanimously with Wong absent.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
26. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
103
City Council Minutes November 15, 2016
9
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various
community events.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Chang adjourned the meeting.
_______________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
104
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2138 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 7, 2016
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 7, 2016
AdoptResolutionNo.16-129acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingOctober7,
2016
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™105
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
October 7, 2016
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 6th day of December, 2016, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2139 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/7/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 14, 2016
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Resolution
B - AP Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 14, 2016
AdoptResolutionNo.16-130acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingOctober14,
2016
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™121
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN
THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING
October 14, 2016
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and
to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required
by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby
allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as
hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register.
CERTIFIED: _____________________________
Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 6th day of December, 2016, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2193 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/21/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Accept resignation of Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu and direct staff to fill the
unscheduled vacancy with the annual Teen Commission recruitment in May 2017
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Resignation letter
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:AcceptresignationofTeenCommissionerRishitGunduanddirectstafftofillthe
unscheduled vacancy with the annual Teen Commission recruitment in May 2017
AcceptresignationofTeenCommissionerRishitGunduanddirectstafftofilltheunscheduled
vacancy with the annual Teen Commission recruitment in May 2017
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™149
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Accept resignation of Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu and direct staff to fill the
unscheduled vacancy with the Teen Commission annual recruitment in May 2017.
Recommended Action
Accept resignation of Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu and direct staff to fill the
unscheduled vacancy with the Teen Commission annual recruitment in May 2017.
Discussion
Teen Commissioner Rishit Gundu has notified Council and staff of his resignation,
effective immediately, which creates an unscheduled (partial) vacancy for the
remainder of his term ending May 2017.
Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 states that:
Posting for unscheduled vacancies shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before
nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days
before appointment.
The vacancy notice will be posted on December 7, satisfying the posting requirements.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Resignation letter
150
Dear City of Cupertino Council Members,
I am writing this letter to inform you that I have recently shifted my place of
residence from Cupertino to Sunnyvale. I’m aware that one of the requirements of
being a Teen Commissioner is to be a resident of Cupertino, so I am announcing
my resignation from the Cupertino Teen Commission. Please know that it was a
very abrupt decision and was caused by a combination of unexpected and
unavoidable circumstances. The time I spent on the Teen Commission this year
and last year has truly been a wonderful experience that has provided me with a
plethora of experiences and lessons that I will ultimately carry on with me for the
rest of my senior year, college and beyond. I want to thank the City Council for
providing me with this great opportunity and I profusely apologize for this
unexpected burden.
Sincerely,
Rishit Gundu
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10185 N. STELLING RD.
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
OFFICE: (408) 777-3120 | FAX: (408) 777-3137
151
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2100 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/17/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Establishment of Friendship City Relationships
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Attachment A-Jiangmen Friendship City Application
Attachment B-Luoyang Friendship City Application
Attachment C-Nanchang Friendship City Application
Attachment D-Qingdao Friendship City Application
Attachment E-Shanghai Friendship City Application
Attachment F-Shenzhen Friendship City Application
Attachment G-Suzhou Friendship City Application
Attachment H-Wuhan Friendship City Application
Attachment I-Yilan Friendship City Application
Attachment J-Zhaoqing Friendship City Application
Attachment K-Guro Friendship City Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Establishment of Friendship City Relationships
Reviewandconsider11applicationsestablishingFriendshipCityrelationshipswithLuoyang,
People’sRepublicofChina;Qingdao,People’sRepublicofChina;Shanghai,People’s
RepublicofChina;Shenzhen,People’sRepublicofChina;Suzhou,People’sRepublicof
China;Wuhan,People’sRepublicofChina;Yilan,Taiwan,RepublicofChina;andZhaoqing,
People’s Republic of China; and Guro, Seoul, South Korea
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™152
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Establishment of Friendship City Relationships
Recommended Action
Review and consider 11 applications establishing Friendship City relationships with
Luoyang, People’s Republic of China; Qingdao, People’s Republic of China; Shanghai,
People’s Republic of China; Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; Suzhou, People’s
Republic of China; Wuhan, People’s Republic of China; Yilan, Taiwan, Republic of China;
Zhaoqing, People’s Republic of China; and Guro, Seoul, South Korea.
Background
At its September 6, 2016 meeting, Council approved amendments to the City’s Policies
and Guidelines on Sister Cities to include a designation for Friendship City relationships.
Following this action, staff created an application and made it available to interested
parties. To date, the City Council has established seven Friendship City relationships.
Description
The City recognizes the value of developing people-to-people contacts as a way to further
international communication and understanding. Friendship City partnerships can be an
effective method in fostering increased global cooperation and communication between
the City of Cupertino and international municipalities. As such, the City welcomes
friendly relationships with cities from around the world.
Staff has received 11 new applications from Friendship City groups representing:
Jiangmen, People’s Republic of China
Luoyang, People’s Republic of China
Nanchang, People’s Republic of China
Qingdao, People’s Republic of China
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China
Suzhou, People’s Republic of China
Wuhan, People’s Republic of China
Yilan, Taiwan, Republic of China
153
Zhaoqing, People’s Republic of China
Guro, Seoul, South Korea
If the application is approved by Council, the Mayor would sign the agreements
establishing Friendship City Designations between the City and the international
municipalities. The agreements would expire in two years unless renewed.
Sustainability Impact
To the extent that encouraging Friendship City relationships leads to additional
international travel and delegation visits, there will be an increase in transportation-
related greenhouse gas emissions.
Fiscal Impact
The policy establishes Friendship Cities differently from Sister Cities. Friendship Cities
are not eligible for City funding. Any direct financial obligation from the City for
Friendship Cities would be limited to providing promotional items not to exceed $15 per
delegate. Indirectly, each international delegation visit uses approximately 20 hours of
staff effort, which equates to about $1,500 of staff time per visit.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Brian Babcock, Public Information Officer
Reviewed by: Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Jiangmen Friendship City Application
B – Luoyang Friendship City Application
C – Nanchang Friendship City Application
D – Qingdao Friendship City Application
E – Shanghai Friendship City Application
F – Shenzhen Friendship City Application
G – Suzhou Friendship City Application
H – Wuhan Friendship City Application
I – Yilan Friendship City Application
J – Zhaoqing Friendship City Application
K – Guro Friendship City Application
154
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s
“Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations” and will be
subject to all guidelines therein.
155
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
________________________________________________________________________
2. Today’s date: __________________________
3. Name of person requesting relationship:______________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation: ____________________________________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ________________________________________________________________________________
4. City of Cupertino Sponsor: __________________________________________________________
5. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: ____________________________________________________
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
156
Cupertino-Jiangmen Friendship City Application
Cupertino-Jiangmen Friendship City Committee
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities Designation. Describe
why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of Cupertino and your local community,
organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this
section to four pages and attach it to this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City and the Friendship
City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the
primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can expect as a result of
the establishment of such a relationship.
The leadership of the Cupertino-Jiangmen Friendship City Friendship Committee consists of:
President: Stephanie Xu
Vice President: Pat Graham
Treasurer: Alan Liu
The Committee foresees three areas of mutual benefits from a friendship city program:
Business Exchanges:
The Committee will provide businesses from the two cities to identify areas of potential mutual collaboration.
Similar to other cities in the western Pearl River Delta, the manufacturing sector plays a significant role in
Jiangmen's economy. The chief industries include manufacturing of motorcycles, household appliances, electronics,
paper, food processing, synthetic fibers and garments, as well as textiles and stainless steel products. Some
worldwide brand names have factories in Jiangmen such as Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings, ABB
Group and Lee Kum Kee foods.
Jiangmen Port is the second largest river port in Guangdong province. The local government plans to develop a
harbour industrial zone with heavy industries to include petrochemical and machinery plants, as well as an ocean-
based economy.
Culture Exchanges:
The Committee will facilitate cultural exchange between the residents of the two cities. The power of opportunity
for cultural exchanges between the two cities will be a mutually beneficial arrangement to help deepen our cross-
cultural partnerships between people.
Education Exchanges:
The Committee will connect students from our Cupertino High Schools and De Anza College students so they can
exchange information about their daily lives and improve understanding of the two cultures. The Committee will
also seek to sponsor small groups of students from both cities to visit the each other city with the support of host
families.
Page of 1 2
157
Cupertino-Jiangmen Friendship City Application
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct the activities of
this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no funding required”. Please note that
the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and
attach it to this application.
No funding is currently required for the operation of the relationship. The future friendship city is proud to work
the community for future activities with a target goal of $30,000 through donations from the communities of both
cities. No funding will be necessary from the City of Cupertino.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but not limited to:
background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no more than two pages.
Jiangmen, formerly romanized as Kongmoon, is a prefecture-level city in Guangdong Province in southern China.
Its 3 urban districts are now part of the Guangzhou–Shenzhen conurbation and the entire prefecture had a population
of about 4.45 million in 2010.
The city is located on the lower reaches of the Xijiang or West River, in the west of the Pearl River Delta in the
middle of southern Guangdong Province. It faces the South China Sea in the south and is 100 kilometres (62 mi)
away from Guangzhou and Zhuhai by highway. Jiangmen city has an area of 9,260 square kilometres (3,580 sq mi),
about one quarter the size of the Pearl River Delta.
Jiangmen was selected by the Chinese state as a pilot city for a nationwide information programme. It was also
chosen by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) as a trial city for the Regional Integration for
Sustainable Economics (RISE) project. According to the "Report on Investment Environment in China 2003" by the
World Bank, Jiangmen ranked the fourth after Shanghai, Hangzhou and Dalian of 23 cities under evaluation in
China. Among various indicators, Jiangmen excelled in infrastructure, labour redundancy, proportion of joint
ventures in all firms, informal payments to government, taxation, productivity and the investment rate.
Culture
Jiangmen is the homeland of 3.68 million overseas Chinese, who live in 107 countries and regions throughout the
world. Strong oversea connections are especially found in the villages.
A significant amount of historical heritage survives from the period of mass emigration prior to World War II. The
most significant are the fortified multi-story towers found mainly in Kaiping. These are known as "Gold Mountain
Towers" or diaolou. Number of natural Hotspring resorts has been developed successfully by using its wealthy
natural heated ground water resources such as Gudou Hotspring Resort (古兜温泉). Guifeng Mountain is a well-
known mountain visited by many tourists, it is the peak of Jiangmen with an elevation of 545 meters above sea
level.
The local government's economic development strategies emphasize the development of tourism and protection of
the environment.
Page of 2 2
158
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
Luoyang China, Luoyang Friendship City Committee.
2. Today’s date: 11/17/2016
3. Name of person requesting relationship: John Lee
Title: Vice President
Affiliation: Western U. S. Henan Business Association
Address: 830 Stewart Dr. Suite 229 Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Email: Jlee5168@gmail.com
Phone: 408-859-1528
4. City of Cupertino Sponsor: Mayor Barry Chang
5. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: Vice Mayor Suxing Chen of Luoyang
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Citie Designation. Describe why a
Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of Cupertino and your local community, organization, and
city.
After multiple discussions with Mayer Chang he has agreed that there are many reasons that this
relationship would be beneficial to the city. Cultural exchange, science conferences, investment
opportunities, just to name a few.
Please outline the areas of mutual strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages
and attach it to this application. Items to include:
Benefits: Luoyang has strong focus on technology, education, entrepreneurship, investment and tourism,
cultural exchange. China is the leading country in renewable energy. Providing opportunity for an exchange
of ideas and information. Cultural benefits from Mutual exchange students learning cultural diversity and
history.
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City and the Friendship City
Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary
signing authority of the Friendship City.
John Lee-Vice President of Western U. S. Henan Business Association
Lei Lei- Chairman/President of Yanghuang Science and Technology Park
Cupertino: Mayor Barry Chang
Luoyang: Vice Mayor Suxing Chen
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus:
159
Technology, Education, Entrepreneurship, Investment and Tourism.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
Luoyang generates approximately $60B. USD GDP in 2015, is ranked 51st out of 355 City
By align with a strong economy city, Cupertino could benefit from many areas, commerce, investment, trade,
culture exchange and tourism just say a few.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can expect as a result of
the establishment of such a relationship.
After discussing with Mayor Chang, Quantified measurement at this point is hard to say and the
methodology can be discussed.
Luoyang is a city located in the confluence area of Luo River and Yellow River in Central China. It is a city in
western Henan province, a state with over 100 million populations, and the most populated Provincial in
China. It borders the provincial capital of Zhengzhou to the east. As of the final 2015 census, Luoyang had a
population of 7,549,941 inhabitants with 2,857,003 people living in the built-up (or metro) area made of the
city's five urban districts, all of which except the Jili District are not urbanized yet.
Luoyang has history dated back to 5,000 years with 108 Empiors host this city as the Country Capital. It is
the beginning of the silkroad.
It has 4 higher educational facilities:
Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology (洛阳理工学院)
Henan University of Science and Technology (河南科技大学)
Luoyang Normal University (洛阳师范学院)
PLA Foreign Language Institute, formerly known as the Luoyang PLA College of Foreign Languages.
Luoyang generates approximately $60B. USD in 2015, is ranked 51 st out of 355 City
As of the end of 2015, Luoyang has 1 state-level development zone, size: 43 sq. miles.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct the
activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no funding
required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for Friendship
Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
160
No funding is required from Cupertino, Luoyang government or the association will provide all the
funding or fund raising.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but not
limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no more than
two pages.
See above reply
9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed relationship,
the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish to share. Limit
additional information to no more than 2 pages.
Some of the projects planned: Student exchange program, investment projects presentation, start-up
companies’ competition, Venture capital road show, culture exchange, entertainment programs.
161
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s
“Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations ” and will be
subject to all guidelines therein.
162
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, China. Nanchang- Cupertino friendship city committee
2. Today’s date: 11/18/2016
3. Name of person requesting relationship: Julia Jin
Affiliation: United for Better Community
4. Address: 10675 S. De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: juliajin98@gmail.com
Phone: 408-309-9629
5. City of Cupertino Sponsor: Mayor Barry Chang
6. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: Mayor Hu, Xian
7. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
8. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
9. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
163
1
Proposal for Friendship City between City of Cupertino, California, USA and
Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, People’s Republic of China (PRC)
To: City of Cupertino
From: Cupertino-Nanchang friendship city committee
Date: November 18, 2016
Re: Establish Friendship City between City of Cupertino, CA, USA and City of Nanchang, Jiangsxi
Province, PRC
Dear Cupertino City,
We would like to establish a Friendship City Relationship between City of Cupertino, and
City of Nanchang, Jiangxi Province.
Cupertino-Nanchang Friendship City Committee:
Cupertino- Nanchang Friendship City Committee is founded in Cupertino by a group of
Cupertino residents and friends. The Committee will apply for a non-profit organization status
from IRS. The founding members of the Association are as below:
President: Julia Jing
Vice President: Jan Dietzgen
Secretary: Susan Su
Treasurer: Jun Du
Proposal for future events:
a. Environmental protection
b. Education and science exchange,
c. Traffic improvement strategies.
d. Smart City Conference
e. Cultural exchange
Funding:
We will do fundraising events to raise money to support the activities. We are not
seeking funding from City of Cupertino.
Benefits of a Friendship City agreement between the two cities:
Both cities can benefit from cultural exchanges and sharing ideas or solutions to traffic problems,
etc.
Areas of mutual interest:
1. Cultural exchanges and mutual understanding
2. Traffic congestion relief.
164
Introduction of Nanchang:
Nanchang (Chinese: 南昌) is the capital of Jiangxi Province in southeastern China.[2] As of 2010,
a population of 5,042,565 live in the prefecture, in which 2,357,838 live in the area made up of
all five urban districts.[3] Located in the north-central part of the province, it is bounded on the
west by the Jiuling Mountains, and on the east by Poyang Lake. Because of its strategic location
connecting the prosperous East and South China, it has become a major railway hub in Southern
China in recent decades.
As the Nanchang Uprising in 1927 is distinctively recognized by the ruling Communist Party as
"firing the first gunshot against the evil Nationalists",[4] the current regime has therefore named
the city since 1949 "the City of Heroes", "the place where the People's Liberation Army was
born", and the most widely known "place where the military banner of the People's Liberation
Army was first raised".
Nanchang Map
Nanchang - capital city of Jiangxi Province
It is located in the north of Jiangxi Province and the lower reaches of Gan River. Its
industries include machinery, automobile, tractors, light textiles, electronics, iron an d
steel, chemicals, and paper making. The city boosts such scenic spots as Bada
Shanren (alias Zhu Da, an early Qing painter [ 1624 or 1626-1705]) Exhibition Hall, All
flowers Islet, West Lake, Water Guanyin (Goddess of Mercy) Pavilion, and the Former
Headquarters of the Nanchang Uprising. It is one of the China's historical and cultural
cities.
The Prince Teng Pavilion
The Prince Teng Pavilion towers at the bank of Gan River. The original pavilion was first
built in 653 in the Tang Dynasty (618-907). It was rebuilt during the reign of the Ming
emperor Jingtai ( 1450-1456 ) outside the Zhangjiang Gate. After the Qing Dynasty it
was destroyed and reconstructed again. In 1926 a fire set by the Northern Warlords
(1912-1927) again burnt it down. Reconstruction of the pavilion began in 1983, and was
completed in 1989. Occupying an area of 43,000 square metres, the main structure of
the pavilion covers 13,000 square metres. With double eaves, the pavilion boasts nine
storeys, with a height of 57.5 metres. It looks even more magnificent and imposing.
165
Nanchang Map and The Prince Teng
Pavilion Photo
-Click here to view it in a new window(318kb)
166
16
7
16
8
1
Friendship City Mutual Interests
The establishment of a friendship city between Cupertino and Qingdao High-Tech
Industrial Development Zone (HIDZ) initiates the economic, technological, and educational
relationship between both cities and dedicates shared knowledge and opportunities in a mutually
beneficial basis. The City of Cupertino is located in Silicon Valley, a world leading high tech
region. The Qingdao HIDZ is also a technology-focused region. Both city mayors have met and
discussed the common interest and potential opportunities of both regions. The common goal of a
friendship city is to facilitate a better communication and understanding culturally, politically, and
economically through the exchange of ideas in fields of technology, education, and business.
Qingdao is considered a young city in China with 125 years of history and a long period of
colonization. During the Qing Dynasty, the area of Qingdao was called Jiao’ao; the area was
developed as a port to conduct oversee trade with Japan and Europe. In 1891, the Qing government
decided to make the area a primary defense base against naval attacks and started the construction
of a city. The original name of the city is Tsingtao; the official name today is Qingdao. Qingdao
is the most important port in northern China; it was occupied by Germany as the Department of
the Navy from 1897 to 1914. After British naval attacked on German colony Qingdao in 1914,
Japan occupied the city and surrounding province during the Siege of Tsingtao. In 1922, Qingdao
reverted back to the Republic of China (ROC) and became a direct-controlled municipality of the
ROC government in 1929. During World War II, Japan re-occupied Qingdao in 1938 with its plans
of territorial expansion onto China's coast. On June 2nd, 1949, the China Communist Party (CCP)
– led Red Army entered Qingdao with success in recapturing the territory and the city and the
province have been under People Republic of China (PRC) control since then. Following the 1984
inauguration of China's open-door policy to foreign trade and investment, Qingdao has developed
quickly as a modern port city. It is now the headquarters of the Chinese navy's northern fleet.
Today, the city still maintains the constructions and cultural influence of Germany and Japan
which add more charm for international visitors.
Qingdao has a population of 9,046,200. The sub-provincial city of Qingdao has direct
jurisdiction over 7 districts and 5 county-level cities with total area of 11,282 square kilometers.
Qingdao is the fifth-largest and the world’s seventh-largest seaport. In 1984, the Chinese
government named a district of Qingdao a Special Economic and Technology Development Zone
(SETDZ). Qingdao has experienced one of the fastest GDP growths among cities in China during
the last decade. The city has recently experienced a rapid growing period with a new financial and
a technology-focused districts. Outside of the center of the city there is a large industrial zone,
which includes chemical processing, and rubber and heavy manufacturing in addition to the
growing high tech area. The historical, geographical, and economic advantages of Qingdao have
made international trading and communication more efficient and more attractive to the global
business owners and investors.
169
2
Given the similarities in scale of each city being a major hub in the respective region, the
government of Qingdao decided to have the HIDZ become a friendship city with the City of
Cupertino. The Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone is a province-level zone
approved by the State Council in May of 1992. It is a newly developed technology-focused district
in Qingdao where some of the most influential high tech institutions in China are located. After
combined with Qingdao Jiao Zhou Bay New Industrial Base, the area of HIDZ is now 9.95 square
kilometers and can be also referred to as Red Island District. More so, Cupertino is located in the
heart of Silicon Valley, where it has many prominent technology-focused institutions such as
Apple Inc. City of Cupertino can also be a medium to connect the surrounding cities in Silicon
Valley. With the friendship city relationship, the officials from Qingdao can provide local
resources such as legislation and personnel support for foreign businesses and corporate branches
that decide to do business in the region.
The city of Qingdao and Shandong province provide the largest support to develop this
region to achieve its goal of becoming one of the five leading High-Tech Zones in China and have
a worldwide influence. The officials of Qingdao HIDZ have mentioned that to achieve this goal
the region needs to absorb the world’s most advanced technology and innovative ideas. HIDZ
recently launched two demonstration projects on technological innovation services and marine
economic system reform with the aim of building a regional center for marine industrial innovation
and entrepreneurship. This region also serves the construction of the National Self-Dependent
Innovation Demonstration Area on the Shandong Peninsula. It has 26 key laboratories above city
level and five national technology incubators. There are also province-level software industrial
base and three national-level colleges, Ocean University of China, Qingdao University, and
Qingdao University of Science and Technology. The Qingdao HIDZ is willing to share its
resources with the City of Cupertino and welcomes business visits from Cupertino’s high tech
corporations. During the formal meeting on October 25th, 2016 when the friendship city agreement
was signed, the mayor of both cities discussed that the frequency to which corporations and
universities communicate will facilitate the development of new ideas and make discoveries that
both major regions on each side of the world can potentially benefit from.
During the last twenty years, Qingdao has been a major manufacturing center in Shandong
province. There are growing number of prominent institutions in Qingdao such as Haier
Corporation, which engages in the manufacture and distribution of household electrical appliances.
Haier is one of the first Chinese corporations to successfully enter the U.S. market. Among the
many visits during the trip from Cupertino to Qingdao, Qingdao HIDZ President Shang Li Qun
arranged a visit for overseas visitors and delegates from Qingdao, IFPC, and Hong Kong Qingdao
Association to the headquarter of Haier, which turned out to be a great way for all who gathered
to get a firsthand experience of innovation and success the company has achieved so far. Haier
encourages and sponsors its employees from all departments to actively innovate and develop new
170
3
business ideas using the corporation platform. The corporation is also willing to send the new
generation of entrepreneur to join the movement in the U.S. following Haier’s lead the friendship
city agreement will hopefully make that goal that much more achievable.
Furthermore, China has become one of the most popular study abroad destinations for
international students due to its over 5,000 years of history and diverse culture. Education is the
best way to achieve cultural exchange and communication. Shandong province is the hometown
of Confucius and Mencius, as well as the land of ceremony and propriety. In addition, Qingdao
has large foreign population which has brought diversified culture and lifestyle to the city. With
its inherent diverse scenery, Qingdao is one of the best gateway for international students to study
Chinese culture and history. The friendship city will assure a credible relationship between
Cupertino and Qingdao and allow easier access of information exchange for generations to come.
More so, the president of Think Tank Learning in California, Steven Ma, has established an
international private, non-profit high school in Qingdao in 2015. The school provides a complete
U.S. high school curriculum that is taught in manner to replicate any other high school located in
the United States. The style and environment is to prepare students in Qingdao to attend California
universities. In the future, the school will open semester exchange programs with high schools in
California.
During his trip to Qingdao, Mayor Barry Chang and the delegation also had the opportunity
to visit the number one ranked high school in the Shandong Province (Qingdao No. 2 High School).
The school was founded in 1925 and was appointed as the key school of Shandong Province in
1953. The school has been awarded National Leading Unit in Education, National Model School
in Moral Education, National Green School, National Model School in Traditional Sports
Education, National Olympics Standardized School, Provincial Standardized School, Provincial
Model School in Democratic Administration, and Qingdao Model School in Education Reform.
The school is one example of international student exchange program offering the experience and
works with high schools in the Eastern United States, Russia, and Japan. More so, in meeting with
Major Barry Chang, the principal of the high school expressed interest to connect with the high
schools in Silicon Valley since the school has focuses in innovative technology and is looking to
adopt both western and eastern education curriculum.
As an important trading port in the province, Qingdao flourishes with foreign investment
and international trade. On another arranged visit, the president of Hong Kong Qingdao
Association Limited, Peter Liu Shu Sun, and the founder of Wang Duan Rui hosted a half day
event to visit Weidong Cloud Education of Weidong Group. Weidong Cloud Education aims to
narrow down the education gap between countries and regions. It works with international
organizations and world-renowned institutions to build an international digital education resource-
sharing platform. With the visit from Mayor Barry Chang, the senior management team of the
company also expressed interest and willingness to conduct business trips to visit corporations in
171
4
Silicon Valley as part of further developing the friendship city agreement.
Qingdao is most famously known for the Tsingtao Brewery. The Tsingtao Brewery was
founded on August 27, 1903 by German settlers and is headquartered in Qingdao. Now the
Tsingtao Brewery is the most famous beer brand in China and known worldwide. The government
of Qingdao and Tsingtao Brewery Co. will sponsor the first Qingdao Beer Festival in Los Angeles
in 2017. In connection to the friendship city agreement, this event brings about opportunity for one
of China’s high quality food and beverage company to be a leading ambassador for the larger
Chinese food and beverage industry to enter the U.S. market. With the event being planned it will
also bring both Chinese traditional and modern music, dance, and art to achieve better
communication and understanding of Chinese culture. With this friendship city relationship, we
can bring such events and more activities to the Bay Area in the future. This friendship city
agreement between the City of Cupertino and Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone
has potential to bring more institutions and people from various fields of technology, education,
and business to participate and set a new outlook that will bring about a larger scope of
opportunities between the two sides of the world.
Friendship City Committee
The Mayor of Cupertino Barry Chang initiated a friendship city trip to the People Republic of
China from October 24th to November 15th, 2016. Dr. Reuben K. Chen, the founder and CEO, and
Yilin Wang, the business development manager of Wellspring Consulting connected with
organizations and the government of Qingdao to discuss the content of a friendship city agreement.
Mayor Barry Chang arrived in Qingdao on October 25th and that same day the Qingdao United
Front Work Department arranged a visit to Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone and
an official meeting in the afternoon. After a successful discussion, Shang Li Qun, President of the
Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Committee of the Communist Party of China
acknowledged and signed the friendship city agreement with the Mayor of Cupertino Barry Chang.
Prior to the friendship city agreement meeting, Dr. Reuben K. Chen was also invited to speak at
the annual conference of International Financial Planner Council (IFPC), Hong Kong association,
in Qingdao from October 19th to the 25th. The conference was joint hosted by Qingdao United
Front Work Department and Hong Kong Qingdao Association Limited. The sponsor of the
conference was Pegasus California High School, established by Steven Ma, the president of Think
Tank Learning in California, and Qingdao Wei Dong Group. The secretary of IFPC Heman Lam
Kwok Chu assisted to initially discussed the friendship city agreement with the Qingdao
government prior to Mayor Barry Chang’s arrival. The president of Hong Kong Qingdao
172
5
Association Peter Liu Shu Sun also provides important contact to connect with the Qingdao
Government and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
All the listed parties and people have provided important resources and support to facilitate the
success of Cupertino and Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone friendship city
agreement. With a common goal to build a better communication channel between two cultures
and stimulate the international development of the two regions, all the members and future
participants of the committee will work together to share resources and opportunities base on
common interests.
Shang Li Qun – Qingdao Official
Shang Li Qun is the President of the Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone Committee
of the Communist Party of China and the Executive Deputy Director of Qingdao High-Tech
Industrial Development Zone Management Committee. He represented the High-Tech Industrial
Development Zone and the Mayor of Qingdao, Zhang Xinqi, to discuss and sign the friendship
city agreement.
Dr. Reuben K. Chen – President
Dr. Reuben K. Chen is the founder and CEO of Wellspring Consulting and the Member Firm
Principal of M Financial Group. He founded Silicon Valley Lions Foundation and serves as the
Charter President of the Silicon Valley Lions Club. He is currently the Chairman of the Northern
California Chapter of the Asian American Insurance Financial Professional Association
(AAIFPA). Dr. Chen co-founded Shower of Blessing Evangelistic Ministry (SOBEM, U.S.A.)
and the Chinese American Christian Business Fellowship (CACBF). He is also Board of Director
and Treasurer for Culture Regeneration Research Society USA (CRRS). He was awarded “World
Outstanding Chinese Award” in 2007 and received a proclamation from Mayor Jose Esteves, City
of Milpitas, for his outstanding worldwide achievement and contribution to the community. Dr.
Chen initiated the Friendship City Committee in Qingdao and connected with all the related
organizations. He invited the Mayor of Cupertino Barry Chang to visit Qingdao and signed the
friendship city agreement with Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone.
Peter Liu Shu Sun – VP
Peter Liu Shu Sun is the president of Hong Kong Qingdao Association Limited, founding member
and Honorary President of Hong Kong Shandong Business Association, Honorary Adviser of
China Chamber of International Commerce, Qingdao Chamber, executive member of Qingdao
Federation of Industry and commerce, and the former senior member of Qingdao committee of
CPPCC for 15 years. His association has a long history of friendship and focuses on the
communication and knowledge exchange on culture, economy, education, and technology
between Hong Kong and Qingdao. He works closely with Qingdao United Front Work Department
and the Qingdao Government and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
173
6
(CPPCC). He connected with Qingdao Weidong Group and Weidong Cloud Education and plans
to visit Silicon Valley beginning in 2017 with a group of Qingdao investors and entrepreneurs.
Steven Ma – VP
Steven Ma is the Founder, President and CEO of Think Tank Learning, Inc. Mr. Ma serves as
secretary of the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs and is the Chair of
the Asian American Education Media Foundation. In 2015, he connected with Hong Kong
International Financial Planner Council (IFPC) to fund and established the Pegasus California
High School in Qingdao. Mr. Ma also served as Chairman of the Education Committee of the
International Leadership Foundation. In 2010, Steven was recognized as one of China’s Top 10
Economic Talents and given a special recognition at the 7th Annual “Greater China Economic
Excellence Awards” in Beijing.
Yilin Wang – VP
Yilin Wang is the business development manager of Wellspring Consulting. She invited and
arranged the trip for the Mayor Barry Chang to Qingdao. She discussed the content of the
friendship city agreement with Qingdao Official organizations and designed the program structure
of the agreement. She is responsible for establishing the Friendship City Committee and will plan
for future events and opportunities for the committee.
Heman Lam Kwok Chu – VP
Heman Lam Kwok Chu is the secretary of Hong Kong International Financial Planner Council
(IFPC). He made contact with the Qingdao United Front Work Department to write the friendship
city agreement and arranged the reception program and official meeting for Mayor Barry Chang
in Qingdao. He is responsible for fundraising for future events between Cupertino and Qingdao.
The Qingdao United Front Work Department (UFWD) is a municipal political agency under
the guidance of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. The department is
responsible for managing relations with the non-Communist Party elites including individuals and
organizations, commercial, or academic influence, or those that represent important interest groups,
both domestically and internationally. In addition, the department is also responsible for contacting
the non-Party committee representatives and CPPCC members at all levels; it provides assistance
and support on investigation, supervision, and proposal works. The UFWD seeks to ensure that
these groups are supportive to Communist Party rule.
174
7
Monetary and Resources
The three-day visit from October 23rd to 25th, 2016 in Qingdao cost $3,000 per person
including international and domestic transportation and accommodations. The first trip from
Cupertino to Qingdao was self-funded. All conferences, visits, and meals in Qingdao were
arranged and sponsored by International Financial Planner Council, Hong Kong Qingdao
Association Limited, The Qingdao United Front Work Department, and Qingdao Chinese People's
Political Consultative Conference. Sponsorships may continue for future activities. Depending on
the event participants will be responsible for their own expenses. The Friendship City Committee
in Cupertino will provide necessary resources such as event arrangement and supporting
documents for local legislation purpose. There is no funding required from the City of Cupertino.
For business visits and activities, a sponsorship may be required.
Based on the agreement, there is no requirement for annual visits between the government
officials of both cities. However, for projects that require in-person meetings as well as future
activities and events between both cities, the following list of identifies areas that would require
funding when visiting the host city.
• Travel arrangements (e.g. transportation, hotel, dining)
• Travel documentations (Visas)
• Gifts
• Entertainment
• Event Coordinator
o Venue
o Security
o Event staff
o Technology
• Marketing efforts leading into an event
o Ads and local media outlet
Through the friendship city agreement, we want to expand our mutual interests in various
fields of work and that this will be the first step towards that goal. To add, this establishment we
believe will generate interest and opportunities for more government, business, and professional
organizations from both cities to participate.
175
青岛 Qingdao
Mayor: Zhang Xinqi 张新起
Year of establishment:1891
Location: Eastern Shandong Province
Jurisdiction: 7 districts, 5 county-level cities
Land Area: 11,282 km2
Population: 9,046,200
GDP: $136.43 Billion USD
GDP per capita: $14879.50 USD
Friendship City Committee
176
Qingdao High-tech Industrial Development Zone
Year of establishment :1992
Location: Red Island, Qingdao, Shandong
Land Area: 9.95 km2
Population:81,000
Total Production: $6.5 Billion USD
Major Corporations: Lucent, Parker Hannifen, SSL, China North Rolling Stock
Group, Hisense, Haier Soft, Neusoft
Major Industries
Information technology, bio-pharmaceuticals, new
materials, new energy, advanced equipment
manufacturing, marine technology, defense technology
Friendship City Committee
177
Qingdao Official Meeting and Signing of Friendship City Agreement
Barry Chang –Mayor of Cupertino
Shang Li Qun –Qingdao Official
Involved Organizations:
Qingdao Government and the Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
Qingdao High-Tech Industrial Development Zone
Committee of the Communist Party of China
The Qingdao United Front Work Department (UFWD)
Hong Kong Qingdao Association Limited
Hong Kong International Financial Planner Council (IFPC)
Wellspring Consulting –Silicon Valley
Qingdao Weidong Group
Friendship City Committee
178
Qingdao HIDZ Educational Institutions
The Mayor Barry Chang and visited the Qingdao No. 2 High School Pegasus California School in Qingdao
Friendship City Committee
179
Qingdao Leading Industries
Friendship City Committee
180
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s “Policies
and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations ” and will be subject to all
guidelines therein.
181
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
Channing District, Shanghai City,
2. Today’s date: November 18, 2016
3. Name of person requesting relationship: Linda Shum
Title: President
Affiliation: Cupertino-Shanghai Friendship City Association
4. Address: 10454 Scenic Ct.,Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: lindashum@yahoo.com
Phone: 408-255-6737
5. City of Cupertino Sponsor: Mayor Barry Chang
6. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: District Mayor Gu, Hong Hui
7. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities Designation.
Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of Cupertino and your
local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual strength and interest for
each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to this application. Items to
include:
Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship
City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signi ng authority of the Friendship City.
Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
See attached.
8. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct the
activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom . If none, state “no funding
required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for Friendship
Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
See attached.
9. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish to
182
share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
183
1
Proposal for Friendship City between City of Cupertino, California, USA and
City of Shanghai (Channing District), People’s Republic of China (PRC)
To: City of Cupertino
From: Cupertino-Shanghai Friendship City Association
Date: November 18, 2016
Re: Establish Friendship City between City of Cupertino, CA, USA and City of Shanghai, PRC
Dear City of Cupertino,
We are asking you to establish Friendship City Relationship between City of Cupertino,
and City of Shanghai, Channing District.
Cupertino-Shanghai Friendship City Association
Cupertino-Shanghai Friendship City Association is founded in Cupertino by a group of
Cupertino residents and friends. The Association will apply for a non-profit organization status
from IRS. The founding members of the Association are as below:
President: Linda Shum
Vice President: Lian Feng
Secretary: Jenny Yuan
Treasurer: Kerchen Heller
Funding the Proposal
We will host fundraising events and ask community members to contribute. The
Association will actively raise fund for potential activities in the future. And, we are not asking
funding from City of Cupertino.
Plan of Events in the future
a. Traffic improvement strategies exchange.
b. Trade, education, science, technology cooperation and exchange;
c. Smart City Conference between two cities.
d. “Tell the story of your city” video competition.
Areas of mutual interest:
1. Find solution for potential traffic congestion relief
2. Cultural exchanges and mutual understanding
Benefits of a Friendship City agreement between the two cities:
Both cities can learn from each other about the solution for traffic and housing crisis. Both can
benefit from each other through cultural exchanges and each successful program.
184
185
186
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s
“Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations ” and will be
subject to all guidelines therein.
187
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
Shenzhen City, People’s Republic of china,
2. Today’s date: November 18, 2016
3. Name of person requesting relationship: Windy He
Title: President
Affiliation: Cupertino-Shenzhen Friendship City Foundation
4. Address:8171 Brittany, Dublin, CA 94568
Email: winndyhe@msn.com
Phone: 925-271-4768
5. City of Cupertino Sponsor: Mayor Barry Chang
6. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: Vice Mayor Ai, Xue Feng
7. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
See attached.
8. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none , state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
See attached.
9. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish to
share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
188
1
Proposal for Friendship City between City of Cupertino, California, USA and
Shenzhen City, People’s Republic of China (PRC)
To: City of Cupertino
From: Cupertino-Shenzhen Friendship City Foundation
Date: November 18, 2016
Re: Establish Friendship City between City of Cupertino, CA, USA and City of Shenzhen, PRC
Dear Cupertino City,
We would like to establish a Friendship City Relationship between City of Cupertino, and
City of Shenzhen.
Cupertino-Shenzhen Friendship City Foundation:
Cupertino-Shenzhen Friendship City Foundation is founded in Cupertino. The
Foundation will apply for a non-profit organization status from IRS. The founding members of
the Association are as below:
President: Windy He
Vice President: Lotus Gan
Secretary: Lisa Tow
Treasurer: Chris Wu
Proposal for future events:
a. Traffic improvement strategies exchange.
b. Education and science exchange,
c. Environmental protection ,
d. Smart City Conference between two cities.
Funding:
There is no funding requested from Cupertino city. We will do our own fundraising
events. The Foundation will actively raise fund for potential activities in the future.
Benefits of a Friendship City agreement between the two cities:
Both cities can learn from each other about the solution for environmental protections, housing
crisis, traffic congestions.
Areas of mutual interest:
1. Technology development
2. Protect the environment and the beauty of the surroundings
3. Cultural exchanges and mutual understanding
189
Shenzhen City Intro.:
Shenzhen ([ʂə́nʈʂə̂n] ( listen); Chinese: 深圳[3]) is a major city
in Guangdong Province, China. Shenzhen is located immediately north of Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region. It holds sub-provincial administrative status, with
powers slightly less than a province.[4]
Shenzhen was a market town of 30,000 people on the route of the Kowloon–Canton
Railway. That changed in 1979 when Shenzhen was promoted to city-status and in
1980 designated China’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ).[5] According to the
Government report for 2015, Shenzhen had transformed to a city with population of
10,778,900[6] and a metropolitan area population of over 18 million. Shenzhen was one
of the fastest-growing cities in the world during the 1990s and the 2000s.[7] Shenzhen's
population boom slowed down to less than one percent per year by 2013 as the
manufacturing boom ebbed in favor of other industries.[8]
Shenzhen's modern cityscape is the result of its vibrant economy made possible by
rapid foreign investment since the institution of the policy of "reform and opening"
establishment of the SEZ in late 1979.[9]
Shenzhen is a major financial center in southern China. The city is home to
the Shenzhen Stock Exchange as well as the headquarters of numerous high-tech
companies.[10] Shenzhen ranks 19th in the 2016 edition of the Global Financial Centres
Index published by the Z/Yen Group and Qatar Financial Centre Authority.[11] It also has
one of the busiest container ports in the world.[12]
190
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s
“Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations ” and will be
subject to all guidelines therein.
191
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
_Cupertino-Suzhou Friendship City Foundation___________________________
2. Today’s date: ______11/18/2016____________________
3. Name of person requesting relationship:__________Roy Kong______________
Title: _____________President_______________________________________________
Affiliation: _____U.S. Suzhou Chamber of Commerce Vice president: Christie Wang, Jie Chen Secretary:
David Lee Treasurer: Lucy Ku Member representatives: Chin Lin , Sandy Wang , Qin Zhou, Xinrong
Xiong__
4. Address: ____PO Box 1563, Cupertino, CA 95015_____
Email: _____roy.kong@svcangel.com______
Phone: ______________4086475818___________________________________________________
5. City of Cupertino Sponsor: ______________Barry Chang________________________________
6. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: __Mayor of Suzhou: Futian Qu_______________________
7. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
8. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
9. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
192
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
193
1
Proposal for Friendship City between City of Cupertino, California, USA and
Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China (PRC)
To: City of Cupertino
From: Cupertino-Suzhou Friendship City Foundation
Date: November 18, 2016
Re: Establish Friendship City between City of Cupertino, CA, USA and City of Suzhou, Jiangsu
Province, PRC
Dear Cupertino City,
We would like to establish a Friendship City Relationship between City of Cupertino, and
City of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province.
Cupertino-Suzhou City Foundation:
Cupertino-Suzhou Friendship City Foundation is founded in Cupertino by a group of
Cupertino residents and friends. The Foundation will apply for a non-profit organization status
from IRS. The founding members of the Association are as below:
President: Mingli Chu
Vice President: Gloria You
Secretary: Misty Zhang
Treasurer: Jackie Chen
Proposal for future events:
a. Education and science exchange,
b. Traffic improvement strategies exchange.
c. Environmental protection ,
d. Smart City Conference between two cities.
e. “Tell the story of your city” video competition.
Funding:
We are not asking any funding from Cupertino city. We will do our own fundraising
events and ask community members to contribute. The Foundation will actively
raise fund for potential activities in the future.
Benefits of a Friendship City agreement between the two cities:
Both cities can learn from each other about the solution for environmental protections. .
Areas of mutual interest:
1. Protect the environment and the beauty of the surroundings
2. Cultural exchanges and mutual understanding
194
Introduction of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China
Suzhou, formerly romanized as Soochow, is a major city located in southeastern Jiangsu
Province of East China, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Shanghai. It is a major economic center and
focal point of trade and commerce, and the second largest city in the province after the capital Nanjing.
The city is situated on the lower reaches of the Yangtze River and the shores of Lake Tai and belongs to
the Yangtze River Delta region. Administratively, Suzhou is a prefecture-level city with a population of
4.33 million in its city proper, and a total resident population (as of 2013) of 10.58 million in its
administrative area.[2][4] Its urban population grew at an unprecedented rate of 6.5% between 2000 and
2014, which is the highest among cities with more than 5 million people.[5][6]
Founded in 514 BC, Suzhou has over 2,500 years of history, with an abundant display of relics and sites
of historical interest. Around AD 100, during the Eastern Han Dynasty, it became one of the ten largest
cities in the world mostly due to emigration from Northern China.[7][8] Since the 10th-century Song Dynasty,
it has been an important commercial center of China. During the Ming and Qing Dynasty, Suzhou was a
national economic, cultural, and commercial[9] center, as well as the largest non-capital city in the world,
until the 1860 Taiping Rebellion.[10]When Li Hongzhang and Charles George Gordon recaptured the city
three years later, Shanghai had already taken its predominant place in the nation.[11] Since
major economic reforms began in 1978, Suzhou has become one of the fastest growing major cities in
the world, with GDP growth rates of about 14% in the past 35 years.[2][12] With high life expectancy and
per capita incomes, Suzhou's Human Development Index ratings is roughly comparable to a moderately
developed country, making it one of the most highly developed and prosperous cities in China.[3]
The city's canals, stone bridges, pagodas, and meticulously designed gardens have contributed to its
status as one of the top tourist attractions in China. The Classical Gardens of Suzhou were added to the
list of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 1997 and 2000. Suzhou is often dubbed the "Venice of the
East" or "Venice of China".[13][14][15]
195
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s “Policies
and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations” and will be subject to all
guidelines therein.
196
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
Cupertino-Wuhan Friendship City Association
2. Today’s date: 11-18-2016
3. Name of person requesting relationship: David Lee
Title: President _
4. Address: 10350 San Fernando Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: davidleemail12@gmail.com
Phone: 408-513-5855
5. City of Cupertino Sponsor: Barry Chang
6. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: Mayor of Wuhan: Wan, Yong
7. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship
City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
8. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
9. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
197
1
Proposal for Friendship City between City of Cupertino, California, USA and
Wuhan City, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China (PRC)
To: City of Cupertino
From: Cupertino-Wuhan Friendship City Association
Date: November 18, 2016
Re: Establish Friendship City between City of Cupertino, CA, USA and Wuhan City, Hubei
Province, PRC
Dear Cupertino City,
We are applying to establish a Friendship City Relationship between City of Cupertino,
and City of Wuhan.
Cupertino-Wuhan Friendship City Association:
Cupertino-Wuhan Friendship City Association is founded in Cupertino. The Foundation
will apply for a non-profit organization status from IRS. The founding members of the
Association are as below:
President: David Lee
Vice President: Roy Kong
Secretary: Jie Chen
Treasurer: Sandy Wang
Proposal for future events:
a. Traffic improvement strategies exchange.
b. Education and science exchange,
c. Smart City Conference between two cities.
Funding:
We will fund the event through our fundraising effort. The Association will not ask City
of Cupertino for funding in the future.
Benefits of a Friendship City agreement between the two cities:
Both cities can share the experience for solving housing crisis and traffic congestions.
Areas of mutual interest:
1. Housing crisis,
2. Traffic congestion relief
3. Cultural exchanges.
198
Wuhan City info.:
Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province, China, and is the most populous city in Central China.
It lies in the eastern Jianghan Plain at the intersection of the middle reaches of the Yangtze and
Han rivers. Arising out of the conglomeration of three cities, Wuchang, Hankou, and Hanyang,
Wuhan is known as "Jiusheng Tongqu (the nine provinces' leading thoroughfare)"; it is a major
transportation hub, with dozens of railways, roads and expressways passing through the city and
connecting to major cities in Mainland China. Because of its key role in domestic transportation,
Wuhan was sometimes referred to as the "Chicago of China" by foreign sources.
Holding sub-provincial status,[8] Wuhan is recognized as the political, economic, financial,
cultural, educational and transportation center of central China.[4] The city of Wuhan, first termed
as such in 1927, has a population of 10,607,700 people as of 2015.[9] In the 1920s, Wuhan was
the national capital of a leftist Kuomintang (KMT) government led by Wang Jingwei in
opposition to Chiang Kai-shek,[10] as well as wartime capital in 1937.[11][12] At the 2010 census, its
built-up (or metro) area made of 8 out of 10 urban districts (all but Xinzhou and Hannan not yet
conurbated) was home to 8,821,658 inhabitants.[
199
200
201
202
203
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
________________________________________________________________________
2. Today’s date: __________________________
3. Name of person requesting relationship:______________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation: ____________________________________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ________________________________________________________________________________
4. City of Cupertino Sponsor: __________________________________________________________
5. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: ____________________________________________________
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
204
Cupertino-Zhaoqing Friendship City Application
Page 1 of 2
Cupertino-Zhaoqing Friendship City Committee
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities Designation. Describe why
a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of Cupertino and your local community, organization,
and city. Please outline the areas of mutual strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four
pages and attach it to this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City and the Friendship City
Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary
signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can expect as a result of
the establishment of such a relationship.
The proponent of the friendship city program at Zhaoqing is Mayor CHEN Xudong of Zhaoqing.
The leadership of the Cupertino-Zhaoqing Friendship City Friendship Committee (The Committee) consists of:
President: Jerry Liu. Research Engineering Manager at HP Labs.
Vice President: Art Cohen. Owner of Bluelight Cinemas.
Treasurer: John Liu, Cupertino Resident.
Secretary: Jethro Chan, Cupertino Resident.
The Committee foresees three areas of mutual benefits from a friendship
city program:
Cultural Exchanges: The Committee will facilitate cultural exchange
between the residents of the two cities. The Zhaoqing area encompasses
the Xinghu Lake Scenic Area, consisting of the Seven Star Crags and
Dinghu Mountain scenic spots, and is the most famous tourist spot in the
Guangdong Province. Zhaoqing itself has a lot of history significance, Figure 1 Seven Star Crags overlooking
Zhaoqing
205
Cupertino-Zhaoqing Friendship City Application
Page 2 of 2
being one of the most important cities in southern China before the Qing dynasty.
Educational Exchanges: The Committee will connect students from Cupertino high schools and De Anza College
students to Zhaoqing students of similar age ranges so they can exchange information about their daily lives and
improve understanding of the two cultures. The Committee will also sponsor small groups of students from both cities
to visit the other city with the support of host families.
Business Exchanges: The Committee will provide businesses from the two
cities to identify areas of potential mutual collaboration. The Zhaoqing
government is interested in investing in high-tech industries and has been
encouraging industrial development including the formation of Guangdong
Zhaoqing High-tech Industrial Development Zone, with an area of 42
square miles that consists of two industrial parks, Sanrong Industrial Park
and Dawang Industrial Park. Dawang is facilitated as an export processing
and trade zone.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct the activities of
this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no funding required”. Please note that
the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and
attach it to this application.
No funding is currently required for the operation of the friendship city relationship. For future activities, the
Committee has a fund raising target of $50,000 through donations from the residents and the business communities
from both cities. No funding or resources will be needed from the City of Cupertino.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but not limited to:
background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no more than two pages.
Zhaoqing is a city of almost 4 million residents in the Guangdong province
of China. Zhaoqing is located about 70 miles northwest of Guangzhou, in the
west Pearl River Delta. It lies on the north shores of the Xi River, which flows
from west to east. Numerous rice paddies and aquaculture ponds are found
on the outskirts of the city. A plain area lies to the south and west of
Zhaoqing, with mountains to the east and north.
The primary industries including mining, agriculture, and tourism. Zhaoqing
has been designated as a national tourist destination in China, attracting of
hordes of travellers from across the globe each year. Zhaoqing is known
throughout China for its green hills and limestone crags.
Zhaoqing contains Zhaoqing University and is also home to a campus of Guangdong
University of Finance. There is also Zhaoqing Foreign Language College, a Canadian-
American School and numerous other schools including those specializing in foreign
language study.
Zhaoqing is one of the ancient cities in the history of China, first being named Gaoyao
county in the Han Dynasty, before being changed to Duanzhou, Sihui and Gaoyao. It
was finally renamed Zhaoqing in the Qing dynasty. Zhaoqing was one of the first
places in inland China to be visited by a foreigner, the Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci who
settled there in the sixteenth century.
Figure 2 Factory area within the Zhaoqing
High-Tech Industry Development Zone
Figure 3 Top-rated hotel in Zhaoqing, the
OYC Hotel
Figure 4 Zhaoqing University
206
CITY OF CUPERTTINO
FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
Instructions
This application is to be completed by the Friendship City Committee of the requesting international city
and submitted electronically to the Cupertino City Manager’s Office by emailing pio@cupertino.org.
Background
A Friendship Cities Designation is an established relationship between the City of Cupertino and a
partnering international organization that is mutually beneficial. The first step towards establishing a
Friendship Cities Designation is to complete this application. This application helps to identify proposed
goals of the relationship, the supporting activities expected, and highlights the areas of interest strengths,
or needs of each party. The proponents of establishing such a relationship must be a collaboration of a
community organization (a Friendship City Committee) and an elected official of the participating
international city.
Who May Request a Friendship Cities Designation?
Any established Friendship City Committee of the proponent Friendship City may submit an application.
The most successful applications will have more than one sponsor and will represent multiple agencies or
organizations.
Processing and Approval of the Application
This application will clearly state the rationale and the goals of the relationship and the mutual benefits in
establishing this relationship. Once the designation is in place, all information in the application will be
shared with the community and stakeholders upon request.
Complete information for key contacts and authorizing individuals (the signing authorities) must be
provided before the relationship can be finalized. In addition, the committee must have a Cupertino
Councilmember sponsorship. Incomplete information will delay the process. A Friendship Cities
Designation will be authorized for a period of two (2) years as outlined in the City of Cupertino’s
“Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations” and will be
subject to all guidelines therein.
207
CUPERTINO FRIENDSHIP CITIES PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
To be completed in English by the requesting organization:
1. Name and Country of the proposed Friendship City and the Friendship City Committee:
________________________________________________________________________
2. Today’s date: __________________________
3. Name of person requesting relationship:______________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation: ____________________________________________________________________________
Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ________________________________________________________________________________
4. City of Cupertino Sponsor: __________________________________________________________
5. Friendship City Elected Official Sponsor: ____________________________________________________
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities
Designation. Describe why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of
Cupertino and your local community, organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual
strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this section to four pages and attach it to
this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City
and the Friendship City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent
Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can
expect as a result of the establishment of such a relationship.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct
the activities of this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no
funding required”. Please note that the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for
Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and attach it to this application.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but
not limited to: background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no
more than two pages.
9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please add any additional information about this proposed
relationship, the proponent Friendship City, and/or the Friendship City Committee that you wish
to share. Limit additional information to no more than 2 pages.
208
Cupertino-Guro Friendship City Application
Page 1 of 3
Cupertino-Guro Friendship City Committee
6. RATIONALE: Please explain the rationale and focus of the requested Friendship Cities Designation. Describe
why a Friendship City relationship would be beneficial to the City of Cupertino and your local community,
organization, and city. Please outline the areas of mutual strength and interest for each of the participants. Limit this
section to four pages and attach it to this application. Items to include:
• Names, titles, and affiliations of those who will be involved at the proponent Friendship City and the Friendship
City Committee. Be sure to include information for the proponent Friendship City’s Mayor as they will have the
primary signing authority of the Friendship City.
• Areas of mutual interest upon which the relationship will focus.
• Opportunities for new activities and potential outcomes.
• Benefits and measurable results that the City of Cupertino and proponent Friendship City can expect as a result of
the establishment of such a relationship.
The leadership of the Cupertino-Guro Friendship City Friendship Committee consists of:
Jina Young Kim: president
VP: Stephanie Xu
Treasurer: Patrick Ahrens
The Committee foresees three areas of mutual benefits from a friendship city program:
Cultural Exchanges:
The city of Guro has a rich culture to offer exchanges with the city of Cupertino.
The Guro Arts Valley Theater, a cultural arts center in the southwest area of Seoul, has a
performance area, seating capacity of 579, as well as having a gallery, a small hall, a kids’ book
cafe, and a cafeteria. In this sense, the place is regarded as an integrated cultural space, and
symbolizes the tangible progress and development that has taken place in Guro. It is also a
representative cultural arts center that gains a lot of attention from residents from other regions.
Educational Exchanges:
Collaboration between Cupertino’s high schools’s and De Anza College as well as Guro, Korea’s
education institutions stands to benefit greatly from an educational exchange program.
Guro District has a total of 83 education facilities: four universities, 11 high schools, 13 junior
high schools, 23 elementary schools and 33 kindergartens. Furthermore, there are 33 public and
private libraries with more than 420,000 books.
Dongyang Technical College provides education with a specialized curriculum focused mainly
on high-tech practical training courses and supplies manpower to the companies located at the
Guro Digital Industrial Complex.
209
Cupertino-Guro Friendship City Application
Page 2 of 3
Sungkonghoe University trains students who will work for public welfare, social services, human
rights and peace of the world. It is also training students to work in industrial fields.
Business Exchanges:
Guro is home to the biggest IT foundation in Korea, making it by far the biggest industry closer
in the nation. The region has changed from a center of labor intensive industry to a center of IT,
cutting edge technology.
7. RESOURCES: Please address monetary and in-kind resources that may be necessary to conduct the activities of
this relationship, how they are to be obtained, and from whom. If none, state “no funding required”. Please note that
the City of Cupertino does not currently provide funding for Friendship Cities. Limit this section to one page and
attach it to this application.
No funding is currently required for the operation of the relationship. For future activities, the
Committee has a fund raising target of $50,000 through donations from the communities of both
cities. No funding or resources will be needed from the City of Cupertino.
8. PROFILE: Please attach a brief profile of your city and Friendship City Committee including, but not limited to:
background, location, nature, size, and relevant programs. Limit the profile to no more than two pages.
Guro District (Guro-gu) is a district of Seoul, South Korea, which was separated from
Yeongdeungpo District on April 1, 1980. Located in the southwestern part of the city, where
besides Yangcheon District and Geumcheon District Guro District has an important position as a
transport link which contains railroads, land routes from the rest of Seoul to the south of the
country. The Gyeongbu and Gyeongin railway lines connect Seoul to Busan and Incheon. In
addition, Seoul Metropolitan Subway lines 1, 2, and 7, and major highways intersect in Guro
District.
The name Guro originates from the legend that nine (Korean: gu) old men (Korean: ro) enjoyed
longevity in the district.
A digital industrial complex is located in Guro District. The Guro Digital Industrial Complex,
which played a leading industrial role mainly with textile manufacturing, dressmaking and other
labour-intensive industries in 1967, has been rapidly changed into an IT industrial complex. This
complex played a pivotal role in the economic growth of the South Korea's development era,
referred to as the "Miracle on the Han River", and also contributed 10 percent of national export
in the 1970s.
Twenty-one percent of the total area of Guro District is a restricted zone to be used as a greenbelt
with the only arboretum in Seoul. The zone is changing into a lively district as large labour-
intensive factories are moving from the area and the council is developing what it terms its four
zones.
An "e-government" system based on this hosted the international e-participation forum[2] on
February 7–9, 2007, with the participation of more than thirty-seven countries. The forum was
launched with the theme "Promoting Democracy and Regional Development" and twenty-five
mayors including André Santini (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), Kevin Foy (Chapel Hill, US),
210
Cupertino-Guro Friendship City Application
Page 3 of 3
Apirak Kosayothin (Bangkok, Thailand), Uvais Mohamed Emthiyas (Colombo, Sri Lanka), and
world experts such as Dr William H. Dutton (Director of Oxford Internet Institute at the
University of Oxford, UK) and Dr Ari-Veiko Anttiroiko (professor at the University of Tampere,
Finland) participated in the forum. The Guro Declaration,[3] adopted during the forum, aims to
set up a portal site for e-government development and to establish a concrete project in order to
bridge the digital divide among the world's cities. This practice has been recognised for
providing a new important step in the development of e-democracy.
The e-participation forum was a key factor for Guro to play the leading role in bridging the
digital divide among cities, to provide I.T. enterprises located in Guro Digital Industrial Complex
the opportunity to launch into the international market, to improve its image and become a global
leader to concrete e-democracy.
Source: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guro_District,_Seoul
211
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2175 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/15/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Enter into a subordination agreement with River City Bank and Joint Powers Authority
members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Subordination Agreement
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:EnterintoasubordinationagreementwithRiverCityBankandJointPowers
Authority members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
AuthorizetheCityManagertosignthesubordinationagreementwithRiverCityBankand
Joint Powers Authority members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™212
1
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Enter into a subordination agreement with River City Bank and Joint Powers Authority
members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority.
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to execute the subordination agreement with River City
Bank and Joint Powers Authority members of the Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Authority.
Background
On December 1, 2015, the City of Cupertino joined the Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Authority (SVCEA) to fulfill one of its goals identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan
to reduce targeted emissions by 2020. The SVCEA is a Joint Powers Authority
organized to study, promote, conduct, operate and manage clean energy and energy-
related climate change programs. The SVCEA will operate a Community Choice
Energy (CCE) program to procure or generate electrical power on behalf of its
participating communities. SVCEA’s members include the cities of Campbell, Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hill, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View,
Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and the unincorporated areas of the County of Santa Clara. As a
member of the SVCEA, the City has contributed $520,000 toward initial costs.
SVCEA identified the need for up to $2.0 million in a non-revolving line of credit
(NRLOC) for prelaunch operations and up to $18.0 million a revolving line of credit
(RLOC) to fund reserves and negative cash flow associated with power supply
acquisition. On May 25, 2016, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued by the City
Mountain View with the assistance from SVCEA consultants, the City of Sunnyvale, the
City of Cupertino and the County of Santa Clara (County) for credit and banking
services on behalf of SVCEA. Five proposals were received on July 5. A committee
consisting of the SVCEA CEO, consultants and representatives from the City of
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale, Cupertino and Morgan Hill (Committee) reviewed and
evaluated the proposals and selected River City Bank (RCB) as the credit provider.
213
2
Selecting RCB was a unanimous recommendation by the Committee based on the RCB
credit proposal. On November 9, 2016, the SVCEA approved the RCB proposal that
included the form of the subordination agreement and:
1. Up to $18.0 million LOC with no guarantee required
2. Competitive rates
3. Knowledge and expertise in the CCE industry
Description
RCB’s terms demonstrate its commitment to the success of SVCEA and will provide
credit services as follows:
RLOC - Up to $18.0 million, with no guarantee or collateral requirement, to fund
lockbox collateral pre-launch and provide working capital after launch.
NRLOC - Up to $2.0 million, requires a full guarantee or collateral and is
provided for working capital prior to launch.
To our knowledge, RLOC to a CCE entity without a guarantee is unprecedented to date.
From the RLOC, a Debt Service Reserve Account will be funded in an amount not less
than $1.9 million as security for the payment and performance by SVCEA. The RLOC is
for a term of one year, and could be converted to a term loan of up to five years.
Interest is based on a variable rate tied to the one month LIBOR rate and is payable
monthly, no principal payment is required until termination.
The NRLOC requires 100% guarantee, which is being provided by the cities of
Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Gilroy (chartered cities) and the County, proportionate
to their voting shares. The NRLOC is for a term of one year and may be requested to be
extended for up to three months. Interest is based on a variable rate tied to the one
month LIBOR rate and is payable monthly, no principal payment is required until
termination.
Both credit facilities are required to be repaid prior to any payments being made on
initial costs contributed by the joint powers authority member agencies. This
requirement is fulfilled through execution of the attached subordination agreement
with River City Bank and joint powers authority members of the Silicon Valley Clean
Energy Authority. Although the subordination agreement applies to each member city
individually, all members must execute a subordination agreement of its initial costs, or
the SCVEA will not fulfill its terms of the RCB’s financing agreement.
Fiscal Impact
214
3
Cupertino does not anticipate any fiscal impact based on the financial projections of
SVCEA. SVCEA reported to its board that it anticipates repayment of both the RLOC
and the NRLOC within 12 months of launch. SVCEA has four years to repay initial
costs contributed by the joint power authority members. Repayment of initial costs is
still projected to meet this timeframe.
Prepared by: Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Administrative Services Director
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A: Subordination Agreement
215
{2158044.DOCX;}
Exhibit A
Form of Subordination Agreement
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
River City Bank (the “Lender”) and the other parties signatories hereto (each, a
“Subordinated Creditor” and collectively, the “Subordinated Creditors”), agree, effective
November 15, 2016, as follows:
Section 1. Background and Purpose.
1.1 The Lender is making loans to Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, a
public agency formed under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of
California, Government Code Section 6500 et. seq. (the “Obligor”), pursuant to that certain
Credit Agreement dated as of the date hereof (as modified, amended, restated or replaced from
time to time, the “Senior Loan Agreement”). The loans are evidenced by a Non-Revolving
Promissory Note in the original principal balance of $2,000,000 (“Non-Revolving Note”) and a
Revolving Credit Promissory Note in the original principal balance of $18,000,000 (together
with the Non-Revolving Note, the “Senior Notes”). The Obligor is currently indebted to the
Subordinated Creditors as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (as the
same may be amended, modified or refinanced, “Subordinated Debt”). The Lender and the
Subordinated Creditors desire to enter into this Agreement to effectuate the subordination of the
Subordinated Debt to the Senior Debt (as defined below). Capitalized terms used, but not
otherwise defined, in this Subordination Agreement shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Senior Loan Agreement.
Section 2. Subordination.
2.1 Each Subordinated Creditor hereby irrevocably subordinates, in
accordance with the terms hereof, the payment and performance of the Subordinated Debt by the
Obligor to it, to the prior payment and performance in full of all of the obligations specified in
the Senior Loan Agreement and the Senior Notes (collectively, the “Senior Debt”). Each
Subordinated Creditor acknowledges that it has been represented by counsel in connection with
the transactions that are the subject of this Subordination Agreement. This Subordination
Agreement shall be effective as to a Subordinated Creditor when such Subordinated Creditor
signs this Subordination Agreement and execution by all Subordinated Creditors is not a
condition to such effectiveness.
2.2 Under no circumstances will the Senior Debt be deemed to have been paid
in full unless and until such time as, and when used in this Subordination Agreement with
respect to the Senior Debt, the words “paid in full,” “payment in full,” and similar phrases shall
mean that, the Lender has received payment, in immediately available funds, of 100% of all
216
{2158044.DOCX;}
outstanding Senior Debt, and all of the Lender’s obligations to extend credit under the Senior
Loan Agreement have terminated.
2.3 The Subordinated Debt is subordinated in right of payment to the Senior
Debt in accordance with this Agreement. Each Subordinated Creditor agrees to make
appropriate entries in its books and records and stamp all Subordinated Debt documents
evidencing the Subordinated Debt with the following legend:
“The indebtedness evidenced by this instrument is subordinated to the prior
payment in full of the Senior Debt (as defined in the Subordination Agreement
hereinafter referred to) pursuant to, and to the extent provided in, the
Subordination Agreement effective as of November 15, 2016 by the maker hereof
and payee named herein in favor of River City Bank.”
Section 3. Payments.
3.1 Until the payment in full of the Senior Debt, without the prior written
consent of the Lender (which consent the Lender may refuse to give for any or no reason), under
no circumstances will any Subordinated Creditor, directly or indirectly, take any action to
enforce payment of or to collect the whole or any part of the Subordinated Debt or enforce any of
the rights and remedies available to the Subordinated Creditor, other than in the manner and to
the extent permitted by Section 4 hereof, or ask, demand, take or receive any collateral,
mortgages or other security from the Obligor in respect of the Subordinated Debt. Any amounts
paid by the Obligor to a Subordinated Creditor in violation of the terms of this Subordination
Agreement shall be held by such Subordinated Creditor in trust and promptly paid over to the
Lender for application to the Senior Debt in accordance with the Senior Loan Agreement.
3.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Subordination
Agreement, each Subordinated Creditor agrees that it will not, without the Lender’s prior written
consent (which the Lender may refuse to give for any or no reason), directly or indirectly permit
the modification or amendment of any of the terms or provisions, as they exist on the date
hereof, of the note reflecting the Subordinated Debt (“Subordinated Note”), to the extent that any
such modification or amendment would (a) result in any increase in the amount of the
Subordinated Debt, (b) increase the amount, or accelerate the due date, of any payment or
distribution in respect of the Subordinated Debt.
Section 4. Allowable Payments.
4.1 Subject to other applicable provisions of this Subordination Agreement,
including, without limitation, those contained in Section 5 hereof, without the Lender’s prior
written consent, the Obligor may not make, and a Subordinated Creditor may not accept from the
Obligor, any payment in respect of the Subordinated Debt.
4.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Subordination
Agreement, the Obligor may set-off against amounts payable in respect of Subordinated Debt
under the circumstances set forth or referenced in any documentation of such Subordinated Debt.
217
{2158044.DOCX;}
Section 5. Readjustment. Each Subordinated Creditor further agrees that, upon any
distribution of the assets or readjustment of the indebtedness of the Obligor, whether by reason
of liquidation, composition, bankruptcy, arrangement, receivership, assignment for the benefit of
creditors, or any other action or proceeding involving the readjustment of all or any of the
Subordinated Debt, or the application of the property of the Obligor to the payment or liquidation
thereof, the Lender, in any such instance, shall be entitled to receive payment in full of the Senior
Debt prior to the payment of all or any part of the Subordinated Debt.
Section 6. Bankruptcy Issues. To the extent that the Obligor makes a payment to the
Lender, which payment(s) (or any part thereof) subsequently are voided, invalidated, declared to
be fraudulent or preferential, set aside, or required to be repaid to a trustee, receiver, or any other
person or entity pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et
seq.) (the “Bankruptcy Code”), any other bankruptcy act, state or federal law, common law or
equitable cause (“Insolvency Law”), then, to the extent any such payment(s) or proceeds are
repaid by the Lender, the Senior Debt (or the part that was intended to be satisfied) will be
revived for all purposes of this Subordination Agreement and will continue in full force and
effect, as if such payment or proceeds had not been received by the Lender.
Section 7. Waivers. Each Subordinated Creditor hereby waives until the Senior Debt
is paid in full any and all rights at law or in equity to subrogation, reimbursement or set off or
any other rights which such Subordinated Creditor may have or hereafter acquire against the
Obligor in connection with or as a result of such Subordinated Creditor’s execution, delivery
and/or performance of this Subordination Agreement.
Section 8. Attorney-In-Fact. Each Subordinated Creditor irrevocably appoints the
Lender as its attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, in either the Lender’s name or such
Subordinated Creditor’s name, to do the following (but the Lender shall have no obligation to do
so): (a) endorse and collect all checks, drafts, other payment orders and instruments representing
or included in, any payment, dividend or distribution relating to, the Subordinated Debt or any
Collateral securing the Subordinated Debt; (b) take any action to enforce, collect or compromise
any of the Subordinated Debt; (c) exercise any other right, remedy, privilege or option of such
Subordinated Creditor pertaining to any Subordinated Debt or Subordinated Debt documents;
(d) take any actions or institute any proceedings that the Lender determines to be necessary or
appropriate to collect or preserve the Subordinated Debt or any Collateral for the Subordinated
Debt; (e) execute in the name of or otherwise authenticate on behalf of such Subordinated
Creditor any record reasonably believed necessary or appropriate by the Lender for compliance
with laws, rules or regulations applicable to any Subordinated Debt or any Collateral for the
Subordinated Debt, or in connection with exercising the Lender’s rights under this Agreement;
and (f) execute and file claims, proofs of claim or other documents, and to take any other action
regarding all or any part of the Subordinated Debt necessary or appropriate to insure payment to
and receipt by the Lender of all payments, dividends and other distributions on account of the
Subordinated Debt, instruments evidencing the Subordinated Debt, or any Collateral for the
Subordinated Debt. This appointment is irrevocable and coupled with an interest and shall
survive the dissolution or disability of such Subordinated Creditor. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Lender shall not be liable to any Subordinated Creditor for any failure (i) to prove
the existence, amount, or circumstances of the Subordinated Debt; (ii) to exercise any right
218
{2158044.DOCX;}
related to the Subordinated Debt; or (iii) to collect any sums payable on or distributions
attributable to, the Subordinated Debt.
Section 9. Representations and Warranties. Each Subordinated Creditor represents
and warrants to the Lender as follows: (a) the execution, delivery and performance of this
Agreement and each of the Subordinated Debt documents now outstanding (true and complete
copies of which have been furnished to the Lender) have been duly authorized by all necessary
action, are within the power and authority of the Subordinated Creditor and do not and will not
(i) contravene the articles, charter, bylaws, partnership agreement, operating agreement,
regulations or other organic documents, if any, establishing or governing such Subordinated
Creditor, any applicable law or governmental regulation or any contractual restriction binding on
or affecting such Subordinated Creditor or any of their respective properties, (ii) result in or
require the creation of any lien upon or with respect to any of such Subordinated Creditor’s
properties or (iii) violate the rights of any person or entity; (b) this Agreement and each of the
Subordinated Debt documents are legal, valid and binding obligations of such Subordinated
Creditor, enforceable against such Subordinated Creditor in accordance with their respective
terms except as limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws of general application relating to
the enforcement of creditors’ rights and by general equitable principles; (c) there exists no
default, event of default, or event which with the passage of time, the giving of notice or both
may result in a default or event of default under the Subordinated Debt or any Subordinated Debt
documents or any event or occurrence that gives a Subordinated Creditor the right to terminate a
commitment, refuse to make an advance, accelerate a maturity with or without notice or the
passage of time; and (d) if such Subordinated Creditor is an entity, that entity is and will remain
duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its
incorporation, organization or formation and in good standing in the jurisdictions in which it is
doing business. Each Subordinated Creditor further represents and warrants to the Lender as
follows: (A) such Subordinated Creditor owns and holds the Subordinated Debt now
outstanding free and clear of any lien that has not been disclosed in writing by such Subordinated
Creditor to the Lender; (B) such Subordinated Creditor is now solvent, the execution, delivery
and performance of this Agreement will benefit such Subordinated Creditor directly or indirectly
and such Subordinated Creditor has and will receive fair and reasonably equivalent value for the
obligations undertaken in this Agreement; (C) such Subordinated Creditor has (1) without
reliance on the Lender or any information received from the Lender and based upon the
documents and information such Subordinated Creditor deems appropriate, made an independent
investigation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the Borrower, the
Borrower’s business, assets, operations, prospects and condition, financial or otherwise, and any
circumstances that may bear upon those transactions, the Borrower or the obligations and risks
undertaken in this Agreement with respect to the Senior Debt; (2) adequate means to obtain from
the Borrower on a continuing basis information concerning the Senior Debt and the Lender has
no duty to provide to such Subordinated Creditor any information; (3) full and complete access
by and through the Borrower to the Lender’s loan documents; (4) not relied and will not rely
upon any representations or warranties of the Lender not embodied in this Agreement or any acts
taken by the Lender (including but not limited to any review by the Lender of the affairs of the
Borrower) prior to or after the date of this Agreement; (D) such Subordinated Creditor is the sole
holder of the Subordinated Debt with full power to make the subordinations set forth in this
Agreement; and (E) such Subordinated Creditor has not made or permitted any assignment or
transfer, as security or otherwise, of the Subordinated Debt, any Subordinated Debt documents or
219
{2158044.DOCX;}
of any of the Collateral securing the Subordinated Debt, and such Subordinated Creditor shall
not do so except in favor of the Lender as long as this Agreement remains in effect.
Section 10. Successors and Assigns. This Subordination Agreement immediately
shall be binding on each Subordinated Creditor and on its heirs, representatives and assigns, and
shall inure to the benefit of the Lender and its successors and assigns. Whenever reference is
made in this Subordination Agreement to the Obligor, such term shall include any successor or
assign of the Obligor, including, without limitation, a receiver, trustee, or debtor or debtor-in-
possession under the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 11. Notices. Any notice required or permitted hereunder shall be given in
writing by personal delivery, by overnight delivery through a recognized courier service, by
certified U.S. mail, or by telecopier (fax) (i) as to a Subordinated Creditor, by giving such notice
to such Subordinated Creditor at the address set forth below such Subordinated Creditor’s
signature hereon, and (ii) as to the Lender, by giving such notice to the Lender at the address set
forth below its signature hereon. All such notices shall be deemed to have been received on the
date given, except that any such notice given by overnight delivery will be deemed to have been
received on the next business day after such notice was delivered to such a carrier for delivery,
and any such notice given by certified U.S. mail will be deemed to have been received three days
after such notice was deposited in the U.S. mails, postage prepaid.
Section 12. Governing Law. THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA LAW (WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY JURISDICTION’S
CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES). EACH SUBORDINATED CREDITOR AND THE
LENDER EACH WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTION, CLAIM,
SUIT OR PROCEEDING IN RESPECT OF OR ARISING OUT OF THIS SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENT. This is a “Subordination Agreement” within the meaning of Section 510(a) of
the Bankruptcy Code and shall be interpreted and construed accordingly in any proceeding under
the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts with the same effect as if the parties had all signed the same document. All
counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.
[Remainder of this Page Intentionally Left Blank]
220
{2158044.DOCX;}
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Subordination Agreement to
be executed as of the Effective Date.
City of Campbell
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Cupertino
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Gilroy
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
(Signature Blocks Continue on Following Pages)
221
{2158044.DOCX;}
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
City of Los Altos
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
Town of Los Altos Hills
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
Town of Los Gatos
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
(Signature Blocks Continue on Following Pages)
222
{2158044.DOCX;}
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
City of Monte Sereno
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Morgan Hill
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Mountain View
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
(Signature Blocks Continue on Following Pages)
223
{2158044.DOCX;}
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
County of Santa Clara (Unincorporated Area)
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Saratoga
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
City of Sunnyvale
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
(Signature Blocks Continue on Following Page)
224
{2158044.DOCX;}
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
RIVER CITY BANK, as Lender
By:
Name:
Title:
Address for notice and service of process:
River City Bank
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95833
Attention:
Fax: (916)
225
{2158044.DOCX;}
Exhibit A
Lender Total Amount
City of Campbell $ 100,000
City of Cupertino $ 520,000
City of Gilroy $ 100,000
City of Los Altos $ 100,000
Town of Los Altos Hills $ 25,000
Town of Los Gatos $ 100,000
City of Monte Sereno $ 25,000
City of Morgan Hill $ 100,000
City of Mountain View $ 520,000
County of Santa Clara (Unincorporated Area) $ 520,000
City of Saratoga $ 100,000
City of Sunnyvale $ 520,000
Total $2,730,000
226
{2158044.DOCX;}
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, a public agency formed under the provisions of
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California, Government Code Section 6500 et.
seq. (the “Company”), acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Subordination Agreement by and
between River City Bank (the “Lender”), and the cities, towns and counties parties thereto (each
a “Subordinated Creditor”), dated as of November ____, 2016 (as amended from time to time,
the “Subordination Agreement”), and agrees that: (a) it will not: (i) except to the extent
permitted by the Subordination Agreement, pay any of the Subordinated Debt until the payment
in full of the Senior Debt, (ii) provide any security or collateral for any of Subordinated Debt
until the payment in full of the Senior Debt, or (iii) take or omit from taking any action that
would cause a breach of the Subordination Agreement; (b) neither the Company nor any of its
successors or assignees, by operation of law or otherwise, is a party to the Subordination
Agreement, and neither the Company nor any of its successors or assignees will have: (i) any
right in, or to enforcement of, the Subordination Agreement as against the Lender or a
Subordinated Creditor, (ii) any claim of damage if the Lender or a Subordinated Creditor
defaults under the Subordination Agreement, or (iii) any right to object to any amendment,
modification, or supplement to, or any restatement or replacement of, the Subordination
Agreement that is agreed upon by a Subordinated Creditor and the Lender; and (c) none of the
provisions of the Subordination Agreement limit or impair the Lender’s rights against the
Company or its successors and assigns or any of their respective obligations, indebtedness, or
liabilities to the Lender under the Senior Loan Agreement, any related documents, or otherwise.
All capitalized terms used in this Acknowledgment that are defined in the Subordination
Agreement and not otherwise defined in this Acknowledgment have the meanings specified in
the Subordination Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed and delivered this
Acknowledgement to the Lender as of the Effective Date.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
By:
Name:
Title:
227
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2191 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/18/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Budget adjustment regarding the Apple Campus 2 contracts
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Budget Allocations
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Budget adjustment regarding the Apple Campus 2 contracts
Approvethebudgetallocationsnecessarytoexecutetheapprovedcontractsinorderto
complete work at Apple Campus 2 through the end of Fiscal Year 2017
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™228
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3228 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Budget Adjustment for Professional Services Contracts for Apple Campus 2.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the budget allocations necessary to execute the approved contracts in order
to complete work at Apple Campus 2 through the end of Fiscal Year 2017.
Description
1. On November 1, 2016 City Council authorized the City Manager to:
a. Execute Agreement 17-___ with West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. for
professional building department services at Apple Campus 2 for a total
amount not to exceed $821,720.00;
b. Execute Agreement 17-___ with CSG Consultants, Inc. for plan review services
at Apple Campus 2 for a total amount not to exceed $1,120,000.00;
c. Execute the Second Amendment to Agreement 14-028 with 4LEAF, Inc. for
Apple Campus 2 Phase 1 building inspection services and public works
inspection services to increase the previously authorized contract amount by
$4,761,376.00 for a total amount not to exceed $15,126,478.00; and
d. Execute the First Amendment to Agreement 15-146 with 4LEAF, Inc. for Apple
Campus 2 Phase 2 building inspection services to increase the previously
authorized contract amount by $567,531.00 for a total amount not to exceed
$914,787.00.
e. Execute contract amendments to the extent that the costs are recovered from
the project applicant.
In order to execute these agreements, additional funds in the amount of $7,270,627.00 are
required to be allocated to the expense accounts as noted in Attachment A.
229
2
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
The City of Cupertino will receive a 15% administration fee from the increased contract
amount for all four contracts.
Prepared by: Ari Lattanzi, Community Development Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Budget Allocations for Professional Service Contracts at Apple Campus 2
230
Attachment A: Budget Allocations for Professional Service Contracts at Apple Campus 2
Company
Contract
Number PO # Account 1
Additional Amount
Needed Account 2
Additional Amount
Needed Total Allocation
WC3 new 2017 -
100-73-714
900-923 $ 821,720.00 - $ - $ 821,720.00
CSG new 2017 -
100-73-714
900-923 $ 1,120,000.00 - $ - $ 1,120,000.00
4Leaf 14-028 2015-57 100-73-715
900-923 $ 3,450,399.00
100-82-804
900-923 $ 1,310,977.00 $ 4,761,376.00
4Leaf 15-146 2016-171
100-73-715
700-702 $ 140,746.96
100-73-715
900-923 $ 426,784.04 $ 567,531.00
Total $ 7,270,627.00
231
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2187 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/17/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Amami Shima Sushi Corp, 19068 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholBeverageLicenseforAmamiShimaSushiCorp,19068
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
application for Alcohol Beverage License for Amami Shima Sushi Corp, 19068 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™232
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Amami Shima Sushi Corp, 19068
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of
the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Amami Shima Sushi Corp, 19068
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Description
Name of Business: Amami Shima Sushi Corp
Location: 19068 Stevens Creek Blvd
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Annual Fees, Original Fees
Discussion
There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol
as proposed. Therefore, staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License
Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises
where sold. This location is at the Loree Center.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jeffrey Tsumura, Assistant Planner, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
233
234
235
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1978 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/13/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 19.08, Definitions, of the Municipal Code
to add definitions of “financial institutions” and “banks” that expressly exclude payday lending and
check cashing businesses with the intent to disallow such uses from operating within the City of
Cupertino. (Application No(s): MCA-2016-04; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance No. 16-2157
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:SecondreadingofanordinanceamendingChapter19.08,Definitions,ofthe
MunicipalCodetoadddefinitionsof“financialinstitutions”and“banks”thatexpressly
excludepaydaylendingandcheckcashingbusinesseswiththeintenttodisallowsuchuses
fromoperatingwithintheCityofCupertino.(ApplicationNo(s):MCA-2016-04;Applicant(s):
City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 16-2157, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning,
Section 19.08.030, entitled “Definitions” to add the definition of “financial institutions” and
“banks” to expressly exclude payday lending and check cashing businesses with the intent to
disallow such uses from operating within the City of Cupertino”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™236
1
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 19.08, Definitions, of the Municipal
Code to add definitions of “financial institutions” and “banks” that expressly exclude
payday lending and check cashing businesses with the intent to disallow such uses from
operating within the City of Cupertino. (Application No(s): MCA-2016-04; Applicant(s):
City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 16 - 2157, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Amending the Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19,
Zoning, Section 19.08.030, entitled “Definitions” to add the definition of “financial
institutions” and “banks” to expressly exclude payday lending and check cashing
businesses within the intent to disallow such uses from operating within the City of
Cupertino.” (Attachment A)
Discussion
On November 1, 2016, the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading of
Ordinance No. 2157 in order to prohibit the establishment, expansion or relocation of
payday lending and check-cashing businesses in zoning districts where financial
institutions and banks are allowed within the City. This Municipal Code Amendment
would add definitions for “financial institutions” and “banks,” which specifically exclude
payday lending and check cashing businesses, to the Zoning Code. By excluding such
uses from the definitions, payday lending and check cashing businesses would be
disallowed from operating within the city. Currently, there are no payday lenders
operating in the City.
Sustainability Impact
No impact.
Fiscal Impact
No impact.
237
2
Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Assistant to the City Manager
Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 16-2157
238
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ORDINANCE NO. 16-2157
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING SECTION 19.08.030 OF CHAPTER 19.08 OF TITLE 19 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING DEFINITIONS OF “FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS” AND “BANKS” THAT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE PAYDAY
LENDING AND CHECK CASHING BUSINESSES WITH THE INTENT TO
DISALLOW SUCH USES FROM OPERATING WITHIN THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below further the goals and policies
of the City's General Plan and are necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of
the City ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find that payday lenders are predatory businesses
that target people in desperate need of cash and charge unusually high interest rates
and exorbitant fees that end up trapping borrowers in a cycle of crippling debt and
poverty; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find that the State regulates maximum loan amounts,
fees, and other aspects of how payday lenders operate, however, local jurisdictions can
enact local policies to restrict payday loan businesses from operating within their
communities through the use of its police power; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that payday lenders and cash checking businesses
are predatory businesses that target people in a financially vulnerable situation and
charge exorbitant fees and high interest rates;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments to the Municipal
Code at a duly noticed public hearing held on October 11, 2016 where the public had a n
opportunity to comment at which the Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 6818 by a 4-0 vote (Sun absent) recommending that the City Council
adopt the amendments;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on November 1, 2016 at which the
public had an opportunity to speak on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has
no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or
ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is
239
subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the
environment.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the “not a project”
determination under the California Environmental Quality Act prior to taking any
approval actions on this Ordinance and approves such determinations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 19.08.030(B), “’B’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the definition of “banks” to be
inserted into the definitions in alphabetical order and to read as follows:
“banks” means financial institutions including federally-chartered banks, savings
and loan associations, industrial loan companies, and credit unions providing
retail banking services to individuals and businesses. This classification does not
include payday lending businesses or check cashing businesses. The term
"payday lending business" as used herein means retail businesses owned or
operated by a "licensee" as that term is defined in California Financial Code
Section 23001(d), as amended from time to time. The term "check cashing
business" as used herein means a retail business owned or operated by a "check
casher" as that term is defined in California Civil Code Section 1789.31 as
amended from time to time.
SECTION 2. Section 19.08.030(F), “’F’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the definition of “financial
institutions” to be inserted into the definitions in alphabetical order and to read as
follows:
“financial institutions” means a company engaged in the business of dealing
with monetary transactions, such as deposits, loans, investments and currency
exchange. This classification does not include payday lending businesses or
check cashing businesses. The term "payday lending business" as used herein
means retail businesses owned or operated by a "licensee" as that term is defined
in California Financial Code Section 23001(d), as amended from time to time. The
term "check cashing business" as used herein means a retail business owned or
operated by a "check casher" as that term is defined in California Civil Code
Section 1789.31 as amended from time to time.
240
SECTION 3. Severability.
Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or
circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful,
unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other
provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or
circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government
Code Section 36937.
SECTION 5. Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give
notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933,
a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and
posting of the entire text.
SECTION 6. Continuity.
To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous
provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as
continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 1 day of
November, 2016 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on
this 6th of December, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Barry Chang, City of Cupertino
241
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1974 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/13/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the
regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other conforming changes for
clarification and internal consistency. Application No(s): MCA-2016-03; Applicant(s): City of Cupertino;
Location: Citywide
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 16-2158
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:SecondreadingofanordinanceamendingtheCupertinoMunicipalCoderegarding
theregulation,location,andthekeepingofbeesintheCityandtomakeotherconforming
changesforclarificationandinternalconsistency.ApplicationNo(s):MCA-2016-03;Applicant
(s): City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 16-2158: "An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino to amend Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping, and Table 19.20.020 of
Chapter 19.20, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential
Zones, regarding the regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other
conforming changes to Table 19.20.020 for clarification and internal consistency"
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™242
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Second reading of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the
regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City and to make other conforming
changes for clarification and internal consistency (Application No. MCA-2016-03;
Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide).
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 16-2158, “An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino to amend Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping, and Table 19.20.020
of Chapter 19.20, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones, regarding the regulation, location, and the keeping of bees in the City
and to make other conforming changes in Table 19.20.020 for clarification and internal
consistency” (see Attachment A).
Discussion
On November 15, 2016 the City council introduced and conducted the first reading of
Ordinance No. 16-2158 in order to promote beekeeping in the City.
The City Council approved the draft ordinance with reduction in apiary setback
requirements from side and rear property lines and driveway easements from ten (10)
feet to eight (8) feet. This change is reflected in the attached ordinance. No other changes
have been made since the first reading.
Sustainability Impact
The proposed ordinance is anticipated to protect the environment by promoting natural
processes and maximizing the use of the City’s existing natural resources.
Fiscal Impact
There are no fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund.
_________________
243
Prepared by: Ellen Yau, Assistant Planner
Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance No. 16-2158
244
ORDINANCE NO. 16-2158
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
TO AMEND CHAPTER 8.07, BEEKEEPING, AND TABLE 19.20.020 OF
CHAPTER 19.20, PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND EXCLUDED USES IN
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES REGARDING THE
REGULATION, LOCATION, AND THE KEEPING OF BEES IN THE CITY
AND TO MAKE OTHER CONFORMING CHANGES TO TABLE 19.20.020
FOR CLARIFICATION AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 8.07, Beekeeping, renders it
difficult to maintain apiaries within the City and is in conflict with the increased
interest of members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Table 19.20.020, Permitted,
Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones, is
amended to make conforming changes and to clarify the intent of beekeeping as
an accessory use in all zoning districts and to eliminate the possible misconception
that apiaries in general are excluded uses in residential zones; and
WHEREAS, the City has analyzed this proposed zoning amendment and
determined that it is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or
ultimately; and
WHEREAS, in the event that this proposed amendment is found to be a project
under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines
section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, in the event that this proposed amendment is found to be a project
under CEQA, it is determined to be categorically exempt under section 15301
(Existing Facilities), section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction), section 15303
(Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and section 15308 (Actions by
Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) because it can be seen
with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments to the
Municipal Code at a duly noticed public hearing held on October 25, 2016 where
the public had an opportunity to comment at which the Commission adopted
245
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6819 by a 5-0 vote recommending that the
City Council adopt the proposed amendments with minor amendments;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on November 15, 2016 at
which the public had an opportunity to speak on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council before taking action on this Ordinance has reviewed
the exemptions, and using its independent judgment, determines the Ordinance
to be exempt from CEQA as stated above; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.07 of Title 8 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
entitled “Beekeeping” is hereby amended to be entitled, numbered, and to
read as follows:
Chapter 8.07
BEEKEEPING
Section
8.07.010 Purpose.
8.07.020 Definitions.
8.07.030 Location, Number, Maintenance and Registration of Apiaries.
8.07.040 Nuisance.
8.07.050 Enforcement.
8.07.010 Purpose.
This chapter is enacted to provide for beekeeping, including urban
beekeeping, activities within the City while minimizing impacts to surrounding
properties through the establishment of beekeeping regulations.
8.07.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply, unless it is
apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended:
“Apiary” means a collection of bees, hives, and any accessory appliances.
A. “Agricultural Apiary” means an apiary kept as a principal use on any
property;
B. “Urban Apiary” means an apiary kept as an accessory use pursuant to
Section 19.100.020, Accessory Uses and Facilities.
246
“Bees” means any stage of the common domestic honey-producing insects of
the species apis mellifera.
“Hive” means any receptacle, container or structure used to house bees.
“Location” means any premises upon which an apiary is located.
8.07.030 Location, Number, Maintenance and Registration of
Apiaries.
Any person may keep and maintain apiaries in accordance to the following
regulations:
A. Location:
1. Agricultural apiaries as permitted in Chapter 19.20;
2. Urban apiaries in all zoning districts;
3. Minimum setbacks:
i. Front property line and/or any public or private street: 20 feet;
and
ii. Side or rear property lines and/or driveway easements: Eight (8)
feet, unless property owners of adjacent properties or
beneficiaries of driveway easements have given written
permission to locate hives at a closer distance.
B. Number: Only two hives may be kept or maintained on parcels less
than 5,000 square feet in size.
C. Maintenance:
1. A constant supply of fresh water adequate in quantity for the
apiary should be provided and maintained on the location.
2. Any apiaries abandoned by beekeepers or disused apiaries shall
be promptly dismantled and removed from the location.
D. Registration: All apiaries must be registered with the Santa Clara
County Agricultural Commissioner as required by Division 13: Bee
Management and Honey Production of the California Food and
Agricultural Code commencing at Section 29000, and or as thereafter
may be amended.
8.07.040 Nuisance.
The maintenance or use of any real property in violation of this Chapter, or
which creates a condition as defined in Section 1.09.030, is hereby declared a public
nuisance, is prohibited and is subject to code enforcement and all other
enforcement remedies as provided for in this Code.
247
8.07.050 Enforcement.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be subject to
administrative fines and/or penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.10. In addition, any
person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided
in Chapter 1.12.
SECTION 2. Sub-Sections 1(h), (i), (j) and (9) of Table 19.20.020 of Section
19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
entitled “Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones” is hereby amended as follows:
Table 19.20.020–Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones
USES ZONING DISTRICTS
A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3
1. Agriculture, horticulture,
viticulture and forestry,
including the following and
similar uses:
P P — — — — —
(no change to subsections 19.20.020 (1) (a)-(g)
h. Poultry raising and
hatcheries, P CUP-
PC See #27
i. Apiaries, pursuant to
Chapter 8.07, P P See #9
j. Nurseries, greenhouses
and landscaping gardens P CUP-
PC See #20
(no change to subsections 19.20.020 (1) (k) - 19.20.020 (8)
9. Accessory facilities and
uses incidental to permitted
uses and otherwise conforming
with the provisions of Chapter
19.100 of this title;
P P P P P P P
SECTION 3. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its
application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void,
248
that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this
Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or
circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.
SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required
by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting
of the entire text.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the
15th day of November 2016 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the
Cupertino City Council on this ___ day of ___________ 2016 by the following
vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ___________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
249
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2089 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/11/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code related to
accessory dwelling units to conform with State Law and for internal consistency. (Application No.
MCA-2016-05; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 16-2159
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:SecondReadingofanordinanceamendingtheCupertinoMunicipalCoderelatedto
accessorydwellingunitstoconformwithStateLawandforinternalconsistency.(Application
No. MCA-2016-05; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.16-2159“AnordinanceoftheCity
CounciloftheCityofCupertinoamendingTitle19,Zoning,oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode
includingbutnotlimitedtoChapter19.08(Definitions),Chapter19.20(Permitted,Conditional
andExcludedUsesinAgriculturalandResidentialZones),Chapter19.24(Agricultural(A)and
Agricultural-Residential(A-1)Zones),Chapter19.32(ResidentialDuplex(R-2)Zones),
Chapter19.52(ReasonableAccommodation),andChapter19.112(SecondDwellingUnitsinR
-1,RHS,AandA-1Zones),inresponsetorecentlyadoptedStatelegislationregarding
accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law, and for internal consistency"
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™250
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Second reading and adoption of an ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code
related to accessory dwelling units to conform with State Law and for internal consistency.
(Application No. MCA-2016-05; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide).
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 16-2159 “An ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal
Code including but not limited to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.20 (Permitted,
Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.24
(Agricultural (A) and Agricultural – Residential (A-1) Zones), Chapter 19.32 (Residential
Duplex (R-2) Zones), Chapter 19.52 (Reasonable Accommodation), and Chapter 19.112
(Second Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), in response to recently adopted
State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units for compliance with State Law, and for
internal consistency. (Attachment A).
Discussion
On November 15, 2016, the City Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 16-
2159. (4-0, Wong absent) During the first reading, Council did not direct any modifications
to the proposed Ordinance. As a result, no changes have been made to the ordinance since
the first reading. Council should find the Ordinance exempt from CEQA, conduct the
second reading, and adopt the proposed Ordinance.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_________________
251
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner
Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance No. 16-2159
252
ORDINANCE NO. 16-2159
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TITLE 19, ZONING, OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHAPTER
19.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 19.20 (PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND
EXCLUDED USES IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES), CHAPTER
19.24 (AGRICULTURAL (A) AND AGRICULTURAL – RESIDENTIAL (A-1) ZONES),
CHAPTER 19.32 (RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX (R-2) ZONES), CHAPTER 19.52
(REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION), AND CHAPTER 19.112 (SECOND
DWELLING UNITS IN R-1, RHS, A AND A-1 ZONES),
IN RESPONSE TO RECENTLY ADOPTED STATE LEGISLATION
REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
LAW, AND FOR INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is determined to be not a project under the requirements of
the California Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines
(collectively, “CEQA”) in that proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning
of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines
because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either
directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under
CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section
15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant
effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council before taking action on this Ordinance has reviewed the
not a project determination and exemption, and using its independent judgment,
determines the Ordinance to be not a project or exempt from CEQA as stated above;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
253
SECTION 1. Section 19.08.030 (a), “’A’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. “A” Definitions:
“Abandon” means to cease or discontinue a use or activity without intent to resume, but
excluding temporary or short-term interruptions to a use or activity during periods of
remodeling, maintaining, or otherwise improving or rearranging a facility, or during
normal periods of vacation or seasonal closure.
“Abutting” means having property or district lines in common.
“Accessory building” means a building which is incidental to and customarily
associated with a specific principal use or facility and which meets the applicable
conditions set forth in Chapter 19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures.
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit
which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the
same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. An accessory dwelling unit also
includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Accessory structure” means a subordinate structure, the use of which is purely
incidental to that of the main building and which shall not contain living or sleeping
quarters. Examples include a deck, tennis courts, trellis or car shelter. Fences eight feet
or less are excluded.
“Addition” means any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in
terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area ratio.
“Adjacent property” means property that abuts the subject property, including
property whose only contiguity to the subject site is a single point and property directly
opposite the subject property and located across a street.
“Adult bookstore” means a building or portion thereof used by an establishment having
as a substantial or significant portion of its stock in trade for sale to the public or certain
members thereof, books, magazines, and other publications which are distinguished or
characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified
sexual activities” or “specified anatomical areas,” as hereinafter defined.
“Adult cabaret” means a building or portion thereof used for dancing purposes thereof
or area used for presentation or exhibition or featuring of topless or bottomless dancers,
254
strippers, male or female impersonators or similar entertainers, for observations by
patrons or customers.
“Adult motion picture theater” means a building or portion thereof or area, open or
enclosed, used for the presentation of motion pictures distinguished or characterized by
an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to “specified sexual activities”
or “specified anatomical areas,” as hereinafter defined, for observation by patrons or
customers.
“Advertising statuary” means a structure or device of any kind or character for outdoor
advertising purposes which displays or promotes a particular product or service, but
without name identification.
“Aerial” means a stationary transmitting and/or receiving wireless communication
device consisting of one or any combination of the elements listed below:
1. “Antenna” means a horizontal or vertical element or array, panel or dish that may
be attached to a mast or a tower for the purpose of transmitting or receiving radio or
microwave frequency signals.
2. “Mast” means a vertical element consisting of a tube or rod which supports an
antenna.
3. “Tower” means a vertical framework of cross elements which supports either an
antenna, mast or both.
4. “Guy wires” means wires necessary to insure the safety and stability of an antenna,
mast or both.
“Affordable housing cost” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code
Section 50052.5, as may be amended.
“Affordable rent” means the amount set forth in the Health and Safety Code Section
50053, as may be amended.
“Affordable units” means housing units available at affordable rent or affordable
housing cost to lower or moderate income households.
“Agriculture” means the tilling of the soil, the raising of cr ops, horticulture, agriculture,
livestock farming, dairying, or animal husbandry, including slaughterhouses, fertilizer
yards, bone yard, or plants for the reduction of animal matter or any other similar use.
“Alley” means a public or private vehicular way less than thirty feet in width affording
a secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property.
“Alteration”, for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent change to a
sign.
“Alteration” means any construction or physical change in the arra ngement of rooms or
the supporting members of a building or structure, or change in the relative position of
buildings or structures on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building or
structure.
255
1. “Incidental alteration” means any alteration to interior partitions or interior
supporting members of a structure which does not increase the structural strength of
the structure; any alteration to electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
ventilating, or other utility services, fixtures, or appliances; any addition, closing, or
change in size of doors or windows in the exterior walls; or any replacement of a
building facade which does not increase the structural strength of the structure.
2. “Structural alteration” means any alteration not deemed an incidental alteration.
“Amusement park” means a commercial facility which supplies various forms of indoor
and outdoor entertainment and refreshments.
Animal:
1. Animal, Adult. “Adult animal” means any animal four months of age or older.
2. Animal, Large. “Large animal” means any equine, bovine, sheep, goat or swine or
similar domestic or wild animal, as determined by the Planning Commission.
3. Animal, Small. “Small animal” means animals which are commonly found in single-
family residential areas such as chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc.
“Animal care” means a use providing grooming, housing, medical care, or other
services to animals, including veterinary services, animal hospitals, overnight or short-
term boarding ancillary to veterinary care, indoor or outdoor kennels, and similar
services.
“Apartment” means a room or a suite of two or more rooms which is designed for,
intended for, and occupied by one family doing its cooking there.
“Apartment house” means a building designed and used to house three or more
families, living independently of each other.
“Apartment project” means a rental housing development consisting of two or more
dwelling units.
“Approval Body” means the Director of Community Development and his/her
designee, the Planning Commission or City Council depending upon context.
“Architectural feature” means any part or appurtenance of a building or structure
which is not a portion of the living area of the building or structure. Examples include:
cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, fireplaces, or projecting window elements. Patio
covers or any projection of the floor area shall not constitute an architectural projection.
“Architectural projection,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any permanent
extension from the structure of a building, including the likes of canopies, awnings and
fascia.
“Atrium” means a courtyard completely enclosed by walls and/or fences.
“Attic” means an area between the ceiling and roof of a structure, which is
unconditioned (not heated or cooled) and uninhabitable.
256
“Automotive service station” means a use providing gasoline, oil, tires, small parts and
accessories, and services incidental thereto, for automobiles, light trucks, and similar
motor vehicles. Automotive maintenance and repair (minor) may be conducted on the
site. The sale of food or grocery items on the same site is prohibited except for soft
drinks and snack foods, either from automatic vending machines or from shelves. The
sale of alcoholic beverages on the site is governed by Chapter 19.132, Concurrent Sale of
Alcoholic Beverages and Gasoline.
“Automotive repair and maintenance (minor)” means the supplying of routine
automotive services such as lubrication, engine tune-ups, smog certificates, servicing of
tires, brakes, batteries and similar accessories, and minor repairs involving engine
accessories. Any repair which requires the engine, drive train, transmission assembly,
exhaust system, or drive train parts to be removed from a motor vehicle or requires the
removal of internal parts shall not be considered minor. Body and paint shop operations
are not minor repairs or maintenance.
“Average slope” means the ratio between vertical and horizontal distance expressed in
percent; the mathematical expression is based upon the formula described below:
S =
I x L x 100
A
S = Average slope of ground in
percent;
L = Combined length in feet of all contours on
parcel;
I = Contour interval in feet; A = Area of parcel in square feet.
SECTION 2. Section 19.08.030 (d), “‘D’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“D” Definitions:
"Day care center" means any child day care facility, licensed by the State or County,
other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, and
extended day care facilities.
Day Care Home, Family. "Family day care home" means a home, licensed by the State
or County, which regularly provides care, protection and supervision for fourteen or
fewer children, in the provider's own home, for periods of less than twenty-four hours
per day, while the parents or guardian are away, and includes the following:
1. "Large-family day care home," which means a home which provides family day
care for seven to fourteen children, inclusive, including children under the age of ten
years who reside at the home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code
Section 1597.465;
2. "Small-family day care home," which means a home which provides family day
care to eight or fewer children, including children under the age of ten years who
257
resides at the home, as set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section
1597.44.
"Decorative statuary," for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means any structure or
device of any kind or character placed solely for aesthetic purposes and not to promote
any product or service.
"Demonstrated safety" means a condition requiring protection from the threat of
danger, harm, or loss, including but not limited to the steepness of a roadway or
driveway that may create a hazardous parking situation in front of a gate.
"Demonstrated security" means a condition requiring protection from the potential
threat of danger, harm or loss, including but not limited to a location that is isolated and
invisible from public view or that has experienced documented burglary, theft,
vandalism or trespassing incidences.
"Density bonus" means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable
residential density in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.56 as of the date of
the project application.
"Developer" means the owner or subdivider with a controlling proprietary interest in
the proposed common interest development, or the person or organization making
application, or a qualified applicant who has entered into a development agreement
pursuant to the procedures specified in Chapter 19.144.
"Development agreement" means a development agreement enacted by legislation
between the City and a qualified applicant pursuant to Government Code Sections
65864 through 65869.5.
"Development standard" means a site or construction regulation, including, but not
limited to, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, and onsite open-space requirement,
or a parking ratio that applies to a development pursuant to any ordinance, general
plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or
regulation.
"District" means a portion of the property within the City within which certain uses of
land, premises and buildings are permitted and certain other uses of land, premises and
buildings are prohibited, and within which certain yards and other open spaces are
required and certain building site areas are established for buildings, all as set forth and
specified in this title.
"Drinking establishment" means an activity that is primarily devoted to the selling of
alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.
258
"Drive-through establishment" means an activity where a portion of retailing or the
provision of service can be conducted without requiring the customer to leave his or her
car.
"Driveway" means any driveway that provides direct access to a public or private street.
Driveway, Curved. "Curved driveway" means a driveway with access to the front
property line which enters the garage from the side at an angle of sixty degrees or
greater to the front curbline and which contains a functional twenty-foot-deep parking
area that does not overhang the front property line.
"Duplex" means a building, on a lot under one ownership, containing not more than
two kitchens, designed and used as two dwelling units, of comparable size independent
of each other.
"Dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating,
cooking and sanitation facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping
unit, occupied or intended for occupancy on a non-transient basis and having not more
than one kitchen.
SECTION 3. Section 19.08.030 (l), “‘L’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“L” Definitions:
“Landscaping” means an area devoted to or developed and maintained with native or
exotic planting, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials,
decorative outdoor landscape elements, pools, fountains, water features, paved or
decorated surfaces of rock, stone, brick, block or similar material (excluding driveways,
parking, loading or storage areas), and sculptural elements.
“Late evening activities” means an activity which maintains any hours of operation
during the period of eleven p.m. to seven a.m.
“Legal substandard lot” means any parcel of land or lot recorded and legally created by
the County or City prior to March 17, 1980, which lot or parcel is of less area than
required in the zone; or lots or parcels of record which are reduced to a substandard lot
size as a result of required street dedication unless otherwise provided in the City of
Cupertino General Plan. The owner of a legally created, substandard property which is
less than six thousand square feet but equal to or greater than five thousand square feet
may utilize such parcel for residential purposes. The owner of a legally created parcel of
less than five thousand square feet may also develop the site as a single-family
residential building site if it can be demonstrated that the property was not under the
same ownership as any contiguous property on the same street frontage as of or after
July 1, 1984.
259
“Lightwell” means an excavated area required by the Uniform Building Code to
provide emergency egress, light and ventilation for below grade rooms.
“Liquor store” means a use requiring a State of California “off-sale general license” (sale
for off-site consumption of wine, beer and/or hard liquor) and having fifty percent or
more of the total dollar sales accounted for by beverage covered under the off-sale
general license.
“Living space” means habitable space and sanitation.
“Loading space” means an area used for loading or unloading of goods from a vehicle
in connection with the use of the site on which such space is located.
“Lodging” means the furnishing of rooms or groups of rooms within a dwelling unit or
an accessory building on a transient basis, whether or not meals are provided to the
person. Lodging shall be subject to the residential density requirements of the district in
which the use is located.
“Lodging unit” means a room or group of rooms not including a kitchen, used or
intended for use by overnight or transient occupants as a single unit, whether located in
a hotel or a dwelling unit providing lodging where designed or used for occupancy by
more than two persons; each two-person capacity shall be deemed a separate lodging
unit for the purpose of determining residential density; each two lodging units shall be
considered the equivalent of one dwelling unit.
“Lot” means a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by
description, as on a subdivision or record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for
purpose of sale, lease or separate use.
1. “Corner lot” means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or
bounded on two or more adjacent sides by street lines.
2. “Flag lot” means a lot having access to a street by means of a private driveway or
parcel of land not otherwise meeting the requirement of this title for lot width.
3. “Interior lot” means a lot other than a corner lot.
4. “Key lot” means the first lot to the rear of a corner lot, the front line of which is a
continuation of the side line of the corner lot, and fronting on the street which
intersects or intercepts the street on which the corner lot fronts.
“Lot area” means the area of a lot measured horizontally between boundary lot lines,
but excluding a portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a
front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any
natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or
drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot acquired, for access and street
right-of-way purposes, in fee, easement or otherwise.
“Lot coverage” means the following:
1. “Single-family residential use” means the total land area within a site that is covered
by buildings, including all projections, but excluding ground-level paving,
260
landscape features, lightwells, and open recreational facilities. Sheds are included in
lot coverage.
2. “All other uses except single-family residential” means the total land area within a
site that is covered by buildings, but excluding all projections, ground-level paving,
landscape features, and open recreational facilities.
“Lot depth” means the horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the
midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line wher e
there is no clear rear lot line.
“Lot line” means any boundary of a lot.
1. “Front lot line” means on an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street, or on a corner
lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street, or on a flag lot, the interior lot line most
parallel to and nearest the street from which access is obtained. Lot line length does
not include arc as identified on corner parcels.
2. “Interior lot line” means any lot line not abutting a street.
3. “Rear lot line” means the lot line not intersecting a front lot line which is most
distant from and the most closely parallel to the front lot line. A lot bounded by only
three lot lines will not have a rear lot line.
4. “Side lot line” means any lot line which is not a front or rear lot line.
5. “Street lot line” means any lot line abutting a street.
“Lot of record” means a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the
County Recorder, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds which has been
recorded.
“Lot width” means the horizontal distance between side lot lines, measured at the
required front setback line.
“Lower-income household” means a household whose gross income does not exceed
that established by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5, as may be amended.
SECTION 4. Section 19.08.030 (s), “‘S’ Definitions”, of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“S” Definitions:
“Screened” means shielded, concealed, and effectively hidden from view at an elevation
of up to eight feet above ground level on adjoining parcels, or from adjoining parcels,
within ten feet of a lot line, by a fence, wall, hedge, berm, or similar structure,
architectural or landscape feature, or combination thereof.
“Senior citizens” means:
1. Persons at least sixty-two years of age; or
2. Persons at least fifty-five years of age or otherwise qualified to reside in a senior
citizen housing development, in accordance with State and federal law.
261
“Senior citizen housing development” means a housing development with at least
thirty-five dwelling units as defined in the Civil Code Section 51.3, or a mobilehome
park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons
pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code, as may be amended.
“Setback line” means a line within a lot parallel to a corresponding lot line, which is the
boundary of any specified front, side or rear yard, or the boundary of any public right-
of-way or private road, whether acquired in fee, easement, or otherwise, or a line
otherwise established to govern the location of buildings, structures or uses. Where no
minimum front, side or rear yards are specified, the setback line shall be coterminous
with the corresponding lot line.
Setback Area, Required. “Required setback area” means open space, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground upward, except as provided in this title, between the lot
line and the setback line on the same parcel.
1. Setback Area, Required Front Yard. “Required front-yard setback area” means the
setback area extending across the front of a lot between the front lot line and the
setback line. Front yards shall be measured either by a line at right angles to the
front lot line, or by a radial line in the case of a curved front lot line, except flag lots
which is the area extending across the full extent of the buildable portion of the
flag lot measured from the property line which is parallel to and nearest the street
line and at which point the lot width equals a minimum of sixty feet. The Director
of Community Development shall have the discretion to modify the provisions of
this definition when it improves the design relationship of the proposed buildings
to adjacent buildings or parcels.
2. Setback Area, Required Rear Yard. “Required rear-yard setback area” means the
area extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot line and the
nearest line or point of the main building.
3. Setback Area, Required Side Yard. “Required side-yard setback area” means the
area between the side lot line and the nearest line of a building, and extending
from the front setback line to the rear setback line.
“Shopping center” means a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed,
owned or managed as a unit, with off-street parking provided on the parcel.
“Shopping center,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a retail entity
encompassing three or more tenants within a single building or group of buildings, but
within which individual business located in defined tenant spaces are owned and
managed separately from the shopping center management.
“Sidewalk site triangle” is a triangular shaped area described in Cupertino Standard
Detail 7-6. (See Appendix C, Cupertino Standard Detail; Sidewalk Site Triangle
(Sidewalk Clearance at Driveway)
“Sign” means any device, fixture, placard, or structure that uses any color, form,
graphic, illumination, symbol, or writing to advertise, announce the purpose of, or
identify the purpose of a person or entity, to communicate information of any kind to
the public.
262
1. “Animated sign” means any sign which projects action, motion or the illusion
thereof, changes intensity of illumination or changes colors, including the likes of
balloons, banners and flags, and blowing or air-powered attractions, but excluding
electronic readerboard signs and signs that display the current time or
temperature.
2. “Blade sign” means a pedestrian oriented sign, adjacent to a pedestrian walkway
or sidewalk, attached to a building wall, marquee, awning or arcade with the
exposed face of the sign in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the building wall.
3. “Development Identification Sign” means a ground sign at the major entry to a
residential development with twenty units or more meant to identify the name and
address of the development.
4. “Directional sign” means any sign which primarily displays directions to a
particular area, location or site.
5. “Directory sign” means any outdoor listing of occupants of a building or group of
buildings.
6. “Electronic readerboard sign” means an electronic sign intended for a periodically-
changing advertising message.
7. “Freeway oriented sign” means any sign which is located within six hundred sixty
feet and visible from a freeway right-of-way as defined by Section 5200 of the
California Business and Professions Code.
8. “Garage sale signs” means any sign used for advertising a garage or patio sale as
defined in Chapter 5.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
9. “Ground sign” means any sign permanently affixed to the ground and not
supported by a building structure. The height of the sign shall be measured from
the grade of the adjoining closest sidewalk to the top of the sign including trim.
10. “Identification sign” means any sign whose sole purpose is to display the name of
the site and the names of the occupants, their products or their services.
11. “Illegal sign” means any sign or advertising statuary which was not lawfully
erected, maintained, or was not in conformance with the provisions of this title in
effect at the time of the erection of the sign or advertising statuary or which was
not installed with a valid permit from the City.
12. “Illuminated sign” means any sign utilizing an artificial source of light to enhance
its visibility.
13. “Informational sign” means any sign which promotes no products or services, but
displays service or general information to the public, including the likes of hours of
operation, rest room identifications and hazardous warnings.
263
14. “Landmark sign” means an existing, legal non-conforming ground sign that has a
distinctive architectural style.
15. “Nonconforming sign” means any sign or advertising statuary that was legally
erected and had obtained a valid permit in conformance with the ordinance in
effect at the time of the erection of the sign but which became nonconforming due
to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this title.
16. “Obsolete sign” means any sign that displays incorrect or misleading information,
promotes products or services no longer available at that site or identifies departed
occupants.
17. “Off-site sign” means any sign not located on the premises of the business or entity
indicated or advertised by the sign. This definition shall include billboards, poster
panels, painted bulletins and other similar advertising displays.
18. “On-site sign” means a sign directing attention to a business, commodity, service
or entertainment conducted, sold or offered upon the same premises as those upon
which the sign is maintained.
19. “Political sign” means a temporary sign that encourages a particular vote in a
scheduled election and is posted prior to the scheduled election.
20. “Portable Sign or Display” means any outdoor sign or display not permanently
attached to the ground or a structure on the premises it is intended to occupy and
displayed only during business hours. Portable sign or display includes A-frames,
flower carts, statues, and other similar devices used for advertising as determined
by the Director.
21. “Project announcement sign” means any temporary sign that displays information
pertinent to a current or future site of construction, including the likes of the
project name, developers, owners and operators, completion dates, availability and
occupants.
22. “Projecting sign” means any sign other than a wall sign that is attached to and
projects from a structure or building face or wall.
23. “Real estate sign” means a temporary sign indicating that a particular premises is
for sale, lease or rent.
24. “Roof sign” means a sign erected between the lowest and highest points of a roof.
25. “Street address sign” means any sign that displays only the street address
number(s) of the site and, at the option of the property owner, the street name.
26. “Temporary Sign” means any sign, display, banner or promotional device which is
designed or intended to be displayed only during the allowable business hours or
for short periods of time as specified by the Director of Community Development.
264
27. “V-shaped signs” means any sign consisting of two vertical faces, or essentially
vertical faces, with one common edge and which appears as the letter V when
viewed directly from above.
28. “Vehicle sign” means a sign painted on or attached to an operable or movable
vehicle; in the case of motor vehicles, “operable” shall be defined as having a valid
license plate.
29. “Wall sign” means any sign that is attached, erected or painted on a structure
attached to a building, a canopy structure, or the exterior wall of a building with
the exposed face of the sign parallel to the wall.
30. “Window sign” means any sign that is intended to be read from outside of the
structure or painted on a window facing a public street, parking lot, pedestrian
plaza or walkway accessible to the public.
“Sign Area” for an individually lettered sign without a background, is measured by
enclosing the sign copy with a continuous perimeter in simple rectilinear forms. (See
Appendix D for examples of sign area calculation)
The sign area for a sign with borders and/or background is measured by enclosing the
exterior limits of the border or background with a single continuous perimeter. The
necessary supports, uprights, and/ or the base on which such sign is placed, shall be
excluded from the sign area.
When a sign is separated by thirty-six inches or more, the area of each part may be
computed separately.
“Single-family use” means the use of a parcel for only one dwelling unit.
“Specialty food stores” means uses such as bakeries, donut shops, ice cream stores,
produce markets and meat markets, or similar establishments where food is prepared
and/or sold primarily for consumption off the premises.
“Site,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means a piece of land as shown on a
subdivision map, record of survey map or assessor’s parcel map, which constitutes one
development site and which may be composed of a single unit of land or contiguous
units under common ownership, control, or development agreement.
“Special event,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance means a temporary promotional
event including, but not limited to, a special sale on merchandise or services, or grand
openings.
“Special Event Banner” means any temporary sign constructed of pliable materials such
as canvas, fabric, vinyl plastic or similar materials which will withstand exposure to
wind and rain without significant deterioration, and which does not require a building
permit for its construction, or installation outside of a building.
“Special needs housing,” for purposes of Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus, means any
housing, including supportive housing, intended to benefit, in whole or in part, persons
identified as having special needs relating to mental health; physical disabilities;
developmental disabilities, including without limitation intellectual disability, cerebral
palsy, epilepsy, and autism; and risk of homelessness, and housing intended to meet the
265
housing needs of persons eligible for mental health services funded in whole or in part
by the Mental Health Services Fund, as set forth in Government Code Section
65915(p)(3)(C), as may be amended.
“Specified anatomical areas” means:
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region,
buttocks and female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola;
and
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and
opaquely covered.
“Specified sexual activities” means:
1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;
3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or
female breast.
“Story” means that portion of a building, excluding a basement, between the surface of
any floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then
the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it.
“Street” means a public or private thoroughfare the design of which has been approved
by the City which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including
avenue, place, way, drive, lane, boulevard, highway, road, and any other thoroughfare
except an alley as defined in this chapter.
1. Street, Public. “Public street” means all streets, highways, lanes, places, avenues
and portions and including extensions in the length and width, which have been
dedicated by the owners to public use, acquired for public use, or in which a public
easement for roadway purposes exists.
“Street frontage,” for purposes of the Sign Ordinance, means the length of a site along
or fronting on a public or private street, driveway or other principal thoroughfare, but
does not include such length along an alley, watercourse, railroad right-of-way or
limited access roadway or freeway.
“Structure” means that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some
definite manner.
1. Structure, Recreational. “Recreational structure” means any affixed accessory
structure or portion, which functions for play, recreation or exercise (e.g., pool
slides, playhouses, tree houses, swings, climbing apparatus, gazebos, decks,
patios, hot tubs and pools) but does not include portable play structures, such as
swings or climbing apparatus.
“Structurally attached” means any structure or accessory structure or portion thereof,
which is substantially attached or connected by a roof structure or similar physical
attachment.
266
“Supportive housing” (per Government Code Section 65582(f), as may be amended)
means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population,
and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident
in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her
ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
SECTION 5. Subsection (7) of Table 19.20.020 of Section 19.20.020 of Chapter
19.20 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code entitled “Permitted, Conditional and
Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones” is hereby amended as follows:
Table 19.20.020–Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones
Uses Zoning Districts
A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3
NO CHANGE ROWS #1 - #6b
7. An accessory dwelling
unit Which conforms to
the requirements of
Chapter 19.112;
P P P P - - -
NO CHANGE ROWS #8 - #42
SECTION 6. Section 19.24.040 of Chapter 19.24 of Title 19 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.24.040 Site Development Regulations.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. Minimum lot area shall correspond to the number
(multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the A zoning symbol. Examples:
Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area Square Feet
A/A1 215 215,000
A 400 400,000
A1 43 43,000
B. Minimum Lot Area:
Agricultural (A) Zones Agricultural- Residential (A-1)
267
Zones
1. Minimum
Lot size
215,000 square feet (with or without
incidental residential use)
215,000 square feet (with no
incidental residential use)
2. Incidental
residential
use
43,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Dwelling units in farm labor
camps for temporary laborers, and accessory dwelling units shall not
be counted for the purpose of determining required lot area under this
section.
C. Required Lot Shape. Each lot in an A zoning district shall have such shape that a
square with a side of two hundred feet can be inscribed in this lot.
SECTION 7. Section 19.52.020 of Chapter 19.52 of Title 19 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
19.52.020 Applicability of Regulations.
A request for reasonable accommodation may:
A. Be made only for existing residential dwellings or accessory dwelling units.
B. Be made by any person who is defined as disabled under the Acts, when the
application of development or land use regulations act as a barrier to fair housing
opportunities.
C. Include a variance to the development or land use regulations that would
eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal
opportunity to housing of their choice.
SECTION 8. Chapter 19.112 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is
hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows:
CHAPTER 19.112: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN R-1, RHS, A AND A-1
ZONES
Section
19.112.010 Purpose.
19.112.020 Applicability of regulations.
19.112.030 Site development regulations.
19.112.040 Review process.
268
19.112.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the goal of affordable housing within the City
through provision of additional housing in certain residential and agricultural zoning
districts in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts of accessory dwelling units on
neighborhoods.
19.112.020 Applicability of Regulations.
Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, one accessory dwelling unit:
1. Is permitted on lots in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 zoning districts and, notwithstanding
the underlying zoning, an accessory dwelling unit developed pursuant to this
chapter does not cause the lot upon which it is located to exceed its maximum the
allowable density on the lot,
2. Must comply with the site development regulations and guideline specified in
those zoning districts for dwelling units, including but not limited to, lot coverage,
floor area ratio, height, setbacks, landscape etc. the regulations contained in this
chapter, Chapter 19.100, Accessory Structures/Buildings, Chapter 19.124, Parking,
except as those standards may be modified by this Chapter;
19.112.030 Site Development Regulations. Site Development Regulations for Accessory
Dwelling Units are as identified in Table 19.112.030.
Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units
Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached
Conversion of
portions of
existing
structures to an
accessory
dwelling unit
New addition to existing
accessory dwelling unit and
new accessory dwelling unit
A. Maximum size of
living space,
exclusive of decks
and garages
1. Lots < 10,000
s.f.
800 s.f.
2. Lots ≥ 10,000
s.f.
1,200 s.f.
B. Second- story
accessory dwelling
unit
Allowed if the unit:
1. Is a conversion of existing second story portions of
the principal dwelling unit; and
2. Complies with applicable landscape requirements
to adjoining dwellings consistent with Section
19.28.120.
Not allowed
269
Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units
Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached
Conversion of
portions of
existing
structures to an
accessory
dwelling unit
New addition to existing
accessory dwelling unit and
new accessory dwelling unit
C. Parking
1. Parking for
accessory
dwelling unit
None One additional off-street parking space shall
be provided, if the principal dwelling unit has
less than the minimum off-street parking
spaces for the applicable residential zoning
district in which it is located, as required in
Chapter 19.124 unless the unit meets the
following requirements:
a. Is within one-half (1/2) mile of a public
transit stop; or
b. Located in an architecturally and
historically significant historic district; or
c. Occupant of the ADU is not allowed/
offered a required on-street parking
permit; or
d. Located within one block of a car share
vehicle pick-up location.
2. Replacement
parking spaces
when new
accessory
dwelling unit
converts
existing
covered,
uncovered or
enclosed
parking spaces
required for
the principal
dwelling unit
a. Replacement spaces must be provided for the principal
dwelling unit to meet the minimum off-street parking spaces
for the applicable residential zoning district in which it is
located, as required in Chapter 19.124.
b. Replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on
the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including but not
limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, tandem spaces or
by use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
c. Any replacement parking spaces provided must comply with
the development regulations for the applicable zoning district
in which it is located, Chapter 19.124, Parking and Chapter
19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures.
270
Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units
Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached
Conversion of
portions of
existing
structures to an
accessory
dwelling unit
New addition to existing
accessory dwelling unit and
new accessory dwelling unit
D. Direct outside
access
1. Independent outdoor access must be provided without
going through the principal dwelling unit.
2. Where second-story accessory dwelling units are allowed,
entry shall not be provided by an exterior staircase.
E. Screening from a
public street
All access to accessory dwelling units shall be screened from a public
street.
19.112.040 Review Process.
A. Applications for accessory dwelling units conforming to the requirements of this
chapter shall be reviewed ministerially without discretionary review and must be
approved or denied within the time frame specified in Government Code Section
65852.2.
B. Accessory structures should be compatible with the architectural style and materials
of the principal structure.
SECTION 9: Severability.
Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or
circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful,
unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other
provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or
circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
SECTION 10: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by
Government Code Section 36937.
SECTION 11: Certification.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and
shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code
271
Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of
publication and posting of the entire text.
SECTION 12: Continuity.
To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as
previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be
construed as continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier
provisions.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 15th day
of November 2016 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council
on this ____ of __________ 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
272
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2132 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/2/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Appeal of Kimberly Sandstrom Appeal Regarding Eligibility to Purchase Below Market Rate
(BMR) Unit (Continued from November 1)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A- Summary of Conflict of Interest Investigation
B- Draft Resolution
C- Housing Commission Resolution 16-06
D- Excerpts from BMR Manual Regarding Income Calculation
E- Referenced Regluations (24 CFR 5.609(b) and (c)
F- Technical Guide for Determining Income
G- Attachments and Other Documents Provided by Appellant
H - Sandstrom presentation
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:AppealofKimberlySandstromAppealRegardingEligibilitytoPurchaseBelow
Market Rate (BMR) Unit (Continued from November 1)
ApproveResolutionNo.16-101regardingtheappealofMs.KimberlySandstromand
affirmingtherecommendationoftheHousingCommissionregardingtheeligibilityofMs.
Sandstrom to purchase a BMR unit
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™273
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 1, 2016
Subject
Appeal of Ms. Kimberly Sandstrom Regarding Eligibility to Purchase a Below Market Rate
(BMR) Unit
Recommended Action
Approve the draft resolution regarding the appeal of Ms. Kimberly Sandstrom and
affirming the recommendation of the Housing Commission regarding the eligibility of Ms.
Sandstrom to purchase a BMR unit.
Introduction
Under Chapter 19.172 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the City administers a Below
Market Rate Housing Program (the "BMR Program") to provide housing affordable to a
broad range of households with varying income levels within the City. The City
administers the BMR Program using the guidelines included in the Policy and Procedures
Manual for Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units (the "BMR Manual"),
which was approved by the City Council. The City contracts with West Valley Community
Services ("WVCS") to manage the BMR Program, including the determination of eligibility
of potential homebuyers.
Kimberly Sandstrom has appealed the finding by WVCS that she did not qualify to
purchase a moderate income level BMR unit in the City because her annual gross income
exceeded the maximum allowable income for a two-person household at a moderate
income level in Santa Clara County. On August 11, 2016 the Housing Commission
recommended to the City Council that it find that Ms. Sandstrom was ineligible to
purchase a BMR home because, based on her application, her income exceeded the
established income limit. (See Exhibit C.)
274
2
Background
In January 2016 a BMR unit became available for sale. Ms. Sandstrom was highest on the
waiting list established by WVCS for purchase of the unit, with the appropriate household
size and income. However, when her income documentation was reviewed by WVCS, her
income was found to exceed the established income limit.
She completed three levels of WVCS' internal grievance process, each of which affirmed the
initial finding that her income exceeded the established income limit. In addition, while the
WVCS grievance process was under way, she attended a City Council meeting and three
City Housing Commission meetings under open time, during which she objected to the
finding of her ineligibility to purchase the BMR Unit, and she submitted a packet to the
City Council on March 15 containing materials regarding the determination of her income.
Following that appearance, the City requested outside counsel to review the income
determination. They concluded that her income exceeded the established income limit to
qualify for a BMR unit.
The WVCS grievance procedures at the time normally would have a fourth level of review,
to the WVCS Board of Directors. Ms. Sandstrom provided the City with a copy of that
appeal, which revealed that the BMR unit at issue had been sold to a WVCS employee. In
light of the potential conflict of interest, the City requested that WVCS recuse itself such
that the next level of appeal would be before the Housing Commission, which was
intended to be the next stage of the appeal process in any case. WVCS agreed to recuse
itself, and Ms. Sandstrom was informed that her appeal would move forward in front of
the Housing Commission, which would make a recommendation to the City Council for a
final decision.
On June 23, 2016, the Housing Commission heard Ms. Sandstrom's appeal. The Housing
Commission continued its decision on the appeal until the August 11th meeting to allow
for more time to properly respond to her questions and to research how other local
jurisdictions calculate income.
On August 11, 2016, the Housing Commission heard the continuation of Ms. Sandstrom's
appeal. After considering all evidence presented, the Housing Commission approved
Resolution 16-06 by a 3-1 vote to recommend to the City Council that the City Council
affirm the determination that Kimberly Sandstrom was ineligible to purchase the BMR
home because her income exceeded the established income limit. The Commission also
recommended that she be allowed to retain her current position on the BMR waiting list
administered by WVCS. PowerPoints and other documentation provided by Ms.
Sandstrom are attached as Exhibit G.
275
3
The City Council’s decision is the final level of review, subject to reconsideration.
Calculation of Maximum Income
The procedures governing the City's administration of the BMR Program are contained in
Section 2.4 of the BMR Manual, based on the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development ("HUD") regulations contained in 24 CFR 5.609(b), delineates the
process used to determine an applicant's annual gross income. In addition to "salary and
other wages", annual gross income includes "bonuses and other compensation", in
accordance with 24 CFR 5.609(b). Section 2.4 of the BMR Manual is attached as Exhibit D.
The BMR Program uses income limits published by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development. For a two-person household at a moderate income level in
Santa Clara County, the income limit was $102,050 at the time she applied. (Income limits
were updated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in
May 2016. The current limit is $102,800.) Ms. Sandstrom applied for the BMR unit as a two-
person household. Therefore, for Ms. Sandstrom to have been eligible to purchase the BMR
unit, her income could not exceed $102,050.
Section 2.4.1 of the BMR Manual states that, to verify the applicant's sources of income, the
City may request signed copies of federal tax returns for the most recent three years, W2
forms for most recent two years, and/or copies of the last three consecutive payroll stubs or
other verification of employment. In Ms. Sandstrom's case, WVCS used her last three
consecutive payroll stubs, which listed regular and bonus income, to determine her income
eligibility. However, the bonus income at issue and discussed below would also have been
shown on her W2 form and 2015 tax return, which may not have been available when she
applied in January 2016.
Calculation of Income
The three payroll stubs provided by Ms. Sandstrom display gross wages in the amount of
$3,692.80 paid biweekly. Therefore, to determine her gross annual wages, $3,692.80 is
multiplied by 26 pay periods for a total of $96,012.80 per year. Since bonuses are also
included in the calculation, as provided in the BMR Manual and the regulations adopted
by HUD and contained in 24 CFR 5.609(b), the 2015 bonus pay would be added in the total
amount of $7,635.34, which consisted of various types of bonuses. The total of Ms.
Sandstrom's annual gross wages plus the total bonuses received was $103,648.14, which
exceeded the January 2016 income limit of $102,050 for a two-person household at a
276
4
moderate income level in Santa Clara County. Therefore, Ms. Sandstrom's annual gross
income was over the maximum permitted to be entitled to purchase the BMR Unit.
To summarize:
Gross income: $3,692.80 x 26 (pay periods) = $ 96,012.80
Bonus (per 24 CFR 5.609(b): 7,635.34
Total: $103,648.14
INCOME LIMIT: $102,050.00
The crux of Ms. Sandstrom's argument regarding her income eligibility is that the
determination should be forward-looking under 24 CFR 5.609(a)(2), which states that
annual income includes all amounts which "[a]re anticipated to be received from a source
outside the family during the 12-month period following admission or annual
reexamination effective date." The City’s BMR Manual at the time of her application
excluded subsection (a) from its definition of annual income; it only referenced subsections
(b) and (c). The Manual explicitly states that income is determined through past evidence of
income (i.e. tax returns, W2 forms, and paystubs) and, as provided by 24 CFR 5.609(b),
bonuses received during the years covered by those documents are part of the income
calculation.
However, using subsection (a) of this statute does not change the calculation. The income
calculation is forward-looking, whether using subsection (a) or only subsections (b) and (c),
in that the calculation uses past income data to project future income. This form of
forward-looking projection using documentation of past income is uniformly used in both
federal and local housing programs, as discussed below. In general, this use of past income
is not adjusted unless there is firm documentation available to reflect changes in future
income, such as a major life change since the last year (e.g., job loss, demotion, or
promotion, retirement, or disability).
The issue in this appeal is solely the extent to which past bonuses should be used to
calculate current income. Ms. Sandstrom has provided evidence of a lower mid-year bonus
in 2016 than she received in 2015 and evidence of her company's declining stock prices to
show that her total bonuses will substantially decline this year.
However, stock prices can fluctuate greatly in any given year, and performance during the
preceding few months is not an indication of future stock performance. In addition, the
stock price for her company was higher at the beginning of 2016 than it was at the
beginning of 2013 when she received $8,000 in performance bonuses. As shown in her
277
5
presentations given at the June 23rd and August 11th Housing Commission meetings, Ms.
Sandstrom's total bonuses have fluctuated over the past three years, but actually increased
in 2015. Her bonuses in 2013 totaled $8,100; in 2014 totaled $6,150; and in 2015 totaled
$7,635.34. The average of the past three years' bonuses is $7,295. Given bonus fluctuations
in past years, it would be speculative to estimate the totality of potential yearly bonuses
based on one mid-year bonus and her company's limited financial information available for
the year at the time she made her application in January. Using the average bonus from the
last 3 years, her income would still exceed the BMR limit. $7,295 (the average bonus) plus
$96,012.80 (her base salary) equals $103,307.80, which exceeds the then income limit of
$102,050 for a two-person household at a moderate income level in Santa Clara County.
Income Calculations Used in Other Jurisdictions
The income calculations used by the City are consistent with those used in other local
jurisdictions. To research income calculations used in other jurisdictions, the City reviewed
the BMR programs in other jurisdictions and those administered by BMR program
consultants, including the City of Sunnyvale, Alameda County, the City of Emeryville, Palo
Alto Housing Corporation, and Housing Trust Silicon Valley. Ms. Sandstrom had asked the
City to consider using the City of Sunnyvale’s policies.
Sunnyvale's standards for calculating income are essentially the same as Cupertino's.
Sunnyvale follows the Technical Guide for Determining Income and Allowances for the
HOME Program (a guide published by HUD) (the "HOME Guide") and 24 CFR 5.609
(referred to as the "Part 5" method), the same statute used by the City for its income
calculations, to determine gross household income of their applicants. Under Part 5 and the
HOME Guide, bonuses are explicitly included as income. The HOME Guide explains in its
section entitled "Anticipating Income" that to calculate an applicant's income, the public
agency "must project a household's income in the future. To do so, a 'snapshot' of the
household's current circumstances is used to project future income. In general, a [public
agency] should assume that today's circumstances will continue for the next 12 months,
unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary." This is entirely consistent with the City's
method of calculating income. The City uses an applicant household's current earnings
from the past year to project the household's future income. Further, the HOME Guide
goes on to specify that "[t]his method should be used even when it is not clear that the type
of income received currently will continue in the coming year." For Section 24 CFR 5.609
and the entire excerpt from the HOME Guide, please see Exhibits E and F to this staff
report.
278
6
Other jurisdictions, including those that use Neighborhood Stabilization Program
homebuyer funds, also use the HOME Guide to calculate applicant incomes for their
programs.
The Housing Commission made a recommendation at the August 11th meeting that the
City adopt the use of the HOME Guide for its BMR Manual and, for further clarity and
conformity with other jurisdictions, incorporate the entire 24 CFR 5.609 provisions in the
Manual, including subpart(a). Though it does not change the method of income calculation,
adoption of the HOME Guide would provide further clarity for applicants and WVCS and
provides helpful examples of income calculations. It is important that WVCS and the City
have clear guidance as to how to calculate income. Given the critical housing shortage in
Cupertino, and varying incomes in the "gig economy", it can be expected that the issue of
projecting income forward will arise repeatedly. The HOME Guide provides the best
guidance available.
The Council agenda item regarding BMR Manual revisions incorporates these changes.
Conflict of Interest Issues and Investigation
As described earlier in this report, after Ms. Sandstrom was found to be over income, the
BMR unit was sold to a WVCS employee. Ms. Sandstrom alleged that this sale violated
State conflict of interest laws (Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act) and has asked that
the sale be reversed.
Regardless of Ms. Sandstrom’s income calculation, it is important that the City’s BMR
program be fairly administered. As a result, the City contracted with outside counsel to
conduct a formal conflict of interest investigation. A summary of that investigation is
attached as Exhibit A. The investigation has concluded that there is no evidence that a
preference was given to the WVCS employee, who was the next qualified applicant on the
waiting list with the appropriate household size and income and whose income was
calculated consistent with the BMR Manual. The investigation also concluded that there
was no violation of State conflict of interest laws.
Nonetheless, the City was concerned about the appearance of a conflict when WVCS
reviews the application of its own employee. Consequently, on August 2, 2016 the City
Council approved changes to the BMR Manual that require that if any employee of any
consultant involved with City housing programs is on the waiting list, all review and
evaluation of the employee’s application must be performed by the City. Additionally, the
City was concerned that the former lengthy appeal process could not be completed before
the BMR unit needed to be sold. In the future, any appeal will be heard first by the
279
7
Executive Director of WVCS, or by the Director of Community Development if a WVCS
employee is involved, with a final second level appeal decided by the City Council. The
BMR unit will not be sold before the appeal is completed.
Conclusions and Recommendation
Staff recognizes how close Ms. Sandstrom was to income qualifying for a BMR unit and
that she might well qualify at a future time. In addition, her appeal could not be completed
prior to the sale of the BMR unit. In recognition of these factors, the Housing Commission
recommended that Ms. Sandstrom maintain her current priority for a two-bedroom unit on
the BMR Program waiting list when new and continuing waiting list applications are
accepted in October.
Sustainability Impact
None.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Prepared by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Summary of Conflict of Interest Investigation
B. City Council Resolution No. 16-07
C. Housing Commission Resolution No. 16-06, a Resolution of the Housing Commission
of the City of Cupertino Regarding the Appeal of Ms. Kimberly Sandstrom
D. BMR Administrative Manual (excerpts regarding income calculation)
E. Referenced Regulations (24 CFR 5.609)
F. Technical Guide for Determining Income and Allowances for the HOME Program
(excerpts regarding income calculations)
G. Letters of Appeal and Decisions and Other Documentation Provided by Kimberly
Sandstrom
H. Sandstrom presentation
280
1
394\17\1957448.3
Exhibit A
Summary of Investigation Regarding Conflict of Interest Allegations
Prepared by Celia W. Lee, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP
Background of Investigation
The City of Cupertino engaged the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP to investigate
whether there were any violations of conflict-of-interest laws in the sale of the two-person
household, moderate-income Below Market Rate unit at 20500 Town Center Lane, Unit
262 ("BMR Unit") to Michelle Ma (referred to at times as "Purchaser Ma"), who was an
employee of West Valley Community Services ("WVCS") at the time of the sale. WVCS,
a non-profit organization of approximately 18 employees, administers the BMR Program
for the City of Cupertino in addition to providing other social services in the community.
This summary provides an overview of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP's findings and
conclusions from the investigation.
The investigation involved interviews of witnesses, observation of the office
surroundings at WVCS, and review of a substantial number of documents obtained from
various sources, including WVCS, the City, and applicant Kimberly Sandstrom
("Sandstrom"). Documents reviewed include WVCS files pertaining to the formation of
the 2015-2016 BMR waiting list via random lottery pursuant to the BMR Manual, records
of contacts with potential applicants, and application files for Purchaser Ma and
Sandstrom, including income eligibility documentation. The investigation also involved
review and analysis of the law pertaining to Government Code section 1090, which
prohibits public officials and employees from being financially interested in "any contract
made by them in their official capacity or by any body or board of which they are
members," and the Political Reform Act, which disqualifies public officials from
participating in government decisions in which they have a financial interest.
Findings
The investigation revealed that the methodology employed by WVCS and its Housing
Program Manager, Christine Nguyen, to create the annual waiting list for BMR
ownership units comported with the procedures set forth in the BMR Manual. As part
of our investigation, we reviewed the step-by-step process employed by WVCS, as set
forth in Sections 2.3 and 2.3.1 of the BMR Manual. The 2015-2016 waiting list of 49 people,
comprised of applicants of varying household sizes and income levels, was created by a
random lottery. Sandstrom, Purchaser Ma, and other persons who had submitted an
Eligibility Form in October 2015 and were deemed eligible to be on the waiting list based
281
2
394\17\1957448.3
on stated income were assigned priority points according to whether they lived or
worked in Cupertino. Within each priority grouping, eligible applicants received a place
on the waiting list by random drawing. Sandstrom, who had three priority points, was
number 12 on the waiting list. Purchaser Ma had two priority points and was number 23
on the waiting list. While Ma was eleven places down from Sandstrom on the waiting
list, Ma was the next person in line after Sandstrom who applied as a household of two
persons at a moderate income level. Everyone else between Sandstrom and Ma on the
waiting list either was not a household of two persons and/or was not at a moderate
income level.
The BMR Unit's owner/seller notified the City and WVCS on January 20, 2016 that she
wished to sell the unit, and that she needed to close by March 4, 2016 as a new home
purchase out of state was contingent on the sale of the BMR Unit. However, due to her
obligation to remedy some building code violations for work she had illegally performed
on the unit, it was not available for sale until February 9. Starting on January 20, Nguyen
contacted potential applicants for the BMR Unit. As of the time that the unit became
available, Sandstrom was the primary applicant, as she was the person highest on the
waiting list with a household of two persons at a moderate income level. Purchaser Ma
was the first backup applicant, and another individual was the second backup.
Sandstrom (with a family member as the second household member) completed an
application for the unit, but upon review and evaluation of her income documentation,
WVCS determined that her income exceeded the maximum for that BMR Unit. Thus, she
was deemed ineligible to purchase the BMR Unit. Purchaser Ma, as the first backup from
the waiting list, also completed an application for the unit, with her adult family member
as the second household member. WVCS reviewed Ma and her adult family member's
income documentation and concluded their household income fell within the
appropriate limit. WVCS approved their purchase of the BMR Unit, and the sale closed
on March 29, 2016.
After the City received documentation during Sandstrom's appeal process alleging
conflict of interest violations, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP independently reviewed all
income eligibility documentation and calculations for both Sandstrom and Purchaser Ma,
and concluded that (1) Sandstrom's income exceeded the limits and (2) Ma and her adult
family member's income was within the income limits, and they qualified for the unit.
Purchaser Ma first started working for WVCS in 2008 as a Family Support Specialist, a
professional social work position. As she progressed in seniority, she came to supervise
other, more junior individuals who performed various social work duties at WVCS. From
July 2015-onward, Ma's position at WVCS was Director of Client Services. She did not
282
3
394\17\1957448.3
head any departments within WVCS. All WVCS witnesses confirmed Ma did not have
any involvement in the BMR Program as part of her job duties, and there is no evidence
that she had any involvement, knowledge, or influence regarding the BMR Program. Ma
left WVCS for other social work employment at the end of April 2016.
WVCS had its own conflict of interest policy regarding the BMR Program in effect since
July 2011. The policy prohibited upper management (Executive Director and Department
Directors) and any staff who participated in administering the BMR Program (i.e.,
Christine Nguyen and any staff she supervised) from applying. The policy also dictated
that there would be no special consideration for any staff member who applied, and a
staff member applicant would be subject to the same BMR requirements set forth by the
City and WVCS as any other applicant.
A violation of Government Code section 1090 exists if the pertinent individual
participated in the making of a contract in their official capacity and also had a financial
interest in the contract. Independent contractors or consultants to public entities (such as
WVCS) are subject to its restrictions. In terms of the Political Reform Act, one is
prohibited from making, participating in, influencing or attempting to use their official
position to influence any government decisions in which one has a financial interest.
Government Code section 87100 et seq.
Our investigation found that there were no violations in this instance. As an initial
matter, while her employer was an independent contractor to the City, it is questionable
whether Purchaser Ma can be considered as such, as her social work duties at WVCS
were not specifically designated to be in service for the City. Assuming for the sake of
argument that Ma herself can be considered as an independent contractor to the City by
virtue of her employment with WVCS, Ma's purchase of the BMR Unit was not the
"making" of a contract in her official capacity. She did not participate in any actions or
determinations that led to her place on the waiting list or the successful qualified
applicant; she had no control over the selection or qualification process; and she never
had any involvement or input in the BMR Program or its administration by WVCS.
Everything leading to her purchase of the BMR Unit, other than her initial decision to
apply, came about by circumstances outside her control.
Nguyen and Purchaser Ma were friendly co-workers, but there is no evidence Nguyen
gave Ma any preference or advantage in the sales or qualification process for the BMR
Unit. Rather, the investigation found otherwise. The process of creating the waiting list,
which determined Ma's position on the list as the person next in line after Sandstrom for
a two-person household and moderate income unit, was random and followed the BMR
283
4
394\17\1957448.3
Manual procedures. As mentioned previously, this office reviewed WVCS's income
calculations for both Sandstrom and Purchaser Ma and determined them to be correct.
Conclusions
In sum, our investigation found no conflict of interest violations. We acknowledge that
on August 2, 2016, the City Council approved changes to the BMR Manual that (1)
require that if any employee of any consultant involved with City housing programs is
on the BMR waiting list, all review and evaluation of the employee’s application must be
performed by the City; and (2) in the future, any appeal will be heard first by the
Executive Director of WVCS, or by the Community Development Director if a WVCS
employee is involved, with a final second level appeal decided by the City Council. The
BMR unit will not be sold before the appeal is completed. We believe these actions by the
Council are well-advised to avoid any appearance of a conflict in the future.
284
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 16-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGARDING THE APPEAL OF MS. KIMBERLY SANDSTROM AND
AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION
REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF MS. SANDSTROM TO PURCHASE A BMR
UNIT
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino (the "City") has since 1993 implemented an Office
and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program and a Residential Housing Mitigation Program,
described in the Housing Element of the General Plan, requiring the payment of housing
mitigation fees by non-residential development and residential projects with six units or less,
and requiring the provision of moderate-income and median-income housing in
developments with seven units or more (the "Housing Mitigation Program"); and
WHEREAS, the Policy and Procedures Manual for Administering Deed-Restricted
Affordable Housing Units (the “BMR Manual”) serves as the day-to-day operational manual
for both City staff and its Below Market-Rate (BMR) program administrator for BMR units
generated by the City's Housing Mitigation Program; and
WHEREAS, the City contracts with West Valley Community Services ("WVCS") to
manage the BMR program, including the determination of eligibility of potential applicants;
WHEREAS, applicants who desire to rent or purchase a BMR unit in the City must
complete an application demonstrating that the applicant's annual gross income does not
exceed the maximum published limit for the BMR unit; and
WHEREAS, WVCS maintains a waiting list of qualified applicants who wish to rent
or purchase a BMR unit; and
WHEREAS, Kimberly Sandstrom applied to purchase a BMR unit that became
available in January 2016; and
WHEREAS, based on the requirements of the BMR Manual, WVCS determined that
Ms. Sandstrom's annual gross income exceeded the established income limit to purchase the
BMR unit; and
285
2
WHEREAS, Ms. Sandstrom has completed three levels of appeal at WVCS; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Sandstrom has completed a fourth level of appeal to the Housing
Commission, which made a recommendation to the City Council that the City Council
affirm the determination that Kimberly Sandstrom was ineligible to purchase a BMR unit
because her income exceeded the established income limit, but permit Ms. Sandstrom to
retain her current position on the BMR waiting list; and
WHEREAS, Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 regarding a petition for
reconsideration applies to this Council adjudicatory action. Further, the City of Cupertino
has adopted the time limits contained in the California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6 and the time within which to seek judicial review of a final decision is governed by
that section.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the facts, exhibits, staff report, testimony, and other
evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this resolution by this
reference.
2. Kimberly Sandstrom's income was correctly determined to exceed the established
maximum allowable income for a two-person household at a moderate income level in
Santa Clara County. Her income was correctly determined to be $103,648.14, consisting
of biweekly income of $96,012.80 and bonus income of $7.635.34, for a total income of
$103,648.14, based on the provisions of the BMR Manual and as described in the staff
report.
Section 2. The City Council hereby further provides that Kimberly Sandstrom retain her
current priority for a two-bedroom unit on the BMR waiting list maintained by WVCS when
new and continuing waiting list applications are accepted in October.
286
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2016, at a meeting of the City Council of
the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Barry Chang
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
287
Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO. 16-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO REGARDING THE APPEAL OF MS. KIMBERLY SANDSTROM
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino (the "City") administers a Below Market-
Rate (BMR) housing program; and
WHEREAS, the City contracts with West Valley Community Services ("WVCS")
to manage the BMR program, including the determination of eligibility of potential
applicants;
WHEREAS, the Policy and Procedures Manual for Administering Deed-Restricted
Affordable Housing Units (the “BMR Manual”), adopted by the City Council, serves as
the day-to-day operational manual for both City staff and WVCS in administering the
BMR program; and
WHEREAS, applicants who desire to rent or purchase a BMR unit in the City
must complete an application demonstrating that the applicant's annual gross income
does not exceed the maximum published limit for the BMR unit; and
WHEREAS, WVCS maintains a waiting list of qualified applicants who wish to
rent or purchase a BMR unit; and
WHEREAS, Kimberly Sandstrom applied to purchase a BMR unit that became
available; and
WHEREAS, based on the BMR Manual, WVCS determined that Ms. Sandstrom's
annual gross income exceeded the established income limit to purchase the BMR unit;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Sandstrom has completed three levels of appeal at WVCS; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Sandstrom has further appealed to the Housing Commission,
which will make a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, after careful consideration of the facts,
exhibits, staff report, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, that the
Housing Commission recommends that the City Council affirm the determination that
Kimberly Sandstrom was ineligible to purchase a BMR unit because her income exceeds
288
Attachment C
the established income limit, as calculated consistent with the BMR Manual in effect at
the time of the determination of her income; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, because the appeal procedures then in place
did not allow Ms. Sandstrom to complete her appeal before the affected BMR unit was
sold, the Housing Commission further recommends that the City Council permit Ms.
Sandstrom to retain her current position on the BMR waiting list.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of August 2016 at a regular meeting of the
Housing Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
Vote:
AYES: Harvey Barnett, Rajeev Raman, Sue Bose
NOES: Nina Daruwalla
ABSENT: Shirley Chu
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Aarti Shrivastava /s/ Harvey Barnett
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City ManagerHarvey Barnett, Chair, Housing
Commission
289
Exhibit D
D-1
Excerpts Regarding Income Calculation - Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
290
Exhibit E
E-1
Referenced Regulations (24 CFR 5.609(b) and (c))
291
Exhibit E
E-2
292
Exhibit E
E-3
293
Exhibit E
E-4
294
Exhibit F
F-1
Technical Guide for Determining Income and Allowances for the HOME Program
Anticipating Income
The HOME regulations at 24 CFR 92.203(d)(1) require that, for the purpose of determining
eligibility for HOME assistance, a PJ must project a household’s income in the future. To do so,
a “snapshot” of the household’s current circumstances is used to project future income. In
general, a PJ should assume that today’s circumstances will continue for the next 12 months,
unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. For example, if a head of household is
currently working for $7.00 per hour, 40 hours per week, the PJ should assume that this family
member will continue to do so for the next year. Thus, estimated earnings will be $7.00 per hour
multiplied by 2,080 hours, or $14,560 per year.
This method should be used even when it is not clear that the type of income received currently
will continue in the coming year. For example, assume a family member has been receiving
unemployment benefits of $100 per month for 16 weeks at the time of income certification. It is
unlikely that the family member will continue on unemployment for another 52 weeks. However,
because it is not known whether or when the family member will find employment, the PJ should
use the current circumstances to anticipate annual (gross) income. Income would therefore be
calculated as follows: $100 per week x 52 weeks, or $5,200.
The exception to this rule is when documentation is provided that current circumstances are
about to change. For example, an employer might report that an employee currently makes $7.50
an hour, but a negotiated union contract will increase this amount to $8.25 an hour eight weeks
from the date of assistance. In such cases, income can be calculated based on the information
provided. In this example, the calculation would be as follows: • $7.50/hour x 40 hours/week x 8
weeks = $2,400 • $8.25/hour x 40 hours/week x 44 weeks = $14,520 • $2,400 + $14,520 =
$16,920.
Sources of Earned Income
In addition to hourly earnings, PJs must account for all earned income. In addition to the base
salary, this will include annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs), bonuses, raises, and
overtime pay. In the case of overtime, it is important to clarify whether overtime is sporadic or a
predictable component of an employee’s income. If it is determined that an applicant has earned
and will continue to earn overtime pay on a regular basis, PJs should calculate the average
amount of overtime pay earned by the applicant over the pay period the PJ is using to calculate
income eligibility (3 months or 12 months). This average amount is then to be added to the total
amount of projected earned income over the following 12-month period. Exhibit 2.1 provides a
step-by-step explanation of the standard methodology for projecting annual income.
295
Exhibit F
F-2
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
City Council
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
371
Overview
•Milestones
•My eligibility
•BMR unit
eligibility
•Rules / rule
changes
•Relevant
documents
•Conflict of
interest
•Denial of due
process
•Investigation
questions
Role of
Commissioners
and
Councilmembers
372
January, 2016
20:Notified that I was selected candidate
(with 2 backups) and application must be
completed by 27-Jan
21:I asked about income over limit in 2015
–answer was that over limit in the past
does not disqualify, as eligibility depends
on current income
25:I completed my application
26:I met with Christine at 4pm. She said I
was over limit. I showed her that current
wages plus last year’s performance bonus
was under limit, she said she would consult
with city staff
28:Christine emailed, saying after staff
consultation, I am over limit
373
February, 2016
2:C.J. emailed, saying my eligibility is
not yet determined; he asked for latest
paystub; later he said unit failed
inspection and instructed Christine to
remove it from list of units eligible for sale
9:Christine cancelled meeting with C.J.
and I. The unit passed inspection, but I
was not informed of this
11:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am. C.J. explained that if I
applied 12-Feb, I would be eligible. I
attended meeting at WVCS (with
Christine, C.J.) at 2pm where I provided
mid-year bonus statement. Christine
emailed attachment on letterhead
stating my ineligibility at 6:50pm
374
February, 2016,
continued
12:I delivered my first grievance
to WVCS, but Ms Venkatraman
was not in the office
16:Ms Venkatraman called me,
in response to voicemails I left on
April 12th regarding bringing /
leaving grievance. She said I was
ineligible; no unit was available
and sale to alternate was 80%
done
22:I received Ms Venkatraman’s
response to my grievance by
certified mail
Capital Gains
375
Policy and Procedures
Manual for Administering
Deed Restricted Affordable
Housing Units, as amended
2-Aug by City Council
Resolution No. 16-084
(although no changes to
Exhibit 3, per the Resolution)
From Agenda Packet: E-
Referenced Regluations (24 CFR
5.pdf (near bottom of page E-2 on
left)
(and near top of page E-2, below)
376
March, 2016
1:I handed my second grievance to Mr Selo
8:I received Mr Selo’s response to my grievance by certified mail
10:I attended Housing Commission meeting at 9am
15:I attended City Council meeting at 6:45pm and during Oral
Communications, I asked the City Council to investigate my
case. I provided detailed and pertinent records
29:BMR unit was sold on or about this date to Director of Client
Services at WVCS and her adult sister, but this fact was not
discovered by me for about four weeks
377
Excerpt from CC Resolution No. 16-084 Adopting
Amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units.pdf
Although this regulation
was not part of the BMR
Manual in March, 2016,
a Conflict Of Interest
event clearly occurred
with WVCS’s approval of
the eligibility of their own
employee, after denying
my eligibility
378
Excerpt from
California Law
Governing
Conflict of
Interest, by
Orange County
Department of
Education, June,
2014
379
April, 2016
5:I attended City Council meeting at
6:45pm
14:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am, where I was allowed
to speak for 3 minutes. I recalled 11-
Feb meeting and asked
commissioners to take action against
capricious decision. C.J. said that
grievances to WVCS must continue
19:I attended meeting of the Board
Administration Committee of the
Board of Directors of WVCS at 4pm
where I was allowed to speak for 3
minutes. I asked committee to take
action against capricious decision
and I handed my third grievance to
the Board Chair
19, continued: I attended City Council
meeting at 6:45pm, where C.J. presented
CDBG Annual Plan and funding details (item
15 on Agenda). Afterwards, he was asked by
Councilmember Paul for an update on my
appeal. C.J. stated that I had two more
levels of grievance to complete at WVCS. He
said that, in the future, the Assistant City
Manager could be asked to place my
appeal on the agenda of the Housing
Commission
27:I received, by certified mail, Mr Barkey
and Ms Harper’s response to grievance
three, which told me to forward any
following grievance to Mr Selo. I discovered
the identity of the buyer of the BMR unit in
public records search
380
May, 2016
3:I sent my fourth grievance to MrSelo as an email attachment (copying C.J.,
Assistant City Manager, Mayor and Councilmembers) expressing my outrage at
the Conflict of Interest that arose when WVCS qualified their own staff after
disqualifying me. I asked for a full investigation; acknowledgment and rectification
of the error that resulted in my disqualification; a complete reconsideration of the
unlawful sale and a lawful sale to take its place. MrSelo responded with
attachment BMR Policy for WVCS Staff. I attended City Council meeting at 6:45pm
6:C.J. emailed MrSelo suggesting that WVCS recuse itself and that the appeal
would move to the Housing Commission. I responded to C.J. and Ms Shrivastava
asking that my appeal appear on the Agenda of the 12-May Housing Commission
meeting. There was no response to my email
12: I attended Housing Commission meeting at 9am, where my appeal was not on
the agenda and I was allowed to speak for 3 minutes. C.J. said my appeal would
be heard at the 9-Jun meeting because there had not been time to get it on
today’s agenda. He said that Ms Shrivastava would follow up, as he was leaving
the City of Cupertino for other employment and this was his last Housing
Commission meeting 381
BMR Policy for WVCS Staff
Below Market Rate Policy
for
WVCS Staff
adopted 7/19/11
Below Market Rate
West Valley Community Services staff who does not have decision making authority or influence of the BMR program may
apply as a potential candidate for the BMR program. Staff excluded from application include but not limited to: Executive
Director, Department Directors, WVCS BMR staff. There will be no special consideration or accommodations for the staff's
application. The staff member must qualify based on BMR requirements set forth by the City of Cupertino and WVCS, and will
be given priority points based on the same criteria as all qualified applicants. The staff member will not participate in any BMR
program decision making processes for application, qualification or placement. The staff member will not have any access to
BMR files or other BMR client information.
382
June, 2016
6:I emailed MsShrivastava because no agenda was posted for
9-Jun Housing Commission meeting. Mr Fu replied that my
appeal was continued to 23-Jun
9:Housing Commission meeting is cancelled “due to lack of
business”
23:Special meeting of the Housing Commission had my appeal
on the Agenda as item 3. External Counsel, acting as staff, made
a presentation. I made a presentation. There were comments
from the public. From the minutes: “Chair Barnett said that the
Commission would take all the information received today into
consideration, review with Staff and bring this item back for a
recommendation at the meeting of July 14, 2016”
383
July and August, 2016
July 6:Mr Fu called and told me
that the 14-Jul Housing
Commission meeting would be
cancelled because external
counsel needed more time to
investigate the determination of
my income. When I asked about
the criminality of the transfer, he
said they were investigating that
too. He said my appeal would be
continued to 11-Aug. He also sent
an email with essentially the same
information
14:Housing Commission meeting
is cancelled “due to lack of
business”
August 2:City Council adopted
Resolution No. 16-084 amending the
Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed-Restricted
Affordable Housing Units (Below
Market Rate (BMR) Manual), with
modification, after 4-1 vote
11:At Housing Commission meeting
External Counsel presented, including incorrect income calculation. I
presented, but was prevented from showing my investigative findings related to COI. There were comments
from the public. There was a motion to
deny my appeal, which passed after
a 3-1 vote
384
Handout
presented
by Ms Klueck
at 11-Aug
Housing
Commission
meeting has
math error
and bonus
error
385
Excerpt from F-
Technical Guide for
Determining
Income.pdf
My application included
verifiable evidence that:
•S Recogn Bonus was
one time (2015 only)
•Wellness Bonus would
not be earned in 2016
•Performance Bonus was
sharply decreased in
2016
•Stock value declined
precipitously
386
My Company, our main competitor and
Nasdaq Composite 2013 –2016
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/stx/interactive-chart
Demonstrates
that larger
economic forces
are driving the
loss in value
387
My latest paystub
388
August, 2016, continued
23:External counsel, Ms Lee, emailed me, inviting me to share my presentations with her,
while stating she would not share her findings with me
24:Mr Fu emailed, asking me to forward my presentation
25:Mr Fu emailed saying that my appeal before the City Council would be continued from
6 to 20-Sep
26:I received a letter from Ms Squarcia informing me that my appeal would be heard by
the City Council 6-Sep and that any issues not raised before the Council on that date may
be inadmissible, if I later bring an action in court
27: I received a second letter from Ms Squarcia informing me that my appeal would be
continued to an unknown date
29:I uploaded presentations, audio recordings, letters from City to a Google Drive folder
that I shared with Ms Lee and the Mayor and Councilmembers. Ms Lee asked me to invite
her via a gmail account, and I complied
31: I emailed the City Clerk expressing utter confusion and asking for guidance on my
hearing before the City Council. Ms Schmidt clarified that my appeal would be heard 20-
Sep 389
September, 2016
6:I attended City Council meeting
at 6:45, where the Council
approved postponement of my
appeal to 20-Sep
8:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am. During the
approval of minutes, I attempted to
make errors in the draft minutes
known. However I was silenced
and told I could speak during Oral
Communications. This is a violation
of my Brown Act rights
54954.3.(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity
for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item
of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration
of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,
provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the
agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section
54954.2.However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members
of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already
been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the
legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the
public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item,
before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item
has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as
determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall
provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice
for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations
to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not
limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public
testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of
the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or
omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any
privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=54001-
55000&file=54950-54963
390
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-
center/reports/state/incnote.html 391
Conflict of interest / Due process
Although Christine Nguyen told me that a conflict of
interest would arise if I were both a volunteer and a client
at WVCS…
…she nonetheless denied me and then sold the 2-
bedroom, moderate unit –while the appeal process was
still underway –to her coworker, Michelle Ma, the Director
of Client Services at WVCS;a single woman with no
dependents
This is clearly unacceptable and I am
asking YOU, City Council, to take
action and reverse this illegal sale
392
Investigative Questions
Is Michelle Ma the Director of Client Services at West Valley Community Services?
Date of hire –2008, per Ms Lee
Date of termination –April 2016, per Ms Lee
How many City of Cupertino Below Market Rate units are owned by
current West Valley Community Services staff
former West Valley Community Services staff
current City of Cupertino staff
former City of Cupertino staff
How many City of Cupertino Below Market Rate units are rented by
current West Valley Community Services staff
former West Valley Community Services staff
current City of Cupertino staff
former City of Cupertino staff
393
Questions about sale of APN 369-
55-036 on or around 21-Mar-2016
How many applicants were contacted and invited to complete their applications,
including Ms Ma and I? –3, per Ms Lee: Sandstrom, Ma and additional backup?
How many applicants submitted complete applications?
Did all of the applicants have the same number of priority points? –No, per Ms Lee
How many priority points did Ms Ma have? –2, per Ms Lee
At the time of application, where was Michelle Ma’s residency?
Longevity at that address?
At the time of application, where was Marissa Ma’s residency?
Longevity at that address?
What was Marissa Ma’s income?
What was the waitlist priority number of Ms Ma? –23, per Ms Lee
394
City Council has the power to find a
transaction fraudulent and overturn it
Excerpt from CC Resolution No. 16-084 Adopting Amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
395
Responsibilities of Commissioners (excerpted
from COMMISSIONER’S HANDBOOK, 2016, City of Cupertino)
D. DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PROTECTION
All rules, regulations, laws, services and facilities must apply equally to all persons, and not give
favor to any segment of the community. Similarly, all laws and ordinances of the city must afford
equal protection to all facets of the community, unless the purpose of a city action requires special
classification of the community.
E. DUE PROCESS
All governmental procedures and process must allow an affected party a right to be heard, and to
present controverting fact or testimony on the question of right in the matter involved. Unfair
determinations, such as bias, predetermination, refusal to hear, etc., may invalidate actions.
F. REASONABLENESS
Every action of municipal government must be reasonable, or otherwise stated, not capricious,
extreme, arbitrary, or abusive.
396
In closing
Affordable housing is one of the most valuable things in
existence in Cupertino…
A valuable BMR unit has been sold in a frankly illegal manner
Please restore justice and undo the sale
Please reject the recommendation of staff, denying my appeal
Please recognize that no speculation is needed to find that I
met the income eligibility limit, even assuming performance
bonus at same level in 2016 as in 2015
Please do not play a part in continuing the unethical action
that has occurred and instead, work to undue this action
397
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2117 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/25/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule Amendment
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Proposed Amendment to Schedule C – Planning Fees (redlined)
C – Proposed Schedule C – Planning Fees
D - Proposed Amendment to Schedule E – Recreation Fees (redlined)
E – Proposed Schedule E – Recreation Fees
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule Amendment
AdoptResolutionNo.16-131approvinganamendedFiscalYear2016-2017FeeSchedule,
effective February 6, 2017
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™398
RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
10185 N. STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule amendment.
Recommended Action
Adopt a Draft Resolution approving an amended Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Fee Schedule,
effective February 6, 2017.
Description
The Community Development Department also recommends changes to their legal
noticing deposit as well as making minor administrative corrections and clarifications to
the Planning Fee Schedule
The Recreation & Community Services Department recommends revisions to facility
rental fees to clarify and expand the criteria to qualify as a Cupertino Non-Profit User
Group for room rentals. The recommended changes will allow non-profit and government
agencies that serve Cupertino to receive discounted room rental rates. Additionally, the
Department recommends revising insurance coverage from a requirement for all rental
groups to coverage based on the type of rental activity.
Discussion
Fee Resolution 16-031 became effective July 1, 2016 and later amended by Resolution 16-
050, which updated Schedule C – Planning effective August 1, 2016. Through the
implementation of the new fee schedule, staff became aware of issues with the
methodology of some fees in the Planning and Recreation schedules as described below.
Schedule C– Planning Fees
Currently, Planning requires a $200 deposit for legal noticing materials and administrative
fee (15%) for planned development. Staff is required to reconcile to actual costs and often
refund customers. Staff estimates that under the current deposit fee method actual costs
are $477 or $65 materials and two hours of staff time at a rate of $203/hour, one of which
is spent reconciling the deposit against actual costs. However, the average fee recovered
is only $20 or 4% of actual costs. Staff believes that changing the fee method from a deposit
to a flat fee would save staff time and allow the City to fully recover costs. The proposed
$268 legal noticing fee would cover the average cost of materials ($65) and one hour of
staff time ($203).
399
As seen in Attachment B, other minor administrative edits to Schedule C are also
requested for clarification.
Schedule E – Recreation Fees
Fee Resolution 16-031 included amended facility rental User Groups and fee tiers for
room rental fees. User Groups for room rentals were collapsed from six to four. The new
Groups are:
Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profits
Group 2 – Non-Resident Non-Profits
Group 3 - Cupertino Residents/Businesses
Group 4 – Non-Residents/Businesses.
The criteria to qualify as Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profit was also revised from 51%
Cupertino resident membership/participation to 1/3 Cupertino resident
membership/participation.
The Recreation & Community Services Department implemented the new fee schedule
and notified active nonprofit customers of the lowered 33% resident
membership/participation threshold to qualify as a Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profit for
room rentals. Staff requested updated documentation to verify all existing non-profit
customers. However, several long-standing Cupertino-serving non-profit organizations
and clubs were not able to produce the required documentation. While some may have
qualified in the past, they no longer qualify due to members moving out of City limits
and membership turnover.
Staff recommends a fee schedule amendment, which revises the criteria to qualify as a
Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profit for room rentals. The expanded criteria will ensure that
non-profits and government agencies providing services that benefit Cupertino residents
receive the discounted rate. Under the new policy, an organization must meet at least one
of the below criteria to qualify for the Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profit room rental rate:
Non-profit organizations with 1/3 Cupertino resident membership/participation, or
Non-profit organizations with a Cupertino business address, or
Non-profit organizations that demonstrate service to the Cupertino community, or
Government agencies including public schools, or
A function held by a nonprofit organization that is free and open to the Cupertino
public
To verify the criteria is met, non-profit organizations are required to submit an IRS letter
of non-profit 501(c) status with the facility rental application and an official letter on the
organization’s letterhead signed by an officer or staff member listing under which criteria
the organization and/or function qualifies for Cupertino Non-Profit status. Staff reserves
the right to require additional clarifying documentation to certify that an organization or
a specific room rental qualifies for the Group 1 - Cupertino Non-Profit rate, and the
Recreation Manager will make a determination when necessary if the documentation
400
provided is incomplete or unclear.
The Group 1 – Cupertino Non-Profit or Group 2 – Non-Resident Non-Profit rates may be
granted for one fundraiser per organization per fiscal year. Additional room rentals for
the purpose of a fundraiser would fall into the Group 3 – Resident or Group 4 – Non-
Resident rates. All Groups, including Cupertino Non-profits, are subject to all terms of
the adopted Facility Rental Policy including security/damage deposits, cancellations,
insurance, and overage charges if rental times are exceeded.
The current requirement of $1.0 million general liability insurance for all groups and
rentals has not been feasible. Securing insurance was found to be a complicated process
and cost prohibitive for the majority of renters. Requiring this level of insurance for every
rental would have seriously impacted the ability of individuals and small organizations
to rent rooms. Staff recommends revising the insurance requirements to be based on the
type of activity, as outlined in the Department’s Facility Use Insurance Requirement
Policy. This policy will focus insurance coverage on larger groups and activities deemed
more risky as advised by risk management consultants. Additionally, the Department
will assist customers in securing insurance if they do not already have coverage. This
approach will adhere to risk management best practices while being customer-friendly.
Fiscal Impact
The recommended changes to Planning fees and insurance requirements for room rentals
are not estimated to have a fiscal impact. Based on room rental history, staff estimates the
recommended non-profit fee schedule amendment could result in lower revenue receipts
of approximately $10,000 per fiscal year. Staff will evaluate the revised policy once
implemented and may bring forward recommended fee increases in future budget cycles
for Council consideration to minimize the impact on cost recovery levels. A preliminary
assessment found that Cupertino Non-Profit room rental fees are among the lowest of area
cities. This information will be further analyzed and taken into consideration as part of
future recommended fee changes.
Prepared by: Christine Hanel, Acting Director of Recreation and Community Services
and Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
B – Proposed Amendment to Schedule C – Planning Fees (redlined)
C – Proposed Schedule C – Planning Fees
D – Proposed Amendment to Schedule E – Recreation Fees (redlined)
E – Proposed Schedule E – Recreation Fees
401
RESOLUTION NO: 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING PREVIOUS FEE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to exceed the
cost of delivering said services; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines for setting user
fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. User Fee Resolution Number 16-050 is hereby amended
2. User fees are amended per attached Schedule C and Schedule E
3. User fees amended in Schedule C and Schedule E are effective February 6, 2017
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this
6th day of December, 2016 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Barry Chang, Mayor, City of Cupertino
402
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-050
Schedule C - Planning
DEFINITIONS
A. Major
B. Minor
C. Minor Architectural and Site Approval
D. Major Architectural and Site Approval
Architectural approval of all other development projects.
E. Appeal
F. Directors Application
G. Temporary Sign Permit
H. Tentative Map: Five or more parcels.
I. Parcel Map: Four or less parcels.
J. Housing Mitigation Fee
Fee Description
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
General Plan
Authorization
Amendment
Zoning
Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
Study Session Planning Staff Hourly
Rate No Change
Development Agreement1 Planning Staff Hourly
Rate No Change
Planning Staff Hourly Rate1 203 No Change
A staff review of a temporary sign application that includes an evaluation of the sign request, the entry into the
temporary log and site review by Code Enforcement Officers. The permit fee is in addition to the submittal of
a deposit to guarantee removal of the sign upon expiration of the temporary permit.
10,000 or more square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; six or more residential units.
Less than 10,000 square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; less than six residential units.
Architectural approval of the following: Minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new
development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required.
A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by staff or an
advisory body. An appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal,
an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and the City Council
members are exempted from the fee requirement. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Council
may choose to, in its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee.
An application that receives final approval by staff either via an advertised public hearing or non-hearing
format. The application may involve a pre-application meeting and/or Environmental Review committee
In accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element, Section 19.72.030 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code and the BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.
Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of
Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria.
Planning Staff Hourly
Rate
Planning Staff Hourly
Rate
No Change
No Change
403
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-050
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
Tentative Map (See Definition H)21,179 No Change
Parcel Map (See Definition I)12,732 No Change
Use Permit / Development Permit - Major 21,343 No Change
Use Permit / Development Permit - Minor 12,809 No Change
Amendment to Use Permit / Development Permit - Major 10,746 No Change
Amendment to Use Permit / Development Permit - Minor 5,884 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Major (See Definition D)13,189 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Minor (See Definition C)8,862 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Minor Duplex / Residential
(See Definition C) (new)4,500 No Change
Planning Commission Interpretation 4,762 No Change
Exception 4,509 No Change
Heart of the City 13,063 No Change
Hillside Exception 13,539 No Change
R-1 Design Review 3,600 No Change
R-1 No Design Review (new)3,000 No Change
R-1 Exception 4,673 No Change
Minor Residential Permit 2,311 No Change
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee)230 No Change
Sign Exception 3,290 No Change
Fence Exception - R1 and duplex 859 No Change
Fence Exception - other 2,891 No Change
Variance 5,167 No Change
Minor Modification 3,156 No Change
Conditional Use Permit - Administrative 4,676 No Change
Reasonable Accommodation 750 No Change
Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required)
First Tree 200 No Change
Each Additional Tree 100 No Change
Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required)
First Tree 300 No Change
Each Additional Tree 150 No Change
Retroactive Tree Removal Penalty 3,325 No Change
Tree Management Plan 4,702 No Change
Heritage Tree Designation 250 No Change
Temporary Use Permit 2,824 No Change
Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition G)319 No Change
Sign Program 2,582 No Change
Appeals (See Definition E)
Planning Commission 230 No Change
City Council 230 No Change
Zoning Verification Letter 338 No Change
Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License)169 No Change
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Other Personal Wireless Facility ( move to Fees Collected at Building
Permit Issuance)1,350 No Change
Permit Extension of Approved Entitlements 1,280 No Change
Legal Noticing Fee (previously Legal Noticing Deposit) Actual Cost of
copies/postage
($200 deposit)
268
404
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-050
Schedule C - Planning
Fees Collected at Building Permit Issuance
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (Building Permit Fees)
All Non-Residential and Multi-Family (per sq.ft.)0.30 No Change
Residential Single Family (per sq. ft.)0.14 No Change
General Plan Office Allocation Fee (per sq. ft.)0.28 No Change
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Equipment Mount on Existing Light Utility Pole 6.19 No Change
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees (See Definition J)
Residential - Ownership (per sq. ft.)
Detached Single Family Residence 15.48 No Change
Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome 17.03 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Residential - Rental (per sq. ft.)
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Apartment (up to 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Apartment (over 35 du/ac) 25.80 No Change
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Office, Research and Development, or Industrial 20.64 No Change
Hotel 10.32 No Change
Commercial/Retail 10.32 No Change
2Based on Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual and 2015 Nexus Study. These fees are to increase annually by the San Francisco Bay Area
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
An administrative fee of 15% (see General Fees - Schedule A) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services.
If plans are submitted on paper, the City's cost of scanning plans, plus an administrative fee of 15% (see General Fees - Schedule A), will be
charged.
1Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of
staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project.
The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project.
405
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-
Schedule C - Planning
DEFINITIONS
A. Major
B. Minor
C. Minor Architectural and Site Approval
D. Major Architectural and Site Approval
Architectural approval of all other development projects.
E. Appeal
F. Directors Application
G. Temporary Sign Permit
H. Tentative Map: Five or more parcels.
I. Parcel Map: Four or less parcels.
J. Housing Mitigation Fee
Fee Description
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
General Plan
Authorization
Amendment
Zoning
Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
Study Session Planning Staff Hourly
Rate No Change
Development Agreement1 Planning Staff Hourly
Rate No Change
Planning Staff Hourly Rate1 203 No Change
Planning Staff Hourly
Rate
Planning Staff Hourly
Rate
No Change
No Change
In accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Housing Element, Section 19.72.030 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code and the BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.
Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of
Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria.
A staff review of a temporary sign application that includes an evaluation of the sign request, the entry into the
temporary log and site review by Code Enforcement Officers. The permit fee is in addition to the submittal of
a deposit to guarantee removal of the sign upon expiration of the temporary permit.
10,000 or more square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; six or more residential units.
Less than 10,000 square feet commercial/office/non-residential/industrial; less than six residential units.
Architectural approval of the following: Minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new
development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required.
A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by staff or an
advisory body. An appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal,
an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and the City Council
members are exempted from the fee requirement. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Council
may choose to, in its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee.
An application that receives final approval by staff either via an advertised public hearing or non-hearing
format. The application may involve a pre-application meeting and/or Environmental Review committee
406
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-
Schedule C - Planning
Fee Description
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
Tentative Map (See Definition H)21,179 No Change
Parcel Map (See Definition I)12,732 No Change
Use Permit / Development Permit - Major 21,343 No Change
Use Permit / Development Permit - Minor 12,809 No Change
Amendment to Use Permit / Development Permit - Major 10,746 No Change
Amendment to Use Permit / Development Permit - Minor 5,884 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Major (See Definition D)13,189 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Minor (See Definition C)8,862 No Change
Architectural and Site Approval - Minor Duplex / Residential
(See Definition C) (new)4,500 No Change
Planning Commission Interpretation 4,762 No Change
Exception 4,509 No Change
Heart of the City 13,063 No Change
Hillside Exception 13,539 No Change
R-1 Design Review 3,600 No Change
R-1 No Design Review (new)3,000 No Change
R-1 Exception 4,673 No Change
Minor Residential Permit 2,311 No Change
Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Contract+Admin Fee No Change
Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee)230 No Change
Sign Exception 3,290 No Change
Fence Exception - R1 and duplex 859 No Change
Fence Exception - other 2,891 No Change
Variance 5,167 No Change
Minor Modification 3,156 No Change
Conditional Use Permit - Administrative 4,676 No Change
Reasonable Accommodation 750 No Change
Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required)
First Tree 200 No Change
Each Additional Tree 100 No Change
Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required)
First Tree 300 No Change
Each Additional Tree 150 No Change
Retroactive Tree Removal Penalty 3,325 No Change
Tree Management Plan 4,702 No Change
Heritage Tree Designation 250 No Change
Temporary Use Permit 2,824 No Change
Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition G)319 No Change
Sign Program 2,582 No Change
Appeals (See Definition E)
Planning Commission 230 No Change
City Council 230 No Change
Zoning Verification Letter 338 No Change
Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License)169 No Change
Extension of Approved Entitlements 1,280 No Change
Legal Noticing Fee (previously Legal Noticing Deposit) Actual Cost of
copies/postage
($200 deposit)
268
407
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution No. 16-
Schedule C - Planning
Fees Collected at Building Permit Issuance
Effective
August 1, 2016
Effective
February 6, 2017
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees
All Non-Residential and Multi-Family (per sq.ft.)0.30 No Change
Residential Single Family (per sq. ft.)0.14 No Change
General Plan Office Allocation Fee (per sq. ft.)0.28 No Change
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Other Personal Wireless Facility 1,350 No Change
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Equipment Mount on Existing Light Utility Pole 6.19 No Change
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees (See Definition J)
Residential - Ownership (per sq. ft.)
Detached Single Family Residence 15.48 No Change
Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome 17.03 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Residential - Rental (per sq. ft.)
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Apartment (up to 35 du/ac) 20.64 No Change
Multi-family Attached Townhome or Apartment (over 35 du/ac) 25.80 No Change
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Office, Research and Development, or Industrial 20.64 No Change
Hotel 10.32 No Change
Commercial/Retail 10.32 No Change
2Based on Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual and 2015 Nexus Study. These fees are to increase annually by the San Francisco Bay Area
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
An administrative fee of 15% (see General Fees - Schedule A) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services.
If plans are submitted on paper, the City's cost of scanning plans, plus an administrative fee of 15% (see General Fees - Schedule A), will be
charged.
1Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of
staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project.
The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project.
408
Recreation classes and excursion fees shall be determined as follows:
Classes
1. Determine the maximum hourly rate paid to instructor.
2. Multiply the instructor's hourly rate by the number of class meetings.
3. Determine the minimum number of participants and divide into the instructor's cost.
4. Add indirect overhead percent - 32%.
5. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
6. Add cost for specialized equipment or supplies.
Special Conditions: For classes taught by contract instructors, the indirect overhead is
only added to the City's percentage.
Excursions
1. Transportation cost divided by the number of participants plus overhead transfer.
2. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
3. Add any admission cost, supplies or leadership cost.
Additional factors that may be used to determine the class or excursion user fee:
The total number of participants in a given activity may generate additional revenue
whereby the total program cost may be reduced.
Classes that traditionally have waiting lists may have the user fee increased.
Programs in competition with adjacent cities or the private sector may require fees to be
increased or decreased to remain competitive.
Facility Use Fee Schedule (Staff Use Only)
CLASSIFICATIONS:
shows, etc. Must show proof of 95014 residency.
service organizations for functions not open to the public. These organizations must show official
official structure and status.
functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial conferences, seminars, trade shows, etc.
Cupertino-serving non-profits with 1/3 resident membership/participation, a Cupertino business
held by non-profits that are free and open to the Cupertino public. These organizations must show an
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Group 1: Programs and events sponsored by Cupertino-based non-profit recreation, education, community service
organizations and sponsored clubs with 1/3 resident membership/participation.
Group 2: Programs and events sponsored by n Non-resident non-profit recreation, education or community
structure and status.
Group 3: Cupertino Residents - Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public.
address, or demonstrated service to Cupertino; government organizations; sponsored clubs; functions
These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial conferences, seminars, trade
Group 4: Non-Residents - Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public. These
409
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOURS
Cupertino Room Mon-Fri up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 pm-Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $128
Resident (Group 3)$168 $280
Non-Resident (Group 4)$224 $368
Social Room
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$20 $60
Non-Profit (Group 2)$32 $96
Resident (Group 3)$72 $120
Non-Resident (Group 4)$90 $150
Conference Room
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility. $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of reservation.
The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security deposit will
be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Quinlan Community Center
Cupertino Room - Resident/Non-Resident $750
All Other Rooms - Resident/Non-Resident $300
All Rooms - Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
$1M required for all groups using the Cupertino Room and Social Room, w/endorsement to policy showing City
of Cupertino as Additional Insured.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Quinlan Community Center
410
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $128
Resident (Group 3)$120 $200
Non-Resident (Group 4)$200 $300
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security
deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Community Hall
Resident/Non-Resident $750
Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
$1M required for all groups, w/endorsement to policy showing City of Cupertino as Additional Insured.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Community Hall
411
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $30
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $48
Resident (Group 3)$48 $80
Non-Resident (Group 4)$60 $100
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A $100 security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security
deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
$1M required for all groups, w/endorsement to policy showing City of Cupertino as Additional Insured.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
CREEKSIDE/MONTA VISTA- Multi-Purpose Room
Monta Vista Recreation Center/Creekside Park Building
MONTA VISTA- Classroom/Kitchen
412
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Resident Non-Resident
Annual Membership $23 $28
End of Aug. to End of Oct. Membership Sale $17 $22
Day Pass Fee $5 $5
Class Pass $10 $15
Day Trip Pass $20 $25
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $140
Resident (Group 3)$144 $240
Non-Resident (Group 4)$180 $300
Bay Room/ Arts and Craft
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$22 $36
Non-Profit (Group 2)$27 $45
Resident (Group 3)$43 $72
Non-Resident (Group 4)$54 $90
Classroom
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$20 $32
Non-Profit (Group 2)$24 $40
Resident (Group 3)$38 $64
Non-Resident (Group 4)$48 $80
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of reservation.
The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security deposit will
be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Cupertino Senior Center
Reception Hall - Resident/Non-Resident $750
All Other Rooms - Resident/Non-Resident $300
All Rooms - Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
$1M required for all groups, w/endorsement to policy showing City of Cupertino as Additional Insured.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Conference Room
Senior Center
Reception Hall
413
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Type Resident Non-Resident
Day Passes
Single Day Pass $10 $13
Day Pass 10 Pack $90 $117
Aerobics Passes $6 $6
Yoga/Pilates/TRX $8 $8
Monthly Passes
One Month Single $65 $75
One Month Couple $85 $100
One Month Family $105 $125
One Month Senior $50 $60
One Month Students $30 $30
One Month Juniors (<17)$30 $30
Annual Passes
One Year Juniors (<17)$305 $340
One Year Single $430 $465
One Year Couple $815 $890
One Year Family $910 $990
One Year Senior $385 $415
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Conference Room Current
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16
Resident (Group 3)$31
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39
Multi-Purpose Room/Sports Court Current
Resident $60
Non-Resident $72
1. The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $10.00/hour during primetime and $6.00/hour per court during
non-primetime for all C.T.C. sponsored activities other than U.S.T.A. leagues and practices.
2. All competitors in C.T.C./U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an annual pass.
3. Specials will be offered on an on-going basis.
Sports Center/Child Watch/Teen Center
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
414
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Child Watch Fees
One visit $6
Ten visits $54
One Month Pass $100
Teen Center
Rental Rate (per 4 hours)$200
Deposit $750
Overtime Rate: $100.00 first hour; $50.00 each half hour after.
Teen Resident Teen Non-Resident
Daily Rate No Cost $5
10 Day Pass No Cost $40
Memorial Softball Field
Cupertino residents/Resident business only $35/2 hrs
Non-Residents/Non-Resident business $50/2 hrs
Field can be reserved for a maximum of 4 hours. THERE IS NO FEE FOR
CURRENT SOFTBALL TEAMS PLAYING IN CUPERTINO LEAGUES
Field preparation (includes dragging, watering, chalking, and bases)$37
Field Attendant (2 hour minimum). Field Attendant is required any time lights or field $12/hr
preperation is requested.
Lights $10/hr
Memorial Park Amphitheater
Residents/Cupertino Non-Profit $55
Non-resident/Non-Profit $75
Memorial Park Gazebo
Residents/Cupertino Non-Profit $55
Non-resident/Non-Profit $75
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate)Resident Non-Resident
Memorial (113 capacity)$83 $112
Linda Vista (136 capacity)$85 $116
Portal (80 capacity)$66 $90
Electricity at Memorial or Linda Vista Park $25 $25
Bounce House (Memorial Park Only)$25 $25
Sports Field Fees (Per Athletic Field Use Policy)
Cupertino resident, youth, volunteer non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $22
Cupertino resident, youth, commercial non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $66
Outdoor Facilities
415
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Cupertino resident, adult, volunteer non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Deposit $600
Cupertino resident, adult, commercial non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
Non-resident, youth, non-profit volunteer organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $66
Non-resident, youth, commercial non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $88
Non-resident, adult, non-profit volunteer organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
Non-resident, adult, commercial non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $100
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
For-profit youth sports events
2-hour minimum/hour/field $150
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
For-profit adult sports events
2-hour minimum/hour/field $175
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
* Represents whether an organization's members and board of directors are made up of 51% or more of either
City residents or non-residents. After the category is determined, then the resident or non-resident fees are paid
per the residency of each player.
Outdoor Facilities
416
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate) *Resident Non-Resident
Area 1 - 250 Person Picnic Area- Blackberry Site $300 $600
Area 2 - 100 Person Picnic Area- Sycamore Site $120 $240
Area 3 - 100 Person Picnic Area- Owl Site $120 $240
Area 4 - 50 Person Picnic Area- Steelhead Site $60 $120
Area 5 - 50 Person Picnic Area- Bobcat Site $60 $120
Area 6 - 25 Person Picnic Area- Acorn Site $30 $60
All Sites- 525 Person Picnic Area $690 $1,380
Pool Pass for Picnic Area Groups $4 $5
Day-Use Pass Only
Weekday Tuesday - Friday $6 $8
Weekend Saturday - Sunday $8 $10
Picnic area fees are due in full at the time of reservation.
* Organizations may rent multiple areas.
Swim Pass Options Resident Non-Resident
10-day Pass $60 $80
Season Swim Pass (May-Sept)
Individual Pass $100 $140
2-Person Pass $160 $200
3-Person Pass $170 $210
4-Person Pass $180 $220
5-Person Pass $190 $230
6-Person Pass*$200 $240
*Each additional person added to a 6-person pass $6 $8
Blackberry Farm
417
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016 February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Contracted Tenants and Partners*No Charge
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48
Resident (Group 3)$55
Non-Resident (Group 4)$88
*On-Site tenants and partnering organziations that have a current lease agreeement with the City of Cupertino.
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit of $300 will be due at time of booking for rentals. (except for Contracted Tenants and Partners)
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
$1M required for all groups, w/endorsement to policy showing City of Cupertino as Additional Insured.
Environmental Education Center
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
418
Weekends Resident Non-Resident
9-Holes $18 $20
Senior $18 $20
Junior $15 $17
Second 9 Holes (all players)$12 $14
Weekdays
9-Holes $16 $18
Senior $15 $17
Junior $15 $17
Second 9 Holes (all players)$11 $14
Adults (17-61)Jr/Sr
Monthly Rate*
Cupertino Residents $165 $150
Non-Residents $195 $180
Super Annual Rate (Good on Weekends & Holidays)**
Cupertino Residents $1,650 $1,500
Non-Residents $1,950 $1,800
Super Semi-Annual Rate (Good on Weekends & Holidays)**
Cupertino Residents $880 $800
Non-Residents $1,040 $960
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Daily Green Fee Schedule
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
All Groups and Tournaments pay the 9-Hole rate (Cupertino residents still applies). Staff is authorized to set
merchandise fees according to current cost.
419
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-031
Fees Effective July 1, 2016February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Base Rate 15 16 17 18 18 20
Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday
Savings Senior Adult Senior Adult Weekend Weekend
# of Plays per round Res.Res.NR NR Res.NR
10 $1 $140 $150 $160 $170 $170 $190
20 $2 $260 $280 $300 $320 $320 $360
30 $3 $360 $390 $420 $450 $450 $510
40 $4 $440 $480 $520 $560 $560 $640
50 $5 $500 $550 $600 $650 $650 $750
Golf fees may be increased/decreased at the discretion of the City Manager (Resolution No. 04-350)
* Monthly Passes valid 7 days a week and Holidays. Based on 1\10th of the Annual Rate.
** All Annual and Semi-Annual rates will be valid 7 days a week including holidays. Annual and Semi-Annual rates based on 50 play
weekday rates. Annual price is 3 times the 50 play rate. Semi-Annual is 1.6 times the 50 play rate.
Proposed Quick Passes
420
Recreation classes and excursion fees shall be determined as follows:
Classes
1. Determine the maximum hourly rate paid to instructor.
2. Multiply the instructor's hourly rate by the number of class meetings.
3. Determine the minimum number of participants and divide into the instructor's cost.
4. Add indirect overhead percent - 32%.
5. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
6. Add cost for specialized equipment or supplies.
Special Conditions: For classes taught by contract instructors, the indirect overhead is
only added to the City's percentage.
Excursions
1. Transportation cost divided by the number of participants plus overhead transfer.
2. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
3. Add any admission cost, supplies or leadership cost.
Additional factors that may be used to determine the class or excursion user fee:
The total number of participants in a given activity may generate additional revenue
whereby the total program cost may be reduced.
Classes that traditionally have waiting lists may have the user fee increased.
Programs in competition with adjacent cities or the private sector may require fees to be
increased or decreased to remain competitive.
Facility Use Fee Schedule (Staff Use Only)
CLASSIFICATIONS:
shows, etc. Must show proof of 95014 residency.
functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial conferences, seminars, trade shows, etc.
Group 1: Cupertino-serving non-profits with 1/3 resident membership/participation, a Cupertino business
held by non-profits that are free and open to the Cupertino public. These organizations must show an
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Group 2: Non-resident non-profit recreation, education or community service organizations for functions
Group 3: Cupertino Residents - Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public.
address, or demonstrated service to Cupertino; government organizations; sponsored clubs; functions
These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial conferences, seminars, trade
Group 4: Non-Residents - Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public. These
not open to the public. These organizations must show official structure and status.
official structure and status.
421
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOURS
Cupertino Room Mon-Fri up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 pm-Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $128
Resident (Group 3)$168 $280
Non-Resident (Group 4)$224 $368
Social Room
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$20 $60
Non-Profit (Group 2)$32 $96
Resident (Group 3)$72 $120
Non-Resident (Group 4)$90 $150
Conference Room
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility. $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of reservation.
The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security deposit will
be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Quinlan Community Center
Cupertino Room - Resident/Non-Resident $750
All Other Rooms - Resident/Non-Resident $300
All Rooms - Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Quinlan Community Center
422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $128
Resident (Group 3)$120 $200
Non-Resident (Group 4)$200 $300
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security
deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Community Hall
Resident/Non-Resident $750
Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Community Hall
423
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $30
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $48
Resident (Group 3)$48 $80
Non-Resident (Group 4)$60 $100
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A $100 security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security
deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Monta Vista Recreation Center/Creekside Park Building
MONTA VISTA- Classroom/Kitchen
CREEKSIDE/MONTA VISTA- Multi-Purpose Room
424
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Resident Non-Resident
Annual Membership $23 $28
End of Aug. to End of Oct. Membership Sale $17 $22
Day Pass Fee $5 $5
Class Pass $10 $15
Day Trip Pass $20 $25
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Mon-Fri Up to 5:00 pm Fri 5:00 p.m. to Sun
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30 $80
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48 $140
Resident (Group 3)$144 $240
Non-Resident (Group 4)$180 $300
Bay Room/ Arts and Craft
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$22 $36
Non-Profit (Group 2)$27 $45
Resident (Group 3)$43 $72
Non-Resident (Group 4)$54 $90
Classroom
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$20 $32
Non-Profit (Group 2)$24 $40
Resident (Group 3)$38 $64
Non-Resident (Group 4)$48 $80
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10 $25
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16 $40
Resident (Group 3)$31 $52
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39 $65
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum of 4 hours
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for all groups. Security deposit is due at time of reservation.
The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The security deposit will
be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits conclude on time.
Cupertino Senior Center
Reception Hall - Resident/Non-Resident $750
All Other Rooms - Resident/Non-Resident $300
All Rooms - Cupertino/Other Non-Profit $300
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
Conference Room
Senior Center
Reception Hall
425
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Type Resident Non-Resident
Day Passes
Single Day Pass $10 $13
Day Pass 10 Pack $90 $117
Aerobics Passes $6 $6
Yoga/Pilates/TRX $8 $8
Monthly Passes
One Month Single $65 $75
One Month Couple $85 $100
One Month Family $105 $125
One Month Senior $50 $60
One Month Students $30 $30
One Month Juniors (<17)$30 $30
Annual Passes
One Year Juniors (<17)$305 $340
One Year Single $430 $465
One Year Couple $815 $890
One Year Family $910 $990
One Year Senior $385 $415
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Conference Room Current
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$10
Non-Profit (Group 2)$16
Resident (Group 3)$31
Non-Resident (Group 4)$39
Multi-Purpose Room/Sports Court Current
Resident $60
Non-Resident $72
1. The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $10.00/hour during primetime and $6.00/hour per court during
non-primetime for all C.T.C. sponsored activities other than U.S.T.A. leagues and practices.
2. All competitors in C.T.C./U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an annual pass.
3. Specials will be offered on an on-going basis.
Sports Center/Child Watch/Teen Center
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
426
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Child Watch Fees
One visit $6
Ten visits $54
One Month Pass $100
Teen Center
Rental Rate (per 4 hours)$200
Deposit $750
Overtime Rate: $100.00 first hour; $50.00 each half hour after.
Teen Resident Teen Non-Resident
Daily Rate No Cost $5
10 Day Pass No Cost $40
Memorial Softball Field
Cupertino residents/Resident business only $35/2 hrs
Non-Residents/Non-Resident business $50/2 hrs
Field can be reserved for a maximum of 4 hours. THERE IS NO FEE FOR
CURRENT SOFTBALL TEAMS PLAYING IN CUPERTINO LEAGUES
Field preparation (includes dragging, watering, chalking, and bases)$37
Field Attendant (2 hour minimum). Field Attendant is required any time lights or field $12/hr
preperation is requested.
Lights $10/hr
Memorial Park Amphitheater
Residents/Cupertino Non-Profit $55
Non-resident/Non-Profit $75
Memorial Park Gazebo
Residents/Cupertino Non-Profit $55
Non-resident/Non-Profit $75
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate)Resident Non-Resident
Memorial (113 capacity)$83 $112
Linda Vista (136 capacity)$85 $116
Portal (80 capacity)$66 $90
Electricity at Memorial or Linda Vista Park $25 $25
Bounce House (Memorial Park Only)$25 $25
Sports Field Fees (Per Athletic Field Use Policy)
Cupertino resident, youth, volunteer non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $22
Cupertino resident, youth, commercial non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $66
Outdoor Facilities
427
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Cupertino resident, adult, volunteer non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Deposit $600
Cupertino resident, adult, commercial non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
Non-resident, youth, non-profit volunteer organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $66
Non-resident, youth, commercial non-profit organization (*)
Resident/player/season $11
Non-resident/player/season $88
Non-resident, adult, non-profit volunteer organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $50
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
Non-resident, adult, commercial non-profit organization
2-hour minimum/hour/field $100
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
For-profit youth sports events
2-hour minimum/hour/field $150
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
For-profit adult sports events
2-hour minimum/hour/field $175
Base fee/site/seasonal use period $600
Deposit $600
* Represents whether an organization's members and board of directors are made up of 51% or more of either
City residents or non-residents. After the category is determined, then the resident or non-resident fees are paid
per the residency of each player.
Outdoor Facilities
428
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate) *Resident Non-Resident
Area 1 - 250 Person Picnic Area- Blackberry Site $300 $600
Area 2 - 100 Person Picnic Area- Sycamore Site $120 $240
Area 3 - 100 Person Picnic Area- Owl Site $120 $240
Area 4 - 50 Person Picnic Area- Steelhead Site $60 $120
Area 5 - 50 Person Picnic Area- Bobcat Site $60 $120
Area 6 - 25 Person Picnic Area- Acorn Site $30 $60
All Sites- 525 Person Picnic Area $690 $1,380
Pool Pass for Picnic Area Groups $4 $5
Day-Use Pass Only
Weekday Tuesday - Friday $6 $8
Weekend Saturday - Sunday $8 $10
Picnic area fees are due in full at the time of reservation.
* Organizations may rent multiple areas.
Swim Pass Options Resident Non-Resident
10-day Pass $60 $80
Season Swim Pass (May-Sept)
Individual Pass $100 $140
2-Person Pass $160 $200
3-Person Pass $170 $210
4-Person Pass $180 $220
5-Person Pass $190 $230
6-Person Pass*$200 $240
*Each additional person added to a 6-person pass $6 $8
Blackberry Farm
429
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Contracted Tenants and Partners*No Charge
Cupertino Non-Profit (Group 1)$30
Non-Profit (Group 2)$48
Resident (Group 3)$55
Non-Resident (Group 4)$88
*On-Site tenants and partnering organziations that have a current lease agreeement with the City of Cupertino.
Security Staff
Security Staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour. Minimum 4 hours.
Overtime Fee
Security Deposit
A security deposit of $300 will be due at time of booking for rentals. (except for Contracted Tenants and Partners)
Insurance
General Liability Insurance may be required as determined by Department and stipulated in Department's
Facility Use Insurance Requirement Policy.
Environmental Education Center
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for any time up to the
first half-hour, and 1.5 times the associated hourly fee for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the
security deposit.
430
Weekends Resident Non-Resident
9-Holes $18 $20
Senior $18 $20
Junior $15 $17
Second 9 Holes (all players)$12 $14
Weekdays
9-Holes $16 $18
Senior $15 $17
Junior $15 $17
Second 9 Holes (all players)$11 $14
Adults (17-61)Jr/Sr
Monthly Rate*
Cupertino Residents $165 $150
Non-Residents $195 $180
Super Annual Rate (Good on Weekends & Holidays)**
Cupertino Residents $1,650 $1,500
Non-Residents $1,950 $1,800
Super Semi-Annual Rate (Good on Weekends & Holidays)**
Cupertino Residents $880 $800
Non-Residents $1,040 $960
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Daily Green Fee Schedule
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
All Groups and Tournaments pay the 9-Hole rate (Cupertino residents still applies). Staff is authorized to set
merchandise fees according to current cost.
431
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 16-
Fees Effective February 6, 2016
Schedule E - Recreation
Base Rate 15 16 17 18 18 20
Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday
Savings Senior Adult Senior Adult Weekend Weekend
# of Plays per round Res.Res.NR NR Res.NR
10 $1 $140 $150 $160 $170 $170 $190
20 $2 $260 $280 $300 $320 $320 $360
30 $3 $360 $390 $420 $450 $450 $510
40 $4 $440 $480 $520 $560 $560 $640
50 $5 $500 $550 $600 $650 $650 $750
Golf fees may be increased/decreased at the discretion of the City Manager (Resolution No. 04-350)
* Monthly Passes valid 7 days a week and Holidays. Based on 1\10th of the Annual Rate.
** All Annual and Semi-Annual rates will be valid 7 days a week including holidays. Annual and Semi-Annual rates based on 50 play
weekday rates. Annual price is 3 times the 50 play rate. Semi-Annual is 1.6 times the 50 play rate.
Proposed Quick Passes
432
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2190 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/18/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Consider upgrading the City’s municipal electric accounts to 100% renewable and carbon
free GreenPrime service with Silicon Valley Clean Energy upon service launch, which is scheduled to
occur in April 2017
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Consider upgrading the City’s municipal electric accounts to 100% renewable and
carbon free GreenPrime service with Silicon Valley Clean Energy upon service launch, which
is scheduled to occur in April 2017
DirectSiliconValleyCleanEnergy(SVCE)toupgradetheCity’selectricityaccountsto
GreenPrime service, upon service launch in April 2017
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™433
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 6, 2016
Subject
Consider upgrading the City’s municipal electric accounts to 100% renewable and carbon free
GreenPrime service with Silicon Valley Clean Energy upon service launch, which is scheduled
to occur in April 2017.
Recommended Action
Direct Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) to upgrade the City’s electricity accounts to
GreenPrime service, upon service launch in April 2017.
Background
Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), identifies more than 200 actions to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Of all the actions, shifting our energy portfolio to lower Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
sources is the single most impactful action featured, with Community Choice Energy (CCE)
identified as the key approach to accomplishing the shift. Specifically, successful
implementation of Measure M-F-1-2, (Create Community Choice Energy option) assumes that
100% of our municipal operations electricity use in 2020 comes from 100% renewable or zero
carbon sources via a CCE program. The CAP estimates that the emissions reduction associated
with the City purchasing its electricity from zero carbon sources for its municipal facilities
would result in a greenhouse gas reduction of 870 MTCO2e per year.
Following CAP adoption, the City Manager prioritized the study of Community Choice Energy
by utilizing Council approved funding budget to support conducting an initial assessment and
technical feasibility study of a CCE program in partnership with Sunnyvale, Mountain View
and Santa Clara County. On December 1, 2015, Council approved an ordinance (Ordinance No.
15-2138) and resolution (Resolution No. 15-111) to join Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE),
making Cupertino the first of 12 communities to approve the actions required to form and
participate in the Joint Powers Authority. Subsequently, other communities joined and SVCE
was officially created and formed in March 2016, by the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Gilroy, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga,
Sunnyvale and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
As a CCE, SVCE assumes responsibility from PG&E for purchasing and/or generating
electricity, while PG&E continues to provide transmission, distribution, and billing services. As
before, PG&E remains responsible for electric service reliability and management of outages.
434
The electricity bill continues to come from PG&E, but will reference SVCE for line item costs
related to electricity generation.
Since the inaugural meeting of the SVCE Board of Directors in April of 2016, the Board hired a
Chief Executive Officer, and approved new key staff positions with recruitments for these
positions currently underway. More recently, the Board has been guiding negotiations with
power suppliers, to procure renewable and carbon free electricity at costs competitive with
what residents and businesses pay for PG&E power today.
SVCE will be offering two new options for local residential and commercial electricity
customers at competitive rates. The default power supply mix for SVCE’s GreenStart service
will be 100% carbon free, sourced from 50% eligible renewable power sources and 50% carbon
free sources (mostly large hydroelectric power). Customers automatically enrolled in SVCE’s
service will receive GreenStart service. By comparison, PG&E’s current electric service is
approximately 30% eligible renewable, 60% carbon-free (mostly from PG&E nuclear generation
at Diablo Canyon) and the remainder 40% is from conventional generation. According to SVCE,
the estimated cost for GreenStart service will be approximately 1% less ( $0.001/kWh) less
expensive than PG&E service.
SVCE will also offer an 100% eligible renewable, carbon free service called GreenPrime.
GreenPrime will be sourced entirely from eligible renewable resources as defined by the State of
California. According to SVCE, customers will have the option to upgrade to GreenPrime
service, at an estimated premium of $0.008/kWh to PG&E’s current service. Exact program rates
will be approved by the SVCE Board of Directors in January/February of 2017.
Analysis & Discussion
Both GreenStart and GreenPrime are 100% carbon free services. Either service helps the City to
significantly reduce carbon emissions from its municipal operations, and address important
sustainability goals. However, by upgrading from GreenStart to GreenPrime for municipal
operations, the City of Cupertino is demonstrating additional environmental leadership.
GreenPrime is generated from 100% renewable, carbon free sources, primarily solar and wind
farms in California and elsewhere on the western grid. For this reason, staff recommends that
Council direct Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) to upgrade the City’s electricity accounts to
GreenPrime service, upon service launch in April 2017.
Opting up to GreenPrime further expands demand for generation from these new and
competitive renewable energy sources. Municipal adoption of GreenPrime serves as the highest
leadership example for local residents and businesses considering their energy sourcing
435
options, similar to examples already set by the City for our plug-in and electric fleet vehicles,
energy conservation, Green Business certified buildings, solar arrays on municipal buildings,
Environmental Education Center green building and much more.
As seen in Table 1, based on the City’s municipal electricity consumption of 3,364,000 kWh for
calendar year 2015, opting up to GreenPrime is estimated to increase the City’s electricity costs
by about $27,000 per year, less than 5% of total electricity costs.
Table 1. Annual Cost Comparison Estimates Between PG&E, GreenStart, and GreenPrime,
GreenStart
(50% renewable,
100% carbon free)
GreenPrime
(100% renewable,
100% carbon free)
Compared to
PG&E
$0.001/kWh savings
$3,364/yr savings
$0.008/kWh additional
$26,912/yr additional
Sustainability Impact
Both GreenStart and GreenPrime options would reduce GHG emissions associated with the
City by providing 100% carbon free electricity generation. Upgrading all municipal electric
accounts to 100% renewable energy, offered with GreenPrime, will support long-term energy
solutions while reducing negative environmental impacts associated with the City’s municipal
electricity consumption. As noted above, it would help to implement the City’s Climate Action
Plan measures, particularly Measure M-F-1-2: Create Community Choice Energy option.
Successful implementation of this measure assumes that 100% of municipal operations
electricity use in 2020 comes from 100% renewable or zero carbon sources via a CCE program
like Silicon Valley Clean Energy. The CAP estimates that the emissions reduction associated
with the City purchasing its electricity from zero carbon sources for its municipal facilities
would result in a greenhouse gas reduction of 870 MTCO2e per year.
Fiscal Impact
Using 2015 usage data as a baseline, opting up the City’s municipal electric accounts to
GreenPrime is estimated to cost about $27,000 more per year when compared to what the City
would normally pay PG&E. If the City’s accounts will be enrolled in SVCE in April 2017 , it is
expected that current budgeted funds will be enough to cover the increase associated with
opting up to GreenPrime for the remainder of the fiscal year.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Katy Nomura, Management Analyst & Misty Mersich, Sustainability Manager
Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works and Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City
Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
436
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2118 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/25/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Request from the Taipei Friendship City Committee for City to Sponsor a Smart City
Conference in May of 2017 (continued from October 18)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject:RequestfromtheTaipeiFriendshipCityCommitteeforCitytoSponsoraSmartCity
Conference in May of 2017 (continued from October 18)
Sponsor the proposed Smart City Conference
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™437
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 18, 2016
Subject
Request from the Taipei Friendship City Committee for City to Sponsor a Smart City
Conference in May of 2017
Recommended Action
Sponsor the proposed Smart City Conference
Discussion
On September 20, 2016, the City established a Friendship City relationship with Taipei,
Republic of China. As a key program objective, the Taipei Friendship City Committee proposed
to hold a Smart City Conference which would connect local government officials with the
proponents of Smart City technology in Taiwan, the United States and potentially other
countries. The Committee has proposed to hold this conference in the last week of May, 2017, at
a location within the City of Cupertino. The Committee is requesting that the City be an
“Official Sponsor” of the conference and agree to be listed as such on any materials.
The Committee proposes to fund the costs of this conference by seeking contributions from
other Friendship City Committees and potentially charging technology companies for the right
to market technology at the conference. The Committee has represented that it is not and will
not request any financial assistance from the City for the Smart City Conference.
Fiscal Impact
By agreeing to sponsor the Smart City Conference, the City would be permitting the Taipei
Friendship Committee to use the City name and potentially the City logo to market the
conference. The Committee has represented that it is not seeking any financial support from the
City for this conference
Sustainability Impacts
Smart City technologies include technologies and processes that promote environmental
efficiency and sustainability, and as such could provide indirect sustainability benefits.
Submitted by: David Brandt, City Manager
438
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1993 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/21/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:12/6/2016
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council12/6/20161
Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/29/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™439