02-21-2017 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL
6:45 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair winners
and Science and Talent Search winners
Recommended Action: Present Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair
winners and Science and Talent Search winners
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.
2.Subject: Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions interviews) City
Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions
interviews) City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
February 21, 2017City Council AGENDA
3.Subject: Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions interviews) City
Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions
interviews) City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
4.Subject: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
5.Subject: Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project,
No. 2017-21
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a
construction contract with JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $179,795 and
approve a construction contingency of $18,000 for a total of $197,795
Staff Report
A - Draft Contract
6.Subject: Approve a semi-rural designation eliminating the requirement for
sidewalks on a portion of San Fernando Avenue, south of the Blackberry Farm
Entrance, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-019 designating a portion of San
Fernando Avenue as semi-rural
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
7.Subject: Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Don Sun as the
Environmental Review Committee representative .
Recommended Action: Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the
Environmental Review Committee.
Staff Report
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
February 21, 2017City Council AGENDA
8.Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08
Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding
Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
17-2161: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending
Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 Regarding Restrictions on
Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths”
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 17-2161
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.Subject: Consideration pursuant to a Lease with San Jose Water Company, of the
reasonableness of an increase in water rates to customers served by the Cupertino
Municipal Water System leased to San Jose Water Company. The increase in
rates is substantially identical to that authorized for increased costs of operation
and maintenance by the California Public Utilities Commission, for systems
owned and operated by San Jose Water Company in other areas within the City.
Recommended Action: 1. Hold a Public Hearing on proposed Cupertino Municipal
Water System potable water rates and charges, and:
2. Postpone determination of reasonableness of the requested 3.83% rate increase
until such time that San Jose Water Company provides to City relevant cost (repair,
maintenance, operation) and relevant revenue data specific to the customers serviced
by the Cupertino Municipal Water System.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Water Service Map
Attachment B - Lease Agreement with San Jose Water Company
Attachment C - San Jose Water Advice Letter 498 to Public Utilities Commission 11-15-16
Attachment D - Public Utilities Commission Approved Advice Letter 498 12-19-16 - Exhibit 1
Attachment E - September 22, 2016 SJWC request for 2017 water rate increases
Attachment F - Public Notices & Comments
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
February 21, 2017City Council AGENDA
10.Subject: Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian
Furniture Site), for consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed
applicant to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to
commence environmental and project review. (Application No.:
GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location:
19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution
No. 17-020 (Attachment A) after determining whether the application is authorized
to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures
C - Scandinavian Furniture project plans
D - General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description
E - Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application, prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated February 10, 2017
F - Relevant Policies in the EDSP
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
11.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO
4
February 21, 2017City 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 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-2307 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/30/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair winners and Science and
Talent Search winners
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:PresentationofCertificatesofRecognitionfortheScienceFairwinnersandScience
and Talent Search winners
PresentCertificatesofRecognitionfortheScienceFairwinnersandScienceandTalentSearch
winners
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1945 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:ApprovetheJanuary30specialmeeting(commissionsinterviews)CityCouncil
minutes
Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™7
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 30, 2017
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 5:07 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry
Chang, Steven Scharf and Rod Sinks. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with terms expiring: Bicycle
Pedestrian, Library, Fine Arts, and Housing
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to the
Bicycle Pedestrian, Library, Fine Arts, and Housing commissions
The City Council conducted interviews for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and
reappointed Pete Heller to a full term ending 1/30/21, appointed Jennifer Shearin to a full term
ending 1/30/21 and Gerhard Eschelbeck to a partial term (counts as full) ending 1/30/19, and
designated Vidula Aiyer as Alternate.
The City Council conducted interviews for the Library Commission and appointed Liana
Crabtree, Jia Wo, and Christie Wang to full terms ending 1/30/21, and designated David
Sandler as Alternate.
The City Council conducted interviews for the Fine Arts Commission and appointed Wenjia
Chen to a full term ending 1/30/21, reappointed Rajeswari Mahalingam to a full term ending
1/30/21, and designated Helen Yang as Alternate.
The City Council conducted interviews for the Housing Commission and appointed Sanjiv
8
City Council MINUTES January 30, 2017
Kapil to a partial term (counts as full) ending 1/30/19, John Zhao to a full term ending 1/30/21,
and designated Mingming Liang as Alternate.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:50 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, January 31 at 5:00
p.m. for commission interviews.
________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1946 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:ApprovetheJanuary31specialmeeting(commissionsinterviews)CityCouncil
minutes
Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 5:07 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry
Chang, Steven Scharf and Rod Sinks. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commissions with terms expiring: Planning,
Technology, Information, and Communications, and Audit Committee
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to the
Planning, Technology, Information, and Communications commissions, and Audit
Committee
The City Council conducted interviews for the Planning Commission and appointed David
Fung and Jerry Liu to full terms ending 1/30/21, reappointed Alan Takahashi to a full term
ending 1/30/21, and designated Margaret Gong as Alternate.
The City Council conducted interviews for the Technology, Information, and Communications
Commission and appointed Rajaram Soundararajan to a partial term (counts as full) ending
1/30/20, and designated Mukesh Garg as Alternate.
The City Council conducted interviews for the Audit Committee and reappointed Eno Schmidt
to a full term ending 1/30/21, and designated James Luther as 1st Alternate and Mingming
Liang as 2nd Alternate.
11
City Council MINUTES January 31, 2017
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting.
________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1947 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes
Approve the February 7 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the City Council meeting to order in
Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry
Chang, Steven Scharf and Rod Sinks. Absent: None.
Mayor Vaidhyanathan reordered the agenda to take up item No. 13 before Item No. 12.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Subject: Proclamation in memory of Cupertino resident Gin Lu "Tommy" Shwe
Recommended Action: Present proclamation in memory of Cupertino resident
Gin Lu "Tommy" Shwe
Mayor Vaidhyanathan presented the proclamation in memory of Cupertino resident
Gin Lu "Tommy" Shwe to Tommy Shwe’s family.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Shashi Rekha Alur talked about making stress free violence free schools and the YES! for
Schools program on March 10 (Distributed a handout)
The following people spoke about human rights violations in China and the Hard to Believe
movie screening at Bluelight Cinemas on February 8 (Distributed handouts):
Chun Lee
Mei Chen
14
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Sophie Liu
Li Juan Tang
Cliff Chen
Christian Lambert
Sharon Roan
Lee
Taghi Saadati talked about parking and street sweeping on Elmsford Drive.
Jean Beadord, on behalf of Dolly Sandoval, talked about the Planning Commission
appointments.
Art Cohen, on behalf of Bluelight Cinemas, talked about upcoming events.
Fariba Narjat, on behalf of the Iranian Federated Women’s Club, talked about the Iranian Film
Festival at Bluelight Cinemas on March 12.
Danessa Techmanski talked about potential uses for the Stocklmeier property.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chang moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented.
Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
2. Subject: Approve the January 24 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 24 City Council minutes
3. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 2, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-006 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 2, 2016
4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 9, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-007 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 9, 2016
5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 16, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-008 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 16, 2016
15
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 22, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-009 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 22, 2016
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending December 31, 2016
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-010 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending December 31, 2016
8. Subject: Approval of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Collaborative
Services Agreement with Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Providers and
Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing Membership in the California Enterprise
Development Authority, Golden State Finance Authority, Western Riverside
Council of Governments, and the California Statewide Community Development
Authorities and to participate in the PACE programs
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolutions to join the following joint power agencies
and participate in their PACE programs
a. California Enterprise Development Authority (Figtree PACE Program),
Resolution No. 17-011
b. Golden State Finance Authority (Ygrene PACE Program), Resolution Nos. 17-012
and 17-013
c. Western Riverside Council of Governments (California HERO PACE
Program),
Resolution No. 17-014
d. California Statewide Communities Development Authority (Open PACE
Program), Resolution No. 17-015; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve and sign the acknowledgement and
addendums of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional
Collaborative Services Agreement, as executed between ABAG and Residential
PACE Providers, and execute any other document necessary to carry out the City's
membership in each of the PACE Providers listed above
Written communications for this item included an amended staff report.
9. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for PEFF LLC (dba Enzo's
Restaurant), 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Ste. 510
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for
PEFF LLC (dba Enzo's Restaurant), 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Ste. 510
10. Subject: Accept resignation of Parks and Recreation Commissioner David
16
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Fung and direct staff to fill the vacancy
Recommended Action: Accept resignation of Parks and Recreation
Commissioner David Fung and direct staff to fill the unscheduled vacancy:
a.) Application deadline date of Friday, March 10; and
b.) Interview date of Tuesday, March 21
11. Subject: Transfer of funds for expenses related to Mayor Vaidhyanathan’s participation
in Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s annual D.C. Advocacy Trip on March 17-19 to
meet with Congressional and Agency officials regarding funding for city and regional
priorities
Recommended Action: Transfer $2,000 to cover all costs, not limited to travel
expenses, lodging and food, for the Mayor’s participation in SLVG’s annual D.C.
Advocacy Trip
Written communications for this item included an amended staff report.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. Subject: Petition for Reconsideration regarding the City Council decision of December 6,
2016, denying Petitioner Kimberly Sandstrom’s appeal of the determination that she is
ineligible to purchase a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Consider the Petition for Reconsideration (Attachment B-1) and deny it for its
failure to meet the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC)
Section 2.08.096 and adopt Resolution No. 17-016 (Attachment A-1); or, in the alternative;
2. Conduct a hearing to reconsider its decision of December 6, 2016 based upon
the new evidence and grounds proffered by Petitioner, if Council determines that
the Petition meets the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096,
and affirm its decision denying Petitioner’s appeal
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Mayor Vaidhyanathan said that she served as an uncompensated advisor to West Valley
Community Services (WVCS) and would be fair and impartial during the hearing.
Councilmember Scharf said that he was not on Council during the first hearings but he
attended the meetings and reviewed the case.
Senior Planner Kerri Heusler reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.
17
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava answered questions from Council.
Petitioner Kimberly Sandstrom spoke about her case.
Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and Jennifer Griffin spoke.
Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing.
Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to adopt Resolution No. 17-016 denying the
Petition for Reconsideration for its failure to meet the requirements of Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096. The motion carried with Scharf abstaining.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
13. Subject: Order the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of
Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 16-136
Recommended Action: Note objections and adopt Resolution No. 17-017 ordering
abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No.
724 and Resolution No. 16-136
Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia reviewed the staff report.
Steve Azar and Kathy Khodi-Elhami spoke.
Chang moved and Scharf seconded to adopt Resolution No. 17-017 ordering abatement
of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and
Resolution No. 16-136. The motion carried unanimously.
14. Subject: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending
Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths
Recommended Action: Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2161, An Ordinance
of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08
Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Restrictions
on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report.
Staff answered questions from Council.
18
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Wynn Kageyama, League Cycling Instructor
Tom Schaefer
Art Cohen
Larry Dean
Leslie Larson
Luke Lang
Jiali Gao
Captain Rich Urena
Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing.
Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner Jennifer Shearin and staff answered questions from
Council.
Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of the ordinance.
Paul moved and Chang seconded to read Ordinance No. 17-2161 by title only and that
the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan,
Paul, and Chang. Noes: Scharf and Sinks. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
Council also directed staff to continue using the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to
support outreach for training, education, and signage.
15. Subject: Fee waiver request by Pacific Coast Farmers Market Association
(PCFMA) for costs incurred related to a Special Event Permit for a farmer’s
market at the Creekside Park north parking lot on Friday mornings for the 2017
calendar year
Recommended Action: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 17-018 “A
resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino waiving costs incurred
related to the use of the Creekside Park north parking lot by the Pacific Coast
Farmer’s Market Association every Friday morning for the 2017 calendar year"
Written communications for this item included a staff map and a resident email.
Economic Development Manager Angela Tsui reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
19
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Sujatha Venkatraman, West Valley Community Services
Jennifer Griffin
Tom Schaefer
Jennifer Shearin
Jorge Vega
Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing.
Sinks moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 17-018 “A resolution of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino waiving costs incurred related to the use
of the Creekside Park north parking lot by the Pacific Coast Farmer’s Market
Association every Friday morning for the 2017 calendar year". The motion carried
unanimously.
Council also directed staff to look at traffic patterns near Creekside and Cupertino High
School to alleviate possible congestion.
Council went into recess at 10:06 p.m. and reconvened at 10:14 p.m.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
16. Subject: Update on Status of I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project
Recommended Action: Receive update on status of I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange
Improvements Project
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Director of Public Works Timm Borden introduced the staff report and Senior Civil
Engineer David Stillman further reviewed the item via a PowerPoint presentation.
Staff answered questions from Council.
Bill Wagner, Principal from HMH Engineers, answered questions from Council.
Jennifer Griffin and Tom Schaefer spoke.
Council received the update.
17. Subject: Update on Status of 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Implementation
20
City Council MINUTES February 7, 2017
Recommended Action: Receive update on status of 2016 Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Plan Implementation
Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Senior Civil Engineer David Stillman reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint
presentation.
Staff answered questions from Council.
The following people spoke:
Jennifer Griffin
Steve Elich
Larry Dean
Taghi Saadati
Tom Schaefer
Council received the update.
18. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community
events.
Council requested staff halt the Verizon cell tower project at City Hall until the tower
aesthetics are addressed and the power mains are hooked up; and bring an item to a
future Council meeting to discuss working with the Cities Association of Santa Clara
County for a regional approach to human rights advocacy.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:57 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting.
________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-2245 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/4/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project, No. 2017-21
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Contract
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject: Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project, No. 2017-21
AuthorizetheCityManagertoawardandexecuteaconstructioncontractwithJJR
Construction,Inc.intheamountof$179,795andapproveaconstructioncontingencyof
$18,000 for a total of $197,795
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™22
1
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: February 21, 2017
Subject
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project, No. 2017-21.
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract with JJR
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $179,795 and approve a construction contingency of
$18,000 for a total of $197,795.
Discussion
On September 6, 2016, City Council authorized funding for the Sidewalk Renovation-
Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project in the amount of $250,000.
The project will replace a portion of the existing pavers with concrete along Stevens
Creek Boulevard between De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road. The project will
install approximately 1,700 linear feet of concrete walkway as well as perform some
driveway repairs adjacent to the renovated sidewalk. The changes will enhance
pedestrian safety and encourage walking within the City.
On February 7, 2017, the City received two bids for the subject project, which are shown
below.
BID RESULTS
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Sposeto Engineering, Inc. $232,880
JJR Construction, Inc. $179,795
Engineer’s Estimate $192,000
The low bidder is JJR Construction, Inc. Their bid of $179,795 is 6.3% under the
Engineer’s Estimate of $192,000 and has been deemed to be within an acceptable range
for the project work.
23
2
Staff recommends award of the Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De
Anza) Project to JJR Construction, Inc.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
Award of the project will result in a fiscal impact of up to $197,795. On September 6,
2016, City Council authorized $250,000 to design and construct the project. No
additional appropriation is needed.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: John Raaymakers, Public Works Project Manager
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment:
A – Draft Contract
24
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
DOCUMENT 00520
CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 20 ___ , by and between JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
whose place of business is located at 1120 Ninth Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402 (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF
CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority
vested in the City by the laws of the State of California.
WHEREAS, City, on the________ day of ________, 2017 awarded to Contractor the following Project:
PROJECT NUMBER 2017-21
SIDEWALK RENOVATION-STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree
as follows:
Article 1. Work
1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications,
Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
Article 2. Agency and Notices to City
2.1 City has designated John Raaymakers to act as City’s Authorized Representative, who will represent City in
performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents.
City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific
functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural,
inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each
City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all
releases and indemnities.
2.2 City has designated HMH Engineers, Inc. as the Design Consultant. City may change the identity of the Design
Consultant at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor.
2.3 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at:
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address(es) as City shall
provide to Contractor.
Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages
3.1 Contract Time.
The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a
Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at
the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run.
Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance
with Section 00700 (General Conditions) by 55 calendar days following the effective date of the Notice to
Proceed.
25
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
3.2 Liquidated Damages.
City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financial loss
in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or
any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in
accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Conditions), Contractor
and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the
amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work.
Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City:
3.2.1 $2,000 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve
Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above.
3.2.2 $3,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND
HOURS.
3.2.3 Three Months Salary for each Key Personnel named in Contractor’s SOQ pursuant to Article 2.G of
Document 00450 (Statement of Qualifications for Construction Work) who leaves the Project and/or
Contractor replaces at any point before Final Completion, for any reason whatsoever, that Contractor
can demonstrate to City’s satisfaction is beyond Contractor’s control.
Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the
damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work.
Contractor should be aware that California Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies,
may also levy fines and penalties for the harming, harassing or killing of protected wildlife and endangered
species. Contractor hereby agrees to become familiar with and adhere to wildlife and endangered species
protection requirements.
3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of
public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of
completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities,
or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of
other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof.
Article 4. Contract Sum
4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as
set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached
Article 5. Contractor’s Representations
In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties:
5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the
Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as-built conditions, and all local conditions, and
federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or
furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of
construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto.
5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface
conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of
physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which are identified in Document 00320 (Geotechnical
Data, Hazardous Materials Surveys and Existing Conditions), or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor
accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Conditions) of the
26
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely.
Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any
other information contained in such reports and drawings.
5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations,
tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document
00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other
physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or
furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract
Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Conditions); and no additional
examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be
required by Contractor for such purposes.
5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations,
explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.
5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has
discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as-built drawings and actual conditions and the written
resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor.
5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to
conduct business in the State of California.
5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract
Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default
under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor.
5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting
Code §4100 et seq. in document 00430 (Subcontractors List)
Article 6. Contract Documents
6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications
thereto:
Document 00400 Bid Form
Document 00430 Subcontractors List
Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications
Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit
Document 00482 Bidder Certifications
Document 00510 Notice of Award
Document 00520 Contract
Document 00530 Insurance Forms
Document 00550 Notice to Proceed
Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond
Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond
Document 00630 Guaranty
Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims
Document 00660 Substitution Request Form
Document 00680 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposit in Lieu of Retention
Document 00700 General Conditions
Document 00800 Special Conditions
Document 00820 Special Environmental Conditions
Document 00821 Insurance
Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program
Technical Specification/Special Provisions
27
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
Addenda(s)
Drawings/Plans
6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. Document 00320
(Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Material Surveys and Existing Conditions), and the information supplied
therein, are not Contract Documents. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or
supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Conditions).
Article 7. Miscellaneous
7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Conditions) and will have the meaning
indicated therein.
7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or
acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract
Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that
liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract
Documents or applicable law.
7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the
Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting
Code §4100 et seq.
7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any).
7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a
public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights,
title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or
under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business
and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works
contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final
payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties.
7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed
to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations,
are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of
California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any
interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware
of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability
for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and
Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract
Documents.
7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required
herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts,
terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or
affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be
waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid
and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable
law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by
any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required
to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that
portion).
7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The
exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby
28
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action
or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims
Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division
3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5.
29
Project No. 2017-21
City of Cupertino 00520 - 6 Contract
Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in quadruplicate the day and year first above written.
SIDEWALK RENOVATION-STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CITY: CONTRACTOR:
CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the
State of California
JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By:
[Signature]
Attest:
[Please print name here]
City Clerk: Grace Schmidt
Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title:
______________________________________________
[If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President]
City Attorney: Randolph Stevenson Hom By:
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that David Brandt,
City Manager of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized
to execute this document on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
[Signature]
[Please print name here]
Title:
[If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary,
Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer]
Dated:
_____________________________
David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of California
________________________________________________
State Contractor’s License No. Classification
________________________________________________
Expiration Date
Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________
Name: Timm Borden Name:
Title: Director of Public Works Title:
Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address:
Phone: 408-777-3354 Phone:
Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile:
AMOUNT: $ 179,795.00
ACCOUNT NUMBER:270-99-046-ST 015-03-01
NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A
CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE
REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY
NO. IS REQUIRED
END OF DOCUMENT
30
31
32
33
34
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-2334 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/6/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Approve a semi-rural designation eliminating the requirement for sidewalks on a portion of
San Fernando Avenue, south of the Blackberry Farm Entrance, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:Approveasemi-ruraldesignationeliminatingtherequirementforsidewalksona
portionofSanFernandoAvenue,southoftheBlackberryFarmEntrance,pursuantto
Ordinance No. 1925
Adopt Resolution No. 17-019 designating a portion of San Fernando Avenue as semi-rural
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™35
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: February 21, 2017
Subject
Approve a semi-rural designation eliminating the requirement for sidewalks on a
portion of San Fernando Avenue, south of the Blackberry Farm Entrance, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 1925.
Recommended Action
Adopt Draft Resolution designating a portion of San Fernando Avenue as semi-rural.
Description
In the past, a number of residential property owners and neighborhood residents
voiced objections to the City Municipal Code requirement that City standard curb,
gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights be installed along their street frontages as a condition
of their residential building permits. The typical street improvement requirements call
for sidewalk to be installed behind curb and gutter on both sides of the street. In
general, the objecting property owners felt that their neighborhoods were of a rural or
semi-rural character that would be compromised if the normal concrete curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and streetlight improvements were applied.
On October 20, 2003, the City Council amended Chapter 14.04.040 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code by establishing criteria to be used for designating certain streets or
neighborhoods as rural or semi-rural in nature. Such a designation allows modified
street improvement standards for local streets that are not covered under the hillside
development provisions of the Code.
The following are the findings for a semi-rural street designation:
1. Conventional improvements are not appropriate due to the character of
development in the area, and surrounding developed properties lack such
improvements.
2. If sidewalk is not to be provided, the street is not on a recognized route to school.
3. If sidewalk is not to be provided, traffic conditions on the street are such that
pedestrians may travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian
pathway.
36
4. There are no significant accessibility issues that will arise from lack of sidewalk
or the use of alternate sidewalk.
5. Waiver of streetlights or alternate streetlights would not contribute to an unsafe
condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or the security of the surrounding
neighborhood. There are no maintenance or replacement issues with any
alternate proposed.
6. Adequate drainage along the street and in the surrounding area exists, or can be
achieved, with alternate curb and gutter or dike.
7. At least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street have signed a
petition to the City requesting a semi-rural designation for their street.
Discussion
The proposed semi-rural street designation is similar in character to the surrounding
area; furthermore, the adjacent street, San Fernando Ct., has already been designated a
semi-rural street with no sidewalk.
This portion of the street is not designated as a safe route to school and the existing and
future curb and gutter will allow for adequate drainage. There are no significant
accessibility issues as the street serves residential properties only. Further, the street
does not have either vehicular or pedestrian through access. Based on the recorded
accident history, there have been no pedestrian related accidents reported on this
portion of the street in the past five years.
Property owners along a portion of San Fernando Avenue have circulated a petition in
support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural, foregoing the future
installation of sidewalks. This petition does not waive the requirement for curb and
gutter and street light installation. As required by Code, at least two thirds of property
owners along the portion of San Fernando Avenue have signed in support of the semi-
rural designation. For this petition, 17 out of 21 property owners adjacent to San
Fernando Avenue have signed in support of the designation.
This semi-rural application applies to properties on the portion of San Fernando
Avenue south of the Blackberry Farm entrance only. The two properties on the
northwest and southwest corner of the intersection of San Fernando Avenue and Byrne
Avenue and properties on San Fernando Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange
Avenue would still be required to install sidewalk at the time of development.
Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact.
37
Fiscal Impact
There is no financial impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Winnie Pagan, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution
38
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 17-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR A PORTION OF
SAN FERNANDO AVENUE
WHEREAS, property owners along a portion of the frontages of San Fernando
Avenue south of Blackberry Farm entrance have circulated a petition in support of
altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural; and
WHEREAS, The two properties on the northwest and southwest corner of the
intersection of San Fernando Avenue and Byrne Avenue, as well as properties on San
Fernando Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue, are not included in this
semi-rural designation and would still be required to install sidewalk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. Conventional improvements are not appropriate due to the character of
development in the area, and surrounding developed properties lack such
improvements.
The proposed semi-rural street designation is similar in character to the surrounding
area; furthermore, the adjacent street, San Fernando Ct., has already been designated a
semi-rural street with no sidewalk.
2. If sidewalk is not to be provided, the street is not on a recognized route to school.
The street is not designated as a safe route to school.
3. If sidewalk is not to be provided, traffic conditions on the street are such that
pedestrians may travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian
pathway.
The street does not have either vehicular or pedestrian through access. Based on the
recorded accident history, there have been no pedestrian related accidents reported in the
past five years.
4. There are no significant accessibility issues that will arise from lack of sidewalk
or the use of alternate sidewalk.
There are no significant accessibility issues as the street serves residential properties only.
5. Waiver of streetlights or alternate streetlights would not contribute to an unsafe
condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or the security of the surrounding
neighborhood. There are no maintenance or replacement issues with any
alternate proposed.
This petition does not waive the requirement for street light installation.
6. Adequate drainage along the street and in the surrounding area exists, or can be
achieved, with alternate curb and gutter or dike.
39
Attachment A
The existing and future curb and gutter will allow for adequate drainage.
7. At least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street have signed a
petition to the City requesting a semi-rural designation for their street.
17 out of 21 property owners have signed in support of the semi-rural designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby
approves a semi-rural designation for the portion of San Fernando Avenue, south of the
Blackberry Farm Entrance shown on Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this February 21, 2017, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor,
City of Cupertino
40
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
SAN FERNANDO AVE
MCCLELLAN RD
LOMITA AVE
ALCAZAR AVE
DOLORES AVE
ALMADEN AVE
HERMOSA AVE
SANFERNANDO CT
ALMADEN
CIR
¯
Legend
Existing Semi-Rural Designation
Proposed Semi-Rural Designation
SA
N
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
O
A
V
E
EXHIBIT A
BLACKBERRY FARM
BLACK
B
E
R
R
Y
F
A
R
M
DRIVEW
A
Y
41
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-2376 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/15/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Don Sun as the Environmental Review
Committee representative.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:PlanningCommission’srecommendationtoselectDonSunastheEnvironmental
Review Committee representative.
Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 21, 2017
Subject
Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Don Sun as the Environmental
Review Committee representative.
Recommended Action
Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Environmental Review
Committee.
Description
On February 14, 2017, the Planning Commission made its annual recommendations for
the selection of a member to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). In
accordance with City of Cupertino Municipal Code, the City Council shall review and
affirm the selection. The recommendation is Don Sun.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
43
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2200 Name:
Status:Type:Second Reading of
Ordinances
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/5/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and
11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks
and Pedestrian Paths
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance 17-2161
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:SecondReadingofanordinanceamendingTitle11Chapter11.08Sections11.08.160
and11.08.180oftheCupertinoMunicipalCodeRegardingRestrictionsonRidingBicycleson
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths
ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.17-2161:“AnOrdinanceoftheCity
CounciloftheCityofCupertinoAmendingTitle11Chapter11.08Sections11.08.160and
11.08.180 Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™44
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: February 21, 2017
Subject
Second Reading of an ordinance amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and
11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths
Recommended Action
Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2161: “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and
11.08.180 Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths”
Discussion
On February 7, 2017, City Council conducted the first reading of the Municipal Code
amendment to change the maximum age for bicycling on sidewalks to the age of 12, and to
allow adults who are accompanying these children to ride on the sidewalk as well. Also
recommended was removing obsolete language that allowed riding on the sidewalk along
Pacifica Drive between Whitney Way and Torre Avenue and clarifying language to allow
bicycling on any (off-street) pedestrian path within the City unless specifically posted as
prohibited. No changes have been made to the Ordinance since it was last presented to the
Council.
Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Stillman, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Ordinance 17-2161
45
Draft Ordinance No. 17-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TITLE 11 CHAPTER 11.08
SECTIONS 11.08.160 AND 11.08.180 REGARDING
RESTRICTIONS ON RIDING BICYCLES ON
SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS
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:
SECTION 1. Section 11.08.160 of Chapter 11.08 of Title 11 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.08.160 Riding On Pedestrian Facilities.
No person shall ride, use or operate a bicycle on any sidewalk within the City
except as specifically permitted in this chapter.
46
SECTION 2: Section 11.08.180 of Chapter 11.08 of Title 11 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
11.08.180 Exemptions.
The prohibition in Section 11.08.160 against riding, using, or operating a bicycle on a
sidewalk shall not apply to:
A. A child age twelve years and under; and
B. An adult accompanying a child age twelve years and under who is also
riding, using, or operating a bicycle.
C. Any person riding, using or operating a bicycle on a pedestrian path, unless
specifically posted as prohibited.
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
47
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 ____ day
of ___________ 2017 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council
on this ____ of __________ 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor,
City of Cupertino
48
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-2152 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/8/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Consideration pursuant to a Lease with San Jose Water Company, of the reasonableness of
an increase in water rates to customers served by the Cupertino Municipal Water System leased to
San Jose Water Company. The increase in rates is substantially identical to that authorized for
increased costs of operation and maintenance by the California Public Utilities Commission, for
systems owned and operated by San Jose Water Company in other areas within the City.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Attachment A - Water Service Map
Attachment B - Lease Agreement with San Jose Water Company
Attachment C - San Jose Water Advice Letter 498 to Public Utilities Commission 11-15-16
Attachment D - Public Utilities Commission Approved Advice Letter 498 12-19-16 - Exhibit 1
Attachment E - September 22, 2016 SJWC request for 2017 water rate increases
Attachment F - Public Notices & Comments
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:ConsiderationpursuanttoaLeasewithSanJoseWaterCompany,ofthe
reasonablenessofanincreaseinwaterratestocustomersservedbytheCupertinoMunicipal
WaterSystemleasedtoSanJoseWaterCompany.Theincreaseinratesissubstantially
identicaltothatauthorizedforincreasedcostsofoperationandmaintenancebytheCalifornia
PublicUtilitiesCommission,forsystemsownedandoperatedbySanJoseWaterCompanyin
other areas within the City.
1.HoldaPublicHearingonproposedCupertinoMunicipalWaterSystempotablewaterrates
and charges, and:
2.Postponedeterminationofreasonablenessoftherequested3.83%rateincreaseuntilsuch
timethatSanJoseWaterCompanyprovidestoCityrelevantcost(repair,maintenance,
operation)andrelevantrevenuedataspecifictothecustomersservicedbytheCupertino
Municipal Water System.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™49
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: February 21, 2017
Subject
Consideration pursuant to a Lease with San Jose Water Company, of the reasonableness
of an increase in water rates to customers served by the Cupertino Municipal Water
System leased to San Jose Water Company. The increase in rates is substantially identical
to that authorized for increased costs of operation and maintenance by the California
Public Utilities Commission, for systems owned and operated by San Jose Water
Company in other areas within the City.
Recommended Action
1. Hold a Public Hearing on proposed Cupertino Municipal Water System potable water
rates and charges; and
2. Postpone determination of reasonableness of the requested 3.83% rate increase until
such time that San Jose Water Company provides to City relevant cost (repair,
maintenance, operation) and relevant revenue data specific to the customers served by
the Cupertino Municipal Water System.
Background
There are three water service areas in Cupertino (Attachment A). One area (shown in
orange) is served by a water system owned and operated by San Jose Water Company
(SJWC), one area (shown in green) is served by a water system owned and operated by
California Water Service Company, and one area (shown in purple) is served by the
Cupertino Municipal water system that is owned by the City of Cupertino but is leased
for operations by SJWC.
The Cupertino Municipal Water System was leased to SJWC in October 1997 for a term
of twenty-five (25) years. As the lessee of the Cupertino Municipal Water System, SJWC
is responsible for all operations of the system including repair, maintenance, operation,
customer service/billing, emergency service and water quality testing. Furthermore,
SJWC has the responsibility to operate the Cupertino Municipal Water System in a
manner similar to that in which it operates its own systems and to maintain the Cupertino
50
Municipal Water System in accordance to customary utility standards.1 The
responsibilities of SJWC and the City, as the lessee and lessor respectively, are available
for review in the 1997 Agreement for Lease of Real Property (Water System) (“Lease”)
(Attachment B).
Water rates and charges proposed for privately owned water systems - such as those
owned and operated by California Water Service Company or SJWC, are regulated by
the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). Rates charged for service for the
Cupertino Municipal Water System are not subject to CPUC regulation. Under the Lease,
SJWC shall propose to City reasonable rates and charges that SJWC will charge for water
service to be delivered to the customers served by the Cupertino Municipal Water
System. After receipt of a SJWC request for an increase in rates, the City either approves
or denies the increase or takes no action at all. The City may not unreasonably withhold
approval of the increase in rates requested by SJWC.
In the past, SJWC rate increases have occurred without the City taking action and have
been equal to the charges that SJWC sets to its own customers where SJWC owns and
operates the water system. In response to a SJWC requested increase in operation and
maintenance costs in 2016, the City took action by reviewing and finding reasonable an
8.6% increase to water rates and charges at a September 6, 2016 public hearing. For 2017,
SJWC has requested an increase of 3.83% for operation and maintenance costs. As in the
past, the requested rate increase is equal to the charges that the CPUC approved SJWC to
impose on customers in its own water system.
This approach of allowing parallel increases worked efficiently in the past for two
reasons. First the CPUC subjects any proposed rate increase by SJWC to a level of scrutiny
and review that the City would have difficulty replicating; since SJWC is a Class A water
utility its major rate applications are reviewed by a team of accountants, engineers and
attorneys in the CPUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates, a statutorily2 created staff
division charged with protecting ratepayer interests. The second reason is the average
annual rate increase authorized by the CPUC through 2016 had been similar to other
neighboring area (CPUC regulated and non-regulated) water related increases.
1 SJWC provides potable water service to over one million customers in the greater San Jose area. The water system
leased to SJWC includes approximately 4100 Cupertino customers.
2 Section 309.5(a) of the Public Utilities Code provides that:
There is within the commission an independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates to represent and advocate on behalf of
the interests of public utility customers and subscribers within the jurisdiction of the commission. The goal of the
office shall be to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. For revenue
allocation and rate design matters, the office shall primarily consider the interests of residential and small commercial
customers.
51
While the CPUC process has remained the same, a variety of factors, including a growing
disparity in the rates compared to neighboring areas, possibly related to increases arising
from the past four year drought, contribute to staff’s recommendation that the Council
obtain more information about the relevant cost (repair, maintenance, operation) and
relevant revenue data specific to the customers served by the Cupertino Municipal Water
System before it make a determination of the reasonableness of the requested increase.
Analysis
In determining if the 3.83% increase in water rates and charges for increased costs of
operation and maintenance requested by SJWC for 2017 is reasonable, the City should
consider all relevant information. This information was initially identified as: (a) the rate
setting process and findings of the CPUC; and (b) the comparable water rates of similar
nearby municipalities; and (c) stakeholder and public input. In light of what that
information revealed, staff believes the City also needs cost (repair, maintenance,
operation) and revenue data specific to the customers served by the Cupertino Municipal
Water System to make its reasonableness determination.
The CPUC Process and Findings
The CPUC review and authorization process applies to all California investor-owned
water utility companies. The purpose of the process is to ensure that each regulated utility
delivers clean, safe, and reliable water to their customers at reasonable rates.
Rate and revenue requirement requests received by the CPUC are categorized one of two
ways. The first is referred to as a general rate case (GRC) increase request wherein an
operator of a water system is required to submit to the CPUC a three-year look ahead. In
this three-year look ahead, water utilities identify costs other than pass through that are
either occurring or anticipated to occur within a subsequent three-year time period. Costs
due to operation, maintenance and needed physical improvements are typically included
in GRC requests. Due to the often complex nature of the costs requested by the water
utility, the review and authorization process of GRC requests by the CPUC are lengthy
in time and process. For this reason, GRC requests are typically submitted to the CPUC
by the water retailer up to 1-year in advance. This allows the CPUC staff the opportunity
to evaluate costs and to consider customer input at public hearings well in advance of the
proposed rates being authorized and implemented to the customer. For the most recent
GRC submitted by SJWC to the CPUC in January 2015 (for the 3-year period beginning
January 2016 through December 2018) the review and authorization process was not
completed until June 2016.
When rate and revenue requirements requests are pass-through in nature, water utilities
submit to the CPUC an Advice Letter. Multiple advice letters may be submitted in any
52
one year. Unlike the costs that may be included by private water utilities in a GRC
application, advice letter rate increases are generally authorized by the CPUC in less time
and by less process because they are increases in costs not controlled by the water utility.
Examples of pass through costs include increased wholesale water costs, increased
electrical costs and surcharges due to drought conditions. Per the provisions of the
agreement between the City and SJWC, previous pass through expenses to customers
served by the Cupertino Municipal Water System have occurred without the City taking
action and have been equal to the charges that SJWC sets to its own customers where
SJWC owns and operates the water system.
For every GRC request and advice letter request4 submitted, the Office of Ratepayer
Advocates (ORA) scrutinizes the costs of each large water company service and then
makes recommendations to the CPUC regarding the merits of each requested change in
cost. The ORA, in completing their work and achieving their goal of obtaining the lowest
possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels, primarily
considers the interests of residential and small commercial customers when making their
recommendation.
On June 9, 2016, upon consideration of a significant amount of evidence submitted in
support of the SJWC rate increase and various public hearings, the CPUC issued its final
decision (http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M163/K202/163202231.pdf)
for the 3-year period beginning January 2016 through December 2018. CPUC
authorization included a 2016 increase of 8.6% retroactive to January 1, 2016, 3.11%
increase for 2017 and a 5.36% increase for 2018. On November 15, 2016, SJWC filed
Advice Letter No. 498 with the CPUC requesting an adjustment from the approved 3.11%
to 3.83% for water rates and charges for 2017 (Attachment C). The CPUC authorized this
amount on December 19, 2016 (Attachment D). On September 22, 2016 (prior to the CPUC
authorization for 2017), SJWC submitted a written rate increase estimate for 2017
(Attachment E). The CPUC has not yet authorized a rate increase for 2018.
Because the requested increase for Cupertino Municipal Water System customers is the
same as those served directly by SJWC, staff has reviewed the documentation submitted
to the CPUC in support of the request as well as the materials prepared by the
CPUC/ORA in establishing the rate.
Comparison with Other Water Rates
Water rates of other cities and water agencies within Santa Clara County are shown in
the table below.
53
City / Water Agency Current Monthly
Bill
Increase Authorized /
(Proposed)
Proposed Monthly
Bill
California Water
Service Co. / Los
Altos)
$85.291
SJWC Owned $93.96
Cupertino System
leased to SJWC
$90.26 (3.83 %) $93.962
Sunnyvale $76.563
Mountain View $104.484
Santa Clara $88.555
Note: For water usage of 15 hundred cubic feet (11,220 gallons) per month with a 5/8 x¾-inch
meter. Additional pass thru charges may not be included.
1 https://www.calwater.com/docs/rates/rates_tariffs/las/20170101-Residential_Metered_Service_LAS.pdf
2 Retroactive to January 2017. Actual increase varies by level of service, customer class and meter charges.
3 http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Portals/0/Sunnyvale/FIN/FY-2016-17-Utility-Rate-Notice.pdf
4 http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19903
5 http://santaclaraca.gov/government/departments/water-sewer-utilities/water-sewer-and-recycled-water-rates/water-rates
The increased water rates and charges proposed by SJWC are in most cases higher than
comparable agencies and service providers.
Stakeholder and Public Input
During the week of January 2nd, approximately 4500 written notices were mailed via U.S.
mail to customers and property owners served by the Cupertino Municipal Water
System. The City also prepared a Frequently Asked Questions page for its website to help
inform the public about this topic 4.2At the writing of this report, 20 emails and two phone
calls have been received by staff in response. The notice and log of correspondence is
included in Attachment F. A supplemental memo will be submitted to City Council prior
to the February 21st public hearing to report on any additional public comments received.
To date, while there has been some concern expressed about the increase, the vast
majority of customers have not expressed opposition to the request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff has considered the exhaustive CPUC process that is required of SJWC, similar rates
at comparable agencies and the public input received to date. With comparable agency
rates being on average less than the proposed rates and charges, more information from
SJWC specific to the Cupertino Municipal System is needed. Specifically, costs (repair,
maintenance, operation) and revenues are needed to determine if the rate increase
request is reasonable.
4Available online at http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1728&returnURL=%2findex.aspx
54
SJWC’s position has been that the CPUC’s approval of the GRC is substantial if not
conclusive evidence that its rate increase is reasonable for the leased system. That may
be the case for SJWC system as a whole, however, staff does not believe that is sufficient
evidence that the rate increase is justified to support the leased system in isolation and
that operations, maintenance and repair data specific to the leased system is required for
the City to be able to concluded the reasonableness of the proposed rate increase.
If the determination of reasonableness is postponed, staff will coordinate with SJWC to
receive the information as soon as possible. Once received, additional time will be needed
to validate the information and determine next steps that may include the noticing of a
future public hearing.
Per the provisions of the lease agreement, if it is later determined that the SJWC requested
rate increase is reasonable, then SJWC may request that water rates and charges be
adjusted to subsequently recover from customers over a reasonable period of time such
amounts as are necessary to place SJWC in the same position it would have been had the
rates been in effect January 1, 2017.
Future Rate Changes
If SJWC continues to seek parallel rate increases based on CPUC approvals, the City
should expect to see several other rate adjustment requests in the near future. For
increases that are considered a pass-through expense that impact or benefit the leased
system, SJWC will simply provide the City notice of the change and no public hearing
will be conducted. Other rate adjustments will be evaluated for reasonableness similar
to the recommendation of this report and per the provisions of the lease agreement.
Fiscal Impact
Per the provisions of the agreement between the City and SJWC, all monies for services
rendered by SJWC are the property of SJWC. Accordingly, there is no fiscal impact to the
City regarding a change in rates to customers of the Cupertino Municipal water system.
____________________________________
Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Work
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Water Boundary Map
B - 1997 Agreement for the Lease of Real Property-Water System
55
C – November 15, 2016 SJWC Advice Letter No. 498 filing to the CPUC for a 3.83%
increase for 2017
D – December 19, 2016 CPUC authorization of Advice Letter No. 498
E – September 22, 2016 SJWC request for 2017 water rate increases
F - Notice to Customers Served by the Cupertino Municipal Water System and
Correspondence Log
56
ST58
[\^082
PALM AVE
VOSS AVE
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
ALD
ERBRO
OK
LN
PHI L LN
LORNE WAY
E
ESTATE
S
DR
WHEATON DR
JOHNSON
AVE
V IAH
U
ERTA
PROSPECT RD
LAZANEO DR
SCENIC B LVD
CHE LMS
F
ORD
DR
CA
S
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
PHAR
LAPDR
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
N
PORTAL
AVE
S A
NJUAN
RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
RAE LN
TIP T OE LN
S
E
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
DR
CHIALALN
TILSO N AVE
LA MAR DR
VI
S
T
A
D
R
TERRACE DR
FA
R
A
L
L
O
N
E
D
R
LONDONDERRY DR
CA
L
V
E
R
T
D
R
SHELLY DR
SCOFIELD DR
E R I N WAY
PERIMET ER
RD
RICHWOOD D R
KIRWIN LN
CA
N
Y
O
N
OAK WAY
ALPIN
E
D
R
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
WI
N
D
S
O
R
S
T
G ASC OIGNEDR
F
E
S
TIVAL
D
R
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
LARK
LN
VALLCO PKWY
BARK LN
BLUE HILL DR
DE
N
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
CO
L
B
Y
A
V
E
O A
K
V
A
L
LEY
RD
VAI AV E
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
ST
E
R
N
A
V
E
LA
R
R
Y
W
A
Y
RA
N
D
Y
L
N
280FWYRAMPXXX
S
EV EN SP R INGS D
R
AINS
W
ORTH
DR
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
RED W OOD
DR
MARY
A
V
E
REGNARTRD
STER
L
I
N
G
BLVD
MA
N
N
D
R
WU
N
D
E
R
L
I
C
H
D
R
VIAE SPL
EN
D
O
R
L I N D Y LN
CRIST O REYDR
SANTA
TERESADR
COLUMBUS AVE
HIGHLAND S CIR
HERONAVE
C
R
E
STON
D
R
PO
P
P
Y
W
A
Y
D
EODAR
A
D
R
KE
NT
W
O
ODAVE
STAFFOR D D R
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
D
R
LA
N
C
E
R
D
R
WILKINSONAVE
STOKES
A
V
E
I
N
FINITEL OO
P
H
Y
DEAVE
BA
N
D
L
E
Y
D
R
PO
RTO L ARD
P ARK W
O
OD
D
R
DUMAS DR
MARIALN
S
BLANEY
AVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
BOLLINGER RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
MCCLELLAN RD
S
TANTAU
AVE
PRUNERIDGEAVE
RAINBOW DR
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
S
TEVE
N
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
BLANEY
AVE
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
LL
BLVD
P ROSPECT RD
HOMESTEAD RD
N
DE
ANZA
BLVD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
DE
ANZA
BLVD
N
WOLFE
RD
CUPERTINO WATER[Leased to San Jose Water until 2022]
CALIFORNIA WATERSERVICE
SAN JOSE WATERSERVICE
City of CupertinoWater Service Areas É00.5 10.25 Miles
Attachment B
57
Attachment C
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
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
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
September 22, 2016
David Brandt
City Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Request for Water Rate Increase for Cupertino Municipal Water System
Dear Mr. Brandt:
In accordance with the provisions in the Agreement for Lease of Real Property
(Water System) between the City of Cupertino (City) and SJWC executed on October
1, 1997, I write to formally seek the City’s approval to implement water rate increases
to customers of the Water System in 2017.
The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Final Decision for SJWC’s
2015 General Rate Case (GRC) Application granted rate increases for 2016-2018.
Per the decision, SJWC will file an Advice Letter with the CPUC in late October or
early November 2016 requesting the implementation of the GRC 2017 rate increase,
as outlined by the CPUC:
“For escalation years 2017 and 2018, San Jose Water Company shall file Tier 2
Advice Letters in conformance with General Order 96-B proposing new revenue
requirements and corresponding revised tariff schedules. The filing shall include rate
procedures set forth in the Commission’s Rate Case Plan (Decision 07-05-062) for
Class A Water Utilities and shall include appropriate supporting workpapers. The
revised tariff schedules shall take effect no earlier than January 1, 2017 and January
1, 2018, respectively, and shall apply to service rendered on and after their effective
dates. The proposed revisions to revenue requirements and rates shall be reviewed by
the Commission’s Division of Water and Audits.”
We anticipate the CPUC’s approval in December 2016 with new rates effective
January 1, 2017.
The 2017 rate increase is anticipated to be approximately 4.0%. For the average
customer using 15 units per month, the monthly water bill will increase by
approximately $3.90 per month or $0.13 per day.
175
Mr. David Brandt
September 22, 2016
Page 2
Per your request, additional estimated increases in 2017 include:
Hostetter Ratebase Offset (Q1 of 2017): 0.1% increase (approximately $0.10
per month for average customer)
Montevina Ratebase Offset (Q1 or Q2 of 2017): 2.0% increase
(approximately $2.00 per month for average customer)
SCVWD Wholesale Water Rate Offset (July 2017): 8.0% increase
(approximately $8.20 per month for average customer)
Franciscan Ratebase Offset (Q4 of 2017): 0.10% increase (approximately
$0.15 per month for average customer)
Miguelito Ratebase Offset (Q4 of 2017): 0.15% increase (approximately
$0.20 per month for average customer)
Please note that the magnitude and timing of the above increases are only estimates.
We continue to appreciate the opportunity to provide safe, high quality and reliable
water service to the City’s residents and look forward to continuing our partnership.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact John Tang at 408-279-
7933 or john.tang@sjwater.com.
Sincerely,
Palle Jensen
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
c: T. Borden, City of Cupertino
R. Lee, City of Cupertino
176
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
PH: (408) 777-3354
FX: (408) 777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
January 6, 2017
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This letter provides information on a proposed increase in rates for water service fees of up to 3.83%
effective March 3, 2017 (retroactive to January 1, 2017). The enclosed notice and fee schedule are also
posted online at www.cupertino.org/waterrates. You are receiving this packet because you are an
individual responsible for paying water bills and/or a record owner of a property with a metered
connection to the Cupertino Municipal Water System with service provided by San Jose Water
Company; you may receive multiple copies, as a packet is sent for each service address.
The City Council of the City of Cupertino will hold a public hearing on the proposed increase in rates
for water service fees on:
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
If you wish to oppose or comment on the proposed rate increase for water service fees for consideration by the
City Council, you may attend the City Council meeting and provide input during the public hearing when the
item is called. You may also submit written comments in opposition or support to the Office of the City Clerk
in the form of a letter, fax, or e-mail. Written comments must be received by 6:30 p.m. on February 21, 2017 to
be considered.
Mail(or hand-deliver) to Fax to Phone to E-mail to
Water Rate Service Fee
Increase
City of Cupertino – Office of
the City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408)777-3333
Subject line:
Water Rate
Service Fee
Increase
Public Works
Department
(408)777-3354
WaterRates@cupertino.org
By 6:30 p.m. on 2/21/17
Attachment F - Public Notices
177
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
PH: (408) 777-3354
FX: (408) 777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED WATER RATE SERVICE FEE INCREASE
At the Council meeting on February 21, 2017, at 6:45 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Cupertino
City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding proposed increase in rates of water service fees of up
to 3.83% proposed to be effective on March 3, 2017, and is retroactive to January 1, 2017. The water service
fee for the period of January 1 through March 2, 2017, will be recovered via surcharge on water bills received
after March 3, 2017. This surcharge is equivalent to a 3.83% increase had it been implemented January 1,
2017.
These rates and charges are administered by San Jose Water Company as the lessee of the system. Rates
apply to residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial customers. Answers to frequently asked
questions and a history of prior water rate increases may be viewed at www.cupertino/waterrates.
Reason for the Proposed Rate Increase for Water Service Fees
The Cupertino Municipal Water System purchases, treats, and delivers an average of 2.9 million gallons of
potable water per day to residences and businesses. The system includes pipelines, pump stations, fire hydrants,
storage tanks, wells, and water meters as well as facilities and processes required to comply with all state and
federal drinking water standards. Water rate service fee are set at a level to generate enough revenue to cover
the costs of operating and maintaining this system.
San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is a Class A water company subject to the jurisdiction of the State of California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). As the Lessee of a City of Cupertino (City) owned water system, SJWC is
also subject to the provisions contained within the Agreement for Lease of Real Property (Water System)
between the City and SJWC. Per this agreement, the City’s approval of rates shall not be unreasonably withheld.
In determining reasonableness, the City shall consider all relevant information, including the CPUC approved
rates. Pass through rate adjustments for changes in wholesale costs – such as changes due to increases or
decreases in water and power (as well as certain unanticipated changes in volumes) are allowed to be
automatically passed through without prior City approval, so long as it is done in a manner substantially similar
to that permitted by the CPUC.
The proposed rate increase for water service fees is needed for increased costs of operation and is in response to
a December 19, 2016 CPUC authorization to grant SJWC a 3.83% increase in rates for 2017. The supporting
document links of the proposed change in rates for water service fees are as follows:
178
Application of San Jose Water Company for Authority to Increase Rates for Water Service to the CPUC -
http://sjwater.s3.amazonaws.com/files/documents/2015_GRC_Application.PDF
CPUC Decision 16-06-004 regarding Revenue Requirements for San Jose Water Company –
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M163/K202/163202231.pdf
San Jose Water Company request for 3.83% increase to CPUC –
www.cupertino.org/waterrates-Attachment-1
December 19, 2016 CPUC Authorization of 3.83% to San Jose Water Company -
www.cupertino.org/waterrates-Attachment-2
Billing Impacts
The proposed increase of 3.83% to potable water rates and charges are shown on Tables 1, 2, and 3 below. If the
City Council approves the proposed increase, the impact to your bill can be calculated using the proposed meter
rates and quantity charges as shown in the sample calculations below. Utility tax and offset surcharges¹ are not
included in the sample calculations and your actual bill will be different. Specific questions can be directed to
San Jose Water by calling 408-279- 7900 or visiting www.sjwater.com.
Sample Water Bill Calculations Comparing Current and Proposed Rates
Water Bill Amount (without utility tax and/or offset surcharge) = Meter Charge + (Quantity x Rate per HCF)
Residential Example (using Tables 1 and 2):
Residential charges use a three-tiered rate structure, with a higher rate applying as water use exceeds
tier breakpoints of 3 HCF and 18 HCF. In the example below, a resident using 15 HCF will need to
calculate the sample bill using two of the tiered rates:
Monthly Usage: 15 HCF
Meter Size: 3/4-inch
Current Rate: $23.98 + (3 HCF x $4.0581) + (12 HCF x $4.5090) = $90.26
Proposed Rate: $25.02 + (3 HCF x $4.2210) + (12 HCF x $4.6900) = $93.96
Non-Residential Example (using Tables 1 and 3):
Monthly Usage: 100 HCF
Meter Size: 2-inch
Current Rate: $127.87 + (100 HCF x $4.5090) = $578.77
Proposed Rate: $133.41 + (100 HCF x $4.6900) = $602.41
HCF = hundred cubic feet; 1 HCF = 748 gallons
_______________________________________
¹Offset surcharge (due to increase in wholesale water costs) is currently $.4229 per HCF consumed
179
Table 1: All Customers Monthly Meter Charge
MONTHLY METER CHARGE (based on meter size)
Meter Size
Current Charges Proposed Charges
5/8-inch $23.98 $25.02
3/4-inch $23.98 $25.02
1-inch $39.94 $41.66
1.5-inch $79.91 $83.36
2-inch $127.87 $133.41
3-inch $239.75 $250.12
4-inch $399.58 $416.87
6-inch $799.15 $833.73
8-inch $1278.65 $1333.98
10-inch $1838.07 $1917.62
Table 2: Residential Monthly Quantity Charge (does not include offset surcharge of $.4229 per HCF)
Tier
Current Charges
per HCF
Proposed Charges
per HCF
Tier 1: 0 to 3 HCF $4.0581 $4.2210
Tier 2: 3+ to 18 HCF $4.5090 $4.6900
Tier 3: >18 HCF $4.9599 $5.1590
Example Monthly Water Bill $90.26 $93.96
Table 3: Non-Residential Monthly Quantity Charge (including water production offset surcharge)
2016-17
Current Charges
per HCF
2017-18
Proposed Charges
per HCF
Quantity Rates $4.5090 $4.6900
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information about the rate increase, including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), the Lease
Agreement between the City and San Jose Water Company, and Water Service Area Maps can be found online
at http://www.cupertino.org/waterrates. Other supporting information from SJWC, including links to FAQ’s
may be found at:
https://www.sjwater.com/for_your_home/home_customer_care/rates_regulations/general_rate_information
180
Attachment F - Water Rate Increase Comments
Comments Response
Customer #1
John Kolski
DATE: 1/9/17 TIME: 10:51 am
SIR
I HAVE READ IT ALL AND ALL THE ATTACHMENTS.
AND THIS RATE INCREASE IS APPLIED FOR TO THE PUC, NOT
CUPERTINO.
SO WHERE IS THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND
THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED INCREASE OTHER THAN WATER
AND POWER RATE INCREASES?
I SUBMIT THAT THIS IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEASE
AGREEMENT IN ANY WAY AND THAT THERE IS NOT A APPLICATION
FROM SJW FOR A RATE INCREASE FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NO AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON THIS PER THE
LEASE AGREEMENT AND SJW IS AGAIN IN NON COMPLIANCE OF THE
LEASE AGREEMENT.
ANY APPROVAL OF A RATE INCREASE BY THE PUC DOES NOT HAVE
ANY AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF THE CUPERTINO OWNED WATER
SYSTEM, SINCE IT IS A MUNICIPAL UTILITY SYSTEM.
THIS AGENDA ITEM MUST BE CANCELLED FROM THE AGENDA
UNTIL A VALID APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY SJW.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/9/17, 10:54 pm
ROGER THIS LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE PUC MEANS NOTHING
IN CUPERTINO.
THE PUC HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER A MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
OWNED BY A INCORPORATED CITY. (Exhibit 1)
Customer #2 Email message dated 1/12/17, 8:22 pm
To Whom It May Concern,
I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council vote No to the San Jose
Water Company rate increase. If the City Council does not vote No to this, I
will vote No on the council members re-election.
San Jose Water Company is already extremely profitable and has remained so
throughout the drought. They have been taking more of my money
throughout the drought.
181
In June of 2015 I spent over $1000 in materials and 30 hours of my own time to
reduce the water needs on my property. Comparing the full year of 2016 (with
water savings in place) and the full year of 2014 (before I implemented the
water savings), I reduced my water consumption by 34% from 377CCF to
247CCF. The reward for all of this expense and manual labor? 38% more
money given to San Jose Water company! The 2014 bill total was $1,709.99 and
2016 was $2,359.90.
And now they want more money? I don't think so.
Additionally they (or some other slimey outfit in their name) keeps
bombarding our mailbox with water line insurance offers. This is a total waste
of trees, not to mention water need in the paper making process. I understand
the risks, I prefer to self insure myself on this. I can't make this barrage of
offers stop.
Please don't give in to these unjustified increases from this monopolistic
company. Let them get their own house in order to increase profits.
Thank You
Customer #3
Vicky Ho
Email message dated 1/13/17; 1:07 pm
We oppose this fee increase.
Seems that rates increases when we do not have enough rain and increases
when we have enough rain.
Customer #4 Email message dated 1/13/17; 2:30 pm
Office of the City Clerk,
We like to voice our opposition to the proposed increase of the water rate by
3.83%. Our water rate has been increased continually over the last several
years without good justification. We have been saving water over the same
time period because of the drought and are still paying more for the reduced
water amount we are using. As retired people we do not get increases in our
social security payments etc. but some costs such as the water rates are going
up again and again. The increase is way too high and also making the increase
retroactive should not be allowed.
Please vote against this proposed increase.
Customer #6
Yu Jen Wang
Jessica Cheng
Email message dated 1/13/17; 10:32 pm
Owners of 10140 Byrne Ave Cupertino oppose the 3.83% water rate increase
unless City provides enough reasons to justify this proposal. The letter dated
1/6/2017 sent by the Public Work Department does not provide sufficient
reasons to justify this rate increase.
182
Customer #7 Email message dated 1/14/17; 3:19 pm
I am writing to advise that I am against the proposed increase.
Customer #8
Randy
Hylkema
Email message dated 1/17/17; 12:51 pm
In your letter to Cupertino residents you solicited comments about the
proposed 3.8% 2017 increases. Of course the water district and SJW have
submitted arguments that this increase is reasonable and necessary. But please
keep in mind the steep increases of recent years. I think I am a fairly typical
homeowner, and in our case: Total water charges increased from 2013 to 2016
by 15% while in those three years our annual water usage decreased by 36%.
As a result our per unit total cost for water increased by 80%!
So please scrutinize the proposal to see if this 3.8% is truly necessary and
justified.
Regards
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/17/17; 1:41 pm
PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN APPROVE OR
DISAPPROVE A RATE INCREASE BASED ON RECEIVING A RATE
INCREASE APPLICATION FROM SJW THAT IS VALID.
THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS NOT SUBMITTED AS A COMPLETE
AND VALID APPLICATION FOR A RATE INCREASE FOR THIS SERVICE
AREA OF THE LEASE.
THIS SERVICE AREA IS NOT REGULATED BY THE PUC AND ANY RATE
INCREASE APPROVED, PRE-APPROVED OR APPROVED WITH
EFFECTIVE DATES BY THE PUC ARE NOT BINDING IN THIS MUNICIPAL
WATER UTILITY DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS OWNED BY THE CITY AND
ONLY LEASED BY SJW.
ANY RATE INCREASE SAID TO BE RETROACTIVE IS ALSO NOT
BINDING.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE GOVERNING BODY FOR APPROVAL OF A
VALID RATE INCREASE APPLICATION BY SJW AT THE TIME OF AN
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL.
CONTINUING, PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT THE COUNCIL CAN
CONSIDER WHAT RATES ARE IN SURROUNDING AREA BUT IS NOT IN
ANY WAY REQUIRED TO ADOPT THOSE RATES.
RATE INCREASES FOR WATER ONLY AND FOR POWER CAN BE
CONSIDERED BUT THIS CURRENT INCOMPLETE RATE INCREASE
APPLICATION DOES NOT DETAIL OUT WHAT THE INCREASES IN FOR
183
AND SEEMS TO INCLUDE INCREASES FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS
OUTSIDE THIS SERVICE AREA.
SJW CANNOT CHARGE FOR THE COSTS OF BRINGING WATER TO THIS
SERVICE AREAS BOUNDARIES AND IF FACT SCVWD BRINGS THE
WATER WE PAY FOR TO THE BOUNDARIES NOTR THRU ANY SJW
OTHER SERVICE AREA SYSTEMS.
ALSO IF THIS IS FOR A RATE INCREASE FOR WATER, WHICH WATER
THAT IS BEING SUPPLIED TO US? THE IMPORTED WATER FROM SJW
THAT THEY PAY FOR FROM SCVWD [AND WHAT DO THEY PAY FOR
THE WATER?] OR THE WATER SJW GETS FROM THE CITY OWNED
WELLS THAT THEY ONLY PAY A WELL TAX ON [AND WHAT IS THE
WELL TAX COST?]?
ANY PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR ANY OPERATIONAL COSTS
HAVE TO BE DETAILED OUT AND ARE ONLY FOR WITHIN THIS
SERVICE AREA. [EXAMPLES IN THE PUC APPLICATION; PUMP
STATIONS IN LOS GATOS???] OUR IMPORTED WATER THAT WE PAY
FOR DOES NOT COME FROM LOS GATOS AND THE CITY OWNED WELL
ARE IN THIS SERVICE AREA.
THIS WATER SYSTEM IS OWNED BY THE PEOPLE OF CUPERTINO AND
BOTH THE CITY COUCIL OF CUPERTINO AND SJW ARE ACCOUNTABLE
TO THE PEOPLE OF CUPERTINO FOR HOW IT IS RUN AND THE RATES
WE PAY.
TRANSPARENCY BY BOTH PARTIES WHO SIGNED THE LEASE IS
MANDATORY.
AT THIS TIME, AS IN THE PAST BOTH PARTIES ARE IN NON-
COMPLIANCE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT.
BECAUSE THIS CURRENT APPLICATION FOR A RATE INCREASE IS NOT
VALID THE CITY COUNCIL CAN NOT APPROVAL IT AS SUBMITTED.
PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THE CITY COUNCILS MEETING
PACKAGE
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/17/17; 5:08 pm
and letters or comments to the agenda item on the proposed water rate
increase should be posted as they are received by the city at any time before
the meeting so that residence can see other comments and prepare for the
meeting, otherwise they only see the letters at the meeting.
transparency!
Email message dated 1/18/17, 6:51 am
City of Cupertino
I understand your request. The comments
will be included with the staff report and
available a week prior to the meeting. I
will get back to you today about getting
184
the comments posted as they are received.
A once a week update should be
manageable.
Customer #9
Anonymous
Email message dated 1/17/17; 6:17 pm
Dear Council....
I will not be able to attend the meeting but I would like a response to the
following:
- How is this 3.83% increase comparable to other municipalities within the SC
county that is served by SJ Water?
- Is this increase unique to this year or can we expect an increase each year
going forward?
- Does the new Apple facility impact this increase in rates?
Thank you for your time and subsequent response.
Email message dated 1/17/17; 6:17 pm
City of Cupertino
Thank you for your questions. Please find
below responses to your questions.
1. The proposed 3.83% increase to
rates of customers served by the
municipal water system leased to
San Jose Water Co. will, if
authorized, be slightly less than the
rate currently charged by
California Water Service Company
(CWSC). CWSC serves the City of
Los Altos and about 1/3 of
Cupertino . A comparison example
of the two rates is in the “Water
Rate Increase FAQ’s” document on
the City’s
website: http://www.cupertino.org
/index.aspx?recordid=1728&page=2
6. Due to varying charges for
meters and quantity points
established by water retailers, it is
challenging to make direct
comparisons among the
retailers. For example, the City of
Santa Clara charges a flat $4.95 per
hundred cubic feet of water
consumed and a monthly charge of
$14.30/mn for a ¾” meter.
2. Annual increases are likely. Please
refer to this question and response
in the FAQ document referenced.
185
3. The proposed increase is not
related to the Apple facility.
Customer #10
Rosa Li
Email message dated 1/18/17; 3:35 pm
City of Cupertino,
I am strongly opposed to the proposed rate increase of 3.83%. Cupertino
residents have already had several rate increases in the past few years. In light
of the storm levels this month, there is no shortage of water in our city.
Our family has taken every possible measure to conserve water, and do not
feel like we should continue to pay for the inefficiency of others. Instead of a
rate increase, we were expecting a rate decrease now that the water levels are
back to normal.
Please forward my opposition to whoever is proposing these rate increase.
Thank you
Email message dated 1/19/17; 12:17 pm
San Jose Water Company
Thank you for your feedback. Please
know that San Jose Water Company does
not declare drought shortages. We are
responding to the drought mandates and
targets from the Governor as well as the
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Over the last few years, we have gone to
great lengths to engage and inform our
customers on the relationship between
rates and conservation as well as the need
to invest in our water system to ensure
safe, high quality, and reliable water
service. The investment issue is impacting
utilities all over the US while the drought
issue is more local to our state. More
information can be found on our
comprehensive drought page at
https://www.sjwater.com/news/topic/com
prehensive-drought-information. The
Value of Water video contains an
explanation on the rates-conservation
nexus.
If you have further questions, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Email message dated 1/20/17; 6:21 am
San Jose Water Company
Please see below links to information that
further illustrate the rates-conservation
nexus as well as the need to invest in our
water systems. I hope you find them
informative.
Best, John
186
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/01/18/r
esidents-blast-25-percent-water-rate-hike-
proposal/
http://news.wef.org/u-s-epa-survey-
reveals-need-for-drinking-water-
infrastructure-investment/
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
water-infrastructure/
http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.asp
x?PID=4617
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/18/17; 4:18 pm
ALL INCOMING COMMENTS SHOULD BE POSTED WHEN THEY ARRIVE
IN FOR THE RESIDENCE TO READ AND NOT WAIT TO POST THEM TILL
THE STAFF REPORT IS OUT, THATS TO LATE AND DOES NOT SHOW
TRANSPARENCY BY THE CITY.
Email message dated 1/18/17, 4:17 pm
From City of Cupertino
Will post comments less any personal info
by close of business Friday. Will update
each week.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/18/17; 4:18 pm
THATS GOOD ON MY THREE LEAVE MY LETTERS ON EACH WITH MY
NAME TAKE OFF ANY OTHER STUFF INCLUDING SIGNATURE/SIGN-
OFFS LINES AND MY E-MAIL ADDRESSES THAT WILL SHOW
Customer #11
Henry
Buffalow
Email message dated 1/19/17; 12:12 pm
I find the proposed increases to be ludicrous. First we are asked to cut water
usage, then impose a penalty schedule for using more than allocated, then
because of less income to SJ Water due to lesser use we now have a new
proposed increase. Only thing is the water restriction should be eliminated
very soon. So, greater water use in the horizon with higher rates means a
surplus. Unfortunately the citizens will not receive a rebate.
What is worse is unilaterally deciding to apply the new rates retroactive. What
other private business can get away with that? Why are the citizens held
accountable for inefficiencies of the water monopoly and local government. It
is just wrong. Had the higher rates been in place at the right time customers
would have had the opportunity to adjust their use, now they don’t. In my
case I had a water leak that has now been fixed. I paid for the excess water
usage, the repair and now I’ll be required to pay even more. It’s just wrong.
Overall I’m not opposed to the increase only as that happens with all utilities,
just the retroactive component. It’s just wrong.
Customer #12 Email message dated 1/19/17; 3:46 pm
187
Yay it's raining! We all hope this keeps up of course. I would like to state that I
hope that Cupertino is fighting for our share of the state's water allocation.
I have been amazed every time I travel to Southern California. There does not
appear to be any water crisis there!! There, all the lawns are green. Yes,
completely green. In all my travels there I have yet to see a "think drought"
sign anywhere. Why is it, I ask, that only our area seems to be subjected to
these water saving measures? Further, when I compare water costs with
relatives down in the LA area their water rates are much cheaper than ours.
What is going on?
And so I hope that Cupertino is standing up for our portion of CA water
rights. We will do our part, but southern CA appears to be rather callously
using up OUR water!
No doubt we all hope this year will bring more rain. I hope that rates will
adjust back DOWN quickly once water resources are replenished.
Customer #13
Anonymous
Email message dated 1/21/17; 6:39 am
Does this rate increase apply to the facilities of St. Jude's Episcopal Church at
Stelling & McClellan?
Email message dated 1/21/17; 6:39 am
City of Cupertino
No, the St. Jude's Episcopal Church is not
within the area served by the municipal
water system. The church is served by a
system owned and operated by San Jose
Water Company (SJWC). Customers
served by SJWC had their rates increased
3.83% effective January 1, 2017. The water
service boundary map can be found at the
City's website
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?reco
rdid=1728&page=26 .
Customer #14 Phone call dated 1/23/17
Rates too high already. Not practical. Above and beyond what should be
expected.
Phone conversation dated 1/23/17
City of Cupertino
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/23/17; 12:34 pm
No letters yet on the site!
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1728&returnURL=%
2findex.aspx%3fpage%3d1
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/24/17; 11:23 am
Thanks for getting the letters on the site But the county leaves the submitters
188
name on letters sent in and takes off all other personal information of the
submitter.
The council and residents should know who cares either way about out city
and who knows the facts.
I feel the names should be on them. I can't see any reason why they were taken
off. The comments were sent in as public record.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/24/17; 3:52 pm
Difference Between Publicly and Investor-Owned Utilities
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pou_reporting/background/difference_pou_iou.ht
ml
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/24/17; 5:52 pm
Statement, Questions and required answers from the city council
Regarding the proposed water rate increase. Before a vote can be made
When the city operated this city owed water system, it bought water f rom
Scvwd which was and still is delivered to this service area in pipe from Scvwd
the border of this service area. The city did not get the water thru any
operations of SJW
SJW now leases this service area and they get the same water from the same
source at the same location. Not thru any of there operations in any of there
other service areas.
This city owned utility regulates the rates with rate payer approval
The puc has no authority here. Only the city has regulatory responsibility over
this water system. This city owned water system has no connection to SJW's
other water service area they own
SJW cannot say the puc approved the rate increase
And only operation cost within this service area borders can apply to our rates
or increases to them. SJW cannot charge the service area for anything but water
costs and operational costs within this service area
The rate payers must be shown all the operational records of this service are
before the council meeting, including the cost of water SJW buys, SJW
operational costs and improvement costs in order for a rate increase to even be
considered by the city council
And the rate paid in this service area has nothing to do with what other service
areas are paying
If SJW what a rare increase per the lease they have to put that application into
189
the city of cupertino and show details of what it is for, water and operation
costs.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/26/17; 4:23 pm
http://cmua.org/wpcmua/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Briefing_Background.pdf (Exhibit 2)
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/26/17; 6:55 pm
Question and required answer please before you the city council can vote on
the proposed rate increase by SJW
As a rate payer in this city owned water system in which you are the regulator
of.
What has SJW done per the lease agreement in maintenance of and
upgrades/replacements to in this service area that the rate payers pay for in
rates they pay?
Email message dated 1/27/17; 10:12 am
What is this e-mail? A joke. I don't accept this response at all. The city is the
regulator of our water system and hare responsible to the rate payers not SJW.
I asked the question to the city not SJW. I EXPECT THE ANSWER FROM THE
CITY
Email message dated 1/27/17; 10:04 am
Specific questions can be directed to San
Jose Water by calling 408-279- 7900 or
visiting www.sjwater.com.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/27/17; 8:02 am
Read the article. And tangs statement. It is the cites responsibility to the rate
payers as regulator to make sure he does what he said
The Mercury News
01/27/2017 - Page B01 Winter storms have made ‘a significant dent’
Half of state is drought-free
By Paul Rogers
progers@bayareanewsgroup.com
Hammered with record rainstorms and blizzards, nearly half of California is no
longer in a drought, and the rest of the state saw dramatic improvement over
the past week, federal scientists reported Thursday.
Overall, 49 percent of the state is now drought free, the highest level since April
2013, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a weekly study by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
A year ago, only 5 percent of the state was classified as not in drought
conditions.
190
Of importance: Just 2 percent of California remains in "exceptional drought,"
down from 24 percent a week ago, and 64 percent at this time last year.
"We’re finally seeing enough precipitation falling to make a significant dent,"
said Richard Tinker, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service who
compiled the report. "These are tangible improvements. There’s a difference
between above-normal and ridiculous, which is what you’ve seen recently."
The entire northern half of California, from San Francisco Bay to the Oregon
border, is now classified as drought-free. In Thursday’s report, 6.4 million more
acres — an area 20 times the city of Los Angeles, and much of it in the Sierra
Nevada south of Lake Tahoe — was declared drought free this week. Large
sections of Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley that have been the
hardest hit during the five-year disaster and the slowest to emerge also saw
drought conditions ease, although not eliminated, according to the report.
The remarkable turnaround has been driven by a blitzkrieg of powerful winter
storms rolling in off the Pacific. Over the past week, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara
and Orange counties received 5 inches of rain — their wettest week in seven
years — sparking flooding, mudslides and power outages.
The Bay Area is seeing its wettest January since 1998, according to the National
Weather Service, with many cities at triple their normal monthly precipitation.
Through Thursday morning, Big Sur Station had received 43.41 inches of rain
since Oct. 1, more than the area’s entire yearly average rainfall of 41.91 inches.
Similarly, Yosemite National Park had received 44.07 inches since Oct. 1, more
than its annual yearly average of 36.73 inches, with eight months still left in the
rain year.
In the Sierra Nevada, a new round of blizzards closed highways and piled up
immense amounts of snow. Kirkwood ski resort near Lake Tahoe on
Wednesday reported receiving 9 feet of new snow over the past week, while
Mammoth Mountain said it had been smothered in 20 feet since New Year’s
Day, breaking records for the snowiest month there on record.
Overall, the statewide Sierra snowpack — which provides one-third of
California’s water supply — was at 189 percent of its historic average on
Thursday. More importantly, it is already at 107 percent of the April 1 historic
average, considered the key annual measurement, with two months to go.
State officials continued Thursday to urge caution.
"All this rain and snowfall will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the
drought, but we just don’t know yet for certain what that total impact will be,"
191
said Doug Carlson, a spokesman for the California Department of Water
Resources. "Something we do know is that groundwater takes a long time to
replenish once it has been depleted, and it has been severely depleted in some
areas of the Central Valley."
With major reservoirs around California nearly full or already spilling — the
two largest in California, Shasta and Oroville, are both 81 percent full, and
Hetch Hetchy is 88 percent full — Silicon Valley’s largest water provider on
Tuesday night loosened some of its drought rules.
The board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, based in San Jose, voted to
continue asking the public to conserve water by 20 percent compared to 2013
levels. But with its 10 reservoirs in Santa Clara County at 161 percent of the
historic average for January and its groundwater levels steadily recovering, the
board dropped its call for the 13 cities and private water companies that it
supplies to use mandatory rules to meet the drought target.
Instead, the district said that voluntary rules are acceptable now, and it no
longer expects cities and water companies in Santa Clara County, such as San
Jose Water Company, to impose drought surcharges or penalties on customers
who use large amounts of water, given the improving conditions.
John Tang, a spokesman for San Jose Water Company, said Thursday that the
company is drafting a request to the state Public Utilities Commission to drop
its drought surcharge program and it expects approval in a matter of weeks,
rather than months.
Meanwhile, the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown, who declared a statewide
drought emergency in January 2014, has said it will likely wait until April to
decide whether to lift that declaration or amend it to apply only to the driest
parts of the state.
Tinker, in writing this week’s Drought Monitor, noted that despite the deluges
of January, some parts of California, such as the east side of the San Joaquin
Valley, continue to have badly depleted groundwater.
"The deepest wells may not respond to the recent inundation for many more
months," he noted.
Each week, the scientists who write the drought monitor assign six levels of
drought intensity: no drought, abnormally dry, moderate drought, severe
drought, extreme drought and exceptional drought.
192
They analyze soil moisture, stream levels, rainfall totals, snowpack, reservoir
levels and other measurements in all 50 states, along with reported observations
from more than 350 expert contributors around the country.
Much of California will receive a break from the rain through the weekend. The
Bay Area forecast calls for sunny skies and temperatures in the 50s and 60s
every day until Tuesday, with more storms likely Wednesday through Friday.
Contact Paul Rogers at 408-920-5045.
Winter storms have made for coursing water around California, with new
calculations showing only 2 percent of California remains in "exceptional
drought." The Bay Area, including Orinda (pictured), is seeing its wettest
January since 1998.
SUSAN TRIPP POLLARD/STAFF
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/27/17; 8:07 am
John Tang, a spokesman for San Jose Water Company, said Thursday that the
company is drafting a request to the state Public Utilities Commission to drop
its drought surcharge program and it expects approval in a matter of weeks,
rather than months.
The city council can vote to drop ours now. The puc has no authority here
Customer #1 Email message dated 1/27/17; 8:14 am
193
John Kolski ..asking why the article last week they wrote did not state the facts honestly
and miss led the rate payers of cupertino, and I got no response Did the city
give them all the facts of our city owned water system, and who regulates it
and what the increase is for?
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/27/17; 8:57 am
So let's put the facts on the table. If the city still was operating this city owned
water system as it did before it leased it to SJW, the city would not be dealing
with whether or nor the puc is involved like SJW wants the rate payers here to
believe and our rates would only be for water we purchased directly from
Scvwd and our city operating costs in our service area.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/27/17; 10:36 am
I received this response to my question to the city who is the regulator of our
water system telling me as the rate payer to call sjw to get answers.
The city council is the regulator and they should answer questions of the rate
payers and they also are the ones who should be asking sjw the questions
before they approve any rate increase.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/28/17; 2:15 pm
I received this response to my question to the city who is the regulator of our
water system telling me as the rate payer to call sjw to get answers.
The city council is the regulator and they should answer questions of the rate
payers and they also are the ones who should be asking sjw the questions
before they approve any rate increase.
The city council is accountable to the rate payers of this water system, not sjw
who only leases it from cupertino.
Email message dated 1/27/17; 12:28 am
Subject: Automatic reply: Question and
required answer please before you the
city council can vote on thre proposed
rate increase by SJW
Thank you. Your email to
WaterRates@cupertino.org<mailto:WaterR
ates@cupertino.org> has been received.
Your comments are appreciated and will
be included anomalously with relevant
materials presented to the City Council as
they consider the proposed rate increase.
Specific questions you may have asked
will be responded to within three business
days. You may also call the City of
Cupertino Public Works Department at
(408) 777-3354.
Questions regarding operation of the
municipal water system, including factors
194
contributing to the proposed rate increase
requested by SJWC can be inquired
directly to SJWC at either
www.sjwater.com<http://www.sjwater.co
m/> or 408-279-7900.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/28/17; 6:34 pm
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CANNOT VOTE ON THIS ITEM IF ANY THEM
HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SJW ( stocks or ? ) OR ANY DIRECT
CONNECTION WITH SJW ( such as officer, consultant, vendor ), EITHER IS A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THOSE MEMBERS HAVE TO REFRAME
FROM VOTING.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/30/17; 9:07 am
THAT WHEN A PERSON STANDS IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND GIVES COMMENTS THEY HAVE TO GIVE THIER NAME AS PUBLIC
INFORMATION FIRST BUT THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED FRO THE
RECORD HAVE THE NAMES LEFT OFF.
WHY?
Customer #15 Email message dated 1/30/17; 3:23 pm
Hi,
I am the resident in Cupertino.
Last year water service fees already tremendously increase.
This year there are lots of raining and have enough water to use for the whole
year.
It has no reason to increase the water service fees again.
Please pass my objection voice to San Jose Water Company.
Thanks.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/30/17; 3:43 pm
to sjw and the city of cupertino…for your information about the rate increase
proposed by sjw
i called a spoke to the editor of the san jose mercury news paper today about
the article in the cupertino paper two weeks ago.
i notified him that the facts were reported incorrectly and all the facts were not
included in the article and that how is was reported is misleading to the rate
payers of cupertino who own the water system.
i informed him that the cpuc is not the regulatory authority over the city of
cupertino’s city owned water system and has no authority to approve rate
195
increases as sjw is not the regulator either. only the city council of cupertino is
the regulatory authority over this water system.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 1/30/17; 3:55 pm
question regarding the rate increase proposed by sjw
how can the rate in create be voted on as retroactive back to january 1, 2017,
when the rate increase has not even been voted on yet and approved by the
city council? and if approved at the february meeting how can the city
council inact a retroactive policy when the cpus decision has nothing to do
with cupertino.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/1/17; 2:53 pm
I HAD SEND THIS IN ONCE BUT DON’T SEE IT IN THE POSTED
COMMENTS OF THE CITY SITE IT SHOWS THE RATE PAYERS WHO
REGULATES THE CITY WATER SYSTEM AND THAT THE CPUC HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE RATE INCREASES
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pou_reporting/background/difference_pou_iou.ht
ml
196
Differences Between Publicly and Investor-Owned Utilities
Investor-owned utilities (IOUs) are private electricity and natural gas
providers. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversees IOUs.
Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California
Edison comprise approximately three quarters of electricity supply in
California.
Publicly owned utilities (POUs) are subject to local public control and
regulation. POUs are organized in various forms including municipal districts,
city departments, irrigation districts, or rural cooperatives. Municipal districts
may include territories outside city limits or may not even serve the entire city.
Cooperatives are owned by the customers they serve usually in rural areas.
There are more than 40 POUs in the state that account for approximately a
quarter of electricity supply in California. Most POUs are smaller than IOUs in
the electricity sales and the number of customer accounts.
The largest POU, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
provides services to 3.9 million customers. The smallest utilities have less than
400 customers. One-third of the POUs account for over 90 percent of POU
electricity sales. Most of the POUs serve between 1,800 and 100,000 customers.
The table below summarizes differences between POUs and IOUs.
POU IOU
Ownership
A local government body
and/or customers/members
of the utility. Usually
limited to the service area.
Shareholders or investors. Not
limited to the service area.
Structure/
Manageme
nt/
Regulation
Non-profit public entity
managed by locally elected
officials/ public employees.
Private company. Shareholder-
elected board appoints
management team of private
sector employees. Regulated by
California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC).
197
Rates
Setting and
Regulation
Customer rates are set by
each utility's governing
body-board or city council
in a public forum.
Customer rates are set and
regulated by CPUC through
public process that includes
some customer participation.
Mission/G
oals
Optimize benefits for local
customer owners usually in
the form of lower energy
rates.
Optimize return on investment
for shareholders.
Financing
Public utilities have access
to tax-free bonds and co-
ops have access to low-
interest loans usually at the
local level.
Stockholders (investors), the
sale of bonds and bank
borrowing help finance the
utility's operations.
Power
Generation
Operate their own
generation facilities or
purchase power through
contracts.
Purchase power through
contracts and operate their own
generation facilities. After the
energy crisis, IOUs resumed
electricity procurement in 2002
(Public Utility Code 454.5).
Every two years, the CPUC
holds a Long Term Procurement
Plan (LTPP) proceeding to
review and adopt the IOUs' ten-
year procurement plans. The
LTPP proceeding evaluates the
utilities' need for new fossil-
fired resources and establishes
rules for rate recovery of
procurement transactions.
198
Profit/Net
Revenue
Rates are set to recover
costs and earn additional
return to maintain bond
ratings and invest in new
facilities.
Utility rates are set to recover
costs and earn a reasonable
return as profits for investors in
return for the risk they bear for
investing in new facilities.
Size/
heterogene
ity
Although POUs
dramatically differ in size
and number of customers
they serve, most are small
or mid-sized with an
exception of LADWP and
SMUD.
Very large in size and number
of customers. Complex,
heterogeneous customer mix.
Customer #16
Email message dated 2/7/17; 7:09 pm
City of Cupertino,
I am writing to express my concern about the current water rate increase that
you are considering. Given the increase in precipitation over the last few
months, it seems wise to wait until the spring when snow pack levels can be
measured. I understand that there are other costs associated with water—
overhead, delivery, etc…--but the actual cost of water does not logically seem
like it will be increasing soon. It would appear quite ironic for the city to raise
water rates when we are starting to see such large gains in water levels.
Over the last year or two we have seen higher and higher water bills due to
overage charges and base rates which are not based on our actual use. It
would add insult to injury to have a water rate increase backing up to what
have already been higher water bills. Please put off this decision or, even
better, don’t increase our rates.
Regards.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/7/17; 8:10 pm
HOW MUCH WATER THAT THE CITY SERVICE AREA AND THE RATE
PAYERS GETS AND PAY FOR COMES FROM AND AS IMPORTED WATER
FROM SCVWD AND HOW MUCH WATER COMES FROM THE CITY
OWNED WELLS [ IN GALLONS ]?
Customer #1 Email message dated 2/7/17; 8:32 pm
199
John Kolski SJW ONLY PAYS THE CITY A $1.00 PER YEAR FOR THE USE OF
CITY WATER SERVICE AREA AND THEY COLLECT MILLIONS EACH
YEAR FROM THE RATE PAYERS AND HAVE PUT NOTHING INTO LONG
TERM MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM AND “THEY WANT ANOTHER
UNJUSTIFIED RATE INCREASE”
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/7/17; 8:55 pm
THE LEASE OF THE CITY RATE SYSTEM TO SJW HAS BEEN IN THE PAST
AND STILL IS A “CASH COW” FOR SJW.
JUST MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF RATE PAYERS BY AN AVERAGE
MONTHLY BILLING AMOUNT OF $175.00/M ADN SEE HOW MUCH THEY
MAKE FOR EACH YEAR OF THE LEASE. IT IS IN THE AREA OF
$9,000,000.00/YEAR AND THEY ONLY PAID $6.8 MILLION FOR THE LEASE
AT THE START AND PAY $1.00/Y. THE LEASE TERM IS FOR 25 YEARS.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE LEASE AND OBSERVE HOW SJW
HAS DELT WITH THE LEASE AND THE CITY DURING THE LEASE
PERIOD.
THEY ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND
WORSE HAVE NOT PUT ANY MONEY INTO THE SYSTEM FOR LONG
TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF AGING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
EVERY CITY RATE PAYER SHOULD READ THE LEASE, HOLD THE CITY
TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS REGULATOR AND DEMAND THAT
THEIR CITY OWNED WATER SYSTEM BE OPERATED TO THE BENEFIT
OF THE RATE PAYERS NOT SJW.
Customer #17 Email message dated 2/7/17; 10:51 pm
Hi,
I am a residence of Cupertino City. My home address is 10818 Juniper court,
Cupertino 95014.
200
I am writing to provide input regarding the proposed raise in water service
fees. I request this proposed raise be delayed until spring given the abundance
of rain and snow we received this season.
I request that this be delayed until the end of Spring when the actual/residual
level of the snow pack is measured and confirmed that we are done with the
drought. I think it's only sensible to do after proper assessment as opposed to
rushing in to increase the rates.
Thank you for your consideration
Customer #18 Email message dated 2/8/17; 5:30 pm
Based on abundance of rain this season and already raised water rates I
strongly object to any water rate increase. At the very least I encourage you to
wait until spring when actual total rain levels could determine the appropriate
water rates. If the company responsible is unable to reduce its cost perhaps it is
time to change its management instead of constantly request rate hikes.
Customer #19 Email message dated 2/9/17; 5:03 pm
Sirs:
Your proposed Water Rate Increase is unreasonable.
You just recently raised the rates.
Can you justify the latest increase vis- a -vis our recent rain totals and snow
pack?
Please think again about your proposal.
Regard
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/9/17; 7:53 pm
REGARDING THE BELOW E-MAIL.
IF MY STATEMENTS CONCERN ANYONE, THEN THE REGULATOR OF
THE CITY WATER SYSTEM WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL IS MUST ASK
SJW FOR DETAILED ANSWERS AND MAKE THOSE ANSWERS OPEN
INFORMATION TO THE RATE PAYERS OF CUPERTINO BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THIS LEASE IS PUBLIC INFORMATION AND
MUST HAVE FULL TRANSPARENCY TO ITS RATE PAYERS.
On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:54 PM, John Kolski <ducksfly10@gmail.com> wrote:
THE LEASE OF THE CITY RATE SYSTEM TO SJW HAS BEEN IN THE PAST
AND STILL IS A “CASH COW” FOR SJW.
201
JUST MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF RATE PAYERS BY AN AVERAGE
MONTHLY BILLING AMOUNT OF $175.00/M ADN SEE HOW MUCH THEY
MAKE FOR EACH YEAR OF THE LEASE. IT IS IN THE AREA OF
$9,000,000.00/YEAR AND THEY ONLY PAID $6.8 MILLION FOR THE LEASE
AT THE START AND PAY $1.00/Y. THE LEASE TERM IS FOR 25 YEARS.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ THE LEASE AND OBSERVE HOW SJW
HAS DELT WITH THE LEASE AND THE CITY DURING THE LEASE
PERIOD.
THEY ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND
WORSE HAVE NOT PUT ANY MONEY INTO THE SYSTEM FOR LONG
TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF AGING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
EVERY CITY RATE PAYER SHOULD READ THE LEASE, HOLD THE CITY
TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS REGULATOR AND DEMAND THAT
THEIR CITY OWNED WATER SYSTEM BE OPERATED TO THE BENEFIT
OF THE RATE PAYERS NOT SJW.
Customer #20 Email message dated 2/10/17; 12:20 pm
Dear Sir/Madam:
I’m owner of following properties in Cupertino:
10585 Merriman Road (Parcel # 342-16-079)
10340 Walnut Circle (Parcel # 357-03-040)
10840 Wunderlich Drive (Parcel# 375-22-011)
The purpose of this e-mail is to submit my written opposition to Cupertino
City Hall’s proposed rate increase for water service fees effective March 3, 2017
(retroactive to January 1, 2017).
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/14/17; 5:01 am
FOR OUR INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED RATE
INCREASE IN CUPERTINO BY SJW
I DO NOT THE MERCURY NEWS OR THE CITYOF CUPERTINO HAS
NOTICED THE RATE PAYERS OF CUPERTINO IN A WAY TO INFORM
THEM OF THE FACTS OF THE CITY OWNED WATER SYSTEM AND THE
REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN TOTAL
THAT EFFECT EACH RESIDENT OF CUPERTINO.
THE PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WEB SITE IS ONLY
VIEWED BY A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THE ARTICLE THAT
202
WAS IN THE CUPERTINO PAPER WAS FULL OF MISS INFORMATION
AND DID NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN IT.
TRANSPARENCY BY THE CITY AND THE MEDIA HAS NOT HAPPENED.
HOW CAN THE PEOPLE EFFECTED BY THIS GIVE INPUT TO THE
COUNCIL IF THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.
Customer #1
John Kolski
Email message dated 2/14/17; 1:55 pm
TODAY A RECEIVED AT LETTER ASKING ME TO DO A WATER SURVEY.
FIRST IT SAYS I HAVE RECEIVED HOME WATER REPORTS FROM
SJW. THAT IS NOT TRUE, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY
REPORTS. AND IT SAYS I HAVE A SMART METER. THAT ALSO IS NOT
TRUE.
NEXT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION YOUR SURVEY WANTS
FROM ME BUT I AM NOT GIVING YOU ANYTHING.
AND I DO NOT DO SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEYS.
LIKE YOUR PROPOSED RATE INCREASE FOR CUPERTINO IN
WHICH YOU ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LEASE AGREEMENT BY USE THE CPUC AS YOUR AUTHORITY TO
INCREASE THE RATE AND THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE
NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER A CITY OWNED WATER SYSTEM,
THE CITY IS THE REGULATOR AND ADDITIONALLY YOU DID NOT
APPLY TO THE CITY FOR A PROPOSED RATE INCREASE, YOU
SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO THE CPUC WHICH IS INVALID. SJW
CONTINUES TO OPERATE IN A MANNER THE THEY ARE OVER AND
ABOVE THE LAW, THE AGREEMENTS THE Y SIGN AND THE PEOPLE
THEY SERVE.
Customer #21 Phone call dated 2/15/14
Rates are already too high. Recent rain should be considered. Does not support
the increase. Senior citizen on fixed income.
203
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-2276 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/17/2017 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for
consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an application for a
General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application No.:
GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek
Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures
C - Scandinavian Furniture project plans
D - General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description
E - Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application, prepared
F - Relevant Policies in the EDSP
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:Reviewandconsideradevelopmentproposalsubmitted(ScandinavianFurniture
Site),forconsiderationbytheCityCouncil,toauthorizetheproposedapplicanttosubmitan
applicationforaGeneralPlanAmendmentandstafftocommenceenvironmentalandproject
review.(ApplicationNo.:GPAAuth-2016-01;Applicant:KingsMillGroup,KeithFichtner;
Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038)
StaffrecommendsthattheCityCounciladopttheResolutionNo.17-020(AttachmentA)after
determiningwhethertheapplicationisauthorizedtomoveforwardtoapplyforaGeneralPlan
Amendment.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™204
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 21, 2017
Subject
Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for
consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an
application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and
project review. (Application No.: GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith
Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) after
determining whether the application is authorized to move forward to apply for a General
Plan Amendment.
Discussion
Background
On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General
Plan amendments. The new procedures provide the following benefits over the previous
process whereby General Plan amendments were processed as they were received:
Provide ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process;
Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility/service and quality of
life standards for the community;
Provide opportunity for early community input;
Consider impact on staff and other resources.
Pursuant to the new procedures, the City Council will evaluate General Plan Amendment
proposals for authorization as follows (see Attachment B for adopted Council policy):
GPA applications would be considered by the Council twice every year;
The Council may allow applications to be re-considered at a continued hearing by the
City Council to submit revisions/additional information within 30 days.
205
Applications that are rejected would wait for a year before re-applying (i.e. they would
not be allowed to re-apply in the 6 month subsequent cycle).
The deadline to apply for consideration in the 2017 First Cycle by the City Council was
November 14, 2016. The City received one application for authorization for General Plan
amendments – the Scandinavian Furniture Site. The Analysis section below reviews the
project based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council.
Analysis
Introduction
The proposal is a request to incorporate 1,790 sq. ft. of existing outdoor arcade area into the
existing 26,239 sq. ft. retail space on site (Scandinavian Furniture) and convert it to an office
use totaling 28,029 sq. ft. The applicant anticipates either an incubator or medical office use.
Since the available office allocation balance in the General Plan is not adequate to allow this
change of use, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment needed to add office
allocation to the Heart of the City Special Area (See Attachments C and D.) The applicant is
requesting 16,000 sq. ft. of additional office allocation; however, the proposed project would
only need an additional 10,916 sq. ft. of office allocation (see details in Table 3 below).
Evaluation Criteria
Based on the criteria in the policy adopted by the City Council on September 1, 2015, the
project has been evaluated based on:
General Plan goals achieved by the project:
o Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility – does the project
exhibit superior quality of site layout and project design? Is the project compatible
with the surrounding uses?
o Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base – would the project have positive
or negative one-time and ongoing impacts to the City’s fiscal base?
o Provision of affordable housing – does the project provide or otherwise promote
affordable housing above and beyond typical City requirements?
o Environmental sustainability – to what extent does the project include features
including green building, site design and project operation principles, that promote
environmental sustainability above and beyond the City’s typical requirements?
General Plan amendments requested – number and type of General Plan amendments
requested by the applicant.
Proposed voluntary community amenities – what is the per-square-foot amount of
community amenities offered by the applicant?
206
Staff time and resources required to process the project – would the amount of staff time
and resources require hiring of staff or consultants to process the project? It should be
noted that applicants would be required to pay the full cost of processing the project,
including staff and consultant time and materials.
Table 1 includes a high-level analysis of how this application addresses these criteria. A brief
discussion of the project is provided later in this report.
207
Table 1: Summary Evaluation of the Development Proposal
Project Site and
architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments
requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (2)
1. Scandinavian
Furniture
a. Site and
Architectural
design – further
review required
for design,
circulation, site
planning and
landscaping. (1)
b. Neighborhood
compatibility –
generally
compatible in
terms of land
use and
building size.
a. Increase in service
costs to the City’s
General Fund
$33,000-$36,000.
b. The City’s
Economic
Development
Specific Plan
supportive of
incubator or co-
working uses.
c. Moderate increase
in property tax
revenue.
No affordable
housing features
other than
statutorily required
payment of Below-
Market-Rate
Program fees.
Project will meet all
statutorily required
environmental
sustainability features
No additional
sustainability features
proposed
Office allocation:
16,000 sq. ft.
a. School resources – none
b. Public open space – none
c. Public Facilities – none
d. Transportation Facilities – none
Total - $0/square foot.
0.3FTE (full-time
equivalent) of
staff time and
consultants for
environmental
review, etc.
(1) ASA-2016-13 & TR-2016-35 to permit parking lot modifications to improve landscaping and ensure parking count conforms to retail standards (1 space/250 sq. ft.) on the site
was approved on November 10, 2016. The ASA entitlement does not affect the land use however the design will provide enough parking for either retail or incubator office
use.
(2) All staff time and resources will be paid for by applicant.
208
Evaluation of Project Proposal:
The following is a high-level evaluation of project proposal related to compliance with
the City’s General Plan.
Location – 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project Description - The proposal for the Scandinavian Furniture site is to incorporate
1,790 sq. ft. of existing outdoor arcade area into the existing 26,239 sq. ft. retail space on
site and convert it to either an incubator office or medical office use totaling 28,029 sq. ft.
Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The 1.92 acre project site is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard,
approximately 350 feet east of the intersection of South Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The site contains a 26,239 sq. ft. standalone retail building, occupied by
Scandinavian Furniture, and associated parking. The project site is in the Central Stevens
Creek Boulevard subarea of the Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan Area.
Surrounding uses include a mix of retail, office, and a mixed-use condominium
development (Travigne) to the north, a townhome development (Portal Plaza) to the east,
a standalone restaurant (Arya) and other commercial uses to the west, and single family
homes to the south.
Application Overview
Table 2 contains project data along with General Plan amendments or variances
requested and/or required.
209
Table 2: Scandinavian Furniture Site Project Data
Requirement/Standard Existing/Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
General Plan designation Commercial/Office/Residential No change
Primary use: Commercial/
Commercial office
Secondary uses: Office above
ground level
Zoning designation
P (CG,Res) – Planned
Development (General
Commercial) with special
development conditions
Amend to allow
office uses.
Lot Coverage Existing – 33.5%
Allowed - No Maximum No change
Floor Area Ratio Existing – 31%
Allowed - No Maximum 33.5%
General Plan Development allocation
Office Existing (on site) - 0 sq. ft. 28,029 sq. ft.
Office allocation in HOC
available – 17,113 sq. ft.
Additional office allocation
required – 10,916 sq. ft.
Additional office allocation
requested – 16,000 sq. ft.
Commercial Retail Existing - 26,239 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft.
Existing sq. ft. does not
include 1,790 sq. ft. of new
interior space proposed.
Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan
Direct Retailing Uses
Required – Front - 75%
Rear – 50%
Existing – 100%
Proposed – 0%
Project will require an HOC
Exception to allow proposed
uses.
Height Allowed – 45 ft
Existing – 20.5 ft No change
Slope line
(setback to height ratio) 1 : 1 No change
Setbacks
Front Required – 35 foot from curb
Existing – 40 feet to arcade No change
Side
Required – Greater of: One-half
(1/2) bldg. height, or ten (10) ft.
Existing – West: 12 ft; East: 72 ft
No change
Rear
Required – Greater of: One and
one-half (1.5) bldg. height or 20 ft.
Existing – 117.5 ft
No change
210
Requirement/Standard Existing/Allowed/Required Proposed Comments
Parking
Vehicular Parking
Office use - 1 space/285
sq. ft.
Required - 98 spaces
Existing – 78 spaces
107 spaces
(approx.)
Adequate parking available
for office uses.
Medical and Dental
Office - 1 space/175 sq.
ft.
Required - 161 spaces
Existing – 78 spaces
Proposal does not meet
Parking Ordinance standard
for medical office uses.
However, the Parking
Ordinance allows the
preparation of a parking
study to determine an
appropriate, alternative
parking requirement.
Bike Parking
Office - 1/1,250 sq. ft. or
1/15 employees, whichever
is more restrictive.
23 Class I spaces 23 Class I spaces
Medical - 1/1,250 sq. ft. 23 Class II spaces
Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility:
The proposed addition to the existing building and site treatments will need further
review. Preliminarily, the design has the main (only) entry along the side (east)
elevation. Typically, the main entrance should be facing the right-of-way, in this case
on the north elevation, along Stevens Creek Boulevard in order to activate the street
and as encouraged in the General Plan.
The plans propose a small patio along the front with a seating wall for users of the
building. The City has in the past required new developments along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to incorporate outdoor seating elements that allow for access directly from
the right-of-way and interaction with the public.
The current parking supply on site (indicated on plans) does not conform to retail
parking standards (1 space/250 sf) and the site has a deed restriction to limit its
occupancy to furniture retail operators. In November 2016, the applicant obtained
approval to increase the parking on the site to meet the retail parking standards.
However, this construction work is on hold pending a decision on the General Plan
Amendment application. In addition, the applicant made an application in January
2017 with the City, to remove the requirement for a deed restriction on the property,
to allow other complying retail uses to operate from the site. This was approved by the
Planning Commission at its February 14, 2017 meeting.
211
Net Fiscal Impacts:
The applicant’s financial justification for allowing the change in use, is a higher
assessed property tax value ($263,087) due to his purchase of the property in 2016, and
other property improvements contemplated with the proposal. An analysis of fiscal
impacts to the City has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), a third-
party consulting firm, which indicates that a more conservative estimate of assessed
property tax is $141,700, with the City’s share (allocated to the General Fund) being
$8,199. (See Attachment E.)
An increase in sales tax as a result of office workers spending within the City boundary
is justified by both the applicant and EPS.
EPS’s fiscal impact report found that, overall, both start-up incubator and medical
office uses would generate more service costs to the City’s General Fund, and result in
a deficit of $36,000 and $33,000 respectively.
The City’s Economic Development Specific Plan (EDSP) includes policies that support
the conversion of underutilized ground floor retail space to incubator or co-working
uses (Strategy 4.1) (see Attachment F.)
Provision of affordable housing:
The proposal does not include a residential component and the applicant has not
proposed to provide any alternatives. However, the applicant will be required to pay
any applicable housing mitigation fees as a project requirement.
Environmental Sustainability:
None indicated. The project would be required to comply with statutory requirements.
Voluntary Community Amenities Proposed:
The applicant has not proposed any community amenities with this project as indicated
in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities
Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments
School resources None N/A $0
Public open space None N/A $0
Public facilities None N/A $0
Transportation facilities None N/A $0
Total Value $0
Total Value/square foot $0
212
Staff Time and Resources
The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager (either staff or consultant based
on availability) to guide the project through the entitlement process appropriate
environmental and city related reviews. It is estimated that about 0.3FTE of staff time
would be required to process the project. Staff time and consultant costs will be paid for
by the applicant.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table (Table 4) indicates the public noticing and outreach conducted on the
General Plan authorization project.
Table 4: Noticing and Outreach
Noticing, Site Signage Agenda
Postcard mailed (at least 10 days prior to
meeting) to:
o All postal customers in the City of
Cupertino and
o If subject property within 500 feet of
city boundary, to properties (even if in
adjacent cities) within 500 feet of it
Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
board (at least five days prior to the hearing)
Site signage on subject property (at least 10
days prior to meeting)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site
(at least five days week prior to the hearing)
Additional outreach has been conducted on the City’s Social Media platforms and
advertising on the City Channel.
As of publication of this staff report on January 27, 2016, staff has not received any
comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply since the City
Council’s action, consideration and authorization to allow, or not allow, formal
applications, is not a project as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact analysis for the project is included in Attachment E.
The fiscal impact analysis indicates that the full service hotel currently proposed by
the applicant provides the City with a net fiscal negative revenue of $33,000 - $36,000.
213
NEXT STEPS
Projects authorized by the Council to move forward will enter the formal development
review process including necessary environmental analysis. The timeline for the projects
will begin when the applications are complete and are expected to run about 7-9 months.
Projects additionally have the option to resubmit their application with minor
adjustments based on Council input within 30 days of the Council meeting. The
applications will be brought back to a subsequent meeting later in Spring 2017.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Draft Resolution
B - City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures
C - Scandinavian Furniture project plans
D - General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description
E - Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment
Application, prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated February 10, 2017
F - Relevant policies from the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) adopted by
the City Council on October 4, 2016
214
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING A PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
TO PROCEED AS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPAauth-2016-01;
Applicant: Keith Fichtner (Kings Mill Group)
Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future
General Plan amendments, including to review prospective applications twice a year and decide
which are authorized to proceed as a General Plan Amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a
General Plan amendment application, does not in any way presume approval of any proposed
amendment or project; and
WHEREAS, the City received one application by November 14, 2016, the deadline to be
considered in the 2017 first cycle of the General Plan Amendment application review process; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to consider said General
Plan Amendment authorization applications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution 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 Resolution 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, the City Council has adopted criteria for determining whether an application will be
authorized for processing as follows:
a. General Plan goals achieved by the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(i) Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility;
(ii) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project), including the extent to which the project would
diversify the City’s economic base;
215
Resolution No. 17-___ February 21, 2017
Page 2
(iii) The provision of affordable housing; and
(iv) Environmental Sustainability.
b. General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested.
c. Proposed voluntary community amenities, defined as (i) school resources, (ii) public open
space, such as parks and trails, (iii) public facilities and utilities, such as library,
community center or utility systems and (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis
on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles,
pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations
d. Staff time and resources required to process the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits,
testimony, staff reports, public comments, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City
Council of the City of Cupertino has determined that the following proposal is authorized to
proceed as General Plan Amendment applications based on the criteria shown in Exhibit A:
{Name(s) of project authorized to proceed by the City Council to be inserted here}
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
21st day of February 2017, by the following roll call vote:
Vote: Members of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________ _______________________
Grace Schmidt Savita Vaidhyanathan
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
216
Exhibit A
Table 1: Summary Evaluation of the Development Proposal
Project Site and
architectural
design and
neighborhood
compatibility
Fiscal impacts,
including a diverse
economic base
Provision of
affordable housing
Environmental
sustainability
General Plan
amendments
requested
Proposed voluntary community
amenities
Staff time and
resources (2)
1. Scandinavian
Furniture
a. Site and
Architectural
design –further
review required
for design,
circulation, site
planning and
landscaping. (1)
b. Neighborhood
compatibility –
generally
compatible in
terms of land
use and
building size.
a. Increase in service
costs to the City’s
General Fund
$33,000-$36,000.
b. The City’s
Economic
Development
Specific Plan
supportive of
incubator or co-
working uses.
c. Moderate increase
in property tax
revenue.
No benefits in terms
of affordable
housing other than
statutorily required
payment of Below-
Market-Rate
Program fees.
Project will meet all
statutorily required
environmental
sustainability features
No additional
sustainability features
proposed
Office allocation:
16,000 sq. ft.
a. School resources – none
b. Public open space – none
c. Public Facilities – none
d. Transportation Facilities – none
Total - $0/square foot.
0.3FTE (full-time
equivalent) of
staff time and
consultants for
environmental
review, etc.
(1) ASA-2016-13 & TR-2016-35 to permit parking lot modifications to improve landscaping and ensure parking count conforms to retail standards (1 space/250 sq. ft.) on the site was approved on November 10, 2016. The
ASA entitlement does not affect the land use however the design will provide enough parking for either retail or incubator office use.
(2) All staff time and resources will be paid for by applicant.
217
RESOLUTION NO. 15-078
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, the City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled
Community Vision 2040, which reflects community input, regulatory changes, best practices, and
the desire to achieve community-building, sustainability, economic, and fiscal objectives; and
WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating various programs to manage development to
address development issues in light of concerns about rapid growth and the impacts of such
growth overwhelming the City's ability to accommodate it, as well as the substantial impacts of
development on quality of life in the community; and
WHEREAS, as part of its evaluation process, the City has considered Community Business
Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Management programs; and
WHEREAS, while CBIZ and Growth Management programs can be effective in metering
growth and providing for community benefits, they can be difficult to administer, are limited by
legal requirements and do not provide the flexibility for managing growth and its substantial
impacts on the community; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358( a) provides that: "If it deems it to be
in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An
amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body ...
. ";and
WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City's General Plan may be amended no more
than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, "an amendment may be
made at any time, as determined by the legislative body" (Cal. Gov. Code 65358(b)); and
WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code does not address the timing or initiation of general
plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, rather than pursue a CBIZ or Growth Management program, the City desires to
set forth an orderly process, in accordance with its legislative discretion, to consider General Plan
amendments and ensure that proposals are fairly considered in light of the City's goals and
concerns about growth; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment Procedures to provide a
process for preliminary review of proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed procedures on
May 19, 2015, and the Council directed staff to provide more information and options at a future
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City held an Open House on the General Plan Amendment Process on June
30, 2015, and the City Council held a Study Session after the Open House; and
218
Resolution No. 15-078
Page2
WHEREAS, at the Study Session, the Council directed staff to look at options that allowed
for applications twice a year and that provided a reevaluation process; and
WHEREAS, the procedures include, among other things: (1) notice provisions to ensure the
public has an opportunity to comment; (2) evaluation criteria to ensure general plan amendments
that move through the application process are in the public interest and meet the City's goals for
development, including provision of community amenities; and (3) requirements for requesting
preliminary review of a proposed General Plan amendment; and
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby adopts the General Plan Amendment Procedures attached hereto, subject to minor revisions
as may be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Council
hereby authorizes City staff to process proposed General Plan amendments in accordance with the
General Plan Amendment Procedures and to take any and all other actions necessary to implement
the procedures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino,
the 1st day of September, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Members of the City Council
Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan
Paul, Wong
None
None
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino
219
Resolution No. 15-078
Page3
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
1. Background/Goals
Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the
benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth
can overwhelm the City's ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the
community.
The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments that
will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and quality of
life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address amendments
requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments when it deems
necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within the General Plan.
2. Procedure
a. The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments twice a
year, approximately every six months.
b. In order to be considered for processing, applicants will be required to apply for
authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date.
c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly noticed
meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments.
d. Noticing-City-wide postcard and public meeting requirements.
e. Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following:
(i) General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility
(2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other
revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base
(3) The provision of affordable housing
( 4) Environmental Sustainability
(ii) General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested.
(iii) Proposed voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any.
(iv) Staff time and resources required to process the project.
f. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be
authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does not
in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff to
process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application in
accordance with all applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act
220
Resolution No. 15-078
Page4
(" CEQA") and the City's zoning laws and ordinances. Consideration of the application will
be in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and regulations.
g. Staff will begin processing the General Plan amendment applications per Council direction.
A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with the project
authorized by Council.
h. Proposals not authorized by the Council at the first meeting (per 2.c. above) may be
resubmitted with minor amendments within 30 days. Such projects will be considered by
the Council at a future public meeting, noticed per the Cupertino Municipal Code, after staff
review.
3. Voluntary Community Amenities
a. For purposes of this policy, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land
and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan
amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City, including enhancements of
the following:
(i) School resources
(ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails
(iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems
(iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit
centers/stations
4. Preliminary Review Requirements
a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that is
requested, such as site plans, preliminary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections,
preliminary grading plans and proposed materials.
b. A description, including graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use
approvals required, if any. The description should include diagrammatic information as
necessary to clearly explain the request.
c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan and
the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life.
d. A brief summary of net fiscal impacts.
e. In order to provide the public with early notice and opportunity to provide input, to the
extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3
above, of a type typically memorialized in a development agreement, the applicant should
include a Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized
in a Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved.
221
ww
w
.
a
r
c
t
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
1
6
4
1
4
1
A
F
a
c
a
d
e
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
:
19
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
9
5
1
0
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
T
E
A
M
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
CO
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
DR
A
W
I
N
G
I
N
D
E
X
A
N
D
I
S
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
S
A1
.
0
0
DE
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A1
.
0
1
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A2
.
1
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A3
.
0
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
1
1
R
E
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
3
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
A4
.
0
1
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
FI
R
S
T
I
S
S
U
E
O
R
N
O
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
S
I
N
C
E
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
I
S
S
U
E
MO
D
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
S
I
N
C
E
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
I
S
S
U
E
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
S
A
N
D
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
05.18.16
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
09.19.16
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
11.14.16 GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
CI
V
I
L
C1
.
0
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
U
R
V
E
Y
C2
.
0
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
&
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
C3
.
0
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
L0
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
N
T
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
P
L
A
N
OWNER NAME:
TH
E
K
I
N
G
S
M
I
L
L
G
R
O
U
P
PROJECT ADDR
E
S
S
:
19
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
.
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
ASSESSOR'S PA
R
C
E
L
N
O
.
:
A
P
N
3
6
9
-
0
5
-
0
3
8
ZONING:
HE
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
-
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
(
C
G
,
R
E
S
)
SITE AREA, NET
:
83
,
7
4
7
S
.
F
.
/
1
.
9
2
A
C
R
E
S
TOTAL BUILDING
A
R
E
A
:
2
8
,
0
2
9
S
.
F
.
FLOOR AREA RA
T
I
O
(
F
A
R
)
:
3
3
.
5
%
NUMBER OF STO
R
I
E
S
:
1
CONSTRUCTION
T
Y
P
E
:
II
I
-
B
FIRE SPRINKLER
S
:
YE
S
OCCUPANCY TY
P
E
:
B
BUILDING FOOT
P
R
I
N
T
:
28
,
0
2
9
S
.
F
.
BUILDING COVE
R
A
G
E
(
%
O
F
S
I
T
E
)
:
3
3
.
5
%
PROJEC
T
D
A
T
A
VIEW FROM DRIVEWAY
PH
O
N
E
:
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
EM
A
I
L
:
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
KL
A
,
I
n
c
.
15
1
N
.
N
o
r
l
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
So
n
o
r
a
,
C
A
9
5
3
7
0
20
9
.
5
3
2
.
2
8
5
6
To
m
H
o
l
l
o
w
a
y
to
m
@
k
n
o
x
l
a
.
c
o
m
PH
O
N
E
:
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
EM
A
I
L
:
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
A
R
C
T
E
C
I
N
C
.
99
A
l
m
a
d
e
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
8
4
0
Sa
n
J
o
s
e
,
C
A
9
5
1
1
3
40
8
.
4
9
6
.
0
6
7
6
Je
f
f
O
p
a
r
o
w
s
k
i
,
A
I
A
jo
p
a
r
o
w
s
k
i
@
a
r
c
t
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
TH
I
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
S
O
F
I
N
F
I
L
L
I
N
G
T
H
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
C
O
L
O
N
N
A
D
E
A
N
D
A
N
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
A
N
E
W
E
N
T
R
Y
.
T
H
E
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
E
N
L
A
R
G
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
1
,
7
9
0
S
.
F
.
W
I
L
L
B
R
I
N
G
T
H
E
T
O
T
A
L
AR
E
A
O
F
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
2
8
,
0
2
9
S
.
F
.
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
L
L
C
R
E
A
T
E
N
E
W
WI
N
D
O
W
S
A
L
O
N
G
T
H
E
S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
E
W
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
N
E
W
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
F
I
N
I
S
H
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
.
SI
T
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
N
E
W
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
A
N
D
H
A
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
S
.
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
N STELLING RD
85
28
0
SI
T
E
E
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
R
D
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
N DE ANZA BLVD
N WOLFE RD
S DE ANZA BLVD
S STELLING RD
N BLANEY AVES BLANEY AVE
S WOLFE RD
MC
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
R
D
BO
L
L
I
N
G
E
R
R
D
TRANS
I
T
M
A
P
SI
T
E
OW
N
E
R
:
1
9
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
.
,
L
L
C
60
6
8
K
i
n
g
s
m
i
l
l
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
9
4
5
6
8
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95104
22
2
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT
EXISTING
RESTAURANT
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE BUILDING
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
COMPLEX
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
372'-4"
22
5
'
-
0
"
372'-3"
22
4
'
-
1
1
"
1
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
F.
E
.
NO
PARKING
3
2
2
4
TYP.
4
TYP.
5
67
TYP.
7
TYP.
7
TYP.
8
TYP.
8
TYP.
8
TYP.
9
TYP.
9
TYP.
SCALE:
DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
1" = 30'-0"
0'8'15'30'
PROJECT NO:
DATE DESCRIPTION
In Association with:
A
F
a
c
a
d
e
R
e
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
:
19
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
164141
05.18.16PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
09.19.16PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
EXISTING PROJECT DATA .
ZONING HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN - CENTRAL
P (CG, RES)
SITE AREA 83,747 S.F./1.92 ACRES
EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 28,576 S.F.
LOT COVERAGE 34.0%
EXISTING LEASABLE AREA 26,635 S.F.
EXISTING PARKING (2.7/1000) 72 SPACES
1
2
3 EXISTING WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING PARKING STRIPING TO REMAIN4
5
EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
7 EXISTING 6" CURB TO REMAIN
8
6
EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN
DEMOLITION KEY NOTES .SYMBOLS LEGEND
CURB / STALL STRIPING TO BE DEMOLISHED
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP.
9 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE A1.00
DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
223
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
F.E.NOPARKING
26
'
-
0
"
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
1
A4
.
0
1
10 1TYP.2 22
3
415TYP.67
2
896
7
2
2
4
12
11
1TYP.1TYP.
1
TY
P
.
1
TY
P
.
1TYP.
13
TY
P
.
13TYP.
10'-6"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"5'-6"
6'-0"16'-0"24'-0"11'-5"24'-0"18'-0"18'-0"11
19
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
14 14
35
'
-
0
"
M
I
N
.
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
9'
-
0
"
5
13
TY
P
.
6
6
1010
9'
M
I
N
.
5'
MI
N
.
9'
M
I
N
.
9'
M
I
N
.
5'
MI
N
.
18' MIN.
9'
M
I
N
.
12
'
M
I
N
.
5'
MI
N
.
5'
VA
N
PA
R
K
I
N
G
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
N
O
T
E
S
1.
W
H
E
N
N
O
C
U
R
B
O
R
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
I
S
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
,
A
W
H
E
E
L
S
T
O
P
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
WH
I
C
H
W
I
L
L
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
E
N
C
R
O
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
OF
C
A
R
S
O
V
E
R
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
S
.
2.
W
H
E
E
L
C
H
A
I
R
U
S
E
R
S
M
U
S
T
N
O
T
B
E
FO
R
C
E
D
T
O
G
O
B
E
H
I
N
D
P
A
R
K
E
D
C
A
R
S
OT
H
E
R
T
H
A
N
T
H
E
I
R
O
W
N
.
3.
A
L
L
W
A
L
K
S
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
HA
V
E
A
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
C
R
O
S
S
S
L
O
P
E
O
F
1
:
4
8
.
4.
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
W
A
Y
S
W
H
I
C
H
A
R
E
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
T
O
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
DI
S
A
B
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
F
R
O
M
EA
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
S
P
A
C
E
T
O
R
E
L
A
T
E
D
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
.
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
S
E
E
1
6
/
-
LE
V
E
L
L
A
N
D
I
N
G
;
1
:
4
8
M
A
X
.
C
R
O
S
S
-
SL
O
P
E
;
F
L
U
S
H
W
I
T
H
D
R
I
V
E
6"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
H
E
E
L
S
T
O
P
T
Y
P
.
2'
CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
W
I
T
H
1
:
1
2
M
A
X
S
L
O
P
E
MI
N
.
W
I
D
T
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
3"
W
I
D
E
D
I
A
G
O
N
A
L
S
T
R
I
P
I
N
G
,
W
H
I
T
E
O
R
B
L
U
E
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
Y
M
B
O
L
3
6
"
S
Q
.
S
E
E
8
/
-
SI
G
N
T
Y
P
E
B
A
B
C
ST
R
I
P
I
N
G
F
O
R
S
I
N
G
L
E
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
ST
R
I
P
I
N
G
F
O
R
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
ST
R
I
P
I
N
G
F
O
R
V
A
N
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
18' MIN.5'
18' MIN.5'
2'
3'
3'3'
TY
P
I
C
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
12
"
H
I
G
H
W
H
I
T
E
L
E
T
T
E
R
I
N
G
I
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
A
I
S
L
E
SI
G
N
T
Y
P
E
A
6'
M
I
N
.
3"
W
I
D
E
B
L
U
E
S
T
R
I
P
I
N
G
A
T
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
A
I
S
L
E
SC
A
L
E
:
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
1/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
3'
6'
M
I
N
.
RA
M
P
DN
.
VA
N
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D
T
O
B
E
1
0
8
I
N
C
H
E
S
(
9
'
-
0
"
)
WI
D
E
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
W
H
E
R
E
T
H
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
A
I
S
L
E
I
S
9
6
"
(
8
'
-
0
"
)
W
I
D
E
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
SI
G
N
T
Y
P
E
A
RA
M
P
DN
.
RA
M
P
DN
.
RA
M
P
DN
.
RA
M
P
DN
.
RA
M
P
DN
.
UNAUTHORIZE
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
PARKED IN D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
E
D
ACCESSIBLE
S
P
A
C
E
S
N
O
T
DISPLAYING DIS
T
I
N
G
U
I
S
H
I
N
G
PLACARDS O
R
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
LICENSE PLA
T
E
S
I
S
S
U
E
D
FOR PERS
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
DISABILITIES W
I
L
L
B
E
T
O
W
E
D
AWAY AT OWNE
R
S
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
.
TOWED V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
MAY BE REC
L
A
I
M
E
D
A
T
OR BY TELE
P
H
O
N
I
N
G
SCALE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE & UNAUTHORIZED VEHICL
E
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
1 1/2"=1'-0"SIGN TYPE A:ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATION SIGN TYPE B:ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATION SIGN
T
Y
P
E
C
:
UNAUTHOR
I
Z
E
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
WARN
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
ACCESSIBLE PARKING IDENTIFICATIONSIGNAGE1.REFLECTORIZED SIGN SHALL BECONSTRUCTED OF PORCELAIN STEELWITH BEADED TEXT OR EQUAL2.LETTERS AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITEON A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND3.SIGN TO BE CENTERED AT THEINTERIOR END OF PARKING SPACE4.CORNERS OF SIGN TO BE RADIUSED1/2" MINIMUM.THIS PORTION OF SIGN TOBE 70 SQUARE INCHESMINIMUM (TYPICAL)BOTTOM OF SIGNAGE:WHEN SIGN IS LOCATED IN A PATH OFTRAVEL, BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 6'-8" ABOVE THE WALKINGSURFACE.WHEN LOCATED IN A LANDSCAPE AREAOR ON A WALL AT THE END OF THESPACE, THE BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BEAT 5'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE 17" MIN
I
M
U
M
24" RECOM
M
E
N
D
E
D
22" MINIMUM
24" RECOMMENDED
UN
A
U
T
H
O
R
I
Z
E
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
W
A
R
N
I
N
G
SI
G
N
A
G
E
1A
.
M
U
S
T
B
E
P
O
S
T
E
D
C
O
N
S
P
I
C
U
O
U
S
L
Y
A
T
EA
C
H
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
T
O
O
F
F
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
,
O
R
1B
.
P
O
S
T
E
D
I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
L
Y
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
O
AN
D
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
F
R
O
M
EA
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
ST
A
L
L
O
R
S
P
A
C
E
.
2.
T
H
E
P
H
O
N
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
R
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
WH
E
R
E
T
O
W
E
D
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
C
A
N
B
E
RE
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
I
S
P
O
S
T
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
AP
P
R
O
P
R
I
A
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
I
G
N
AN
D
I
S
A
P
E
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
SI
G
N
.
3.
T
H
E
S
I
Z
E
O
F
T
H
E
L
E
T
T
E
R
I
N
G
I
S
A
MI
N
I
M
U
M
O
F
1
"
I
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
.
INSERT A
D
D
R
E
S
S
INSERT TELEPH
O
N
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
NO
T
E
:
TH
E
C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
H
A
L
L
BE
A
M
A
X
I
M
U
M
O
F
6
"
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
CE
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
H
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
,
IT
'
S
S
I
D
E
S
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
T
O
T
H
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
O
F
TH
E
S
T
A
L
L
A
N
D
I
T
S
L
O
W
E
R
C
O
R
N
E
R
A
T
,
OR
L
O
W
E
R
S
I
D
E
A
L
I
G
N
E
D
W
I
T
H
,
T
H
E
E
N
D
OF
T
H
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
(
C
B
C
11
B
-
5
0
2
.
6
.
4
.
1
)
PA
I
N
T
S
Y
M
B
O
L
W
I
T
H
T
W
O
C
O
A
T
S
H
E
A
V
Y
DU
T
Y
W
H
I
T
E
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
P
A
I
N
T
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
T
O
B
E
T
W
O
C
O
A
T
S
H
E
A
V
Y
DU
T
Y
B
L
U
E
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
P
A
I
N
T
SC
A
L
E
:
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
Y
M
B
O
L
N.
T
.
S
.
A1
.
0
1
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
A
T
A
.
ZO
N
I
N
G
HE
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
-
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
P
(
C
G
,
R
E
S
)
SI
T
E
A
R
E
A
83
,
7
4
7
S
.
F
.
/
1
.
9
2
A
C
R
E
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
28
,
0
2
9
S
.
F
.
LO
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
33
.
5
%
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
26
,
2
3
9
S
.
F
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
1,
7
9
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
L
E
A
S
A
B
L
E
A
R
E
A
28
,
0
2
9
S
.
F
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
OF
F
I
C
E
(
1
/
2
8
5
S
.
F
.
)
99
S
P
A
C
E
S
ON
-
G
R
A
D
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
10
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
4
S
P
A
C
E
S
VA
N
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
1
S
P
A
C
E
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
(3
.
8
/
1
0
0
0
)
1
0
7
S
P
A
C
E
S
*
*P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
S
S
D
U
E
T
O
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
/
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
-6
S
P
A
C
E
S
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
10
1
S
P
A
C
E
S
BI
C
Y
C
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
OF
F
I
C
E
(
1
/
1
,
2
5
0
S
.
F
.
)
23
C
L
A
S
S
I
S
P
A
C
E
S
*
*
**
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
A
C
C
E
S
S
C
L
A
S
S
I
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
T
O
B
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
I
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
A
T
T
I
M
E
O
F
T
E
N
A
N
T
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
(
C
B
C
T
A
B
L
E
1
1
B
-
2
0
8
.
2
)
10
1
-
1
5
0
5
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
T
MI
N
I
M
U
M
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
TO
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
YE
S
SC
A
L
E
:
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
1/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
123
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
OU
T
D
O
O
R
A
M
E
N
I
T
Y
S
P
A
C
E
4
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
S
T
R
I
P
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
5
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
6
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
,
T
Y
P
.
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
A
N
D
H
A
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
N
D
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
7
TR
A
S
H
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
O
R
9
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
V
I
N
G
10 8
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
6
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
11
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
P
A
T
H
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
12
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
L
I
G
H
T
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
13
3
6
12
SI
T
E
W
A
L
L
0'
5
'
1
0
'
20
'
14
IN
G
R
E
S
S
/
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15
DE
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
P
A
V
I
N
G
22
4
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ABC
D
E
F
G
H
K
J
1
A3
.
0
1
2
A3
.
0
1
7
A3
.
0
1
8A3.01
1
TY
P
.
2
1
TY
P
.
36
4
TY
P
.
1
TY
P
.
1TYP.1TYP.75
TY
P
.
5
TY
P
.
5TYP.
3
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
O
F
F
I
C
E
A
R
E
A
A2
.
1
1
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
.
NO
T
A
L
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
M
A
Y
A
P
P
L
Y
12
1"
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
L
O
W
E
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
S
Y
S
T
E
M
W
I
T
H
C
L
E
A
R
GL
A
S
S
I
N
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
F
R
A
M
E
S
W
I
T
H
B
U
T
T
G
L
A
Z
E
D
VE
R
T
I
C
A
L
J
O
I
N
T
S
BR
I
C
K
C
L
A
D
D
I
N
G
O
V
E
R
M
E
T
A
L
S
T
U
D
F
R
A
M
E
34
LI
N
E
O
F
C
A
N
O
P
Y
A
B
O
V
E
S
H
O
W
N
D
A
S
H
E
D
NE
W
E
N
T
R
Y
D
O
O
R
S
5
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
C
K
C
L
A
D
W
A
L
L
S
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
,
P
O
W
E
R
W
A
S
H
TR
A
S
H
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
O
R
67
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
T
I
L
T
-
U
P
P
A
N
E
L
S
,
P
A
I
N
T
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
3/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
22
5
0'-0"+10'-0"+16'-0"
+2
0
'
-
6
"
1
TY
P
.
1TYP.
3
TY
P
.
4
TY
P
.
5
3
TY
P
.
8
9
7
TY
P
.
10
TY
P
.
0'-0"-+16'-0"+20'-6"3TYP.
3
TY
P
.
4TYP.0'-0"+20'-6"+16'-0"+10'-0"+19'-0"5
3
TY
P
.
7TYP.4TYP.
1
TY
P
.
1
TY
P
.
1TYP.
6
80'-0"-+16'-0"
0'
-
0
"
-2
'
-
8
"
+20'-6"
3
TY
P
.
1TYP.1TYP.8
9
A3
.
0
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
KE
Y
N
O
T
E
S
.
NO
T
A
L
L
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
S
M
A
Y
A
P
P
L
Y
12
ST
U
C
C
O
I
N
F
I
L
L
,
P
A
I
N
T
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
M
E
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
C
A
N
O
P
Y
45
EN
T
R
Y
D
O
O
R
6
1"
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
L
O
W
E
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
S
Y
S
T
E
M
W
I
T
H
C
L
E
A
R
G
L
A
S
S
I
N
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
F
R
A
M
E
S
W
I
T
H
B
U
T
T
G
L
A
Z
E
D
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
JO
I
N
T
S
7 3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
C
K
F
A
C
A
D
E
,
P
O
W
E
R
W
A
S
H
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
C
A
P
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
T
I
L
T
-
U
P
P
A
N
E
L
,
P
A
I
N
T
8
BR
I
C
K
C
L
A
D
C
O
L
U
M
N
A
N
D
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
LO
A
D
I
N
G
D
O
C
K
A
N
D
T
R
A
S
H
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
O
R
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
9
SM
O
O
T
H
C
O
A
T
S
T
U
C
C
O
C
O
A
T
I
N
G
O
V
E
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
T
I
L
T
-
U
P
P
A
N
E
L
,
P
A
I
N
T
10
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EA
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
WE
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
NO
R
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
7
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
SO
U
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
8
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
22
6
0'-0"-+16'-0"+20'-6"0'-0"-+16'-0"
0'
-
0
"
-2
'
-
8
"
+20'-6"0'-0"+20'-6"+16'-0"+10'-0"+19'-0"0'-0"+10'-0"+16'-0"
+2
0
'
-
6
"
SCALE: 1EXISTING WEST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING EAST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"
22
7
B1
M1
P1
G1
G1
G1
B1
P1
G1
G1
M1B1
M1
P1
G1
P1
G1
A3
.
1
1
RE
N
D
E
R
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
FI
N
I
S
H
L
E
G
E
N
D
.
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
C
O
M
P
O
S
I
T
E
M
E
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
:
MA
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
:
R
E
Y
N
O
B
O
N
D
SE
R
I
E
S
:
CO
L
O
R
W
E
L
D
5
0
0
FI
N
I
S
H
:
SI
L
V
E
R
S
M
I
T
H
1"
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
L
O
W
E
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
S
Y
S
T
E
M
W
I
T
H
C
L
E
A
R
G
L
A
S
S
I
N
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
F
R
A
M
E
S
WI
T
H
B
U
T
T
G
L
A
Z
E
D
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
J
O
I
N
T
S
:
MA
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
:
V
I
R
A
C
O
N
CO
L
O
R
:
CL
E
A
R
-
1
PA
I
N
T
:
MA
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
:
D
U
N
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
CO
L
O
R
:
DE
6
3
6
6
S
I
L
V
E
R
S
P
O
O
N
G1M1
P1
TH
I
N
B
R
I
C
K
V
E
N
E
E
R
:
MA
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
:
B
E
L
D
E
N
O
R
E
Q
U
I
V
.
CO
L
O
R
:
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
EA
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
1
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
WE
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
2
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
NO
R
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
7
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
SO
U
T
H
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
8
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
22
8
A3
.
3
1
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
VI
E
W
F
R
O
M
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
E
N
T
R
Y
T
O
S
I
T
E
1
NT
S
22
9
PROPERTY LINE 120'-0" TO PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
40
'
-
0
"
T
O
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
BL
V
D
A4
.
0
1
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
:
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
In
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
:
A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for:
19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD
Cupertino, CA 95014
16
4
1
4
1
05
.
1
8
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
09
.
1
9
.
1
6
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
E
P
T
.
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
11
.
1
4
.
1
6
G
E
N
.
P
L
A
N
.
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
SI
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
1/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
23
0
PROJECT NO:
DATE DESCRIPTION
In Association with:
A
N
e
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
:
19
9
0
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
164141/KLA 16-1820
05.18.16 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL
www.knoxla.com
S
T
ATE OF CAL I F O R N IA
L
ICENSE D L A N DSCAPE AR
C
H
I
T
E
CT
Renewal Date
Date
Signature
THO M A S W . HOLLOWAY #
3
5
8
9
151 N. Norlin St., Sonora, CA 95370
(209)532-2856 (209)532-9510 fax
Monument sign with low growing
accent plantsDiagonal cobble strips to
create bands through the
landscape and separation
between plant species
Alternating rows of low ornamental
grass species with a variety of form,
color, and texture
Low curved wall around
grove of existing Canary
Island Pines
Existing Pines and Redwoods to
remain along the west side of the
building
Street sidewalk
Parkway strip with low
growing groundcover
Large spreading street
trees at approximately 40'
on center
Sidewalk connection to the public
right of way
Seat wall
Circular patio with furniture
Bands in the landscape
continue through the patio
Accent paving to the front door
Curved seat wall at main entry
Enhanced paving at the main entry
reflecting the landscape strips in the
other areas of the property
Small upright flowering tree
New formal row of upright trees
along the face of the building to
replace the existing - coordinated
with window locations
Evergreen hedge to screen the
loading area
Shade trees throughout the parking
lot and perimeter of the property
Shrubs along the base of the
building
Low seat wall
Enhanced paving patio space
with accent bands
Low curved seat wall with
opening for the walkway
Shade trees throughout the parking
lot and perimeter of the property
Outdoor fire place with seating
area around
Tall evergreen hedge or
Greenscreen fence
Large spreading shade tree
- accent lighting
Landscape Areas
Total Planting Area
Turf Area
Medium Water Use Shrub Area
Low Water Use Shrub Area
D.G. and Cobble Area
Size of Parcel:
Percentage of Parcel in Landscape:
17,812 sf
0 sf
3,259 sf
13,035 sf
1,518 sf
83,748 sf (1.92 acres)
21.3%
All trees within 5' of curb or sidewalk are to have a linear DeepRoot
Model #UB 18-2 root barriers installed during tree installation along
the inside edge of the adjacent curb or sidewalk. The following
minimum number of panels are to be installed with each tree on
each side of the tree that has sidewalk or curb as denoted on the
plans:
15 gallon trees 5 panels
24" box trees 6 panels
36" box trees 8 panels
Tree sizes not listed above are to be installed with the quantity of
panels as specified by the manufacturer.
Tree Root Barriers
2"-3" deep layer of Tan Decomposed Granite (D.G.) with steel edging - 1,112 sf.
2"-3" diameter ornamental cobble with steel edging - 406 sf.
Non-Living Groundcover
WELO Water Use Calculations
1
2
3
176,814 Gallons17,812 sfTOTAL
ETO for Cupertino 45.3
Shrubs
Shrubs
Cobble/DG
Medium
Low
None
0.5
0.3
0
3,259
13,035
1,518
18.3%
73.2%
8.5%
Low Flow Bubbler
Low Flow Bubbler
No Irrigation
.88
.88
1
52,007
124,807.2
0
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)225,120.5 gallon/year
Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU)176,814 gallon/year
Average Irrigation Efficiency .88
ETWU is less than MAWA, therefore water usage as designed exceeds
code requirements
The following calculations represent the intended hydrozones and water usage as designed with this Preliminary
Landscape Plan. As we move through the design process we anticipate minor adjustments/revisions of these
calculations. However, compliance with WELO code requirements will always remain.
Project
Location
Not to scaleVicinity Map
S.
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
.
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
Irrigation
The entire site will be irrigated using a fully automatic system and designed to meet the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). The irrigation system will largely be low-volume design with low flow
bubblers and/or drip emitters. Trees will be irrigated on separate circuits from the shrubs. The system will
include in-line valves, quick couplers, and gate valves. The irrigation controller will be a "smart" controller by
Rainbird, Toro, Hunter, or equal. A complete irrigation design with these parameters will be provided with the
submittal of building permit plans. See the WELO calculations in the lower right of this sheet.
Shrubs
Groundcovers
Spreading Groundcover- 1 gal. @ 3'-5' O.C.
Archtostaphylus 'Emerald Carpet'Manzanita
Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Coyote Bush
Ceanothus gresius horizontalis Carmel Creeper
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast'Cotoneaster
Juniperus sabina 'Cultivars'Juniper
Trachelospermum asiaticum Star Jasmine
Low Accent Plants in Formal Placement - 1 gal. @ 24"-36" O.C.
Aloe saponaria Soap Aloe
Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot Fig
Senecio mandraliscae Senecio
Large Screening Shrubs - 15 gal., 5 gal. @ 5' O.C.
Cuppressus sempervirens 'Tiny Towers' Dwarf Italian Cypress
Podocarpus macrophyllos maki Long-Leaf Yellow-wood
Prunus caroliniana 'Bright 'N Tight' Carolina Laurel Cherry
Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald' American Arborvitae
Evergreen vine on Greenscreen or wire fence - 6' tall
Background Shrub - 5 gal. @ 6'-7' O.C.
Arctostaphyllos densiflora 'Howard McMinn'Manzanita
Echium fastousum Pride of Madiera
Leucophyllum frutescens 'Texas Ranger'Leucophyllum
Rosmarius officinalis 'Majorca Pink' Rosemary
Formal Hedge - 5 gal. @ ±3'-4' O.C.
Chondropetalum elephantinum Cape Rush
Myrtus communis 'Compacta'Myrtle
Olea europea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Olive
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor'Yeddo Hawthorne
Rosmarius officinalis 'Miss Jessups Upright'Rosemary
Accent Shrubs and Grass-like Plants - 5 gal. @ 3'-4' O.C.
Agave 'Blue Glow'Century Plant
Aloe saponaria Soap Aloe
Anigozanthos hybridus Kangaroo Paw
Callistemon viminalis 'Little John'Bottlebrush
Dianelle tasmanica Flax Lily
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Salvia species Sage
Zauschneria californica California Fuchsia
The Preliminary Plant Palette represents a sampling of the types of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines that
we anticipate to be appropriate for the location as well as the design style and overall theme. This is the
list from which plant selection will be drawn from. Not all plants listed within this plant palette will be used
in the final design and some plants not listed may be introduced. However, the planting design intent will
remain consistent with this plan and plant palette.
Parking Lot Planting of Shrubs and Grass-like Plants - 1 gal. and 5 gal. @ 3' O.C.
Astelia cathamica 'Silver Shadow'Compact Astelia
Bouteloua gracilis Blue Gamma Grass
Calamagrostic acutifolia 'Karl Forester'Dwarf Feather Reed Grass
Muhlenbergia capilaris Pink Muhly
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass
Nassella tennuissima Dwarf Mexican Feather Grass
Pennisetum orientale Dwarf Fountain Grass
N.
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
.
PO
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
.
The landscape design concept for the new office building is to provide an enjoyable and
aesthetic space for the employees and guests that fits within the landscape framework of the
surrounding area. Plant material has been selected that performs well in the special conditions of
the South Bay (Sunset Zone #15).
No new turf areas are being added. Low and medium water-use hardy trees, shrubs, grasses,
and groundcover are proposed for the landscape around building. The landscape (and
associated irrigation) has been designed to be compliant with City of Cupertino Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance.
Special considerations have been provided in selection of plant material that respects the needs
of the office users as well as the guests. Clear and secure view corridors have been provided to
ensure safety of people entering the building as well as moving around the site.
Landscape Concept
Alternating Rows of Low Accent Plants - 1 gal. @ 24"-36" O.C.
Astelia cathamica 'Silver Shadow'Compact Astelia
Bouteloua gracilis Blue Gamma Grass
Festuca ovina glauca Common Blue Fescue
Festuca mairei Marie's Fescue
Hemerocallis species Day Lily
Nassella tennuissima Dwarf Mexican Feather Grass
Teucrium chamaedrys Germander
Low Flowering Accent Plantings - 1 gal. @ 12"-24" O.C.
Armeria maritima Sea Thrift
Delosperma cooperi Ice Plant
Trachelospermum asiaticum Star Jasmine
Spreading Shrubs Under Existing Pines - 1 gal. and 5 gal. @ 48" O.C.
Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Coyote Bush
Ceanothus gresius horizontalis Carmel Creeper
Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast'Cotoneaster
Juniperus sabina 'Cultivars'Juniper
Existing trees to remain - greater than 6" DBH
Existing trees to be removed - greater than 6" DBH
Existing trees less than 6" DBH - all to be removed
Groundcovers
Preliminary Plant Palette
Existing wood fence to remain
Existing wall/fence to remain
Street Trees - 24"-Box @ ±40' O.C.
Acer rubrum 'October Glory'October Glory Maple
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Chanticleer Pear
Parking Lot Trees - 24"-Box
Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey'Chinese Pistache
Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak
Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm
Upright Perimeter Trees - 15-gal / 24"-Box
Laurus noblis 'Saratoga'Saratoga Laurel
Melaleuca quinquenervia Pepperbark Tree
Quercus Ilex Holly Oak
Rhus lancea African Sumac
Tristania laurina Water Gum
Narrow Upright Accent Trees- 15-Gal / 24"-Box
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree
Carpinus betulus 'Fastigata'Hornbeam
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Small Flowering Accent Trees - 24"-Box
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Narrow Accent Trees - 15-gal / 24"-Box
Acacia stenophylla Shoestring Acacia
Geijera parvifolia Australian Willow
Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem'Southern Magnolia
Spreading Focal Point Tree - 36"-Box
Schinus molle California Pepper Tree
Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm
Stormwater management
system per Civil Engineer
25
11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
231
11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
232
11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
233
11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL
234
235
236
237
238
239
M EMORANDUM
To: Gian Martire, City of Cupertino
From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Subject: Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General
Plan Amendment Application; EPS #161195
Date: February 10, 2017
The City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
to prepare this impact analysis of an application for a General Plan
Amendment (GPA). The site currently is occupied by a 26,000-square
foot furniture store. The applicant is requesting an increase of 16,000
square feet of office allocation to be added to the Heart of the City
Specific Plan area to allow a change of use from retail to office. With the
existing allocation available in the Heart of the City Specific Plan and the
additional allocation requested, the applicant could bring either a
business start-up incubator or a medical office tenant to the site.
In addition to the use change to office, the proposal calls for increasing
the square footage of the existing building from 26,000 to 28,125 by
enclosing and finishing an existing arcade.
This EPS analysis assesses both proposed tenant alternatives:
Start-up Business Incubator and
Medical Office.
The Summary of Findings below presents the estimated economic
impact of each alternative. The detailed calculations that follow
document the Start-up Business Incubator alternative, which is
identified as marginally more fiscally burdensome than the medical office
alternative.
Consistent with previous EPS fiscal analyses of GPA applications, this
study focuses on the effect of the proposed development on the City of
Cupertino’s General Fund. The objective of the analysis is to quantify
whether the proposed GPA will generate adequate revenues to cover the
costs of providing ongoing services to the project. The analysis does not
consider the impact of the proposal on potential capital facilities cost
requirements or other one-time costs. The analysis compares the impact
240
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 2
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
of the proposed GPA alternatives at buildout to the baseline impact of the existing use in the
project area.
Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty,
including the market performance of the project, future changes in City or State budgeting
practices, and the efficiency of various City departments in providing services. Key analytical
inputs and assumptions used in this analysis are from the development application, City
documents, information from City staff, and EPS industry knowledge.
Summary of Findings
1. The proposed project is likely to result in a modest annual net fiscal burden on the
City of Cupertino’s General Fund.
This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s
General Fund is approximately negative $33,000 to negative $36,000. The incubator is likely
to generate more tax revenue and more cost to the City, as compared to the medical office
alternative. This finding is largely attributable to the anticipated employment density that
would be achieved with an incubator tenant.
Table 1 Fiscal Impact Comparison
2. An incubator office project likely would generate more tax revenue than the
existing furniture store, but also would create more service cost for the City.
This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of a business incubator on the
General Fund is approximately negative $36,000, as shown in Table 2. The net increase in
General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $3,000 more
annually than existing uses. However, the net increase in General Fund expenditures is
estimated at approximately $39,000 more per year than the current use. If the assessed
value of the project is higher than anticipated by this analysis, consistent with the applicant’s
estimates, the net fiscal impact of the GPA would be negative $30,000.
Sensitiivty Scenario Fiscal Impact at
Project Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline1
Net Fiscal
Impact1
Start-up Incubator $0$36,000-$36,000
Medical Office $3,000$36,000-$33,000
(1) This is an estimate of the fiscal impact of the existing furniture store, calculations are
detailed in Table 13
241
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 3
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Table 2 Fiscal Impact Summary – Start-Up Incubator
3. The estimated fiscal burden to the City would be marginally less if the tenant of the
proposed office space is a medical office user.
If the applicant is successful in its negotiations with a medical office end user, the net fiscal
burden to Cupertino’s General Fund could be slightly reduced from the results shown in
Table 2 above. This alternative likely has a lower revenue generation and lower cost
implications for the General Fund, as compared with the incubator alternative. A medical
office use is anticipated to operate at a notably lower density of employment. The net fiscal
impact of the medical office tenant scenario would be negative $33,000 per year, as shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 Fiscal Impact Summary - Medical Office
Fiscal Impact on the General Fund
This section describes the methodology and key assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impacts
of the proposed GPA. The analysis is based on information from three key sources:
(1) the GPA application material submitted
(2) interviews with City planning and finance staff
(3) EPS research and industry knowledge
EPS has developed a fiscal impact framework based on its in-house methodology and Cupertino-
specific factors. EPS has not conducted an independent audit of the City’s budget, performed in-
Revenue /
Expense Category
Fiscal Impact at
Project Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
Net Fiscal
Impact
General Fund Revenues$40,000$37,000$3,000
General Fund Expenditures$40,000 $1,000 $39,000
Net Impact on
General Fund $0$36,000-$36,000
Revenue /
Expense Category
Fiscal Impact at
Project Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
Net Fiscal
Impact
General Fund Revenues$27,000$37,000-$10,000
General Fund Expenditures$24,000 $1,000 $23,000
Net Impact on
General Fund $3,000$36,000-$33,000
242
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 4
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
depth interviews with service-providing City departments, or conducted detailed market analysis.
EPS fiscal estimates differ from those provided by the applicant due to the differences in
methodology. There are two notable differences between the studies. First, the applicant’s
projection does not include an estimate of fiscal costs associated with the project and therefore
is not a complete fiscal impact estimate. The second main difference in methodologies is that the
EPS analysis is only considers fiscal revenues that accrue to the City of Cupertino’s General Fund
(i.e., only a portion of total sales tax and property tax revenue), while the applicant’s analysis
includes all property tax and sales tax revenue. In reality, much of the revenue generated
through property taxes and sales taxes will be distributed to public entities other than the City.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing a use change and slight intensification of a 26,000-square foot retail
space on a 1.92-acre property located at 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposal
envisions increasing the square footage of the existing commercial space to 28,125 square feet
and changing the use from retail to office. According to the GPA application, the applicant has
been in negotiations with two potential end users, a business start-up incubator and a medical
office operation. The supporting table set below presents the analysis of the business start-up
incubator. Analysis of the medical office and existing use rely on the same basic methodology.
Table 4 presents the proposed GPA program identified by the applicant. The table also presents
EPS assumptions concerning the population and employment that would be supported by the
project at buildout. A variety of revenues and costs included in this fiscal analysis are based on
the anticipated “service population” which weights a local employee’s service burden at 50
percent of a resident’s burden.
Table 4 Development Program and Service Population
General Fund Revenues
General Fund tax proceeds attributable to the proposed GPA will include sales tax, property tax,
property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), property transfer tax, utility user tax, franchise
fees, and business licenses. Table 5 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2015-16 Adopted
General Fund revenue budget and a description of the forecasting method relied upon for each
relevant revenue source.
Item Forumula Assumption / Units
Start-Up Incubator Space a 28,125 SF
Worker Density b 150 SF / Employee
Employment Estimate c = a / b 188
Service Population (1)d = c * .50 94
(1) Per-person employee burden on City services is weighted at 50 percent
of residential burden.
243
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 5
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Table 5 FY2015 - 16 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors
FY2015-16
Total
Sales Tax
Business to Business Sales Tax (1)$13,905,880$0.20per square foot of office
Other Sales Tax$6,454,1201.0%of estimated taxable sales
Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2)$5,782,5412.1%of Citywide Assessed Value
Other Property Tax$10,272,4595.8%of base property tax rate (1%)
Transient Occupancy Tax$5,072,00012%of total TOT revenue
Utility Tax$3,100,0003.4%of utility bills
Franchise Fees $2,800,000$37.98per service population
Other Taxes (3)
Construction Tax$2,147 - not estimated
Business License$512,649$18.34per employee
Property Transfer Tax$553,860$0.55per $1,000 in value
Other Taxes$331,344 - not estimated
Licenses & Permits $6,171,000 - not estimated
Fines & Forfeitures$550,000 - not estimated
Use of Money & Property $742,530 - not estimated
Intergovernmental$600,000 - not estimated
Charges for Services$10,590,878 - not estimated
Miscellaneous$720,895 - not estimated
Total Revenues$68,162,303
(2) FY2015-16 total reflects 36% allocation of the property tax total. Budget detail provided by the City.
(3) FY2015-16 total reflects allocation of other taxes based on detail provided by the City.
Estimating FactorsItem
(1) FY2015-16 total reflects 68% allocation of the sales tax total. Budget detail provided by the City.
Estimating factor reflects typical business-to-business sales tax generation in Silicon Valley offices.
244
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 6
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Retail Sales Tax Revenue
The proposed GPA is expected to generate retail sales tax revenue accruing to the City of
Cupertino through the daily project employee spending on retail goods and services in the City of
Cupertino.1 This analysis estimates worker spending based on spending patterns reported in the
Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age, a research publication from the International
Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).2 These survey data were reviewed to identify taxable
spending. The analysis estimates that each office worker spends about $6,000 annually on
taxable sales in the vicinity of their workplace.3 Because this spending is known to be near work,
this analysis assumes that 50 percent of the taxable spending by project workers occurs within
the city boundary. The taxable spending captured in Cupertino is multiplied by the number of
workers supported by the proposed project. Taxable sales in Cupertino are subject to a sales tax
rate of 8.75 percent. However, only 1 percentage point of the sales tax accrues to the City’s
General Fund, while the rest goes to the State and other public entities.
Table 6 Retail Sales Tax Revenue
1 Business-to-business (B2B) sales tax revenue is estimated in Table 10.
2 Michael P. Niemira and John Connolly, International Council of Shopping Centers. “Office-Worker
Retail Spending in a Digital Age,” 2012. Accessed online at:
https://www.downtowndevelopment.com/pdf/icsc-report_office-worker-spending.pdf
3 The analysis assumes that retail workers spend less, a factor that applies to the estimated fiscal
impact of the existing retail store (i.e., baseline estimate).
Item
Annual Total
at Buildout
Project Employee Retail Purchases in Cupertino
Daily Office Worker Taxable Spending (1)$25.00per work day
Annual Office Worker Taxable Spending240 workdays / year$6,000
Cupertino Spending Capture50%$3,000
Office Workers 188
Daily Retail Worker Taxable Spending $16.67per work day
Annual Retail Worker Taxable Spending 240 workdays / year$4,000
Cupertino Spending Capture50%$2,000
Retail Workers 0
Worker Taxable Spending in Cupertino$562,500
Total Retail Sales Tax Revenue 1.0%of taxable sales $5,625
(1) ICSC Research in 2012; inflated to current dollars.
Assumptions
245
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 7
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Property Tax Revenue
Property tax revenue is based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. Relying
on the applicant’s proposed development program, EPS estimates the project’s assessed value at
$14.17 million at buildout, as shown in Table 7. Since there is no indication that the property
will turn over, a complete reassessment of the land and improvements will not be triggered by
the Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor. Rather, the value of the interior improvements to
accommodate the use modification and the value of the additional construction will be estimated
by the County Assessor’s Office and added to the existing value of the property.4 The City’s
General Fund captures 5.8 percent of the base 1.0 percent property tax rate. This tax rate factor
is specific to the tax rate area that covers the project location.
Table 7 Property Tax Revenue
4 Note that the applicant’s proposal indicates roughly $7.7 million in improvement cost while our
analysis relies on typical office fit out and construction cost estimates which total $1.1 million.
Item Total
Assessed Value Estimate
Existing Land and Improvement Value $12,100,000
Interior Improvements for Use Change (1)$60Square Foot$1,560,000
Value of Addition (2)$240Square Foot$510,000
Total Assessed Value $14,170,000
Property Tax1.0%Base Property Tax Rate$141,700
Cupertino General Fund Revenue (3)5.8%Allocation to Cupertino
General Fund $8,199
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $5,782,541
Citywide Assessed Value (4)$19,200,000,000
Project Net Assessed Value Increase (5)0.07%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (6)$4,268
(1) EPS review of cost estimates for office fit-out.
(2) RS Means, construction cost estimate
(3) Per Santa Clara County Tax Collector AB8 factor (post ERAF).
(4) FY2014-2015 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report.
(6) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase.
Assumption / Factor
(5) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value.
246
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 8
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions.
Recent State budget changes replaced the VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately
with increases in assessed value of the City. The proposed project will add about 0.07 percent to
the current assessed value in Cupertino (assuming no other assessed value growth for
simplification purposes) and will generate the same increased percentage in in-lieu VLF revenues
(see Table 7).
Property Transfer Tax
The project will generate real estate transfer tax revenue associated with future turnover in
ownership. This analysis assumes that ownership of all land use types will turnover every 25
years, an annual turnover rate of 4.0 percent.5 Unlike existing property tax for this project, the
transfer tax will be based on market value of the property achieved in a transaction. The
property transfer tax rate accruing to the City General Fund is $0.55 per $1,000 of the property
value, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Property Transfer Tax Revenue
5 For institutional investors of commercial real estate a typical holding period is five to seven years
(Ciochetti and Fisher, 2002). This analysis assumes a significantly longer holding period due to the
property tax benefits of long-term ownership in California.
Item
Annual
Total
at Buildout
Property Value1
Office $600Per Square Foot$16,875,000
Retail $600Per Square Foot $0
Total $16,875,000
Average Annual Turnover
General Office 4.0%$675,000
Retail 4.0%$0
Subtotal $675,000
Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55per $1,000 in value $370
Assumption / Factor
[1] This table is reporting estimated market value rather than the project's assessed value
which is shown on Table 7.
247
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 9
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Utility Tax
The City of Cupertino collects tax revenue on utility charges for services provided in the City.
New residents and employees will expand the use of utilities in the City. This analysis estimates
an average monthly utility expense of $120 per employee. The City of Cupertino collects 3.4
percent of utility charges. Table 9 presents utility user tax revenue attributable to the proposed
project at buildout.
Table 9 Utility User Tax Revenue
Revenues from Other Taxes and Fees
In addition to the key revenues described above, other taxes and fees are estimated to be
generated by the project. Specifically, EPS forecasts additional business-to-business sales for
office uses, new franchise fees, and new business license revenues generated by commercial
activity associated with the project. This analysis assumes that office uses generate an average
of roughly $20 per square foot in business-to-business sales, which translates to $0.20 per
square foot in sales tax revenue.6 This assumption is reflective of a typical office tenant in the
Silicon Valley and is believed to hold true for business start-up incubators. Franchise fee revenue
and business license revenue reflect averages derived from City budget documents (see Table
5). Table 10 presents forecasting assumptions and revenue estimates.
6 Business-to-business sales and tax revenue estimates reflect the findings of prior EPS analyses
conducted in Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
Annual Total
at Buildout
Commercial
Total Employees188 employees
Monthly Utility Cost $120per employee per month
Annual Total $270,000
Total Annual Utility Expenses $270,000
Utility User Tax Revenue 3.4%of utility bill $9,180
Assumption
248
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 10
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Table 10 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees
General Fund Expenditures
This fiscal analysis estimates the costs attributable to employment growth by characterizing how
expenses will change for each City department. For some departments, employment growth in
the City will not dramatically alter operations. For example, administrative functions in the City
are not likely to scale up significantly to accommodate new projects. Alternatively, departments
that provide services directly to businesses likely will increase their operations and costs to
accommodate new employment.
It is important to note that a range of external factors may influence responses to growth and
cost effects in the future. Examples of factors that are beyond the control of the City and its
departments that may act to magnify or reduce department costs over time include the
following:
regional growth
technology
state and federal policies
environmental factors
This study does not speculate regarding the potential effects of such exogenous influences on the
general fund expense budget. It focuses only on those factors attributable directly to the
employment growth and land use changes generated by the proposed GPA.
The fiscal analysis model relies on categorization of the likely budgetary response to employment
growth for each department. The anticipated response to growth is expressed for fiscal modeling
purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget.
The fixed expenses are the portion of a City department’s budget which is not affected by
population and employment growth. Even a department which is anticipated to grow largely in
step with the City’s service population likely would have some fixed cost. For example, in most
Item
Annual Total
at Buildout
Business-to-Business
Sales Tax $0.20per square foot of office28,125square feet$5,625
Franchise
Fees (1)$37.98per service population93.8service pop.$3,560
Business
License (1)$18.34per employee188employees$3,439
Subtotal $12,624
Allocation Factor Project Characteristic
(1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per
capita.
249
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 11
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
cases each department has only one director position, which is a fixed expense for the
department. While the department may increase staffing to accommodate growth, the
department will not add another director.
The variable expenses of a department are those that do increase with growth. As the City
grows, increased demand for services requires some departments to scale up operations to meet
new demand. The portion of a department’s budget that scales up is identified as the variable
share of the budget.
EPS uses a per-capita average cost approach to estimate department costs attributable to new
residents and workers. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the
per-capita cost, as shown in Table 11. Then, to determine the new General Fund expenditures
generated by the proposed project, the per-capita factors are multiplied by the projected
increase in service population. Public Affairs and Non-Departmental expenditures are not
estimated because the project is not expected to generate new ongoing costs to these service
providers.
250
Me
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
February 10, 2017
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
G
P
A
F
i
s
c
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Page 12
P:
\
1
6
1
0
0
0
s
\
1
6
1
1
9
5
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
G
P
A
\
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
a
b
l
e
\
1
6
1
1
9
5
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
G
P
A
M
e
m
o
_
0
2
.
1
0
.
1
7
.
d
o
c
x
Ta
b
l
e
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
B
u
d
g
e
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
a
n
d
F
i
s
c
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
It
e
m
Ci
t
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
(F
Y
2
0
1
5
-
1
6
)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Va
r
i
a
b
l
e
(
1
)
Ann
u
a
l
Var
i
a
b
l
e
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Pe
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
/
Se
r
v
i
c
e
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Annual Total at Buildout
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
(
2
)
$8
,
5
5
1
,
3
4
9
1
0
%
$
8
5
5
,
1
3
5
7
3
,
7
3
1
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
o
p
.
$
1
1
.
6
0
9
3
.
8
$
1
,
0
8
7
Po
l
i
c
e
(
3
)
$
1
0
,
9
9
4
,
6
8
4
9
0
%
$
9
,
8
9
5
,
2
1
6
7
3
,
7
3
1
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
o
p
.
$
1
3
4
.
2
1
9
3
.
8
$
1
2
,
5
8
2
Pu
b
l
i
c
Af
f
a
i
r
s
(
4
)
$4
6
2
,
2
9
8
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
&
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
$6
,
1
5
7
,
1
0
7
7
5
%
$
4
,
6
1
7
,
8
3
0
5
9
,
7
5
6
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
$
7
7
.
2
8
0
.
0
$
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
$7
,
2
3
5
,
3
8
3
5
0
%
$
3
,
6
1
7
,
6
9
1
.
5
0
7
3
,
7
3
1
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
o
p
.
$
4
9
.
0
7
9
3
.
8
$
4
,
6
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
(
5
)
$2
2
,
5
6
3
,
2
4
7
75
%
$
1
6
,
9
2
2
,
4
3
5
7
3
,
7
3
1
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
P
o
p
.
$
2
2
9
.
5
2
9
3
.
8
$
2
1
,
5
1
7
No
n
-
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
$
1
1
,
6
1
0
,
9
8
5
N/
A
N/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
6
7
,
5
7
5
,
0
5
3
$39,786
(1
)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
c
o
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
,
a
s
o
p
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
f
i
x
e
d
c
o
s
t
s
o
r
c
o
s
t
s
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
f
e
e
s
o
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
.
(2
)
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
ra
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
(4
)
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
f
f
a
i
r
s
,
I
T
,
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
,
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
(3
)
R
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
'
s
b
u
d
g
e
t.
T
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
h
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
n
e
w
g
r
o
w
t
h
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
t
e
r
m
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
ca
p
a
g
r
e
e
d
u
p
o
n
i
n
2
0
1
4
,
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
a
t
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
c
o
s
t
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
(5
)
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
,
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
wa
y
,
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
f
l
e
e
t
,
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
25
1
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 13
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project
Table 12 summarizes the fiscal impact of business start-up incubator alternative on the City of
Cupertino’s General Fund, with forecasted revenues and expenditure estimates based on the
methodology described above. EPS estimates that General Fund revenues resulting from the
proposed business start-up incubator will match the General Fund costs associated with
providing ongoing services to the project.
Table 12 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Business Start-Up Incubator
Item Annual Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$6,000
Business to Business Sales $6,000
Property Tax $8,000
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $4,000
Property Transfer Tax $0
Transient Occupancy Tax $0
Utility Tax $9,000
Franchise Fees $4,000
Business Licenses $3,000
Total Revenues $40,000
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $1,100
Police $12,600
Recreation & Community Services $0
Planning & Community Development $4,600
Public Works $21,500
Total Expenditures $40,000
Net Impact on General Fund $0
252
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 14
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Fiscal Impact of Existing Uses
In order to quantify the fiscal impact of the existing retail use located at 19900 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, the same fiscal methodology is applied to existing land use program as the proposed
GPA. The site currently is occupied by a 26,000 square foot Scandinavian Designs furniture
store. The site’s existing conditions provide a positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of
about $36,000 a year, as shown in Table 13.7
Table 13 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Existing Conditions
7 This analysis relies on the applicant’s reported $2.56 million in retail sales at the existing store. City
review of taxable sales data indicates actual retail sales likely are higher, and thus the actual fiscal
benefit of the existing use is higher than reported here.
Item Annual Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$26,000
Business to Business Sales $0
Property Tax $7,000
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $4,000
Property Transfer Tax $0
Transient Occupancy Tax $0
Utility Tax $0
Franchise Fees $0
Business Licenses $0
Total Revenues $37,000
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $0
Police $300
Recreation & Community Services $0
Planning & Community Development $100
Public Works $600
Total Expenditures $1,000
Net Impact on General Fund $36,000
253
Memorandum February 10, 2017
Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 15
P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx
Net Fiscal Impact
The proposed land use modification from retail to office, specifically a business start-up
incubator, will result in an annual net fiscal burden to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This
analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General
Fund is approximately -$36,000, as shown in Table 14. The net increase in General Fund
revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $3,000 more annually than the
existing use. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is
estimated at approximately $39,000 per year more than the existing use.
Table 14 Net Fiscal Impact Summary
Revenue /
Expense Category
Fiscal Impact at
Project Buildout
Fiscal Impact
Baseline
Net Fiscal
Impact
General Fund Revenues$40,000$37,000$3,000
General Fund Expenditures$40,000 $1,000 $39,000
Net Impact on
General Fund $0$36,000-$36,000
254
Relevant policies from the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
4.1 Allow for the conversion of underutilized ground floor retail space to incubator or co-
working uses.
There are a number of underutilized retail sites (such as second-floor retail space and spaces
located to the side or rear of a property) that could be converted to smaller co-working spaces or
incubators. Note that the conversion of some existing retail buildings may require property
owners to make investments in infrastructure or building improvements to serve such businesses.
255
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-1952 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/21/2017
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/21/20171
Subject:Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/15/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™256