CC 04-01-02 AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR ME, ETING
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber
Monday April 1, 2002
4:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION - 4:30 p.m. - Counc'd Chambers
1. Discussion of thc Sports Center project.
RECESS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 p.m. - Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
2. Proclamation for Ann Woo in reco.~,nition of her selection as a 2002 Santa Clara County
Woman of Achievement in the category of the arts.
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers arc limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of
the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
3. Accounts Payable: Mamh 15 and Mamh 22, Resolution Nos. 02-051 and 02-052.
4. Payroll: March 29, Resolution No. 02-053. ,
5. Approve the destruction of records from the Code Enforcement and Community
Development files, which are in excess of two years old, Resolution No.02-054.
April 1, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 2
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
6. Approve a fee waiver request of $20.00 from The League of Women Voters Copertino-
Sunnyvale for the use of the Creekside Park building on Saturday, June 8, 2002 for their
annual meeting.
7. Authorize trans~rring $42,000 fxom the skate park operations account to the Public
Works fixed asset account to purchs.m two standard, ~A ton pickup trucks with trailer-
towing capabilities for the skate mobile.
8. Acceptancc of improvements: (driveway, street tree, water meter, retaining wall) Oak
Valley, Tract 9076, Unit 3, Neighborhood 4 and Tract 9075, Unit 2, Neighborhood 3;
(on-site & off-site improvements) Julie Heilin Weng and Jen-Ho Wong, 19075 Tilson
Avenue, APN 375-08-055. (No documentation).
9. Appwve recommendation from the Telecommunications Commission for awarding a
public access grant.
10. Comments on the Juniper Networks Corporate Campus Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR). The City of Sunnyvale is considering a proposed project by Juniper
Networks located on Lockheed Martin Way, adjacent to the Moffet Field Naval Air
Station. The project proposes to replace industrial and office buildings totaling 985,000
sq~_~re feet with a phased corporate campus including 2,345,000 square feet of R~D
office, 135,000 sq-~_re feet of employee-serving retail, a 60,000 square foot "Special Use"
building and a 200-350 room hotel.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Public hearing to review and approve use of the Twenty-Eighth program year (2002-
2003) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds:
(a) Authorize submittal of funding proposal, Resolution No. 02-055
12. Public hearing to adopt the 2002/03 Fee Schedule, Resolution No. 02-056. Adjustments
are proposed for various fees that reflect cost of processing and/or market rotes.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
13. Application(s) U-2002-01, EA-2002-02; Chicago Pi-s & Brewery, Inc. located at 10690
N. De Anza Boulevard. Use permit application to demolish an existing 9,079 square foot
restaurant and conslruet an approximately 8,350 sqv_a_re foot restaurant and bar with 406
indoor and outdoor seats. A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is
recommended for approval.
Al~il 1, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 3
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Actions to b~ taken:
a. Approve, modify, or deny application
b. Grant Negative Declaration
UNFINISI~ED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
14. Teen Commission selection process, Resolution No. 02-057.
15. Review of California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) High Technology
Grant Allocation, Resolution No. 02-058.
16. Review of Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funding Allocation, Resolution
No. 02-059.
17. Hearing to approve the recovery of costs of abatement of public nuisance at 10200 Stem
Avenue (APN 375 12 002, Patrick W. McG-mth pwperty owner), Resolution No. 02-060.
18. Proposed Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission.
19. Select study session date for Villa Sena pwject.
ORDINANCES
20. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1893: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino amending Chapter 3.25, Sale of Surplus Supplies and Equipment."
STAFF REPORTS
21. Revenue and expenditure status report.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Richard Lowenthal:
Animal Control Joint Powers Authority (until rotated to Los Gatos)
Economic Development Committee
North Central Flood Alternate
Northwest Flood Alternate
Public Dialog Consortium
Santa Clam County Cities Association
Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Alternate
Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority
Toyokawa Sister City Alternate
Valley Transportation Authority Political Action Committee Alternate
West Valley Mayors and Managers
April 1, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 4
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Vice-Mayor Michael Chang:
Audit Committee
Leadership Cupertino
Legislative Review Committee
Library Steering Committee
Public Dialog Liaison
Santa Clara County Housing and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBO) Alternate
Santa Clara County Library JPA Alternate
West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate
Coun¢ilmember Sandra James:
Association of Bay Area Governments
Economic Development Committee
Environmental Review Committee Alternate
Library Steering Committee
Skate Park Committee
Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness
Santa Clara Valley Water Alternate
Councilmember Patrick Kwok:
Leadership Cupertino
Library Steering Committee Alternate
North Central Flood Zone
Northwest Flood Zone
Santa Clara Valley Water
Santa Clara County Cities Alternate
Skate Park Alternate
Toyokawa Sister City
Councflmember Dolly Sandoval:
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA) Alt~,~mte
Audit Committee
Environmental Review Committee
Legislative Review Committee
Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Review
Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Alternate
Santa Clara County Hous'mg and
Community Development Block C-rant (CDBG)
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee
CLOSED SESSION
April 1, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Pege 5
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a study session regarding the City's Housing Program, Monday April 15 at 5:30 in
Conference Room A.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Canceled for lack of business.
CITY Of
C U P E ~IN 0 PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATI ON
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number ~ Agenda Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJ][CT
Sports Center project
BACKGROUND
On Friday, January 25, 2002, the City Council held a four-hour study session on the Sports Center
project. Attached is a transcript of the Council's clarifTing comments at the end of the workshop. Staff's
to do list from the Council included (paraphrased):
Looking into other opportunities to offer service:
· Investigate partnerships, particularly with the Fremont Union High School District
Building remodel/replacement:
· ADA compliance is required
· Serve more people
· Serve youth
· Spend less money
· De-emphasize the business aspect of the Sports Center operation
With regard to this site:
· Look at mixed use of the site
· See if the skate park can work at this location
Partnerships:
This work is ongoing. Staff brought the Cupertino High School pool partnership to the Council on March
11. The Cupertino High School field house option is being explored as this provides an opportunity to
offer table tennis, badminton, and other activities. Fremont Union High School District staff is bidding
the additional storage bay on the field house for the city; we will return to Council with a request for an
appropriation when the exact cost of the alternate bid item for storage is known.
Staff has also been working to see what activities can be offered within existing gym availability; please
see the attached memo from Don McCarthy.
Building remodel/replacement:
Staff has been working with the architect to develop options that make use of the existing building and
result in less project cost, given the direction that more people should be served (particularly youth) and
that we should spend less money overall on the project. Sketches of the options the architect is
City Council Staff Report
April 1, 2002
Page 2 of 2
analyzing, and cost estimates will be delivered to the Councilmembers under separate cover. In every
instance, the project must be made ADA compliant.
The options that the architect is evaluating include:
· Renovation of the existing building to include a teen center and climbing wall on the lower level,
with storage for table tennis tables carved out of the large locker rooms. This scheme includes site
work using two tennis courts on the Stevens Creek Blvd. side of the property for a skateboard park
and replacing the single tournament court with two lit tennis courts to expand tennis=playing
opportunity.
· The second scheme involves demolishing the existing building and constructing a 5,000 square foot
clubhouse for the tennis program at the site of the existing building. The tennis instruction prol~m
would use the clubhouse; it would also include a 2,500 square foot multipurpose room that could be
used for a variety of activities including table tennis. This scheme includes site work for a skate park.
The architect is also looking at remodel plans with alternates including racquetball and other activities.
As soon as the cost data is available for these alternatives, it will be forwarded to Council. These options
are intended to address the Council's desire to offer different kinds of activities within the facility.
Sports Center Site:
There will be much debate regarding whether or not a skate park is an appropriate amenity here. The only
other issue more hotly debated than the skate park was the idea of including mixed use in order to
generate revenue. In April 2001, Tim Kelly, of Keyser Marston Associates, made the attached report to
the Parks and Recreation director. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this report in a
noticed public meeting and the opposition to the concept from both the Sports Center users and neighbors
was unanimous. Since this was not a Council goal, but rather an idea staff explored as a part of analyz'mg
options for the project, it was dropped given the intense opposition. It was not pursued past the Parks and
Recreation Commission level. To really make mixed use viable, the tennis courts need to be rebuilt
elsewhere; staff was looking at adding a commercial or residential component without reducing the
recreational offerings.
If Council reviews this information and determines that mixed use is a viable option, staffwill come back
with a schedule and cost for pursuing: a General Plan amendment, and engineering and development cost
associated with implementing one of these options.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
City Manager
~e~~se ~brosi Smith, Director David ~a~p,
Parks and Recreation
Page 1 of 20
TRANSCRIPT OF COUNCIL COMMENTS
JANUARY 25, 2002
SPORTS CENTER PROGRAMMING
Clarifvine comments following public input:
CHANG I was thinking about having a little bit more flesh, structure, some of the
operational programmatic pros and cons. I would like to eventually go back to the
money issue. I want to be more clear how the options are different. Ralph
descrfbed each option. Which is the one with the gym addition option? Which are
the alternatives that are possible with the second phase? Ralph stated that a
gym could be done with any of the alternatives.
KWOK: For clarification, on alternative #2, actually it is not $400,000 because you
still have to provide amenities for the tennis facilities right? Under this scope you
wouldn,t. Do this alternative is not viable for that reason.
SANDOVAL: In terms of revenue potential and current fee structure, Cupertino
residents and non-residents pay the same fees to utilize any of our facilities. I
would like to get your sense of non-residents paying different fees since
residents are also paying into the tax structure that supports the facility.
SMITH: Every other thing that we do is that way and the Sports Center has an
interesting history in that it was once a private club. When you go to a private
club, you have a fiat fcc schedule. When a two-tier fee schedule was tried, it was
a failure. It was a time they were trying to build up membership, and so that fee
schedule was established as a fiat fee and has remained that way. The pro forma
we are showing you is different; it would have a non-resident fee.
What is a guest pass card? What are the differences in at least the racquetball
membership types?
MCCARTHY: The way structure works right now is that you purchase a pass and
that entitles you to full access of the facility, so it is an all -inclusive pass. We
have a family pass, a couple's pass, and a single pass. If you are a member, you
are afforded the opportunity to purchase a guest pass card - a block of ten, a
block of 20 and you can bring in somebody with you and you have to participate
with that individual. You just can buy them and give them out to your buddies. It's
a way to try and generate some interest in the club, as well as capitalize off
somebody who likes the club and they might purchase a membership.
SANDOVAL: I am interested in the partnership with the high school district. Can
you give me a sense of what has been your activity in terms of the partnership
discussions going forward that we spoke about 3 weeks ago? Therese stated
-- she had met with distrfct/school. I think what we talked about last time when we
discussed the Sports Center was how can we really build that relationship to
Page 2 of 20
make this work so that we have another site where kids can go and hopefully
play ping pong/table tennis, badminton, etc. I think that is still a viable option that
we should be discussing with the high school district in earnest, particularly as
the timeline gets shorter for their timeline both in terms of building and the plans
sent to the state architect.
JAMES: We are very intense about this partnership and I know our staff is working
on that. We have some questions about time availability, time for mixed use,
partnership, and Iong-te,-~-~ implications of that, as well as space. Asked of Gene
Longinetti.
LOWENTHAL: Asked of Mr. Longinetti if we wanted to have a program there on
Sundays, would we be able to do that? And would be amendable to having some
agreement with us to make it open to the community on Sundays -
LONGINETTI: Sure, you would have to work it out with the new superintendent,
but I don't think, from my perspective, there would be a problem. My priority is to
the 1,451 students that are at Cupertino High and provide them with the very
best facilities we can afford them, so they are always going to have priority with
anybody we rent out to.
KWOK: Asked of Therese, I recall at the last meeting you mentioned something
about breakeven after the third year. Assuming that we take option #8, we put in
$4.4 M and you mentioned that the first 3 years we will have to subsidize by the
General Fund. It would take 3 years before we break even, is that correct?
SMITH: Yes, that was the December 17 option. The Sports Center currently has
one staff person. Lauren's pre forma has 4 staff added. It's similar to the Senior
Center - you bring a bigger facility on-line and you start to ramp up new
programs. In those early years, you are going to have higher overhead.
JAMES: Remind me, this particular option removed 2 tennis courts, is this correct.
Therese - no it did not.
CHANG: For $4.4M, what do we get: we get aerobics reom, we get fitness
enlarged, and we get childcare. The teen lounge is not a tccn center, right?
SMITH: What the Teen Commission said would be good for the facility - table
tennis area, pool table area, area to sit around on couches, and then if we could
afford it, a climbing wall. How different is that from a Teen Center? We wouldn't
have staff there, we wouldn't be puffing the teen staff there, and we wouldn't be
holding dances in it.
JAMES: It would also be available to everyone so it is to mingle with everyone else.
It's just appealing to them.
Page 3 of 20
-- CHANG: The teens may not see it as their own. If you don't have staff there, you
don't have pregrams there, you don't have trensportation, they may not even feel
like that is there space - in the .worse scenario.
CHANG: OK, it's more attrective; I just need to understand that. Then we will be
cuffing out recquetball in this scenario also?
SMITH: Yes, we went back through 12 months of reservation records. I realize that
there is a spike right now as Sherm reported, but the average use of the courts
was 1.75 reservations per court per day over a year. Given the current cost of
construction, we thought other spaces would serve better.
CHANG: How do you reconcile your figures with the ones that we got recently?
There must be a way to reconcile.
MCCARTHY:I have a report that the data is based on staff findings from December
2000 through November 2001. We went back and retrieved all the reservation
data. We understand that there is some drep-in play, there are a few tennis
players that use those courts when there is inclement weather to practice, and a
few tennis players use it to warm up prior to their matches on the outside courts.
When the comment was made that we have 15-25 active members, I went back
and I reseamhed some information off of Mr. Murphy's memo. He had 69 people
.- listed. We have 18 annual pass holders off of his list that are there for
racquetball.
SANDOVAL: The 18 pass holders - as opposed to talking about numbers of
reservations etc., tell me what that means in revenue.
MCCARTHY: When I say 18 pass holders, they ara annual pass holders. Seniors
are charged $315/year; the highest pass rate is $350/year. Using $350 as an
average, it is close to .$6,000 annually.
LOWENTHAL: What is the estimate of the total users of the Sports Center, the
percentage of users that are Cupertino residents. Therese - 45% resident, 55%
non-resident.
With that, I want to give a goal of this meeting. The goal of this meeting as I
understand it is for the council to have this discussion, get informed, and give
staff some direction to prepare us to make a decision in a later council hearing.
We are not going to make a decision tonight, we are trying to share views, come
as close as we can to consensus, and gather more facts. We are not trying to
reach a decision today.
END OF QUESTIONS TO STAFF - START OF CC OPEN DISCUSSION
Page 4 of 20
JAMES: Was glad for the historical information. If we take the decision here piece-
meal-like, should we have more tennis courts, less tennis courts, lighted tennis
courts, racquet ball courts or not, skatepark or not, should we have a special
place for teens or not - wants to ask ourselves - the sign outside the Sports
Center does not say City of Cupertino Sports Center, it says Cupertino Sports
Center. That's a simple thing, but it is a really important thing. I believe a lot of
people do not understand that that is our facility, that their taxes pay for it, and
that it is to serve the citizens of Cupertino. I use that as an example because my
point is this: I think we need to decide, and Patrick you've asked a lot of
questions about this as we've discussed it in previous sessions, do we want this
to be a tennis center (nothing wrong with that, but is basically what it is with a
little f'~ness equipment, let's be honest), do we want it to be the City of Cupertino
Sports Center. Whatever that is, but a center that provides different or more or
unique or the same sports facility that addresses the needs of various aspects of
the community, not just the racquet and tennis players. I believe that if we
answer that philosophical question, the others will fall into place. I believe we can
just play games and everybody's argument is meaningful and compassionate
and passionate. I'm an exerciser myself and I believe in fitness and I believe you
get it in a lot of different ways, so I would like to provide as many opportunities as
we can for our community to stay fit and healthy. We have to sit up here and try
and decide what is the role of the city of whatever that facility is. I think it would
help us if we first try to come to grips if this should be a racquet/sports facility
solely with maybe some childcare and maybe/or not fitness. Or do we want to
enlarge it and make it the City of Cupertino Sports Facility, which could be a
skate park, tennis, racquetball, table tennis, and badminton (she agrees with
Michael that table tennis and badminton are needed because there is a whole
huge aspect of the community who wants so sports) I believe we have a really
good location at the gymnasium that is perhaps better for the competitive nature
on a regular basis, but do we want some space at this building too to
accommodate drop-in for tha~ I think that is a philosophical policy decision that
maybe we should grope with first.
Having have said that, I think we might want to revisit the townhouse issue also
because that does generate revenue, it does address our housing needs, which
we talk about doing all the time, and it sort of got put to the side because of some
of the resident's responses, and the staff backed off. But it never goes this far for
us to discuss it.
KWOK: I was alarmed to see that the usage was 45% residents and 55% non-
residents. That bothered me because Cupertino residents are paying taxes to
fund all those projects and non-residents are not. We need to ask do we run the
sports center as a business and spend $4.5 or 3.5 M, what is the investment in
return, what are we getting out of this, how can we benef'~ the citizens in our
community? This is our number one priority. I am still not clear how you would
define the Sports Center. A sports center would be racquetball, tennis, · ·
basketball, table tennis, and badminton. Is that the right place to put a teen
Page 5 of 20
-. center where it is just a social gathering for the people so that they can come in
and talk about things? As far as the options are concemed, I am glad that we
have come up with different options..B, ut ope option is definitely missing, that is
the townhouse concept or even the mixed-use concept. We need to revisit that
option again and say run it as a business. Get a mixed-use concept and get
people to come in and invest on the development so that we don't have to use
the $4.4 M capital money to fund the project. There are innovations that we need
to look at again. We need to understand if it is a business or is it a community
service before we key down the options. One and Two are not options. It might
be that we could get some directions.once it is evaluated as a business or a
community service. We need more information from staff so that we can make
intelligent decisions based on more additional data.
CHANG: A related issue that we have been talking about which is the gym issue,
then there is also the ADA issue and the money issue. Those are the issues that
in particular that I want to address, in addition to some others. I think that if it is
feasible for the high school, both in te,,,s of time issues and their process, one of
the things that We should try to do today is to instruct staff and ask staff what it
would take to pursue working with the school districts aggressively to see if we
could partner with them in some ways on their field house and also their
swimming facilities. I hear a lot of consensus on that.
SANDOVAL: I agree with you (Chang). The high school district and our staff
should get the sense from today's discussion and last month's discussion that we
want to move head in a partnership on this issue. (Consensus from council is that
they agree). We are on a 30-day timeline and we have to meet that timeline and
have it brought back to council to be able to discuss it.
LOWENTHAL: There are two different things that we have talked about. One) this
auxiliary building that ties into the new facility at Cupertino High School. But I
interpreted your comments more broadly than that. I would like to scca program
put before us that let's us share gym time between the schools and our
community. It is gym time that I am looking for. I think we should find out about
the auxiliary building and how it plays into Cupertino High School's plans, but it is
gym time that I am looking for. It may be all of our high schools or our junior
nights. If you agree that it is broader than just the auxiliary building...
SANDOVAL: It's a little broader than that - it is gym time, it is an auxiliary
building, it's a storage facility, and it is the pool. Particularly if there is a capital
expenditure that needs to be made for a shallow end of a pool, if we want to
utilize those facilities, then we are going to need to decide that post haste.
SMITH: The field house is immediate. We would have to have something on your
agenda for Feb. 4; however, the pool design, the committee hasn't even met yet.
So we are going to have to bring that you on a separate track.
Page 6 of 20
JAMES: Recently we gave our staff to work. diligently trying to help with the parking
problem at Monta Vista by finding some tennis courts for one of the programs
with the high school district to move one of their competitive tennis programs so
that we could facilitate that and be a player in helping to relieve the program. This
is a good time to let the community know that our staff and the high school
district did work very hard, and Don McCarthy is part of that, to make that
happen..Thank you.
KWOK: I support wholeheartedly about our partnership with the school district.
CHANG: We should explore how they can add value to'this too. It is also a very
historical moment I think in some ways. The school districts will think of ways that
are very positive, it values to them, because they have to sell it to their board
members. I don't think they have really been apprised of it, although the
superintendent has been. We need to work that through. I think that is now
become clearer to me where I stand on this issue. The study session has been
very useful for me. One of the first issues is about the gym issue. That's half the
solution, and then there is the ADA issue. That's the issue that started all of this
and it cost $500,000 to do that. I think that needs to be done, that's a court
decision that says we need to move on that. And to fix that, it cost $500,000.
Then we came up with some of the other options that added on over time. From
my perspective, I think that options 1 and 2 are definitely out for all of us. For me,
options 5 and 6, and even 7 are seriously flawed. Think those are out. The only
ones that are left are option 3, which is spend the $500,000 or option 4, which is
to have a tennis and teen canter only, and that cost $1 million - the price is right.
Or option 8, which is a new facility, which is seriously flawed - $4.4 million. What I
would say is option 3 is Iow-cost, it keeps racquetball, and depending on our
money picture and as we become more nervous with money about the library.
Option 3 is looking more and more better for me. Option 4 1 like, tennis and teen
center, which is more of a fully blown teen center, but then we need to
investigate the fitness and aerobics. Are there other ways to manage that in
option 4?
SMITH: I'm getting a feeling for where you are going. Probably the best thing to do
is to come back with a less expensive alternative. This 2,000 sq. ft. building,
Ralph put this together. There is no programming information, and why that is
important is that about $100,000 a year at the SC is generated from Life Time
Tennis. That is our profit for it. In talking with Don, if we just put up a small tennis
office with rest rooms, how would that impact Life Time Tennis. He (Don) said
they need a large room about 3,000 sq. ft. because they play videos and they
have indoor programs. You may want to build something more in the order of a
4,000 sq. ft. building for $2 million (I'm just throwing that out there) that would
enable you to keep that $100,000 a year coming in. We would have to look at
that. But if you are looking for a $2M alternative, if that's what you want to see,
we will try to come back with the best $2M altemative.
Page 7 of 20
.... JAMES: My biggest concern with that option is that it is a major intersection in our
town and I don't think we went to build a small little building like this at a major
intersection. I would go with let's fix what~-s~.there until we have the money to do
something better. Once it is built, you're not going to get rid of it for a long time.
What I think we are trying to do here today is not pick these options as much as
give them ideas on what the overall view of what we want, and let them come
back with new options.
CHANG: That's fine. That's my intent. Even my feedback on some of these options
is not meant that they are the only options. There will be new options. Option 8 -
we are spending a lot of money on option 8 with a new facility, but it has no teen
center, it has no gym, it has no racquetball. For me, option 8 is really seriously
flawed for the amount of money we are spending. I agree with what Sandy just
said, which is to basically try to fix the ADA problem now, continue to study,
come up with other options, but prolong the timeline. There is no rush. We can
do this within the next year to try to have everything - racquet sports, teen
center, aerobics, gym option as a second phase maybe, and then also think
about what needs to happen to have it happen. Maybe we need to go to mixed
use to have that happen, but that is a longer discussion. And that way, it will buy
us time as we build our library and see what is the prudent thing to do.
LOWENTHAL: To me, the Sports Center is something else (not a tennis center). I
..... don't think we are constrained by its past use, especially its past use as a private
club. Our job is to serve our residents. To me the only interest I have in operating
these things, as a business is if it generates enough money so we can serve
more residents. I have no other interest in having a good sports business in
Cupertino. If that revenue tums into...we can serve another 20,000 residents of
Cupertino, I am excited about it, but otherwise no interest from me. My view on
this whole thing is that this is a piece of land ultimately. It is a piece of land that
the city owns. It is adjacent to Memorial park and its value lies in that. It is a great
location. We can do synergistic things with Memorial Park and with the Senior
Center and with De Anza Collage, and that is what's interesting to me. Ultimately,
I don't think we should be constrained by its current use. That doesn't say that
we don't like its current use and we might went to support it because it is a good
thing for residents. Secondly, I personally don't like the idea of using any of this
for housing or for office or anything but recreation because I think we under serve
our community now for recreation. I think we do almost nothing for youth now
and we should change that. This is my personal view. I think we nccd to do more
for our residents. We need more recreational opportunities for them, and though
we have a crying need for housing, I think in this particular case the land ought to
be used to serve current residents. This 45% Cupertino residents feel wrong to
me. It feels like a vestige of the way it used to be operated and we ought to see
how to tum this around into matching a goal of serving residents of Cupertino. In
addressing what Michael said. I too like option 3. The only issue that I have with
_ it is that the $1.7 option was talked about addressing life-safety issue. If that is
accurate, if the building is unsafe, I feel it is irresponsible as a councilmember to
Page g of 20
vote for something that we know is unsafe. If that is indeed true, I feel that we are
stuck - that we can't do option 3 - morally. I am having a little trouble with that. It
was characterized as life-safety issues.
KNAPP: If you build something according to a code, it is safe according to that
code. If the code changes and we find a safer thing to do, it doesn't change the
safety level of the building that is 'under the old code. But at the same time, you
need to ask yourself, should we do everything we possibly can in the name of
safety, especially in a public building, especially in a public building that is likely
to have people of all ages in it.
LOWENTH^L: That's the problem I'm having. Doing a good job as opposed to
what the law requires. So I am struggling with that delta, that $1.2 million to
address what was characterized here as life-safety issues. I feel strongly that we
cannot spend $4.4 million. We have heard all sorts of great things here to day
that we could do if we had money. If we spend the $4.4 million, Carol will remind
us, as she does, that there is no more money to be spent. I have heard some
great things to spend money on here today like table tennis tables, or youth
lounge, or a skate park, or the use of the gyms which is going to cost us some
money, so I have a hard time getting past the $1.7 level leaving us $2.7 to buy an
awful lot of nice new things for the city. In particular, I am interested in spending
the money on youth, and I think a lot of the things that were discussed here are
youth issues, and I think we are going to need that money to do any...otherwise I
think this is mostly talk about having auxiliary buildings and table tennis tables. If
we spend $4.4 million, Carol is not going to let us and properly so. She is not
going to let us buy all those other things. I think we need to free up the money. I
think we can better spend the money. I have a hard time getting past the $1.7. It
is a lot more interesting to me to add a skate park and a climbing wall and a
youth lounge, which by the way I think is more important than whatever we would
call a teen center. I sat in the meetings, after the survey, the teens said that all
they wanted was a place to hang out. They said that very, very clearly. They do
not want us to tell them to do jumping jacks. This lounge thing is a very
interesting idea. They want a place to go. The first issue that they had on it was
that it was safe, so maybe we need to staff it so that it is safe. They mostly
wanted a place to hang out other than the 7-11 parking lot, which is our current
teen center. I see a lot of interest in those things that we could fund if we don't
spend the $4.4. I don't see spending the $4.4. I am very interested in this
cooperative thing for a gym. We need gyms. I have coached basketball here. We
had to use gyms in Saratoga. It was terrible. Eventually we didn't have the
program. Gyms we nc=d access to, but we don't need to build them I don't think.
SMITH: How enamored are all of you to the ponds in Memorial Park.
LOWENTHAL: They don't want to go there today.
Page 9 of 20
· - JAMES: It's not how enamored are we, it is a question of how enamored is the
community. Do you remember the little ponds in the Biltmore Apartments?
LOWENTHAL: I think we need to ask the community before we know. I don't want
to open up a new can of worms. I would like to look at this can of worms, which
has enough worms in it already. We ought to get on with this ADA resolution. At
some point, we may be forced to do something we don't want to do. They may
force us to do all our ADA plan or something like that. I think we should use
enough time, but I don't think we should just talk about this forever either. I would
be in favor of something like the $1.7 plan and the committing some of that other
money to programs in particular for youth. In particular for sports programs that
better reflect our demographics. Things we've talked about like badminton and
table tennis, let's get on with it. Let's free up the money and go buy those tables
and buy.the nets, and maybe refurbish the courts 1, 2 and 3, the old racquetball
courts, into a badminton facility because you need the height. I think that what we
should look at - how to use the money to help more people in Cupertino. The
building is not wonderful, but it's not terrible either. We should fix the leaks in the
roof. I think there are some nice aspects to the building, which would make it a
good teen lounge. I think we should go back and dress it up and serve more
people.
SMITH: I need clarification on one thing. What is the fiscal objective? Does that
.- mean it doesn't break even any more, because if we start converting spaces into
other things that we don't believe will produce the same level of revenue...your
capital hit upfront is not going to be as great. But over 15 years, or however
much life is left in the building, you are going to pay for it. We can start
generating options for your next view of this at a future council meeting.
LOWENTHAL: I think that is a great question. We should all give our answer to
that because I think there is a shift in mentality in this council vs. previous
councils. And we are running into it all the time at Blackberry Farm too. My own
view is that the goal is to serve more residents. And the only reason to charge for
these services is because it enables us to serve more residents. I don't see it as
a business. I see it as a way to optimizing the number of people we can serve.
MCCARTHY: When Therese stated that we were 45% residents, that's of our
membership base, pass holders. You also have to include that we put through
about 660 people through tennis lessons per week and above 80% are residents.
When you go to the pool, which is DACA, they are puffing through several
hundred children through a learn-to-swim program per week. And the majority of
them are residents too.
LOWENTHAL.' I'm not saying to band non-residents. I'm just saying that 28% of
our population is under 20 years of age and we don't do enough for them. That's
_ a lot larger than any number here, it's a lot larger than the number of tennis
players, although I love you and I'm one of you, it's a lot larger than our number
Page 10 of 20
of racquetball and tennis players together, or anything else that we do. We have
a lot more kids, so I'm in favor of the skate park going there. I think a youth
lounge should go there. I think the climbing wall should go there. I think that is
why we shouldn't spend all the money. I want to save some money to serve all
those people. Will they pay? Probably not much, although may be some. I see
an awful lot of kids over at the YMCA doing fitness right now. Maybe there is
some money in it, but right now, I think we have underserved 28% of our people.
MCCARTHY: In terms of the pool, this is not involved in any of the scope that we
have talked about. I don't want to muddy the waters and give you one more thing
to think about, but it is important to note that the pool is almost 30 years old and
that the outdoor rest room area that DACA is in right now with a lease, so that is
not involved in any of the scope that we have talked about today.
LOWENTHAL: What I see is that there are a lot of things there that are working
fine. I agree with a lot of the sentiment that was expressed - why spend $4.4
million and have fewer things going on there. So there may not be very many
racquetball players, but tearing down their courts to increase the number of
fitness people we can serve doesn't work for me.
SANDOVAL: It doesn't work for me either in the sense when you look at the
competing interest right there in the neighborhood, whether it is Linda Evans the
Y or De Anza, they are all going after the same base. Increasing the exereise
reom doesn't make a whole lot of economic sense. I don't think we capture much
more of the market than we already have. I do very much not want to have the
program mix go in that direction. Then what do we do on that corner where we
have a piece of land sited on one sided by the Senior Center and the QCC where
we can make a very attractive area for our teens, for our other users in the city.
And for me, what I would like to see is really figure out some place that our teens
can go. I don't want this to necessarily be a teen center. I like the teen lounge
idea. As a high school math teacher, one of the buildings that is quite nicely
situated next to our high school over at Los Gatos is a teen center. We are
always talking about kids being able to go somewhere safe on a Thursday
afternoon or a Friday night, or a Saturday night, and not using drugs and not
drinking alcohol and yet we are not previding a place for them to go. I think it is
prebably something that will have to be looked at operationally because I think
there are costs associated with it. I don't think you can have a building that is
safe without staffing it. I am willing to look at that. At the same time, I think we
should be able to utilize as much of our space as possible. So I haven't fully
bought into keeping the racquetball courts. I am not even sure about designating
a specific area for a permanent table tennis or badminton because we are talking
about the same use of space being utilized for only one activity. I would like us to
look at a space that we can use for multiple activities. That's what makes it a real
mixed-use facility in terms of what kinds of pregrams we are offering to the
community. I am a new member of the Sports Center. When I go and work out I
don't see a lot of people working out there. It struck me as very strange to walk in
Page 11 of 20
-- the first day and have the weight room be much smaller than the locker reom. I
thought that for someone who is going to work out it doesn't make sense to have
the facilities that they are going.to want to.Utilize not be an optimum size. Even in
the working drawings, the locker moms am still much larger than the space
where people would have activity at, and that just doesn't seem to make sense to
me. We should also utilize what space we have now and not determine the
program mix, but figure different programs to have there. I think we should bring
in table tennis on an ad hoc basis and set those tables up and see out much use
we get. This is an economic decision too of bringing people in on a day pass or
an ad hoc basis and trying to figure out do we charge them for coming and
utilizing the facility, is it something we give to the community - the month of April
is Free Cupertino Sports Center Month, or however we want to design this idea,
but get them into the facility so that residents can see what they are paying for
and should be able to utilize. Can we also set up ideas - what is our niche that
we are going after?. I don't think growing a weight reom is a niche that is unique
to this area. So is bocce ball a niche? And do we want to try and set up a bocce
ball area to try it? See how many people come out. Is lawn bowling something
we can go after?. We should try different ideas and have a facility where we can
market an idea, see if there is any community support out there. Then let them
try it and get people interested in coming to the Sports Center because there is
something new and different there, as opposed to offering the same program mix
that is offered right across the street, right down the street.
LOWENTHAL: To do that, we would have to change its image, because it does
have a membership image. I don't walk in to use the facility. I don't have a card.
KWOK: We haven't talked about the Y too because they just built a new aerobics
center, fitness center and it is not up to capacity yet. Do we have enough use of
the fitness center and aerobics center that will build up the capacity? You have
one just about a block away from the Sports Center and it is not built up to
capacity yet. We haven't talked about a partnership with the Y. Racquetball,
badminton, and table tennis - there aren't many around in the neighborhood, but
there are a lot of f(mess centers and aerobic centers. That is something we need
to take into consideration too. What do we have that other facilities don't have.
JAMES: I think this is what we wanted today - to throw out a bunch of ideas, give
Therese and the staff some input to come back with. But it is all based on
budget. There is more motivation to not be as overly concamed with whatever
the Sports Center is paying for itself as there is to provide flexible services,
increased services, services to address the needs of our young people in
particular. But we still can't do it if we can't afford it. Part of coming back to us is
going to fall heavy on Carol's shoulders as to how do we do that or how do we
not do that, can we or can't we, and what is going to be the budget hit. As we
._. know our budget is very tight and getting tighter. I do think we have talked a lot
and I think the overall philosophy is the same and many of the visions are the
Page 12 of 20
same, some of different, but hopefully we have given you a substantial amount to
consider. Talking about DACA, I do know that progrem and board well and I also
know that they have the money and/or build a new pool and are willing to discuss
that for a longer te.. lease. They just don't want to put the money into it if they
are only going to get a five-year lease. I also think there is opportunity to discuss
partnerehips and negotiations that help us with that. We haven't address the
pool, is it needed there even, if there is a different one, or how do we renovate it,
and I do believe there are partnerehip opportunities to work on that too. I think we
have all given you a lot to consider and I am anxious to see what you come back
with in the way of mixed and opportunities for further dialog.
CHANG: In tehus of what you need, the gym partnerehip we will forward on that. I
don't know if I could persuade Richard that for the ADA issues to do just the
$500,000 first with the caveat that we would come to a decision. Work on this
some more with a timeline. I am thinking of a one-year to one-and-a-half-years
timeline to fully develop a bigger plan that could address many of our needs and
concerns. If the plan doesn't work, at that point we could still do the retrofits. I
don't know if that will work because we will be working on a portion and still
planning for changes. That would buy us some time to develop better plans, how
to fund all the things that we like to do, and give us a clear sense of a financial
picture. During this time, we could give a timeline to maybe ask for a couple other
options. One option that was mentioned might be a Iow-cost option. $2 million,
what can that buy? Try to satisfy both needs and people; or a higher option with
recquet sports, teen facilities, and a gym option. A gym option needs to be in
there, where a first or second phase. And that way, the librery project would have
gone further along. We will then have a clear picture what we can do.
JAMES: My biggest concern with that is if you put $500,000 into a building, before
you know it you are going to build a new building, then you have wasted
$500,000. I think long term, beforewe would say move ahead with that, we have
to have all the input on that because that is a real dsk.
CHANG: I am willing to spend $500,000 to buy 1 to 1% years.
SMITH: We have one major philosophical thing out of the way - we are not
running a business anymore, we are not necessarily running a racquet club. I
heard two people weigh in on the idea for mix used, one weighed in against it.
This changes the capital picture if I know how the two of you fccl about mixed
use. Is there a majority of the council that is interested in seeing more than just
sports on that site in the interest of raising money? That would change how we
appreach this as well.
JAMES: I think what you heard that there is interest in not excluding that yet. I don't
think you have a yes or a no. Richard is the most decisive here, but I think what
we are saying is that we don't want to exclude anything, we want to see more.
Page 13 of 20
· -- KVVOK: I think in these economic times, we r, ccd to be innovative, and mixed-use
is one way to be innovative.
SMITH: It's just that we will have to spend money to do...we have spent $8,000 or
9,000 on the information we have gotten so far.
LOWENTHAL: There is no consensus; I am vehemently against, so we clearly
don't have a consensus. I don't think you have a majority you can count on.
JAMES: Even that, we never saw what you already paid for it. It didn't come to the
council, so just bring us what you already got on the townhouse proposal. It
sounds to me like the mixed use isn't going to work because of the funding, but
we never saw it at this level. We have two people who weren't even on the
council at the time. So without spending additional money, you could probably
fom~ulate a presentation and at least give us that information.
CHANG: I am willing to say something about mixed-use. Mixed-use to me, the
people around it are the most impacted by mixed-use. If I didn't understand
wrong, they didn't mind mixed-use, as long as it is a passive type of mixed use
that doesn't make a lot of noise. In order to really finance, if we want the gym, if
want the additional teen facilities, and we want everything, I for one can't see
how we are going to fund it. I am definitely willing to look at mixed-use as a way
· - of funding. Is it preferably if we don't need to go there - Of course not.
LOWENTHAL: ' One sentence why I think this is land that is extremely valuable as a
common resource in the city. I just don't think that once you sell it, you are ever
getting it back. I think the school distdct made a mistake in selling so much land a
decade or so ago, and I don't want to make the same mistake.
JAMES: One of the options is not to sell it, but to become a landlord. There is more
than one idea there.
LOWENTHAL' I would be more agreeable to that, but I think we need to keep this
land. About my amenability to the $500,000 plan, what you said to me makes a
lot of sense. The first reason I don't like the $4.4 plan is that we spend every
nickel we possibly have in the bank. The piggy bank is empty and nobody is
happier, no residents are happier. There is a bunch, though, that are not happy.
It's wrong all the way. What we are going to decide here to spend in the short
term is very likely to be thrown away. If we build a small building now, we are
very likely in our lifetimes to tear it down and put up something new. So I am kind
of interested in minimizing the potential waste as we figure out what people really
want. I think it is fiscally responsible to say we are not spending more than $2
million on this building, that we are going to use some of that money left over to
fill it up with programs. Other than that, we need the cushion for our reserves.
The only disagreement I had with what I heard was that I think these program
things we need to do now. I think things for youth we need to do now. I think we
Page 14 of 20
need the teen lounge now. I think we need the climbing wall now and I think we
need to start building the skate park now. Although I'm patient on the capital
aspect of building the building, and we don't know what we want yet so we
shouldn't spend all our nickels on something we don't even know we want, I'm
completely patient there. I feel we have under-represented people both by
demographics and by age. We should work on that now, we should make
changes this year. We should have a place for tccns to go this year. We should
break ground on a skate park this year. Maybe we can test the council to see if
we have the will on the skate park because that is a tough issue. Sandy and I
went to a couple of neighborhoods and they came out with tomhes and nooses to
hang us about puffing a skate park in their neighborhood. I was ready to argue
that point and to decide against all those guys out there with the tomhes. I think
we need to test our will there now. Are we willing to stand up to some
neighborhood opposition? We are going to have it and are we willing to entertain
it. If we are not willing to entertain a skate park at this location, think we should
decide it today. It will save staff some time and will move on and find some other
answers for that. I would appreciate it if our council members would weigh in on
the issue of is it possible to have a skate park here.
JAMES: I ought to be the first one because I have been fighting that battle for five
years. It will take people standing up to some local pressure to do what is best for
the community. I am not willing to disqualify it on that location.
SANDOVAL: If we are going to talk about viability of where a good location for the skate
park is, then I think it brings up Therese's previous question that she was trying
to ask is - how committed are we to the pools in Memorial Park. I can picture a
skate park in one of those pools at Memorial Park more so than I can right next
to the swimming pool and the tennis center. But am I unequivocally ruling it out?
I guess not.
CHANG: Dolly expresses it well for me too.
KWOK: I concur with Dolly and Michael that the Sports Center would not be a
good place to put the skate park.
LOWENTHAL: That's not what I heard. I heard that it may not be the best, but they
are not willing to say no at this point.
KWOK: I am not ready to make any decision.
LOWENTHAL: So you are not willing to say no either.
KWOK: No.
LOWENTHAL: So we have two people that are willing to say yes, and three people
that would prefer to say no. I think that's where we are.
Page 15 of 20
SMITH: I think having looked around at what you own, Memorial Park and the
Sports Center site are the two most obvious pieces of land. They are not in a
quiet neighborhood. I think if we'a(~knowledge that if we are going to do this, it is
going to at one of those two locations. We can start to work a public process and
I think the emphasis of that public process is not should we do it here, but how
can we mitigate impa~ to you. I think if you are squarely behind it and them is
the will, it does change the conversation. And it might even be a more productive
conversation. Because then it is, how can we do it sensitively so that impacts are
mitigated and maybe engage people in that? I would look at those two locations.
LOWENTHAL: With what I know at this moment, I would say it would have to be
adjacent to the road. You would want it on the road side where the noise is
already unbearable and there aren't people right next to it. If people are walking
in and out, they will tend to be walking in and out on the public side. I am mom
interested in it if it is on Steven Creek Blvd. than if it is closer to the Commons.
SANDOVAL: But I don't think this negates the idea that it may not be there at all.
It may be on a Compaq site that might be developed. Am I correct on that?
JAMES: I haven't given up on the Compaq site. I still have approval from Compaq.
It isn't approved by staff yet because we don't have a plan, but they still agree to
· _ give us an acm of land for a skate park. It's just with the HP/Compaq thing, it is
all in limbo. It's a negotiated agreement that I have had in place for a year.
LOWENTHAL: I am trying to get a sense if this was a dead end. Do we want to
stop investigating it? It sounds like we don't want to stop investigating it, although
we are not ready to sign on the line for sure.
SANDOVAL: But I like that decision whether it becomes a dead end or signing on
the line to take into account the timing of the Compaq idea too. Part of my
thought is if we can get people going to another part of the city, which sorely
needs some attention, that we may have a very vibrant addition to that
Vallco/Compaq land.
LOWENTHAL: Fair enough, I totally agree with that.
KWOK: Are we diverting from the real issue of the Sports Center, which is ADA
compliance?
LOWENTHAL: We all need to do that. We don't have the option of doing nothing.
The minimum option we have is the $500,000 option. We have to do the ADA. I
think there is probably consensus here that is one of the possible stopping points
- is the $500,000.
Page 16 of 20
SMITH: But you would like to see what $2 million could buy you in terms of some
of these other objects like teens and climbing walls?
JAMES: I don't even think there is a consensUs that $2 million is a stopping point
yet. We are still open to you bringing back alternatives to us so that different
options and different approaches .... One of which would be mixed use with
another component for funding it that might change some of our ideas about
what's there.
SMITH: Let me then review'my to do list as I currently see it. Obviously we are
going to move forward with FUHSD and the gym and we will come back with that
real soon. Gyms plus the new field house, that's an operational thing. We'll come
back with an estimate...
LOWENTHAL: To me that is the essence of it. The essence of it is not that
particular field house.
JAMES: The field house is for storing the tables for the table tennis program and
that is one of the things that is appealing about it. So we do need that part.
CHANG: For me, what I thought we were talking about was pursuing a partnership
with the field house and the usage of gyms in general - two important things.
SMITH: Two things on the to-do list: the gyms and move forward on the field
house, and then ADA at a very minimum needs to be done. Then I heard to look
at an option to serve youth and teens, and look at an option for up to $2 million
that serves the underserved, including a climbing wall, build a skate park now,
figure out how it can work, and explore mixed-use. Is that my to-do list?
CHANG: The only thing I would add to that is that serving teens means both skate
boards and climbing walls and potentially some of the other table tennis and
badminton type of things, depending on how the other stuff moves ahead - not to
exclude that from the mix. Hopefully we can come to a partnership with the
schools and that will work out.
SANDOVAL: On her to-do list, she mentioned the $2 million figure, but I thought there
wasn't consensus on that.
LOWENTHAL: There is not a consensus that there is a lid there, but I think there
was a different idea, which is that we shouldn't commit all our money to the
building. We may want to use some of this money to enable new programming
like buying foosball tables. I think there was synergy on saying we should use
this money to buy service as opposed to building a building.
KWOK: My inclination is that Richard is looking at a dollar - half a million dollars
versus $4.4 million, there is a big difference. The closest the smaller dollars is,
Pa~¢ ! 7 of 20
the more inclination we will be if we spend $2 million, why can't we spend $3
million and $4.4 million. So the bigger the dollar, the more it will be easier for us
to make a decision. ' '
CHANG: One of the ways to interpret it is that here we have so many options. And
now I think we are at a certain point at saying perhaps we should do the ADA
thing, and then come up with a couple of options. Maybe a lost-cost $2 million
option and a high cost option and see how that works.
LOWENTHAL: Then you are saying use alternative 3 as a baseline with some
adders to it.
KVVOK: And with a $% million - what is it going to buy us?
LOWENTHAL: I think that the other thing that you heard, the concept of tearing
down the building without getting something big in return was rejected. That is to
tear down the racquetball courts unless we got something else that somebody
really wants in our community. I thought I heard that was rejected, we can ask
people. But I also as part of that, I heard that the whole idea of more fitness and
aerobics was not very highly valued by the council. There are alternative
programs we are de-emphasizing. As a change of council policy, I think that we
are de-emphasizing the business aspect of it and more interested in the service
.-. aspect of this whole thing.
CHANG: I agree with that.
KWOK: I agree.
SMITH: If we were to go in and do the ADA improvements and put a coat of paint
on the building and keep running it has it has been, as a successful enterprise, I
mean why kill it for nothing, the racquetball courts can stay. Could we then
explore because adding on - this is going to take up some tennis.courts -
somewhere this teen lounge, this climbing wall, this game room, with the other
$1.5 million. If we were to try to stay in that $2 million niche that is a way we
could do it. We would lose some tennis, but I think I am hearing that that would
be OK, that we could explore that kind of option.
LOWENTHAL: I think we could, but you would have to watch out for broadening
the discussion so much that we are not coming to consensus. I worry about that
a little bit. I have been in the facility a bit, and I think there is more that can be
done with that facility than has been suggested. I say spend $100,000 inside and
you could make a pretty good teen lounge in there in think. That area now is
pretty close to what I would consider idea - I remember being a teen once. A
little bar, we won't put alcohol back there, but is kind of nice. The room with a lot
.... of windows and a lot of just open space I think that is nice. I think there is more
potential there. The fact that the old racquetball courts 1, 2 and 3 have the high
Page 18 of 20
ceiling is very valuable for some of the things that we have been talking about.
It's valuable for table tennis; it's valuable for badminton. I think we need to look at
this a new way in saying how do we leverage money in that building to provide
more service. Get the focus on the program more than the building.
JAMES: I don't have a problem with any of that, I just feel like we need to be
cautioned by those experts in the field such as the architect and our Public
Works director who may come back and say you need to understand the money
you are putting into this old building may not be well spent. I would just caution
that I don't know that. That is not my field and I rely upon the experts to tell me
that, and most of the time that they will tell you that those are wasted dollars. I
certainly am bound by our budget and concerned about the library expenses and
everything else all the rest of us are, so I certainly want you to look into all of that,
but I want a real clear message and evaluation from the experts. I don't want my
taxpayers to say ~what the hock Sandy were you thinking, you put $2 million in
this old building and it was total waste of your money." I need that part in-depth
when you come back.
CHANG: What I heard was that to put in some money so that we could add
programs, but perhaps those programs will all go away if we decide to build
another building. Let's say the programs, we are investing money in for two
years, but that money will be well spent. We are wiling to spend the money
because it serves people dght now and it is not wasted - does that make sense.
LOWENTHAL: I don't know if two years is the right time, but I am getting the
feeling that we need to give permission to say OK, this building has a useful life
of ten years, so a half a million dollars you put in is going to be gone in ten years
or five years, or whatever it is. We may need to give staff that relief that we
acknowledge that problem and that the building will not last forever. To some
extent we are trying to minimize the amount we put in the building because we
know it is going to be thrown out. If you want to come back with a time saying
that this building has a useful life, after doing this, of only ten years are you sure.'
I think it is valid for you to force us to answer that question.
SANDOVAL: Is there inclination on the part of the council to move ahead - that is to
explore the feasibility of coming up with a pool plan also at Cupertino High
School. I didn't hear that in the summation. I want to make sure we move forward
on that. In te..s of a public meeting where the possible programming mix was
discussed, I don't remember how many people attended that meeting in October.
Does the council want to take the time since we are really struggling with
program mix to have another public session and advertise it in the Scene or the
Courier, etc. and find out from residents and non-residents what their desire is.
SMITH: I can answer your first question. 91 meeting participants signed in the
door. We don't know the total number that participated. They were divided into 12
groups. From the sign-in sheets, we noted 57 or 63% of the participants were
Page 19 of 20
from Cupertino and 34 or 37% were from surrounding communities. If there was
a public workshop, it could be hosted not only by the P&R Commission but it
could be a joint meeting of the P&R Cemm, and the Teen Comm. I would
suggest that.
LOWENTHAL: I think we need to do that on some issues. I am impatient and
frustrated with our progress on youth issues because we have asked people
endlessly. We have had people in charrettes, we have had people join'
commissions, we have had people go out and pull together a big plan, we have
paid PDC to develop a big presentation to the P&R Commission when I was on
it, which was three years ago. It was a crying need and needed to be done then.
And I am finished studying youth issues. I think it is time to commit money there.
It is 28% of our community, 15,000 people, and we only talk about it. I'm out of
patience on asking people again do they want youth served. Youth don't usually
talk on those things. We should outreach on other recreational opportunities.
CHANG: I agree with that in a sense. What Dolly was mentioning about the pool.
From what I understood is that the field house, there is a timeline on that. We are
dealing with the most pressing first. But all the other ones, we want those too.
We want to move forward with all of them, so we don't want to loose that for sure.
JAMES: The way I would agree with you on that Michael is any time there is
.... partnerships available with tax dollars that serve the same community between
schools and the city, we want to talk about it.
LOWENTHAL: We've heard the message on youth activities. We need to do more.
I am interested in talking to the rest of the community about finding out what
other things we need to do. I'm tired of asking on youth issues.
CHANG: The other question I want to task of the council members is that, I was
hoping that when we begin to deal with the baseline, whatever that is, the ADA
issue, once we deal with that, that we would have a little bit more time to develop
of "where we go" proposal. This might include the kind of additional input
processes that we talked about, maybe including teens and Teen Commission,
and then the Park and Recreations and other different communities to be
involved in some of those hearings. And even our survey that is coming up, since
we are not pressed to make a decision right a way on the sports center anymore,
then the survey that we are doing will be another vehicle to give us the best data
as possible - what will sell and what will work out if we have a new facility and
we could really plan for it and give it the kind of attention and process and money
that it needs.
LOWENTHAL: Not to be argumentative on the point, but I agree with you as far as
capital improvements is concerned and what to do next with that piece of
._ property, but I can't agree on youth issues. We have just asked too many times.
Page 20 of 20
We just ask and ask. I don't know if we are looking for some different answers,
but we don't act. I am very impatient on this issue as you can detect.
SMITH: If we are going to go in and do construction, $500,000 worth, and we
really do want a youth lounge, we should do it all at once. The inconvenience to
the users of the facility to have construction one year and then construction a
year and a half later plus the extra cost...yeah... We will try to get you the best
packet within your budget that is safe that you can do.
Meeting adjoumed.
Memorandum
DATE: MARCH 26, 2002
TO: THERESE AMBROSI-SMITH, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION
FROM: DON MCCARTHY, RECREATION SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: RECREATION PROGRAMS AT F.U.H.S.D. OYMS
City Council has raised the issue of how the City could potentially use F.U.H.S.D. gymnasiums to meet
the City's need for gymnasium space.
There are three primary activities that could be offered at a high school gymnasium. The three activities
are badminton, volleyball, and basketball. Currently, a private individual offers a reereafionai badminton
program on Saturdays from 7:00pm-9:45pm at Cupertino High School.
Gaining access on a consistent basis during the school year remains a significant challenge. There is one
possibility of accessing Cupertino High gym either one or two evenings during the week. This depends
on schedules that are submitted by the numerous school groups and teams. During the summer from
approximately late Sune until mid-August, it appears gyms are more available. Perhaps a pilot program
consisting of drop-in basketball or volleyball could be implemented. It is important tO note that the city
would not have any storage available.
Availability of gym space at Monta Vista High is so limited that the city would not be able to offer a
Drop - In recreational program on a consistent basis. Hopefully when the new field house is completed at
Cupertino the city will have more access to gym space to meet community needs. In addition FUHSD
scheduling staff has conveyed that in some cases it is difficult to secure a mandatory custodial staff to
open and close the building. District staff has a strict policy of not issuing keyes to outside groups.
Recommendation:
Based on limited availability of gym space and the need for consistent access without gaps of
cancellation, staff recommends offering a two night a week drop-in recreational program for basketball at
one high school gym. Program times would be 7:00pm-9:30pm during the summer months only and
participants would be charged $3.00 per visit. Below is a cost/revenue breakdown based on an 8-week
program twice a week 5 hoUrs per week.
Rental - 48 hoUrs ~ $14.50/hr = $696
Custodial - 48 hoUrs ~ $40Par = $1920
P/R Staff - 48 hours ~ $11/hr = $528
Total cost excluding equipment is estimated at $3144. Total revenue is estimated at $960 based on an
average of 20 participants at $3 per visit.
{-23
K E Y S E R M A R S T 0 N A $ $ 0 C I A T E $ I N C . ~lo~:so~s IN:
REAL ESTATE
REDEVELOPMENT
GOLDEN GATEWAY COMMONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
55 PACIFIC AVENUE MALL ECONOMIC DEVELOP~
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 I I FISCAL IMFACT
PHONE: 41S / 398-3050 ]N~RASTKUCTUKE FINANCE
FAX: 415 / 397-5065 VALUATION AND
LITIGATION SU~FOKT
A. ,Terry Kcyser
Timothy C. Kelly
Kate Earle Funk
Debbie M. Kern
Robert J. Wctmore
Calvin E. Hollis, II
Kathlcen H. He~d
James A. Rabe
M~MO~NDUM Paul C. Andcrsoa
TO= Th~F~S~ ~b~i Smi~ Ozrald M. Trimble
Dire~or of Pa~ and Re~eation
Ci~ of Cupe~ino
From: Tim Kelly and Michael Sigala
Date: April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center
The purpose of this memo is to assist the City of Cupertino analyze public-private financing
options for the reconstruction of the Cupertino Sports Center. Specifically, the City is
interested in accommodating an additional private sector use on the site that will generate a
sufficient level of capital to help fund the reconstruction. KMA's assignment is to recommend
the private sector land use that maximizes funding to the City's project. The proposed private
uses are as follows:
1. Residential Townhouses (20 to 25 units)
2. Office, Retail or Restaurant Commercial Space (10,000 sq. ft.)
3. Conference Center
4. Office Space (10,000 sq. ft.) developed and owned by the City
To perform this assignment, KMA relied upon its experience in the area and on market
research performed during March 2001. Further, this assignment was conducted with a
couple of primary inputs ('givens') as outlined by City staff:
The estimated cost to fund the proposed Sports Center reconstruction is $4 million, of
which the City has set aside approximately $1.7 million.
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center' Page 2
· The proposed private sector uses are limited to the site constraints detailed in
Schemes A thru E developed by Field Paoli Amhitects and Planners dated February 7,
2001. These alternatives contain a minimum level of public programming of 17 tennis
courts, one pool, and a 10,000 square foot clubhouse (please see summary of
alternatives on page 6).
Overall, the market support for new pdvate development is excellent due to the:
· Strong local economy
· High auto accessibility along Stevens Creek Blvd. and via nearby highways
· Proximity to other major destination points such as De Anza College
· Strong surrounding demographics and particularly high household income levels
However, to attract pdvate capital, the pdvate sector will require that a separate legal parcel,
capable of financing, be created. For commercial development, the parcel will need to be
located at the corner.of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stelling Rd. and have sufficient land area to
be self-parked.
Private Land Use Value Determinations
The value determinations contained in this section (for 1, 2, and 3) assume that real property
on the Sports Center site to be used by the pdvate sector will be conveyed on a "fee simple"
basis. It is our understanding that secudng pdvate funding through a ground lease
arrangement is also under consideration by the City. This approach, a ground lease, will not
work for townhouses and also can be a constraint in maximizing value for a commercial
parcel.
The following is a summary of the proposed private uses, estimated value to the City, and
comments regarding constraints to the proposed uses. The City alternative to develop and
own an office building is reviewed as number 4.
1. Residential Townhouses Estimated Value Range: $2 to $3 Million
Schemes C, D and E of the Field Paoli concept alternatives outline the development of 20, 25,
and 22 attached townhouses, respectfully, on the eastern portion of the site where a parking
lot is currently located. The townl~ouse units are approximately 1,400 square feet and contain
a one-car garage.
._ KMA's value estimate of $2 to $3 million (for Schemes C and E) is based upon comparable
land sales in the South Peninsula area where land values show ranges of $100,000 to
$140,000 per unit, similar in size to the proposed units.
To: Therese Ambmsi Smith,. Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 3
The townhouses in Schemes C and E are cleady separated from the other uses on the site
whereas Schemes D shows 12 of the 25 townhouses above the clubhouse. This approach,
townhouses above a public structure, is not recommendable as it complicates the
development process and financing, and complicates townhouse ownership.
Additional site planning is necessary to better understand how housing might be implemented
and the possible alternative site concepts.
2. Commercial Space Estimated Value Range: $1 Million
Schemes A and B of the Field Paoli concept alternatives outline a 10,000 square foot
commercial building that can be used for office, retail or a restaurant.
The value to the City for this type of use is estimated to be in the range of $1 million.
A successful commercial development will require a well-delineated site plan placing the
commercial use al the highly accessible comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Stalling Rd. This
location will also allow for the commercial use to establish its own identity, and viability,
independent of the Sports Center.
Again, shared parking between the commercial use and the Sports Center has the potential to
be problematic unless dedicated parking with effective regulation is ensured. The fee simple
transfer of land, including space for parking, for this private use will help prevent this potential
parking dilemma.
3. Conference Center Estimated Value: Nominal
A conference center on the Sports Center site was not part of the Field Paoli'alternatives but
was reviewed at the request of City staff.
Conference centers are typically privately developed in conjunction with a hotel. Freestanding
conference centers are typically publicly financed because the revenue potential is not
sufficient to support both operating expenses and capital costs. Therefore, a conference
center is not recommended.
4. Office Space Developed and Owned by the City
It is our understanding that development of a 10,000 square foot office building by the City is
also under consideration. Considering income to the City from this option should be
approached with caution and is not recommended by KMA at this time, when compared to the
other options under consideration, until more information is known.
11413.oo1\oo4-OOl; ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 4
For example, the ability of the City to finance against such an income stream is subject to the
credit of the tenant and the length of the lease. If the City is unable to secure a long-term
credit lease, the ability to bond against the income stream will be more difficult.
If the commercial portion of the project is to be bond financed, the commercial portion may
require taxable bonds. Taxable bonds carry a higher interest rate, on average about two
points higher than tax-exempt bonds.
Lastly, and as outlined in the private commercial space section above (2), the site layout and
.building characteristics need to be designed with close attention to those characteristics that
maximize the potential for occupancy and rents, such as the development of a high quality
freestanding building with adequate parking, separated from the other uses on the site.
In summary, more information is needed before financing using this option is considered.
Recommendation
At this time, KMA recommends a public-private financing option that includes the development
._ of attached residential townhouses (with a fee simple land transfer). This use will generate the
highest order of magnitude value range of approximately $2 to $3 million.
KMA's value estimate presumes the development of market rate for-sale townhouses to
maximize land value. Apartments will not support as high a value given the options presented
by Field Paoli. Also, the inclusion of price-restricted units will decrease the supported land
value.
Below are a few recommendations that the City may consider as they proceed in this process.
These recommendations will also help maximize the amount of private sector funding for the
reconstruction project.
1. Site planning and design analysis. As you are aware, there are several outstanding
programmatic issues to resolve related to the co-existence of new housing and a
Sports Center. Actual placement of townhouses within the site, shared parking for
tenants and guests, and a possible reduction of one or more of the tennis courts are a
couple of areas in need of further development.
2. Pretest housing concept with developers as you go through the process. The sale of
city owned property is ultimately dependent upon the level of developer interest. Unit
sizes, parking, and amenities are a couple of areas where engaging the private
development community, sooner rather than later, would be beneficial.
11413.001~0044)01: ms
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page 5
3. Fully entitle the housing portion of the site prior to the sale offering. After the City has a
better understanding of the specifications for a new housing development, a fully
entitled property, including variances, special use permits and environmental
clearances should be guaranteed to the buyer.
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation April 13, 2001
Subject: Cupertino Sports Center Page §
Summary of Field Paoli Site Alternatives
Public Use Private Use Parking Spaces
· 17 Tennis Courts
Scheme A · 10,000 SF Club Commercial Space 115 to 120
· 1 Pool (10,000 square feet)
· 17 Tennis Courts Commercial Space
Scheme B · 10,000 SF Club (10,000 square feet, 115 to 120
· 1 Pool 2 sto~es)
· 15 Tennis Courts
· 2 Tennis Courts on 20 Townhouses
Scheme C Club Roof (1,400 square feet, 100 to 110
· 10,000 SF Club t cargarage ea.)
· 1 Pool
13 Townhouses
· 17Tennis Courts
Scheme D · 10,000 SF Club 12 Townhouses above Club 80
· 1 Pool (1,400 square feet,
1 car garage ea.)
· 15Tennis Courts
· 1 to 2 Tennis Courts 22 Townhouses
Scheme E on Club Roof (1,400 square feet, 55
· 10,000 SF Club 1 cargarage ea.)
· I Pool
RESOLUTION NO. o2-o5~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
MARCH 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the Director of Admlni.~trative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the
availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows
the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
D ve Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of ,~l~r/.1 ,2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the CiW Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
03/14/02 CTTy OF C~Jwz~TIHO PAGE 1
ACCO~HTTHG PERIOD: 9/02 C~ECK RKGI~i-r,K - DZSBI~SKMBHT ~
SELECTXC~ C~ITERZA: transact trarm dar. e betveen "03/11/2002" m~d -03/1S/2002"
CASH AC'CT CHECK NO XSS~E DT .............. VBBD0~ ............. ~/DE~r ..... DESC~IPTXO~ ...... SA~RS TAX
1020 591596 03/15/02 4 A T & T 1108501 FEB2002 S~R¥XCE 0.00 14.78
1020 591596 03/15/02 4 A T & T 1108501 FEB2002 S~RV 0.00 14.78
1020 591596 03/15/02 4 A T a T 1108501 FEB2002 SERV 0.00 14.78
1020 591556 03/15/02 4 A T & T 1108501 FEB2002 SERV 0.00 36.20
~ ~CK 0.00 80.54
1020 ~91599 03/1~/02 22~9 A-1 ~, XNC. 1108312 X~ ~IN LI~ ~C 0.00 2450.00
1020 591600 03/15/02 7 ~ ~ ~TI~ 1104540 ~ES ~ ~053603 0.00 89.90
~020 59~60~ 03/~S/02 2276 ~ ~045~0 ~ MA~ S~V 0.00 ~54.00
1020 591601 03/~5/02 2276 ~ 1104S~0 ~X~X~ ~ S~V 0.00 225.50
1020 59160~ 03/15/02 888 ~ ~L ~ X 5?08510 ~A*~ ~-~2002 0.00 507.51
1020 ~91603 03/15/02 2298 ~ Rl~r.~ 1106400 V~ SRV 0.00 22.28
1020 591603 03/15/02 2298 ~ WI~8S 1108501 ~ S~ 0.00 82~.4V
1020 ~91603 03/15/02 2298 ~ WZ~SS 1104400 ~ S~ 0.00 34.83
1020 591603 03/15/02 2298 ~ MZP~T*~qS 5V06450 y~ SRV 0.00 21.64
1020 591603 03/15/02 2298 ~ Wl~.~S 6104800 ~-~ SRV 0.00 18.14
1020 591603 03/15/02 2298 ~ WI~SS 1106265 FKB SRV 0.00 23.14
1020 591603 03/15/02 2298 ~ WZ~S 1107501 ~ SRV 0.00 lP 14
1020 591604 03/15/02 M ~, ~ 580 Re~: ~eck - R~Cal 0.00 100.00
~o20 591605 03/~s/02 ~002 ~, ~C ~0~0~0 2002 P~ IH~. 3/20-2 0.00 ~26.00
1020 591606 03/15/02 M ~, ~Z~ 560 Re~: ~ck - Re~u~ 0.00 ~S0.00
1020 591607 03/15/02 1066 BR~/~-~XS X~X 5208003 ~ ~ ~2002 0.00 3659.05
1~20 591608 03/15/02 133 ~-LX~ ~X~ ~ XN 6308840 P~ ~24445 0.00 2V.71
1020 591609 03/15/02 132 ~X~XA ~ S~ 1108314 S~VX~ ~20~2 0.00 23.41
1020 591609 03/15/02 132 ~X~ ~ ~VZ~ 1108314 ~Z~ ~2002 0.00 95.8~
1020 591609 03/15/02 132 ~X~XA MA~ S~VX~ 1108508 S~VX~ ~2002 0.G0 5.85
1020 591609 03/15/02 132 ~X~XA WA~ S~VX~ 1108407 S~ ~2002 0.00 ~24.
1020 591609 03/15/02 132 ~I~ ~ ~VZ~ 1108407 S~VX~ ~002 0.00 23.96
1020 591610 03/15/02 2232 ~, ~BS 110 S~ 0.00
1020 591610 03/15/02 2232 ~, ~ 110 ~ · 0.00 306.50
~ ~ 0.00 410.34
1020 591611 03/15/02 143 ~ ~I~Z~ Z~ 1103400 ~ S~ P~ ~IV 0.00 2797.00
1020 591612 03/15/02 155 ~ ~ ~ 1108303 ~ZRS ~8096 0.00
1020 591613 03/15/02 1057 ~ZD~ ~ZTS ~VZC 110 *~ ~/~240125 0.00 4
· RT]~ DATE 03/14/02 T"rl~ 12:24zlV - FZI~MICX~T, ~CCOC~TIIG
03/14/02 CZTY 0~' COPER?ZNO PA~E 2
~020 S9~6~] 03/~5/02 LOST ~ZDZ~ B~FZT~ $ERVXC IL0 *~ DEP/~240125 0.00 165.40
~ ~ 0.00 Sg2.34
1020 59~6~4 03/~S/02 L820 ~ZDZ~ B~FZTS S~VXC ~045~0 ~ F~S ~2002 0.00 27.S0
1020 5~6~4 03/~5/02 Z~20 ~ZDZ~ B~FZTS S~VZC iX0 ~ ~S F~2002 0.00 22
~ ~ 0 . 00 50 . 00
~020 S9~6~6 03/~5/02 ~002 ~, ~ ~0~070 P~ ZNST 3/20-22 0.00 42.00
1020 59161~ 03/15/02 1453 ~Z~ ~P~ S~V 1108501 ~P~R/CZ~ ~.~K OFF 0.00 260.00
1020 591617 03/15/02 1453 ~Z~ ~ S~V 1108504 ~P~ · ~Z~ 0.00 900.00
1020 59161q 03/15/02 1453 ~Z~P~ ~P~ SERV 1108502 ~P~R/LZ~Y 0.00 330.00
~ ~ 0.00 1490.00
1020 591618 03/15/02 ~002 CZ~ ~.~'S ~S~ OF ~ 1104300 ~ ~C ~ ~F 0.00 ~10.00
1020 591619 0~/15/02 192 ~ ~TZO~ ~ 1104510 ~-~Y ~SZ~ 0.00
~ 591621 03/15/~2 1058 ~TZNO ~Z~ S~V 2607404 R~TZ~ S~L~R 0.00 6250,00
~z'~ ~ 0.00 18750,00
1020 591622 03/15/02 1637 ~VZD ~ ~ A ~ 110 ~F S~VZ~S 0.00 2968.~5
1020 591623 03/15/02 208 DE ~ ~ ~ZA ~ 1101031 4~ ~ ~LZC A~SS 0.00 24518.50
1020 591624 03/15/02 209 DE ~ SERVZ~S ZNC 1108502 ~Z~RZ~ SRV 0.00 144.00
1020 591625 03/15/02 211 D~TA D~ P~ OF ~ 110 O~3 ~ 1539-002 0.00 189.84
1020 591625 03/15/02 211 D~T~ D~ P~ OF ~ 110 ~P P~ 1539-001 0.00 3452.76
1020 591625 03/15/02 211 D~TA D~ P~ OF ~ 110 ~ ~ 1539-003 0.00 6370.83
1020 591625 03/15/02 211 D~A D~ P~ OF ~ 110 OE3 ~ 1539-002 0.00
1020 591626 03/15/02 1492 ~ ~S ~ 2708405 ~1ES/~8091 0.00 151.~
1020 591627 03/15/02 1242 DZGZT~ PRZ~ Z~SZ~ 1104100 ~9 ~ ~PES 0.00 271.56
1020 59162~ 03/15/02 1242 DZGZT~ PRZ~ Z~SZ~ 1104310 ~'~-~-~ ~ 0.00 2149.27
1020 59162~ 03/15/02 1242 DZGZT~ ~Z~ Z~SZ~ 1104530 ~ ~/g ~ 0.00 56.21
1020 59162~ 03/15/02 1242 DIGZ~ PRZ~ Z~SZ~ 1104100 WZ~ ~ 0.00 21~9.26
~ ~ 0.00 4626.30
1020 591628 03/15/02 220 DZS~ ~ ~ 5806349 ~Z~8 g15671 0.00 TI.~T
1020 591629 03/15/02 199~ DZ~Z~ A~ ~ 110 A ~Z ~ 566398126 0.00 23.08
~' ~91630 03/15/02 2~2 D~ ~Z~ ~209529 ~ZC ~ ~ 0.00 103216.65
Rl1~ DATK 03/14/02 T'TI,~ 12z24~18 -
03/14/02 ~TY O~ ~Jm~d~'k~u PAG~ 3
ACCOT~TING P~ZOD: 9/02 ~ ~I~ - DI~ ~
S~ ~I~IA: ~r~ac=.=r~_~e ~e~ aO3/11/2002e ~ ~03/15/2002e
~ - 110 - G~ ~
~H A~ ~ ~ IS~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/Dg~ ..... D~Z~Z~ ...... ~T.~ T~
1020 591631 03/15/02 225 ~ ~X~ ~FX~ & ~ 1108501 TZ~/~Z~ 0.00
1020 5916~1 03/15/02 225 ~ ~I~ ~F~ a ~ 11~8314 T]~/~T~I~ 0.00 1187.~6
1020 591632 03/1~/02 242 ~ D~ D~ 11~ SIT/932-0014-~ 0.00
1020 ~91633 03/1~/02 24~ ~ D~ 110 ~DI/T~6-~260-0 0.00 861.93
1020 591634 0~/15/02 2]4 ~Z~ ~TA S~VI~ 110 H916B~1 ~11 ~I~ 0.00 152.24
1020 591634 03/15/02 2]% ~I~I~ ~TA S~VZ~ 110 ~17148 ~ZL ~I~ 0.00 9%.11
1020 591634 03/15/02 234 ~d~I~ ~TA ~VI~ 1104300 ~LIC ~I~ ~I~ 0.00 62.94
1020 S91634 03/~S/02 234 ~m~ ~TA SnV~ ~0 R91689S ~L ~I~ 0.00 70.13
1020 591634 o3/~s/o2 234 ~ ~TA S~= 110 R917065 ~Ih ~S 0.00 1T7.93
1020 591634 03/15/02 234 ~ ~TA ~VI~ 110 R917064 ~L ~I~ 0.00 73.19
~ ~CK 0.00 630.54
1020 591635 03/~5/02 1949 ~ snv~s ~08s02 ~ 2/~-2/28/02 0.00 16~.38
1020 591636 03/~s/02 258 F~LY ~T ~US~ 110 M O~ZNI~ S48373456 0.00 157.38
1020 S91636 02/~s/02 258 F~LY ~RT ~='A'~ 110 V ~ S63312780 0.00
~ ~E~ 0.0O 510.00
1020 591637 03/15/02 M F~, P~-~ 580 Ref~d: ~eck - S~I~ 0.00
1020 591638 03/15/02 2271 ~X~ ~X~ ~ 2708404 P~TS 98080 0.00 S40.41
1020 591639 03/15/02 2479 ~ ~L 5~06549 J~ 2002/~002 0.00 210.00
1020 591640 03/15/02 274 ~Y~S mT.~ 1108504 ~X~ 98099 0.00 155.82
1020 591641 03/15/02 1690 G. ~IL DX~ ~ I~ 1104510 ~ A ~Z~ 0.00 99.35
1020 591642 ~/15/02 281 ~ 110840~ ~P~R ~ P~TS 0.00 4387.33
1020 ~91642 03/15/02 281 ~ 1108408 ~I~ 98108 0.00
~ ~ 0.00 4904.61
1020 591643 03/15/02 1827 ~*S ~ A S~V 6308840 S~VI~ ~8100 0.00 236.32
1020 591644 ~3/15/02 M ~, ~IS 580 bfq: ~eck - B~ 0.00 408.00
1020 · 591645 03/15/02 1~41 ~~, ~, ~104800 ~ ~T ~S 18"~ D 0.00 691.00
1020 591645 0]/15/02 1741 ~I~, I~. 1107301 ~ ~T ~ 18"~ D 0.00 250.00
1020 591645 03/15/02 1741 ~v~n~AA~, INC. 1108501 ~ ~T ~S 18"~ D 0.00 250.00
1020 591645 03/15/02 1741 ~I~, ~. 6109856 ~ ~T ~S 18"~ D 0.00 750.00
1020 591645 03/15/02 1741 ~C~I~, ~. 1107501 ~ ~T ~S 18"~ D 0.00 250.00
1020" 592646 03/15/02 2428 ~ ~ Z~ 270~S0 ~IC ~ ~ 0.00 26560.72
1020 S91647 03/15/02 2630 ~Y B. ~ a ~ 6204SS0 ~ W.~ ~ ~ 0.00 20'' '~0
DATE 03/14/02 T~ 12:24~10 - FIHMICIAL ACCO~iTIN~
03/3,4/02 CITY 0f ~,r~KI'ZI~O p.~L" 4
~'~ PgRZ~: 9/02
1020 5~164~ 03/15/02 2630 ~RY B. ~ & ~ 6204550 W.~ ~ ~LZ~ 0.00 ~125.00
~ ~Cx O. 00 3125,00
1020 591648 03/15/02 2546 ~ ~l~ 1108505 TX~ A ~Z~ 0.00 1GS0.00
1020 591655 03/15/02 334 ~ D~/~ 5606620 ~IBS f~15735 0.00 80. V9
1020 S91655 03/15/02 334 ~ D~/GECr 1108506 ~I68 f~80~2 0.00 32.38
1020 591655 03/15/02 334 ~ DE~/GECF 1108314 ~ZES ~24423 0.00 15.09
1020 591655 03/15/02 334 ~ Dg~/G;~ Z108303 S~Z~ '~24420 0.00 50.64
1 591655 03/15/02 334 R~ ~/GgC; 1108314 ~P~ZgS '~24404 0.00 24.06
1020 591655 03/15/02 334 ~ DE~/GgCP S606620 ~Z~/~15731 0.00 430.23
102Q 591655 03/15/02 334 ~ DE~/~ 1108312 auy~Z~/~80B~ 0.00 19.0V
~ ~ 0.00 355V.~4
1020 591656 03/15/02 H
1020 591657 03/15/02 343 I~ ~Z~ ~-45 ~10 '1~ 0.O0 5985.55
1020 591658 03/15/02 2090 Z~ 0~I~ ~Z~ 1108101 ~ ~16696 0.00 131.44
~ 591659 03/15/02 1892 Z~Z~ 1108101 8~ ~ 0.00 1095.00
03/14/02 CXTY OF C[~.TZNO P~GE 5
2020 592662 0~/~5/02 995 ~V ~ 2208502 ~ 2002-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 275.?3
2020 592662 03/25/02 995 ZNS~P~ Z~0~S0~ ~ 2002-2002 0~ ~C 0.00
Z020 59166~ 03/15/02 995 ZNS~V ~ ~208504 ~ 200~-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 175.73
~ ~ 0.00 527.~8
1020 591662 03/15/02 2455 Z~ Z~. ~S~ 6109858 CZ~ ~B R~ ~ 0.00 9]7.50
1020 59166~ 03/15/02 353 Z~~ ~Z04300 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 ]~2.40
1020 591664 03/15/02 2389 ~.~.~S ~ ~NC ~10~830 P~S/~Y ~072 0.00 436.2~
1020 S91664 0~/15/02 2389 O.~.~S ~ Z~C 1Z0~830 ~ 0.00 -155.45
~ ~ 0.00 280.8~
1020 591665 03/15/02 2632 ~ 5208003 ~ ~V ZK/CZT 0.00 ~750.00
~020 591666 03/15/02 H WW, ~Z;~ 580 RetS: ~eck - ~[~ 0.00 98.00
1020 591667 03/15/0; H nTiS, TZN 5~0 ~ 133634/1]3633 0.00 ~25.00
1020 591668 03/15/02 2355 [~-HO~ ~ ~S~T 4209534 ~C ~ ~ 0.00 2637~.94
2020 592669 03/15/02 ~002 ~ ~TA, VZN~ 1104400 ~~S 0.00 ...El
1020 592670 03/~5/02 H T.~, ~ 580 Ref~: ~eck - HZ~UK 0.00 120.00
1020 591671 03/15/02 ~002 ~, ~ 1100000 ~ILZ~ T~ ~ 0.00 2.15
1020 591672 03/15/02 405 [mc~ ~ ~114 1108601 FINDS. ~14919 0.00 9.]4
1020 5916~3 03/15/02 258~ RZ~ A. ~D~ 1104400 5~V/~ ~
1020 591673 03/15/02 2588 RZ~ A. ~ 1104400 S~VZ~ ~' ~ 0.00 500.00
~ ~CK 0.00 1000.00
1020 5916V4 03/15/02 444 HZ~'S ~R 1108508 ~Z~ ~22473 0.00 42.82
1020 591675 03/15/02 2567 ~ 110 ~ 385960533 0.00 223.00
1020 5916~6 03/15/02 H HZS~, ~ S80 Reft: ~e~ - Pent~ 0.00 10.00
1020 591G7~ Q3/15/02 H ~, S~1~ S80 XeE~: ~eck - ~ti1 0.00 ~50.00
1020 S91678 03/15/02 302 ~TZ~ DB~ ~ 110 *~'~ D~ 0.O0 16960.46
1020 S91679 03/15/02 H ~, ~1~ Se0 Re~m~: ~eck - Retu~ 0.00 ~S0.00
1020 S91680 03/15/02 9ES ~ ~ ~z~ 1108G01 ~Z~ P1~ ~ 0.0O ~.68
1020 591680 03/15/02 965 ~~ 110810~ ~ P~.;~ 0.O0 1V.86
R~ D~ 03/14/02 '1'Z!~ 12:24:20
03/14/02 CITY OF ~'!~0 PA~£ 6
CASH ACC~ f'~uCK HO ~SS~E DT .............. ~ ............. F~/DEFT ..... DESC~ZPT~ ...... SAT.~= TAX ~
1020 591681 03/15/02 M O'SUZ,XVAN, PA.Q~. 560 Re£un~: C~te~ - NXh~=~. 0.00 92.00
1020 S91G82 03/1S/02 493 O~:'ZC~ D~POT ZZ04Z00
~020 S9~G82 0~/~5/02 493 O~Z~D~ Z~04S30 ~Z~ 0.00 203.20
Z020 Sg~GB2 0~/~5/02 493 O~Z~ ~ ~Z045~0 ~PLZ~ 0.00 SZ.g4
1020 591682 03/15/02 493 O~I~ ~ 1107503 ~PLZ~ 0.00 97.36
1020 591682 03/15/02 493 0~1~ DE~ 1104100 ~ZBS 0.00 -~9.01
1020 591682 03/15/02 493 O~I~ Dg~ 110?301 ~IES 0.00 69.05
1020 591682 03/15/02 493 OFF/~ DE~ 1104100 ~I~S 0.O0 306.31
10~0 S91682 03/15/02 49~ O~Z~ Dg~ 1104100 ~Z~ 0.00 -86.58
~ ~ 0.00 548.85
1020 S91683 03/15/02 ~002 O~Z~ O~ ~ S~I~-~ 1101000
1020 5916~4 03/15/02 2094 ~ ~ ZNC., ~ 1108315 ~I~S ~15076 0.00 35.99
10~0 S91685 03/15/02 501 OP~TZ~ ~Z~ ~3 110 ~Z~ ~ 0.00 558.09
1020 591686 03/15/02 SOO OP~T~ ~Ib~ ~ 110 H & W P.N. ~S 0.00 5488.00
1020 591686 03/15/02 500 O~T~ ~l~ ~ 1104510 H & N P.M. ~1~E 0.00 ~84.00
1020 591686 03/~S/02 500 O~TI~ ~GI~RS ~ 1104510 H & ~ P.M. ~I~ SP 0.00 3360.00
~% ~ 0.00 9632.00
lb.u S91687 03/15/02 1220 OR~ ~Y ~ 1108830 ~PLZ~ 0.00 92.03
' 1020 591687 03/25/02 1220 ~ ~Y ~ 1~08504 ~PLI~ 0.00 51.64
1020 591687 03/15/02 1220 ~PLY~ 1108501 ~PL~ES 0.00 S1.93
1020 591687 03/15/02 1220 ~ ~Y ~ 1108503 ~IES 0.00 80.38
1020 591687 03/15/02 ~220 ~ ~Y ~ ~oes03 ~-T~ ~zs~ 0.00 -~S.~
1020 591687 03/1S/02 ~220 OX~ ~Y ~ 1108507 ~1ES 0.00 32.81
1020 591687 03/~5/02 1220 ~ ~9LY ~ 1108501 ~1~ 0.00 12.96
~ ~ 0.00 306.64
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108321 ~Z~ ~8071 0.00 130.65
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108321 ~Z~ ~27102 0.00 11.89
1020 S91688 03/~S/02 981 ~ ~P~Y ~ 1108315 ~Z~ 4250~4 0.00 25.92
1020 591688 03/~S/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~ZES ~24419 0.00 35.06
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~ZES ~8075 0.00 449.~0
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~ J15564 0,00 44.76
1020 591688 02/~5/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~ 48086 0.00 153.g0
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~-TI~ DZS~ 0.00 -27.73
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~Z~ e8028 0.00 239.~2
1020 591688 03/~S/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303
~020 S~688 03/~S/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108312 ~I~ ~8031 0.00 112.99
1020 591688 03/15/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108314
1020 591688 03/~S/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~IES ~8069 0.00 464.2~
1020 591688 03/15/02 961 ~ ~Y ~ 2708405 ~ ~8070 0.00 2~1.43
1020 591688 03/~S/02 98~ ~ ~Y ~ 2708405 ~ ~8034 0.00 164.40
1020 591688 03/~5/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~I~ ~15562 0.00 36.88
1020 S91689 03/~5/02 981 ~ ~Y ~ 1108303 ~ ~15561 0.00 24.30
~ 591688 03/lS/02 991 ~ ~Y ~ 1108321 ~IES ~8036 0,00 536.51
R~i DATR 03/14/02 T/ME 12:24:21 - FINANCIAL ACC"G~IT:T,,~IG
~ ~ 0.00 2797,77
~020 5~89 03/~S/0~ 83~ P E R S ~0 P~ ~959 0.00 ~7.~8
1020 59~689 0~/~5/02 833 P E R S ~0 *P~ B~K 0.00 180.14
1020 591689 03/15/02 833 P E R S 120 ~ ~K 0.00 37.52
L020 591689 03/~5/02 833 P E R S 2~0 ~ SPEC 0.00 13$.85
~020 59~689 03/~5/02 833 P E R S ~LO ~ ~Y 0,00 24504.48
~020 59L689 03/~S/02 833 P g R S L~0 *P~ B~K 0.00 683,65
~ ~ 0.00 25654,82
~020 592690 03/~S/02 508 P E R S - ~ ~045~0 ~ 02 0.00 27039,66
~02o so~s90 03/~s/02 s08 P E R S - ~ 110 ~ 02 0,00 54882.20
~020 59~690 03/~5/02 508 P E R S - ~ ~L045~0 ~ 02 0,00 4L2,94
Z020 59~690 03/Z5/02 S08 P E R S - ~ Z~04SZ0 ~ 02 0.00 -~422,08
~020 S9~693 0S/IS/02 5~ P~ZFZC BE~ ~0850~ S~V 2/~6-3/L5 0,00 ~3.5L
t020 59L693 03/~5/02 5iL P~ZFIC B~ Z~08S0Z 2/Z3-3/~2/02 0,00 324,00
~020 59~693 03/iS/02 521 P~IFZC B~ 6~04800 2/26-3/25/02 0,00 620,~2
~020 592693 03/~S/02 5~ P~IFZC ~ 6~04800 SnV 2/20-3/Z9 0,00 69.02
~020 59~693 03/IS/02 52~ P~FIC B~ ~t0730L ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 46,SS
~020 59L693 03/~5/02 5~ PACIFIC BE~ ~208504 ~ SRRV FRB 200 0,00 93.~8
~020 59~693 03/25/02 Sl~ P~ZFlC BE~ ~085~ ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 46.59
2020 59~6~3 03/L5/02 52~ P~ZFIC BE~ ~0~647 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00
~020 59~693 03/iS/02 5~ * P~ZFZC BE~ ~0~000 ~ SRRV F~ 200 0.00
2020 59~693 03/~S/02 S2~ P~FZC BE~ ~108508 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 56,17
~020 S9L693 03/~S/02 S~Z P~ZFZC B~ ~02~00 ~ S~V ~B 200 0,00 Z~6,48
2020 SgL6~3 03/~5/02 SL~ P~IFZC RS~ ~08509 ~ S~V r~ 200 0~00 52,07
~0R0 S9~693 03/~5/02 5~ P~ZFZC BE~ ~08504 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 25,49
~020 S92693 03/LS/02 SZ~ PACIFIC ~, L~08407 ~ S~V ~ 200
1020 591693 0S/iS/02 511 P~IFIC RE~ 1108201 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 5~,99
1020 591693 03/~S/02 Sll PACIFIC~ 1101500 ~ ~V =~ 200 0,00 256,2S
1020 S91693 03/1S/02 511 PACIFIC ~Y~ 1104300 ~ S~V ~B 200 0,00 210.33
1020 S9169~ 03/lS/02 511 PACIFIC B~ 1103300 ~T~ SERV Wb 200 0,00 46,59
1020 591693 03/~S/02 511 PACiFiC BE~ ~103S00 ~ S~V ~B 200 0,00 69,99
~020 59~693 03/~5/02 SZZ P~IFI: R~ ~04000 ~ S~V F~ 200 0.00 69,89
~020 S9~693 03/iS/02 S~ P~IFIC BE~ l~04L00 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00
~020 59~693 03/iS/Q2 S~ PACIFIC a~. ~04200 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 69,89
~020 59~693 03/~5/02 5~ P~FZC ~ ~0~200 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 69,89
~020 S9~693 03/~S/02 Sl~ P~IFIC B~ l~04S10 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 L39,77
~020 S9~693 03/~5/~2 S~ P~ZF~C B~ ~06647 ~.~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 23,30
~020 S9~693 03/~S/02 Sl~ P~FIC B~ ~04530 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00
~020 59~693 03/~S/02 5~ P~ZPZC~ ~04400 ~T.u~ S~V ~ 20O 0,00 69,89
~020 S9~693 03/~5/02 S~ P~ZFIC net~, L106~00 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 69,89
~020 S9~693 03/tS/02 S~ P~IFZC ~. ~0626S ~ SnV ~ 2OO 0,00 372,73
~020 S9~693 03/~5/02 5~ PACIFIC BE~ L~06529 ~T~ S~V ~ 2OO 0,00 23,30
~020 39~693 03/15/02 SI~ PACIFIC aPTs. l106S00 ~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 279,SS
~020 S~Z693 03/~5/02 SL~ P~IFZC B~ ~07200 ~.S~V ~ 200 0,00 69,89
~020 59~693 03/~S/02 5~ P~ZPIC BE~ ~0730~ ~.u~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 209,66
~020 ~9~693 03/~S/02 S~i P~FlC a~- ~07302 ~.e~ S~V ~ 200 0,00 46,S9
~020 59~693 03/~S/02 Sl~ P~IFZC ~ lL07S01 ~ S~V ~B 2O0 0,00 30~.84
RUti DATE 03/14/02 T~ 12:24:21 - FZHANCZAG~ZHG
03/16/0~ CZ'IT OF Cu~,~.~ZNO PAG~ 0
ACCO~rI'ING l~IOD: 9/02 ~CK ~Z~ - DZ~
1020 591693 03/15/02 511 PACIFIC B~T.T, 1107502 ~0~ S~V ~ 200 0.00 23.30
1020 591694 03/15/02 1039 P~IFIC ~T ~ 1108303 P~TS a S~PLIES 0.00 145.73
1020 591695 03/15/02 513 P~ZFZC ~ & E~IC ( 1108602 S~V 2/1-3/4 0.00 52.31
1020 591695 03/15/02 513 P~ZFZC ~ & ~ZC ( 1108407
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ & ~IC 110840? S~VI~ ~u2002 0.00 1022.96
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC~ a E~ZC S606620
1020 S91696 03/15/02 513 P~ZFIC ~ & ~ZC 5606620 S~VZ~ ~2002 0.00 183.60
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~ZFIC ~ & ~-t~ZC 1108602 S~ ~82002 0.00 2462.76
1020 591696 0~/15/02 513 PACIFIC ~ & ~IC 1108507 B~ ~2002 0.00 268~.20
1020 591696 0~/15/02 51~ P~IFIC ~ a E~IC 1108212 S~VI~ r~u2002 0.00 147.~5
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ & E~IC 1108505 S~VI~ ~2002 0.00 2197,14
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ a E~IC 1108506 S~I~ ~2002 0.00 394.50
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ & ~IC 1108504 ~VI~ ~2002 0.00 3950.?9
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ & E~IC 1108503 ~VI~ ~2002 0.00 1944.75
1020 591696 03/15/02 513 P~IFIC ~ & E~IC 1108501 ~VI~ ~2002 0.0O 492~.19
~ ~ 0.00 26636,92
RL~ D~T~ 03/14/02 TII'~ 12:24:22 - FZJEAgCIAL ACCO~ITZNG
03/14/02 CITY OF t'u'P~iTZNO PAX]E 9
&t~OUNTING p~RTOD: 9/02 CI~CK REGI~,.L]SA - DISBORS~IT ~
$ELECTICH~ C~ITERIA: t=ans&ct.t=ans_date becwee~ '*03/11/2002" and '03/15/2002"
FOND - 110 - GENERAL F~qD
CASH ACCT (~CK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~ ............. I~/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AHO~
1020 591697 03/15/02 2616 PACZFIC S~P-FACZNO INC 1108303 2002 CCH~C~ C~ ~ 0.00 4798.00
1020 591698 0]/15/02 515 PACIFIC UST EE~]~I~ IN 1108506 S~V ~ 2/28 O.0O 145.00
1020 591698 03/15/02 515 P~IFIC ~ST SB~Z~ IN 1108502 S~V ~ 2/13 0.00 232.01
1020 591698 03/15/02 515 PACIFIC ~ ~Z~ IN 1108507 S~V ~ 2/08 0.00 145.00
~ ~ 0.00 522.01
1020 591699 03/15/02 520 P~I~ ~ 1104510 ~S 0.00 S.00
1020 591699 03/15/02 S20 P~I~ I~ 1104510 ~PLIES 0.00 29.94
~ ~ 0.00 34.94
1020 591700 03/15/02 M PA~L. P~U 580 Re~: ~eck - Wl~-z-~ 0.00 120.00
1020 591701 0~/15/02 526 P~ DIGIT~ I~IN 110 ~ ~PZ~ ~R9116 0.00 19.49
1020 591701 03/15/02 526 ~ DIGIT~ I~IN 1108101 ~ B~ 0.00 130.44
~T~ ~ 0.00 149.93
1020 591702 03/1S/02 S33 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 110
1020 591703 03/15/02 1748 S~ PI~E~I 1107200
1020 S91704 03/1~/02 542 P~ ~ L~ 110~0~ S~IES 48016 0.00 S~ 93
1020 S91704 03/15/02 542 PI~ ~ L~ 1108S05 ~ 48016 0.00 J
~T~ ~ 0.00
1020 591705 03/15/02 2315 PI~ Ik~IO~ 1107301 ~I~ SIZE B ~ C M~ 0.00 631.32
1020 S91705 03/15/02 2315 PZ~ Z~O~ 1101200 ~ SZ~ B ~ C W~ 0.00 1262.61
1020 591706 03/15/02 1929 ~ ~ ~I 1108601 ~ P~ ~I~ ~ 0.00 2520.00
1020 591706 03/15/02 1929 ~I~ ~ ~I 1107302
T~ ~ 0.00 23015.65
1020 591707 0]/15/02 559 ~ S~Z~ 1107405 ~TI~ ~RVS 1/1-3/~ 0.00 51T5.00
1020 59170~ 03/15/02 559 ~ S~ 1107405 ~TZ~ S~VS 10/1-12 0.00 51~5.00
1020 591~07 0~/15/02 559 ~ ~ 1107405 ~IATZ~ S~ 7/1-9/3 0.00 51T5.00
~ ~ 0.00 15525.00
1020 591708 0]/15/02 1071 ~L$C~IC 1108602 ~2 ~A ~9 0.00 1T~3.00
1020 591708 03/15/02 1071 ~L~C~IC 1108602 ~1C SZ~ ~ 0.00 3~0.00
1020 S91708 03/2S/02 20~2 ~2C~C 2~08602 ~2C S2~ ~ 0.00 4068.00
~ ~ 0.00 6221.00
1020 591709 03/15/02 2631 ~ M ~, Z~ ~208030 ~ ~8085 0.00 297.24
1020 591710 03/lS/02 SO2 ~ ~ ~ 22040~ ~P 4/08/02 0.00 7S3.89
1020 59~720 03/15/02 602 P~~ 5506549 ~ 0.00 842.40
~'~ 0.00 ~S96,20
1020 5~1711 03/15/02 M ~, hVe~ SSO b~: ~eck - Bri~ 0.00 '' QO
DATE 03/14/02 TZJ~ 12:24:23 - FZ~ZAL
7-10
03/14/02 CITY OF CUPSRTIN0 PA~ 10
~'~T~31~ PER2OD~ 9/02 ~CK ~G~ - D~ ~
1020 591712 03/15/02 437 S V C N 1104300 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 32.50
1020 591713 03/15/02 142002 SAADA?Z, TAGHZ 1101070 EXP ADV 0.00 126.00
1020 592714 03/15/02 959 SAN JO~E ~RCURYNEMS 1108265 3/25-6/33/02 OUZNI,AN 0.00 47.57
2020 591719 03/15/02 635 SA~ 3OSE Mk-~-~:r.~r COMPANY 1108321 1/3-3/4/02 0.00 298.85
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE Nk'Z',~A COMPA/~Y 1108407 1/04-3/05/02 0.0O 39.30
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE #A*£,.,t~ COMPANY 1109312 1/04-3/05/02 0.00 260.67
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE #A'£1S~, COMPANY 1108314 1/04-3/05/02 0.00 17.34
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER C014PANY 1108407 1/04-3/05/02 0.00 116.18
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN J0~S #ATER COMPANY 1108407 1/04-3/05/02 0.00 29.35
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE Mk-z-,g~ COMPANY 1108314 1/29-2/27/02 0.0O 115.67
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 S~ICJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1/28-2/26/02 0.00 112.35
1020 591719 03/15/D2 G2S SAN JOSE WA'A*,t~, C'014P, AIqY 1108407 1/28-2/26/02 0.00 338,19
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 S~NJOSE MATER C~AHY 1108506 12/26-2/25/02 0.O0 75.89
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 12/21-2/25/02 0.00 99.56
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN ~OSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/3-3/5/02 0.00 29.35
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/04-3/06/02 0.00 37.66
2020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JO~E MATER COMPANY 1108505 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 13S.90
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAR JOSE #ATER COMPANY 2108505 1/31-3/04/02 0.00
10~'''~. 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPA~ 1108407 12/26-2/25/02 0.00 55.06
i 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN ~OSE MATER C0tqPANY 1108407 1/3-3/5/02 0.00 134.46
102~ 592719 03/15/02 525 SAN ~OSE MATER C0tRPAHY 1108315 1/31-3/04/02 0.00 36.50
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSS MATER C(:MPANY 1108315 1/28-2/26/02 0.00 429.53
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAR JOSE MATER ~ANY 1108315 1/28-2/26/02 0.00 58.01
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 35.93
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MA'I'SR COMPA~ 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 35.93
1020 591719 03/15/02 525 SAN ~OSE WATER COMPANt' 1108506 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 24.29
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 O.00 8.55
1020 591719 03/15/02 62S SAN JOSE MATER C-oMPAHY 1108407 12/26-2/2S/02 0.00 25.87
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN gosE MATER COMP, Lt~IY 1208407 1/26-2/26/02 0.00 49.04
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPS, NY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 14.47
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE WA'Z'~. ~N, PA~Y 110840? 1/29-2/24/02 0.00 14.47
1020 591719 03/15/02 825 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 62.20
1020 591719 03/25/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 O.O0 17.74
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN ~OSE MATER COMPAHY 5606620 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 7.64
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 ~JOSS MA/ER COMPRI~Y 1108506 1/29-2/26/02 0.O0 66.87
2020 591719 03/15/02 625 SANJOSEMATER C'01(PAI, IY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 14.47
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SA~ JOSE #ATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 17.74
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SANJOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 22.67
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 5606620 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 5?.29
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN~OSE #ATER COMPANY 110840? 1/29-2/26/02 O.00 35.93
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MA'I'L'R C0MPAF~' 5?08510 1/29-2/26/02 O.00 221.06
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108303 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 348.81
1020 591719 03/15/02 S2S SAN JOSSMA'FSR COMPANY 1108303 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 99.87
2020 592729 05/1S/02 625 SAHJOSEMATKR COMPANY 1108303 1/29-2/26/02 0.00 361.90
1020 591719 03/15/02 625 SAN d'OSEMATER C'~IPANY 1108503 1/29-2/25/02 0.00 76.54
1020 591719 03/lS/02 62S SENJOSEMATERC~MPARY 1108321 1/28-2/26/02 0.00 1S0.SS,
1F'''~'~'- 591719 03/15/02 625 SANJOSE MATER CC~PANY 110840? 1/25-2/26/02 0.00 68.?S
RUN DATE 03/14/02 TZ~ 12:28:24 - PZHANCZAL
03/S4/02 CITY OP
ACCO~ING PER~OD ~ 9/02
~.~l~ ~I~= ~.~e ~ "03/11/2002" ~d "03/15/2002"
~ - 110 - G~ ~
~020 59L719 03/~5/02 625 ~ ~SB ~ ~ Z~083~4 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 98.24
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625
1020 59ZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625
~020 59~7~9 03/~S/02 625 ~ ~E MA~ ~ $~083Z4 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 Z32.63
Z020 59Z7~9 03/~5/02 62S ~ ~E ~ ~ ~083Z4 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ZZ2,98
L020 59~7~9 03/ZS/02 625 ~ O~E HA~ ~P~ ~Z08302 Z/29-2/2E/02 0.00 72.03
Z020 S9~7~9 03/~/02 625 ~ 0~ HA~ ~ ZZ083~4 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ~69.7S
Z020 59~9 03/Z5/02 625
Z020 59~7~9 03/Z5/02 625 ~ ~ ~ ~ ST08SZ0 ~/3t-3/04/02 0.00 9.00
~020 59~7~9 03/ZS/02 62~ ~ ~E ~ ~ l~08314 ~/28-2/26/02 0.00 89.64
Z020 S9~7Z9 03/Z5/02 625 ~ ~SE ~ ~ LZ083Z4 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 57.29
~020 59~9 03/Z5/02 62S ~ ~E MA~ ~ ZZ0832Z Z/3Z-3/04 0.00 36.S0
~020 59Z7~9 03/~5/02 62S ~ ~E MA~ ~P~ ZZ08407 Z/2~-2/26/02 0.00 58.93
$020 59~7Z9 03/~5/02 625 ~ 3~E ~ ~P~ 5606620 ~2/26-2/25/02 0.00 40.36
~020 SgZTZ9 03/~5/02 625 ~E ~ ~ ~08407 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 45.75
Z020 59~7Z9 03/~5/02 62S ~3OSE HA~ ~ Z~08407 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 42.48
Z020 59Z~Z9 03/~5/02 625 ~30SE MA~ ~ ZZ08407 ~/2~-2/26/02 0.00 ~6.~
Z020 S9~7~9 03/~S/02 625
Z020 59Z7~9 03/~5/02 625 ~ ~OSE MA~R ~ ~08407 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 ~6.~
~020 59ZTZ9 03/~5/02 625 ~3OSB ~ ~ ~08407 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ~0.~9
Z020 59~7~9 03/Z5/02 62S ~ ~E HAiR ~ Z~08407 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 10.Z9
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625 ~SE ~ ~ ~Z08407 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ~7.~4
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/~S/02 625
~020 59Z7~9 03/Z5/02 625 ~ ~ ~A~ ~ Z~08407 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ;
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/~5/02 625
Z020 59ZTL9 03/Z5/02 62S ~E MA~ ~ ZZ08407 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 55.58
Z020 59~7~9 03/ZS/02 625 ~ ~B HA~ ~P~ ~083~2 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 58.93
~020 SgZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625 ~ ~SE HA~ ~ Z~0840~ ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 42.2~
~020 59Z7S9 03/~5/02 62S ~ HA~ ~ 57085~0 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 80.22
~020 59ZTZ9 03/~S/02 625 ~ ~E ~ ~ L~08407 ~2/26-2/25/02 0.00 ZZ8,26
~020 59ZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625 ~E ~ ~ Z~08408 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 25.00
~020 59~7Z9 03/Z5/02 625 ~R~ ~ ZZ08504 ~/29-2/26/02 0,00 86.77
~020 59ZTZ9 03/~5/02 625 ~ 3~E ~ ~P~ ZL08S04 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 83.49
~020 59ZTZ9 03/Z5/02 625 ~E ~ ~ ZZ08303 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 83.49
~020 S9Z7~9 03/~S/02 62S ~ ~ HA~ ~ ~Z08303 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 768.06
~020 59Z7~9 03/Z5/02 625 ~ ~E HA~ ~ ~Z08407 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 Z4.4~
Z020 S9~7Z9 03/~5/02 625 ~E ~~ S606640 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 ~82.67
Z020 59~719 03/~5/02 625
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/~5/02 62~ ~E~~ 5606620 Z/29-2/26/02 0.00 57.29
Z020 59~7~9 03/~5/02 625 ~E~~ 56066~0 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 5~.29
Z020 59~7Z9 03/Z5/02 62S ~~ ~083L2 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 73.66
Z020 59ZTZ9 03/ZS/02 625 ~O~~ ~083~2 ~/29-2/26/02 0.00 96,29
~020 59Z7~9 03/~S/02 E2S ~ ~B ~ ~ ZL08407 Z/3-3/S/02 0.00 Z27.80
~020 5957Z9 03/Z5/02 625 ~~ ~ ~Z08407 ~/3-3/5/02 0.00 ~47.73
Z020 59~7Z9 03/~S/02 62S ~O~B ~ ~ ~L08407 ~/3-3/4/02 0.00 35.99
Z020 S9Z720 03/~5/02 63~ ~M ~ ~08407 ~R OF ~ ~R ~ 0.00 4390.00
1020 591721 03/15/02 2397 ~ ~IT ~TZ~ 1104310 ~IL 2002 ~E ~ 0.00 1' ~3
RUH DNI~ 03/14/02 T:/]~ 12:24:25 - FZI~C/~ ACCO',J~IlQ
0]/14/02 C'rTY OF CUI~P..?Z~O PA~ 12
~Z~ ~: 9/02 ~ ~Z~ - D~ ~
~ - 11o - ~ ~
~020 59~723 0~/~5/02 2572 SZ~ ~ ~ ZNC 42492~0 HI~ ~T~ STYE 0.00 761.00
~020 591723 03/15/02 25~2 S~ NOR~ ~ INC 42492~0 HIGH ~ ~ ST~E FO 0.00 ]465.39
1020 591725 03/15/02 2320 ~*~ ~ 6308840 ~IES/~ 8067 0.00 23.52
~ ~ 0,00 217.15
1020 591726 03/15/02 152] ~ ~0~ 4209117 S~ ~ ~R 0.00 7378.26
1020 591727 03/15/02 1954 S~ ~TZ~ 1107501 J.O~ ~/E 3/3/02 0.00 1100.25
~020 591728 0~/~5/02 101~ ~A~ ~ OF ~Z~T 110 ~/USE T~ ~ 0.00 SZE.00
1020 591729 03/~5/02 2549 STA~ OF ~I~A 110 H ~ 3594458~6 O.00 8Z.00
2~ 59Z73D 03/15/02 677 STA~ ~ ~ & ~ 110 *P~ ~F 0.00 2940.93
102~ S91~41 03/15/02 H ~, ~l~ 580 Re~: ~eck- Wlh'z'~ 0.00 240.00
1020 591742 03/15/02 310 ~ NIP~-=~= {~ 110BS01 ~30895~246 ~002 0.00 44,17
? ~ 591743 03/15/02 1)3~ ~ ~T.T.~ ~l~ 110;200 ~ ~232B~ 0.00 16.71
R~ ~ 03/14/02 T~ 12:24:26 - fX~ ~l~
03/14/02 CZTY' OF C'Ot~IL'T/:M0 P,~"~ 13
ACCO~ITXMG i~lt'roD: 9/02 Cg~CZ P~Gl~.'.r-mx - rt~'BBt,~,F,~I' ~
$gT,,~CTZC~ CAZI'BRZA: t~mn~act.t~arm_clmte ~t~en .03/11/2002" ~ "03/15/2002"
~020 591744 03/~5/02 2560 WX~ p Y~ ~ 2709443 ~LZC M~ ~ 0.00 3538.05
2020 592?45 03/15/02 1131 CZ~ WO~ 1107301 ~P ~ 0.00 126.00
Z020 591745 03/15/02 1~1 ~ ~ 110~301 ~ O~ ~ 0.00 902.12
~ ~ 0.00 1028.12
1020 591?46 03/15/02 790 ~ O~ ~XC 5506549 ~X~/~ 1603] 0.00 150.4?
2020 591747 03/15/02 M ~, 9~X S~ 580 Re~: ~ec~- MX~ 0.00 60.00
1020 591748 03/25/02 800 A.A.P. ~c-x~Z~ ~ 2T08404 ~u~2~/~8079 0.00 410.08
1020 591V49 03/15/02 802 ~EP ~A~-~ ~ 6308840 ~B & ~BS O.OO 161.04
1020 591750 03/15/02 B05 ~ ~Ih~1~ ~ 4209534 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 2855.72
1020 591~50 03/15/02 805 ~ ~Z~ ~ 2V09443 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 2144.00
1020 591?50 03/15/02 805 ~ ~X~Z~ ~ 2709449 S~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 231.00
1020 591750 03/15/02 805 ~ ~Z~ ~ 2709531 ~L~C ~ ~ 0.00 80.08
1020 591750 03/15/02 ~05 ~T ~Z~ ~ 4~09535 ~ ~ ~T ~O~ 0.00 600.60
1020 591750 03/15/02 805 ~ ~X~Z~ ~ 4209116 ~XC ~R~ ~ 0.00 11V60.00
1020 591V50 03/15/02 ~05 ~T ~1~1~ GR~ 4209118 S~VZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 369.50
1020 591V50 03/15/02 805 ~T ~l.~X~ ~ 4209533 S~V/~ ~ ~ 0.00 460.46
1020 591V50 03/15/02 805 ~T ~X~X~ ~ 4209528 S~ ~ ~R 0.00 2
~ ~H ~ 0.00 589546.96
~ ~ 0.00 589546.96
~ ~RT 0.00 5B9546.96
P..',~ D&'I"B 03/14/02 'TZN~ 12.'24:26 - PZ~,M~"r~,T,,
RESOLUTION NO. 02-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
MARCH 22, 2002
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the
availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows
the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of t, pril ,2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the CiW Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
03/20/02 CZTY OF C:OlP]~?:T. NO P,~ 1
A~'(:~TING P~RZOD: 9/02 (:~CX P.~aXb-U~ - DXSB3~.S~NT
SST.,~CT~ON c21-~uc~&: crmmacc.twans_de~e be~wee~ '03/10/2002' *nd '03/22/2002'
~020 S86~06 V 08/0~/0X ~002 ~ ~NX~ XN~ XX03S00 ~ ~ R. O~S 0.00 -X4S0.00
~020 5869~ V 08/03/0~ N WZ~, ~ 580 Ref~: ~eck - ~ 0.00 -X00.00
L020 587032 V 08/~0/0~ ~ ~, ~ 5~0 Re~: ~eck - ~ 0.00 -6.20
1020 56703? V 08/10/01 X L~, ~ 580 ~F: 103161 E 103182 0.00 -11.00
1020 S8704~ V 08/10/01 437 S V C N 1~04300 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 -37.50
~020 587048 V 06/10/01 437 S V C N 1104300 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00
~020 58704~ V 0~/10/01 437 S V C N 1104300 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 -50.00
~020 587048 V 08/10/01 437 S V C N 1104300 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0,00 -40.00
~ ~ 0.00 -212.50
~020 5~7171 V 0O/10/0l H Y~, ~ S80 ~f~t ~eck - S~ 0.00 -24.80
1020 58717~ V 08/10/01 M ~, ~ 580 Re~ ~e~ - ~
1020 587516 v 08/31/0L M ~, ~ 580 ~ ~k - Re~Ca~ 0.00 -~00.00
1020 5~752 03/22/02 4 A T & T ~108501 W 2002 SRV 0.00 17.1~
~020 591~52 03/22/02 2539 ACS STA~ & ~ SO~l ~02101 ~ ~ O.00 130~' O0
1020 592752 03/22/02 2539 ~ ~A~ E ~ SO~l 1~02101 ~ ~ 0.00
~ ~ 0.00
1020 591753 03/22/02 18 ~OIL ~TX~ 1108005 SPECI~ S~VX~ 3/19 0.O0 2?95.00
1020 591754 0~/22/02 26~4 ~ 5606620 ~ 0.00 106.?1
1020 S91754 03/22/02 2634 ~ 5606620 ~ 0.00 89.1%
1020 591754 03/22/02 2634 ~ 5606680 ~ 0.00 105.69
TOT~ ~ 0.00 301.54
1020 591755 03/22/02 1680 ~ ~Z~ 2204010 ~P~I~ ~16583 0.00 60.62
1020 591q56 03/22/02 2566 ~ 4239222 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 15517.35
1020 591757 03/22/02 28 ~ 6]08840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 54.29
1020 591757 0~/22/02 28 ~ 2?08405 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.O0 54.29
1020 59175V 0~/22/02 2~ AZ~ 110~303 ~2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00
1020 S9175V 03/22/02 28 ~ 110~314 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 54.32
1020 591757 0]/22/02 28 ~ Z10~S0] ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 54.29
1020 591757 0~/22/02 2~ ~ 110~501 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 54.29
1020 59175~ 03/22/02 29 ~ D~ ~-~ 5706450 B~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 120.00
1020 591759 03/22/02 918 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5506~49 ~-~ ~ 0.00 2325.00
1020 591760 03/22/02 1884 ~S-~ DXVX 5606680 ~u~X~/~ 15725 0.0O
1020 591760 03/22/02 1884 ~-~D~ 5806349 au~l~/~ 22383 0.0O
RT~4 DATE 03/21/02 'T'FMB 12:07:39 - FZHAI~'~-JLL
03/~0/02 C~"~' O? ~.F~,,A'£TNO PAGE 2
~C~gi.~KL':Z~G ~B~'rOD: 9/02 ~ ~1~-~-~ - DI~- ~
~ - 110 - ~ ~
~ A~ ~ ~ ZS~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/~ ..... ~S~Z~I~ ...... SIT.~ T~ ~
1020 591760 03/22/02 1884 ~S-G~ DZVZ S806349 ~Z~/~ 23211 0.00 30.34
1020 S91~60 03/22/02 1884 ~-03~ D~Z SB06349 ~/~ 16856 0.00 S2.53
~ ~ 0.00 14~.09
1020 S91761 03/22/02 2636 ~I~ ~ZC ~ ~ 1108601 ~ P.O.16674 0.00 4G.S~
1020 591~62 03/22/02 44 ~I~ ~ ~S 1104400 ~ ~ 0.00 300.00
1020 S91763 03/22/02 982 ~ ~IS~ Z~ 1101500 ~ ~P RI~ ~ 0.00 140.40
1020 591764 03/22/02 2504 ~-~I~ ~ 5706450 S~ ~ ~ 0.00 120.00
1020 S91T65 03/22/02 968 ~ A~ P~TS 6308840 ' ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C Q.00 21.54
1020 591765 03/22/02 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 49.88
1020 S91765 03/22/02 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 17.15
1020 591765 03/22/02 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 23.47
1020 591765 03/22/02 968 ~ ~ P~TS 0308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 19.72
~T~ ~CK 0.00 263.07
1~ 591766 03/22/02 720 ~RY ~_~.~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 S7.32
~ 591766 03/22/02 720 ~Y ~b'&~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.O0 23.38
1020 591769 03/22/02 96 B~ ~N S~I~ MA 5606680 ~I~ 0.00 75.~2
1020 5917T0 03/22/02 106 ~I~ MI~Y.~SS/~ZO ~ 1108503 ~I~S/~ 8133 0.00 449.24
1020 S91~V1 03/22/02 108 ~ ~TZ~ G~S 1108506 ~1~ 0.00 169.87
1020 S91772 03/22/02 M ' B~, ~8 SS0 ~f~: ~eck - Bes~ L 0.00 95.00
1020 591773 03/22/02 2633 ~I~ B~ S~VZ~ SS06549 ~PLZ~ 0.00 8.92
1020 S91~73 03/22/02 2633 ~I~IA BI~ ~ 5506549 ~I~ 0.00 659.25
~ ~ 0.00 668.17
1020 S91774 03/22/02 H ~, JOE S80 Re~: ~ck - ~nCal 0.00 100.00
1020 591775 03/22/02 1460 ~ ~O 0104800 ~ ~ 0.00 2510.30
1020 591~76 03/22/02 148 ~ 2708405 rsA~ ~ 0.00 33.51
1020 591776 03/22/02 148 ~ 1108312 F~'r~'~ ~ 0.00 30.00
1020 S917V6 03/22/02 148 ~ 6308840 rnA~z ~ 0.00 1T.23
1020 S91776 03/22/02 148 ~ 1108830 v&~'z ~ 0.00 S.00
1~' S91~T6 03/22/02 148 ~ 1108408 r~az' ~ 0.00 22.00
03/21/02 TZI~ 3.2:07:40 - F/N~NCL%L JtC~nTi~CI
03/20/02 CZ~Y O~ CI:~IO P~GE 3
1020 5~17~6 03/22/02 148 ~g 110~201 ~-z-z ~ 0.00 S0.49
Z020 5~1776 03/22/02 148 ~ Z108201 ~ ~ 0.00 10.00
~020 591796 03/22/02 14~ ~g 6308840 ~ ~ 0.00 ~.00
ZD2O 591777 03/22/02 Z49 ~ 1~03300 b~"z-z~g 0.00 ~4.47
202D 592??7 03/22/02 Z4g ~H ZZ04000 ~*-~'~ 0.00 ,
Z020 59Z?~? 03/22/02 ~49 ~ ZZ04400 v~*-*'z ~ 0.00 Z3~.GS
~020 59~777 03/22/02 Z49 ~ Z~O?200 ~N 0.00 Z9.99
Z020 S9~777 03/22/02 Z49 ~ $Z08830 ~=*-~Y ~ 0.00 29.G~
~020 S9~??? 0~/22/02 Z49 ~ 22040~0 ~'~-~-z ~ 0.00 52.35
Z020 Sg~??? 03/22/02 $49 ~ ~$0~075 ~&-~-z-z~ 0.00 ~9.49
1020 591777 03/22/02 Z49 ~H 1~01000 rGb-tx ~ 0.00 134.01
~020 59177? 03/22/02 149 ~H 6109856 b=z-~-x ~ 0.00 6.48
~020 59~777 03/22/02 ~49 ~ ZZ0220~ ~n~-,-z ~ 0.00 33.9Z
~ ~ 0.00 562.Z2
Z020 59Z778 03/22/02 Z50 ~ ~ & ~Z~Z 4209530 ~F ~ 0.00 690.00
~020 591779 03/22/02 2~36 ~ ~z-~ ..1~08~0~ ~PLZES/~ 2644Z 0.00 38.86
Z020 59~780 03/22/02 2425 ~Z~S 5706450 S~~
1020 591781 03/22/02 1756 C~ OF S~-~ILZT 1108511 SRV ~105299-73066 0.00 13.17
1020 591782 03/22/02 2258 ~K ~CISION ~ ~ 1108501 P~L 0.00 162.75
1020 591783 03/22/02 1363 ~.~ S~ 1108~01 ~IES 0.00 165.94
1020 591784 03/22/02 170 ~OR~ ~ ~ S806249 S~Z~ ~ FOR 0.00 291.60
1020 591785 03/22/02 173 ~-~ ~Z~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 229.40
1020 591~85 03/22/02 173 ~-~ B~Z~ OF ~ S706450 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 407.~0
~ ~CK 0.00 636.90
1020 591786 03/22/02 ~2002 ~, ~ 5806349 ' ~2~ ~R ~PLI~ 0.00 445.21
1020 591787 03/22/02 194 ~TI~ ~Y I~ 1108504 ~I~ 0.00 60.00
1020 591~87 0~/22/02 194 ~TZ~ ~Y I~ 1108509 ~ 0.00 244.96
1020 59178~ 03/22/02 194 ~uF~TZ~ ~Y IE S606640 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 23.53
2020 S92~8~ 03/22/02 194 ~u~uT~ ~Y ~ 1208315 D~Z~ 0.00 28.56
2020 592~8~ 03/22/02 194 ~TI~Y ZNC 2708403 ~PLI~ 0.00 23.10
~ ~CK 0.00 370.25
1020 591788 02/22/02 20S ~V~ ~aS & ~ ZZ00000 ~ ~ OF ~/ZS/02 0.00 3S00.00
1020 591789 03/22/02 210 ~P ~Z~ ~ L 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.O0 1968.00
1020 591790 03/22/02 1838 ~- ~Z~ L.P. 6109856 ~ 350 850
DATE 03/21/02 ~ 12:0'~61 - FTJG,~C,LAL AT~DrZW]ITZBG
~X~ ~Z~: 9/02 ~ ~0~ - DX~ ~
~ - 110 - ~ ~
1020 591790 03/22/02 1839 ~v.v. ~ L.P. 6104800 DX~SX~ 8200 1.8 ~ 0.00 1963.90
1020 591792 03/22/02 214 DBP~ ~ ~TA 1108602 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 156.3~
1020 591793 03/22/02 1354 DZ~ ~*'~ ~ 6308~40 ~Z~/~ 15096 0.00 87.56
1020 591798 03/22/02 2191 ~ HZ~ ~*~, ZNC. 6308840 HZ~/~ 8124 0.00 146.14
1020 591799 03/22/02 260 ~ ~ ~P 1108830 $HIPPI~ 0.00 26.70
1020 5J1799 03/22/02 260 ~ ~SS ~P 1108601 ~/PPZ~ 0.00 32.50
1020 591802 03/22/02 26~ ~ ~ Sg~Z~ ~S 1108507 ~PLZ~ 0.00 36.59
~ ~ 0.00 513.85
1020 591~03 03/22/02 1~08 [ZH ~ 1106100 ~ OF ~S 0.00 97.53
1020 591804 03/22/02 274 ~Y* S ~I~ 1108315 ~ZBS/~ 8089 0.00 172. ~7
1020 591804 03/22/02 274 ~Y*S ~CS 630~40 ~ E8103 O.00 502.3~
1020 591805 03/22/02 275 ~ ~ 5806449 S~VX~ ~ ~ 0.00 4755.00
1020 591806 03/22/02 M FX~, ~za SSO ~: ~e~ * Slelgh 0.00 195.00
1020 591807 03/22/02 2~1 ~ 1108314 ~/~ 0141 0.00 424.20
1020 S91007 03/22/02 2~1 ~ 1108312 ~XBS/~ 8142 0.00 305.63
1020' 5~807 03/22/02 201 ~ 1108312 ~/~ 8144 0.00 402.15
P.~ D~/~ 03/21/02 T~ 12:07:42
03/20/02 CZTY OF CUP~tT/~O pRGE 5
5~r_,~CTZ0~ C~/TERZA: ~r~-li&c~.t~t-~B_ct~ce ~e~ ~03/18/2002' ~d =03/22/2002~
1020 59180~ 03/22/02 281 ~ 1108408 ~I~/~ 813~ 0.00 536.39
1020 591807 0~/22/02 281 ~ 1108407 F~S/~Y ~8147 0.00 59.2~
1020 591807 03/22/02 ;81 ~ 110840~ ~S/SUP~Y ~8147 0.00 290.6q
~ ~ 0.00 22)4.83
1G20 591808 03/22/02 776 G~ ~S~ ~ A ~ 6308840 ~S/~ 8094 0.00 380.19
1020 591809 03/22/02 296 ~ ~Z~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 816.00
1020 591810 03/22/02 1741 ~Z~, 1~. 6104800 ~ ~ 2000 0.00 14.99
1020 591810 03/22/02 1?dl ~~, Z~C. 4269212 ~ ~ 2000 0.00 43.39
1020 5918~0 03/22/02 1741 ~1~, ~. 4239222 ~ ~ 2000 0.00 325.~1
1020 591810 03/22/02 1V41 ~V~Z~, ZNC. 420922] ~ ~ 2000 0.00 43.39
10;0 591810 0]/22/02 1741 ~I~, ZRC. 4209224 ~ ~R~ 2000 O.00 21,V0
~ ~ 0.00 448.88
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~Z~u~ 1~ 6~08840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 147.4]
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~Z~R Z~C 1108830 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 81.36
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~ ZNC 110883D ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.0O 387.75
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 G~Z~ ZNC 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 111.64
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~R Z~C 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 141.11
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~1~ 1NC 1108830 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 1V8].43
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~Z~R ZNC 1108830 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 803.98
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 G~Z~ Z~C 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 I
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~1~ Z~C 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 a9
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~ ZNC 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 57.4~
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~Z~R ZNC 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C o.00 131.64
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~I~'INC 1108408 S~P~ZES/~ 8107 0.00 26.5~
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 G~Z~ ZNC 1108830 ~ZES 0.00 6.09
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~I~ER ZNC 1108830 ~PLZ~ 0.0O 1736.12
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~ING~ INC 1108830 ~P~ZES 0.00 65.85
1020 591~12 03/22/02 298 ~Z~ ZNC 1108303 ~I~S 0.00 35.53
1020 591812 03/22/02 29~ ~Z~ ZNC 5208003 ~P~Z~S/~ 8126 0.00 ~6.58
1020 591812 0~/22/02 298 ~ING~ ZNC 5208003 S~IES 0.00 42.30
1020 59Z812 03/22/02 298 ~Z~ ZNC 2708404 P~TS/~P~Y ~8120 0.00 391.05
1020 591812 03/22/02 298 ~ ZNC 2708404 P~TS/S~Y ~8120 0.00 48.3~
1020 591812 03/22/~2 29~ ~I~ INC 1108408 ~Z~S/~ ~10~ 0.00 272.13
1020 591812 0~/22/02 298 G~Z~ Z~ 110840~ 8~I~S/~ ~10~ 0.00 196.41
T~ ~C~ 0.00 6720.71
1020 591813 03/22/02 301 ~ ~ZC ~ ~NC 1108501 ~Z~/~ 8017 0.00 532.75
1020 591814 03/22/02 2500 ~Y ~ 423~222 ~Z~ OE ~ 0.00 43.30
1020 591815 03/22/02 1364 ~Z~FZH PAZ~Z~ ZHC 1108314 TZ~ E ~Z~ 0.00 2500.00
1020 591816 0~/22/02 2546 ~ ~Z~ 1108503 TZ~ & ~1~ 0.00 180.00
1020 591816 03/22/02 2546 ~ 9~2~ 1108314 ~2~ & ~ 0.00 1565.00
~ ~CK 0.00 1745.00
1020 59181~ 03/~2/02 1686 VZ~ ~ 1108602 ~Z~ OF ~S 0.00 1~ .S0
1020 591617 03/22/02 1686 ~ ~ 1108601 ~I~ OF ~ 0.00 162.50
1020 591832 03/22/02 25S0 ~1~ A ~Z~S, INC. 1107302 ~OF ~VS . 0.00 2250.00
03/21/02 TX~ 12:07:4
02/20/02 C~'/~ OF ~ P~GE 7
ACCOUHT'r~G p~RTOD: 9/02 ~ ~Z~-*'~ - DX~ ~
~ - 110 - G~ ~
1020 591834 03/22/02 2424 GO~.D0~ ~-~:~ 5806249 SE~tV[C~ AGRL';H~ FOR 0.00 215.00
1020 591835 03/22/02 393 GO~ ?.~'~ 5806449 S~RVZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 136.00
1020 591836 03/22/02 N ~E, ~ 580 ~: ~eck - Rental 0.00 100.00
2020 591837 03/22/02 396 ~Z~IP N ~l~ 5806449 S~ ~ FOR 0.00 262.50
1020 592838 03/22/02 397 · T.~IB'S ~ ~PLZ~ I 1108321 P~TS & S~P~I~ 0.00 30.83
~020 S92839 03/22/02 ~78 RI~ ~TI~Z S706450 ~ 2002-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 699.20
2020 59~840 0~/22/02 2356 ~ B~ & ~ 2202500 ~F SRVS .0.00 6~.66
~020 S9~84Z 03/22/02 2968 ~ ~ ~S~ Z204000 ~834 ~2002 0.O0'
1020 591841 03/22/02 1968 ~ ~ ~IA~S 1104000 FZ~CI~ ~IT S~V~C 0.00 ~95.89
1020 591841 03/22/02 1968 ~~IA~ 1104000 ~34 ~002 0.00 1250.00
1020 591841 03/22/02 1968 ~B ~~B 1104000 FZ~/T S~VIC 0.00 885.00
~ ~ 0.00 4094.89
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~ ~ 5606620 Y1326426 ~ 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~I ~ 1108001 Y1326426 ~B 0.00 ~a 02
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~I ~ 110~602 Y1326426 ~ 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 HCZ ~ 6104800 Y1326426 F~ 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/0~ 1292 ~l ~ 1101500 Y1326426 y~ 0.00 7.24
1020 591~43 03/22/02 1292 ~l ~ 5706450 Y1326426 F~ 0.00 10.9~
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~Z ~ 110~S03 Y1326426 ~ 0.00 21.70
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~Z HO~ 1101200 Y1326426 ~B 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~Z ~ 1104100 Y1326426 ~B 0.00 11.11
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~I M~ 1106500 Y1326426 FEB 0.00 1].74
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~I ~ 1104300 Y1326426 FEB 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~I ~ 1103500 Y1326426 FEB 0.00 4.13
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~l ~ 1104530 Y1326426 F~ 0.00 1V.80
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 HCI ~ 1107301 Y1326426 y~, 0.00 11.66
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~l ~ 1104400 Y1326426 FEB 0.00 1.20
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~Z ~ 1107501 Y1326426 ~B 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~Z ~ 1103300 Y1326426 y=u 0.00 3.~2
1020 59184] 03/22/02 1292 ~Z ~ 1104000 Y1326426 ~B 0.00 5.19
1020 59184~ 03/22/02 1292 ~I ~ 1106100 Y1326426 ~B 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~ ~ 1106265 Y1326426 ~ 0.00
1020 591843 03/22/02 1292 ~ ~ 1106501 Y1326426 ~B O.00
1020 591843 0)/22/02 1292 ~l ~ 1104510 Y1326426 ~ 0.00 16.14
~ ~ 0.00 258.08
1020 591844 03/22/02 1292 ~l ~ 1104400 Y1483502 2/01-2/28 0.00 37.62
1020 591845 03/22/02 444 ~S ~ 110~312 P~/~P~Y ~81~8 0.00
1020 ' 591845 03/22/02 444 ~'S ~ 1108303 ~u~l~/~ 1556~ 0.00 14.45
1020 591845 03/22/02 444 ~'~ ~ 5606620 ~Z~/~ 21005 0.00 26.41
1020 591845 03/22/02 444 N[~S ~ 2708405 ~I~/~ 27142 0.00
R~ DA"I~ 03/21/02 T~I~ 12:07:44 - IFTNANCZAZ, AC'COU~22K~
03/20/02 CJ/'Y Or ~.Ur,~A~/:~ PACE 8
ACCOG~Z'II~ PSR~OD: ~/02 ~ ~Z~ - DZ~ ~
Z020 S9~845 0]/22/02 444 M~'S ~ 2708405 ~$~/~ 2~L55 0.00 2~.80
L020 59~846 03/22/0~ 455 ~ ~ 5806249 S~ ~ ~R 0.00 848.00
~020 S9Z84~ 03/22/02 ~23 ~ ~ ~Z~S S806149 ~/~ 25088 0.00
~020 59~848 03/22/02 2405 ~ZS ~R~ 5506449 ~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.O0 L000.00
1020 591849 03/22/02 465 ~ZN VI~ ~ ~ 1108315 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~ O.OO 68.04
1020 591849 03/22/02 465 ~AZN Vl~ ~ ~ 1108115 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 23.55
1020 591849 03/22/02 465 ~l-~N VZ~ ~ ~ 1108315 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 13].09
~ ~ 0.00 224.68
1020 591~50 03/22/02 466 ~& D~SZ~ 4209Z19 S~V~ ~ ~R 0.00 17~V. 00
1020 591851 03/22/02 826 ~ ~Z~ZA ~RP. 1108601 ~S ~C AT 15~ IN 0.00 6000.00
1020 591852 03/22/02 471 ~ TZ~ S~Y ~ 630~$40 ~P~ES/~15097 0.00
1020 591853 03/22/02 M ~=, ~18 550 Re~d: ~eck - ~ 0.00 55.00
1~ 591854 03/22/02 M MiZle;, Fg~colse 550 ~f~: ~eck - Bes~ ~ 0.00 95.00
1020 591855 03/22/02 M ~g~, Pau1/ne 550 Ref~d: ~eck - Best L 0.00 95.00
1020 591856 03/22/02 4~4 ~TI~ BUSI~SS ru~lT 1106342 ~/~ 15657 0.00 ' 188,08
1020 591857 03/22/02 2193 ~TZ~ ~Y ~S~I~T 1104300 ~ ~ 0,00 V8,00
1020 591858 03/22/02 1550 ~ZS ~ ~SZ~ 1103500 S~VZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 555,00
1020 591859 03/22/02 485 ~ ~ZC SI~S 2~08405 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C O.00 255,00
1020 ~91860 03/22/02 2488 ~ ~ 6308~40 ~P~ZES/~ 8093 0.00 264,99
1020 591861 03/22/02 4~9 ~R~ ~IC S~ S806249 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0,00 4560,30
1020 591862 03/22/02 490 ~;~ S~ ~L 1108406 ~/~ 8128 0,00 418,~8
1020 S91863 03/22/02 493 O~I~ DB~ 1107301 ~l~ 0,00 62,69
1020 591063 03/2~/02 493 ~Z~ ~ 1108101 ~PLZ~ 0.00 322,96
1020 591863 03/22/02 493 O~Z~ ~ 1104100 ~I~ 0,00 -108,24
1020 591863 03/22/02 49~ O~I~ DB~ 5806349 ~ZES 0,00 70,19
1020 S91863 03/22/02 4~3 O~I~ D~ 5806349 ~l~ 0,00 2,15
1020 S91863 03/22/02 493 OFFZ~ D~ 1108101 ~1~ 0.00 163,53
1020 591863 03/22/02 493 ~l~ DB~ 1108503 ~ZB$ 0,00 8,11
1020 591~63 03/22/02 493 O~l~ DE~ 1106200 ~l~ 0,00 14,95
1020 591863 03/22/02 493 0~I~ ~ 11~000 ~Z~ 0,00
1020 S9186~ 0~/22/02 493 ~1~ DB~ 1106200 ~ 0,00 103,0~
~. 591863 03/22/02 493 ~l~ DE~ 110~503 ~1~ 0,00
03/21/02 TZ)~ 12:0'/:45 -
03/20/02 CZ'L'Y OF CIU'P~'L'Z~) PAGE
ACCO',..~X~IG v~s~ZOD: 9/02 C~CK ]I.BGZS'~'~t - DZb'BUP, S~ ~
H~,.,BC~IOil C~ZI'BRSA: t~act.~r-~-~ce ~ "03/28/2002' ~ '03/22/2002"
~ - 110 - ~ ~
~ ~ 0.00 689.19
1020 591864 03/22/02 503 O~ ~PLY 5606620 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 ~0.07
1020 591864 0~/22/02 503 ~ ~Y 5606620 ~-TZ~ DIS~ 0.00 -0.84
1020 591864 03/22/02 50~ OR~ ~Y 5606620 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 106.05
~ ~ 0.00 185.28
1020 591865 0]/22/02 507 ~ ~ ~:~ 1108501 TI~ A ~I~ 0.00 540.00
1020 591865 03/22/02 507 ~ ~ D~:OS~ 6308840 TZ~ i ~l~ 0.00 462.38
~ ~ 0.00 1002.38
1020 591856 0]/22/02 510 P.D.H. S'~ 1108314 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 ~8.31
1020 591866 03/22/02 510 ~.D.H. S~ 1108503 ~ 2001-2002 O9~ ~C 0.00 88.31
1020 591866 03/22/02 510 P.D.H. S~ 1108]03 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 8~.31
1020 591866 03/22/02 510 ~.D.H. ~ 2~08405 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 88.30
~ ~ 0.00 ]53.23
1020 591867 03/22/02 511 9~Z~ZC ~ 1108501 3/?-4/6 0.00
1020 591867 03/22/02 511 ~Z;ZC ~ 1101500 3/7-4/6 0.00 6~.44
1020 591857 03/22/02 511 ~CI;ZC B~ 1108501 3/7-4/6 0.00
1020 591857 03/22/02 511 ~CZ;ZC B~ 1108504 3/V-4/6 0.00 63,45
1020 591857 D3/22/02 511 P~C/;ZC Bg~ 6104800 3/?-4/6 0.00 182.89
1020 591867 03/22/02 511 9~C1;;C ~g~ 5606620 3/~-4/6 0.00.
1020 591867 03/22/02 511 ~Z~ZC 9;~ 1108505 3/?-4/6 0.00
1020 59186~ 03/22/02 511 9~[~ZC ~;~ 1108505 3/7-4/6 0.00
1020 59186~ 03/22/02 511 9~Z;ZC ~g~ 5V08510 3/7-4/6 0.00 63.44
1020 591867 03/22/02 511 9~Z;IC 9~ 5V08510 3/7-4/6
1020 59186~ 03/22/02 511 P~Z~IC 9E~ 1108505 3/V-4/6 0.00 55.25
1020 591857 03/22/02 511 ~CI~IC B~ 1108503 3/7-4/6 0.00 63.44
1020 59186~ 03/22/02 511 ~1~IC B~ 1108504 3/7-4/6 0.00 347.78
1020 591857 03/22/02 511 ~CI;ZC 9;~ 1108503 3/7-4/6 0.00
1020 59186~ 0~/22/02 511 9~CZ;ZC B;~ 1108501 3/7-4/6 0.00 63.44
1020 591867 0~/22/02 511 ~CZ~ZC ~;~ 1101500 3/~-4/6 0.00 173.8~
~ ~ 0.00 1962.8~
1020 591868 03/22/02 2622 PACZ~IC 8~Z~, ~. 1108303 ~Z~ · ~1~ 0.00 530.00
1020 591869 03/22/02 ~002 p~, ~ ~. 1100000 ~X~X~ T~ ~ 0.00 22.72
1020 591869 03/22/02 ~002 p~, ~ ~. 1100000 ~X~X~ T~ ~ 0.00 36.32
1020 591869 0]/22/02 ~002 P~, ~ ~. 1100000 ~Z~ ~ ~ 0.00 5.89
1020 591870 03/22/02 541 ~Z~ PI~ * 5~06450 ~VI~ ~ ~R 0.00 540.00
1020 5918~1 0~/22/02 544 PZ9 ~[~[~ 5208003 ~ ~ ~16666 0.00 1~4.88
1020 591872 03/22/02 545 ~ PI~ZO 5606640 ~ ~g ~ i 0.00 1844.00
1020 59187] 0)/22/02 1247 ~I~ ~ 1106100 ~Z~ 0.00 157.12
1020 591874 0]/22/02 1186 ~ ~1~-~ 5506549 ~Z~ 0.00
R~ DA'Z'B 0]/21/02 ?:D4~ 12:07:45
03/20/02 CITY OF ~.v~s~-~ItiO PAGE 10
~ZNG P~t~(~: 9/02 ~ ~l~'~'~ - D~
~H ~ ~ ~ IS~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/DE~
1020 591875 03/22/02 509 ~ uu~S ~NC 1106~4~ ~PLI~/~ 23282 0.00 29.94
1020 5918~5 03/22/02 509 ~ uuF~S INC 5806]49 ~I~S/~ 2~219 0.00 9.96
1020 591875 03/22/02 509 ~ avers I~ 5806349 8uk~I~/~ 25021 0.00 48.5?
~ ~ 0.00 208.00
1020 591876 0]/22/02 M ~e,~, GI~ 550 Ref~: ~ck - Sleigh. 0.00 240.00
1020 59~S77 03/22/02 2278 ~T~, ~ ~08001 ~ S.DI~ 3/6-8 0.00 742.5e
~ ~ 0.00 284~.50
~,~ ~ 0.00 113.61
1020 591882 03/22/02 2608 ~XC ~ 5706450 S~VX~ ~ ~R 0.00 168.00
1020 59188] 0]/22/02 1071 ~LIC ~T~C 1108602 ~IDE
~ ~ .0.00 172.50
1020' 591888 0]/22/02 2506 ~IB ~ 5?06450 ~V~ ~ ~R 0.00 120.00
~ 591889 03/22/02 ~002 W~Z'~ 1106100
RT3H DATE 03/21/02 TX~ 2,2:0'7:46
03/20/02 CITY OF CUIFBRTI']IO PAGE 11
ACC'O~TI'ING PERXOD: 9/02 CHRCK H.BGXu-z-=a~, - DISB~BNEI~T
SEL~IO~ CRImeA!A: ~ramsac~.~rans_dake between "03/18/2002" And "03/22/2002"
FUND - 110 ~ GR~iER.AL
CASHACC'T CJ*IECKNO ZSSU~ lYF .............. VKHDOR ............. FT.,~)/D~PT ..... DESCRIL:'TIOI~ ...... SALES TAX AMOIJ'H'~
1020 591890 03/22/02 617 ..RAH* ~OSE BLI.JE 1108101 PRO SRVS 0.00 18.40
1020 591891 03/22/02 625 8AIq~OSE MATER ~ANY 2709430 SRVS FOR STVNS ~ RD 0.00 350.00
1020 591892 03/22/02 ~2002 ~Y,ABR 1104510 R, EZ~ OF EXPNS 0.00 6.00
1020 591893 03/22/02 1636 S,~,NTA CLARA. CTY SHERIFF 1100000 BACKGRO',,.q~D INVESTZC, L~T! 0.00 123.51
1020 591893 03/22/02 1636 SANTA CLARA CTY SHERZFF 1104510 FZNGKRPRZIq'I' FEB20O2 0.00 96.00
TOT, AZ, CHECI( 0.00 219.51
1020 691894 03/22/02 633 SANTA CLARA CO't.DrFY SHER! 1108602 DIP,.ECT TRFC 3/12/02 0.00 729.29
1020 591895 03/22/02 1919 SAN/'A ~ V)T~.~'y ~S 5500000 MAR2002 BUS PASSES 0.00 225.00
1020 591896 03/22/02 M2002 SEYMOUR MMtZNE DZSCOVER.¥ S506549 GRP TOIJ'R/A, PRZL 19 0.00 $0.00
1020 591897 03/22/02 2415 SZMOH MAR?ZNo*VEGUE #Z~ 4239222 PUBLZC NORKS ~CT 0.00 102095.40
1020 591897 03/22/02 2415 SIMON )~t,J~?IN-VSGUE #ZIT~E 4239222 PV...,~LZC #ORES CO~TI'R,ACT 0.00 11000.00
1020 59189? 03/22/02 2415 SXM01~MA.RT~N-VEG'U~ MXNKR 4239222 PVJBLZC HONKS CO;q'I'RAC'I' 0.00 74037.60
1020 59189? 03/22/02 2415 SZMON MARTZH-*VEGI,TE #l~ 4239222 PUBLZCtIORKS ~C'1' 0.00 6?00.54
1020 591897 03/22/02 2415 SZMON MAR. TZN-VEGUE W/NEE 4239222 PUBLZC #ORKS CO~ 0.00 27.50
TOTAL C3tECK 0.00 193861 ,04
1020 591898 03/22/02 200 LESLIE SOKO~ DBA DA1;CEK! 5806449 SERVZCE AGRESI,~,g~.'T FOR 0.00
1020 591899 03/22/02 681 COHHZK BAlqil:b% SI'E'v'EIqS 5806449 S]~RVZC~E ~31~.E~MEIT~ FOR 0.00 600.00
1020 591900 03/22/02 529 SV,,~GARD PEN'I'AMATZON, !NC 1104100 TR. AZNZNG 0.00 150.00
1020 591900 03/22/02 529 SUNGARD PENTA, MA~!OI, i, !NC 6104800 ~A?A LZNES F~B2002 0.00 19.70
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 169.70
1020 591901 03/22/02 2559 SUPSRZORALI~4ZNUM BODY C 6308840 TRANSFER 8FT SERVIC~ S 0.00 4384.13
1020 591902 03/22/02 1825 SUPERIOR FRZCTZON 6308840 PAR. TS/PO 8140 0.00 100.09
1020 591903 03/22/02 M ' SoFtch, Anthony 550 Refund: Check - Pagean 0.00 125.00
1020 591904 03/22/02 696 ~ADCO SI,,'PPLy 1108315 FY 2001-2002 OPKN PURC 0.00 131.42
1020 591904 03/22/02 656 ~ S't,J'PPLY 1108302 FY 2001-2002 OPEI~ PURC 0.00 131.43
1020 591904 03/22/02 656 TA,~i'O SUPPLY 1108303 FY 2001-2002 OPEI~ PURC 0.00 131.43
1020 591904 03/22/02 696 TA.DCO ~uPPLY 1108321 FY 2001-2002 OPEH L:q.,1RC 0.00 131.42
1020 591904 03/22/02 696 TADCO SUPPLy 1108312 FY 2001-2002 OPEl; PURC 0.00 131.43
1020 591904 03/22/02 696 TADC'O SUPPLY 1108314 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 131.43
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 788.86
1020 591905 03/22/02 700 TARGET SPEC$ALTY PR0/:~JC~ 1108303 FY 2001-2002 OPEl( PURC 0.00 788.10
1020 591905 03/22/02 ?00 TARGET SPBCZALTY ~ 1108312 FY 2001-2002 OPE~ PURC 0o00 411.08
TOTA~CHECK 0.00 1189.10
1020 591906 03/22/02 2635 ~HL. HALl,, C.P.A. 1104100 EDDP. BBRARa4 0.00 3
R~.~i DATE 03/21/02 Tz~ 12:07:46 - FZHANCTAL ~IN(~
03/20/02 CITY OF C~P~?INO PA~'~ 12
~iOi~NTING P~I~IOD: 9/02 CHECK ~IST~t - DISBURS~J~NT Ft~D
FU~D - 210 ~ GE~tAL ~,mD
C~H ACCT CHSCK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~ ............. FU~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... S~!.~ TAX AMOUNT
1020 591907 03/22/02 1260 TOTAL TIRE RECYCLING LLC 6308840 SUPPLIES/PO 8117 0.00 132.89
1020 591908 03/22/02 1836 TRIPLE PLAY V~NDING CO~P 5706450 FY 2001-2002 OP~ PU~C 0.00 239.50
1020 591909 03/22/02 1578 ~IT~D P~E~TALS 6308840 PARTS & S~PPLIES 0.00 409.73
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 VEKIZON NIRET.~SS (FOP/~R 1108102 408456999 FEB 2002 '0.00 118.73
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 VF~IZC~ NI~L~$S (FC)I~ 1108201 408456999 FEB 2002 0.00 2?0.46
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 VERIZC~WIP~T.~KS (F0~ 1108501 400456599 ~b 2002 0.00 361.70
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~I~ WI~SS (F~ 1108503 &08456999 ~ 2002 0.00 120.52
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~I~ VIS'SS (~ 1108504 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 937.06
lO20 591910 03/22/02 310 ~ NI~SS (~ 1108505 408456999 ~ 2002 O.00 121.92
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~IZ~ WI9~T.~SS (~ 1108602 408456999 F~ 2002 0.00 232.94
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~IZ~ WZ~SS (~ 5208003 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 5v.24
1020 591910 0~/22/02 310 ~IZ~ WI~SS (~ 5606620 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 57.24
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~IZ~ WI~S (F~ 1101200 408456999 F~ 2002 0.00 61.20
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~IZ~ WZ~SS (F~ 6104800 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 211.85
1020 591910 03/22/~2 310 ~ZZ~ WI~SS (~ 1107501 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 57.25
1020 591910 03/22/02 310 ~RI~ WI~SS (~ 110750~ 408456999 ~ 2002 0.00 ]62.11
~ ~ O.O0 3090.22
10~ 591911 03/22/02 746 V/KI~ OFFI~ ~O~S 1106500 ~PLZ~ 0.00 272.15
i 591911 03/22/02 746 VIKING OFFI~ ~ODU~S 1108201 ~I~/~ 8119 0.00 82.79
1020 591912 03/22/02 2404 L~=~-~*a VZS~ 5806449 S~VI~ ~ FOR 0.00
1020 591913 03/22/02 754 ~ ~ 5806449 S~V/~ ~ ~R 0.00 1728.00
1020 S91914 03/22/02 765 ~ ~Z-~I D ~G 5706450 S~VI~ ~ FOR 0.O0 200.00
~ ~H A~ 0.00 409624.1~
YOi~ ~ 0.00 409624.18
RON DAT~ 03/21/02 TIME 12:07:47
RESOLUTION NUMBER 02-0.53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIRED FOR SALARIES
AND WAGES PAin ON
March 29, 2002
WHEREAS, the Director of Admlnistrative Services, or their designated representative
has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds
for payment hereof; and "
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law;
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc City Council hereby allows the
following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth:
GROSS PAYROLL $399,957.57
Less Employee Deductions $(125.645.09)
NET PAYROLL ~;274.312.48
Payroll check numbers issued 59318 through 59533
Void check number(s)
CERTIFIED: (~'~-/.~'~ ~
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st dayof April ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
._ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CItY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3223
CUPERTINO F^x: (4OS)777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Knapp, City Manager; Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services; Therese Smith,
Director of Parks and Recreation; Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ralph Quails,
Director of Public Works; Sandy Abe, HR Manager; Charles Kilian, City Attorney; Kimberly Smith,
City Clerk.
From: Grace Johnson, Deputy City Clerk
Subject: RECORDS FOR DESTRUCTION
Date: March 15, 2002
Listed on the attached sheets are records, which are in excess of two years old and can therefore be destroyed in
accordance with the City's records retention schedule. Please review the list and contact me if you believe any of these
files are of historical or administrative significance and should not be destroyed. If approved, a resolution authorizing
' -' 'uction will be on the council agenda for April 1.
Ci Date City Attorney Date
NO OBJECTION TO DESTRUCTION:
City M - Der Date Di~ of Administrative Services Date
,
Dir. of Community Dev. Date · . tion Date
~/'~ ~'~ o2=Date HR Manager Date
Dir. of Public Works
Encls: Code Enforcement cases 1986-1988 and 1999 alarm cards; Community Development Demolition Permits
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION
Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson
Page: I of I - File Name: Code Enforcement
No. (to be used File Name, Project name File Number, Resolution, Subject, Application, Address or Location Date ranges Enter
for microfiche or Developer Ordinance, Application Permit (if any) (or most M ~ to be microfilmed
card #) Number recent date) D ~ to be destroyed
REQUIRED
Code Enforcement Annual Cases 1986- D
1988
Code Enforcement Alarm Cards 1999 D
Page
RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION
Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson
Page: ! of ~ - File Name: Demolitions.doc
No. (to be used File Name. Project name File Number, Resolution, Subject, Application, Address or Location Date ranges Enter
for microfiche or Developer Ordinance, Application Permit (if any) (or most M -- to be raicrofi[med
card #) Number recent date) D = to be destroyed
REQUIRED
00050131 6761 Clifford Dr. D
S 1970 21898 Granada D
SI869 10554 Santa Lucia D
30847 21812 Lomita Ave. D
00040001 10300 Sterling D
00080026 18871 Arata Way D
00050085 18640 Runo Ct. D
S2007 21821 Gardenview D
S2196 21900 Lomita Ave. D
30946 1187 Gardenside D
S0439 21760 Lomita Ave. D
.... S1510 10146 Amelia Ct. D
.... S1435 10610 Felton Wy. D
,. S1436 10626 Feiton Wy. D
~ S015'/ 22830 San Juan Rd. D
S 1757 11076 Linda Vista D
S1758 868 S. Binney Ave. D
S 1875 10424 N. Binney Ave. D
S3130 18922 Forge Dr. D
S0289 22110 McClellan Rd. D
30752 10036 Penninsula D
S1484 21870 Lomita D
S1007 20613 Sunrise Dr. D
S1918 10010 Carmen Rd. D
00080070 10175 Orang~ Ave. D
00070192 22393 McClellan Rd. D
00070180 7502 Donegal Dr. D
S0870 10841 Maxine Ave. D
S3956 21837 Oakview D
00120057 7359 Rainbow Dr. D
00110082 22085 Regnart Rd. D
99080013 10472 Johnson Ave. D
S3020 20696 Garden Gate D
S1006 22371 Cupertino Rd. D
Page
RECQRDS INVENTORY FO~ MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION
Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson
Page: ~ of ,~ - File Name: Demolitions.doc
No. (to be used File Name, Project name File Number, Resolution, Subject, Application, Address or Location Date ranges Enter
for microfiche or Developer Ordinance, Application Permit (if any) (or most M -- to be microfilmed
card #) Number recent date) D -- to be destroyed
REQUIRED
00050146 19075 Tilson D
00110035 21470 Vai Ave. D
S2814 10885 Stevens Cnyn D
Rd.
S2828 21451 Vai Ave. D
S2989 875 Bette Ave. D
00090163 10440 Johnson Ave. D
00100062 10630 Tuggle PI. D
B0463 10511 John Wy. D
S2792 20584 Scofield Dr. D
S2696 877 E. Estates D
S2745 10330 Imperial Ave. D
S1547 22460 Palm Ave. D
S1548 22464 Palm Ave. D
00070132 21221 Rainbow Dr. D
' S0419 10152 Camino Vista D
00120158 20215Stevens Creek D
Blvd.
00090127 19925 Stevens Creek D
Blvd.
00080110 10000 Torre Ave. 3rd D
Fir.
Retail & Res. 19028 Stevens Creek D
Blvd.
00090129 20300 Stevens Creek D
Blvd.
31539 10201 Tone Ave. D
SI239 10500 N..De Anza BI D
S 1843 Interior 10600 Ridgeview D
I Results Way D
Page
RESOLUTION NO. 02-054
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
RECORDS
(CODE ENFORCEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
WHEREAS, the City Counc'd did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930
establish rules and regulations for records retention and destruction; and
WHEREAS, it has been deterwined that certain records in excess of two years old
no longer contain _a_~_~_ of any historical or administrative significance; and_
VfrlEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy ail said records in
excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney
- pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of thc City of
Cupertino authorizes de~haction of the records sp~'died in thc schedulc attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of April 2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
-- City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
#
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-32110
CUPEI(TINO (408)77%3366
Website: www.¢upertino.org
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number L~ Agenda Date: April 1, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approve a fee waiver request of $20.00 for the League of Women Voters Cupertino-Sunnyvale use of
the Creekside Park building on Saturday, June 8, 2002 for their annual meeting.
BACKGROUND
The League of Women Voters Cupertino-Sunnyvale is a nonprofit, nonpartisan political organization
- that is planning to hold its ann, al meeting on June 8. Pursuant to the City of Cupertino's facility use
policy, adopted by the City Council, a nonprofit organization providing a service to the community
shall receive a waiver of fees relative to their event.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council waive the room rental fees in the approximate amount of $20.00;
they would be responsible for $40.00 to cover staffing costs.
SUBMITFED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
T~ere tor David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation Department
mp
P~ntedonRecycledPaper ~(
The League of Women Voters
Cupertino-Sunnyvale
P, O. Box 2923
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
March 21, 2002
Members, Cupertino City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The League of Women Voters, Cupertino/Sunnyvale is planning to hold i~s Annual
Meeting on Saturday, June 8, 2002, from 10:00 until 2:00, at the Creek, side Park - Park
Building. The meeting is open to the public.
The League is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages the informed and
active participation of citizens in government. The League also influences public policy
through action and advocacy. The League does not support or oppose candidates or
political parties. We are supported in our endeavors by members' dues and donations,
and accomplish a great public service on a very small budget.
Thus, we respectfully request the Council to waive the $60.00 rental fee for the use of the
park building on June 8. Our treasurer, and other members, will be most grateful for this
relief. We would .welcome your presence at the meeting and the luncheon afterward.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Ford
Voter Service
CITY OF
C O P E I~IN 0 PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number ~'~ Agenda Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT
Authorize transferring $42,000 from account 580-6349 (skate park operations) to the Public
Works fixed asset account 630-9820-9400 to purchase two standard, % ton pickup trucks with
trailer-towing capabilities for the skate mobile.
BACKGROUND
The amount of $70, 070 was included in the current operating budget for staffing and other
expenses at the Compaq skate park, which was expected to be open for half of this fiscal year.
The $70,070 remains available in fund 580-6349. We are requesting authorization to transfer
-- funds for the purchase of two % ton pickup trucks with complete towing packages. Council
approved the purchase of the skate mobile late last year, and we expect to take delivery in three
weeks. The skate mobile unveiling is scheduled for April 27 at the Teen Commission Job Faire at
Monta Vista High School.
DISCUSSION
Five of the ten skate park pieces purchased and so large that they will need to be towed. The
ramps will be stored at the Service Center and towed to various sites around town according to a
schedule that will be posted on the Teen Commission website. In reviewing the time it would
take to place and remove pieces daily, staff determined that two trucks would be needed to make
the operation efficient.
The skate mobile is not intended to replace the permanent skate facility, but rather to give youth
an option until a permanent park can be constructed. Staff anticipates that the trucks purchased
will cycle into the permanent Parks and Recreation/Public Works fleet after they are no longer
needed for towing/hauling skateboard ramps.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in this year's budget to purchase the macks and operate the skate mobile for
the remaining fiscal year. Staff will request funds in the upcoming budget cycle for skate park
operation in fiscal year 2002/2003.
printed on Recycled Paper
City Council Staff Report
April 1, 2002
Page 2 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council authorize the transfer of $42,000 from account 580-6349-
6111 to account 630-9829-9400 for the purchase of two standard, ~A ton pickups with trailer-
towing packages for the transport of skate mobile equipment.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Therese Ambmsi Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreation
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
..~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3262
Cl'ff OF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CU PERi'NO PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
SUMMARY
Agenda Item ~ Date: March 26, 2002
Subject: Approval of recommendation from Telecommunications Commission for awarding a
public access grant.
Background: At its meeting March 6, the Telecommunications Commission reviewed an
application for a public access grant totaling $500. The commission has a $2,000 grants budget,
and funding for the proposal would come from that source.
The commission discussed the project with Hema Kundargi, who produces a multi-award
winning program called Indian Vegetarian Gourmet. The grant proposal is to cover costs for
Super VHS tapes suitable for broadcast on public access channels.
Commissioners cited Kundargi's long-running string of successful programs, and said
they believe her project will be a positive one for the community. Indian Vegetarian Gourmet is
- the only program in the US that is soley dedicated to simplify and demystify Indian cuisine.
Recommendation: The City Council approve the recommendation from the
Telecommunications Commission to award a $500 grant to access producer Hema Kundargi to
reproduce and distribute programs for the public access channel.
Submitted By:
David Knapp
Public Information Officer City Manager
City of Cupertino
Telecommunications Commission
GRANT APPLICATION FORM
Pr~mble: Individuals or orgaviT.~ous wishing to produce a public access program and
apply for a grant that meets thc goals outlined in the Grant Guidelines and Grant
Application Procedure must complete the application below and submit it to the Public
Information Officer, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.
Grant amounts will normally be limited to a maximum of $250 per project per individ-sl
or or?ni~tion per fiscal year (Julyl through June 30). This amount will be at the
discretion of the Telecommunications Commission.
Deadline for Applie,,tion: the 1 $~ of each month.
Name: I-~l?l'~~3t, ~t"-~'~ck~.(=) Phone: 4~- ~-'
Address: 2~ t4 ~ ~ ~ ~ C_..~~ Phonc: ~- c:~ ~_ ~ ~ i (H)
Organi~tion: Amount requested: $
Describe your project; include a timeline and budget. Explain thc intended usc of the
grant funds. Usc the Grant Guidelines and Grant Application Procedure in filling out
this application.
GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT OUIDELINES & GRANT APPLICATION PROCEDURE P~ I of 5
7/4/99
pab~, ~ v~u~ at~na~e~ for
zoo sv~ t~q~ (*)$~.5o.oo
10300 Torre Avenue
'- Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Develop,tient Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. [ 0 AGENDA DATE April 1, 2002
SUBJECT:
Comments on the Juniper Networks Corporate Campus Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR), Sunnyvale, CA
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve forwarding the attached letter to the
Mayor of Sunnyvale outlining Cupertino's concerns regarding the Juniper Networks
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
DISCUSSION:
The City of Sunnyvale is considering a proposed project by Juniper Networks located on
Lockheed Martin Way. The site is located adjacent to the Moffet Field Naval Air Station.
The project proposes to replace industrial and office buildings totaling 985,000 square feet
with a phased corporate campus including 2,345,000 square feet of R&D office, 135,000
square feet of employee-serving retail, a 60,000 square foot "Special Use" building and a
200-350 room hotel. The City of Sunnyvale sent a copy of the DEIR to the City and
comments are due by April 15, 2002 (see attached DEIR excerpts). Staff is concerned
about the following two major issues:
· [obsfl-tousing Balance- The project will further intensify the jobs/housing imbalance in
Sunnyvale and the adjacent communities.
· Tra~c Impacts - Staff is particularly concerned about the impact to the intersection at
DeAnza Boulevard and Homestead Road. The intersection is a CMP (Congestion
Management Plan) intersection and the DEIR indicates that the project will reduce the
LOS for the PM peak hour from LOS E to LOS F (see Table 3.12-22 in excerpts from the
DEIR). This will unde,~dne the City's ability to provide the additional housing units
designated for the Homestead Planning Area as part of the Cupertino Housing
Element adopted on October 15, 2001. Staff therefore believes that the impact to the
intersection should be mitigated.
Planning staff forwarded comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project on
October 29, 2001 (see attached). Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the
Mayor to forward to the Mayor and City Council of Sunnyvale, our comments regarding
impacts of the project on the surrounding communities.
Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner
Juniper Networks Campus Project April 2, 2002
Steve Piasecki David Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
Attachments:
Letter to Mayor of Sunnyvale regarding the DEIR for the Juniper Networks Project
Cupertino Staff comments on the Notice of Preparation, October 29, 2001
Corporate Campus Draft EIR (excerpts)
Comments from the City of Mountain View on the Notice of Preparation
-- ~ City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
CUPE INO Telephone: (408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-$$$$
Community Development Department
April 2, 2002
Mayor Fowler and Members of the Sunnyvale City Council ·
City of Sunnyvale
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707
Subject: Juniper Networks Campus DEIR
Honorable Mayor Fowler and Members of the City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Juniper Networks Campus project. On April 1, 2001, the Cupertino City
Council voted to forward the following concerns regarding the project:
· Iobs/HousingBalance-Theprojectwillfurtherintensifythejobs/housingimbalancein
Sunnyvale and the adjacent communities.
The DEIR states that build-out of the proposed project will result in an estimated
demand of 2578 units after mitigation is provided. This amounts to 68% of
Sunnyvale's Regional Housing Needs Determination Allocation according to ABAG.
The DEIR also indicates that, "impacts related to the City's jobs/housing ratio would remain
significant and unavo!dnble.' This is in conflict with the Sunnyvale General Plan, which
specifies Sunnyvale will "Move toward a local balance of jobs and housing" and "Continue
to require office and industrial development above a certain intensity to mitigate the demand
for housing or provide additional housing.' Sunnyvale should aggressively explore
mixed-use options induding a reduction of office space and addition of a significant
residen_6~ component within the project to off~et housing impacts.
· Traffic Impacts -The project would add trips to the highway and local circulation system as
workers commute from outside the region and ~_a_cerbate the north-south commute pattern.
As indicated in the DEIR, the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road
will degenerate from an LOS E to an LOS F in the PM peak hour. The project does not
include mitigations to reduce impacts on the intersection. The DEIR indicates that,
"the impacts of the pro~sed project on the isolated intersections [including the above one] are
considered significant and unavoidable.' The City of Cupertino finds it unacceptable that
there are no mitigations for impacts to this intersection, which happens to be a CMP
intersection. Cupertino has designated the Homestead Planning Area for additional
residential development as part of the Cupertino Housing Element adopted on
October 15, 2001. The traffic from the Juniper Networks office project will exacerbate ..
Juniper Networks Campus Project April 2, 2002
the jobs/housing imbalance and undermine our ability to provide housing. Also,
impacts on Highway 85/280 intersection, and the intersection of Lawrence
Expressway/Stevens Creek Blvd. including the necessity of a ramp) should be
analyzed and mitigated.
· Traffic Demand Management (TDMO -The project should aggressively pursue TDM measures
to reduce traffic impacts.
The DEIR should identify aggressive TDM measures to mitigate traffic including:
,,' Employer sponsored VTA Eco passes/Caltrain passes for all employees;
¢' Employer sponsored shuttle to bus, light rail and train stations;
¢' Hotel operated shuffle to nearby transit and airports;-
¢' Employer sponsored car/vanpool and preferential parking for car/vanpool;
*' Parking "fees" for single-occupancy vehicles; and
¢' Cash-out program for non-driving employees.
· Transit FriendlF Site Degigm - Transit friendly site design is essential to ensure the success of
transit use on the project site.
The transit center, rail station and bus center should be at the ground floor plaza level,
located in close proximity and connected by pedestrian plazas/paths lined up with the
entrances to the hotel/retail/restaurant and office uses.
· Cumulative Impacts Of Other Projects - The DEIR does not evaluate the cumulative impacts
of future projects in the vicinity of the project.
· The EIR should include cumulative impacts for other projects in the vicinity including
General Plan development build-out for Cupertino and adjacent communities.
Cupertino has updated its 2001 Housing Element to include adequate sites for 2325
dwelliqg units, 605 of which are along Homestead Road. These future housing units
are not assessed in the DEIR
The City appreciates the opportunity to review the DEIR. We look forward to working
with you to further address mitigation measures to ensure that the project is an asset to
Sunnyvale and the surrounding communities.
Sincerely,
Richard Lowenthal
MAYOR, City of Cupertino
CC: Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission
Dave Knapp, City Manager, Cupertino Robert LaS~__!_~, City Manager, Sunnyvale
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, Sunnyvale Gerri Caruso, Senior Planner, Sunnyvale
X"OI UME I
Draft Environmental IInpact Report
SCHz 2001102055
Corporate Campus Project
February 27, 2002
r~
City of
[~ ~Depa~ment of Community Development
P~ - ~ 456 West Olive Avenue
_ ~ ~. ' Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707
' Contact: GerriCaruso, PrincipaiPlanner
~DNJUBTIN~
/0-5'
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
DATE: February 26, 2002
TO: Public Ak, encies, Private Business Organizations, and Interested Parties'ieee ~ttached
~)istribution List)
FROM: Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner ~
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE FOR
1111 LOCKHEED MARTIN WAY
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Corporate
C~mpu8 located at 1111 lockheed Martin Way, Sunnyvale, CA. The City of Sunllyvale is the lead
a~ency for this project and 128 prepared this Draft EIR pursuant to the C~llfornia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
The project is to consider.development of an approximately 2,540,000 square foot office campus on a
79.91 -acre site. The site is located on the northern edge of the City of Sunnyvale, in the County of
Santa Clara, CAli¢ornia. The project is north of HiEhway 237 and is bounded by Fifth Avenue to the
north, Mathilda Avenue and Lockheed Martin Way to the east, Eleventh Avenue to the south, and
Street to the west.
The project proposal include8 appro~mately 2,345,000 square feet of research and development/office
space; 135,000 square feet of employee~servinj/ nmenity space; a /50,000 square foot ' Special Use'.
building; a 350-room hotel; and surface and structured parking. The DEIR analyzes a ma~mum office '"
Floor Area Ratio of 73 percent.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to identify potential impacts to the
enviro,ment and recommends mitigation measures. SiEnifieant impacts were identified on traffic, air
quality and housing. If you would like to review the proposed project, detailed plans or technical
reports submitted by the project applicant, or would like more information, please contact me at
408/730-7591 or e-mail me at 8carusa~ci. sunnyvale.ca.us.
Please submit your comments on the Draft EIR in writing by any person prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday,
April 1S, 2002. Such written statement shall address the 8~fficiency of the Draft EIR in ident/fyh~_f~
rind analyzing poseible enviro,mental impacts and how they may be avoided or mit/sated.
Please send your comments to:
City of
Planninf Division
Attn: Gerri Caruso, Prluoipal Planner
456 West Olive Avenue
ADDRESS ALL MAIL TO: P.O. I~X~L~e' ~J~VSALE, CALIFORNIA 94088-3707
For deaf ecces~ call TDD/'I'FY (408) 73(~7501
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFt EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUMlr. 1 l'a~
8.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................
S. 1 Purpose and Scope of the _13,1R ................................................................... S-1
S. 2 Summary Description of the Proposed Project ............................................... S-1
S.3 SUrl~mnry of Environmental lmpa~ts, Mitigation Measures,
and Level of Significance after Mitigation .................................................... $-2
5.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ................................... S-2
$.$ Summary of Alternatives Evaluated ............................................................ S-2
$.6 Mitigation Monitoring ..................................................................................
$.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................................ S-3
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1-1
1. I Purpose of the Environmental Impact Repon 1-1
1.2 Public Review Process ........................................................................... I-2
1.3 Scope of EIR ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Effects Found Not to be Significant ........................................................... 1-4
1.~ Uses of the ~.n/ .................................................................................... I-6
2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Setting ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Project Objectives .................................................................................. 2-6
2.4 Project Characteristics ............................................................................ 2-8
2.5 Construction and Construction Phn,ing ....................................................... 2-15
2.6 Employment ........................................................................................ 2-20
2.7 Project Approvals and Discretionary Review ................................................ 2-20
3.0 Enviromiiellta~ Setfin~o, Iml~'tS and Mitigation Measures ........................... ~ ........ 3.0-1
3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.3 Biological Resources ................................ ~ ........................................... 3.3-1
3.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 3.4-1
3.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 N~,~rds ........................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................. 3:7-1
3.8 Land Use .......................................................................................... 3.8-1
3.9 Noise .............................................................................................. 3.9-1
3.10 Population and Housing 3.10-1
3.11 Public Services ................................................................................. 3.11-1
3.12 Traffic ........................................................................................... 3.12-1
Table of Contents Page i
H:~PDATA\I~0102~hM~ EIR~TabkofCooirm~.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
S.0 SUMMARY
S.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TI-IE EIR
The California En~ Quality Act (CEQA) requires all state and local government agencies to
consider the ~nvironmental cons~luences of projects for which they have discretionary authority.
The purpose of thi.~ Ellvironmcntal luq~'t Report (EIR) is to ~ssess the cnvironmental impacts of the
proposed corporate campus project (the project) pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 et
seq.) as amended and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section
15000 et seq.) as amended. ~ EIR is an informational document that descn'bes the significant
enviro, uacntai effects of the project, identifies poss~le ways to minimize the significance of the effects,
y and discusses reasonable alternatives to the project to avoid, reduce or ml-lmize cnviromuental
impacts. The City of Sunnyvale will consider the information in thi.~ EIR in making an informed
, decision regarding the project. It is not the purpose of this EIR to recommm~ either approval or denial
· i of a project.
" S.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
Menlo/Juniper Networks LLC ("the applicant") is proposing a 2,540,000 square foot office park
development to be occupied predominantly by Juniper Networks (tenant). The approximate 79.91-acre
site is located on the nonhero edge of the City of Sunnyvale, in the County of Santa Clara, California.
The project site is bounded by Fifth Avenue to the North, Mathilda Avenue and Lockheed Martin Way
to the east, Eleventh Avenue to the south, and "E" Street to the west.
The project site is located in a large, predominantly industrial and business park ama known as "Moffatt
Park." Moffctt Park has historically been predominantly occupied by the defense industry. The Air
Force, the Navy, Lockheed Martin, and NASA are the major organizations that have operated or continue
to operate in Moffatt Park. In recent years, several high-technology businesses have developed corporate
campuses in Moffatt Park, including Juniper Networks, Yahoo Inc., and Ariba. The proposed project site
is surrounded by the Onizuka Air Force Station to the south east, the Ariba campus to the south,
Lockheed Martin facilities to the west, Naval facilities to the north, and the existing Juniper Networks
buildings to the east.
The site is currently developed and improved with buildings constructed by Lockheed Marlin in the
1960s and 1970s. Thirteen buildings, totaling 984,984 square feet, are currently located on the
proposed project site. The uses of these buildings include office, industrial, warehouse, ca~'terias,
clean-room facilities, and electrical switchgear facilities. Paved parking lots, buildings, and landscaped
areas are also located on the site. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VI'A) Tasman
West Light Rail line is located along the eastern edge of the project site on Mathilda Avenue. The
Lockheed Martin Tranait Cemar is located in the northeast corner of the site. The Transit Center
includes a light rail station, a bus station, and a park-and-ride lot.
The proposed project would involve the phased construction of a corporate ca,ul~us that would serve as
the corporate headquarters for Juniper Networks. At comgleti¢~l, ~ project would include
square-feet of research and development/office space; 135,000 square feet of employee-serving retail
~Executiva Summary Pag~ ~-1
H:~PDATAH 00102~Orafl EIR~.~0$.EnvSummmy.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAl~F
space; a 60,000 square-foo~ 'Special Use' Building; a 200-350 room ho~el; a landscaped ped~hlan and
bicycle circulation network; open space and recreational areas; and surface and s~ctmal parking
facilities.
Approximately 24 percent of the project site would be developed with buildings, ~.cluding office
buildings, the hotel, the Special Use Building, and the parldn.~o slructures. Approximately 41 percent of
thc proposed project site would be paved as surface parkin~ lots, access driveways, and sidewalks. The
r~malplng 35 percem of the site would be utilized for landscaping. Excluding the proposed hotel and
parkln-.° structures, the proposed project would be developed with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
approximately 73 percent. A FAR compares the total square footage of the buildings on a site to the
total square footage of the property. For example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 40,000 square
foot lot would have a FAR of 25 percent (10,000 divided by 40,000 equals 25 percent).
S.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,
1VI1TIGATION 1VIEASURES, AND LEVEL OF
SIGNIHCANCE AFTER 1VIITIGA ON
Table S-l, which is found at the end of this section, comains a summary of each po~i~!ly significant
or si/nificar~ effect and conespomting mitigation measures proposed to mi~llize or avoid significan~ -"
impacts assochied with development of the proposed project. This NAR evaluates impacts relaled to
developmen~ and subseque~ buildout of the entire 79.91-acre si~e. '.
S.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABI. . ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTal. EFFECTS .-
Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to 'describe any si~ificant impacts,
including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are ":":!
impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the
reasons why the project is being proposed, notwith~nndlng their effect, should be described.
Section 3.0 of this FIR provides a description of the potevti_n! environmental impacts of the proposed
project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels where : '
feas~le. With imp. lementation of the mitigation measures proposed, significant unavoidable impacts
would remain in the following areas: Air Quality, Population and Housing, and Traffic/Circulation.
S.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVP, LUATED :'"
Section 6 of this F. IR evaluates alterm~ves to the proposed project in accordance with the State CEQA ...
Guidelines § 15126.6. Based on the purpose of the alu~mafives analysis as prescribed in Section "~
15126.6 of the Slate CEQA Guidelines, the following alternatives were selec~l by the City of ....
Sunnyvale for evaluation in this FAR. As.provided for by § 15126.6 of the Sta~e CEQA Guidelines,
two no-pwjec~ alternative scenarios are evaluami in ~ EIR. ""
~' Alternative A: No-Projeot (Siams Quo) Alternative (as required by Section 15126.6(e) of the ·
State CEQA Guidelines): assumes that the proposed pwject would not be implemented and the .....
Page S-2 Executive Summary ..
H:~ATAli001~ EIRkqed}S.Env,~nmas~.do~
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
· '. existing uses on the site would continue under the Lockheed Martin Site and Master Use Permit
($MUP).
':. Alternative B: No-Project/Current General Plan and Zoning Alternative {35 Percent Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)}: assmnes that the proposed project is not implemented and the site is redeveloped
in the future in compliance with the City of Sunnyvale General Plan and Zoning Code.
~- Alternative C: Corporate Ca?ns developed at 35 Percent FAR: assumes that the proposed
project is developed at a reduced density with a FAR that does not exceed 35 percent.
~* Alternative D: Corporate Ce .mlms developed at 60 Percent FAR: assumes thnt~ the proposed
project is developed at a reduced density with a FAR that does not exceed 60 percent.
Additionally, other alternatives were considered, but were eJimlnnt~l from fizrtber detailed analysis
because they were deemed infeasible (refer to Section 6.4, Alternatives Considered but N. liminnTed from
Detailed Evaluation).
Section 6 concludes that the proposed Corporate Campus at 35 Percent FAR Alternative is the
,. environmentally superior alternative, as it results in the fewest potentially significant and/or significant
~ impacts associated with development of the project site. Section 6 also notes that although the
· .." Corporate Campus at 35 Percent FAR Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the
implementation of this alternative would impede the attnlnment of some of the project objectives.
S.6 ]VIITIGATION MONITORING
CEQA requires public agencies to set up monitoring or reporting programs for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with those mitigation measures adopted or made as a condition of project approval in order
-. to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects identified in environmental impact reports. A
~ mitigation monitoring program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will
"'~" be considered and acted upon by City of Sunnyvale decision-makers for adoption concurrent with
· ., adoption of the findings and prior to approval of the proposed project.
S.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE
RESOLVED
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15123, this FIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues
to be resolved which are known to the City of Sunnyvale or were raised during the FIR scoping
process. Many of the issues were identified during the Notice of Preparation (FOP) review period.
Five (5) comment letters from local residents, organizatiom, and agencies were received in response to
the FOP. NOP comment letters received and a summary of the comments raised dtt~ing the public
scoping meetings are included in Appendix H.
'Executive Summary Page S-3
H:~PDATA~I00102~raR HR~0S.Em, Smmm~y.do~
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
AREAS OF CONTROVF.~Y l~t~.n DURING SCOPING
The following summarizes the primary areas of controvex~ related to environmental effects associated
with the project:
~', Air Quality Impa~ta
~* Job$/I'lotl$in~ ~tlallr~
~ I-Iydrolog~ and W~t~r Quality
~, Tramit (Light Rail)
~, Biologie.~! P.l~aur~a
~ Utilities Service Systems
Page S-4 Executive Summary ....
H:~DATA~,100102~Dr~ F. IR~_%-~- _ S gnvSunmmy.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
PROJF, CT IMPACTS I MITIGATION MEASURES ] LEVEL OF $1GNIFICANCEAFFER MITIGATION
IMPACT 3.8-1 - On-Site Land Use: The proposed project Mitigation !$ Not Required. Less Than Significant Impact
would alter the physical appearance of the project site by
replacing the existing on-site research & development uses
with o~ce and cotmnerclal uses (Less Than Significant
tmpoct).
IMPACT 3.8-2 - Land Use Comlmtibility/Surrounding Mitigation I$ Not Required. Less Than Significant Impact
Land Use: Although the proposed project would
substantially tncronse the FAR on the project site from the
current Lockheed SMtlP cap of 28 percent, up to a
proposed 70 percent FAR cap, the project is anticipated to
be compatible with adjacent land uses. In addition, the
proposed project would consist of a mix of o,O~ce and
commercial uses that are similar to the existing and planned
uses in the surrounding MoJfett Park and Lockheed Site 1
Master Use Permit areas (Less Than Signi, ficant Impact).
IMPACT 3.8-3 - Land Use Policy/Regulatory Mitigation 3.8-3 Land Use Policy/Regulatory Less ThanSignij~cantlmpact With
Consistency: The proposed project conform~ to the goals Consistency: The project's potential impacts regarding Mitigation
and policies of the Sutmyvale General Plan's Land Use and land use and regulatory consistency with respect to
Transportation Element, Socio-Economic Element, and building height and FAR limitations would be mitigated
Environmental Management Element, as well ns with the by the approval of a Use Permit. The Use Permit reflects
Sunnyvale Zoning Ordinance and other local land use the ory'$ independent judgment and discretionary
plans. The proposed project does nm conform to the FAR approval of the project, as propmed, bnsed on findings
requirements of the M-$ Zoning District (Potentially that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
Significant lmpact lf3lotMitignted), will not negatively impact adjacent properties, us
described in the preceding discustlan. The Use Permit
also includes enforceable conditions of approval dmigned
Er -rive Summary Ps~ ~-20
H: ;A,,100102~ndt EIRWABLES2.doc
· .' CORPORATE CAMPUS DRA~'~ EIR
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURF_.S ~kFYER MITIGATION
· ..~ ....... ~':. ~' ... .... '-~- .... ... ~~ON.~HO~G~'?~:~'.~..~'~.~ . .~ ~ ~ .~.~' ~,~.~:,..~'.':.~ ......
IMPACT 3.10-A - Regional Population and Housing Mitigation Is Not Required. Le~$ ?Yum $ignificam Impact.
Impacts: The proposed project would not directly induce
population growth through the construction of new homes.
However, the project would generate employment, which
would result in an indirect increase in the demand for
housing in the region. ~ increased demand for housing
would likely result in population growth in the greater
Silicon Valley region. However, the population generated
by the protn~ed project would not exceed the anticipated
population growth of the region for the year 2020.
Therefore, less than significunt impacts would occur.
IMPACT 3.10-B - C#y of Sunnyvale Jobs/Housing Ratio Mitigation 3.10-BI - City ~f Smmyvale Jobs/Housing Significant and I/navoidable
Impacts: The proposed project would increase the number Ratio Impacts: The applicant shall contribute to the City Impact.
of jobs within the City of Sunnyvale. ~tis increase would of Sunnyvale's 'Hocking Mitigation Fund' as deemed
further ~kew the jobs/housing ratio and substantially appropriate by the City of Sunnyvale (Significant and
increase the demand for housing in the city (Potentially Hnavaidobte Impact).
Significant Impact If l~at Mitigated).
~ Executive Summary Page S-24
~ H:~PDATA~ I OO102~va~ £1R~TABLF~2.doc
.. ,~ ~ f"~ :..- : .... ~ .. ~:..~. ! ~ .. ...~ /'-'- ~ .? . . ...
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
LEYl~.L OF SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT IMPA~-'I~ MmGATION MEASOR~
MITIGATION
· ': ,:..'.~.'~- .' · ...... ~ .~",~', :i."~ ',.. i-:?' ~:~ "'..'.,.'.. ',~ '~ ~. :," ?,.~ ?." ~, ~ "~r~~~':i~ ~?~ .~;~i.~i~! ~,..?~;i~~,~'~.~ .!~. ~'.i?~'~.~ :!~,~? ~. '.
.:,. ~.. .: ...,~. '..'.. ., ~ .. . .... :... ..-~.,' :~..~ ~..:, ~' ..~.~v,~.~,~,.~:..'.. ~.~.?~..~,. .. ~ .~? ~:. "~.~?,,::',.~. ,.~,~r~ ,'...
.... ....... ....., ................. . .... . .............. .,, ............... . ......... . ........... . .................... .~.:.~ ....~.,~ .................. ~~~:~..~ .:.,~. ~.~ ~.,..~ ..........
~PA~ 3.1~A - ~way ~ Imam: ~ M~t~n 3.1~A - ~ ~ f~e ~ r~
a~ i~t~ ~ the ~r ~ ~ t~s ~ ~ t~ p~ject ~etime ~r~n ~ ~i p~es of p~]~ deve~me~.
i~ ~e t~ ~ p~e~ ~ the ~ c~ci~. Bm~ on T~ ~u~on co~ce ~ll ~ ~to~ with
tMs c~te~a, t~ pried ~m project ~ ~e the ~ns t~ned to t~ ~ ~ ~ie. ~e ~per
~ the o~ ~e~ c~te~a est~shed ~ ~e ~P. ~ memum ~p~m to all~re te~s du~ the
(~gn~c~ ~na~b~ l~t) t~i~ o~on ~ t~ p~j~ (~fic~
~~ .l~t),
~t~n 3.1~B - ~or to ~e ~ the ,first
~A~ 3.1~B- ~ lnt~n im~ ~ Centre ~ ~, t~ fo~ ~n~i~
~o~ ~c gene~ ~ i~i~ of the ~u~ ~ be i~le~ to r~uce ~e le~i ~ l~ct
~ers~o~ to ~e ~ LOS F c~ to the'~ed i~er~~:
'~8r~ ~itio~' ~ isol~ i~ene~ t~ · ~or to issue ~ t~ fir~ ~ng ~t, t~
~e ~ LOS F ~er '~g~uM C~i~om' ~M p~jea ~p~ca~ s~!! ~ or ~e to ~ ~ for t~
~n~r d~e~o~e (~g~fi~t ~d~le l~a). re-~g ~ t~ ~t~ ~p~ ~ ~ I~-
~ ~s a~ a sh~ th~ugh-
~ACT 3.1~- ~l C~di~e~ ~ ~dor ~g~ ~e, ~ ~ ~g~-tum ~e ~th sig~l
Im~: Bm~ on t~ ~1~ ~ ~a~ ~r the ~fi~ ~ t~ M~hi~ A~/Sth Av~e l~t
p~ p~j~, i~e~ ~ ~ p~ p~ject i~e~on.
~M ~u~ in ~e~ ~m ~S ~ to LOS F in t~ · ~r to ~ ~e ~ t~ fi~ ~Min8 ~t, the
AM ~ h~ ~ a ~on in ~l ~ a~ng t~ d~ ~on p~ ~i ~ ~
M~ Ave~e Co~r I (~ ~tion o~). ~u~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A~, t~ p~;ed proj~ ~ re~ in a g~er c~ma~ to p~v~ a ~ dg~ mm ~
~ 'gx--"~ve Summa~ Pap- ~28
~.. ~..~ ~ ..... , / ..... -~ ~ ..... ~ ?~...'.~ ....... ,. ~:-:~. ~.~-'. ;.2 .......
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRA* . EIR
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURF~
AFTER MITIGATION
number of turning movements with stap/vehicle and associated signal modifications on eastbound
maximum queue/storage lengths ratios of greater than 1.0 Lockheed Martin Way at Mathilda Avenue, and left-
(stgnificnut Hnu~oidable Impact). turn lanes for inbound tra~c at all driveways along
5th Avenue between Math#da Avenue and E Street,
Lockheed Martin Way between Mnthilda Avenue and
llth Avenue, and llth Avenue between Lockheed
Martin Way and F. Street.
· P Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
project applicant shall contribute applicable funds to
he, fund at-grade improvements where feasible. The
applicant's contribution should be based on the
project contribution to traffic vabones at the impacts
intersections, as shown in Table 3.12-25.
· Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
project applicant shall contribute applicable finding '
for tra~c mitigation roadway improvement identified
in the C~ty of ~tnnyvale General Plan consistent with
methodologies used for determining on appropriate
share.
~, Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
project applicant shall contribute applicable funds (as
directed by the C~(y Council) to hey pay for the
regional improvements needed to reduce project
impacts on the impacted segments freeways as listed
below:
~ ~J$-lOl northbound north afRoute 237
~, ~I$-101 southbound north of Ronte 237
~ HS-IOI southbound between Math#da Avenue
and Fair Oaks Avenue
[IS-IOI southbound between Fair Oaks Avenue
and Lawrence Fapressway
~I$-101 southbound south of Lawrence
F. xpressway
~ Route 237 eastbound west of HS-IOI
gx~eutive Summary Page 8-29
H:~PDATAXI00102~DraN ElRXTABLF_32.do~
( CORPORATE CAMPUS EIR
Local Vicinity Map
· · ·
'- a N m U'T' N m Exhibit 2-2
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
2.3 PROJECT O - CTn S
The purpose of the proposed project is to d~e~...o~,~ :~...co~..,rate headquarters campus that. is proposed to
.. be occupied by Juniper Networks. The specific Objectives/md goals of the project, as iclentified by the
project applicant, are discussed below:
Oan~crn~ 1:
Create a corporate headquarters eampu~ to acconm~__~e the growth of Juniper Networ~ over the next
ten years:
~, Plan and design a corporate campus to insure that the project applicant can expand in an orderly
fashion at a pace consistem with the conditions of the local real estate market.
· ~.. ,~, Consolidate business activities in one location at the proposed corporate ca~,us to allow all
': employees to have daily contact with the vision and energy of the Company.
.~ ~. Phase the construction of the campus to camte completed, cohesive mlni-CalBpllSes, to IDinimiT~
...! the disruptions of ongoing construction activities, and to allow uses on mini campuses if the
project applica~'s market growth is not as rapid as
~. Facilitate business by providing a business hotel for out-of-town customers, and by providing
~. Atuact and maintain employses by creating a positive work environment, offering a range of
public transit oppormnlties, and providing onsite services and amenities.
· ~ OI~JECTIVE 2:
Create a responsive tmmit oriented project that takes adva~2ge of public transpor~2ion opportunities
and pron~es and encourages automobile-f~ee rransp~r~on:
,:. Provide direct pedestrian and bicycle access to all office buildings from the Lockheed Maxtin
Transit Center and the Moffett Park Light Rail Station.
.:. Fully integrate the bus facilities near the Lockheed Martin Tr~*it Center with the proposed
corporate campus by providing direct ~__~__~ to pec~""tfian areas and providing shelter for bus
'ii ~, Encourage the use of bicycles by developing bicycle paths throughout the campus, providing
bicycle racks and lockers, and providing on-site bicycles with station drops for employees.
~ Support alternative me~m of wheeled transportation by allowing the use of electric scooters
throughout tbe
Project Deseription Psge 2-6
CORPORATE CABIPUS DRAFY
· :* Support TDM programs, including shuttles, fide-abating programs, preferential parking for
carpools and vanpools, VTA Nco-passes, bicycle programs, employee inconti~, and many on-
site amenities to elhninate added trips off-site.
Design a corporate headquaner~ facility that i~ sensitive to the context of its en~ronmeat, responds to .....
the business needs of ~uniper Networi~, and that in~pirav pride within the City of Sunnyvale:
q* Support a corporate campus environment by providing special amenity faellities and on-site
e~. loyce services, including, but not limited to full service cafeterias, fitness centers, on-site
training and meeti~ facilities, d~y cleaning, bap~i~, uavel services, suncky store facilities,
~' Create architectural interest and reduc~ th~ ~ of scale of the project.by incorporarln~o a
variety of building materials, colors, and architectural details into the design of the project.
Design high quality 'class A* office buildings that create a positive aesthetic for thc area .....
bicycle paths to promote clear ped~Lan circulation throughout the proposed corporate campos. ':.....:
OamcTnr 4:
Create a project with sustainable qualifies in design, construction, and operation.
~, Orient buildings aloag an east/west axis to best control solar gain and heating requiremcn~, ...~
provide northern light for natural day-lighting, and reduce the harsh eastern and western
exposures of sun light.
4, Implement an cnviroaa~-ntally semitive stormwater managcnmnt program by reducing
impervious surface areas, participating in the Lockheed Martin constructed wetland stormwater
filtering system, and supporting alternative transit to reduce pollution and land development
im.nacts from automobile usc.
· :* Implement construction technologies and methods to control erosion and sedlmen~tjon, and to
collect, recycle, and reuse construction and demolition building materials wher~ feasible.
· Utilize local/regional materials and rapidly renewable materials wherever possible in building ,..
construction to reduce impacts on local and regional laudfill.~.
~* Use low emittins mmrials for in, flor ~,,i,hes to reduce the q~,~y of indoor air
coll~amJn.qnt~.
~*Design a corporate campus with water efficient landscaping m~t,~riala and use 100% reclaimed
water for site irrigation.
Page 2-7 Project Dem-iption
H:~DATA~100102~i~t
COILUORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
OI CTI
Create a cam~u.v that i~ consistent with the land ttse demand~ of future generation.v:
~' Encourage ma~ Wm~it usage through lower part. i%o ratios and pedc~uhn and bicyclc-frieudly
paths that link the proposed campus to the Lockheed Martin Transit Center av.d the Moffe~
Park Light Rail Station.
4, Successfully implement Transportation Demand Management programs (TI)M) and sustain
regional TDM programs.
*:. Reduce the amount of traffic during the workday by providing onsite services and amenities at
the hotel and throughout the office c~mipus.
~' Create diversity arid arohite~llral interest by d~veloDin~ bllildin~ with a variety of heights.
4o Visually improve Mathilda Avenue, the City's main north/south corridor through Moffett Park,
with a new, high profile hotel, and a large expanse of landscaping.
~,. Relocate the bus transfer depot within a parlrln~ ~h~u~ to aceom,~lish the objective of
creating bet~r access to the hotel and providing covered Shelter to waiting bus commuters.
~* Allow for diversity of users in the future by creating a multi-campus design.
Omzcnvz 6:
Respond to the needs of the local community and the City of Sunnyvale:
'~, Offer the comnumity a hotel of contemporary design, a vibrant resmuram in Moffet~ Park, and
additional meeting space for the community.
· :- Facilitate VTA's objective of prov'uiing services and creafin_o a positive experience a~ transit
stolons by incorporating retail space that is oriemed towards the Lockheed Martin Transit
Center.
· :- Develop a corporate campus that will substantially increase sales, personal property, and real
estate tax revenues for the City of Sunnyvale.
· :* Continue to contribute to the Sunnyvale communily by serving us leaders in the Moffett Park
2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 THE CORPORATE CAMPUS PROJECT
The proposed project would involve the phased consuuction of a corporate campus proposed by
MenloSuniper Networks LLC. At completion, the projec~ would include 2,345,000 square-fee~ of
Project Descripflo,, l~e :b~
H:~°DATA\I00102~)rafl LrHtl,~ec0l.~Descfip~ilm.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
research and developmemt/office space; 135,000 square feet of employee amenity space; a 60,000
sq,,nre-foot "Special Use' Building; a 200-350 room hotel; a landscaped pedesixhn and bicycle
circulation network; open space and recreational areas; and surface and structural parking facilities
(refer to Exhibit 2-5). '"
RESEARCH AND DEVELOP/OFFICE BUILnlNGS
The proposed campus would be organized into three independently functional, but rehted mini- '.'
campuses: Catntms I, Campus H, and Campus IH. Campus I would be located in the northern section ..
of the site and would contain three research and devel~office buildings. The office buildings
would each have five stories and approximately 200,000 square-feet of floor space. Campus Il would
be located in the central section of the site and would contain four .research and development/office
buildings. The office buildings would each have eight stories and approximately 320,000 square-feet of .
floor space. C~?~ IH would be located in the southern section of the site and would contain three
research and development/office buildings. The office buildings would each have five stories and
approximately 200,000 square-feet of floor space.
The architecture and materials for the buildings are intended to reflect high quality 'class A' office
builclings. In an effort to create architectmal interest, and reduce the appearance of scale of the project,
a variety of building mat~'ials, color and architectural expression would be implemented to provide .... .
diversity throughout the project (refer to Exlu'bits 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8).
The research and development/office buildings are oriented along an east to west axis. This orientation~.:.,'":
would best control solar gain and heating requirements, provide northern light for natural day-lighting,
and reduce the harsh eastern and western exposures of sun light. .
ElVlPLOYEE AlV~.NITY SPACE
The proposed corporate campus would include approximately 135,000 square feet of amenity space for ~.~=:'~
employee support services and retail. Services that would be located on site incinde, but are not limited
to, full service cafeterias, fimess centers, on-site training and meeting facilities, dry cleaning, barddng,
travel services, sundry store facilities, and other efllployee-related support services. These uses would
be distributed across multiple locations throughout thc proposed e. nmpns.
SPECL4L USE OR AMEMTmS BLaLDnq(g .-.
The proposed project would include a 60,000 square foot Spechi Use or Amenities Building. This :.;
building would contain large conferen~ and meeting room facilities or other amenities such as a large ....
timess center. The Special Use Building is identified on Exhibit 2-5. The purpose of the building is to
provide space for business meetings, conferences, and community meetings.
Busnqr. ss HOTEL
The proposed corporate campus would include the con~Uaction of a 200 to 3$0-room business hotel.
The hotel would be constructed in the northeast comer of the site near the Campus I Buildings and
adjacent to the Lockheed Martin Transit Center. The hotel would include a restaurant, 5,000 to 10,000
square-feet of meeting rooms, and retail space oriented towards the light rail station. The hotel would :'.:
facilitate business activity by servln_= out-of-town customers'and providing informal and formal spaces
Page 2-9 Project Description '"
H:~DATA~I00102~J)mfl EIRkqe~02.PDes~ ¥~on.doc
i
~iidl~ I A - ~ EIm~lom BdWim{ I B - ~ Eleqm~iaa ~ I { - ~ EIm~iEJm41
Bulldill I A - Nodb Elm/Mill luildn[ II C: - Ilatll EIivillll
Bulldlnl II C - SMIi Eiw,,ui~on lulldlnl II l - SOld#
CORF(O~I~ CAMPUS EIR
Conceptual Campus II Bevations
c~cl(,lau LiaNa Exhibit 2-7
Ill I - ~ BW klM~ II C - Nd Il
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT
Colllmunity Revits!i?~tioll Sub-elment. The 1999 to 2006 Housing and Community Revitali~tion
Sub-Element determined that the comhil3ed l'eColnmelvt~tious of the Futures Study, the Consolidated
Plan 2000-2005 and the Downtown Speci~$~..la~,.. :..g~c~result in a total of 61,361 housiz~ units st
General Plan buildout in 2020. By April 2000, th~ 'tom nmnber of housiag units in the City had
reached 53,90.6.
Since before 1990, the ratio of jobs to housing units in the City of Sunnyvale has been comistently
above 2.00 j'obs per housing unit. During the past twenty years, the jobs/housing ratio has rcmain~ out ~,..
of balan~. Th~ following table, based on statistics provided by tbe 1999-2006 'Housing and
Commoaity RevjrnHTnrion Sub-Element of thc Sunnyvale ~ Plan, de~loustrates thc jobs/housin~ ~..
imbalance experienced by the City of Sunnyvale since 1990 and the jobs-housing balance projected to
the year 2020. As indicated in Table3.10-1 and ~nnt tO ABA(3 Projectiom 2000, the jobs/housing
ratio is projected to increase during the next 20 years, thus resulting in a jobs to housing ratio of 2.57. ,.
However, should the City accelerate the production of housing tO a total of 61,361 units by the year
2020 (as identified in the Housing and Community Development Sub-Element), the jobs housing ratio .....
could be lowered to approximately 2.49.
Table 3,10=1 Sunnyvale's Job Honalng l~n~o
- 1990 119,690 48,638 2.46 ...
1995 120,780 50,630 2.39
2000 131,140 52,430 2.50 ".
2005 134,740 54,600 2.46
2010 142,380 56,270 2.53 ~'..
2015 146,850 57,840 2.54 :'
2020 152,730 59,440 2.5'/
,~urce: Homing and Cometary P,~vimlizmion Sub-Element, Jammry 1999 to ~un~ 2006 (ABAG Pro~:ions 2000) """'"
3.10.2 ENVIRO~Vn~rrAL IMPACTS AND 1VIITIGATION 1VIEASURES .".
POPULATION GROWTH
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. For
the purposes of this project, a jobs/housing ratio-related impact is considered significant if the project
would: :..=...
~'~.
~. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either d~rectly O~or ~a_,nple, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly O~or txxtmple, through extension of ron~l~ or other
infrastructure). :.
Page 3.10-2 Population and ~m~lng · '"
H:k~q)ATA1100 l{12~)rtft EIR~.~- 10~.Po~h~n.d~
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFr
For the purposes of this analysis, the following City of Sunnyvale General Plan Policies and Action
Statements are used as thresholds to dctermin~ si~tmificance. Oth~ Policies and Action Statements
identified in the General Plan would not apply bexmnsc ~ con**i~ non-mandatory criteria (i.e.
'encourage' or 'consider' rather than 'require', 'avoid', or 'ensure'), and/or they do not
specifically relate to the proposed project.
There are no General Plan Policies or Action Statements that are directly related to population growth.
IMPACT 3.10-A Regional Population ami Housing Impacts: The proposed project would not
directly induce pol~t,,a,m growth through .tiw consWuc#on of new homes.
How~wr, the project would
· indirect ineraue in the demand for housing in the region. The increased
dm. and for homing would likely result in population growth in the greater
"' Silicon Valley region. Howe~er, the poptdation generated by the proposed
.... ~ project would not exceal tiw anticipatal po~,_t_~_~n growth of the region for
the y~ar 2020. Therefore, less than dgnificant impact~ w~::t__,!_ occur.
.... Population and housing growth is direaly affected by tbe conslxuction of new homing units. The
proposed project would not directly increase population grov,~h through the coro, u,~:tion of new
housing. However, the jobs generated by th~ propo~l project would be anticipat-d to increase
'~ demand for homing in the City of Sunnyvale and the Silicon Valley region.
A number of factors would determine how tbe proposed corporate campus project would affect
demand for housing in the region. These factors include, but are not limited to the following:
..:. ~' The number of future employ~ that would reloc~ to the region: It is assumed that employees
..:... that relocate to the region would increase the demand for new housing in the region.
o:* The number of future employees who currently live and work in rite region: It is assumed that
-: these employees would not increase the demand for new homing because they would already be
living in the region.
': ~- The furore economic prosperity and unra~,loyment rate of the region.
In order to assess the proposed project's impact on the demand for housing in the region, a worst-case
scenario approach is utilized. The worst-case scenario assumes that all of the jobs generated by tl~
proposed project would be filled by employees that relocate to the region. In reality, persons who
already live in the City of Sunnyvale and within the Silicon Valley Region would fill many of the
'" generated jobs. Nonetheless, to determine the wont-case population growth that would be expected to
occur in the region, the number of employees generated by the project ia multiplied by the labor force
". participation rate (i.e. the number of residents per employee). This calculation is done in order to take
· '~ into account the number of persons that would be aupported by the employee, but that do not work (i.e.
chileu-~-~, stay at home parents, college students living at home, etc). Based on calculations from
'" &BAG's Projections 2000, the County of Santa Clara would have a labor force participation rate of
1.77 residents per 1 employee in the year 2020. The proposed project would generate approximately
7,500 new jobs (including jobs generated by the propo~d hotel, and retail and amenity uses). Based on
the labor force participation rate of 1.77, the 7,500 new jobs generated by the proposed project would
· .' result in a regional population ine~ase of approximntely 13,275 persons (1.77 residents/employee x
7,500 employees = 13,275 residents).
Popui~nn and Housing ... !~ 3.10-3
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
.- It is assumed that the majority of the anticipated population increase (as driven by the proposed
project's anticipated employment) would prefer to live within the Silicon Valley region, near the City of
Surmyvale. Given the complex characteristics and relationships between the location of employment
and where people chose to live, it would be ditY~cult to speciflc, ally determine where the future
employees of the proposed project would chose to live within the greater Silicon Valley Region.
Factors that influence where employee households chose to live include, but are not limit_~ to the
followin_~: "'
4- Whether the employment is full or pan-time
~. The salary of employment
~, The location of employment for primary and secondary, wage earners withiu the same
household
~, The availability of affordable housing within a reasonable COmmute distance to location of
employment
· :. An individual's tolerance to the amount of time spent commuting to and from work · '
· :- The location of high-quality schools in the region ....
· :- The overall quality of life of the con-,~nunity as perceived by individuals and families
Based on the complex factors noted above, the process of determining the specific location of
population and housing growth would be speculative and based on several assumptions that may or may
not be true in the future. Therefore, the population and housing growth that would indirectly occur as a
result of the proposed project was not determined for specific cities av.d communities within the region ....
However, population and housing impacts were determined for several counties in the region.
For the purposes of determining potential population and housing impacts by county, it is assumed that
the homing profile of future employees of the proposed project would be similar to the residential
locatiom of existing J~mlper Networks employees. A recent survey conducted by Juniper Networks .....
found that the majority of Juniper's employees (approximately 70 percent) live in Santa Clara County
(refer to Table 3.10-2).
Table 3.10-2:
Living Locafiom of J-n!per Networks Km~loyees by County
Santa Clara 342 70%
San Mateo 40 9%
Alameda 42 8 %
San Francisco 25 5 % '"
Other 43 9% ' "".
Total 492 100 %
Source: Juniper Networks Survey of Emvloyees, DATE
Assuming that the location of the population and housing growth generated by the proposed project 'i' ~'.
would be similar to the living locations of existing Juniper Networks em.nloyees, approximately 9,293 -..=!'
~ persons would be expected to live in Santa Clara County 03,275 persons x 70% =, 9,293 persons).
HflPDATA~I00102~)r~ft l/~"vS~:03-10r. Polndafion.dm:
i~..'.
· CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFr FIR
According to ABAG's Projectiom 2000, the average household size in the County of Santa Clara is
projected to be 2.97 persom per household in the year 2020. Therefore, a population increase of
approximately 9,293 persons would be anticipated to result in the demand for approximately 3,129 new
housln$ units in the County. The construction of new housing would indirectly result in the population
· : growth of the County.
?':: According to ABAG's Projectiom 2000, the population of the County of Sama Clara is projected to
"-" ~ increase from 1,75:5,300 to 2,016,700 (an increase of 261,400 persons) between the years 2000 and
2020. The population growth that would be anticipauxi as a result of the proposed project (9,293
persons using a wont-case scenario) would be approximately 3.6 percent of the projected population
."' increase for the County between the years 2000 and 2020. Therefore, the mount of population growth
indirectly generated by the proposed project would be within, the range of, and comistent with, the
growth assumed by ABA(} (Projections 2000) for Santa Clara Coumy in the year 2020. In addition, the
~":..' 1999 to 2006 Regional Housing Allocation for the Coun~ of Santa Clara is :57,991 units. The housing
unit growth that would be sntlcipated as a result of the proposed project (3,129 units using a worst-case
~. ~ scenario) would be approximately 5.4 percent of the County's allocation of housing until the year 2006.
:..~ Therefore, the smount of housin$ growth indirectly generated by the project would be within the range
ava consistent with the housing allocations assumed by ABAG for Santa Clara County in the year 2006.
The proposed project would also indirectly generate population and housing growth in Alameda
County, San Marco County, San Francisco County, and several other counties in the Bay Area, Central
Valley, and Monterey Bay Area. Approximately 30 percent of the population generated by the
,... proposed project (3,982 persons) would be anticipated to live in communities outside of Sama Clara
County, mainly in the counties of San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco. According to ABAG's
Projections 2000, San Mateo, Alameda County, and San Francisco are projected to grow by 72,700
persons, 209,000 persons, and 9,800 persons (respectively) between 2000 and 2020. Therefore, the
amount of population growth indirectly generated by the proposed project for areas outside of Santa
Clara County (3,982 persons) would be within the range of, and consistent with, the growth assumed
:.~.; by ABAG (Projections 2000) for the counties of Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco.
· '.il The population and housing 'growth indirectly generated by the proposed project (using a worst-case
: scenario) would not be considemi substantial in comparison to the amount of population and housing
growth that is anticipated to occur in the region. As previously staled, the actual impacts of the
proposed project would be substantially less than the impacts under the worst-case scenario because it is
assumed that many of the future employees of the project would already live in the region, thus not
requiring new housing.
Populatioa and Housing Ivttoa~ts: Mitigation Is Not Required.
Population and Homdn~ Pqe 3.10-S
H:~PDATAH00102~Dnd~
COILPORATE CAMI~S DRAFT EIR
Joas/HovsmG RATIO
Thresholds of Significance
The followin.~ thresholds of sLt, nificance are based an Appendix (3 of the State CBQA Guidelines. For
the purposes of this project, a jobs/housing ratio-related ~.~t is considered significant if the project ~.-
would:
· Induce substantialpopulation growth in an area, either d~rectly Oror example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly ~or example, through extension of roads or other
For the purposes of this analysis, the following City of Stmnyvale General Plan Policies and Action
Statemema are used as thresholds to determine significance. Other Policies and Action Statements
identified in the General Plan would not apply because they ¢omin non-ma-aatory criteria (i.e.
'~ncourag¢~ or 'consider' rath~ than 'require', 'avoid~, or ~ensure'), and/or th~ do not
specifically relate to ~he proposed project.
Housing nnd Co. ......... ay Rev~li~Miou Sub-~Jm~nt
Goal B Move toward a local balance of jobs and housing.
Policy B. 2 Continue to require o~ce and industrial development above a certain intensity to
mitigate the demand for homing or provide additional homing.
B. 2.a Codify the Homing Mitigation Policy that requires certain developments in indto-lrial
zoning districts that exceed established floor area ratios to contribute towards the
homing fund or take other measures to mitigate effects of the job increase upon the
homing supply, and index the mitigation fee.
Land Use and T/-ansportafion Sub-FAement
R1.$.2 Promote shorter commute trips and ease congestion by advocating that all communities
provide homing and employment opportunities.
C2.1.4 Support the transition of Industrial to Residential (ITR) areas as opportunities to
increase homing variety and stock.
C2.1.5 Study homing alternatives; including co-housing, live-work spaces, and transitional
housing options to serve a changing population.
IMPACT 3.10-B City of S,mny~lde Jolgi/~o,~- ~ Impacts: Tke proposed project wo,,M
increase the number of jobs within the City of Sunnyvale. Titis increase
would further skew the jobs/houdng _r~__'_o and substantially increase the .: .....
demand for housing in the city (Potentially Significant lmln~t If Not
Page ~.10-~ Population and Housing ' '
Ii:WDATAII0010~IDrMt I~IRLR~v~ __neeO~-10r. Pcn~lalimu~
CORPOI/~TE C.~IPUS DRAFF
The jobs/housing ratio is an imponan~ indicator of housing need'and of ~e daily migration of workers
from areas both inside and outside the City of Sunnyvale. The jobs/housing ratio is an indicator of
· . potential regional impacts to traffic, noise and air quality. A housing shortage also fosters a rise in
housing costs. Longer commute trips and higher housing costs also reduce the quality of life.
'"" Bulldout of the proposed project would result in appwximately 7,500 new .jobs. There are
: approximately 1,000 existing jobs loca~i on the project site. Historically, up ~o approximalely 2,600
persons have been employed on-site by Lockheed Martin (based on information provided by Juniper
Networks). It is assumed that Lockheed Martin would relocate the ~ jobs at the site w another
pan of their campus localnd in the City of Sunnyvale. As such, the proposed project would result in
the creation of 7,500 new jobs to the City of Sunnyvale. This increase in jobs would further impa~ the
already skewed jobs/honsing balance in the City. While the proposed project would not i~uce
:~,.,: substantial population growth beyond future population projections for the region (as described in
Impact 3. lO-A above), it would conflict with the si/plificance thresholds identified by the Housing and
.... " Community Revitalization Sub-Element goals and policies (Move toward a local balance ofjabs and
,.~..~ housing; and Cominue to require o~ce and ~___u_*~al.developmem above a certain intensity to mitigate
the demand for housing or provide ,,4,ti~ional hou~in~). Therefore, the proposed project would result in
~ potentially significant jobs/housing impacts and mitigation measures would be required.
As previously described, it is difficult to determl--, the preferred living location of future employees.
".'. However, for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the percentage of future e-,,-ioyces that
:..' would live in the City of Surmyvale would be approximately equal to the existing percentage of Juniper
Networks employees that live in the City of Sunnyvale. According to a recent survey conducted by
Juniper Networks, approximately 11 percent of their employees correnfly live in the City of Sunnyvale.
Therefore, for the pm-poses of this analysis, it is assumed that approximately 11 percent of all furore
employees (825 employees) would reside in the City of Sunnyvale. In a worst-case scenario (which
'i~ assumes all future employees would relocate to the region), the 825 employees would yield a population
......~ of approximately 1,460 persons (assuming a l.?? labor-force participation rate).. The City of
Sunnyvale currently has an average household size of 2.73 persons per household (ABAG Projections
-... 2000). Therefore, under the worst-case scenario, a population of 1,460 persons would generate a
demand of approximately 535 housing ~vits in the City of Sunnyvale (1,460 persons/2.?3 persons per
household = 535 households.
Mifigafion3.10-Bl: City of Snnnyvale Joha/Hon~nff
contribute to the City of Sun.yvale's 'Housing Mitig~_~_n l~.d' as deemed
appropriate by the City of Sunnyvale (Significant and Unavoidable Impact).
The City of Surmyvale has an adolxed policy known as the "Housing Mitigation Fund". The Housing
Mitigation Fund is designed to address the City's housing deficiency in relation to rite number of jobs.
Fees are collected from research and dsvelopment/indusuial developmems that exceed cmablished Floor
'" Area Ratios. Funds can be used for rehabilitation, acquisition, new conslrucfion, and predevelopment
costs for affordable housing development. Since the proposed pwject exceeds the established Floor
Area Ratios for the site, the project applicant would be required to contribute funds to the Housing
Mitigation Fund.
The City currently requires developers to pay $7.19 for every sq~mre-foot of floor space in excess of
the maximum 35 percent FAR of the site. The proposed 79.94-acre (3,480,880 square-foot) corporam
campus site has a maximum FAR of 35 percent, which would allow for 1,218,308 square feet of
Population and Ho,~a,,_= ~ 3.10-7
H:~PDATA~I00102~Drafl
fo-7D
COl~J~Olk~l~ C.~b~S DIIAFr EIR
development. The proposed project would have a mud of 2,540,000 square fe~ of floor space.
Therefore, the proposed project would be required to pay $7.19 p~r square foot for ~he additional
1,321,692 square feet of floor space. This would result in a paymcn~ of approximamly $9,502,965.
However, the policy for rite Housin~ MitiF, atiOn Pund ~ives thc City the discretion w assess fees on a
project-by-project basis, and the City may choose to charge developers more or less than $7.19 per
square foot based on the nature of the project. In addition, the City of Sunnyvale is currently prepari~
a study m upd~ the current fee of $'7.19. The s~ly, which is entitled "Codify and Index the Homing
Mitigation", is scheduled for completion in Au~us~ of 2002. Upon completion of the s~:ly, the City
may make fwdln~ to adjust the rate of the Housing Mitigation Fee. Therefore, the proposed fee that is ..
ulfimamly paid to mitiga~ the proposed projea may be more than $7.19 per square foot, and would be
ultimstely determined by the City of Sunnyvale.
The Housing Mitigation Fund is used by the City of Sunnyvale to leverage the construction of housing
units by privalc residen~is! developers and non-profit orgaoi-*tlous. Approximamly $50,000 from the ;"'":
Housing Mitigation Fund would leverage the private development of appro~im.t~-ly one resideng~! unit. ....
If it is assumed that the proposed projeci would rzqulre a housing mitigation fee of $9,502,965 (based
on the currer~ fee of $7.19 per square foot in excess of the 35 txn'ccni FAR), then ~ mitigation fee ""
would leverage the consmtcfion of approximately 190 !mils. '
The City of Sunnyvale ~nnot require additional mitigation from the project applican~ to funber reduce ....
the jobs-housing balance impact because the City does noi have any other adop~ programs or policies
currently in place that specifically address the neans between commercial, office, and/or indui//ial '
developmem and the anticipamd increase in dc~w.d for housin.,a up. its. However, thc implcmematlon of ,.~.~
the City's General Plan Housing and Community Revi~lization Sub-Elemen~ would help to improve the
jobs honsin~ balance in the City. The Honsing and Community Revitslization Sub-Element identifies
several opportunities for honsin~ developmen~ in the City, includin~ vacant land, underdeveloped land,
and pot. emial honsin~ opportunities wigfin the Down~own Specific Plan area and ~he Indusuial to
Residential Zonin$ District. The larges~ available source of land for new housin~ is in the IndnsUial to ~'"'"'
Residential Zoning Dislrict. The City created this zonin~ district in 1993 w implement the
recommendations of the Futures Smd)', a lon~-mrm look at Irends in land use and economic
development. The study recommended the creation of a new zoning district to facilimm conversion of '""'~
y..:,'..
indua//ial land w residential uses. In addition to the honsin~ oppommifies identified in the General
Plan, the use of the Housin~ Mitigation Fund and the Redevelopment Agency Low/Moderate Income
Housin~ Ftmd would also help to impwve the balance of jobs and housin~ units in the City. ~ '
Implememafion of gte mitigation measure would mitigate impacts pursuant w the City's adopted
General Plan Housin~ Mitigation Fund and commensuram thresholds of significance as identified in
Section 3.10.2 above. However, the approximate 190 units tha~ could po~nfially be built by the .
Honsing Mitigation Fund fees payed by the project applicant would not be sufficiently adequate to
offsei the projea's incremen~l impact on the City's existin~ jobs/housing ratio based on the anticipated
impaci of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed projec~ would result in significan~ and ~.....!
unavoidable impacts to the City's jobs/honsin~ ratio despim the im!~,iementsgon of the mitigation
measure. The project's impact on the jobs/honsin~ ratio would be considered sil~nificant and
unavoidable.
CORPORATE CAMI~US DRAFT m
3.10.3 CONCLUSION
Despite the in~lememafion of the mitigation measure identified in this section, Population and Housing
impac~ reh~ed ~o flt~ CiW's Jobs/housing ratio would remain significam and unavoidable.
H:~PDATA~100102~Dr~ EIR~R~__~t.__ 10r. P~pul~/oa. doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
This EIR section describes the existing end projected trannpomtion coMMons in the project vicinity
and estimates the impacts of the project in combination with other short-term approved but not yet
constructed projects. A section describing potemi~ traffic impa~ts re~0tin~ from ctaxluiative
development in the City of Sunnyvale and regional increases in land uses is presented separately in
Section 4.2 of this g. IR, 'Cumulative Analysis". Section 11 of thi.~ FAR, "Glossary~, provides a brief
definition of technical terms used in thi~ section.
This section of the ~ is based on the 7uniper Networks Campus Transportation Impact Analysis Study
completed by CCS Planning & Engineering in February 2002, and included as Appendix G, Volume II
of thi.~ FIR. The Tran.~ortation Impa~t Analysis Study is a stend-aione separate doaunent, which
presents additional information on transportation analysis of the proposed project. Transportation
· ~': Impact Analysis Study information which is not included in thi, se~ion of the FJR includes analyses not
normally included in an ~IR. The additional information includes, in some cases, highly detailed
technical analyses, and analyses of scenarios and combinations of land use development requested by
' the City.
3.12.1 ENWRO NTAL SET'rinG
P~C~ONAL AccEss
As illustrated in Exhibit 3.12-1, regional access to the proposed project site is provided via Route 237,
which is a major east-west corridor. This highway borders the southern edge of the proposed project
site. U.S. Highway 101 (US-101) is another main point of access to the project area. This highway
intersects Route 237 at the southwest corner of the project area. Other regional roadways include
Route 82 and Route 85.
SUMMARY OF LOCAL ROADWAY SYSTEbl
The City of Sunnyvale roadway system is comprised of approximately 298 miles, end is extensively
traveled by both local residents and commuters. Approximately 50 miles of this network are major
roadways serving both local and regional users. Freeways and expressways comprise approximately 13
miles of this major roadway system. Arterials provide approximately 35 miles of roadway, and
collectors provide 58 miles of roadway. The remainder of the City's roadway network is comprised of
smaller and neighborhood streets. The local circulation system serving the project vicinity is illustrated
in Exhibit 3.12-1.
The proposed project is located directly north of Route 237, and just nom'mast of the US- 101/Route
237 interchange. Access to the project site from Route 237 is provided primarily via Mathilda Avenue,
Fair Oaks Avenue/Java Drive, as well as by the Lawrence Expressway/Caribbeen Drive. To a_~ess the
site from US-101, commuters must exit on Mathilda Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue/Java D~ve, or Lawrence
Expressway/Caribbean Drive, and travel north across Route 237 on surface streets. The city streets
that provide access to the project site and vicinity are Mathilda Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue/Java Drive,
and Lawrence Expressway/Caribbean Drive. Lawrence Expressway and Mathilda Avenue are the two
major north-south arterial streets in the City of Sunnyvale. Lawrence Expressway includes carpool
lanes that are in use during the AM and PM peak driving hours.
Traffie and Cire,,lation Pa~e 3.12-1
H:~PDATA\I00102~}mfl EIR~2-24.02 CCS Traffic S~tionk~0~-12.Trafl~cR~ * DI/llLdo~
~ ],,,, ?~
Legend Juniper Networks Campus Exhibit ; .
~ cook.md sw-. s~.m s~y ~.~-~.. Environmental Impact Report
~ I.~,d S~.. audy ~.m~,o. 3.12-1 :',
Study Area "
--- L'~ CCS ' ,'.'~','
-1ir" ............ p:~l o2e~eJd~ag3.12.1.fl~o '...,
CORPORATE CAMPU~ DRAFT ~.IR
Traffic K~naig~mont
The traffic ass~tm~ent was baaed on the most likely travel route between the proposed corporate
campus project site and each of the t~avel directions shown in Table 3.12-14. Peak hour t~avel titne
surveys along the following corridors were conducted on July 12 and 17, 2001 to find the most likely -
tnvel route to and from the project site in cases where they were not clear:
· .'. Lawrence Expressway/Can'bbean Drive :..
~. Lawrence Expressway - Route 9-37 = Mathilda Ave~lu~ ~"
~, Lawrence Expressway - US-101 = Mathilda Avenue ~..
· ~ San Tomas Expressway = Central Expressway - Mathilda Avenue ~..
-~ San Tomas Expressway - U~-101 - Mathilda Avenue
The survey results are included in the Transportation ~,.~ct Analysis Study in Volmne H, Appendix G,
of thi.~ I~R. The survey results show that the fastest route between the area to the southeast of the
study area and Moffett Park was by accessing U$-101, not via the expressways. Trips between ~..
Lawrence Expressway and the project site were routed on U~-101 and Mathilda Avenue. ,.
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. For
the purpose of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if the project would:
~. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number
of vehicle tzips, the volnme to capacity ratio on re_adS, or congestion at intersection)? .
· :- Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Level of Service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
According to the CIV[P Trnn~portation Impact Analysis Guidelines, freeway segments are hrq~acted
when LOS are downgraded from LOS E or better, to LOS F. Also, freeway segments operating
LOS F under Existing or Backgrou~ Conditions are impacted if the number of new t~il,s added by the
project is more than one percent (1~) of the freeway capacity.
IMPACT 3.12-A Freeway TreoO~ hnpacts: The proposed corporate camlms project waJTw ~.
would not cause any additional freeway segments to operate at LOS F.
However, according to the CMP Guidelines, freeway segments ol~rating at ~.....
LOS F under 'Existing Conditions~ are impacted O' the number of new trips ~.,
added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity. Based
on this criteria, the proposed campus projed would cause the freeway i'
capaci~ on seven freeway segments to degmerate beyond the one percent
criteria established by the CMP. (Significant Unavoidable Impact)
Page 3.12.-$G '1~ and ~irculation
H:~PDATAH00102~DrMt E~.~-24..O2 ECS Tra~ Sect~n'~-12.Tm,'T~Rov - DEl,.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DP. AFl' EIR
Based on the CMP 2000 Monitoring Rapon. the following f~eway segments in the study area operate
at LOS F during at least one peak hour under existing conditions:
· ~ US-101 northbound between Mathilda Avenue and Route 237 in the AM peak hour
· 1, US-101 northbound north of Route 237 in both the AM and PM peak hours
"i~. ~, US-101 sOUthbound north of Route 237 in the AM peak hour
! *:. US-101 southbound between Mathilda Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue in the PM peak hour
· :.' US-101 southbound between Fair Oaks Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour
'~ US-101 southbound south of Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour
.i *l, Route237 eastbound west of US-101 in the AM peak hour
· 1, Route 237 es~bound between US-101 and Mathilda Avenue in.the AM peak hour
..... · Route 237 eastbound between Mathilda Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue in the AM peak hour
~. Route 237 eastbound east of Lawrence Expressway in the AM peak hour
..: Freeway seg.,.ent LOS under "Existing Plus Project Conditions with Existing Roadway Networks" is
.~ presented in Table 3.12-15. The proposed corporate c~ .mpus project would not cause any additional
freeway segment impacts to operate at LOS F. However, according to the CMP Guidelines, freeway
..: s%-gments operating at LOS F under "Existing Conditiom" a~ considered impacted if the number of
· : new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity. Based on this criteria,
:'~ the proposed corporate campus project would cause the freeway capacity on the following freeway
: se_~,uents to degenerate beyond the one percent criteria established by the CMP for 'Existing Roadway
Network~ conditions:
· ~ US-101 northbound north Of Route 237 in the PM peak hour (5.9%)
· 1. US-101 southbound north of Route 237 in the AM peak hour (3.7%)
· :' US-101 southbound between Mathilda Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue in the PM peak hour
(S.l%)
,i ~.. US-101 southbound between Fair Oaks Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour
=::'~ (7.0%)
~. US-101 southbound south of Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour (5.3~)
'":i .:. Route 237 eastbound west of US-101 in the AM peak hour (10.8%)
· --, .1, Route 237 eastbound between US-101 and Mathilda Avenue in the AM peak hour (19.3%)
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of thc State CEQA Guidelines. For
the purpose of this analysis, an impact is considered significant ff the project would:
· Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in rehtion to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number
of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on wads, or congestion at intersection)?
· Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Level of Service standard established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Tral~c and Circulation Page3.12-37
H:~d~DATA\I00102~t~ EIR~.-24.02 CCS Traff~ S~-'fion~qe~03-12.Tra~c. Rev. DEIR.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAI~ EIR
According to the CMP's Trnmportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, a project is said to impact au
intersection if it causes an intersection operating at LOS E or better under Existing or Background
Conditions to operate at LOS F with the addition of the project. An intersection operating at LOS F
...:., under Existing or Background Conditions is impacted if the traffic added by the project increases the
average sWpped delay for critical movements by four seconds or more and increases the cr/fical
~ volumes-W-capacity (v/c) ratio by 0.01 or more. Other local intersections are impacted when LOS is
,=i down~iadad from D to E, or from E ~o F.
.... In addition, City policy states, "Require roadway and signal improvements for development projects to
: r~!nlmize decline of existing levels of service."
...~ IMPACT 3.12-B The ~ff~_,,na/~ ge~grated b2/mp/ementa//on of the proposed project
~'~ ~ould cause ~_~_~onal i~olated inter~ections to operate at LOS F compared to
~. the ~Backgrou~d Conditions~ and i~olated intersections that operate at LOS F
~ '; under 'Bae2~und Condition~' would further deteriorate (Significant
;'~ Unavoidabl~ Impact).
:' ~ Traffic generated by the proposed campus project was added to the Background Conditions intersection
~::'i traffic volumes, which are shown in Exh~it 3.12-5. Project-related traffic was based on the trip
--~ generations and traffic distn~ution patterns presented in the =Methodology" section, of this ElR. The
....,:i resulting Bnckgiound Plus Project Conditiom peak hour intersection volumes and lane geometry ate
" presented in Exhibit 3 12 7
-- Isolated intersection operations under Background Plus Project Conditions are presented in Table 3.12-
.... 16. The calculations are included in Appendix G, Volume H of this EIR.
Detailed LOS analysis worksheets for Background Plus Project Conditions are included in the
Transportation Impact Analysis Study in Appendix G, Volume H of this EIR.
Traffic added by the proposed project would cause the following additional isolated intersections to
operate at LOS F, compared to the Background Conditions:
· :- Mathilda Avenue and 5th Avenue in the AM and PM peak hours
..:.: 4, Mathilcla Avenue and Lockheed Martin Way in the PM peak hour
· :* De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road in the PM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
"~ 4, El Camino Real and Gram Road in both the AM and PM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
In addition, the following isolated intersections, which operate at LOS F under Backgwund Conditiom,
would be impacted as a result of the traffic generated by the proposed project:
~ Lawrence Expressway and Arques Avenue in the PM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
c:.i! *:. Lawrence Expressway and Reed Avenue in both the AM and PM peak hours (CMP
..... : Intersection)
· :. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Fremont Avenue in the AM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
Traffic and Circulation Page3.12-39
H:~DATA~100102~mfl ~R~2.244Y2 CCS Tfldlic Secfion~Sec03-12.Tr~ficRev - DiOR.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
When compared to the Background conditions, more turning movements under Background Plus
Project conditions would have stop/vehicle and maximum queue/storage length ratios of greater than
1.0 - more turning movements would have queuing problems.
Mathilda Avenue Corridor 2 would have slight decrease in travel speed in the southbound direction
during the PM peak hour that would worsen the arterial LOS from E to F.
I~HTIGATION M~A~.rRF_~ FOR Iq~_,EWAY TRAFFIC IMPACTS, ISOLATED~
INTERSECTION IMPACT$~ AND COORDINATED ~CTION IMPACTS
The mitigation measures described below are recommended to reduce the level of impact for freeway
traffic impacts, isola~! imersecfiou impacts, and coordinated intersection impacts.
Mifigaiiou 3.12-A
Prior to issuance of the firrt Cert~eate of Oceapan~y, the project appli~ant/d~elaper ~ estal~Zsh
and mai~toin a minimum 30% peal~ trip reduction be~ning s~h full occupancy of Phase I and
continuing through the build-out, full oec'upan~y, and lifetime operation of all phases of project
development. Trip reduction compliance shall be monitored s~h annual reports mbmittod to the City
of Sunnyvale. Since 5an~er Net~orl~ may not be the tenant i~ perpetuity, tl~ miti~alion meamre
applies to all future tenants dur~g the l~fetime operation of the project (Significant and Unavoidable
Impe~O.
The trip generation for the proposed campus project was calcula~! based on the "Corporate
Headq,mrters" land use rate in the s~ndard referenceTr/p Genera~on. A trip generation study, based
on driveway traffic coums, was conducted at the existing Juniper Network site at 1184 and 1194
Mathilda Avenue on July I1, 2001. This u'ip generation study indicates peak hour trip generation rates
lower than those presented in the Trip Generation document are achievable. Detailed survey dam and
resulu are presented in Appendix H of the Transpor~ion Impact Analysis Study, included as Appendix
G, Volume H of this EIR
Manual traffic coums were conducted for the trip generation study at the two driveways on Mathilda
Avenue and two driveways on 5'~ Avenue during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to
6:00 PM) peak hours. Machine coums were also couduc~l continuously a~ the study driveways
between Tuesday, June 12 and Thursday June 14, 2001 to de~ermine the traffic characteristics of the
existing Juniper Nemorks complex. The 24-hour machine cou~ provided volumes in 15-minute
incremenus at each driveway. The ~p ~eneration rates calculated from the count volume and the
square footage of the developmen~ are shown in Table 3.12-19. Trip generation rates of the corporate
hcedquaru~rs office lava use from Trip Generation are also shown in Table 3.12-19 for comparison.
The following is a summary of the ~it, generation study resuha:
· :- The peak periods of travel are spread out over two-hour or longer periods, occurrin~
between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning and between 4:45 and 7:00 in the evening.
· :- The peak traffic hours for the existing Juniper Networks office buildings at 1184 and
1194 Mathilda Avenue is between 8:4~ and 9:45 in the morning, and between 5:30 and
6:30 in thc evening.
Traffic and Circulation Page.3.12-47
H:~PDATAII00102~Dr~ EIR~2-24.02 CCS Traffic Sccglm'~c03 - 12.TmfficR~v. D~IR.doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFt EIR
4. Daily trip generation of the existing Juniper Networks complex is higher tbs. that of
.... the ITE corporate headquarters land use, however, the AM and PM peak hour rates for
the existing Juniper Networks complex are significantly lower than the ITE corporate
headquarters land use.
Table 3.12-19
Comparison of Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Juniper (1184/1194 Mathilda Ave.) 0.70 0.81
12.77 , ..
(8:00 - 9:00 AM and 5:00 - 6:00 PM) (50~ of 1TE rate) (58~ of 1TE rate) ,,
Juniper (1184/1194 Mathilda Ave.) 1.33 1.09 ~'"
12.77
(8:45 - 9:45 AM and 5:30 - 6:30 PM) (90% of ITE rate) (78% of ITE rate)
ITE Corporate Hesdqumers ....
7.72 1.47 1.39
(Adjacent Street Peak Hours)
Nole: Trips vehicle trip ends vs. 1,000 square feet gross floor area
As shown in Table 3.12-19, during the adjacent street peak hour (8:00 - 9:00 AM and 5:00 - 6:00
.-- PM), actual trip generation rates for the existing Juniper Networks complex is approximately 50~ and
58% of the ITE AM and PM peak hour Corporate Headquarters rates, respectively.
Trip rate during the peak hour of the existing Juniper Networks complex (8:45 - 9:45 AM and 5:30 - ~.'..-.
6:30 PM) is approximately 90% and 78% of ITE AM And PM peak hour Corporate Headquarters rate. ~;.'
Thus, based on the data shown in Table 3.12-19, a minimum of 10% reduction from the ITE Corporate
Headquarters as used in this study can be expected for the proposed Juniper Networks Campus.
In addition to the TDM trip reduction factor credited to the various transportation demand ronnngelllent
measures outlined in the CMP's Transportation Impact Anabjsis C,,_~_idelfnes, further trip reduction is
expected to occur as a result of a comprehensive TDM program that will be implemented for the
proposed project. Details of the comprehensive TDM program, which is an enhancement of the TDM
plan currently being implemented by Juniper Networks, are included in Appendix I of the
Trausponation Impact Analysis Study, included as Appendix G, Volume H of this ErR. As assessed in
the enhanced TDM, an 7.5% trip reduction (in addition to the 12.5% reduction), a total of 20% TDM
trip reduction factor, can be expected for the proposed project. .
?'.
The effects of peak spreading and the extensive transportation demand management measures are '"
anticipated to reduce the peak hour trip generation rates of Corporate Office land use presented in Trip ~..~.,.
Generation peak hour rates by at least 20%. A conservntive trip reduction factor of 17.5% '.:
(anticipating 10 percent from peak spreading and additional 7.5% of TDM trip reduction) was assumed .... '
in addition to the 12.5 ~ trip reduction factor applied for implementing various TDM measures outlined
in the CMP's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The Mitigated Project Condition assumes a '.. '.
-- total trip reduction of 30%. '"'
Page 3.12-48 Traffic and Circulation "
H:~PDATA\I0010R~Dmfl EIR~2-24-02 CCS Traffic Sectionk'~c03-12.TraificRev - DEIR.doa
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
Table 3.12-20 shows that with 20% TDM trip reduction factor, total project daily trips would be
reduced from 17,849 trips (see Table 3.12-13) to 16,532 trips. With additional 10% peak hour trip
reduction resulting from the peak spreading, total project trips would be reduced from 2,866 to 2,328
trips and from 2,364 to 1,929 trips, approximately 540 and 435 trip reductions, in the AM and PM
peak hours, respectively. The peak hour project incremental trips would be 1,321 and 1,035 trips in
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Freeway Traffic hnlmets
Freeway traffic impacts for "Mitigated Existing Plus Project' with Existing Roadway Network
Conditions were evalunted based on the procedures in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The results
are presented in Table 3.12-21. The Existing Condition LOS are also shown for comparison.
i.:t~i AccOrding to the CMP's Transportation Impact Analys~s G~ddelines, a project is said to impact a
:.,. freeway segment if it causes a segment operating at LOS E or better under Existing or Background
::, Conditions to operate at LOS F with the addition of the project. A project is also said to impact a
='"" freeway segment if the number of i~iFs added by the project to a segment operating at LOS F under
,..=~. Existing or Background Conditions is more than one percent of the freeway capacity. Table 3.12-21
i".:..', presents results for only those freeway sera~ents that would exceed these thresholds under !mmitig~ted
z"' Existing Pins Project conditions.
The freeway segments that would operate at LOS F under Mitigated Existing Plus Project with Existing
Roadway Network conditions are the same as those in the unnaitigated Existing Pins Project with
Existing Roadway Network conditions. The traffic generated by the proposed corporate campus project
under the Mitigated Existing Plus Project with Existing Roadway Network conditions would cause the
following impacts to the study freeway segments:
"'""~ -:.- US-101 northbound north of Route 237 in the PM peak hour (4.7%)
~'='~ ~- US- 101 southbound north of Route 237 in the AM peak hour (3.451;)
· :' US-101 southbound between Mathilda Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue in the PM peak hour
'"i (6.6%)
.... .' .:. US-101 southbo~md between Fair Oaks Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour
(5.6~)
· :o US-101 southbound south of Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour (4.2%)
· ," Route 237 eastbound west of US-101 in the AM peak hour (8.7%)
· :- Route 237 eastbound between US-101 and Mathilda Avenue in the AM peak hour (15.6%)
The percent impact of the freeway ser, ments under the Mitigated Existing Plus Project with Existing
Roadway Network conditions is less than the unmitigated Existing Plus Project with Existing Roadway
· .i Network conditions. However, they would still be impacted according to the CMP Guidelines since the
..: number of new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the free~ay capacity.
Traffic and Circulation Page~.l~49
H:~PDATA\100102~}n~ EIR~2-24.02 CCS Traffic: Section~e~-'0~- 12.Trnfflc. Rev= DEIR. do~
/o-qo
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
The following freeway segments would need to be widened to provide one additional travel lane to
mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level under F. xisting Plus Project with Existing Roadway
Network Conditions:
· ~ US-101 northbound north of Route 237
~, US-101 southbound from v. orth of Route 237 south of Lawreuce Expressway
· '~ Route 237 eastbound from west of US-101 to Mathilda Avenue
The 30~ trip reduction is considered a feas~le mitigation measure. However, widening of the freeway
sega~ents listed above would result in significant environmental and right-of-way impacts and are,
therefore, n~t considered feasible. As a result the impacts of the proposed project on freeways is .~'
considered si..t, nif~cant and unavoidable.
Intersection tnffi~i¢ voinm~ ma. der tbe Mitigated I~lr.~nmmd Plus proj~t with Existing Roadway ..
Network Conditions are shown in Exh~it 3.12-8. The LOS at the isolated study intersections under
this scenario are smnmafized in Table 12.3-22. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets for Mitigated
Background Plus Project Conditions are included in the Transportation Impact Analysis Study in
Appendix G, Volume H of this EIR.
According to the CMP's Trnp-~2ortation Impact Analysis Guidelines, a project is said to impact an
intersection if it causes an intersection operating at LOS E or better under Existing'or Background
Conditions to operate at LOS F with the addition of the pwject. An intersection operating at LOS F i'"
under Existing or Background Conditions is impacted if the traffic added by the pwject increases the
average stopped delay for critical movements by four seconds or more and increases the critical v/c "
ratio by 0.01 or more. Table 3.12-22 presents results for only those intersections that would exceed
these thresholds under unmitigated Backgrotmd Plus Project conditions.
Mitigated Project With Existing Roadway Network Isolated Levels of Service
Based on the thresholds established in the CMP's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, traffic
added by the proposed project with a 30% trip reduction would result in significant impacts at the
following intersections compared to the Background Conditions:
~ Lawrence Expressway and Arques Avenue in the PM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
· :- Lawrence Expressway and Reed Avenue/Monroe Road in the AM and PM peak hours
(CMl' Intersection)
· ~ Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Fremont Avenue in the AM peak hour
o~' De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road in the PM peak hour (CMP Intersection)
· ~, E1 Camino Real and Grant Road in the AM and PM peak hours (CMP Intersection)
go Mathilda Avenue and 5a Avenue in the PM peak hour
+:, Mathilda Avenue and Lockheed-Martin Way in the PM peak hour
Traffic operations at isolated intersections with the 30% trip reduction are the same as, or slightly better ~"'
than, with the 12.5% reduction at the first four intersections listed above. The 30% trip reduction
would result in more of an improvement in traffic operations at the latter three intersections listed
above. However, all seven intersections would still be impacted according to the CMP Guidelines.
Page 3.12-52 Traffic nnd Clrculnflon
H:~PDATA~I00102'd)raft EIR~2-24-02 CC$ Trnffi~: Section\gec03-12.Tmf~:Rev - DEIR.do~
Table 3.12-22
Inter, section Analysis with 30% Trip Reduction
Background Baekground Plus Projeet 30% Peak Trip
Reduction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
CMP Intersections LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay
Lawrence Expwy. & Arques Ave. C 21 0.87 F 126 1.24 C 21 0.87 F 129 1.25
Lawrence Expwy. & Reed AveJMonroe St. F 268 1.42 F 101 1.18 F 275 i.45 F !05 !.!9
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. & Fremont Ave. F 92 1.14 C 19 0.76 F !1# I. lS (7. 22 0.76
De Anza Blvd. & Homestead Rd. D 35 0.95 E- 59 !.10 D- 38 0.99 F 68 !.!4
El Camino Real & Grant Rd. E 47 0.99 D 34 0.96 F 9S I.i$ E 52 1.02
Other Intersections
Mathilda Ave. & 5th Ave. (4) * C 23 0.51 D+ 26 0.62 D 35 0.78 F 194
Mathilda Ave. & Lockheed-Martin Way B 12 0.49 D 29 0.77 C 17 0.73 F 171 !.!$
Nole:
LOS calculations for optimal signal cycle lengths in TRAFFIX
· For intersections with LRT operations: Per City of Sunnyvale guidelines, the average intersection delay per vehicle has been increased by the number of
seconds shown in parentheses lo reflect additional dealys caused by light rail crossing.
O
..~ Table '2 - Exist + Proj Inters LOS 30% TDM.xI$ 2/24/2002
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT
The following improvement would be required to impwve the CMP intersections to LOS E and local
imersectiom to LOS D in the peak horn's under Background Plus Project with Existing Roadway
Network Conditions:.'~'' "
4, Lawrmee Exla,--~,ay and Arques Aveaue (CMP Inta'secfion) - Provide an
additional sou~oound through lane and convert one of the eastbound through to riglu-
mm lane (noi feas~le) or conslruc~ an ufoan in~rchang¢ as identified in the General
Plan.
~.- Lawrm~e F,~p,t..,m~ and R~! Avenue/Moaro~ Road (CMP Intersection) - ,~'
Provide an additional northbound and southbound flmmgh lanes; add one wesibound
feasible) or conslmct an urban i~ercha~e as idemi~ed in the General Plan.
· ~ Sarato~-Smmyvule Rend s~d Frt, ment A?,,,,ue - Provide an additional northbound through lane (no~ feas~le).
through lane (no~ feesible).
~, El Camino Real and Gra~ Rmut - Provide an additional eastbound left-~rn and
wmbound through lanes, and the convert the northbound right-mm lane to a ~:.
through/right shared lane and the convert the westbound through/right shared lane to a
_ right-turn lane (not feasible).
~* Mathilda Avenue and Sth Avenue - Restripe the eastbound approach to one left, one
through/fight shared, and one fight-mm lanes; provide an increase in the length of
northbound left-mm lanes from 350 to 540 feet (feasible). "."
g* 1VL~htida Avmue and l.o~lrheed Marlin Way - Pwvide an additional northbound and
southbound through lane and additional right-mm (a total of three) (not feasible).
The 30% trip reduction is considered a feasible mitigation measure. However, thc improvcments listed
above, except at the Mathilda Avenne/Sth Avenue intersection, are not considered feasible because of
substantial right-of-way takes that would be necessary. As a result, the imp. acts of the proposed project
on isolated intersections are comidered si~mificant and unavoidable. It should be noted that urSan
interchanges at Lawrence Expressway/Antues Avenue and Lawrence Expressway/Reed Avenue/
Monroe Road intersections have been identified in thc General Plan. Construction of urban
'interchanges would mitigate the LOS impacts at these two intersections.
Coordinated Intersection Traffic Impacts
Tables 3.12-23 and 3.111-24 present Synchro and $imTraffic analysis results for the Background Plus .~.
Project With Existing Roadway Network Conditions. Tables 3.12-23 and 3.12-24 present results for ~."
only the corridor that would exceed these significance thresholds used in this FIR.
Page 3.12-SS Traffic and Circulation · "
HflPDATA%10010'ADmfl EIR~2-244)2 CCS Traffic Sect/on,Sec03-12.TmfficRcv - DEIR. doc
::" CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
NO~E
Increased Iraffic volumes resulting from development of the proposed project and the buildout of the
surrounding area are anticipated to result in cumulatively significant increases in vehicular noise levels
along msjor thowu~hfares in the project erea. Although residences and other sensitive receptors
located along these thoroughfares may be currently impacted by existing traffic noise, baseline
conditions would be further impacted by ctmmhtive trs~c conditions.
In addition to traffic noise, cumulative development pwjects would increase the ambient noise levels
: win'fin the City of Sunnyvale as a result of short-term construction activities and long teiiii operations.
In order to mitig*t~- adverse conslruction noise impacts, development proposals are reviewed for
compliance with the standards set forth in the Noise Sub-Element of the Sunnyvale General Plan.
Noise attenuation measures would be required for new developments where necessary to comply with
,~:~',: specific interior and exterior noise levels. Since there are no semifive receptors near the proposed
project site, the project's incremental contribution to cumulative construction and operation noise levels
~ would be considered less than si~anificant.
( Hous G)
The cumulative effects of the pending and approved projects in the City of Smmyvale would increase
the number of jobs in the City, causing a further iml~l=nee in the jobs/housing ratio. In addition, the
implementation of the NASA P, mes Developmen~ Plan would further co~i~ibute to the jobs-housing
· .' imbalance in the City and the region.
The City of Smmyvale curremiy has a jobs-housing ratio of 2.46 jobs per housing unit. ABAG's
projections indicate that the jobs/housing ratio for the City will increase to 2.57 by the year 2020. The
development of pending and approved projects in the City of Sunn~/le, the future implementation of
· ' ~.' the Moffett Park Specific Plan, the development of the NASA Ames Development Plan, and the
.,~. construction of the proposed project would substantially increase the number of jobs in the Sunnyvale
area. The job increase would result in cumulative impacts to the City's jobs/housing ratio, as housing
'i'~ growth is not anticipated to keep up with employment growth. This negatively impacted jobs/housing
.... ratio would contribute to several local and region~l problems, including traffic congestion, commuter
travel delays, air emissions, and housing affordability. Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be
" considered significam.
The proposed project would be required to contribute funds to the City's 'Housing Mitigation Fund' to
mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed project. Other pwjects within the City of Sunnyvale may be
required to contribute to the Housing Mitigation Fund if they exceed the established FAR for the
district. Other projects tha~ are within the established FAR would not be required to mitigate impacts
-'~ that would contribute to the imbelanced jobs/housing ratio. The NASA Ames Development Plan would
~ include the development of housing. However, the amount of housln~ developed, would not be
sufficient to completely mitigate the dema~ for housing that would be generated by the proposed
.... project.. Therefore, the NASA Ames Development Project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact related to the jobs/housing balance.
· .~ Cumulative impacts from other pending, approved, and reasonably foreseeable commerciall!nau~i~hl
.: development projects in the City of Sunnyvale and other surrou~lln= communities would re,dr in
cumulative impacts to the city's jobs/housing ratio. This cumulative impact would be considered
· . significant and urmvoidable.
.' Cumulative lmp~e~ Page 4-1
H:~PDATA~100102~'~fl EIR~2-24-02 CCS Thrill= Sealionk~m04.Cumul~live - D~IR.do~
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
The pending and approved projects in the City of Sunnyvale may result in the displacement of existing
housing units depelldln~ on their nature and location. Displacement impacts of pending nad approved
project would be assessed and mitigated on a project-by-project basis. The proposed project site does
not contain any housing units. Therefore, the project's incremental impacts related to the displacement
of homing would be considered remote.
Ptmuc SF VIC -
Development of proposed and appro.ved projects in the area ~Lrroundin~ the project site as well as
bnild-out of the City of Sunnyvale General Plan, would result in increased demands upon existing
public services, including police, fire, parks, and schooh. The proposed pwject would result in
potentially significant impacts related to police, fire, and schools. Section .3.11, Public Services,
identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. ' ....
These mitigation measures include payment of development impact fees for new fire equipment, the use ....
of on-site security, and payment of development fees for school facilities. Other proposed and approved
projects in the ar~a would be required to pay similar fees based on the nature of the project and its
impact on public services. As such, the proposed project's incrernental conlribution to public service ..
impacts, when combined with other rehted projects in the City of Sunnyvale would result in less thnn
significant cumulative effects.
Section 3.12 of this F.,IR, "Traffic and Circulation", discusses naffic and circulation hii~acts. TI~
-- cumulative traffic impact ~halysis was I~fform~ for the year 2012 when the propo~l corporate
Caml~ project ~ exI~ct~l to' be fully eomplel~d and o~upi~l. The cumulative anal~is
comtmcfion of roadway improvement~ descril~l in the General Plan, including the Ma~ Avenue
Extemion, and a 30 l~re~ trip ~luction factor for the corporate ~ p~oject. :......
Bas~l on historical traffic data monitored by th~ City of Sunnyvale, an average growth rat~ of 1.27
p~rcent l~r y~ar occurred l~n 1~3 and 1997. This growth factor i~ I~m do~ur~ut~ and us~l
to calculate traffic growth in the 1184/11~t Mathilda Awmte Office Project Transportation Int~act
~lnalysi~ and the Moffett Pa~ Project Transportation lrapact ,~naly~i,. Therefore, a growth rate of 1.27
percent per y~r over 11 ye.~ wa~ appli~l to the existing (year 2001) inter~ecfion volum~ to
dctermi~ year 2012 traffic level~.
Table 4-2 ~ows the fi.~way operations analysis for the for Cumulative Condifion~ with General Plan
improvements. The following fi.~eway segment~ would I~ impacted:
~, Northbound US-101 fi.om north of Route 237 to Mathilda Av~
· ~ Southbound U~.101 north of Route 237 ;.;~.~.:
~' Southbound U$-101 from Mathilda Aven~ to south of I. awrenee F~.xpr~wa¥ :.....
o~o l:a,tbound Route 23? fi.om west of US-101 to Fair Oal~ Av~
· :' F~tbound Route 237 ~t of Lawrtmce F.,xpre.~way >....:
Page 4-12 Cumulntive Impacts
H:~PDATAII00102~ra~ EIR~2-24.02 CCS Traffic S~lionkqec04.Cumulalive. DEIR.do~
Even with the General Plan roadway improvements, additional travel lave in each direction along the
above freeway ses~ent would be required to mitigate the cumulative impacts.
Local Street Opemtiom
The isolated intersection operatiom for Ctnuulafive Conditions are summarized in Table 4-3. Level of
service calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B of the Transportation Impact Analysis
Study in Appendix G, Volume II of this E1R. Synchro and SimTraffic analyses are shown in Tables 4-
4 and 4-5.
The following intersectiom would be im.~acted under Cumulative Conditiom:
4, Fair Onk.~ Avenue and Tasmnn Drive in the PM peak hour
4, Lawrence Expressway and Arques Avenue in the PM peak hour
4, Lawrence Expressway and Reed Avenue/Monroe Road in the AM and PM peak hours
4, Lawrence Expressway and Tasman Drive in the AM peak hour
4, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road nnd Remln~on Drive in the AM peak hour
4, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Fremont Avenue
4, De ~,nTn Boulevard and homestead Road in the PM peak hour ~"
4, El Camino Real and Grant Road in the AM and PM peak hours
4, Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue in the AM peak hour
~. Mathiida Avenue and 5th Avenue in the PM peak hour ~...
4, Mathilda Avenue and Lockheed Martin Way in the PM peak hour .,..
The following mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant impacts under Ctmmlative
. Conditiom:
4, Lawrence Expressway and Tasrnan Drive (CMP Intersection) - Construct an urban
interchange as identified in the General Plan
*:* Lawrence Expressway and Arqnes Avenue (CMP Intersection) - Construct an urban
interchange as identified in the Ge~ral Plan.
4, Lawrence Expressway and Reed Avenue/Monroe Road (CMP Intersection) - Comtruct
an urban interchange as identified in the Goneral Plan.
4, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from south of Mathilda Avenue to Alberta Avenue - Provide
an additional northbound and southbound through lanes (four lanes in each direction)
(not feasible)
4, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Fremont Avenue - Provide an additional northbound
through lane (CMP Intersection) (not feasible)
4, Fair Oaks Avenue and Tasman Drive - Convert the westbound through to throngh/ieft
shared, and tbe eastbound left to left/through and the right/through to right-mm lanes
with necessary signal modification (feasible)
Page 4-14 Cumuht~ve Impacts .
H:~PDATA~i00102~}mft EIR~2-24.02 CCS Traffic Section~-'04.Cumulafivc - DF. IR. doc
CORPORATE CAMPUS DRAFT EIR
,~, Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue - Provide exclusive right-turn lane end convert the
existing through/right to through lane and left/throngh shared to left-turn lane in the
southbound direction, provide three eastbound left-turn lanes, and add one westbound
through lane (not feasible)
~, Mathilda Avenue and 5th Avenue - Res~Fe the eastbound npprnach to one lel~, one ~,...
through/right shared, end one fight-turn lanes; provide increase northbound left-turn
lanes from 350 to 540 feet. (feasible)
~,. Mathilda Avenue and Lockheed Martin Way - Provide an add~i_t_i_onal northbound and ~ ....
southbotmd through Inne and nddltionnl ri~ht=tttt'n (a total of two) (not feasible)
~- De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road Intersection - Provide an additional :..'
southbound through lane (not feasible)
· ~. El Camino Real and Grant Road Intersection - Provide an additional eastbound left-turn ..-
and westbound through lanes, convert the northbound right-turn lane to a through/right
shared l~ne_, and convert the westbound through/right shared lane to a right-turn lane
(not feasible)
· :- Mathilda Avenue from south of Lockheed Martin Way to Ross Drive - Provide six
through and separate right-turn lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions
or grade separate Mathilda Avenue to provide non-stop north-south movements within
this corridor. (not feasible)
· :' Mathilda Avenue from Almanor Avenue to Maude Avenue - Provide four northbound
and southbound through with separate right-turn lanes along Mathildn Avenue at the !~"'
intersections with Aimanor, San Aleso, and Maude Avenues. (not feasible)
Improvements listed above for several roadways and intersections are considered not feasible because of
right-of=way takes that would be necessary, or environmental constraints. Therefore, the proposed ~...
project's incremental contribution to traffic LOS impacts would be considered significant and
unavoidable despite the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. ~-..
In addition, the Mathilda Avenue Corridor 1 synchronized traffic corridor would continue to operate at
LOS F in peak directions during the AM and PM peak hours tm. der cumulative traffic conditions. The
Mathilda Avenue Corridor 2 synchronized traffic corridor would operate at LOS E during the PM peak ~_.
hours under cumulative traffic conditions. The Sunnyvale-Saratoga Avenue Corridor synchronized
traffic corridor would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hours under cumulative traffic conditions.
The Fair Oaks Avenue Corridor, and the Wolfe Road Corridor would continue to operate at LOS D or
better during peak hours. ~ ....
UTILITI~ ~..
The proposed project would result in less-thn~-significant impacts related to water, electricity, natural .?'.'
gas. telephone, and cable. The proposed project would potentially have significant sewer system and
long-term solid waste impacts. However. the project would require the construction of new sewer
facilities and the implementation of a Solid Waste/Recycling Management Plan to mitigate potentially
Page 4-20 Cumulative Impacts · "
H:'~PDATA\IOOI02~waf~ EIR~2-24.02 CC$ Tra~¢ S~tion~.~ea04.Cumulal~w = DI~P..doc
Prior to the i~suance of the ~ bmTding permit, the project applicant ~ contribute
applicable fund~ (as directed by the Ci~ Council) to help pay for the regional improvemen=
needed to reduce project impact~ on the impacted segments freeways a~ li~ted bele~:
~ U$-IOI northboundnorth of Route23?
~* US-101 southbound north o/Route 237.
~* US-101 southbo~ between Matidida Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue ~-'"~
P US-lO1 ~antkboand between Fab' Oalar Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
)' US-101 Mutbboand ~ougb o! Lawrence Expressway ·
~ Route 237 engbannd we~t oJ' ~5-101
~ Route 237 ~und between ~5-101 and MatMida Avenue
(SignOqcant and Un~veideble Imlmct)
p~s~ pwj~:
~ US-101 ~~ no~ of Ro~ 237 ~ ~e PM ~ h~ (5.9~) ~.':
· US-101 sou~o~ ~ of Ro~ 237 ~ ~e ~ ~ h~ (3.7~)
~ Rou~ 237 ~t~ w~ of US-101 ~ ~e ~ ~ho~ (10.8~)
co~ifion:
~ ~~ ~p~sway ~ ~qu~ Ave~e ~ ~e PM ~ hour (C~ I~cfion)
ho~ (C~ I~tion) .....
~ S~mga-S~e R~d ~ ~ Avenue in ~ ~ ~ hour
~ Ma~il~ Aven~ ~ ~-Man~ Way ~ ~ PM ~ ho~
~e Ma~ Av~e Condor 1 sig~ sys~ would ~ similarly
Page S-6 Sipificsnt EnviFonmentnl Effec~
H:~PDATA~100102~Dmfl I/IRk~:0S $1F~"cts dot
82/25/2882 89:38 48873877~5 COD PAGE 14
10300
Tone
Avenue
Cull'line. Ca,ferule 95014
CITY OF Telephone:. (406) 777.-3308
October 29, 200'1
Ms ~rri Caruso
Sunn~le Oommunlty Devolopmont Department
456 West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, ~ 94089-3707 ... ,
Re: Junipe'.r Networks Ca~pus EIR
Dear Ms Caruso:
-' Thank you for gMng us the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Jurdper
Netwedc, Campus pm]eot. The City of Cupertino has the following concems and mquem th.at
they be inco~orated into the EIR for the project:
· Jobs/Housing Balance- The project wJfl add signifi=ant demand far hous'mg (abaut 3000 unite
assuming a net increase of 1.6 million sq.tt, af office and an estimated demand of 2units/
1000 sq.ft, of office) which, If not addm~ed, will add to tbs lobe/housing imbeisnos in
.-. Cupertino and a~acent juriadJotJons. Cupertino is considering · polioy requiring housing to
be built Jnta pm]acts with a. large office component. Sunnyvale could explore similar
opportun'~Jes either at the Juniper project site or srms Jn the vicinity.
· TralITc ~mpa=ts- We have reviewed the City of Mountain View"s comments and support their
concerns regarding ;.,,~o impa,,~ to Hwy 101 end Hwy 86. We ~e also concerned that the
jobs/housing balance would add trips to the highway circulation system as workers commute
from outside the region end exacerbate the predominantly north south commute pattern.
Accm'dingly, we request the project assess impetus on Highway 85/260 and the intersections
at Homestead Rd./De Anza Blvd. end Lawrence Expwy,/Stevan· Creek Blvd.
· Cumulative/rnpacts Of Other Projects-The EIR should Include General Plan development
buildout for Cupertino (which has updated its 2001 Housing Element ~o include adequate
sites for 2325 dwelling units, 605 of which are along Homestead Rd). The EIR should also
include the proposed NASA Ames pro}act in Mountain View.
These are prefiminary comments from City staff. 'The project win be referred to the City Council
at their next available meeting (tentatively Ney.la, 2001) end comments will be forwarded .'m you.
The City would appreciate the opportunity to review the Drm't BIR when it is released. We look
forward to work with you in edclresslng mi0gaUons for the project to ensure that the project is an
asset to Sunnyvale as well es the surTounding communiUes. Please contact Aarti 8hfivastav--,,
~enio P/~ann~.~406) 7'/%3277 if you have any questions or comments.
Community Development Director
CC: City Council Pisnning Commission
Dave Knapp, City Manager Klmberly Smith, City Clerk
Ralph Quails, Public Works Director Ciddy Wordell, City Pla..nnar
92/25/2692 69:36 4687367715 CI)D PAC~F.. 96
$00 Ce.lt~ Street · Pol~ ~ Box 7.f40 · Mm VkAv, CA 94039,,7:~40 - 630-903-6306 · FAX
October 24, 2001.
Ms. Gcrri Ceruso
(:il y of Sunnyve. lo
(**'ommun~ty Development Dzpa~b. uen!
,L55. West Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707
R.~',: Notice ofPrepzzafio= ofDrzf~'P, wi.x*onmental Impact R.gport- Juniper NetWOZ~ C ~=,~us
Deer Ms. Caruso: '"
The City of Mountain View Ropreciatcs the opport, m!ty to commant on the Notice of Preparation.
~'or the above men~oned project During prepnration of the BI:R, it ~s requested thc foUowing
tssues be cortsidcred.
· Tl~e waffic analyds for thc projecl should ev&luate the locatimss ~ Motmmin View listed
below as weU any freeway section.~ that would see an j=c=ease ~n tzaffic greater, tha~ I pmv, enT
(CMA iteodard) ~.d any major street i~terscctions where ~te project wo'~ld add more than 10
~ew vehicles per lane to the intersection stand=d (CMA sta=dazd)
- Moff-et~ Blvd/Centra] Expreas~,ay
- Moffett Bird/Middlefield Poet[
- MoffettBlvd/SIT 85 NB Ramps
- Ellis Street/Middlefield P, osd
- EiTis StreeVTJS 101 NB ami SlJ l~mps
- 1,igh~ rail crossiu~ st C'~t,~I ~-.xpressway
- SR. 237 ~nps ~ Maude Ave
- SR. 237 (~ Middlefield Rd. "
· Traffic shouldbe ev~tmtcdwith andwithout proposedHighw~y 85/101 interchnnge
improvements, since those ~,n.,wovmnants may not be coutplcted prior to development of the
proposai proj~-t.
82/25/2882 89:38 48873877~5 C.,DD
O,.:tobe:r 24, 2001
Past -2-
· The traffic analysis shoed ~ iut~, account the i~.nact o£m~terh~ lights on th~ Nishway
].01 entrance ram?s,
· The Ell[ should also considcrpote~tial impa~ts to.housin~ in Mo~t~ ¥..iew that, miEht
r~sult from the increase in jobs asst,ciate, d with the project and id,~_~fy p~sst~ole mitigation to
~dress housing impacts. ['
· Thc EI~ should cvaln;t_-- who will support the ne~i! space and hotel. Given the size and
magnitude of the projcct it s~ms that in order for both ofthe~ activities to be succesaful
thcy will need to rely on thc surm~,v~ng communities to support these acfi~'ities. The EIR
should better define the type ofretu[I proposed for this m'te as 150,000 S.F. ofret~il is a lot to
just serve the uew busine~ea. Also, for the hotel more specificity is requcsteA on the
number of rooms and if it includes conference spac~ or other amcnitim? To de~e~mine ..-..
wh~cher the uses are local or ~sionsl serving, a market analysis is requested. To the extcnt
,~.
these uses are regional, the traffic :malysis should ide~ the kapact of these ttscs on
Mountain View.
· A list of pending p~ojects in the City oflvlou~t~i_,,_ View is attached. These projects should be
incoq~orated into the traf~ aualysis.
· Additionally. the traffic, air quality and housing dem~nrl analysis should include thc
proposed NASA Ames project (thc preferred alternative). ;'
(~e again, thank you for the oppom, uity to comment on the Notice of Pr~aratio~- The City
would appreciate thc oppo~mlty to review the Draft ~ when it is r~leased. Plcase contact
Curtis Banks, Seaior Planner, in thc Community Development Depa~'t~ent at (6~0) 903-6~06 ii'
you havc any questions or requi~ clarification regarding these comme~lts.
~iuccreiy ~.
,'.. ......)'.-. ~
Senior ?larm~
i..* 82/25/2892 89:38 4887397715
CITY (.)F MOTTNTAZN VIEW
__.,;. _ I'toject Name Use Sb~
49! ~aJzcb~ Office 14,862 C~letad- 24'ot
~ _~,'5_?iddlefleld ~ '13,700 st
.~tl__(.o~c Office 31,800 ~ ~q~oved
_5=.J~'~tismsa & 464 ~ & 369'WhLsman Ofltca 396,000 sf Ain2rovod
: __$00_ Fm'smson 04~i~ 228,000 si'
.(;T~Natiotal . ~ lg,Igs si' Apoxovod
_4_2~.tqatJonal Office 3~,117 af
.liOO czlt~ t~_* ~ 50o.0o0 sf 125,oo0
40o c:.=,o .. ~ 142,8'/3'sf Uader
Rma~ 8.82O It'
- __3 ~.Y,:364 )B't,/a= ' ~'-,,,~_,'s 20 uniu T~,u,r
~61 W. Dana St. Otfice 56,0O0 ~ Undex
401 C,a~L,o.~l. Retail 10,160 af T.T_n~n~r e, oastmmioa
Off'ce 20240 ~
I 101. El Can:dno ReaJ. M.~l, tJ-~amR, y 21) un~
Ot~.o ' 14,000 if
._111 El Camiao Real Office 40,000 ~
.3 ~ ~ (W'aJs~,, ~ Iv) [~i~-Fumflv 69 -,,~,
~99 gl Cam~o ~ Multi-Family 21 mn~ts Under
" Office 27,0O0 ef
l (~96-1710 Villa ST. Multi-Fmaily 54 units
89~ vii~ st.*et omce 26,2o3 s~ A~a~vect
R~tail 1 L~-~-7 sf
i], -935 va, s,.i 20 uni.
..=23].Hope St. J Muld.Pamily 8 u~hs A'ppt'ovod
3~a.._n Antonio T.~p J Music School 24,608 sf
_,'~_~ An.m~io Loop SRO 130 uni~ Pendin~
.~7] W. Evclya A~ Om__~ ~3~730 sf ARa'oved.
~'/ Or'reda Ave Multi.Pa~'ly 60 units , Und~ conr=actiun
_t0~,t Bonita.Ave. . A~ul~.~mnily 4 uatts Under t:~nsmmtion
· 450 Fm. guso~ O~_re 11,205 sf Uade~
! -~.~_:~59 Sb)lde Family 3 Imb
· !~! M~la, gaa Ave. SiI~le Fn'n',il¥ 3 ~hs
-17._24 C,e~m: Sin~'F,,-,,'ly 5 ,,,',;;
;.60..=~ F.,llis Om,--., 5.~00 sf Under c~__..mu~on
=$.~.0 Oak St. Office 2.625 si'
_?1q-923 Mt. View Ave, $in,lzle Fnwvll, y 41mira gndm: ~
_ M~raKa Dr. Multi. Fmn2¥ 3 m~ts A~a'ovM
.3~.~.190 Moffetr ltmol $? mon~
.2513-2~25 _t~,,.']esfou Manufactu~li 6,000 T. Tm~ can,muc~un
.2656-266a ]31 Can~to ltul Rmil 14,7.00
.1_885 Mir~_ ,,,~ S~2ool =a,~don 14,820 Und~ r,e~tra~on
{0
'i*. City of Cupertino
· ~ 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF *'~:'~ (408) 777-3308
CU PEILTINO F,x 408, 7,.33
Community Development Department
Housing Servioes
Summary
Agenda Item No. I I Agenda Date: Aoril 1, 2002
Subject:
Recommendations for use of twenty-eighth program year (2002-03) Community Development
Block Grant (CDBO) Funds
Recommendations:
The Cupertino Housing Committee recommends that the City Council accept either alternative
one or two for the 2002-2003 CDBG program year. Staff recommends the City Council select
"Alternative 2", which will provide additional funding for Senior Adults Legal Assistance and
also fully fund Cupertino Community Services' Affordable Placement Pwgram.
Program Alternative 1 Alternative
Program AdminisWation: $15,000 $15,000
CCS - Rotating Shelter:. $25,000 $25,000
CCS - Affordable Placement Program $5,167 $0
Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SA!.A) $6,500 $11,667 '
Unallocated balance $108,379 $108,379
Sub-Total: $160,046 $160Jla6
Affordable Housing Fund:
CCS- Affordable Placement Program $~. ~.,833 $50,000
Sub-Total:
TOTAL: $225,707 $22~.7fl7
Background:
The City of Cupertino will receive approximately $175,046 ($165,046 in discretionary funds and
$15,000 for program administration) of CDBG funds for fiscal year 2002-03. The amount is a
decrease of $5,828 from last year's amount of $180,874. A11 cities in the Urban County have
experienced the same decrease in funding.
HUD regulations require that projects selected for funding benefit very low and low-income
households, eliminate a blighted area, or address an urgent (emergency) community need. In
addition, only certain types of activities qualify under the CDBG regulations. Some examples of
Recommendations for use of twenty.eighth program year (2002.03) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds.
3/27/02
Page 2
eligible activities are: removal of barriers to the handicapped, public improvements, public
services, affordable housing pwjects, rehabilitation and property acquisition.
Federal regulations do not allow more than 15% of the grant (excluding administration) be used
for public services. To dete~'~ne the public service cap, the County of Santa Clara takes 15% of
the total grant amount (excluding administration) plus income earned during the previous year.
For the 2002-03 fiscal year, the public service cap has decreased to $35,973 from the 2001-02
total of $36,667. This represents a 1.9% decrease from last year. Public services benefit very low
and low-income households and include activities such as fair" housing activities, childcare,
placement services, senior legal services, etc.
Cuoertino Housine Commission Meeting:
On March 11, 2002, the Cupertino Housing Commission met to discuss the CDBO funding
recommendations for the 2002-03 fiscal year. Except for the SALA recommendation, the
commissioners agreed with the staff recommendations. After hearing that there is currently a
backlog of appointment requests for the agency's services at the Cupertino Senior Center, several
commissioners expressed an interest in increasing SALA's funding by approximately $5,000 to
alleviate some of the backlog. This would be achieved by fully funding the CCS Affordable
Placement Program from the affordable housing fund and thereby freeing up $5,167 in public
service funds that could be combined with the $6,500 staff has recommended for SALA.
The commission voted to 4-1 in favor of presenting the city council with two funding
alternatives. The first alternative reflects the initial staff recommendations to the Housing
Commission with the second alternative funding SALA at the $11,667 level. Commissioner
Schuster voted against the motion because he was concerned about setting a precedent of
increasing the funding above the level requested by the applicant.
Council Priorities:
At the January 3, 2000 City Council Meeting, Council determined priorities for the 2000-01,
2001-02 and 2002-03 CDBO program years. Council may amend these priorities at any time.
The priorities are as follows:
1. Emphasize the development of affordable housing opportunities by giving funding priority to
proposals that directly create affordable housing through new construction, acquisition,
rehabilitation or the provision of emergency shelter.
2. Discourage the funding of public service activities through the CDBG program. Instead
recommend that non-profit agencies 'compete for funding through the County public service
pool of funding. If public service agencies are funded, award the funds to only those agencies
that are not applying for County CDBO funds for the same service and to those that are based
in Cupertino.
[(
Recomme4Klations for usc of twcnty-cighth program ycar (2002-03) Community Dcvelopment Block Grant (CDBG)
f~Is.
3/27/02
Page 3
3. Award one grant to cover the screening and placement of eligible persons in affordable units
at Chateau Cupertino as well as other affordable units as they are developed.
4. Continue support of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Housing Rehabilitation Program.
Request for Proposals:
In mid-January, staff distributed a notice of funding availability to approximately 5
organizations. Out of those organizations, three proposals have been received from two
organizations, Cupertino Community Services, Senior Adults' Legal Assistance. A brief
description of each proposal along with the staff recommendation is provided in Exhibit A. The
agency funding applications, which provide detailed information on each program, arc also
attached.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff agrees that "Alternative 2" is the preferred option since it fully funds Cupertino Community
Services' Affordable Placement Program and increases the funding for S,A!.A. Therefore, staff
recommends the City Council approve "Alternative 2".
PREPARP. r~ BY: REVIEW~'~ BY APPROVe. r)
FOR SUBMITTAL:
Vera Gil, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki, Director David W. Knapp,
of Community Development City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution No. 02-
Exhibit "A": Program Descriptions
Applications for CDBG funding from Cupertino Community Services (2) and Senior Adults
Legal Assistance.
Exhibit "A"
Program Descriptions
Public Service Grants:
1. Rotating Shelter Program
Cupertino Community Services, Cupertino
1999.00 Grant: $20,000
2000-01 Grant: $25,000 '
2001-02 Grant: $2~,000
2002-03 Request: $25,000
Annual Goal: Provide a maximum of 90 days .~helter to 60 to 65 homeless
persons per year in churches located in Cupertino, Saratoga and
Sunnyvale. The program also provides counseling and other
support services to help stabilize thc guest's long term housing
situation.
Description:
A total of 11 churches and one synagogue in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga and Santa
Clara participate in the program, 11 of which are "host" churches. Each of the "host"
churches provides shelter for a 30-day period. These '*host'* churches have the
responsibility of providing the guest with meals, YMCA passes for showers, etc. CCS
provides additional support to the shelter guests, including job counseling and assistance
in finding transitional and pezaianent housing.
The agency is requesting funds to primarily cover personnel costs for the program and to
supplement their operating budget. The program is also requesting $14,669 from the city
of Sunnyvale, $18,480 from the city of San Jose, $8,070 from the county of Santa Clara.
Total project cost is $146,242.
Recommendation: $25,000
Cupertino Community Services has been very successful in administering this program
and it remains one of the most successful rotating shelter programs in the county. CCS
has applied to the cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale and Saratoga and has been successful at
receiving County Emergency Shelter Grant funding. Staff recommends the City continue
its commitment to the Rotating Shelter Program.
2. Affordable Housing Placement Program
Cupertino Community Services, Cupertino
1999-00 Grant: $15,000 (CDBG: $7,374; AHF: $7,626)
2000.01 Grant: $30,000 (CDBG: $3,007; AHF: $26,993)
2001-02 Grant: $50,000 (CDBG: $$,167; AHF: $44,833)
2002-03 Request:. $$0,000
Annual Goal: Provide placement and necessary support services to 75
households (225 individnala). Continue current services and
expand the program to encompass the entire BMR program.
D~-~cription: Cupertino Community Services has been responsible for the
· screening and placement services for ten senior units located at
Chateau Cupertino as well as below market rate rental units. They
maintain a waiting list for qualified applicants and provide services
to those placed in the affordable units. The agency purchased a
four-plex on Greenwood Court that serves as transitional housing
for the Rotating Shelter Program.
Recommendation: $50,000 (CDBG: $5,167; AHF: $44,833) or (AHF:$50,000)
The agency has successfully performed the necessary task of screening and placement for
Chateau Cupertino, City Center Apa~hnents and compiling waiting lists for the below
market rate program. Cupertino Community Services also continues to expand services
beyond the scope specified by the City.
The city of Cupertino oversaw the Below Market Rate program and monitored the BMR
rentals at Forge-Homestead and Aviare Apartments. However, limited staff time made
auditing the Aviare and Forge-Homestead programs impossible. Last year's $10,000
funding increase enabled CCS to devote a full-time employee to the program. This
employee is responsible for auditing Aviare and Forge-Homestead Apartments, as well as
handiing all BMR ownership resale requests. The staff person would also assemble
procedural manuals for both the ownership and rental programs. These manuals will
assist any new staff person taking over the program as well as document procedures.
3. Senior Adult Legal Assistance
1999-00 Grant: $5,000
2000-01 Grant: $6,500
2001-02 Grant: $6,500
Description: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides free legal
services to low and very low-income seniors at the Cupertino
Senior Center. Legal services provided are in the area of consumer
complaints, housing, elder abuse, and simple wills.
Recommendation: $6,500 or $11,667
Several years ago, the city council directed staff to work with SALA to increase their
services and funding level. Jackie Baddley, the city's Geriatric Social Work Case
Manager, has stated that the increased grant has helped tremendously during the past few
years and would like to encourage the city to continue funding the agency at the
increased funding level. Staff supports continuing to fund the agency at the increased
level.
Housing Rehabilitation Program
4. Housing Rehabilitation Program
2002-03Request: $220,000 allocation from rehabilitation program income
account
Description: The Cupertino Rehabilitation Program, administered by the county
of Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Division
provides four rehabilitation loans to eligible low and very-low
income homeowners in Cupertino. The purpose of the program is
to assist with home maintenance and removal of code violations.
Recommendation: $220,000 allocation from rehabilitation program income
account.
Since 1976, the City has been offering low-interest loans to low and very-low income
residents of Cupertino for the rehabilitation of their homes. Last year, the city entered'
into a contract with the county of Santa Clara to administer the program for a fee of
$20,000 a year. The city also places at least $200,000 in a county account to cover the
rehab loan expenses (loan fees and loans). Income generated from the program would be
returned to the city to use to cover program expenses or for other eligible activities.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-055
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
CUPERTINO AUTHOIHZING SUBMITTAL OF FUNDING PROPOSALS
AND ACCOUNT TRANSFERS FOR TNE 28th (2002-03) PROGRAM YEAR
OF TIlE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds
be made available for the Community Development Block Crrant program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to apply for funds under the Urban County
provisions of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino understands that it shall receive $15,000 in CDBG
administration funds and approximately $160,046 in discretionary funds per the Joint Powers
Agreement signed with the County of Santa Clara on July 6, 1999.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby certifies that
the projects being proposed for funding meet the certifications outlined in Section 570.303 of the
Community Development Block Grant Administrative Regulations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the
project proposals and transfers approved by the City Council to the County of Santa Clara:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby
authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement for allocation of twenty-eighth program
year (2002-03) Community Development Block Grant funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of April 2002 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, CityofCupertino
City of Cupertino
Application for Affordable Housing and
Community Development Block Grant Funds
General Information
Name of.~koplicant Program Year
Cube~no Community Sewlces, In= 2002-2003
Contact Person T'dle Project Number (For Office Uae OnJy)
E~tca Mayer Director of Housing Servlco~
Address City State ~ Zip Code
10185 North Ste]ling Road Cupertino CA I 95014
Telephone Number ~ Fax Number
( 408 ) 255-8033 ~ ( 408 ) 366-6090
Grant/Loan Request
Amount of request Prolx~ed loan ten~s
$ 25.000 ~
What is the market rate for this type of loan? Proposed Intarast rate for this loan
Name of Project/Program
Cupertino Rotetlng Shelter Program
Locat]0n
10185 North Stelllng Road, Cupe~noNarlous Hoat Congregations
Project Type:
D Single Family [] Homeownership [] New Construction [] Mixed Use
[] Multifamily [] Rental [] Rehsb X Public Sewice
Census Tract NO. HUD Median Income for area at the ~me of application:
$87,300
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such as the number of
units, number of Cupertino residents that will be sewed,, services that will be provided, etc.
CCS, in collaboration with 11 churches and 1 synagogue, provides shelter, food and case management to
homeless men. The shelter rotates from church to church on a monthly basis. An additional group of 50
congregations, community groups and service clubs provide evening meals and food for breakfasts and lunches.
CCS provides operational support, including intensive case management and overnight supervision. The Rotating
Shelter offers a safety net where guests can have a place to stay while they look for employment, permanent
housing or build up a cash reserve.
The goal of the program is to promote long-term stabilization for currently homeless individuals.
The objectives of the Rotating Shelter Program are:
· provide a safe and supportive environment for homeless individuals
· assist guests so that they can gain financial and personal stability
· assist guests to find stable housing.
The Rotating Shelter serves homeless men from the West Valley areas, including Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los
Gatos, West San Jose, and Saratoga. Many are very Iow and Iow income. Applicants are carefully screened so
that they can be a part of the supportive environment. Applicants must be seeking jobs or are alrsedy working or
going to school. They must also be alcohol and drug free.
The shelter can house up to 15 men every night, each can stay up to 90 days. The shelter serves approximately
85-90 men annually.
· 80 homeless men will receive shelter, food, and case management
· 80% will find and/or maintain employment during their stay at the shelter
· 60% will find stable housing upon leaving the shelter
1
Financial Information
Please list prospe~'tive funding sources, including construction financing, permanent financing, grants, donations
and sweat equity. Attach letters of commitment, if available. Identify each funding source as to type by noting (L)
for Loan. (G) for Grant, or (E) for Equity. Indicate whelher (P) proposed. (R) Requested, or (A) approved in status
column.
Source of Funding Type De~oription Amount Term Interest Statu,,
City of Sunnyvale G CDBG 14,669 R
Santa Clara CountyG Emergency Shelter Grant 8,070 R
FEMA G Mass Shelter Funds 14,000 R
City of Cupertino G CDBG 25,000 R
Salvation Army G Diract Assistance Funds 4,000 R
City of San Jose G Direct Assistance Funds 18,480 R
CCS Unrestricted Funds 62,023 P
Total Davelop"l. ant Cost: $146,242 ]
Other assistance committed to project, e.g., Section 8, MCC, etc.
Source .4mount
In-Kind Resources $152,000
eo~,~ Amount
$
Soume Amount
$
Please describe how the Ioan/grent amount requested was determined.
· -- Based on the 1999 Santa Clare County Homeless Survey the number of working homeless is 34%
(493 of the 1,465 that answered this question). 74% of those working placed the location of their last
residence in Santa Clare County. The demographic data of the total homeless living in Santa Clare
County states that 31 resided in Cupertino. Although that number constitutes 33% of the 93 clients
served, CCS is requesting less than 17% of its total budget from the City of Cupertino.
Project Feasibility
Please describe the project's feasibility, including local market conditions, that would justify the project/activity.
With the high cost of living and an increase in the unemployment rate in the Silicon Valley, the face of
homelessness is very different than the general perception. Many of the men who come to find
temporary shelter are skilled and employable, either seeking work or are working. There is an
emerging homeless population that transcends all the stereotypes of homelessness as a result of the
economic downturn and continued high cost of rent. In the past year, shelter guests have Included
a teacher, a barbershop owner, a manager in the dot-corn Industry, an engineer, and a
bookkeeper from a neighboring homeless shelter agency. CCS Rotating Shelter Program
addresses the needs of this specific group of skilled and homeless population.
The Rotating Shelter serves homeless men in Santa Clare County. All guests have a very Iow or Iow
income. Applicants must be seeking employment or are already working or going to school. They
must also be alcohol and drug free. Applicants are carefully screened so that they can be a part of
the supportive environment.
2
Project Readiness
Fa' F.~tlng Property:. Eslimated Loan Closing Date
Eslim~l~l date when AHC funds (CDBG or BMR in-lieu) will be ~ down
Is the project macly to begin c<~.stmctlon?
[] Immediately [] Within 12 Months [] Beyond 12 Months
If the project will not be ready to draw down funds wilhin 12 months of Council approval, please explain how the
project will utilize the funds within that 12-month period, end why a commitment Is needed at this time.
N/A
Sponsor Profile
Please list all project sponsors; indicate whether nonprofit or for-profit organization and their respective financial
interests. Describe the specific role that each sponsor will play (I.e. developer, owner, investor, manager, etc.).
HOST CONGREGATIONS OTHER PARTICIPANTS
St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Cupertino Christian Science Church, Sunnyvale
Union Church, Cupertino Raynor Park Christian Church, Santa Clare
Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church, Sunnyvale St. Cyprian Catholic Church, Sunnyvale
Good Samaritan Methodist Church, Cupertino 7~ Day Adventist Church, Sunnyvale
St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Sunnyvale Cupertino Rotary
Sunnyvale United First Methodist Church, Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard
Sunnyvale Venture Law Group
St. Jude Episcopal Church, Cupertino Kiwanis of Silicon Valley
St. Luke Lutheran Church, Sunnyvale Public Interest Law Foundation at
Trinity First Methodist Church, Sunnyvale Santa Clare Law School
Congregation Beth David, Saratoga Church of Latter Day Saints
Church of Ascension, ,~aretoga Cupertino Grange
Congregational Community Church, Sunnyvale
Funding PHorities
Please m~'k the funding priority your pmjec't meets. '
Affordable Housing: The purpose of this project is to finance the purchase, conslmction, rehabilitation of
housing for very Iow (50% or below median) and Iow (80% or below median). (Please check one of the
following)
[] New Construction [] Rehabilitation
[] Acquisition [] Emergency Shelter
x Public Service Activities (Please check one of the following)
[] Screening and Placement x Cupertino Based Agency
[] Americans with Disabilities Act iADA)..
[] Public Facility Improvements
Certification:
Applicant certifies that the information in this application is correct and that the funds will be used in a manner that
complies with all Community Development Block Grant or Affordable Housing Fund requirements.
$,~,~~ Typed Name
J Erica Mayer
Title [ J Date Signed
Director of Housing Serv'l'ces 2/20102
Please return two signed copies of this form, at least one with original signature to:
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Attention: Vera Gil
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Vera Gil at the following phone number:
(408) 777-3251
4
EXHIBIT A
· : ....... . ~.*...' ~..-- ' .... .:-~-~: ~..:~.'?.?~..~.-~-~.~ · .-.'~?~.~.~.,~.~.*~.?-~.~,?..'~,-m-~,~ ...... .
.-:~.;~':.'-~,-i ~ :.~:~.-', '- '~ · · '"' ':.~'~7~:~,~'~:~-~_.~,~,:':~,~.~.:~:~;~,.~,~-~.'~.~,~-..., . · · ..,
.'." -'~'-:.. ~ ~: ... '~:- ..' "" .' '.;~: "~.'[:::~:;.~ '.'..:': ~L. ?."~ '_ :~ ":':~--'?~"...--"~.~.~'~":.~'..' ' ~"' ' ../ ', - .' " ':~: · '" '
GOn~l Info~lon
Name ~ ~pli~m P~mm Year
CUPERTINO COMMUNI~ SERVICES, INC. 2002-2003
Con~ Pe~on TiUe P~]e~ Number (For ~ca Usa Only)
ERICA ~YER Direr of Housing Sewl~
~d~s Ci~ S~ Zip Code
10185 N. 8TELLING RO~ CUPERTINO CA 95014
Telephone Numar J F~ Numb~
(408) 25~33 J (408) 36~090
Name of Project/Program
CUPERTINO ROTATING SHELTER PROGRAM
Location
10185 N. STELLING ROAD, CUPERTINO
Project Type
Single Family Homeownership New Construction Mixed Use
Multifamily Rental Rehab x Public Service
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such
as the number of units, number of Cupertino residents that will be served, services that will be
provided, etc.
CCS, in collaboration with 11 chumhes and 1 synagogue, provides shelter, food and case
management to homeless men. The shelter rotates from church to church on a monthly basis. An
additional group of 50 congregations, community groups and service clubs provide evening meals
and food for breakfasts and lunches. CCS provides operational support, including intensive case
management and overnight supervision. The Rotating Shelter offam a safety net where guests can
have a place to stay while they look for employment, permanent housing or build up a cash reserve.
The goal of the program is to promote long-term stabilization for currently homeless individuals.
The objectives of the Rotating Shelter Program are:
· provide a safe and supporlNe environment for' homeless individuals
· assist guests so that they can gain financial and personal stability
· assist guests to find stable housing.
The Rotating Shelter serves homeless men from the West Valley areas, including Cupertino,
Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, West San Jose, and Saratoga. Many ara very Iow and Iow income.
Applicants ara carefully screened so that they can be a part of the supportive environment.
Applicants must be seeking jobs or are already working or going to school. They must also be
alcohol and drug free.
The shelter can house up to 15 men every night, each can stay up to 90 days. The shelter serves
approximately 85-90 men annually.
· 80 homeless men will receive shelter, food, and case management
· 80% w~l find and/or maintain employment during their stay at the shelter
· 60% will find stable housing upon leaving the shelter
5
EXHIBIT B
· Project Work Plan
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services, Inc. Date Prepared: February 19th, 2002
Project Name: Cupertino Rotating Shelter Progrnm Project #: "Sabra Clara County HCD
For Office Use Only
Responsible staff person(s) and Activity for period Products or milestones
approximate pereentage of time charged 20~-2.00. ~
to this activity Annually
Program Manager (75%) · Conduct intake and assessment of applicatiom · 150 homeless people will receive general
· Provide referrals assistance nnd. refe~als
Shelter Supervisor (10(}%) · Process applicants for admission
· 80 homeless men will receive shelter,
· Provide ongoing case management food, case management, etc.
· Provide shelter and food
· Provide overnight supervision · 80% will find employment
· Provide support and referral for guest to gain ·. 60% will find stable housing
employment · 30 community groups and congregations
· Coordinate and meet with shelter host faith will provide over $152,000 worth of
groups, Faith in Action
· Solicit community resources for guests food, volunteer support and space
(work clothes, medical care, co-n,eling, etc.) · Provide approximately 4,500 individual
meals, shelter space and ongoing
supervision.and case management
Executive Director (I 5%) · Provide support services: (approximate daily cost per person
· Volunteer coordination
Di~ctor of Housing Services (! 5%) · Community outreach $25.11 )
· Co~..~nityrelations
Office IVianager/Bookkeeper (15%) · Analyze case records, maintain program statistics
and produce reports
Receptionist (15%) · Provide operational and adminis~ative support
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Implementation Time Schedule
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services. Inc. Date Prepared: Fcbruno/19~h. 2002
Project Name: Cupertino Rotating Shelter Prot. tatn Project #: ' Sahta Clara County HCD
For OflSce Use Only
Specific Activities JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ·
Screen and interview applicants X X X X X X X X X X X X
Maintain daily Shelter operations X X X X X X X X X X X X
Monitor progress of guests X X X X X X X X X X X X
Coordinate with volunteer congregations X X X X X X X X X . X X X
Develop job leads for guests X X X X X X X X X X X X
Follow up monitoring of former guests X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate pror~m'n and modify X X X X
Can this workload be incorporated into the on-going workload of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? YES
Schedule approved by: Jaclyn Fabre Title: Executive Director Date: February 19th. 2002
EXHIBIT D
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services. Inc. Date Prepared: February 19a. 2002
Project Nnme: Cupertino Rotating Shelter Program Project #: 'Santa Clnra County HCD
For Office Use Only
LINE ITEM JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
SALARIES
Personnel-Total Budget 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,817- 1,812 1,812
Benefits-Total Budget 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271
OFFICE EXPENSE
Rent
Phone/FAX
Printing
Travel
Utilities
PROJECT EXPENSES
Accounting Scrviccs
Auditing Fees
Insurance
Davis-Bacon Compliance
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Appraisal
Engineering Services
Axchitcctural/Design
Acquisition
Site investigation
8
City of Cupertino
Application for Affordable Housing and
Community Development Block Grant Funds
General Information
Name of Applicant Program Year
Cupertino C~mmunlty Services, Inc. 2002-2003
Contact Person TitJe Project Number (For Office Use Only)
Erice Mayer Director of Housing Senecas
Address City State Zip Code
10185 North Stalling Road CupeCdno CA 95014
Telephone Number I Fax Number
( 408 ) 255-8033 ~ ( 408 ) 366-6090
Grant/Loan .Request
Amount of request Proposed loan terms
$ 50.000 ~
What is the madcet ram for this tape of loan? Proposed interest rate for this loan
Name of Project/Program
Cupertino AJfordablo Housing Program
Localion
10185 Ninth Stalling Road, Cuperlino
Project Type:
[] Single F~rnily [] Homeownerehip [] New Constmcbon [] Mixed Use
[] Multifamily [] Rental [] Rehab :X Public Senaco
Census Tract No. HUD Median Income for ama at the time of application:
~87,300
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such as the number of units,
number of Cupertino residents that will be served, cervices that will be provided, otc.
Cupertino Community Services, Inc. (CCS) provides a continuum of services addressing the needs for affordable housing
availability to the homeless and Iow-income members of our community. CCS has successfully Implemented the Affordable
Housing Program for the City of Cupertino for the post eleven years.
The Below Market Rate (BMR) metal program involves placing Iow and very Iow income residents in over 75 BMR rental
units. CCS creates and distributes outreach materials to publicize the availability of the program. CCS documents eligibility
and maintains an open woridng waiting list for prospective tenants. The Director of Housing Services fields approximately 20
calls daily inquiring about the BMR program for the City. CCS also re-qualifies all tenants on the annivarsary of their move-in
date or when the HUD guidelines are announced. The amount of time involved in screening and placing applicants is
extremely labor intensive. CCS also screens and places eligible seniors into affordable units identified by the City. Currently,
CCS manages 10 units at Chateau Cupertino. CCS also provides subsidies for vary Iow income seniors to allow them to stay
at The Chateau. CCS Housing Services Program Director conducts annual audits of the Cupertino BMR complexes not
directly managed by the CCS office. CCS also produces an annual BMR Informational brochure once the new HUD Income
guidelines are released.
CCS staff anticipates a substan§al increase in inquiries and applications over the next year In preparation for tho opening of
two new complexes with new BMR units in the summer of 2002. This increase in available units will proportionally Increase
phone calls, application hand outs, pmcassing, screening, conespondancas and general outreach needs.
The BMR sales program Identifies median and moderate income potential homo buyers for housing that is available though
the City's mitigation proc-e__-r_-. CCS qualifies and maintains a waiting list for future sales projects. CC5 staff conducts annual
residency verifications.
CCS manages a Transitional Housing Program for Iow and very low Income individuals. The four-plax can houce up to 23
individuals. Successful graduates of the Rotating Shelter Program qualify for this program for a maximum of two years. CCS
provides on-going case management and resources to ensure tho progress of these tenants.
1
Financial Information
Please list prospective funding sources, including construddon financing, permanent financing, grants, donations
and sweat equity. Attach letters of commitment, if available. Identify each funding source as to type by noting (L)
--. for Loan, (G) for (~rant, or (E) for Equity. Indicate whether (P) proposed. (R) Requested, or (A) approved in status
column.
Source of Funding . Type Description Amount Term Interest Status
Cupertino G CDBG 50,000 R
HUD G 87,150 A
Salvation Army G 1,200 A
CCS Rental Income 56,000
CCS Unrestricted Funds 65,t46
Total Development Cost: $ 259,496
Other assistance committed to project, e.g., Section 8, MCC, etc.
Source Amount
$
Source Amount
Source Amount
$
Please describe how the ioan/grent amount requested was determined.
The programs that CCS has implemented are in accordance with the Santa Clara County
Consolidated Plan for the needs of affordable housing (Objectives 1,3,4). The amount of the grant
requested is based on the estimated cost of implementation of the Below Market Rate Rental
Program, Below Market Rate Sales Program and the increase load of BUR units by approximately
40% within the next year. CCS' Transitional Housing Program is funded by HUD grants.
Project Feasibility
Please describe the project's feasibility, including local market conditions, that would justify the project/activity.
According to the Santa Clara Consolidated Plan for 2000-2005 thera is a 2.6% vacancy rate in this
county. Competition for the limited supply of rental units allows for prospective tenants to bid up the
rents. The high rents make it increasingly difficult for Iow-income households to pay the required
amounts upon moving in. Of the 37,907 rental households, 17,428 have housing problems. 6,159 of
these households ara paying over 50% of their income for housing expenses. Many residents ara one
paycheck away from homelessness, increasingly, professionals find themselves in this situation.
Project Readiness
I
· For F. xlsUng Property: Estimated ?,mn CIo~lng Date
EsUmated date when AHC funds (CDBG or BMR In-lieu) will be drayS, dow~
Is the project ready to I:~gin conslnJC~On?
[] Immediately [] Within 12 Months [] Beyond 12 Months
If the project will not be ready to draw down funds within 12 months of Council approval, please explain how the
project will utilize the funds within that 12-month perrod, and why a commitment is needed at this time.
N/A
Sponsor Profile
Please list all project sponsors; indicate whether nonprofit or for-profit organization and their respective financial
interests. Describe the specific role that each sponsor will play (i.e. developer, owner, investor, manager, etc.).
Funding Priorities
Please mark the funding priority your project meets.
Affordable Housing: The purpose of this project is to finance the purchase, construction, rehabilitation of
housing for very-low (50% or below median) and Iow (80% or below median). (Please check one of the
following)
[] New Construction [] Rehabilitation
[] Acquisition [] Emergency Shelter
x Public Service Activities (Please check one of the following)
[] Screening and Placement X Cupertino Based Agency
[] Americans with Disabilities Act iADA).
[] Public Fa~li~ Improvements
Certification:
Applicant certifies that the information In this application is correct and that the funds will be used in a manner that
complies with all Community Development Block Grant or Affordable Housing Fund requirements.
Sig~.,~~ Typed NameF_rice Mayer
Title - "' /'J Date Signed
Director of Housing ServiEes 2/20102
Please tatum two signed copies of this form, at least one with odginal signature to:
Community Development De)a, truant
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Attention: Vera Gil
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Vera Gil at the following phone number:
(408) 777-3251
EXHIBIT A
...... · .,..,,..~ ~ ,.,........; ....... :. ..,*~...~. .... ~-.~ .~**~,~'~; .~ ~'..-~l~'~;..~.~ . .~,~., ,_..~.;.;~,~ ,-.~'~.. . .
... ~...~..~. ~ ........ ,.~...,, .......................... ~C.'--;-~-.~F~_.~~._~ .... ~,~,**~..~, ~*
· ' ' '. *' .; .6 ' *....:;: .~ ~" ..: ....... . :..'.?....-"'.~?/.~; ..:. ;~'~-.-~ii?'~:~'~-. -
· . .. .... PROJECT.PROPOSAr.' COVERPAGE..., *,;.* -,,--.,,'.
General Information
Name of Applicant Program Year
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. 2002-2003
Contact Person Title _ Project Number (For Office Use Only)
ERICA MAYER Director of HOusing Services
Address City State Zip Code
10185 N. STELLING ROAD CUPERTINO CA 95014
Telephone Number I Fax Number
(408) 255-8033 I (408) 366-6090
Name of Prpject/Program
CUPERTINO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
Location
10185 N. STELLING ROAD, CUPERTINO
Project Type
Single Family Homeownership New Construction Mixed Use
Multifamily Rental Rehab x Public Service
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such as the
number of units, number of Cupertino residents that will be served, services that will be provided, etc.
Every month CCS staff responds to approximately 200 inquires about affordable housing. Staff sends out
an average of 50 affordable housing applications each month, and of those, processes an estimated 20
per month. More than two-thirds of the applications turned into the office required written correspondence
requesting additional information or documents to complete application. The Director of Housing Services
maintains a working, prioritized waiting list of eligible applicants, as wall as ineligible and declined
applications. This waiting list is re-qualified each year.
The number of vacancies varies from month to month. To place a tenant, the CCS staff reviews the list,
contacts the first eligible person and updates their eligibility. It usually takes several attempts to compile
the necessary information. If the applicant still qualifies staff refers information to the leasing agent for a
credit check. Many prospective tenants turn down the units because they find them unsuitable or still
economically unattainable. It is often necessary to refer multiple candidates for the single unit. Staff re-
certifies each tenant on the anniversary of their move-in date.
CCS also conducts an annual audit and training of all BMR apartment complexes not directly managed by
CCS. CCS staff serves as the main contact for questions and concerns regarding BMR procedures.
CCS staff screens and qualifies possible candidates for BMR sale units. CCS maintains a waiting list for
BMR sale units and conducts annual residency verifications.
CCS also provides Iow income transitional housing for 23 individuals in our Transitional Housing Program.
The Program Manager and On-Site Manager maintain the residence and provide on-going case
management for each tenant. These tenants are homeless members of the community.
One of the stated objectives of the Cupertino Community Services, Inc. is 'to support and advocate
affordable housing.' CCS carries out this objective in a number of ways. We promote affordable housing
by distributing educational brochures. In addition, CCS staff participates in the Santa Clara County
Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues, the United Way's Emergency Assistance
Network, the Cupertino Affordable Housing Committee meetings, and other related efforts.
EXHIBIT B
Project Work Plan
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services. Inc. Date Prepared: February 19th. 2002
Project Name: Cupertino Affordable Housing Pronram Project #: ' Santa Clara County HCD For Off~e U~ O~ly
Responsible staff person(s) and Activity for period Products or milestones
approximate percentage of time eharged 2002-2003
to this activity Annually
Director of Housing Services (80%) · Conduct intake and assessment of applicatiom · Qualified applicants occupy all available
· Provide referrals uuits.
Buflding Project Director (15%) · Process applicants for admission · Waiting list is maintained and updated to
· Maintain suitable waiting list ~lsure accurate information of
· Ensure compliance with local, state and federal
regulations applicants.
· Maintain statistics for reports and funding · Outreach is developed and distributed
· Complete funding requests and ropom throughout tho Santa Clara County.
· Develop and publish outreach materials
· Conduct annual audits & trainings
Program Manager (25%) · Provide on-going case management
· Collect rent
On-Site Manager (100%) · Maintain property oftrnmitionsl units
· Monitor residents
· Contract compliance and program
Executive Director (33%) · Provide support services:
· Volunteer coordination success
Office Manager/Bookkeeper (30%) · Community outrehch
· Community relations
Receptionist (20%) · Analyze case records, maintain program statistics
and produce reports
· Provide operational and administrativ~ support
6
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Implementation Time Schedule
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services. Inc. Date Prepared: Februn~ 19h. 2002
Project Name: Ctmertino Affordable Housin~ Program Project #: 'Santa Clnra County HCD
For Office Use Only
Specific Activities JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Implement BMR programs X X X X X X X X X X X X
Screen and interview applicants X X X X X X X X X X X X
Maintain waiting lists for rental and sale X X X X X X X X X X X X
un/ts
Place applicants into available units X X X X X X X X X · X X X
Monitor residents of the Transitional X X X X X X X X X X X X
Housing Program
Provides support services as needed X X X X X X X X X X X X
Provide housing coungeling, info~'a~ation X X X X X X X X X X X X
and re£etrais.
Evaluate program and modify X X X X
Evaluate and modify outreach program X X X X
Conduct audit and training X X X X
Can this workload be incorporated into the on-going workload of the applicant and successfully be implemented according to this schedule? YES
Schedule approved by: Jaclyn Fabre Title: Executive Director Date: February 19th. 2002
) ~ ~
EXHIBIT D
BUDGET.
Fiscal Year 2002=2003
Agency Name: Cupertino Community Services. Inc. Date Prepared: Februa~ 19'. 2002
Project Name: Cupertino Affordable Housing Pro~m Project #: 'Santa Clara County HCD
For Office Use Only
LINE ITEM JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
SALARIES
Pcrsounel-Total Budget 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623 3,623
Benefits-Total Budget 543 543 543 543 543 :543 543 543 543 543 543 543
OFFICE EXPENSE
Rent
Phone/Postage/Supplies
Printing
Travel
Utilities .....
PROJECT EXPENSES
Accounting Services
Auditing Fees
Insurance
Davis-Bacon Compliance
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Appraisal
Engineering Services
Ar~hit~tural/D~ign
A~quisition
Site investigation
City of Cupertino
Application for Affordable HouSing and
Community Development Block Grant Funds
General Information
Name of Appllcan~ Ssnior Adults Lepl Assistance (SALA) Program Year. 2002-2003
Correct Perse.: Geoq~a Bacil Tree: Directing Attorney Project Number (Fo~ Office Use Only)
,~dmsa: 160 E. Virginia Street #260 c~: San Jose stnts: CA [ Zip Co~e: 95112
Telephone Number. Fax Nu0~bec. E-nmll Address:
(408) 295-5991 (408) 295-7401 gbacil~sala.org
Grant/Loan Request
' ~nount of request $6,500 PmOo~d k~n t.m~: Not applicable.
Wh~t Is the market rate for this type of Io~n? Not applicable, proposed interest tats ~or this Io~n: Not applicable.
~anm of ;~ ojs~/P,,,O~m~: Legal Assistance to Cupertino Elders
cocoon: Cupertino Senior Center, 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014
Project Type: [] Single Family [] Homeownemhip [] New Consb'uclion [] Mixed Use
r'-I Multifornlly F"I Rental ['"'1 Rehabilitation ~' Public Service
Census Tract No. HUD Median Income for ama at Ihe time of applical~on:
I Not applicable. SALA serves the elderly city-wide. $82,600 for a family of 4.
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such as the number of units,
number of Cupertino residents that will be sewed, services that will be provided, etc.
SALA is a nonpwfit law office that has pwvided free legal services to Santa Clara County elders (age 60 or older)
since 1973. SALA provides services, by appointment, at 23 senior centers or pror~ams in Santa Clara County, including
the Cupertino Senior Center. Services are targeted to elders who are low income or in social need. Legal services (in
thc form of advicdmferrals, consultatioTM, n,-presentations, and community education) are provided for:. Public Benefits;
Elder Abuse; Nursing Homes; Advance Health Care Directives; Consumer;, Housing; and Simple Wills.
SALA has served Cupertino seniors since 1979. Prior to 1997-98, SALA provided one monthly intske session at
the Senior Center. In 1997-98 through 2001-2002, CDBG support has enabled SALA to add a second monthly session
at the Senior Center. For 2002-2003, SALA requests CDBG funds to maintain our current level of 2 monthly sessions
(consisting of five half-hour appointments each) at the Cupertino Senior Center. Homebeund elders or those with
emergencies will be served through home visits or by telephone. Cupertino elders who appear at other SALA intake
sites will also be served. As detailed in the Work Plan, SALA proposes to serve at least 50 Cupertino clients and to
conduct 1 education presentation at the Senior Center.
Prior to 1997-95, the waiting time for a SALA appointment at the Cupertino Center was two months or longer. As
a result, only 42% of the Cupertino clients served from Januury to June 1997 were seen at the Cupertino site. Since
expanding se~ices in July 1997, approximately 75% of the Cut~tiiao clients served by SALA have been seen at
Cupertino. Continued CDBG support of SALA's expanded service levels will enable more Cupertino elders to be served
3cally in 2002-2003. The long wait for a SALA appointment at Cupertino should also continue to be reduced.
,
1
Financial Information
___Please list prospective funding sources, including construction financing, permanent financing, grants, donations and
wear equity. Attach letters of commitment, if available. Identify each funding source as to type by noting (L) for Loan,
~G) for Grant, or (E) for Equity. Indicate whether (P) proposed, (R) Requested, or (A) approved in status column.
Source of Funding Type Description Amount Term Interest Status
CA Dept. of Aging G Legal Services l~unding 40 I year N/A R
Older Ameri~n~ Act G Legal Services Funding 5,428 1 year N/A R
State Bar Trust Fund G Legal Services Funding 1,189 I yenr N/A R
United Way O Legal Services Funding 3,260 I year N/A R
Contributions E Legal Services Funding 2,080 I year N/A P
In-Kind Support E Donated Services and Space 2,858 I year N/A · P
Cupertino CDBG (3 Legal Services Funding 6,500 I year N/A R
%
Total Development Cost: $ 21,355
Other assistance committed to project, e.g., Section 8, MCC, etc.
Source: Not applicable. Amount $ 0
Source: Not applicable. Amount $ 0
._Source: Not applicable. Amount $ 0
Please describe how the loan/grant amount requested was determined.
Thc $6,500 requested represents thc difference between the costs of serving Cupertino and what we consider an
appropriate allocation of SALA's income from other sources to support the proposed services. As set forth in the
Source of Funding chart, SALA proposes to allocate funding to our Cupcrt/no project from these sources that
support our services countywide: Older Americans Act; State Bar Trust Fund; California Department of A~ng;
and United Way. Additional support from contributions, in-kind se~ices (from volunteer attorneys and intake
workers), and in-kind space (from the Cupertino Senior Center) will also support the project. If less than $6,500
in CDBG is received, appointments at the Cupertino Center will be reduced proportionally. If $5,000 is received
SALA will provide our 1999-2000 service levels (96 appointments/40 clients served). If less than $5,000 is
received, it may not be feasible for SALA to provide a second monthly intake session at the Cupertino Center.
2
Project Feasibility
Please describe the project's feasibility, including local market cond~ons, that would justify the project/:~ctivity.
' I
Needs ~.~essraents by Council on Aging (Coming of/ge, 1989, 1994) and United Way (Human Care Needs In
Santa Clara County, 1993) recognize th_~t legal services are of prime importance to keep elders independent and non-
institutionalized. These repor/s identify legal services as a major need for low-income, flail, and hornebound seniors.
United Way identifies legal services as I of 6 critical senior service areas. Council on Aging affirms legal assistance as a
crucial ac~.ess resource to "establish eligibility and secure benefits" and cites the importance of legal services in matters of
physical or financial abuse, competence, and other areas essential to elders' daily survival.
SALA's service statistics support the need for legal services to Cupertino elders. SALA pruvidas semi-monthly
services at the Cupertino Senior Center and targets Cupertino elders in our county-wide service plan because of the high
concentration of low income and socially needy clients that we serve from that area. Of the Cupertino clients served in
2000-2001, ']4% were very low income (at or below 50% of the median under CDBG guidelines) and 55% were age '/5
or older (placing them at risk of institutionalization). Only 42% of the clients served from January to June 199'] (prior to
SALA's service expansion) were seen at the Cupertino Center because the number of SALA appointments was not
adequate to meet Re dems~d. Since our expan.~ion in July 1997, at least 75% of the Cupertino clients served were seen at
Cupertino. The proposed continuation of SALA's expanded services in Cupertino would enable more Cupe~/ino elders to
be served locally.
Project Readiness
For New Construction: Estimated Project Start Date: I Estimated Project Completion Date:
Not applicable. I June 30, 2003.
For Existing Property: Estimated Loan Closing Date
Not applicable.
Estimated date when AHC funds (CDBG or BMR in-lieu) will be drawn down
Not applicable.
Is the project ready to begin construction? Not applicable. This is not a construction project.
[] Immediately [] Within 12 Months [] Beyond 12 Months
If the project will not be ready to drawdown funds within 12 months of Council approval, please explain how the project
will utilize the funds within that 12-month period, and why a commitment is needed at this time.
The project will be able to expend all funds requested by June 30, 2003. As stated previously, SALA requests
$6,500 in CDBG funds to continue expanded service levels at the Cupertino Senior Center. On February 20, 2002,
SALA received confu'mafion from a representative of the Cupertino Senior Center (the case manager) that the Senior
Center was in support of the continuation of SALA's expanded service levels proposed herein for 2002-2003. That
representative also offered to write a letter of support on behalf of SALA.
CDBG fimds will be used to support SALA's personnel costs necessary to continue our expanded services to
Cupertino elders. Reimbursement of these personnel costs will be requested on a quarterly basis. Thus, the project will
utilize all CDBG funds within thc twelve-month period beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2003.
3
Sponsor Profile ·
Please list all project sponsors; indicate whether nonprofit or for-profit organization and their respe~ve financial interests.
Describe the specific role that each sponsor will play (i.e. developer, owner, investor, manager, etc.).
The project's sponsor, Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA), is a nonprofit corporation that receives support
from thc federal Older A_mericans Act and 13 other funders (including 8 cities). SAJ_~ is the only agency designsted by
Council on ,aging to provide free legal services to seniors in Santa Clara County under the Older Amencans Act.
By virtue of SALA's 27 years of service, the agency has strong qualifications and experience in providing
services of the type proposed. SALA has been provialng such services to Cupertino seniors since 1979. Each year
SALA provides direct legal services (advice, consultations, or legal representation) to a minimum of 1,800 clients
countywide. For 2000-01, 1,851 clients were served. SALA also makes a minimum of 20 education presentations
,nn~ally. In 2000-2001, more than 20 presentations were made.
SALA has a bilingual and culturally diven¢ staffof5 aUomeys and I paralcgal. SALA's staffis augmented by
intake volunteers who interview clients at senior centers. SALA also operates a No Fee Wills Panel staffed by
volunteer attorneys who provide Simple Wills to SALA clients at Will Days arranged by SA,LA at Senior Centers,
including the Cupertino Center.
All project activities to accomplish objectives in the Work Plan will be conducted by an attorney on SALA's
staff, an intake voli~nteer, or a pro bono Wills Panel attorney. The staff of the Cup~ino Senior Center will also
continue to schedule and confirm SALA's appointments at their site. Tbe Senior Center staff may also be asked to resist
with scheduling and lmbli¢izing SAI-,~'s education presentations.
gALA proposes to allocate $14,464 to support our Cupertino project from our countywide sources. In-irind
space from the Cul~.'rtino Center for SALA to conduct private interviews with clients, estimated at $402, will also
support the project.
Funding Priorities
Please mark the funding priority your project meets.
Nfordable Housing: The purpose of this project is to finance the purchase, construction, rehabilitation of housing for very
)w (50% or below median) and iow (80% or below median). (Please check one of the following)
[] New Construction [] Rehabilitation
[] Acquisition [] Emergency Shelter
I"1 Public Service Activities (Please check one of~he following)
[] Screening and Placement ACupertino Based Agency
[] Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
[] Public Facility Improvements
Certification:
Applicant carfities that the information in this application is correct and that the funds will be used in a manner that
complies with all Community Development Block Grant or Affordable Housing Fund requirements.
Signature ~ ~,, ~"~_,,[ X Typed Name
Georgia Bacil
Title Date Signed
Directing Attorney February 21, 2002
Please return two signed copies of this form, at [east one with origina[ signature to:
Community Devetopment Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
Attention: Veto
~[ you have any questions regarding this appfication, p[easa contact Vera Gfl at (408) 777-3251
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT PROPOSAL COVER PAGE
General Information
Name of Applicofll: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Program Yeo~. 2002-2003
comact Person: Georgia Bacil 'c~: Directing Attorney Project Number (For O~ce Use Only)
~dd~_~: 160 E. Virginia S~'ect #260 c~. San Jose state:CA [ Z~p Code: 95112
Telephone Numbec Fax Numbec. E-mail Addrou:
(408) 295-5991 (408) 295-7401 gbacil(~)sala.ozg
Name of Project/Program: L,ega] Assistance to Ctt]:)ort]~o
LocaUon: CUpCFt~o Senior Ccntc~, 21251 Stevens C'Ycck BIYcL Cupertino, CA 95014
Project Type: [] Single Family [] Homeownership I-J New Construction [] Mixed Use
I--I Multffamily I-J Rental I-! Rehabilitation /~ Public Sowioa
Project Description
Please describe the project with as many details as possible. Include general information, such as the number of
units, number of CuperlJno residents that will be served, services that will be provided, etc.
SALA is a non-profit law oEic~ that provides ~3ree legal services to Santa Clara Count7 residents age 60 or older, with
an emphasis upon those who am low income or in social need. SAZ.A's staff of.5 attomeTs and ] paraiegal have expertise
in problems common to our tm3et population. SALA.'s legal sta.4Y is enchanted b7 10 volunteer inteke workers who assist
with client interyicws at senior centers end b7 15 pro bono ,,ttomc3~s who provide Simple Wills through SAI. A*s No Fee
Wills Panel. Legal services (in the form of'edvicc/re~fl'ais, consultations, represontation, end communit7 education) am
provided in the fo]lowing areas: ?ublic Benefits (Social Seca'it% SSI, lV[edicam, Medi-Cai, la Home Supportive
Scrvices); Eld~z Abuse; Nursing Homes; Advance Health Cam Directives; Consumer;, Housing; end Simple WiEs.
SA.LA has served Cupertino seniors since 1979. From 1997-98 through 2001-2002, support f.zom Cupertino's CDBG
program enabled gALA to increase our number of.half-hour appointments at the Copc'rtino Senior Cent= ~zom 4 monthly
(thc 1996-9? level) to 10 monthly (the 2001-2002 level). CDR(3 fimds arc requested for 2002-2003 to maintain SALA's
current expanded scl'vice levels at the Cupez~no Senior Center. gALA also proposes to continue home visits to Cupertino
elders who am homebound or institutionalized. Clients with urgent legal problems will also be served on en "emergent"
basis by telephone. Cupertino elders who appear at gALA intake sites in othes cities wi]] also be served.
?riot to 1997-98, the waiting time f.or a SAL,A appointmont at the Senior Center was 2 months or longer. As u result,
onl7 42% of'the Cupertino clients served by gALA from Jenoary to June 1997 were seen at the Cupez'ano Cent=, 16%
were ssn, ed by telephone, and the r~Tlaind~z (42%) had to travel to a gALA intake site in anOther citT. The continued
expansion of' SALA's services for 2002-2003 will anabin more Cupefl~no e]d~rs to be sewed ]ocaily instald of'being
f.oFced to seek services at othe~ SAL,A sites OF f.orgoing sefyices altogether because of' tnmsportation bmTiers to these sims.
The long waiting timc J~or a gALA appointment at the ~o Cent= will also bo reduced. Since the initial
expansion in July 1997, approximately ?$% of.thc Cup~t~o alda~ served were seen at the Cupertino Cent=.
As detailed in the ])Fojact Work Plan, gALA will provide climct leg,; essistenee to $0 Cupeflino clients in 2002-2003.
This goal includes all cldcrs set'ved through SALA's Cupaflino project end not just those assisted thzongh the servinc
expansion at the Senior Cent=. SAZ. A also proposes to conduct I community education presentation in Cupertino.
Them is no other fima!~g to support the proposed expansion at the Copcrtino Cent=. If.less than S6,$00 in CDBG is
received, appointments at the Cuper~no Cent= will be reduced proportionally. Lt'S$,000 is reccivcd, gALA will provide
our 1999-2000 seryice lcve]s (96 apIX)intmena/40 clients sen'ed). [f.le~s than S5,000 is received, it may not be feasible
gALA to provide a second montldy intake session at the Cup~flo Cent=. If' no CDBG funding is recciyed, SALA's
services at the Cupeflino SonioF Cent= will be reduced to bi-monthly appointment sessions, at best, or could be
elimiq~ted altogethe¢.
9
Project Work Plan
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Senior Adults Legal Assistance Date Prepared: 02/20102
Project Name: Legal Assistance to Cupertino Elders Project No. Santa Clara County HCD
Responsible staff person(s) and Activity for period Products or milestones
approximate percentage of the time
charged to this activity
Legal Services: Legal Services:* Legal Services*:
· 12 FTE Legal Worker (Directing Attorney, Provide direct legal services to 50 Cupertino Serve 14 elders in the First Quarter nnd 12 elders
Supervising Attorney, StnffAttomey, Staff clients by offering 24 intake days (consisting in Quarters 2 through 4.
Paralegal, or Volunteer) of 5 half hour appointment each) at the
Cupertino Senior Center, other intake sites,
by home visits or telephone intake.
Community Education: Community Education: Community Education:
.002 FTE Legal Worker (Directing Attorney, Make one community education presentation Make one presentation by June 30, 2003.
Supervising Attorney, Stuff Attorney, Staff in Cupertino.
Paralegal, or VolunteeO
* NOTE: The proposed annual goal for 50 Cupertino clients served includes all elders served through SALA's Cupertino project and not just those
assisted through the service expansion at the Senior Center.
10
EXHIBI- C
Proposed Implementation Time Schedule
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Agency Name: Senior Adults Legal Assistance Date: 02/20102
Project Name: Legal Assistance to Cupertino Elders Project #: Santa Clam County HCD
Specific Activ. ltles JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Legal Services X X X X X X X X X X X X
(through twice
monthly appoint-
ments at Cupertino
Senior Center, other
intake sites, home
visits of by phone)
Community X
Education
(to be completed by
June 30, 2003)
EXHIBIT D-I
Project Budget
Fiscal Year 2002-2003
Applicant: ~enior Adults Legal Assistance
Project Name: Lel~al Assistance to Cupertino Elders
ITEM FISCAL YEAR 2002=2003
SALARr~-s
Personnel $13,439
Benefits 1,730
OFFICE EXPENSES
Rent 2,672
Telephone 420
Postage 100
Printing 100
Supplies 380
Travel 68
Utilities 0
Equipment Rental and ]V~Ai~tenance 168
Dues and Subscriptions 156
Other (Publications and Law Library) 384
OTHER EXPENSES
Accounting Services 396
Contract Services 219
Insurance 769
Conferences and Training ~ 140
Miscellaneous 4
Other (Depreciation/Client Costs) 210
TOTAL $21,355
13
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014=3255
CITY O[: Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPER~iNO Fnx: (408)777-3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. Ih Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
A public hearing on the 2002/03 user fees. Adjustments are proposed for various fees that reflect
cost of processing and/or market rates.
BACKGROUND
All user fees are reviewed each year in conjunction with the preparation of the budget. Our goal
is to ensure that, to the extent possible, fees cover the cost of providing services. Several
changes are proposed this year, which primarily adjust for cost of living increases. Specific
_ proposals are:
General Fees:
· Fees have been increased by 1.8 percent to reflect cost of living increases.
· Massage establishment fees have been broken down into several categories and appropriate
fees added.
· Sign removal fees (public right-of-way) were increased to more accurately cover the cost for
the removal.
· Several business license administrative fees were increased to more accurately cover the cost
to provide these services.
· Taxi driver permit fees were increased to more accurately cover the cost incurred to remain in
compliance with the Taxi Ordinance.
Engineering Fees:
· Fees have been increased by 1.8 percent to reflect cost of living increases.
· Telecommunications Facility Fee to cover the installation and occupancy for installations in
the rights-of-way in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act has been increased
by five percent.
Planning Fees:
· Fees have been increased by 1.8 percent to reflect cost of living increases.
Par~ and Recreation Fees:
· Various fees for the Senior Center, Sports Center, Blackberry Golf Course, Monta Vista
Recreation Center and Quinian Center were increased and are consistent with market rates for
these services.
· Fees for the Blackberry Fa~til Picnic facilities were previously increased to cover this year's
season. Fees for next year's season have been incorporated into this document to cover next
year's season begirmlrtg in April 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommended adjustments to user fees provide for recovery of the cost of City services,
conform to our budget revenue guidelines, and become effective on July I, 2002. Staff
recommends that City Council approve the proposed fees.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 02-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-208 AND ESTABLISHING USER FEES
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to
exceed the cost of delivering said services; and
WI-I~REAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and
WHEi~AS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines for
setting user fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. User fees are established per attachments A through E.
2. All user fees previously established by Council action or resolution are hereby
Superseded.
3. User fees are effective July 1, 2002.
'-' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of thc City of
Cupertino this 1st day of April 2002 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SUMMARY OF USER FEES
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Department Schedule
General
Engineering B
Planning C
Building D
Recreation E
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Pasolution O2.0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
--. Schedule A ~ General
Photocopies - per sheet $0.:20
Microfilm/ icrofichc Printout $0.50/fram¢
Returned Check Charge $20.00
[,ate Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices 7% peF annum
Property Liens Administrative Fee $30 per book/block/paFcel lien
Municipal Code Book $77.00
Williemson Act Filings $105.00
Tape Dubbing - Audio or ¥ideo (VHS)
Full Tape $20.00/tape
Selective Dubbing $24.00/tape
Fingerprinting Processing State Fee $32.00 Plus
$12.00 City Administrative Fee
Handbill Permit $87.00
Renewals $25.00
Solic itor Permit (Includes fingerprinting) $131.00
Renewals $25.00
Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting $161.00
and background check)
Renewals $40.00
Massage Therapist Fee (Includes fingerprinting $161.00
and background check)
Renewals $40.00
Massage Managing Employee Fee (Includes $161.00
fingerprinting and background check)
Renewals $40.00
Taxi Driver Permits (Includes fingerprinting and $161.00
background check)
Renewals $40.00
_ Library Community Room Use Fee $25.00 Non-Refundable Fee
$100.00 Cleaning Deposit
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0~6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule A - General (continued)
Duplicate Business Licenses $10.00
Business License Exemption Administrative Fee $50.00
Business License Database $100.00
New Business Monthly Reports 1 $.00/month
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) $15.00/sign
Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee $171.00
GIS Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps $25.00/map
Customized maps $100.00
Data on CDROM $45.00
Police Disturbances Actual Cost *
Abatement Fee Actual Cost *
Research and Compilation of New Records Fee (For Actual Cost *
information requests greater than 1/2 hour.)
Graffiti Cleanup Actual Cost *
Damage to City Property Actual Cost *
Grounds, Streets, Facilities
Traffic - Engineering
Traffic - Maintenance
Code Enforcement Actual Cost *
* Actual cost is: I) Employee hourly rate plus 40% for benefits and overhead, and 2) cost of materials,
contractors and supplies.
2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0~6/Aprii 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
- Schedule B - Engineering
Street Cuts
Permit to excavate in public right-of-way (improvement costs up to $219.00
$3,300).
Pc,Jilt to excavate in public right-of-way (improvement costs 5% of
over $3,300) Improvement Costs
Grading Permit
To insure grading conforms to City ordinances and council
approvals.
Minimum Fee or 6% of Improvement Value $185.00
Parcel Map/Tract Maps
To insure maps conform to state map act and council approvals.
Parcel Map $501.00 14 lots
Tract Map $501.00 + $10.85
each lot over 4
.... Plan Checking and Inspection
Review only (no permit issued) $350.00
Permit Fee or $2,300.00
Residential 5% of Site Improvement minimum
Commercial/Office/Indu~Uial 6% of Site Improvement
Annexation (plus county filing fees) $676.00
Certificates of Compliance
To verify lots were not created in violation of iecal ordinances or
state map act. $710.00
Encroachment Permit $162.00 Residential
$207.00 Non-Residential
To allow private facilities or improvements
to be placed in public right-of-way.
To allow a storage box to be placed in
public right-of-way. $162.00 Residemial
3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02=0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule B - Engineering (continued)
Lot Line Adjustment $366.00
City must verify that lots after adjustment
conform to zoning and setbacks.
Power Cost
Developer is responsible for one year power
cost for streetlights.
The latest effective PG&E rate schedule
approved by the PUC.
Soil and Geology' Report $30.54 Short Report
Plus any materials/service fees. $182.00 Long Roport
Engineering Copies
Microfiche 7.85/oopy
Engineering Copies 8.95/copy
Microfilm 10.00/copy
Banners $287.00
Transportation Permit State Fee ($16.00 Single)
State Fee ($90.00 Annual)
Telecommunication Facility Fee (5% increase per
year)
Installation Rate $1.58/lineal foot of
conduit/year
Occupancy Rate $0.79/lineal foot of
leased conduit/year
4
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
..-- Schedule C - Definition of PlanninE Fee Services
Full Application
An application which typically involves all steps of the development review process including Pre-
application Review, Environmental Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council. The application requires an advertised public hearing before the Planning Commission and
a public hearing or agendized review before the City Council.
Applications requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (FIR) are included in this
category. The application fee for particularly complicated applications and those requiring the
preparation of an EIR will be based upon an hourly rate as described in the fee schedule.
Limited Application
An application which involves all steps of the development review process outlined in the Full
Application description with the exception of the City Council.
Mino~ Al~l~lication
An application which involves minimal steps in the review process and is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. The staff evaluation and report proparations are less extensive. The
application requires Planning Commission review.
Miscellaneous Application
An application which typically involves a non-noticed review by the Planning Commission. The
application does not typically require pre-application meetings or Environmental Review and
involves minimal staff preparation. Examples of this application are interpretation or clarification of
conditions of approval or ordinance requirements, sign exceptions, fence exceptions, and tentative
map and use permit extensions.
Appeal
A request from the proj~t applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by staff
or an advisory body. An appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision
subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is dir~tly affected by the
decision and the City Council members are exempted from the fee requirement.
Directors Application
An application which receives t-mai approval by staff either via an advertised public hearing
or non-hearing fo, mat. The application may involve a pre-application meeting and/or
Environmental Review committee review.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule C -Definition of Planning Fee Services (continued)
Temporary Sign Permit
A staff review of' a temporary sign application which includes an evaluation of the sign request, the
entry into the temporary log and site review by Code Enforcement Officers. The permit fee is in
addition to the submittal of a deposit to guarantee removal of the sign upon expiration of the
temporary permit.
Housing Mitigation Fee
Fee collected is used to construct new affordable residential units for Cupertino residents and
employees. The fees mitigate the need for affordable units caused by expanding offices creating new
jobs and new residential development, office, R&D, industrial and residential development.
NOTES:
Combined applications which are processed simultaneously (i.e., filed at the same time) will be
classified based on highest rating.
Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process.
The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the
above criteria.
6
I
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02.056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule C - Planning
Full Application
Zoning $2,585.00
Tentative Map $2,585.00
Use Permit $2,116.00
Applicable base fee plus hourly staff rate in excess of 48 hours $49.89
Limited Application
Use Permit $1,485.00
Tentative Map $1,592.00
Amendment $1,224.00
Minor Application
Use Permit $1,428.00
Tentative Map $1,428.00
Hillside Exception $1,360.00
Miscellaneous Application
General $535.00
Architectural and Site Approval $457.00
S i gn/Fence/I-Ie i g hr Exception $191.00
Tentative Map and Use Permit Extension $519.00
Planning Commission Interpretation $439.00
R- I Design Review/Exception/Second Story Deck $571.00
Director
Tentative Map - Lot Consolidation $896.00
Variance $987.00
Minor Amendment/Temporary Use Permit $202.00
Temporary Sign Permit $43.78/
calendar year
Appeal
Amount to be refunded if appeal is granted. $140.00
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees
Residential $1.09/sq. ft.
Office/lndustrial/R&D $2.17/sq.
Stevens Creek Blvd. Specific Plan Fee $.044/sq. ft.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0,~6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule C - Planning (eonfinued)
General Plan Amendment
Direct costs for staff, consultants, and materials. Sign $2,523.00
agreement before application is accepted. (Retainer)
Development Agreement
Direct cost of City Attorney plus full application zoning fee. $2,523.00
Sign agreement before application is accepted. (Retainer)
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Pasolufion 02-0~6/Aprfl I, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE REMODEL COST PER SO. FT. COST PER NEW SO. FT.
i. APARTMENT HOUSES
*Type I or II F.R. $39.76 $121.02
Type V - Masonry or Type III $32.78 $ 98.31
Type V - Wood Frame $30.31 $ 90.85
Type I - Basement Garage $19.23 $ 41.47
'2. AUDITORIUMS
Type I or 11 F.R. $41.34 $116.16
Type 11 - 1-Hour $30.31 $ 84.07
Type I 1 - N $30.27 $ 79.55
Type 111 - 1-Hour $30.31 $ 88.37
Type 111 - N $30.31 $ 83.85
Type V - I-Hour $30.31 $ 84.22
Type V = N $30.06 $ 78.87
3. BANKS
*Type I or 11 F.IL $52.50 $164.08
Type I I - 1-Hour $52.33 $120.91
Type I ! - N 552.24 $116.96
Type 111 - 1-Hour $53.58 $133.45
Type 111 - N $53.52 $128.59
Type V - l-Hour $42.55 $120.91
Type V - N $42.50 $115.83
4. BOWLING ALLEYS
Type II - 1-Hour $25.34 $ 56.50
Type 11 - N $25.34 $ 52.77
Type 111 - i-Hour $25.36 $ 61.47
Type I I I - N $25.34 $ 57.52
Type V - 1-1 Hour $25.31 $ 41.47
5. CHURCHES
Type I or I ! F.R. $37.29 $109.95
Type II - I-Hour $30.28 $ 82.49
Type I I - N $30.27 $ 78.42
Type I I I - l-Hour $30.31 $ 89.72
Type I I I - N $30.31 $ 85.77
Type V - I-Hour $30.31 $ 83.85
Type V - N $30.27 $ 78.87
*Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct I I percent for mini-warehouses
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
The Building Official is authorized to implement new Building Valuation Schedules approved by the I.C.B.O.
9
(,2-1 3
crrY CW RT O
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Eff~ilve July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE REMODEL COST PER SO. FT. COST PER NEW SO. FT.
6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS
*Type 1 or 11 F.R. $53.70 $154.25
Type 11 l-Hour $38.88 $107.01
Type 111 - I-Hour $38.88 $109.72
Type V - l-Hour $38.84 $103.40
7. DWELLINGS
Type V - Ma~omy $36.39 $107.35
Type V - Wood Frame $36.39 $102.38
Basements
Semi-Finished $15.67 $ 25.76
Unfinished $15.67 $ 19.66
8. FIRE STATIONS
Type I or I 1 F.R. $42.48 $126.79
Type I I - I-Hour $32.43 $ 83.39
Type 11 - N $32.40 $ 78.65
Type 111 - l-Hour $32.43 $ 91.30
Type I I 1 - N $32.43 $ 87.46
Type V - l-Hour $32.48 $ 85.65
Type V - N $32.40 $ 81.21
9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY
Type i or 11 F.R. $40.11 $114.92
Type 11 - l-Hour $32.43 $ 93.34
Type I 1 - N $32.43 $ 89.27
Type 111 - I-Hour $32.48 $ 97.18
Type 111 - N $32.45 $ 93.23
Type V - i-Hour $32.45 $ 93.90
Type V - N $32.43 $ 90.63
10. HOSPITALS
*Type I or I 1 F.R. $62.39 $180.80
Type i i I - i-Hour $52.47 $149.73
Type V - I-Hour $48.76 $142.83
*Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct I I percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for ha~nrdous occupancy or high tech
The Building Official is authorized to implement new Building Valuation Sehedules approved by the LC.KO.
lO
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02..0S0/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE REMODEL COST PER SO. ICl'. COST PER NEW SO. FT.
11. HOTELS AND MOTELS
*Type I or 11 F.IL $39.99 $111.87
Type 111 - l-Hour $37.56 $ 96.95
Type 111 - N $31.53 $ 92.43
Type V - l-Hour ' $31.56 $ 84.41
Type V - N $31.53 $ 82.71
12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ****
Type I or I l F.R. $24.20 $ 63.05
Type 11 - l-Hour $24.15 $ 43.84
Type 11 - (Stock) $24.15 $ 40.34
Type ill - 1-Hour $24.17 $ 48.36
Type 111 - N $24.17 $ 45.53
Tilt-Up $24.17 $ 33.22
Type V - I-Hour' $24.17 $ 45.53
Type V - N $24.15 $ 41.69
13. JAILS
Type I or 11 F.R. $61.15 $176.28
Type 111 - i-Hour $57.52 $161.25
Type V - 1-Hour $46.22 $120.91
14. LIBRARIES
Type I or 11 F.R. $45.00 $128.93
Type 11 - l-Hour $31.53 $ 94.35
Type I I - N $31.53 $ 89.72
Type I i I - I-I-Hour $31.36 $ 99.66
Type 111 - N $31.56 $ 94.69
Type V - l-Hour $31.56 $ 93.67
Type V - N $31.53 $ 89.72
15. MEDICAL OFFICES ****
Type ! or I I F,R, .$53.57 $132,43
Type ! i - l-Hour $40,06 $102,15
Type ! ! - N $40,06 $ 97,06
Type I I i - l-Hour $40,11 $107,57
Type I I I -N $40.06 $103,16
Type V - I-Hour $40.06 $ 99.89
Type V - N $40.06 $ 96.38
*Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-wurehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for bnTardous or high tech occupancies
._ The Building Official is authorized to implement new Building Valuation Schedules approved by the I.C.B.O.
II
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE REMODEL COST PER SO. FF. COST PER NEW SO. FF.
16. OFFICES
Type I or 11 F.I~ $48.67 $118.31
Type 11 - l-Hour $32.70 · $ 79.21
Type 11 - N $32.70 $ 75.48
Type 111 - 1-Hour $32.73 $ 85.54
Type 111 - N $32.78 $ 81.81
Type V - l-Hour $32.70 $ 80.11
Type V - N $32.70 $ 75.48
17. PRIVATE GARAGES
Wood Frame $15.66 $ 26.89
Masonry $15.66 $ 30.39
Open carportsffcovered decks/porches $10.81 $ 18.41
Uncovered decks $10.62 $ 16.27
18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Type I or 11 F.R. $55.97 $136.73
Type 11 - l-Hour $42.50 $110.74
Type 11 - lq $42.45 $105.88
Type 111 - 1-Hour $42.54 $115.03
Type 111 - N $42.50 $110.96
Type V - l-Hour $42.45 $105.20
Type V - N $42.45 $101.47
19. PUBLIC GARAGES
Type I or II F.R. $24.20 $ 54.24
Type I or ! I Open Parking $24.13 $ 40.68
Type 11 - N $24.15 $ 31.07
Type I I I - 1-Hour $24.15 $ 41.01
Type I11 -N $24.15 $ 36.49
Type V - I-Hour $24.15 $ 37.29
20. RESTAURANTS
· Type I I 1 - l-Hour $60.74 $107.91
Type I I I -N $60.74 $104.29
Type V - 1-Hour $54.68 $ 98.87
Type V - N $52.05 $ 94.92
*Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct I I percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for bn~rdous or high tech occupancies
The Building Official is authorized to implement new Building Valuation Schedules approved by the I.C.B.O.
12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE REMODEL COST PER SO. FT, COST PER NENV SO. FT.
21. SCHOOLS
Type I or I I F.R. $60.87 $123.17
Type I ! - i-Hour $44.84 $ 84.07
Type 111 - i-Hour $44.84 $ 89.94
Type 111 - N $42.40 $ 86.55
Type V - l-Hour $42.40 $ 84.29
Type V - N $42.35 $ 80.45
22. SERVICE STATIONS
Type ! 1 - N $41.80 $ 74.76
Type I I 1 - 1-Hour $41.81 $ 77.63
Type V - l-Hour $41.75 $ 66.10
Canopies $41.66 $ 31.07
23. STORES
*Type I or 11 F.R. $37.57 $ 91.30
Type 11 - I-Hour $33.85 $ 55.82
Type 11 - N $33.89 $ 54.57
Type I 11 - 1-Hour $33.93 $ 67.91
Type i ! ! - N $33.89 $ 63.73
Type V - I Hour $33.86 $ 57.17
Type V - N $33.85 $ 52.88
24. THEATERS
Type I or 11 F.R. $48.67 $121.70
Type 111 - I-Hour $35.13 $ 88.59
Type 111 - N $34.00 $ 84.41
Type V - l-Hour $32.70 $ 83.39
Type V - N $31.48 $ 78.87
25. WAREHOUSES**
Type I or I I F.R. $33.85 $ 54.69
Type I I or V-l-Hour $16.90 $ 32.43
Type II or V-N $16.90 $ 30.51
Type I I I - I-Hour $16.90 $ 36.83
Type I I I - N $16.89 $ 35.03
*Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct I I percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
The Building Official is authorized to implemeut new Building Valuation Schedules approved by the I.C.B.O.
13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
EOUIPMENT AND AIR CONDITIONING
Commercial $ 4.63
Residential $ 3.84
Sprinkler Systems $ 2.93
RETAINING WALLS, PER SO. FT./HEIGHT X LENGTH) AREA ABOVE GRADE
Masonry $ 27.84
Concrete $ 24.50
The Building Official is authorized to implement new Building Valuation Schedules approved by the I.C.B.O.
Address Changes $249.00
14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building Permit
Permit Valuation
$1 - $3,000 $77.00
$3,001 - 25,000 $87.00 for the first $3,000 plus $10.00 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.
$25,001 - 50,000 $300.00 for the first $25,000 plus $8.00 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,001 - 100,000 $500.00 for the lust $50,000 plus $6.00 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.
$ ! 00,001 - 500,000 $788.00for the lb-st $100,000 plus $4.00 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.
$500,001 - 1,000,000 $2.609.00 for the first $500,000 plus $3.00for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.
$1,000,001 - $4,440.00 for the first $1,000,000 and up plus $2.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
PLAN CHECKING
Structural and Non-Structural
85% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $22.20 each unit.
Energy
30% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $22.20 each unit.
Repeat plan checks that exceed 2 reviews will be charged an hourly rate at $55.50 per hour.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Electrical Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage
The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or
other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time.
Permit Fee $35.52
New multi-family residential buildings (aparhilents and condominiums) having
three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage areas conah acted at the same time, per
square foot $ 0.06
New single and two-family residential buildings not including the area of
garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings conahacted at the
same time, per square foot $ 0.07
For other types of residential o~upancies and alterations, additions and
modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
New commercial buildings and completely remodeled spaces not including the
Area of garages, per square foot $ 0.12
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
Unit fee schedule
16
Cr~'~ OF CUPER'rJ-~O
Resolution 0~-0e~/April l, ~002
Fees Effective July 1, ~-00~
-- Schedule D - Building - F. iectrte~ql
UNIT FEE SCI~F.I)ULE
Remodel - No additional square foot~ge
Permit Fee $ 35.52
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including
wall-mounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric
ranges, self-contained room console, or through-wall air conditioners;
space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers washing machines;
water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor operated appliances not
exceeding one horsepower (liP) in rating each $ 4.44
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven
appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Non-Residential Appliances
For residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, non-residential
appliances non exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or
· -' kilovotampere (KVA) in rating including medical and dental devices; food,
beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains;
vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment,
each $ 4.44
NOTE:For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each $ 27.25
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes in
rating, each $ 55.50
For services over 600 volts over 1,000 amperes in rating, each $111.00
17
ClTY OF CUPERTINO
ResolUtion 02-0S6/Aprii 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
USER FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodel - No additional square footage
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one
branch circuit, each $ 22.20
For additional branch'circuits within the same sign, outline lighting
system or marquee, each $ 4.44
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, Conductors, and Special Circuits
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is
required but for which no fee is herein set forth $ 25.53
Power Device/Apparatus
For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking
or baking equipment and other apparatuses, as follows:
Rating in horsepower (liP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt-amperes (KVA),
or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KVAR):
! unit $ 44.40
2 through 5 units, each additional $ 16.65
6 and over, each additional $ 11.10
NOTE:
I.For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,
heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used.
2.These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,
relays and other directly related control equipment.
18
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0r~6/April 1, 2~02
Fees Effective .Inly 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
UNIT FEE SCHEDUL~
(continued)
Remodel - No additional square footage
Busways
For trolley and plug-in-type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof $6.$0
Note: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors
and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type
busways. No fee is required for portable tools.
Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets
For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is
used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters.
First 20 each $1.11
Additional outlets, each $0.67
NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each ~i feet or
fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet.
Lighting Fixtures
For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp holding devices
First 20 each $1.11
Additional fixtures, each $0.67
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each $ i. I 1
For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies each $ !. i I
19
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D o Building - Mechanical F:~
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage.
The following fees shall include all mechanical equipment in or on each build/fig, or
other mechanical equipment on the same premised constructed at the same time.
New multi-family residential buildinas (apmtments and condominiums)
having three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports
and other non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same
time, per square foot $0.06
New and single and two-family residential buildings not including the area
of garages, carports and other minor aocessory buildings constructed at the
same time, per square foot $0.07
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completely remodeled Sl~aCes not including
The area of garages, per square foot $0.12
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the unit
Fee schedule
2O
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02..0.~6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
UNIT FEE SC~II~DULE
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee $ 35.52
For the repair of alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance,
refrigeration unit, cooling unit, ¥A¥ boxes, absorption unit, or each
heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including
installation of controls regulated by this Code. $ 12.21
For each air-handling unit, A/C units, heat pumps to and including
10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto. Does
not apply to central type. $ 9.50
NOTE: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit that is a
portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative
cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere
in this Code.
For each air-handling unit A/C unit, heat pump over 10,000 cfm $ 16.50
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type
hood $127.65
For the installation of each residential hood that is served by a mechanical
exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $ 9.50
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace
or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and
including 100,000 Btu/h $ 13.25
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air conditioning system authorized by a permit $ 9.50
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $ 6.50
For the installation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type
furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance
over 100,000 Btu/h $ 16.25
21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-O~6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical F~
uNrr FEE SC~r~DULE
(continued)
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $13.25
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed
wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater $13.25
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent
installed and not included in an appliance permit $ 6.50
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and
including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including
100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw) $13.15
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three
horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h $24.25
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15
horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h $33.25
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30
horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system
over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h $49.50
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor
over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h $82.75
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this Code but not
classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed
in this Code $ 9.50
22
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/Aprfl 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D * Bufldina - Plumbing F:::
New Residential Buildings and Remodeh that add additional square footage
The following fees shall include all plumbing equipment in or on each building, or other
plumbing equipment on the same premises constructed at the sarae time.
New multi-family residential buildings (apa, Uuents and condominiums) having
three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage ar~as constructed at the same, per square
foot $0.06
New single and two-family r~sidential buildings not including the area of
garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings eons~oted at the same
time, per square foot $0.07
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completely remodeled spaces not including
The area of garages, per square foot $0.12
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
unit fee schedule
23
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0~6/April 1, 2002
F~¢~ Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
UNIT FEE SCU~DULE
Remodel - No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee $35.52
For installation, alteration or repair of water piping water treating
equipment $ 8.33
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, floor, area,
condensate piping $ 8.33
For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap
(including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefor) $ 8.33
For each gas piping system of one (1) to four (4) outlets $ 5.00
For each gas piping system of five (5) or more, per outlet $ 1.11
For each industrial waste pre-treatment interceptor, including its trap
and vent, excepting kitchen type grease traps functioning as fixture
traps $16.65
Kitchen type trap and/or system $ $.33
For each building sewer, sanitary sewer, and each trailer park sewer $19.98
Storm/rainwater systems per drain $ 8.33
For each water heater and/or vent $ 9.99
Water service $ 8.33
Re-pipe per fixture $ 8.33
24
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April I, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
UNITS FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel - No additional Square Footage
(continued)
For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow $12.21
protection devices therefor
Five (5) or more, each $1.00
For atmospheric type vacuum breakers/backflow not included in item 1
1 to 5 $ 9.99
over 5 each additional $ 2.00
For each private sewage disposal system $62.16
For each cesspool $31.08
C1TY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule D
OTU~.R BU~ING INSPECTION FEES
Private Swimming Pools
For new private, residential, in-ground, swimming pools for
single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete
system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding,
underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical
equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool,
each including plan check and energy. $500.00
For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools,
spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Temporary Power Service
For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all
pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances,
each $57.50
For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting
and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light,
Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, etc. each $11.00
Inspection outside of the normal business hours $84.00/hr.
(minimum charge two hours)
Inspection for which no fee is specifically established $63.00/hr.
(minimum charge one hour)
Re-inspection - A fee may be assessed for each inspection or re-inspection
when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete
or when corrections called for are not made $105.00
26
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - Recreation
Recreation classes and excursion fees shall be determined as follows:
Classes
1. Determine the maximum hourly rate paid to inahactor.
2. Multiply the instructor's hourly rate by the number of class meetings.
3. Determine the minimum number of participants and divide into the instructor's cost.
4. Add indirect overhead percent - 32%.
5. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
6. Add cost for specialized equipment or supplies.
Special conditions: For classes taught by conlract instructors, the indirect overhead is only
added to the City's percentzSe.
Excursions
1. Transportation cost divided by the number of participants plus overhead transfer.
2. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
3. Add any admission cost, supplies or leadership cost.
Additional factors that may be used to determine the class or excursion user fee:
The total number of participants in a given activity may generate additional revenue whereby
the total program cost may be reduced.
Classes that traditionally have waiting lists may have the user fee increased.
Programs in competition with adjacent cities or the private sector may require fees to be
increased or decreased to remain competitive.
27
1=-31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective. July 1, 2002
Schedule E - Recreation
Facility Use Fee Schedule (StaffUse Only)
CLASSIFICATIONS: Priority of Use
Group I: City of Cupertino activities that are open to the public. Official city sponsored
pros~ams.
Group II: Clubs with 51% resident membership, recreation programs and events with full or
affiliated city co-sponsorship and open to the public.
Group III: Programs and events sponsored by Cupertino based non-profit recreation,
education or community service organization with 51% resident participation.
These organizations must show an official slructure and status.
Group IV: Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public.
These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial
conferences, seminars, trade shows, etc.
Group V: Programs and events sponsored by non-resident non-profit recreation, education
or community service orgaoi~tion. These organizations must show official
structure and status.
Group VI: Cupertino Businesses using the Cupertino Room of the Quinlan Community
Center for promotional and business related purposes other than negotiation or
direct sale.
28
I -3Z
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution O2-0S6/April 1, 2002
Fz:: Effective July 1, 2002
-* Schedule E - Recreation
Ouinlan Community Center
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Cupertino Room Monday- Thursday Friday - Sunday
Group II N/A $17
Group IH $30 $80
Group IV $140 $230
Group V $50 $140
Group VI $265 $265
Classroom
Group II N/A $12
Group IH $20 $60
Group IV $45 $90
Group V $25 $75
Conference Room
Group II N/A $12
Group III $10 $25
Group IV $40 $60
_ Group V $25 $50
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $1 $0.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups IH, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Ouinlan Community Center
Cupertino Room- Groups IV, VI $750
All Other Rooms - Group IV $300
Group II, IL V - All Rooms $300
29
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0ro6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - Recreation
Monta Vista Recreation Center
Creekside Park Building
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
Monta Vista Recreation Center Creekside Park Building
Multi-Pumose
Group III N/A N/A
Group IV N/A N/A
Group V N/A N/A
Classroom
Group III $15 $15
Group IV $30 $30
Group V $20 $20
Conference Room/Kitchen
Group III $15 N/A
Group IV $25 N/A
Group V $20 N/A
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups HI, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Depa~uuent Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are let~ in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
30
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0S6/ApFil 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 20O2
-- Schedule E - Recreation
SenioF CenteF
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
Reception Room Evenings and Weekends *
Group II $12
Group III $40
Group IV $125
Group V $75
Classroom. Conference Room. Arts & Crafts
Room. Bay Room
Group Il $12
Group III $35
Group IV $50
Group V $40
*Senior Center rooms are not available for rental Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereat%r. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups III, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
securiD, deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are leR in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Cupertino Senior Center
Reception Hall - Group IV $750
All Other Rooms - Group IV $300
Group !1, !I1, V - All Rooms $300
31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - RecFeation
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Memorial Softball Field
Cupertino residents/businesses only $25.00
Non-Residents $40.00
Field can be reserved for a maximum of 2 hours
THERE IS NO FEE FOR CURRENT SOFTBALL TEAMS PLAYING
IN CUPERTINO LEAGUES
Field preparation $36.50
(includes dragging, watering, chalking, and bases)
Field Attendant (2 hour minimum) $ 8.25/hr.
Field Attendant is required any time lights or field preparation
is requested.
Lights (in the evening) $ 5.00/br.
Memorial Park Amphitheater
Cupertino resident/Resident business $55.00
Non-resident/Non-resident business $75.00
Memorial Park Gazebo
Cupertino resident/Resident business $55.00
Non-resident/Non-resident business $75.00
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate) Effective February 7, 2001
Cupertino residents $ 55.00
Cupertino business $ 75.00
Non-residents $ 80.00
Non-resident business $100.00
Electricity at Memorial or Linda Vista Park $ 25.00
32
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0 April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
- Schedule E - RecFeation
BLACKBERRY FARM PICNIC GROUNDS
General Admission:
Weekends & Holidays Weekdays
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
ADULT ( 13 $8.00 $8.00 $5.00 $5.00
years and
over)
$8.00 $9.00 $5.00 $6.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
CHILD (6 $5.00 $5.00 $4.00 $4.00
through 12)
$5.00 $6.00 $4.00 $5.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Group Rates:
Weekends & Holidays Weekdays
Adult Child Adult Child
(13 & Older) (6-12) (13 & Older) (6-12)
100-500 $7.50 $5.50 $4.75 $3.75
persons
$8.50 $6.50 $5.75 $4.75
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
501-1~000 $7.00 $5.00 $4.50 $3.50
$8.00 $6.00 $5.50 $4.50
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
1,001 or more $6.50 $4.50 $4.25 $3.25
$7.50 $5.50 $5.25 $4.25
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
33
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-0$6/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - Recreation
Available any day the park is open:
Full Summer Pm~s
Resident Non-Resident
Adult (13 & Up) $75.00 $100.00
$85.00 $110.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Child (6 to 12 years old) $50.00 $60.00
$60.00 $70.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Family Pass (2 people) $130.00 $160.00
$140.00 $170.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Family Pass (3 people) $140.00 $170.00
$150.00 $180.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Family Pass (4 people) $150.00 $180.00
$160.00 $190.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Family Pass (5 people) $160.00 $190.00
$170.00 $200.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Family Pass (6 people) $170.00 $200.00
$180.00 $210.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
34
CITY OF CUPERTENO
Resolution 02-0 6/April I, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - RecFeafion
lO-Day Pass
Available any 10 days the park is open:
Resident Non-Resident
Adult (13 and older) $25.00 $30.00
$40.00 $45.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Child (6 to 12 years old) $17.50 $21.00
$32.50 $36.00
Effective 4/03 Effective 4/03
Children under 6 are free when accompanied by their parents
BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
Weekends Weekdays
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
9-Holes $13.00 $14.00 $11.00 $12.00
Junior & Senior N/A N/A $10.00 $11.00
Second 9 Holes (all $11.00 $12.00 $10.00 $11.00
players)
All groups and tournaments pay the full rate (Cupertino resident still applies).
Staff is authorized to set merchandise fees according to current cost.
BLACKBERRY FARM RETREAT CENTER
Conference Room $49.95/person
35
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 02-056/April 1, 2002
Fees Effective July 1, 2002
Schedule E - Recreation
CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER
Day Passes Type Resident Non-Resident
$7.00 $10.00
Monthly Passes
One Month Single $55.00 $65.00
One Month Couple $75.00 - $90.00
One Month Family $95.00 $115.00
Annual Passes
One Year Single $350.00 $375.00
One Year Couple $700.00 $750.00
One Year Family $850.00 $925.00
One Year Senior $315.00 $340.00
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Annual fee for Juniors (17 years and younger) of $240.00.
2. Annual fee for seniors (62 years and older) of $315.00
3. The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $10.00/hour per court for all C.T.C. sponsored
activities other than U.S.T.A. leagues and practices.
4. All competitors in C.T.C.AJ.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purelmse
an annual pass.
5. An annual pass holder may purchase one block often (10) guest passes per year for $60.00.
A guest must be accompanied by the pass holder who purchased the guest pass.
36
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-330s
FAX (408) 777~333
Community Development Deparh-aent
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. [ 3 AGENDA DATE April 1, 2002
SUMMARY:
File No. U-2002-01, USE PERMIT to:
1) Demolish a 9,079 square foot restaurant and bar on a 1.74-acre site
(Peppermill) and replace it with a 8,349 square foot restaurant and bar
with 248 indoor seats and 158 outdoor (patio) seats, and
2) Provide for late night hours of operation until 2:00 a.m. (Applicant:
Chicago Pizza & Brewery).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2002-02.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2002-01, in accordance with
Resolution # 6218 (attached).
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission heard this item on March 25, 2002. Staff presented
information pertaining to parking, traffic, tree removal, general design and late
hours of operation (Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION:
Public:
No members of the public spoke on this item.
Staff'.
Staff worked closely with the applicant and City Architect on several design
issues relating to building proportions and details affecting the building entry,
roof-lines and brick accent features. The current design meets staff's urban and
building design expectations, and the applicant's corporate image expectations.
File No. U-2002-01, Chicago Pizza & Brewery Use Peru,it
April 1, 2002
Page 2
Planning Commissioners:
The Commission recommended approval of the use permit on a unanimous vote,
including several additional conditions of approval relating to: 1) screening of rooftop equipment,
2) placement and screening of new utility structures,
3) directional signage for the Mariani Avenue driveway entrance.
The metering on the Highway 280 onramp causes an afternoon queue of vehicles
that backs up on northbound N. De Anza Boulevard. The Commission provided
some flexibility in the parapet height to ensure the mechanical equipment is
screened from view and that utility structures, such as back flow preventers, are
located and screened to not be visible from public street areas. Additionally, the
Commissioners felt that restaurant patrons needed to be directed toward the
more accessible Mariani Avenue driveway entrance, instead of the De Anza
Boulevard driveway. Commissioners were amenable to granting a sign
exception to allow an off-site directional sign to this driveway entrance.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6228
Exhibit A-I: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 3/25/02
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by: Approved by:
David Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
g:planning/pdrepor t/cc/U-2002-01
U-2002-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6128
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING BAR/RESTAURANT OF 9,079 SQUARE FEET, AND THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 406-SEAT (8,349 SQUARE FEET) RF-qTAURANT AND BREWHOUSE WITH
OPERATING HOURS EXTENDED TO 2 A.M., 7 DAYS PER WEEK AT 10690 N. DE ANZA
BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s): U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02)
Applicant: Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. (BJ's)
Location: 10690 North De Anza Boulevard
-- SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Per~sdt is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
Resolution No. 6128 U-2002-01 March 25. 2002
Page 2
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2002-01
(EA-2002-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 25,
2002, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ·
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled BJ's Restaurant, 10690 '
North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, consisting of seven sheets with
dates and no dates and labeled: A-2.1, A-2.11, A3.1, A4.1, A4.1.1, C-1 and P1, except as
may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. PARKING EASEMENT
As part of its municipal code required parking, the applicant shall secure a parking
easement of at least 10 parking stalls on the adjacent property located at 10600 North De
Anza Boulevard. (Assessor Parcel No. 316-02-103). The parking shall be convenient to
and accessible to BJ's restaurant employees and patrons after regular working hours, on
weekends andlegal holidays. The parking shall be signed to notify potential users of its
restricted availability. The easement shall be recorded and an endorsed copy provided
to Community Development Dept. staff prior to building occupancy.
4. HOURS OF OPERATION
The permitted hours of operation for this business shall be from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next
day, daily.
5. TREE PROTECTION
Existing trees designated for protection on the approved exhibits and within the
construction zone shall be fenced with rigid fencing (chain link fencing is the minimum)
during all phases of construction and demolition. The protective fencing shall be
13-q
Resolution No. 6128 U-2002-01 March 25, 2002
Page 3
erected, and a tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 is required prior to issuance
of the demolition pe~atit.
6. TREE PLANTING
The ten proposed new trees on the north and east sides of the building, and on the south
side of the patio awning shall have a minimum planting size of 24" box.
7. ROOFFOP EOUIPMENT
All rooftop equipment shall be completely screened from street view by the building
parapet. The Director of Community Development may approve a higher building
parapet to achieve this equipment screening.
8. UTILITY STRUCTURES
All new utility structures shall not be located in highly visible locations. The Director of
Community Development shall approve locations of utility structures at the building
pe~lcdt stage.
9. MARIANI AVENUE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
The applicant shall seek directional signage approval for the Mariani Avenue driveway
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTI'ER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and' shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other foi-a-~s of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
13. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
14. TRAFFIC SIGNS
._ Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
Resolution No. 6128 U-2002-01 March 25. 2002
Page 4
STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
16. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
17. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across
public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-I, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain
facilities are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning
districts shall be served by on site sto,m drainage facilities connected to the City storl~
drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
19. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility
underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected
Utility provider and the City Engineer.
20. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of .
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
$2,268.00
minimum
b. Grading Pert-cdt: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $182.12
minimum
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: Paid
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: N/A
Resolution No. 6128 U-2002-01 March 25. 2002
Page 5
g. Park Fees: N/A
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC.
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building pe~-a-dt in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
21, TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transfomters, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
22. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to
City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to
the subject development.
23. FIRE ACCESS LANES
Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as fire lane easements on the final map
and shall meet Central Fire District standards.
24. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included
in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan
shall be provided.
25. STORM WATER OUALITY MANAGEMENT
Prior to building pem6t issuance, the applicant shall incorporate storm water quality
management design techniques intended to detain and percolate storm waters on the
project site. Revised project improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Resolution No. 6128 U-2002-01 March 25, 2002
Page 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of CUpertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMIqSION-ERS: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, & Chaixman Corr
NOES: COMMI.qSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Steve Piasecki /s/Charles Corr
Steve Piasecki Charles Corr, Chai~uan
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G: planning/pdreport/res/U-2002-01 res
EXHIBIT: .A-1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2002.01, EA-2002-02 Agenda Date: March 25, 2002
ApplicanP. Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. (aka BJ's)
Owner: Sobrato Interest II
Location: 10690 North De Anza Boulevard, APN. 316-02-104
Application Summary:
Applicant is requesting a Use permit to: .
1) Demolish a 9,079 square foot restaurant and bar on a 1.74-acre site
· (Pepperwill) and replace it with a 8,349 square foot restaurant and bar with
". 248 indoor seats and 158 outdoor (patio) seats, and
2) Provide for late night hours of operation until' 2:00 a.m.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2002-02.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2002.01, in accordance with the model
resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential
Zoning Designation: P(Comm, Ind, Off), Planned Development
Commercial, Industrial and Office
Acreage: 1.74 acres
Height: 30'
Stories: 1 story
Parking Required: (24 bar stools)(1 parking stall/3 seats) = 8 spaces
(382 rest. seats~(1 parking stall/4 seats)= 96 spaces
Total Parking Required: 104 spaces
Parking Supplied: 94 + 11 offsite (adjacent Sobrato property)= 105 spaces
Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Chicago Pizza and Brewery (BJ's), has requested a use permit to allow
the demolition of the 268-seat Peppermill Restaurant and Bar and the construction of a
406-seat restaurant and bar Corewhouse). The proposal is for 248 seats indoors and 158
seats outdoors on two patios located west and south of the building. Hours of
operation are proposed to extend to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Beer brewing is not
proposed onsite. The property is surrounded by a parking lot to the north, a parking lot
and Apple Computer's campus office buildings to the east, an office building to the
south, and an office building and a retail center to the west across De Anza Boulevard.
DISCUSSION:
Parking
Although BJ's is increasing seating by 138 seats, the parking requirement is only
incrementally higher than the existing business because the applicant is substituting
restaurant seats for bar seats. The City has a greater parking requirement for bar
seating (1~ stall for every 3 seats) than for restaurant seating ( 1 stall for every 4 seats).
The parking requirement is 104 stalls. One hundred five stalls will be provided, with 11
of them supplied off-site on the adjacent office building parcel. The office building
property owner will share 11 outdoor parking stalls with BJ's (Exhibit A). The parking
is located along a driveway off Mariani Avenue that leads to the restaurant. The
parking will be available to restaurant employees and patrons between 6 p.m. and 11
p.m. on business workdays and at all times on Saturdays, Sundays. and legal holidays.
A parking easement and signage are required as part of the conditions of approval.
Traffic
The increase in seating will generate additional traffic: the net increase in A.M. AVT
(average vehicle trips) is 39 and the P.M. AVT is 47. The figures are based on a wide
survey of sit-down restaurants. The morning AVT will probably be much less as the
restaurant will not be open for business until 11 a.m.
On workday evenings, right lane northbound traffic can queue on De Anza Boulevard
because of the ramp metering on the Highway 280 on-ramp. Evening restaurant traffic
can access the site from the bus duck-out which tapers into the restaurant De Anza
Boulevard driveway or enter on Mariani Avenue, avoiding the evening vehicle queue
onto Highway 280.
Tree Removal
Ten of the seventeen trees near the development site are proposed for removal to
accommodate the new building footprint. Seven of the proposed removals are
specimen size Coastal Redwoods (10+ inches in diameter). The applicant is proposing
to plant 16 new trees as mitigation for the removal. Staff recommends that the trees
proposed on the north and east sides of the building, and on the south side of the
awning (ten altogether), have a minimum planting size of 24" box because of the larger
growing zones and the desire to screen the awning from street view. A condition is
included in the model resolution to this effect.
General Design
Staff's main urban design concerns were to have the building address the street with a
pleasing and well-proportioned design that reveals the activities going on within. The
site is highly visible from De Anza Boulevard, which makes the design of the front
faCade very significant. The applicant desires to evoke a "working man's" image of its
establishment through the use of an antique brick veneer, which is reminiscent of older
factories and manufacturing centers. The antique brick veneer is used throughout the
building: entry feature, building corners, wainscoting, header and patio fences. A
WPA (Work Projects Administration) mural is integrated into the front faCade, which
also follows this industrial worker theme, and adds visual interest to the building. A
pa!rtted tin crown caps the rooflifle to help finish the look of the building. The well-
proportioned buildiqg entry is tied to the mural through the window awnings and the
brick co~sework along the patio and roofline.
Restaurant activities are open to street view by incorporating large window areas in the
indoor dining areas and an outdoor dining patio on the De Anza Boulevard frontage
punctuated with table umbrellas.
The brick coursework and a painted tin roof crown are wrapped around all sides of the
building. The !ong, north wall, which houses the service functions, is broken up by
another mural with a beer brewing theme.
Staff was concerned that the large south side awning would detract from the
appearance of the building. The applicant indicated that the awning was crucial as it
relies on year-round outdoor dining as part of its operations. Four trees were added to
the patio area to help screen the large awning from street view.
A stand-alone grain silo is shown on the site plan on the De Anza frontage, part of BJ's
signature image. The silo is a decorative feature, not a functional one. The proposed
height is 22 feet, which is comparable to the restaurant building height. The silo
elevation detail was mistakenly deleted from the plan set. It will be available at the
hearing.
The City Architect, Larry Canon, participated extensively in the design review and was
largely responsible in guiding the applicant to produce a well-proportioned and
pleasing design using judicious amounts of brick veneer and pedestrian-oriented
features in a contemporary style (Exhibit B). Staff expectations were meet and
satisfactorily balanced against the applicangs corporate image expectations.
Signage
Wall signage is conceptual and can be approved at a staff-level at a later date. The
applicant is allowed a ground sign, but has not proposed one yet. Signage is not being
allowed on the grain silo.
Storm Water Ouality Management
The Regional Water Quality Control Board is req-iring local agencies to incorporate
storm water quality design techniques in their new projects. The objectives are to
improve the quality of storm waters entering the bay by detaining/retaining storm
waters on the project site and allowing the soil to naturally filter out the nonpoint
source pollutants before enter the creeks and bay. At the building permit stage, staff
will be requiring the applicant to design a rock or vegetative swale on the north side of
the property to filter a portion of the storm flows before they enter the City's storm
drainage system.
Late Hours of Operation
The applicant is proposing late night hours until 2:00 a.m. seVen days a week. As this
property.~is completely surrounded by parking lots, streets and office and cormnercial
uses, there will be no disturbance of residences. Staff supports the use permit for late
night operations.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution for U-2002-0!
Initial Study and ERC recommendation
Exhibit A: Letter from Sobrato Development Cos. to Larry Canon dated 2/27/02
Exhibit B: Email message and elevations from Larry Canon to Colin Jung dated 3/l/02
Plan Set
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner 0'
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
G.'planning/pdreport/pcUsereports/U-2OO2-Ol.doc
U-2002-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN
EXISTING BAR/RESTAURANT OF 9,079 SQUARE FEET, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 406-SEAT (8,349 SQUARE FEET) RESTAURANT AND BREWHOUSE WITH
OPERATING HOURS EXTENDED TO 2 A.M., 7 DAYS PER WEEK '
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s).: U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02)
Applicant: Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. (BJ's)
Location: 10690 North De AvT~ Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application tbr a Use
~ Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance w/th the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public
hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of pwof required to support said application; and has
satisfied the following requirements:
I) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based
_ are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02), as set
forth in the Minutes of the Plarming Commission Meeting of March 25, 2002, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 25, 2002
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
'The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled BJ's Restaurant, 10690 North
De .An?a Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, consisting of seven sheets with dates and no
dates and labeled: A-2.1, A-2.11, A3.1, A4.1, A4.1.1, C-1 and P1, except as may be amended by
the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount o1'
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby
further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If
you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. PARKING EASEMENT
As part of its municipal code required parking, the applicant shall secure a parking easement of at
least 10 parking stalls on the adjacent property located at 10600 North De Anza Boulevard
( Assessor Parcel No. 316-02-103). The parking shall be convenient to and accessible to BJ's
restaurant employees and patrons after regular working hours, on weekends and legal holidays.
The parking shall be signed to notify potential users of its restricted availability. The easement
shall be recorded and an endorsed copy provided to Community Development Dept. stal'l' prior to
building occupany.
4. HOURS OF OPERATION
The permitted hours of operation for this business shall be from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next day,
daily.
5. TREE PROTECTION
Existing trees designated for protection on the approved exhibits and within the construction zone
shall be fenced with rigid fencing (chain link fencing is the minimum) during all phases
construction and demolition. The protective fencing shall be erected, and a tree protection bond
in the amount of $50,000 is required prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
6. TREE PLANTING
The ten proposed new trees on the north and east sides of the building, and on the south side o1'
the patio awning shall have a minimum planting size of 24" box.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
7. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City
Standards and specifications and aa required by the City Engineer.
Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 25, 2002
Page 3
8. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades
and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
9. 'STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures
shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining
properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the
site is located.
10. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
11. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
12. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by
the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
13. GRADING
_ Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter
16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.' 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required.
Please contact Axmy Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as
appropriate.
14. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surihce tlow across public
sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain thcilities are dee]ned
necessary by the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on
site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains
are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of thc City Engi,aeer.
15. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No.
331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, a,~d shall coordi,~ate
with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall
submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection tees. storm
drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be
executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Resolution No. U-2002-01 Mamh 25, 2002
Page 4
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00
minimum
b. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $182. ! 2
minimum
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: Paid
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: N/A
g. Park Fees: N/A
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC.
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City
Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time or' recordation or' a
final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the I~cs -
changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transfoaners, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be
screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not
visible from public street areas.
19. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City
Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water' for water service to thc subject
development.
20. FIRE ACCESS LANES
Emergency fire access lanes shall be recordedas fire lane easements on the final map and shall
meet Central Fire District standards.
21. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control
Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading
and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
22. STORM WATER OUALITY MANAGEMENT
Prior to building permit issuance, thc applicant shall incorporate storm water quality management
design techniques intended to detain and percolate storm waters on the project site. Revised
project improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Resolution No. U-2002-01 March 25, 2002
Page 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
-AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: i APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki Charles Corr, Chairman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G: planning/pdreportires/U-2002-01 res
;.
CITY OF CUPEKTINO I 0~00
E~p~rtm~t of Commun~ D~mlopmmt Cup~tlno, C,~ 95014
408-777-3308
C~ File Ne.
PRO. CT DESCRIPTION: A~mea~
Pmj~T~e BJ~ ~ur~nt ~ Br~hous~
~j~e~fio~ 10690 North ~e Anza
~ject~d~en The ~xi~tin~ ~it~ i~ ~5,931 ~f ~ith
8,3~9 ~ BJ~ ~estaur~n~ cona~ructed in ~roxi~a~el~ th~
The site iff ~ullv ~eveloped. The ~it~ i~ surrounded b~ ~ture
tree~ and l~n are~ frontin~ th~
PRO,~ECT DESCRIPTION:
8,349
Site Area (ao.) 1.74'BuildingCover~e. 11% Exist. BuildinL..s.f. Propos~dBldg. ~.f.
Zone P O.P. Desi~mfion comm. Assessor'sParcclNo. 316- 02 - 10/~
If Residential, Uniis/C-ross
Total~ Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f.. Price
Unit
#l
Unit
#2
Unit
Type
#3
Unit
Unit
Type
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
~ Monm Vi.~a Design Guidelines ~ S. De Ann Con~tual
~ N. De .an~s Concep_~_,_sl ~ S. Sara-Storey Conceplual
~ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ~ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scapc
8 , 3 4 9s.f.
If Non-Residential, Building Area FAR . 11Max. Employees/Shill20
Parking Required 102 Parking Provided 95
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES i1( NO
A) GENERAL PLAN SouRr'T-q D) OU]t~lLVE AGEN~IT.-q
1) Cupeflino Oenm. d Plm, Land Use Him 23) Coun~ ~,~*,,* Ikpartmut
2) Cupeflino Oenerd Plan. Public SaLty nlunmt 24) Adjmx~ City's Plmnins DeparUnmt
2) Cupe~no Genend Plsn, Housin~ Hiew. ent 2~) ~y. l)q~e~nm~al ofBnvlromncnial Hmdth
4) C'upeflin00merd Plo, TrunpmM~ ~cmm 26) Mldpa~Tm.h ~ Open Sp~e bisect
S) (~fltno Oen~rd Piss, ~wironnm~d l~Joun:m 27) County ~.~;~ md Rcc~stion
6) Cupeffho Oa~erd Plm, Appmdix A- HmsJd~ Development 28) Cup~flino Suitm~ Distfi~
7) Cupmtao C. mmM Plm, Lsad Us~ Msp 29) Fmnoat U~fioa ~ Sdmol Dimict
~) Noi~ Elmm~t Ammdmmt 30) Culm~o U~ioa School District
· ) City RidS:li~ Polly/ 31) ~ Ou sad
I0) Cupmltno ~ Plm C. omt~t. ' Msps 32) Smta Clsm County Fu~ l~ph h~sat
33) com~sk~
24) CALl,tANS
B) CUPEgFI~O SOURCE I)O~MENTS 35) Cou~ Trnspomt~ ASmcy
11) T~e Pruervaflou c~dtusn~ 778 36) Ssnta Clam Yal~.ey Water
i 12) city Aerifd Phot~s.q,by ~
13)"Cupertino Gbronide* (California ~ Cmn** 1976)
t4) oeolosicsi ltf~port (sM ~) E) OUTSmE &GENC,,' DOCUMES~
IS) P.kins O~d!n-*,~s 1277 37) BAAqMD Smyc~ of Commnlnant
17) ZaPS Cod~SixF, iflo Pin Docu~en~ 39) USDA. "Soils of Santa cimu County'*
18) City Noiso Ordinance 40) Coun~ F-.-~-~ms Wmm 1~ Pin
41) Coun~ amuse Rf~um IfMmory
C) ~ rf AG]E~Ic;Aif~ 42) Ssmu Clam Valley Water District Fuel
19) Cupmino Commnity Dcvdopment ~ Led~ Site
2O) Cujx~Ino Public Woflu Ikpt. ,43) C.~dI~A ~--~lous Wmm md Submncc8
21) Cupm~ Psda & ltoc~utim Ikpmmont S~ I,ist
22) Cupmino Wst~ Utility
44) Proem Pin SW Applic~ti~m Mst~rids
4S) F'mld
46) ~ with Pr~.jm ofsimihr s
47) ABAO l'rojmiom Series
1) Complete all information re~lUeSted on 4) When e~xpi~[n[n$ any yes response, label
the Initial Study Cover pase. v.r-&VE your answer clearly (Example ~ - 3
BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A Historic. al") Please ir,/to respond concisely,
SPECIFIC 1TEM IS NOT and place as many explanatory responses as
APPLICABI.I~., possible on each oage.
2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use 5') Upon completing thc checklist, sign and
the materials listed thmin to complete, the date the Pr~ar~r's Affidavit.
chcckli~ information in C, at~zories A
through O. 6) Pleas~ attach the following materials
before submitting ~he Initial Study to th.e
You ar~ encouraged to cit~ other r~l~vant City.
sources; ff suoh sources are used, job in their -
- Lomim mp with dt~ d~dy msdmi (wh~
title(s) in th~ "Source~ column next to the
question to whichthey r~late. ~ ~t~l/K ~ ()[ R INITIAL ~Tlil)Y
~) If you ch~ck any of tho "YES~ response gl 1;~I I'I"I'.Xl. I~ COMI'I A~TI~ -
to any questions, you must a~_~_ch a sh~-t !
explainin~ the potential impact and suggest
mitigation if ne~de, d.
WI'i'.L ~ PROJECT... Not s~sa~ s~ma,nt Cumu~v* SOURCE
NO ~
I) ~ a ~c ~ ~ lind ~ 1,7.8
S~c pl. ~ ~ ~1'~ ~ 0 0 0 17. 1'
4) ~lt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~tl~of~si~ ~of ~ 0 0 0 0 7.12
~ D~t ~ d~ ~
result in ~he removal of I natural resource
such ss rock. ~d. ~ t~'~s, minerals
o~ rap-soil)?
2) Result in the substantial depletion of [] [] C'~ [] []
any non-renewable ~d resource?
(Ous I or 1I soils) ~o non-qrlcultm~l us~
o~ impsir the qficultml productivi~ of
nearby prin~ qriculturul Isnd?
undu' ~he Willimnson ~ or any Open
~MPACT
WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant Sl~lflcant Cumulative SOURCE
Sisniflcant (Mlti~ntinn (No
NO ~o~.d) Ml~s~ton
~) Substantially afl~t m~, existing
publio or p. flvam t~er~ntlon ~e!Hty, pndr.
wildllf~ preserve, public trail eithe~ in
existence already or planned for futu~
Implem~t~4on?
D) ~*VAGE/WATER qUALITY
1} Result in a septic field b~ing
mnstn~ed on soil with seve~ drsin~eld [] [] [] [] [] 6. 9
I~rfop~'~ limitatiom?
2) P.~ult in a septic field being
Iomttcd wtthin 50 feet 6fa dminag~ swale 36,39,42
3) P. esu]t in cxtcnsinn ofn ~cwer main
dm~clopmcnt?
4)Substontially el•grade surface or
~rotmdv~ quality, or the public water 20,36~?
.ppi)', includin, but not limited to [] [] [] [] []
t,/pical stormwat~ pollunt~nts (e.g.
sedimont flora cons~tinn.
Ip/dmcarbozm and metals from vehicle
use, nutrients and pesticides Dom
landscapin~ malm~mnce, m~tals and
acidity ~rom minins opemtinns)?
S)Be located in an az~a of'water supply FI 22
concern (such as low fil~ flows)? [] [] [] O'
watm throush infiltration ofreelaimed
watc~ or storm water runoff tlmt bes
contacted pollul~nts from u.-ben.
indus~lal or as~iculturel antlvitlcs?
7)Kcqulrc a NPDES pormit for 20
acres or more?]?
1) Intm*fer~ substantially with ~und 20,36
2) Submntlelly chanL~ thc direction,
rotc or flow or quantity of ~mond-
additions or withdrawals, or ~cavatlons?
3)ChanBe the absorption r~_.
patterns or tbe rat~/amount of anrfnce [] [] [] [] [] ' 20,36
nmoffor wetland?
4) Involve n nnturel drainage ohannel
alter the Iocadons, course or flow of Its
~ Bc Iocet~d in a flondway or
F) FLORA AND FAUNA
divcrsit~ or numbers of ~xistins species,
or by int~odudns new species, or by
m-sl~lctin~ miamtion or mov~ncet?
2) SubmntMly ~cducc thc habitat
YES
WILL ~ PROJECT... s~ si~ificant sianmmmt ."lmmlativ¢. SOURCE
NO ~w~--"~-,
sudsu~m~i sp~ies of plsut or suinml?
4) Involw cuttin& rmnoval of
speoim~ scale tr~..s, whcth~ indigenous [] [] [] [] [] i1,12,41
to the site or introdu~d7
G) TRANSPORTATION
Is submnda] in re!~ to ti~ existing
2) Cause any publio or p~vm ~t
in _~__3on to fun~on~.boiow ~ of 4,20
3) Increase tmeflc hanrds to
podosldsus, bloyolim sud vohi~os~ [] [] [~ [] []
4) Adve~oly &ffm~ aoooss to
comme~ial emblishments, publio
S) Cau~ a reduction in public '
project
6) lncreas~ demand upon ex~ting
n~v pa~ing spncc?
7) ~.hTl~it me ofaltm~tivo modes of
~ampo~on to privato sutomobilo [] [] [] [] [] 5,19.34,35
13) HOUSING
1) Reduce fltc supply of affm'dablo
displnc~nmit of pereom ~rom ti~ir
p~se~t homc?
2) Increasu the cost of housing in the 3, 16
a~a, or sub.~anfially chlmge titc variot~ [] [] [] [] []
ofhouslng typ~s found in the
3) Create a suhtantM demand for new [] [] [] [] [] 3. 16.47
homins?
!) HEALTH AXD
1 ) Involv~ ~he application, us~, [] [] [] [] [] . 32,40.42,43
disposal o~ msuufsum~ of potentially
2) Involve risk of explosion or other
forms ofuncomrollcd re. lus~ of
hazardous substances?
3) lnvolv, the removal or continued [] [] [] [] [] 33.42,43
use of any existing or installation of
6) F~loy teolmoioBy which
event of t bt-.skdown?
WILL ~ PROJECT..: SOURCE
Not Sisnifiunt Sisnificm
NO
mosqultM or c4her dis~ vectors? [] [] [] [] [] 2~
J) AIR QUALITY
2) Violate any smbimzt sir qualiW
existing or Moje, ct~l air qu~l. it~ vlol~on. "
I) B~ sivsrlancc with appllmbl,,
d~J~ Suid¢lh.? [] [] [] [] [] 17
2) C~ .n tnSt~ally Ofl~msiw
.it~ opcn to public vim&'? [] [] [] [] [] 1.17
3) V',eu~lly in~ud~ upon tn ~,s of
-,d,,,ul scenic qualities? [] [] [] [] []
4) Obslmc, view of. sceaic ztd~clh~ [] [] [] [] [] 41,9
visible titan ~h~ valley
hillsides from reside, nfial ~ or public lO, Il. 124, 41
lmds?
7) PMduce 81are fi~m arfificlsl [] O' [] [] []
Iilhtin~ tnum~ upon sdjscent propeflics 1.16
or public romtways?
M) ENERGY
quanfifiu of fossil fuels or non-
rmewable en~B~ sourccs?
2) Remow veSmflon l~ovidin~
~xisiin~ or proposed building?
3) Si~nlfiamfly mdu~ sohr a~c~ss ~o
spu~ or Intve~ yml?
ARCILf~OLOCICAL
1) 13o Io~d in an mu ofpot~nfbl
&'~eo'o,i~ or ~1o~ [] [] [] [] 0 10,42
resources?
O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND
UTILt-~--c~
~-) Indue substantial ~n:~dtt. m' nitro" [] [] [] 1,46.47
lh~ io~alion, dlsUibulto~_ or domiB/of
li~ humm population ~fm a~a?
3) Cam~ substantial impa~ upon. o~
a) P'n~ Pmumion Scrv'h~? [] [] [] [] [] 19,32
b) Pollc~ Sm'vic~s7 33
° °o °oo°
d)~,~..~.~o~ ~,~..~ [] 0 [] [] [] s.,?.,~.
e) M~inl~mc~ of Public Fn~ljtlcs? [] [] [] [] [] 19,20,21
0 Other Govemm,~ntal Sm'vices? [] O [] [] [] 19
4) ~ substanflsl Impact upon
cxisfing utilities or infr~stmcl~r~ in 11~
¢) Storm wa~' m,nnsement7 [] 36,38
~ C,~nm'at~ demand for use of an~
pubH~ flcili~ ~ich e?'~'= Ih~ fllr~lity [] [] [] [] [] 19~0~.2~U I
IFI~.~. THE PROJECT...
YES NO
1. Have the potential to substantiall~ definide the quality of the environment, to
substantially diminish the l~bitu~ of a fish or wildlife allies; to ~ausu a ~
or wildllf~ population m drop b~low s~lf-sustainable lewis; to thr~atan or
eliminat~ a plant or animal community; to miuc~ th~ number of or
restrict the range of a ram or e~a--gered plant or animal; to eliminal~
'important examples of the major l~riods of California's history or
2. Itave the potefitial to achieve short ~ environmental gosh to the
disadvantage of long term enviromnental goals? I I
3. Have ~nvirtmmental hnpaets which are individfially lhnil~l, but
cumulatively eonslderable? ('Cum,!~_'_wly considerable: men~s that the
in~rmnantal effeots of an indiviflosJ proj~t are substantiva whan viewed in
ennjunetion with the eft'eats of past projects, other current projec~ end
probable future projects)
4. Have environmental effects which will c--~ substantial adwr~ impa~ts ~ ~'~
on human beings, either dir~dy or indir~.'tly?
I hcrcby ce~ify tha~ the infonnation provided in ~is Initial Study is true and corr~ to thc best of my knowl~ge and
belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding ar.,~am~ly ~o all questious her~in, and have consulted
appropriate suurce references when necessary to ensure full end complet~ disclosure of relevsut environmental dnt_~: I
hereby acknowledge then any substantial errors d-~-d within ~his Initial Study may eaus~ delay or discontinuance of
related project review procedures, and h~r~by agr~ to hold harmless the City of Cupe~ino. its staff and authorized
agents, from the comequ~neus of such d~hy or discontinuenem.
Preparer's Signature ~
Print Pr~parer's Name
Response CO Item C-1 and F-~:
Because o£ new construction, we propose to remove 9 trees, to midigate~
she slight effect of this removeal, we propose to add 12 ney trees to ;
the site.
IMPACT AREAS:
[] land Use/General Phu [] Geologic/Seismic I4'.~,d [] Resouroe~k~ [] Housing
[] Historic~Amhaeologi~d [] Henith & Safe3, [] Air Qualit3t
[] Public Servi~e~/Utilities [] Energy [] A~sth~
STAFF EVALUATION
On the ~i~ of this Initial Study, th~ F. nviro~m~nt~l R~vi~v Com~it~e~ (F. RC) Finds: S~e~ O~
Tl~: the I:~opo~d project COULD NOT lmw ~ ~_~c~ut effect on fl~e ~v~mment~ ~nd ~ommend~ ~-~
· at · I~GATIVE DECLARATION be
That ~l~ou~h ~he project could l~ve ~ s~ifi~nt effect on
be
~0~ ~A~T ~ORT ~ p~
f./pla nnf nl/intsMy4.doe
The proposed new BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse located at 10690 N. DeAnza Blvd.,
C.upertino is a new 8,349 square foot building slated to replace the existing Peppermill
Coffee Shop and Lounge. The new establishment will indeed add value to the neigh-
boring businesses and communities, project a rich amhitectural aesthetic and bring an
increased sense of place to the site.
A valued gathering place: The BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse features a warm, loft-like
decor punctuated by a grand back bar and cues to the companies brewing heritage in
the form of large beer storage tanks and proprietary brand graphics. The ambiance,
coupled with a large menu designed for broad appeal, make the restaurants popular
gathering places for young and old alike. Additionally, the new site will Uconnect" with
the street scape via two patio areas; an intimate bistro-like environment flanking the
entry and a larger, outdoor area spanning the West elevation. Whether filling bar stools
or high chairs, accommodating large celebrations or intimate couples, the BJ's experi-
ence more closely mirrors the Cupertino demographic.
Architectural Presence: Designed and built in the early sixties, The Peppermill projects
a dated architectural presence. The asian-inspired roof line is elegant but somewhat
incongruent with the buildings use. The proposed new BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse,
which blends contemporary styling with select, restrained applications of nostalgic
materials such as tin comices, used brick and slate, represents an architectural'pres-
ence more representative of the area and its innovative image. Although slightly small-
er than the existing footprint, the massing of the new building is very compatible with
the moderne aesthetic of the Apple Campus to the south and west. The parking
requirement has increased slightly but it falls within the allowable 10% variance.
Because the BJ's Building will be built almost exactly over The Peppe~mill Restaurant
footprint, there will be a minimal effect to the existing landscape surrounding the site. It
is planned to have approximately 9 trees removed but BJ's will mitigate this by planting
an additional 12 trees.
1'7-27
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIKONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
February 13, 2002
As provided by the Environmental Assessroent Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the
Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on Feb~,-ry 13, 2002.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: U-2002-01 (EA-2002-02)
Applicant: Bob Lombardo, Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc.
Location: 10690 North De AnTs Blvd.
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST
Use Pe.~it to demolish an existing 9,079 square foot restaurant and cor~tract an approximately 8,350
square foot restaurant and bar with 406 indoor and outdoor seats.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding
that~roject i~stent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts.
Ste~ Piasecld
Director of Community Development
g/erc/REC EA-2002-02
80BRATO
:I~X) 'l"an'e Avenue
W'e m wziti~ Ihb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t. we hive made~ ~r l~'s
T .m~. ,,nd ?,stnea tm, ttm sh,~ be pamaad to tue,~,-~,*~,~ n~n-res~,k~ad
l~smg c~ the adJscmt PaZ~.L Iocatad at lOgiXl N. De Anaa b, _k~-a~
· l'age I ol I
Exhibit: B
....................................
From: Lam/L. Cannon [~gplan@paol:~ll.net]
Sent: Friday, Mamh 01, 2002 3:10 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: BJ's Restaurant
Colin
Attached are some very rough suggestions for the BJ restaurant elevations. As I discussed with you and Steve
yesterday, I appreciate the. efforts to make changes that the amhitects did after I met with them. However, I
don't think that the minor changes made are going to be enough to strengthen the design of the building
sufficiently and to address the earlier condems.
My suggestions are shown on the elevations and include:
1. Widening the bdck entry element to bdng it into a better proportional relationship to the bigger restaurant
block. ..~
2. Increasifig the use of brick to include pilasters at the building comers and a more continuous brick building
base.
3. A lowering of the mural box to keep it from competing so much with the entry block.
Elimination of the very large awnings in favor of smaller awnings over the windows. The use of umbrellas in the
patio areas would be fine.
4. Unifying the window areas in the front elevation (things now seem rather visually fragmented) by treating
as a continuous window wall. Areas where glass is not possible could be stainless steel inflll panels.
5. And, something really needs to be done at the left side elevation facing the driveway to the Apple project.
This is now the least addressed elevation. I would suggest some projection similar to the mural boxes although
smaller. At the very least, the addition of pilasters as provided for on the right side elevation should be
provided.
Larry
3/4/02
Contemporary shaped awnings
..._-l.~.j
..... ~;i ' ~'''' ~'' ~ ~"-~
[ 2';; ;~'"~ .~:~....
~" ~ .
~-" ~ .......... ,.:~";: .... '~ ~. · ~ ~.. I ~ ~ ~ ~ pllas~m
,'il ;~ '%l 'l.'.~.ll~:~ ..... ~ I :l f I ,~,~, ~~ at corners
~ .... ~] :'f,
- '" 1 ........ :'t""'"x
Infltl ~h stalnle~ s~. I~11 ~h sMInl~ ,~
ps~ ~ glas~ not ~elb~ p~e ~ g~ not
Suggested changes to front e~vat~n
Provide depth relief on this
wall similar to mural boxes
(need not be as deep as mural
, .,. .. =.? ....... ~ .......... _.
Brick pilasters '[ .................... ~-- ........ ........ ' " -- .......~
~ ·
at comers ~ ~
.... Lower mural
~ -- box as
-- ..,~ ·
Suggested changes to le~ side elevation con.nue brick base
M,reh 1, 2002
C~o~ Dgs[~ G~ou~
,", , , ~ .... / ....
,=.,!:, 9~ ' ~ ..... ¢ ....
'~' 'I - ~ ~__~.._
" ~ .....
T ~ "~" : ~ ~'" '~' ~'
~-
'-. ~,~
~ - ~-~-~- ~ ................... ~ ......................................... ~-~
NORTH DE ANZA BLVD. (R/W VARIES)
~ 8/15/2002
co.a~ ~ cu~ m,.- \ PLANTING PALETTE
:,. .}.(. ,' :; ..., ~.~ ...~. 'x,-. ~.....~-...
· ..., ~...- ~ ~
o'. ,.--'" :""' -" "' '"~' ~;::~"" ' '"" ' ~'~---~--" -~~
....... : ::'~';'~' ~ , ~ ' · ' ~A~W~ ~A~
) : . ,:~.:":'":";:':'... ~~
· . ~... ....- ~~~
.]'..~...... 4 SITE I~I~TION SYSTEM NOTE
~-: . ; ..... ,,,.....~~ .1.... :. ~ ~~'
................. ' - ,..,.- ...... · .' ....... . .... .
i k~ ~:-{.:' ~. '.,:,-.:- · :'..'. '.. ~ ~-:.~. · - -.. .. r..-
2:' ~..':; ~ :':' . '""
CITY OF
C U P E P IN 0 PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number .[ .~. Agenda Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT
Teen Commission selection process.
BACKGROUND
As directed, the Teen Commission and staff have reviewed the selection process. The Teen
Commission appointed a five-member subcommittee to make recommendations to the full
commission. The Teen Commission then debated these recommendations at their meeting of
March 21, 2002. During their review of last year's selection process, they also reviewed
Resolution No. 8828, which is the resolution that establishes the rules governing recruitment,
appointment, and re-appointment to city advisory bodies. It is attached for the Council's
information.
The following recommendations were voted upon and approved by the Teen Commission:
· Applicants must be residems of the City of Cupertino.
· Applicant must use the standard application form that is prepared by the City Clerk's office.
· A letter of recommendation should be submitted as part of the application process.
· Commissioners under the age of 18 must have parental pem,ission to participate.
· There will not be a minimum grade point average (GPA) requirement.
· All applicants will be interviewed and appointed by the City Council.
· Returning commissioners should answer the following question, "Why should we consider
you for re-appointment?"
· The Teen Commission should be comprised of 11 members from grades 8 to i 2, with at least
five, but not more than seven, appointed from the previous year's commission.
· Members of the commission should reflect representation from each of the middle and high
schools in Cupertino.
· The Teen Commission remains a Brown Act commission.
· The previous year's commission will select the chair for the new commission.
· The chair is required to be a junior or senior in high school during the year served.
· The Teen Commission will select the vice-chair at the first meeting.
· Terms will be of one-year duration from September 1 to June 15 of each year.
· Commissioners can serve an unlimited number of temps. Council will appoint new members
at the first council meeting in June.
· Seats that are vacated during the term will be re-appointed by the City Council.
· Meeting times and location will be decided at the first meeting.
City Council Staff Report
Teen Commission
April 1, 2002
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
Staff recommends revising the authorizing resolution to accommodate the Teen Commission's
recommendations, with some clarification. The revised resolution is attached.
ISSUES
· Reduction to I 1 members - the commission believes an odd number is better for voting
purposes, so the commission size should be reduced from 12 to 11 members.
· Eliminate of the 7th grade position - the commission felt that the experience level between
seniors and 7th graders was too great and recommended that the commission's middle school
representatives be 8th graders.
· There was a debate about whether or not GPA should be a factor, and it was ultimately
concluded by the commission that the (3PA requirement might prevent good potential
commissioners fi~m applying.
· The most difticult issue for the commission to decide had to do with succession. At this
point, the commissioners are not recommending multiple year, staggered terms.
Commissioners discussed the value to the commission of having experienced members
participate for multiple years. On the other hand, they felt it is important to the commission to
have new voices and enthusiasm in the process. Eventually, the commission made the
recommendation that at least five, but no more than seven, members be appointed from the
previous year's commission (assuming at least five want to be re-appointed). Stafftook this
input and amended the resolution to reflect that input; however, staffis recommending that
the City Council implement this aspect of the recommendation in 2003. By doing this, it will
be possible to re-appoint any of the existing commissioners should they want to continue to
participate for a full term. This year's commission did not start until November and, so in
some ways, had less than a full opportunity to be a part of the commission.
There are three members of the class of 2003 on the current commission and two members of the
class of 2002. As of'next year, a maximum of six of the current crop will be eligible for re-
appointment; this would eliminate the need for City Council to refuse an incumbent
commissioner re-appointment this year.
Staffbelieves that succession will be further discussed through the next school year and that the
commission will debate whether or not staggers! terms are appropriate.
There has been considerable discussion of criteria that Council should use in seleclting
commissioners. Resolution 8828 lists three: "familiarity with the subject, decision-making
ability, and commitment to the position applied for." The Teen Commission has added grade
levels (8th through 12th) and suggests not using grade point average. Further, the proposed
resolution requires only that candidates be residents of Cupertino, regardless of where they go to
school.
City Council St~ffReport
Teen Commission
April 1, 2002
Page 3 of 3
Thc City of Santa Clara has an active youth commission whose members are selected by staff
and confirmed by council. The criteria staffuses are: comunication skills, leadership potential,
enthusiasm/interest, judgment, commitment, and creativity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the resolution next in. order amending Resolution No.
01-199 establishing a Cupertino Teen Commission.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director David app, ~ty Manager
Parks and Recreation
R SOLUTION NO. 8828
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO RESCINDING .RESOLUTION NO. 8819 AND
ESTABLISHING RULES GOVERNING RECRUITMENT,
APPOINTMENT AND RE APPOINTMENT TO CITY ADVISORY
BODIES
WHEREAS, thc City Council of thc City of Cupcrtino wishes to establish
uniform trams and conditions of office to advisory Conunittees and Commissions; and
WHEREAS, thcre arc within th~ City of Cupcrtino many oitiz~ with talent,
expertise and experienc~ who wish to s~rvo thc community; ~nd
WHERF. AS, the City Council believes it is important to pmvid~ these citizens the
opportunity to contribut~ to their community;
NOW, THERIi~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino establishes the following rules governing recruitment, appbintment and re
appointmcnt to City of Cupcrtino advisory bodies.
1. Two months b~forc r,~ular terms expi~ or immcdiatdy following reccipt of a
resil~nation, thc Public Information Officer publishes notic~ of vacancies in thc
Cup~tino $oenc and ncwspapc~ and puts thc information on cable TV.
2. Two deadlines ar~ included in thc notices. Thc application pcriod is cxtonded for
five days if an incumbent has not applied by thc first published de. adlinc. DurinS
thc cxtonded period only non incumbemts may apply.
3. Applications will b~ kept active for a maximum of one ycar aftcr Council revimv.
4. Thosc pct~,ons with applications on file ar~ advised of thc vacancy by thc City
Clerk and may activat~ that applicatiot~ Thc application is not reactivated
automatically. Upon r~ipt of thc notice~ th~ applicant must call thc City Ci~k'a
Office and ststo s/ho wishes to bc considered.
RESOLUTION NO. 8828
5. An npplicant may file for a mnximum of two commissions at any one npplieation
6. A member of nn advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms, must
wait one year before being eligible to apply for the same commission or eommittee.
7. Notice ofvacnncies will be distributed by the City Clerk to the Chnmber of
Commerce, service ~cn~ni-~tlons, and other _orgnni,nt;onS eS uppropriate with
respect to the openings.
8. Notice of the vacancies will be posted in the City Clerk's office.
9. Applicnfion forms will be availnble in the City Clerk's office and will be mailed with
info,~,afion about the openings upon request.
I 0. When the final deadline has passed the City Clerk's O~ce will mail applicants the
d_~t_e, time and location of the interviews along with sample questions to consider.
11. The City Clerks Office will copy the npplieanfs written m~_,~ial for Council
members.. The written material will also be available for public review in the City
Clerks Office and the Cupertino Library.
12. An applicant who is unable to attend the interview may submit a five-minute video
presentation in advance of the interview meeting and may be interviewed by
speakerphone. The tape will be reviewed and the call made at the meeting. The
video would be made by City stnff at the applicant's request and approved by the
City Cled= These costs will be funded by the City.
B. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS
1. After review of the epplications and other material, any additional queStions a
Council member wants to have nsked will be forwarded to the Mayor prior to the
meeting, Follow-up q-_,~tions may be esked by other Council members during the
interviews.
2. All applicants shall be lXesent in the room when the meeting is called to order.
The Mayor will then explain the proo~__s and ask thnt they leave the room until it is
time for their interview. This is optional es the meeting is public. Aftcr the
applicant is interviewed, s/he may choose to remain in the room.
3. The order in which interviews arc scheduled to take place will be determined by a
drawing of names. This will be done in advance by the City Clerk.
RESOLUTION NO. 8828
4. Int~vi~ are infom,al and usually last 5-10 minutes. Council members are
looking for.
(a) familiarity with the subjecg
(b) decision-making ability;
(¢) commitment to the position applied for.
5. Appointment will be made following a vote in lmbli¢.' Ballots will be distributed,
the Council members will vote and sign the ballots. Vote will be announced by
the City Clerk. The number of ballots will be determined by the number of
applicants and vacanoios. (Guidelines for determining the number of ballots is
attached Exhibit 'A~.)
6. Following appoinhuents, all applicants will be sent a letter and applications will
be k~t for one year.
7. Presentation of Certificate of Appo'mtment will be scheduled for the next Council
meeting~
C. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. If a vacancy occm3 for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that
advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, thc
unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required
posting of the vacancy.
2. Restrictions listed in this resolution do not apply to temporary appointments for
unexpired terms.
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
(a) A member misses more than three consecutive meetings.
(b) A member misses 25% of thc body's meetings in a calendar yenr.
4. No application shall be ac, ccpted after thc deadline~
5. All provisions of this resolution shall apply unless otherwise decided by the City
Council on a case by case basis.
RESOIJ. rl]ON NO. 8828
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a m~ula~ meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this ls~ day of February , 1993 by the following vote:
V~ IVl~mbers ofth~ City
AYES: l)eau, (;oldman, Koppel, Sorenseu, Szabo
NOES: l~one
ABSENT:
ABSTA~]~I l~one
ATI~ST: APPROV]~D:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius /s/ Nick Szabo
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
Resolution No. gg2g Page
"- Exhibit "A"
GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Vacancies Applicants Ballots
1 1-5
6.10 2
more than 10 3
2 1-7 1
8-12 2
mom than 12 3
3 1-9 1
10-14 2
more than 14 3
RESOLUTION NO. 02-057
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-199
ESTABLISHING A CUPERTINO TEEN COMMISSION
WHEREAS, providing activities and opportunities for youth is a high priority of the
Cupertino City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has det=,~ined that the community is best served in this
endeavor by establi.~hing a Teen Co~nmission to ~vork with Parks and Rooreation staff on tho
dovelopment, promotion, and evaluation of aofiviti~s for youth advise the Council and Parks and
Recreation staff on issues and projects important to youth; and
'WHEREAS, the Council has elected to appoint a Teen Commission for the City of
Cupertino in reco~onition of the importance of their charge;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council create the Cupertino
Teen Commission according to the following:
The Cupertino Teen Commission will be comprised ofi~vd~v~ 11 members, at least one from
each grade ~ 8 through 12. Membership on the Commission will reflect representation to the
extent possible from each of the middle schools and high schools in Cupertino. Membership
in the Commission will be limited to Cupertino residents. Members who reside in Cupertino
may attend schools outside of the city limits.
· The members of the Teen Commission shall be appointed by the City Council following an
application period~-, pursuant to the recruitment process outlined in Resolution 8828, with
the following exceptions: Applicants under the age of 18 must have permission of a parent
or guardian to participate in the Teen Commission. The Parks and Recreation Department
will work with the City Clerk to notice vacancies so that outreach to schools and youth
organizations is accomplishe~l A letter of recommendation shall be submitted as part of the
application process.
· The te~ia of office of each commissioner shall be one school year, beginning in September
with each new school year. Teen Commissioners can serve unlimited, consecutive terms
through high school graduation.
· None of the Teen Commissioners shall be officials or employees of the City of Cupertino nor
related by blood or marriage to any member of the Teen Commission, the City Manager, or
staff assigned to the commizsiort
Resolution No. 02-057
Page 2 of 2
· The Commission shall elect a chair and vice-chair each year. The Chair shall be a junior or
senior in high school during the year served. The Chair shall have at least one year's
experience on the Teen Commissior~
· Mcetingn ~vill bo hold V, vioe monthly at a rogular time and plaoo to be dete~wined by the
Commission at the- first mooting of each sohool yoar Meeting times and location will be
decided by the commission at the first meeting of the year, and will be adopted as the annual
meeting schedule pursuant to the Brown ,4ct.
· Actions taken by the Commission will be by majority vote.
· The Depm huent of Parks and Recreation will provide staff support to the Teen Commission
and will post meeting agevcl~.~.
· Commencing in 2003, at least five (5), but no more than seven (7) Teen Commissioners shall
be appointed from the previous year's commission, assuming commissioners apply for re-
appointment.
· The powers and function of the Teen Commission will be to a~i~at staff in tho development,
promotion, and evaluation of teen progroma and aotivitieo to enhanoe the growth and
development of youth, advise the City Counci] and staff on issues and projects important to
youth.
IT IS NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that
a Teen Commission be created to better serve Cupertino youth.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this Ist day of April 2002 by the following vote:
Vote Members o__f the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
-City Hall
_. i 0300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY 0[: Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPB1JINO (408)777-3366
DEPAKTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~ ~-~ Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of California Law Enfomement Equipment Program (CLEEP) High Technology
Grant Allocation.
BACKGROUND
This year. the State of California awarded a funding source for the promotion of
technology in the area of Public Safety. This Budget Act item 9210-108-0001 provides
Cupertino with $45,810 for fiscal year 2001/02.
USE OF FUNDS
Cities are required to appropriate CLEEP revenues to fund technology for municipal
police services. The funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the
Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides
police services to the city. Captain Dennis Bacon has submitted the attached
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the sheriff's request for the expenditure
of CLEEP funds.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A. Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 02-058
A RESOLUTION OF TIt~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING REQUEST FROM SHERIFF FOR USE
OF BUDGET ACT ITI~.M 9210-108-0001
CALIFORNIA LAW ~,NFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP)
HIGH TI~,CIINOLOGY GRANT $45,810
WHEREAS, Budget Act Item 9210-108-0001 was enacted as part of the state budget
program; and
WHEREAS, the bill establishes the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program
(CLEEP) High Technology C-rant program and appropriates $35,400,000 from the state general
fund for the 2001-02 fiscal year and the City of Cupertino's per capita share is $45,810 for fiscal
year 2001-02; and
WHEREAS, the CLEEPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of
ensuring public safety through high technology; and
WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate CLEEPS revenues to fund high technology
municipal police services; and
WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the
Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police
services for that city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves the Sheriff's request for the expenditures of Budget Item 9210-108-0001
California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEPS) High Technology Grant.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of April 2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP)
Fiscal Year 200'1102
Program Allocation
Building Security Plan/Employee Badges $25,000
Mapguide Software for Crime Tracking (25%) $5,000
Portable Motorola Radio - Code Enforcement $3,500
Santa Clara County Sheriff -
Installation and training of the new
fingerprint machine in Cupertino $12,310
$45,810
City Hnll
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPEK INO (408)777-3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. I D Meefng Date: April 1, 2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funding Allocation
BACKGROUND
AB3229 (Brulte) was enacted as part of the state budget package. The bill establishes the COPS
program and appropriates $100 million from the state general fund for the 2001-02 fiscal year.
The COPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of ensuring public safety.
The City of Cupertino has received $102,599 for fiscal year 2001-02.
USE OF FUNDS
Cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund front line municipal police services.
This can include anti-gang and community crime prevention programs. The funds are to be
appropriated pursuant to a written request from the Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of
the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city. Capt. Dennis Bacon has
submitted the attached recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the sheriff's request for the expenditure of
COPS funds.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A. Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 02-059
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING REQUEST FROM SHERIFF FOR USE
OF AB 3229 (BRULTE) CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM FUNDS OF $102,599
WHEREAS, AB 3229 (Brulte) was enacted as part of the state budget program; and
WHEREAS, the bill establishes the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program
and appropriates $100 million from the state general fund for the 2001-02 fiscal year and the
City of Cupertino's per capita share is $102,599 for fiscal year 2001-02; and
WHEREAS, the COPS program provides funding for local agencies for the purpose of
ensuring public safety; and
WHEREAS, cities are required to appropriate COPS revenues to fund fiont line
municipal police services which can include anti-gang and community crime prevention
programs; and
WHEREAS, these funds are to be appropriated pursuant to a written request from the
Chief of Police or the Chief Administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police
services for that city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby approves the Sheriff's request for the expenditures of AB 3229 Citizens' Option for
Public Safety (COPS) funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1st day of April 2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITIZEN'S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
Fiscal Year 2001102
Program Allocation
School Resource Officer (ll3rd) $45,834
Public Dialogue Consortium -
Neighborhood Leader Program $20,000
Santa Clara County Sheriff-
Installation, training and operation of new
fingerprint machine in Cupertino $36,765
$102,599
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
.... Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
C]'fY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3256
CUPERTINO (405)?77-3175
OFFICE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM NO. I'"~ MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT
Nuisance Abatement at 10200 Stem Ave. Recovery of Costs
BACKGROUND
Based on the City Council's findings January 7, 2002, Resolution No. 02-008 was adopted declaring
the stored trash and debris on the property a public nuisance. Staff was ordered to hire a contractor and
· - abate said nuisance. On Janauary 31, 2002 an abatement warrant was obtained, and the contractor was
called to abate the nuisance. On February 15, 2002, a letter was sent to the property owner advising him
that staff and the contractor would enter his property on February 19, 2002 and clean it under direction
of the warrant. On February 19, 2002, staff and the contractor entered the property, and all debris and
trash was removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff recommendation that all costs associated with this proceeding be assessed to the property
owner via a lien. A cost breakdown is attached.
Submitted by: Approved for submission to the
City Council:
David W. Knapp
' Gary Kornahens
Code Enforcement Officer City Manager
~ City of Cupertino
Code Enforcement Office
CITY OF 10300 Tone Avenue
CUPEP TINO c. .o.c.,o14
(4011) 777-3182 or (408) 777-3175 Fax
Memorandum
TO: City Clerk
From: Gary Kornahrens, Code Enforcement Officer ~J
Subject: 10200 Stern Ave. Nuisance .Abatement Accounting
Date: March 5, 2002
Invoice from Apple Tractor in the amount of $1,280.00
Code Enforcement Officer stafftime is 13 hours x $41.80 per hour = $543.40
City Attorney's Office Stafftime is 3.5 hours x $55.54 per hour = $194.39
Total = $2,017.79
Note: The hourly rate for City Staff includes 40% for overhead costs.
Apple's Tractor II, Inc.
P.O. Box 354
Norwalk, CA 90651-0354
(562) 868-1494 Invoice
lnvoic~ #: 00005020
Date: 2/26/02
Ship Via: Best Way
Page: 1
Bill To: Ship To:
City of Cupertino City of Cupertino
Code Enforcement 10200 Stern Avenue
10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014
Cupertino, CA 95014
Description Amoun! Tx
2/19/02 Debris Removal $1,280.00
Thank you for your business. If payment is not made in 30 days a Freight: $0.00
1.5% finance charge will be applied. Sales Tax: $0.00
Total Amount: $1,280.00
Your Order #: Gary Komahrens Amount
Shipping Date: 2/19/02 Applied: $0.00
Terms: Net 30 Balance Due: $1,280.00
RESOLUTION NO. 02-060
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDERING
A SPECIAL ASSESSIVI~NT AGAINST
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10200 STERN
AVENUE, CUPERTINO (APN 375 12 002)
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the City of Cupertlno Municipal Code, the City
Council of the City of Cupertino had declared the residence located at 10200 Stem
Avenue, Cupertino, California (APN 375 12 002) a public nuisance, and
Whereas, on JanuAry 7, 2002, the City Council directed that said nuisance be abated by
the owner within a proscribed period of time or, if not so abated by the owner, that
City personnel would cause said abatement to occur.
Whereas, the City's Code Enforcement Officer caused the abatement of said nuisance and
kept an itemized account of ail expenses incurred by the City and prepared a
report specifying the work done, the report and itemized account of which are
attached herewith as Exhibit A; and,
Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code, the clerk has
caused ail notices required by law to be given at least 15 days prior to this hearing;
and
Whereas, the following persons have filed written protests with the clerk and are attached
herewith as Exhibit B:
NOW, IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED:
1) Pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the City Council of
Cupertino, after hearing, hereby confLrms the proposed assessment in the amount
of $2,017.74 shall be assessed against the property located at 10200 Stero Avenue,
Cupertino, California (APN 375 12 002)
02-060 2
2) The City Council further orders said charges shall be assessed against the property
as a special assessment;
3) The City Council further directs the clerk to cause certified copies of the
assessment be reported to the assessor and tax collector to be placed on the
assessment roll and cost assessed as a lien against the property to be payable in
five equal ~ll, ln'~li~] installments bearing interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum
to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary property taxes
are collected;
4) The lien shall continue until the assessment and all interest due and payable
thereon are paid;
5) All monies recovered by payment of the assessment shall be paid to the
treasurer of the City of Cupertino to be credited to the repair and demolition fund.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st
day of April 2002 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk lVlayor, CityofCupertino
PC/DIR/RES/R3702 2
.~ City Hall
10300 Ton~ Avenue
Cupm'tlno, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF (408) 777-3354
CU PE INO (408)T77-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM I ~ AGENDA DATE Aoril 1.2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Proposed Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission
BACKGROUND
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Chaha:an David Greenstein had
proposed converting the BPAC from a Committee to the more formal designation as a
City Conunission. The BPAC discussed the matter at its January 17, 2002 Meeting and
reviewed drafts prepared by Mr. Greenstein ora proposed set of bylaws and ordnances.
Mr. Greenstein has prepared a revised set of bylaws and ordinances following discussion
and review by BPAC members. BPAC reviewed the final proposal at its February 21
Meeting and unanimously recommended that the Council approve renaming the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Conunittee as the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission.
This action is similar to that approved by the Council on March 4, 2002 renaming the
Housing Committee as the Housing Commission. If the Council supports this proposal by'
the BPAC, staffwill bring forward the appropriate documents for Council consideration
to establish the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
The Cupertino BPAC recommends that the City Council approve the renaming of the
Committee to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission and request that staff report
back to Council with the appropriate ordnance amendments to implement this change.
Submitted by:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr.
Director of Public Works
ORDINANCE NO. 1893
AN ORDINANCE OF TUE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTER 3~,5, SALE OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for efficient disposal of surplus
supplies and equipment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 3.25 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 3.25
SALE OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Sections:
3.25.010 Adoption of sales system
3.25.020 Surplus Sales Officer
3.25.030 Centralized sales
3.25.040 Notice of surplus status
3.25.050 Surplus by auction only
3.25.060 Bidding and payment
3.25.070 Open market sales
3.25.080 Sales to other public agencies
3.25.090 Sales to officials, officers and
employees of the City
~ Transfers to eertain public
ageneies and eharitablc
eorporfaions
3.25.010 Adoption of sales system.
In order to establish efficient procedures for the sale of surplus supplies and
equipment at the highest possible return, to exercise positive financial control over such
sales, and to define clearly the authority for the administration of these functions, a
surplus sales system is adopted. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977)
3.25.020 Surplus Sales Officer.
The City Manager or appointee shall be and is appointed to perfo.,~ the functions of
the Surplus Sales Officer for the City and shall have the responsibility and authority to:
A. Sell surplus supplies and equipment as may be required by any department or other
agency of the City in accordance with procedures prescribed either by this chapter, or by
'-- such administrative rules and regulations as the Surplus Sales Officer may adopt purso~nt
Ordinance No. 1893 2
thereto;
B. Prepare and adopt adminislrative roles and regulations not in conflict with the
provisions of this chapter for the purpose of carrying out the requirements and intent of
this surplus sales system. (Ord. 1061, 1980: Ord. 808 (pan), 1977)
3.25.030 Centralized sales
A. To the extent that efficiency and fairness may best be achieved in thc sales of
surplus supplies and equipment of the City, the acceptance of all bids and the
sales of all depa~tutent or agency stuplns supplies and equipment shall be
centralized under the Surplus Sales Officer.
B. When the provisions and intent of this chapter may best be served by so
doing, the Surplus Sales Officer may authorize, in writing, any department or
agency of the City to investigate, solicit bids, or to negotiate the sale of surplus
supplies and equipment of the depa~h~ent or agency, independently of the
centralized sales system, provided that such actions shall be done in confo,uity
with the procedures prescribed either by this chapter, or by duly adopted
administrative rules and regulations pertaining thereto. (Ord. 808 (pan), 1977)
3.25.040 Notice of surplus status
All departments and agencies of the City shall notify the Surplus Sales Officer
whenever it is determined that such department or agencies have surplus supplies
or equipment which should be sold. Said notification shall be a prerequisite to the
salc of any surplus supplies and equipment. (Ord. 808 (pan), 1977)
3.25.050 Surplus by auction only
A. Sales of surplus supplies and equipment which, in the opinion of the Surplus Sales
Officer, have an estimated individual value of one thousand dollars two thousand.
five hundred dollars ($2,500) or more, shall be made only by means of public
auctions held under the authority and scrutiny of the Surplus Sales Officer.
B. All such auction sales shall be with reserve, and the Surplus Salcs Officer can
withdraw the surplus items at any time prior to the completion of the sale. (Ord. 808
(pan), 1977)
3.25.060 Bidding and payment
All sales of surplus supplies and equipment made by public auction, as set forth in
Section 3.25.050, shall be to the highest bidder pursuant to the procedure
hereinafter described:
A. Notices inviting bids shall be prepared, published once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated within the City, and distributed to
persons who have requested to be notified of such bidding opportunities. The
notices shall contain a description of the items to be auctioned, shall state where
and when the items may be viewed prior to the auction, and shall state the time
and place of the auction.
B. All sales must be completed on the day of the auction, and payment may be
made only by cash, certified check, cashier's check or money order.
C. On refusal or failure of the successful bidder to complete the sale as
Ordinance No. 1893 3
prescribed above, the sale may be made to the next highest bidder. (Ord. g0g
(part), 1977)
3.25.070 Open market sales
Surplus supplies and equipment may be sold on the open market by the Surplus Sales
Officer without regard to formal bidding procedures set forth in Section 3.25.060 when,
in his opinion, the individual estimated value of the supplies or equipment is less than ot~
thousand dollars two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500); provided, however, that,
whenever practicable, price offers shall be solicited either orally or in writing and the sale
made to the highest responsible bidder. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977)
3.25.080 Sales to other public agencies.
There is excepted from the provisions of this chapter sales of surplus supplies and
equipment to any other public agency created under the laws of the state or the
United States government. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977)
3.25.090 Sales to offieials, officers and employees of the City
Officials, officers, and employees (except for the surplus sales o.~cers), when not
othen~ise prohibited by law, may purchase surplus supplies and equipment offered for
sale under the provisions of this chapter. IIo~vever, said purehases may only be mode at
public auction, unle~ othorwiao authorized by the City Couneil. However, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Council, said purchases may only be made at public
auction or public sale. The surplus Sales Oj~icer shall develop written procedures to
ensure that all sales to City employees are bona fide "arm's length" transactions. (Ord.
808 (part), 1977)
3.25.100 Trnnsfera to eertnin publie ngeneies nnd ehnritnble eorporntions
A. Notxvithstanding any other provision of this ohaptor to thc contrary, the City
Council may approve thc trausfer of surplus supplies and equipment to a publie
agency or a oharitable eorpomtion without receipt of valuable consideration under
the follo~ving conditions:
1. The surplus supplies and oquipment mu~t bc utilizod only for the benefit of
the residonts of Cuportino;
2. Thc fair markot value of said surplus supplies and equipment shall not exceed
five thousand dollars.
B. As used in this seotion, the term oharitable oorporation means a nonprofit
corporation whieh is granted eharitable status under the provisions of §501(o)(3)
of the Intemai Revenue Code. (Ord. 1869 § 1, 2001)
Ordinan~ No. 1893 4
This ord~n-nce shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days afar its passage.
INTRODUCED at'a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the
lgth day of March 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino the 1st day of April 2002, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
THE
FOLLOWING
ITEMS
WERE
PRESENTED
AT THE
MEETING
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GARY R. SCHMIDT, No. 36085
Appellant,
VS.
F I L E O
CO~~ DE~LOPME~ FOR
WASHOE COUP; D~ ~ 0~ ~
DIETE~CH; MI~E ~ER; ~D ~ ~.~
W~HOE COUN~ CO~ISSIO~RS, s~ ~--~~
~spondents.
ORDER OF RE~RS~L ~ RE~
This is a proper person appeal ~rom a district court order that
granted a motion to dismiss appellant's compl-~nt for damages Rnd denied
injunctive relief. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court erred in dismissing Schmidt's complaint for damages and
denying permanent injunctive relief.
The district court dismissed Schmidt's complaint for f,i!ure to
satisfy the $7,500 jurisdictional amount in controversy necessary to invoke
the jurisdiction of the district court.~ When a compl-lnt seeks an
vnllquidated amount of damages, as here, the sum pleaded by the plslntiff
should control unless it is clear that jurisdiction is unattainable.2 Here,
~See Ney. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 4.370(1)(b); Morrison v. Beach City
LLC., 116 Ney. 34, 991 P.2d 982 (2000).
2See Deutsch v. Hewes Street Realty Corooration, 359 F.2d 96, 99-
100 (2d Cir. 1966) (holding that in a torts case, where a plaintiff seeks
unliquidated damages, the sum pleaded by the plaintiff should generally
control); see also Maldonado v. Suoerior Court (Corrigan),. 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d
805, 808 (Ct. App. 1996) ("'The [trial] court may believe it highly u~lil~ely
that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to
defeat jurisdiction .... '") (quoting Walker v. Superior Court, 807 P.2d 418,
426 (Cal. 1991)).
N~
Schmidt alleged damages in excess of $10,000, in part, {or emotional
distress, embarrassment, and shock. Whether he is likely to prevail on
the merits is not the proper question when determin~ug subject matter
jurisdiction; instead a court should "look[ ] to the possibility of
jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability? Because it
was not legally certain that Schmidt could not recover damages in excess
of $7,500, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Schmidt's
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court also summarily denied Scl~rnidt's application
for a permanent injunction. Because Schmidt's opposition to the motion to
dismiss included matters outside the pleadings, and the district cour~
considered evidence outside the plea~gs, the order denying injunctive
relief must be treated as one granting s~mmary judgment.4 Respondents
argue that the denial of injunctive relief was proper because Schmidt
cannot show an ongoing or future threat that respondents will once
deny Schmidt access to public records, or interfere with his rights to
conduct normal business with respondent V~ashoe County. They also
point to NRS 239.011, which ~llows an application to the courts for an
order permitting the inspection of public records, as an adequate remedy
at law for Schmidt. The existence of a legal remedy, however, does not
preclude injunctive relief when there is a l~l~elihood of multiplicity of.
suits.8 The record contains some evidence that respondents denied
SMaldonado, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 808.
4See NRCP 12(c); Lumbermen's Underwriting v. RCR Plumbine, 114
Ney. 1231, 969 P.2d 301 (1998).
5See Lee v. Bickell, 292 U.S. 415, 421 (1934) (stating that the
necessity for multiplicity of actions for legal remedy alone is suff;,,cient to
uphold an injunction).
Sc~midt access to public records after initially agreeing to provide him
access. Thus, we conclude that there remain genuine issues of material
fact regarding Sc~midt's claim for injunctive relief, and that 'the district
court erred in granting summary judgment for respondents on this claim.
Based on the foregoing, we REVERSE the district court's order
and REMAND for further proceeS~,~gs consistent with this order.
cc: Hon. Steven P. Elliott, District Judge '
Washoe County District Attorney
Gary R. Schmidt
Washoe District Court Clerk
1. The hearing before the Planning Commission
was "spoiled" by the provision of inaccurate
and incorrect information on a material
matter in response to a direct question by the
Commission. Therefore the Council should
either grant the requested temporary use
extension or remand the matter back to the
Planning Commission for re-hearing.
Documents, photos, and a Declaration are attached that attest to that information that was
matcrially inaccuratc and incorrcct was providcd to thc Planning Commission as a dircct
response to a direct question and inquire. It is presumed that the provision of this
inaccuratc and crroncous info.uation was an inadvcrtcnt crror on thc part of thc City's
Then Commissioner Kwok inquired of staff if there had been any other precedents set.
Hc inquircd if anyonc clsc had cvcr comc forward with a formal rcqucst for a tcmporary
use of parking in a similar zone or area and if any such request had ever been acted upon
by thc City. Ms. Wordcll answcrcd that thcrc had only bccn gcncral inquircs but no
fo..~al request or applications had ever been made and therefor no fo.~al denials or
granting of similar tcmporaty usc pcrmits had cvcr bccn actcd upon.
This answer was not acorrate or correct in that a temporary use permit was granted for
parking on Torrc Avc. in 1984 that was apparently continued and cxtcnded all thc way up
and until 1995.
The situation was s/milar in that the temporary use was granted and extended in order to
allow for appropriate planning and preparation for the eventual ultimate development
and use of the parcel.
The video tape of the Planning Commission heating was previously submitted to the
Council for thc rccord bcforc it and is avallablc for thcir vicwing.
DECLARATION OR GARY R. SCHMIDT APRIL 2002
I have met with Colin Yung, Senior Planner, for the City of Cupertino and discussed the
history of thc so callcd "trianglc" parccl on Torrc Avc. and thc acrial photos of samc which arc
attached hereto. Mr. Young's tenure with the City of Cupertino goes back to 1990. He had no
dircct personal knowlcdgc of thc situation prior to1990. Thc photos and thc attached minutcs
and staff ~ort reflect that thc lot on Torre was granted a temporary use permit for parking by
thc City Council of Cupcrtino in 1984 for a 5 ycar pcriod and that it was cxtcndcd for 8 months
at its original expiration. These documents have been reviewed by Mr. Yung. Although I have
made rcpcatcd Public Rccords rcqucsts I have bccn unablc to uncovcr furthcr official action on
this Temporary Parking Lot beyond 1990. However, Mr. Yung's and my recollections agree and
concur that it continucd to bc uscd as a parking lot intermittently for construction vchiclcs and
construction related vehicles as well as automobiles until approximately 1995 at which time
condos wcrc built on thc propcrty. Wc both concur that during thc lattcr poriod (1990-1995) thc
lot was only secured by a chain across the driveway entrance and that pede~i~ians could freely
cntcr upon and./or cross thc lot. I can attcst by pcrsonal obscrvation that prior to 1990 thcrc was
not even a chain across the entrance, it appeared basically to be accessible by the public, and that
thcrc wcre onc to two hundrcd or so vchiclcs that uscd thc lot daily. Wc concurrcd, as can bc
dete,~ined and verified by the areal photos, that the lot was immediately adjacent to the street,
TOITC Arc., and had vil~ally no vistlal screening or landscapc buffering. It also had many more
daily trips generated from it then the subject Blaney lot of thc current application. Additionally
it was uscd vchiclcs including construction cquipmcnt bcing parked on thc Torre lot, not ncw
Honda cars. This clearly illustrates that the City of Cupertino has previously allowed a
substantially similar "Tcmporary" parking usc for approximatcly 10 ycars for similar rcasons of
allowing ample time to develop optimum ultimate development plans for the permanent
dcvclopmcnt and usc of thc prospcctivc parccls. It is obvious that that 10 ycar tcmporary usc on
Torre Ave. had a substantially greater negative impact on the neighborhood then the current
Blancy application and was no whcrc near as wcll scrccned or hiddcn. It was virtually in plain
site to everyone that passed by he they pedeai~ian or vehicular driver or passenger.
I declare under penalty of perjury under California law that the forgoing is true and correct
except to those matters that are stated on my info~,:~ation and belief and to those maters I believe
Gary R. Schmidt
IO3OC) Toff1 Aver44e Cu~lino, C:.lilemil 95014 (4C~252-4505
~ -'~'~ N-~w~R __ ~ ~ATE Dec~ber 4. 1989
Application No(s): 18-U-84
Applicant: Cit~ Center Associates
Property O~ner: City Oenter Associates
Location: T~,,A~=Z7 Darkir~ area ~t of T~e Avenue, 600'
south of Stev-~ns C~-~ak Blvd.
A re~t to mn~ 18+84 to allow the cc~tim,~d use of a 2.4 acre
site as a ~ parki~ lot, an~ to Win the ~-o~ss of defin/ng
~~s, a parkin~ structure, a 140,000 sq. ft. offioe ar~ tem~xary
use of the subject 2.4 acre site fc~ park/rig. ~le oc~4~tio~ of
sta*~ that the temporary use permit wss valid f~ a five year period,
"af~. which the use permit sb~]l be reopened t~ c~F~ider a
~b_m reference to an open space designatic~ relates to a conditic~ of
ap~xoval fc~ the =igina] _~cc~r~ mi zc~g plan (2-z-83), whi.'ch was
ack~ce~ ~m July of 1983. co~{ti~ 16 of the zcni~ plan 1L4ted
ap~x~a~ uses ar~ s~m~ footages, followed Dy a paragraph which
site an~ ~-~cerly of Torre Avenue as shown in E~hibit A, seom~
In the S~ring of 1988, ~ Development sought approval of a zone
cha.~ ar~ use ~=mit to ~-k a ~man~Z use for the triangle
px~perty. Although the zoning ar~ use permit were effectively denied
phasing, ~oth the Planmin~ O~.;.~i~ an~ City Cou~ det~_-rmined that
.- City (~ Associatu~ (18-9-84) 12/4/89
Page - 2 -
residents livir~ in th~ Waterfall amd Town __mentor ~ (Pirm
r~ that ~ P~ 6 ..... ~i~ ~ ~ ~1 ~
~ 1984 ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~-, ~t ~
~ ~ ~ 27, 1989 Pi~ ~...~i~~ ~~
~ ~i~ of ~ ~l~~~~a~~~
~it ~ ~ ~ly ~~,t~ ~~~ly
III. ~$~~
~ pln~ n.~..i~i~ ~ ~1~. 4226 ~~ ~
~1~ ~. 4227, ~~:t~t~of ~ l~a~
f~li~ f= ~ 8
~ a~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 1990.
- Ci~ ~ ~ ~ ~il 18, S88
P~ D~ ~ ~y 18, SSS
- Ci~ ~k ~ ~ of ~ 20, 1984
- ci~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~y 26, 198s ~1~ 2-z-8s
- P~i~ ~..4~26 ~ 4227
- ~ ~ 11/27/89 ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~
- T~ ~ 11/27/89 ~ ~ ~
.
MINUI]~ ~ ~ ~ 4, 1989
~--
to talk with the nai~x=s. ~e=~dhe~sapark, he
Just .~k~'t wa~t to (k~ate o~e. ~Ael~~. re~x~
said this site was c=sidered as ~ si~ ~ a ~ offi~
~ offi~
~, it's f~- ~e
~le ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~fic
It ~ ~ ~ ~. ~, ~.~ ~. ~ Public hearin~
~ ~ ~ly ~ ~ ~ (4-0) ~ ~ ~ closed
~1t~ a.
of b ~tf
-11-
~ OF ~ ~ 4, 1989 ~ (XXI~CIL
(C~"-781)
Jse of "tri- Of the lot as a parking facility be ~ for an
ingle" lot 8-~l~ch period; ~ that staff illitiate a ~ with
~s parking clevel~ ~ re~-e~tive~ of ~ W~t/_~a11 ~ TOkai
Lot continued CWlter Towrlxla~ re~iderglial C~JuaalrtitiE~ tO
-- potential opti=~ for the 2.4 acre ~cria~le"
located _~_~rly
objective of t. be°~ ~j~a~tO Tc~re Averse, the
foster
- c~--tiws of all i:~--'t~e~; the ~,,,,~ly
applicati~ for fha property ~xic~ will deliria the
use and design for the P~,tx~
2. There is a 50 year history of the continuous
use of the subject parcel for the parking of
vehicles. There is a serious question as to
whether or not a Conditional Use Permit is
even required for the requested use. In any
event the lot is sure to be used for the parking
of vehicles until its ultimate development
regardless of the outcome of this application
process. The only question is whether it well
be used for the parking of used vehicles for
the surrounding businesses or new Honda
automobiles for Stevens Creek Honda.
Additionally, at issue is whether or not the
City of Cupertino will continue to try to
and/or be successful in depriving the
applicant of the moderate amount of income
from the property in the interim which he is
currently receiving from Stevens Creek
Honda.
Photos and a declaration are attached that attest to the fact that the lot has lr~"n used for
parking sincc carly in thc 1950's.
DECLARATION OR GARY IL SCHMIDT APRIL 2002
I have had business and/or property imercsts in Cupertino at or contiguous to the subject
applicant Blancy Ave. parcel since thc early 1970's. As a teenager in thc 1950's I attended
dances at the Monta Vista Veterans Hall building. I graduated fxom Covington Jr. High School
in 1957 and from Los Altos High School in 1961. I furthor graduated from San Jose State
University in 1966 with a BA in Economics and minor fields of study in Computer Sciences and
Real Estate. I worked at Lockheed in Sunnyvale from 1961 through 1966. I lived in Sunnyvale
just 2 miles from Cuppertino for 15 years. I lived up Deanza Boulevard off of Prospect for
almost ten years. I was married in Cupertino in 1975. I have been familiar with thc gcncral
community for almost ½ of a century and certainly have bc~n very familiar with the
Blaney/Stcvens Creek area for over 30 years. I have absolute knowledge that thc subject
property has been used continually for l~rking of ears since the early 1970's and I am informed
and therefor believe that it has been used contiw~Ally for the parking of cars since thc early
1950's
I declare under penalty of perjury under California law that the forgoing is true and correct
cxccpt to thosc mattcrs that arc statcd on my info.~ation and bclicf and to thosc matcrs I bclicvc
3. The current and requested continued
temporary use is allowed on the subject parcel
with a Conditional Use Permit. This permit
has been granted on this parcel three times in
the very recent past, onceby the Planning
Director Bob Cowan, and twice by the
Planning Com...issiun. 'There are-no changed
circumstances since the ..original-permits were
· granted. -T-here-have been no-supportable
· grounds .under (he zoning ~:odes, the General
orSpecificPlan, caselaw, and/or.the facts.and
testimony presented which would justify a
denial of this application.
Cupertino codes cite Conditional Use Permit requirements NOT Special Use Permit
· t~cluircm~nts tbe~ said uses atcatlowabl~ within thcirprospcctivc ames.but thc. City
may place Conditions on them to mitigate any negative impacts.
The Heart of the City Planned Development Zone allows for Residential, Office and
.Commercial.uses.
Commercial Parking and Garages, Automobile Sales and Rentals, and other commercial
· uscs whieh.do.not ~-~ate si?if~mt adversc impacts tothc sun'ounding.arca duc to
"odor, dust, fumes, glare, radiation, vibration, noise, h-affic, or litter" are permitted uses
· .in the-zone.
There have been no claims of any adverse impacts for the requested use which has been
· ongoing for.ovcr two.-ycars.,Ict-atonc, any significant impacts. Thcrc.havc bccn no public
complaints about the use and there has been no public opposition to the use.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 22, 2001
5. Application No.: 09-U-01
Applicant: Gary Schmidt
Location: 19961 So. Blaney Avenue
Use permit for continued use ofa shoppiBg center parking lot for car storage
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Request postponement to October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
Chair Kwok indicated that a request for postponement had been received from Mr. Schmidt, aqd
the applicant was requesting that a site visit be conducted with staff.
Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, said that staff did not
feel a continuance of the application was warranted, and that he felt it would be highly unusual to
continue a project of this scale for the purpose of a site visit. He said both staff and the applicant
could adequately explain the progress oftbe project without the need for a site visit.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the
staff report. She noted that the intent of the various use permits over the last two-and-a- half years
were for interim use, not only for the dealer that wanted to store the cars, but also because the
applicant was pursuing other uses for the property. She noted that staff cited a General Plan
policy addressing the Stevens Creek area and the Heart of the City Specific Plan area as being a
unique pedestrian oriented area; and it was considered through these various procedures as an
interim use. Staff feels there are problems with compatibility with the area, as there are residential
uses nearby and also the long-term use for something more appropriate for Heart of the City. She
said that it has not caused problems in terms of the area, and no complaints about the use had been
received. She pointed out that there are numerous properties throughout the city, particularly in
the Heart of the City where other people have been discouraged from applying for storage of
automobiles br any kinds of storage activities because of the more desired use for the area. Ms.
Wordell said that staff feels it is a public policy issue at stake for a more desirable use for the
property. Staff recommends denial of the extension of the use permit for the property.
Mr. Gary Schmidt, 10071 So. Blaney Avenue, distributed photos of the property and adjacent
areas. He illustrated the area of the existing use permit for a 28,000 square foot building issued in
1988, which runs with the land, noting that it was a two phase use permit; the first phase for a
major remodel on the building exterior, in addition to putting in ali the Stevens Creek landscape
I .
according to the Stevens Creek landscape plan, taking out the entire parking lot, regradmg it,
putting in storm drains, and undergrounding all the mechanical/electrical. He said hundreds of
thousands of dollars were spent to upgrade the Stevens Creek area, and it is one of the few parcels
on Stevens Creek that fully complies with the Stevens Creek'landscape corridor plan and has been
in compliance for 12 years. In return, the city granted an unlimited time period to build a building "
in the rear and partially due to the fact that they were long-term leases on the Blaney Center
running up to 10 years, which made it difficult to do it more timely. Mr. Schmidt pointed out what
he said he felt were numerous errors or nomenclatures in the staff report; such as the use ot~
parking not being compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses. He illustrated the
property where he had full ownership and the areas where he had only partial ownership in the
past.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 22, 2001
Mr. Schmidt reported that since the last one-year extension, he has submitted four potential plans
for approval. He expressed his willingness to put in temporary vegetation, which would soften the
area in the rear parking lot of Hamasushi. Relative to the reference in the staff report to Stevens
Creek being a unique pedestrian experience, and it not being an appropriate use on Stevens Creek,
he pointed out that it fronts on Blaney Avenue, not Stevens Creek. He said he felt he, along with
other partners, contributed as much or ~more than any other parcel along Stevens Creek to the
unique pedestrian experience. He referred to the Imperial Avenue parcel and said that it was not
comparable to the application property, as it was a non-improved dirt lot, on the street, with no
landscaping; and again stressed that a visit to the sites would be illustrative of that. He said that
there have been no complaints; and it was within the discretionary power of tile Planning
Commission to grant the use permit, and the claim by the city that to grant the use permit would
somehow delay ultimate development of the property was no offer of proof~ and as conjecture he
said to deny the moderate economic return on this parcel would be what would delay tile
development of the property, since he was using all the money to submit plans and deal with staff.
He requested that the application for an extension to the use permit be approved and a walking
tour of the site be taken to discuss the corner. He said he felt it was important not to develop it
fast, but to develop it right.
Mr. Del Osland, attorney, representing Gary Schmidt, said that he felt the point made by the
Planning Department that denial of the permit would enhance or speed up the development of tho
property into some sort of planned development or redevelopment was not correct. He said lhat
the present agreement with the Honda dealership is on a month-to-month basis, and could be
_ cancelled at any time, and they would be looking to see the highest and best use for the property
not just to generate the smallest amount of income; but the money would help in developing the
property rather than leaving it completely vacant. He pointed out that prior to the cars being stored
· ... there, it was vacant for many years. He requested that the letter he wrote prior to last year's
meeting be made a part of the records, as it was not presently on file.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak.
Com. Corr said that he was not concerned with the particular use being obtrusive or bothering
anybody, as it was well hidden. He expressed concern that the use was counter to the uses in thc
Stevens Creek Plan, and noted that it was not just that it was on Stevens Creek, but it was in the
Stevens Creek Plan area. He recalled that it was the third time in two years that the applicanl was
asking for an extension; and what started out as a request for temporary help has turned into an
expectation from the applicant to continue granting extensions of the use permit. Com. Corr said
that he was apprehensive about supporting the extension of the use permit. ~'
Ms. Wordell provided a history of the use permit, noting that the Hamasushi development was
approved as a phased project; Hamasushi was phase 1 and afl office building was phase 2, with no
time limit on when it could be built. Phase 2 has not been built, and is still vested since it was part
of the original use permit. She noted that if the applicant provided a valid building plan, the
Planning Commission would have to accept it. Ms. Wordell also pointed out that the applicant is
proposing a change in plans, and has been working with staff on a different set of plans.
Mr. Piasecki said that the city receives no sales taxes from the storage of the autos on the property,
and it was presumed the applicant was referring to the economic benefit to himself and also
indirectly allowing him then to pursue plans for development of the property, which ultimately
could result in an economic benefit to the city. He suggested that concern not be focused on
Planning Commission Minutes s October 22, 2001
whether or not it enhances development, but rather is it an appropriate usc, and is it equitable to
other property owners since other applicants are discouraged from doing the same thing.
Chair Kwok said that the issue was where to draw the line, as there were two policy decisions; one
relative to equity and the other compatibility. He said he concurred with Com. Corr that a period
of two-and-a-half years for extensions o? the use permit was ample time to secure the permit, and
another extension with no assurance that it would be the last request, was not in the best interest of
the city. Chair Kwok said he felt staff provided an excellent detailed prese0tation about the site,
and he did not feel a site visit was necessary; and would not support continuation of lhe
application for the purposes of a site visit.
Com. Auerbach said he learned about the use of the site as a result of the application, and noted
that since it is so well hidden, there have not been consumer complaints about the use. He said
initially he felt that the project did not fit in with the Heart of the City plans, as outlined in the
current General Plan and most likely not the future General Plan amendment. He said he felt it
was an inert thing, and could be canceled at any time. He said he was more concerned with what
was more appropriate for the site if they did not want the car storage there. He pointed out that it
was a suburban style development, each building an island with ingress and egress of the street,
and not pedestrian friendly. Com. Auerbach said that the Pinn Brothers development across the
street was more in character to their liking; but the question of parking would always be an issue.
Com. Auerbach said that in layouts such as Mountain View, Palo Alto and others, cars are parked
in lots back behind the buildings. He said it was ironic that a future use could be a parking lot,
which makes it difficult to argue new cars/used cars as there may eventually be ears back there.
He said it was conjecture on his part as to where the General Plan goes; hence he was conflicted
over a relatively innocuous use of the site. He said he felt there would not be any development in
..... · ~ a year; but was conflicted as he felt it did not meet the General Plan requirements, but he did not
see it doing any damage at this point.
Mr. Piasecki clarified that if the extension was denied, the applicant could appeal the decision to
the City Council, and if the City Council upheld the decision, the applicant would not be allowed
to store cars on the property. He reiterated that the applicant was asking for a one year extension
of the use permit.
Chair Kwok summarized the pros and cons of an extension, stating that an extension would
provide more time; since the site is a suburban setting, more time is needed to look at the site to
review and come to a conclusion what the best land use is for that particular site. In lil~ht of thc
development across the street, he said it should be as compatible as possible in a sense that the
applicant does not rush into a plan that would later have to be changed. As to where to draw the
line on extensions, he said it might give a three-month extension to work with staff and come up
with a better plan, but it would be the final extension.
Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has provided drawings and has been talking with staff', but said
three months would not provide enough time to come up with an agreeable plan. He said if an
extension was granted, the period of time in question should be one year; either grant the.
extension or deny the extension.
Com. Auerbach said that the drawings shown did not depict what he felt belonged on the property.
He added that he was not pleased with the approved current use, and he felt things had changcd
over time.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 22, 2001
Mr. Piasecki said that the approved plan could proceed as is; however, if the applicant intended to
change the plans, they would have to be presented to the Planning Commission. He said that tile
applicant was considering both options, to build the approved plan, or build some other plan, but
evaluatin8 what is a good use for the property.
Chair Kwok reviewed the options: support staff recommendation to deny the permit extension
(applicant could appeal to City Council); grant an extension for one year.so that the applicaut
could come up with a better plan; or grant an extension of 3 to 6 months so that they could
continue to work on an approved plan and give them more time to come up with a plan consistent
with the neighborhood. Com. Corr said that another alternative may be to approve the extension
for the one year period, but stipulate that it is the last one. Com. Patnoe said that the applicant
had suggested as part of the approval that he would be willing to add greenery on a portion o1' Ihe
fence that is exposed, located directly behind the restaurant; which might be considered it' the
application is extended.
Mr. Piasecki suggested that the Planning Commission ask the applicant that if given one more
year, would he agree not to pursue further continuation at the end of the year extension; which is a
right he retains; but if he states that it is his intention not to pursue the extension further, it would
be a matter of record in the event the issue came back in another year. Mr. Piasecki said that staff
was concerned with setting a precedent, and emphasized that all people have to be treated I'airly
and equitably; and cautioned about making the distinction of what is visible and not visible and
allowing storage of ears, in the event another applicant wanted to store boats.
MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Application 09-U-01 for a one year extension
.... . of the existing use permit as shopping center parking lot for ear storage
SECOND: Com. Gert
Com. Corr asked the applicant if he would be willing to state this would be the last extension
requested.
Mr. Schmidt said that he would make every effort to move forward with the parcel. He questioned
if the Planning Commissioners were willing to meet at the property the next day to discuss thc
matter in detail. He reiterated what he felt were his constraints on developing the property as he
did not own all the parcels. He said there were other considerations involved relative to thc
possibility of changing office to residential on the second floor of one of the buildings and~ perhaps
adding a third floor of residential. '
Com. Auerbach said that the corner speaks for itself, and he felt there would be no benefit from
taking a tour of the site. He said it was unlikely that the same group of commissioners a year from
now would grant a further extension to the use permit; but the present Planning Commission was
seeking feedback on whether the applicant would be amenable to the idea and would work to find
an alternate use for the property.
Mr. Schmidt said that he would continue to work diligently with the hope that the city, including
the Planning Commission and City Council would continue to do so.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 22, 2001
Chair Kwok said that it was important to note in the use permit that they recognize all the
roadblocks, concerns and constraints in the project; and that the applicant is aware that it would be
the final extension.
Com. Corr said that the use was not related to the development of the property, and he said he felt
if the extension was not approved, the p.roperty would still be developed in the same timeline had
it been approved. He said it was a question of whether they should allow the storage of cars I'or
another year.
Com. Pamoe said that Com. Auerbach could choose to amend the motion to include the portion
with regard to some greenery on it, but he would not support the application. He said he did not
like the use of parking, whether for 10 or 40 cars on the empty lot; and he felt the city has tile
opportunity to take a stance and not allow the Continuance on and on. He said he would rather
leave the area vacant and possibly work to encourage some other use for the property. He
reiterated that he would vote to deny the application, as he felt the applicant has had plenty of
opportunity.
Com. Chen said she concurred with Com. Patnoe; and she did not feel the extension of the usc
permit would help the project to move on, a0d it would set a precedent for future applicants,
putting the city in the difficult position to say no to future applicants for a different use of the lot.
She said she would not support the motion to grant a one-year extension.
Chair Kwok said that he would not support the project, as indicated earlier; and stated that two-
'- and-a-half years was ample time, and by denying the request, it might move the applicant to
expedite the project faster.
Com. Auerbach withdrew his motion; Com. Corr concurred.
MOTION: Com. Patnoe moved to deny Application 09-U-01
SECOND: Com. Chen
VOTE: Passed 5-0-0
Chair Kwok noted that the applicant had 14 days to appeal the decision to City Council.
OLD BUSINESS: ~lone
blEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT O1~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Kwok noted that the last meeting as well as
the meeting scheduled for this week were canceled.
l-lousing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported, that he had no formal report; but noted that
the committee would be busy in the next months relative to the City Council approval of the
housing element, particularly the BMR program.
Mayor's Breakfast:. Com. Auerbach reported on the use of the public library, noting that
~ Cupertino library or in circulation the state, Los Angeles and San
the
ranked
third
fourth
in
behind
4. The City's argument that the requested
continued temporary use is somehow in
conflict or violation of the General or Specific
Plans is indeed hollow and no agent of the
City has offered in any of the hearings or in
conference with the applicant or his council
any specifics or examples of any said conflicts
or violations. The vague insinuations and
innuendos made in reference to alleged
"pedestrian unfriendliness" are not supported
by the facts including the testimony of the
City's staff and the Planning Commission.
There have been absolutely no STANDARDS
presented or identified related to pedestrian
friendliness nor has there been any evidence
presented what so ever to prove or even imply
that the subject parcel and or its use is
pedestrian unfriendly.
Both thc applicant and his council have spoken and met with numerous City Officials
and agcnts and not onc of said OfFicials or agents has yct to dcscribc or idcntify any
specific violation and/or its character and exact nature of either the General or Specific
Plan.
The applicant has offered to agree to mitigating conditions of any negative impacts of the
requested and ongoing use if someone from the City could just identify any negative
impacts.
DECLARATION OR GARY R. SCHMIDT APRIL 2002
I have met w/th Steve P/asecki, Plann/ng D/rector, several times over the last two years
including on thc subject sitc. In addition, I havc had numcrous phonc convcrsations w/th h/m.
Not until this year, 2002, did Mr. P/asecki ever indicate to me that the requested and continuing
usc of parking cars on thc subjcet parccl was in violation of thc gcncral or spccific Plans. Hc has
never/ndicated to me that it was/n any way a violation of the zoning regulations.
I have met with various other Officials and agents of the City of Cupertino~l~
ovcr thc last ycar including on thc sitc and no Official or agcnt cvcn upon dircct inquiry from mc
has ever offered any specific example or illustration of any thing about the requested and
continuing usc that is "pcdcstfian Un-fricndly" All parties havc always concurrcd that thc
Stevens Creek frontage on the llama Sushi lot is in full compliance with the Stevens Creek
landscapc provisions and is vcry pcdcsirian fricndly. All panics acknowlcdgcd that thc subjcct
parcels frontage is 80 feet on Blaney Ave. and not on Stevens C reek.
Upon my inquiry and offer to mitigate any pedestrian un-fiiendliness of the requested use~ no
City Official or ~ent has been able to offer or surest any mitigation measure I assume because
they can not identify any negative impact to mitigate.
In the alternative, I have offered to landscape my neighbors lot, the Big Apple pi~-~
fo~mcrly Cicccros, which all partics ngrcc is vcry pcdcstrian un-fricndly bccansc it has
absolutely no landscaping. (I have made this offer because no one can offer any suggestion for
pcdcstrian fricndlincss improvcmcnts to my property.
Additionally I have inquired several times/ncluding of Mr. Piasecki and no one from the
City can tcll mc if therc is a landscape plan spccifically for Blancy Avc.
I declare under penalty of perjmy under California law that the forgoing is true and correct
cxccpt to thosc matters that arc statcd on my information and bclicf and to thosc matcrs I bclicvc
them to be true.
R. Schmidt
5. There is not only no basis in fact or law for
the City to deny the requested continued temporary
use but there is also NO POTENTIAL BENEFIT to
the City for a denial, only potential detriment. There
in no indication that the parcel will be developed any
sooner if the City denies this application and there is
some indication that a denial may delay the ultimate
development since the revenues from the use are being
expended on development plans. Additionally, I
would hope that we would all agree that taking the
necessary time to plan the development of the parcel
properly and attempt to consolidate it with contiguous
parcels is in the best interest of all concerned,
especially the Community in general. Is it not bettor
to develop the property RIGHT then to develop it
FAST? Why create needless animosity, hostility, and
conflict when the applicant has been a cooperative and
productive good citizen property owner in the
community for over 30 years with an excellent
working relationship with the City and the Director of
Planning has acknowledged in Public Hearing that the
applicant has been Dutifully Diligent in his pursuit of
optimum development plans for the parcel.
THE
FOLLOWING
ITEMS
WERE
PRESENTED
AT THE
MEETING
har~d-o0~ rienzi
Eec
City Council
Sports Center Workshop
April 1, 2002
Objectives
Deteimine new scope of work for the project:
· Provide direction as to whether the building
should be tom down or renovated
· Provide direction regarding amenities for teens
· Provide direction regarding skate park site
Staff will return to the regular Council meeting of
April 15 with a refined scope of work and budget
for the project for Council approval
Skate Facility Ad Hoc Committee
· Student ~eprescntatives from Cupertino High, Monta
Vista High, Kennedy Jr. High ~_
· Resident
· Community Business Representative
· City Council Member
· Commissioner
Parks and Recreation
· Parks and Recreation Director
· Recreation Supervisor
· Recreation Coordinators
· Sexarice Centex Manager
· SheriWs Depa~u.ent-School Resource Officers
· Juvenile Probation Officer
Skate Facility Ad Hoc Chronology
· Febmary 17, 2000
Identified issues, dete~-i~fined facility tour schedule
· March 4, 2000 ar: ~ ~,,,
- Toured various sites: Gilroy, Santa}`:.
· March 8, 2000
Established preliminary facility ame~rv,,
· March 22, 2000
Presentation by Carolyn Mc-~
Clara's Parks and Recreation'~
Skate Facility Ad Hoc Chronology
· April 12, 2000
General discussion
within the city.
Strongest sites Vallco/Compaq
property,
Criteria: on
ne~ to ½ acre
away, city-owned move
faster, compatibility with adj; and
facilities
Skate Facility Ad Hoc
· April 26, 2000
Toured proposed local skate
· May 10,2000
Discussed observations
draf~ RFP for landscape
· ~Iune 14, 2000
Updated RFP
panel; reviewed
· August 9, 2000
Presentation by
architecture; site assessment
Skate Facility Ad Hoc Chronology
· September 13, 2000
Meeting with Wilson Park neighborhood
-- October 11,2000
Wilson Park neighborhood debriefing
· October 13, 2000
City manager sends letter to Wilson Park
neighbors stating that the committee had decided
not to pursue Wilson Park for a skate park
'6
Skate Facility Ad Hoc Chronology
· November 8, 2000
Discussed interim and pe.imnent locations
· October 25, 2000
Discussed interim and pe..anent locations
· Sanuary 24, 2001
Meets new P&R director; gets update on progress
by mayor
· 'June 13, 2001
Committee is notified that negotiations were
taking place with Compaq for possible site
Skate Facility Ad Hoc ~ology
· September 26, 2001
Discussed idea of mobile skate
-. October 25, 2001
Presentation by mobile skate park
· December 5, 2001
Discussed pieces for mobile
City Council Actions
· November 19, 2001
City Council authorizes $40,000 to purchase
mobile skate park pieces out of 2001/02 CIP
· Sanuary 25, 2002
At a study session, City Council considers options
for the Sports Center including a permanent skate
park
-:XISTING CONDITIONS - RACQUET CLUB
:)PTION 1: RENOVATE EXISTING BUILDING
3PTION lA: RENOVATE EXISTING BUILDING
i ,1---[ OPTION 1: RENOVATE EXISTING BUILDING
1'-'I.
,o 2o OPTION 1: RENOVATE EXISTING BUILDING
3PTION Z: TENNIS CLUBHOUSE / TEEN CENTER
· ,o ~o OPTION 2: TENNIS CLUBHOUSE
~ ,~[~o OPTION 2: TEEN CENTER
3P'rloN 3: GYMNASIUM / SPORTS CENTER
'12
®
Cupeflko Sporu Catur DLA
Cupe.du~ CMl~m'uh Mareb 27.
Rmmt~ exlmb8 Mldins IS,~0 SF lISA7
r~ & lite ilnplwvomm~ Z.~ ~ 7~0 I7~OQO
13
Cupeflbo SlNrtl CiMIr DLA I!
Cupelbe, Col~tlbi
'14
Recommended Action
Dete,,,,ine new scope of work for the project:
· Provide direction as to whether the building
should be tom down or renovated
· Provide direction regarding amenities for teens
· Provide direction regarding skate park site
Staff will return to the regular Council meeting of
April 15 with a refined scope of work and budget
for the project for Council approval