02-19-19 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Non-televised Special Meeting Closed Session (5:30) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City
Council is hereby called for Tuesday, February 05, 2019, commencing at 5:30
p.m. for a Closed Session in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of
conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading,
“Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A
CLOSED SESSION
1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation; (Government Code
section 54956.9(d)):
a.Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (SB 35 Vallco
Project); Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV330190
b.Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (Vallco Specific
Plan - 2 Ordinances); Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No.
18CV337015
c.Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, et
al v. Schmidt, et al. (Measure C); Santa Clara County Superior Court Case
No. 16CV296322
Page 1
1
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; (Government
Code Section 54956.9(d)):
a. Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2))
(1 matter)
b. Possible Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)) (1
matter)
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on
any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases,
State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter
not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted
on simultaneously.
1.Subject: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Recommended Action: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission
interviews)
A - Draft Minutes
2.Subject: Approve the January 29 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Recommended Action: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission
interviews)
A - Draft Minutes
Page 2
2
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
3.Subject: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City Council
Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session)
City Council Minutes
A - Draft Minutes
4.Subject: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
5.Subject: Coffee Society Lease Agreement, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA
95014
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year lease
agreement with the Coffee Society, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Staff Report
A - Draft Coffee Society Lease Agreement (2019)
6.Subject: Renewal of Friendship City Relationships
Recommended Action: Approve renewal of five Friendship City relationships,
including Jiangmen, China; Taichung, Taiwan; Taipei, Taiwan; Yilan, Taiwan; and
Zhaoqing, China
Staff Report
A - Policies and Guidelines
B - Cupertino Friendship Cities
7.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba
Pacific Catch), 19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for
Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch), 19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Staff Report
A - Application
8.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba
Stout Burgers & Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout
Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout Burgers & Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Staff Report
A - Application
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Page 3
3
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
STUDY SESSION
9.Subject: Study Session on new budget process
Recommended Action: Conduct study session on new budget process and provide
any input to staff
Staff Report
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
10.Subject: Provide direction for the use of increased County staffing budget for the
Santa Clara County Library for FY 19/20 of $428,596
Recommended Action: Provide staff direction whether to:
1. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year to reduce the
City's existing $468,023/year contribution for 12 additional Library hours per week
and redirect $428,596 of City funding toward a new program room attached to the
Library (Option 3 as provided by the Santa Clara County Library District); or
2. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year (including
consideration to add additional City funds over and above the $468,023/year) to
implement one or more of the options provided by the Santa Clara County Library
District (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 4 or any combination thereof).
Staff Report
A - SCCLD Increased Personnel Budget Options
B - Go Go Biblio Flyer
11.Subject: 2018 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2019-103 contract
award
Recommended Action: Authorize the city Manager to award a contract to G.
Bortolotto & Co. in the amount of $2,584,568 and approve a construction
contingency of $258,000 for a total of $2,842,568.
Staff Report
A - 2019 Overlay Street List
B - Contract Documents
Page 4
4
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
12.Subject: Initiation of declaratory relief or other appropriate action to determine
validity of referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 and receipt of City
Attorney memorandum regarding this and three other referendum petitions
protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project.
Recommended Action: That the City Council authorize the City Attorney, on behalf
of the City Clerk, to initiate a declaratory relief action or other appropriate action to
determine whether a referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 (approving a
General Plan amendment for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project)
substantially complies with Elections Code requirements. The City Council will also
receive a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the status of this and the
three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project.
City Attorney Memo regarding Vallco Referendum Petitions
A - Dec. 6, 2018 letter from Sean Welch
B - Dec. 18, 2018 letter from Sean Welch
C - Resolution No. 18-085 (presented to and voted on by Council)
D - Table LU-1 (as appears in certified resolution provided to proponents)
E - Modified Table LU-1 (as it appears in referendum petition)
F - Ordinance No 18-2178 (adopted by Council & provided to proponents)
G - Modified Zoning Map (as it appears in referendum petition)
H - City Clerk’s Feb. 13, 2019 Receipt Rejecting Referendum Petition
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
13.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5
5
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6;
litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90
days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal
law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested
persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the
City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply
with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City
Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?
page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any
disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at
408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance.
Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas
and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available
in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive
listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after
publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City
Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours
and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino
web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal
Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council,
Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as
supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are
accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are
hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written
communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall
constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to
the City.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item
that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during
Page 6
6
February 19, 2019City Council AGENDA
consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on
this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council,
and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed
to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City
Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public
comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please
limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 7
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4994 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/11/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation; (Government Code section 54956.9(d)):
a. Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (SB 35 Vallco Project); Santa Clara
County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV330190
b. Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (Vallco Specific Plan - 2 Ordinances);
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV337015
c. Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, et al v. Schmidt, et al.
(Measure C); Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV296322
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation; (Government Code section
54956.9(d)):
a.Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (SB 35 Vallco Project); Santa
Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV330190
b.Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (Vallco Specific Plan - 2
Ordinances); Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV337015
c.Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, et al v. Schmidt, et
al. (Measure C); Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV296322
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5008 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/13/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; (Government Code Section 54956.9
(d)):
a. Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)) (1 matter)
b. Possible Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)) (1 matter)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; (Government Code Section
54956.9(d)):
a. Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)) (1 matter)
b. Possible Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)) (1 matter)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4831 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 28, 2019
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 5:01 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the City
Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commission terms expiring on the Parks
and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Library Commission
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Library Commission; and select
alternates
Written communications included emails to Council.
Conducted interviews and, on January 29, 2019, made the following appointments:
Parks and Recreation Commission
Appointed Gopal Kumarappan to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul)
Appointed Xiangchen Xu to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul)
Appointed Carol Stanek as 1st alternate (unanimous)
Appointed Wang as 2nd alternate (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willey)
Planning Commission
Appointed Catherine “Kitty” Moore to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul,
Willey)
11
City Council MINUTES January 28, 2019
Appointed Vikram Saxena to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed R “Ray” Wang to a partial term ending 1/30/21 (Scharf, Chao, Paul)
Appointed Sanjiv Kapil as 1st alternate (Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed Geoffrey Paulsen as 2nd alternate (consensus)
Library Commission
Appointed Qin Pan to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed Rahul Vasanth to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul)
Appointed Lane Young as 1st alternate (Chao, Sinks, Willey)
Appointed Parth Bharwad as 2nd alternate (consensus)
Note: The official ballots are available in the City “Records” digital archives and the
City’s website in the “Agendas & Minutes” meeting details.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:43 p.m., Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
_________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
12
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4832 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/7/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the January 29 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Approve the January 29 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the City
Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
1. Subject: Interview applicants for commission terms expiring on the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission, Fine Arts Commission, Housing Commission, and
Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC)
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission, Fine Arts Commission, Housing Commission, and
Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC); and select
alternates
Written communications included emails to Council.
Council conducted interviews and made the following appointments.
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Reappointed Erik Lindskog to full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Paul, Sinks)
Reappointed Gerhard Eschelbeck to full term ending 1/30/23 (unanimous)
Appointed Muni Madhdhipatla to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed Ilango Ganga as 1st alternate (consensus)
Appointed Wil Fluewelling as 2nd alternate (consensus)
14
City Council MINUTES January 29, 2019
Fine Arts Commission
Reappointed Janki Chokshi to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Paul, Sinks, Willey)
Appointed Sudha Kasamsetty to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willy)
Appointed Sonia Dhami as 1st alternate (consensus)
Housing Commission
Appointed Connie Cunningham to a full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Sinks)
Appointed Sanjiv Kapil as 1st alternate (Scharf, Chao, Sinks, Willey)
Appointed Siva Gandikota as 2nd alternate (consensus)
Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC)
Appointed Naidu Bollineni to full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed Prabir Mohanty to full term ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinks)
Appointed Ilango Ganga to full terms ending 1/30/23 (Scharf, Chao, Paul, Willey)
Appointed Mukesh Garg as 1st alternate (consensus)
Appointed Parth Bharwad as 2nd alternate (Scharf, Paul, Willey)
Note: The official ballots are available in the City “Records” digital archives and the City’s
website in the “Agendas & Minutes” meeting details.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:07 p.m., Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
_________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4774 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/20/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City Council Minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City Council Minutes
Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City Council Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Saturday, February 2, 2019
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 9:07 a.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the
Cupertino Room of Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA
95014.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul,
Rod Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident) talked about the Cupertino Library.
Naidu Bollineni (Cupertino resident) talked about the Cupertino Library.
Qin Pan (Cupertino resident) talked about the Cupertino Library (distributed written
comments).
Kristen Lyn (Cupertino resident) talked about the Cupertino Library.
Kiran Varshneya (Cupertino resident) on behalf of the Cupertino Library Foundation
talked about the Cupertino Library.
Gopal Kumarappan (Cupertino resident) talked about the Cupertino Library.
Sameer Raheja (Cupertino resident) talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
17
Deepa Mahendraker (Cupertino resident) talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman
Park.
Debashish (Cupertino resident) talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Charles Hanson talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Rajeev C. talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Sameer Jain talked about field use on Sundays.
Danessa K. Techmanski talked about housing.
Lisa Warren talked about the De Anza College Flint Center.
Rhoda Fry (Cupertino resident) talked about the City’s mission statement, rental vs. for-
sale housing costs, and the General Plan (distributed written comments).
Ram Gopal talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Art Cohen on behalf of the Cupertino Library Foundation talked about the Cupertino
Library.
Janet Van Zoren (Cupertino resident) talked about inclusionary housing.
Sukanthi talked about field use on Sundays.
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) talked about building permits for Main Street.
Connie Cunningham (Cupertino resident) talked about homeless college students.
Joan Chin (Cupertino resident) talked about legal representation services.
Jennifer Griffin talked about San Jose Urban Villages.
Suraj Gajendra (Cupertino resident) talked about field use on Sundays.
Hemant Buch (Cupertino resident) talked about field use on Sundays.
18
EXERCISE TO REVIEW CURRENT CITY MISSION STATEMENT AND PROVIDE
GUIDANCE ON DEVELOPMENT OF CITY VISION AND VALUES STATEMENTS
Interim City Manager Timm Borden introduced the facilitator Amy Chan who asked
Councilmembers to comment on the City’s current Mission Statement regarding values
and vision.
Current Mission Statement: “The Mission of the City of Cupertino is to provide
exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for
one another, and support the values of education, innovation and collaboration.”
Council comments included:
Quality of life for all residents
Inclusive community
Transparency in government
Use honest data and proceed in rational fashion
Be less analytical and more objective in decision-making
Sense of compassion for one another
Values: Focus on integrity in representing residents
Vision: Fulfill residents’ vision through community engagement and outreach to
drive decisions Council makes
FOCUS ON UPCOMING YEAR
What is success in broad terms, i.e. residents more engaged with higher level of
transparency and outreach?
Ms. Chan asked Councilmembers to focus on the upcoming year when thinking about
Work Plan ideas.
WORK PLAN IDEAS TO ACHIEVE GOALS
Written communications for this item included the current Fiscal Year 2018-19 Work Plan
and an updated list of initial Work Plan ideas.
Councilmembers commented on the initial list of Work Plan ideas and contributed with
additional ideas. Note: The compiled list of Work Plan ideas along with the Council
prioritization score sheets will be posted on the City’s website.
19
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gilbert Iruegas (Santa Clara resident) on behalf of Cupertino High School Tournament of
Bands talked about support for the Tournament of Bands event.
Addy Roff (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Cupertino High School Tournament of
Bands talked about support for the Tournament of Bands event.
Rajiv Chamraj (Cupertino resident) talked about traffic calming and enforcement.
Bobby Truong talked about defects in the zoning ordinance.
Sameer Raheja (Cupertino resident) talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Jennifer Griffin talked about San Jose Urban Villages.
Danessa Techmanski (Cupertino resident) talked about park land in Cupertino.
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) talked about school traffic and General Plan zoning
for quasi-public lands.
Siva (Cupertino resident) talked about support for community engagement and
affordable housing and to use Block Leaders to help disseminate information to the
community.
Connie Cunningham talked about traffic calming and enforcement, agreement with
Apple, and below market rate housing.
Joan Chin (Cupertino resident) talked about climate change and working with the
Sustainability Commission, and proactive legislative support.
Ram Gopal (Cupertino resident) talked about off-leash dog hours at Jollyman Park.
Robin Truong (Cupertino resident) talked about rezoning to allow storage sheds; adding
language to the mission statement regarding beautifying Cupertino; off-leash dog park;
Cupertino Library; allowing fruit trees as options; elevating bike paths; talking with other
cities about urban villages.
20
Lisa Warren talked about field use policy and updating the fees; technology in the City
of Palo Alto, zoning for storage sheds.
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident) talked about including co-living options regarding
housing; Measure B; off-leash dogs; field use on Sundays; open area converted for
beautification; walkability; fruit trees; affordable housing for RHNA.
PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE
Ms. Chan and Mr. Borden asked Councilmembers to prioritize the list of Work Plan ideas.
TEAMBUILDING EXERCISE
Ms. Chan took Councilmembers through a teambuilding exercise.
REVIEW AND DISCUSS PRIORITIZATION SCORING
Councilmembers scored and ranked the Work Program items. Note: The compiled list
of Work Plan ideas along with the Council prioritization score sheets will be posted on
the City’s website.
Mr. Borden summarized the next steps.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:25 p.m., Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting.
________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4522 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/24/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™22
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the City
Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
CLOSED SESSION
Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue for the Regular Meeting.
In open session, Mayor Scharf reported out from the January 25, 2019 clo sed session regarding
two items.
The following individuals spoke in open session before Council went into closed session:
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident)
Jim Moore (Cupertino resident) – ceded time to Bern Steves
Susan Moore (Cupertino resident) – ceded time to Bern Steves
Caryl Gorska (Cupertino resident) – ceded time to Bern Steves
Lisa Warren (Cupertino resident) – ceded time to Bern Steves
Bern Steves (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Friends of Better Cupertino
Liana Crabtree (Cupertino resident)
1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(d)(2); Re: Anticipated Litigation/Significant Exposure to Litigation
Mayor Scharf reported that Council discussed a threat of litigation received in connection
with the SB 35 lawsuit; no reportable action was taken.
2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code section
23
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
54956.9(d)(1); Re: Pending Litigation; Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino;
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV330190 (SB 35 Vallco Project)
Mayor Scharf reported that Council met to discuss with legal counsel this pending
litigation, when discussion would prejudice the City Council if done in public; gave
direction to legal counsel; no reportable action was taken.
Mayor Scharf also reported out from the February 5, 2019 closed session that was heard at 5:30
p.m. regarding two items:
1. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8);
Property: Cupertino Municipal Water System; Agency Negotiator: Timm Borden;
Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino and San Jose Water Company; Under Negotiation:
Price Terms for City Leased Asset
Mayor Scharf reported that the closed session was related to the City’s lease with the San
Jose Water Company for the Cupertino Municipal Water System; gave direction to staff
concerning the lease negotiations; no reportable action was taken.
2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to
litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section
54956.9
Mayor Scharf reported that the closed session was related to the City’s lease with the San
Jose Water Company for the Cupertino Municipal Water System; gave direction to staff
concerning the lease negotiations; no reportable action was taken.
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Regular City Council meeting in the Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
24
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
1. Subject: Recognition of Fine Arts Commission Emerging Artists and Young Artists.
Recommended Action: Present awards to winners
Fine Arts Commission Chair Janki Chokshi spoke and read aloud the award winners.
Mayor Scharf presented the awards to Fine Arts Commission Emerging Artists and Young
Artists winners.
2. Subject: Presentation from the Toyokawa Sister City Committee regarding
recent delegation
Recommended Action: Receive Presentation from the Toyokawa Sister City Committee
regarding recent delegation
Alyyssa Sakkas Toyokawa Sister Cities Committee President introduced Steve Sulgit
Vice President of Festival Operations who presented a video.
Council received the presentation from the Toyokawa Sister City Committee regarding
their recent delegation.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Byron Rovegno (Cupertino resident), on behalf of Walk Bike Cupertino, talked about the Regnart
Trail, potential usage for students and support for the trail.
Dennis Whittacker (Cupertino resident) talked about the intersections being blocked at De Anza
Blvd/Pacifica and other intersections and adding signs and lights.
Janet Van Zoehren talked about agenda Item #15 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
subregion, affordable housing and data, and farming out housing to other regions.
Lisa Warren talked about the Foothill-De Anza Community College Board meeting action item
to pause programming at Flint Center beyond June 30 and a pending assessment report.
Rhoda Fry talked about the Jan. 31 cease and desist letter sent from City Manager Timm Borden
to the County regarding traffic, land use, and water quality.
Justine Garcia (Cupertino resident), Kennedy Middle School student and U14 soccer player,
talked about opening field hours on Sundays.
25
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
A Cupertino resident from Finch Avenue talked about a citation letter that she received from
Code Enforcement.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Paul moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented.
Ayes: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
3. Subject: Approve the January 15 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the January 15 City Council minutes
4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 02, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-013 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 02, 2018
5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 09, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-014 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 09, 2018
6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 16, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-015 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 16, 2018
7. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 23, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-016 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 23, 2018
8. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending November 30, 2018
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-017 accepting Accounts Payable for the
period ending November 30, 2018
9. Subject: Annual adoption of Pension Trust Investment Policy
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-018 accepting the City Investment Policy
for the Pension Trust
10. Subject: Treasurer’s Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 2018
Recommended Action: Accept the Treasurer’s Investment Report for Quarter Ending
December 31, 2018
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
26
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
11. Subject: Second reading and enactment of an ordinance to amend regulations in
Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code Chapter 2.80, to allow
up to five (5) members for the Fine Arts Commission.
Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.
19-2182: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending
regulations in Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code, Chapter
2.80, to allow up to five (5) members for the Fine Arts Commission”
Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of Ordinance No. 19-2182: “An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending regulations in
Title 2, Administration and Personnel of the Municipal Code, Chapter 2.80, to allow
up to five (5) members for the Fine Arts Commission”
Paul moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 19-2182 by title only and that the
City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Scharf, Chao,
Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
Paul moved and Sinks seconded to enact Ordinance No. 19-2182. Ayes: Scharf, Chao,
Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
12. Subject: Approval of a Legal Services Contract for City Attorney Services
with Shute Mihaly and Weinberger.
Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement
with Shute Mihaly and Weinberger for City Attorney Services in the amount of
$600,000 annually.
2. Approve Budget Modification Number 1819-038 reducing the Administration-City
Attorney budget by $770,889.
Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro reviewed the staff report.
Staff answered questions from Council.
City Manager Timm Borden announced that the City Attorney’s office and legal services
will move to City Hall.
New City Attorney Heather Minner introduced herself.
27
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement with Shute Mihaly and Weinberger for City Attorney Services in the amount
of $600,000 annually; and
2. Approve Budget Modification Number 1819-038 reducing the Administration-City
Attorney budget by $770,889. The motion carried unanimously.
13. Subject: Order the abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of
Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 18-111 (Continued from January 15)
Recommended Action: Note objections and adopt Resolution 19-019 ordering
abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No.
724 and Resolution No. 18-111
Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia reviewed the staff report.
Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Manager Moe Kumre answered questions
from Council.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Brent G. Bardsley (Cupertino resident)
Joan Thompson (Cupertino resident)
Venkatesh
Geoff Paulsen
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Willey moved and Chao seconded to adopt Resolution 19-019 ordering the abatement of
a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution
No. 18-111 with the amendment to remove the three properties (of those speakers who
objected) from the list and adopt the balance of the list, and directed staff to request the
County re-inspect the properties in late spring. The motion carried unanimously.
Council recessed from 8:47 p.m. to 8:54 p.m.
Councilmember Paul left the dais at 8:47 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
14. Subject: Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
Recommended Action: Accept presentation on the Draft Citywide Parks and
28
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") and provide direction regarding
desired revisions.
Written communications for this item included emails to Council, additional public input,
hard copies of maps, and a staff presentation.
Director of Recreation and Community Services Jeff Milkes reviewed the staff report and
introduced Park Improvement Manager Gail Seeds and consultant Cindy Mendoza,
Senior Project Manager of MIG.
The consultant and Ms. Seeds gave a presentation.
Staff answered questions from Council.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Geoff Paulsen and Kitty Moore (Cupertino residents)
Jennifer Griffin
Gerhard Eschelbeck (Cupertino resident)
Joan Chin (Cupertino resident)
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident)
Dashiell Leeds, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Rhoda Fry
Minna (Cupertino resident)
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmember Paul returned to the dais at 9:44 p.m. just before the last speaker.
Council accepted the presentation on the Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation
System Master Plan ("Master Plan") and provided the following direction regarding
desired revisions:
No support for additional data gathering or additional surveys, and directed staff to
finalize the Master Plan using the existing information (Paul Sinks, Scharf).
Requested mapping related to densities (population density of areas of the City relative
to the park acreage) and follow-up on possible existing map, and more objective
definition of what makes up a park (Paul, Chao).
Recommendation to include site page for individual parks in the Master Plan with basic
parks information, current conditions and facilities the city owns (Chao, Paul).
Directed staff to emphasize Community Gardens in the plan, including satellite
29
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
gardens in individual parks (Scharf, Chao, Paul).
Recommendation to look into park expansion possibility for Library Field, such as
undergrounding adjacent parking (Scharf, Paul).
Directed staff to emphasize partnerships with CUSD, FUHSD, and De Anza for usage
(unanimous).
Recommendation to support pollinator plantings (Chao, Paul).
Recommendation to reexamine field use policy (Willey, Paul).
Recommendation to emphasize access to Blackberry Farm which should be a priority
as the City purchased the property on Byrne at the entrance to the park (Sinks).
Recommendation to emphasize outdoor adult exercise equipment (Chao, Scharf).
Recommendation to explore acquiring or gaining use of the parcel adjacent to Sedgwick
Elementary School (Scharf, Sinks).
Directed staff to explore performing arts space availability at existing venues (Paul,
Sinks, Chao).
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS – Continued
Council recessed from 11:17 p.m. to 11:29 p.m.
15. Subject: Possible Formation of a Santa Clara County Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) subregion allowing the City the option of trading allocation of
housing needs among participating entities (continued from January 15).
Recommended Action: That the City Council
1. Review the by-laws proposed for the RHNA subregion and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-009 authorizing the City Manager to discuss the
formation of a Santa Clara County RHNA subregion and develop a work plan, budget
and schedule of actions leading to the formation of a countywide RHNA subregion.
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.
Principal Planner Piu Ghosh reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Janet Van Zoeren (Cupertino resident) spoke under Oral Communications on this item.
Jennifer Griffin
Jean Bedord
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Staff answered questions from Council.
30
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
Council 1. Reviewed the by-laws proposed for the RHNA subregion; and
Sinks moved and Chao seconded to 2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-009 authorizing the City
Manager to discuss the formation of a Santa Clara County RHNA subregion and
develop a work plan, budget and schedule of actions leading to the formation of a
countywide RHNA subregion. The motion carried unanimously.
16. Subject: Adopt a resolution to approve the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-020 to approve the Junipero Serra Trail
Feasibility Study
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to Council.
Acting Director of Public Works Roger Lee reviewed the staff report.
David Stillman Transportation Manager gave a presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident)
Jennifer Griffin
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident)
Jennifer Shearin (Cupertino resident), on behalf of herself and the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Staff answered questions from Council.
Sinks moved and Willey seconded to Adopt Resolution No. 19-020 to approve the
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. The motion carried unanimously.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
17. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their committees and various community
events.
31
City Council Minutes February 5, 2019
Councilmember Paul and Vice Mayor Chao requested a study session for the Planning
Commission regarding policy issues, educational sessions and upcoming legislation,
including SB 35 and CASA bills.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:24 a.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 2019 , Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting .
________________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk
32
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4920 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/29/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Coffee Society Lease Agreement, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Coffee Society Lease Agreement (2019)
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Coffee Society Lease Agreement, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year lease agreement with the Coffee Society,
10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™33
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Coffee Society Lease Agreement, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.
Recommended Actions
Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year lease agreement with the Coffee
Society, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.
Background
The existing lease of the 500 square foot café space of the Cupertino Library, better
known as the Coffee Society, expires on February 28, 2019.
Discussion
On December 18, 2018, Council directed staff to enter into negotiations with the current
owner of the Coffee Society to develop a new lease. Staff met with the o wner and
suitable terms have been agreed to and incorporated into the attached draft lease.
The draft lease being considered is substantially consistent with the current lease that
will expire on February 28, 2019. The notable difference between the two leases is the
annual rental increase. As opposed to a flat $50/month/year increase as stipulated in
the current lease, the draft lease provides for rental increases that escalate based on an
annual Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The rental rate will
increase by $82/month for the first year of the new lease (March 1, 2019 through
February 28, 2020).
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
Upon execution of the lease, effective March 1, 2019, the City would continue receiving
monthly rental payments based on the negotiated rental rate of $1,907 per month for the
first year. This amount will be adjusted annually per CPI-U rates for the remaining
term of the lease.
34
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Coffee Society Lease Agreement (2019)
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5006 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/12/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Renewal of Friendship City Relationships
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Policies and Guidelines
B - Cupertino Friendship Cities
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Renewal of Friendship City Relationships
Approve renewal of five Friendship City relationships, including Jiangmen, China; Taichung,
Taiwan; Taipei, Taiwan; Yilan, Taiwan; and Zhaoqing, China
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™53
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Renewal of Friendship City Relationships
Recommended Action
Approve renewal of five Friendship City relationships, including Jiangmen, China;
Taichung, Taiwan; Taipei, Taiwan; Yilan, Taiwan; and Zhaoqing, China.
Discussion
The Cupertino City Council established a Friendship City program in September 2016.
Although less formal than a Sister City relationship, a Friendship City relationship is
also an important way to foster international cooperation at a local level. At its peak, the
Friendship City program had 27 established relationships.
At its November 20, 2018, meeting the City Council considered updates to the City’s
Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations. This
included Council’s approval of renewal criteria for expiring Friendship City
relationships. However, Council exempted from this criteria two Friendship Cities that
were requesting renewal that same night: Luoyang, China and Shenzhen, China.
Including those two cities, Cupertino currently has 12 active Friendship City
relationships.
Council has since requested that staff reach out to the 15 other Friendship Cities whose
two-year terms expired between September and December 2018 and exempt them from
the new criteria if they desired to continue a relationship with Cupertino. Out of the 15
Friendship Cities, five have expressed their desire to renew their relationships with the
City:
Jiangmen, China
Taichung, Taiwan
Taipei, Taiwan
Yilan, Taiwan
Zhaoqing, China
54
If approved, these five Friendship City relationships would last for two years and expire
in February 2021. Once expired they, along with the 12 current Friendship Cities, would
be required to go through the Council-approved renewal process.
Five current Friendship City relationships will be expiring this May. They include
Beijing, China; Guangzhou, China; Guiyang, China; Huizhou, China; and Xuzhou,
China. Staff will be reaching out to them before the end of this month to alert them of
the expiration and help them through the new renewal process.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Brian Babcock, Public Information Officer
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations
B – Cupertino Friendship Cities
55
POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ON
SISTER CITIES, FRIENDSHIP
CITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL
DELEGATIONS
FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
Council Policy
Attachments:
Effective Date:
November 20, 2018
Responsible Department:
City Manager’s Office
Related Policies & Notes:
Prior versions: 2005, 2013, 2016
Background:
Currently, Cupertino has four active Sister Cities registered with Sister Cities
International; the cities of Toyokawa, Japan; Hsinchu, Taiwan; Copertino, Italy; and
Bhubaneswar, India. In addition, Cupertino has established several Friendship City
relationships and attracts many international delegations for cultural, educational,
business, and economic development reasons.
SISTER CITIES
Intent of Sister City Affiliations:
The City recognizes the value of developing people-to-people contacts as a way to
further international communication and understanding. Sister City partnerships have
proved very successful in fostering educational, technical, economic, and cultural
exchanges.
Sister City relationships are effective only when organizations of interested residents in
one community work with interested residents in another city to promote
communication and understanding among people of different cultures.
The ideal affiliation should involve a large number of citizens and organizations in both
cities, engaging in exchanges of people, ideas and cultures on a long-term, continuing
basis.
The City intends to provide limited financial support to those Sister City Committees
that operate student exchange programs. Those Sister City organizations which do not
operate student exchange programs shall be completely financially independent from
the City, except for limited City facility use.
56
Sister City Citizen Committee Responsibilities (Receiving City Support):
• Identify, manage, coordinate, and implement all activities related to the Sister.
City Program.
• Establish a formal, incorporated 501(c)(3) structure, with officers and
appropriate functional subcommittees.
• Solicit donations and in-kind contributions from the local community as
appropriate.
• Maintain communication with the affiliate Sister City Committee, ensuring the
counterpart committee is equally committed to the program.
• Finance activities from fundraising efforts and resources other than public
funding, including all travel and program expenses, postage, fax, copying, and
printing costs for events in which the City is participating. This includes
fundraising or securing gifts for special celebrations, such as anniversaries.
• Prepare a detailed budget including funds raised through fundraising efforts and
public (City) funding for events and activities and keep track of expenses. The
budget should show funds available and should identify adequate, ongoing
funding sources for program activities.
• Work with City staff at least two months in advance in arranging official
promotional gifts and meetings for foreign delegations. For local groups
traveling abroad and bringing promotional gifts, similar notice is required,
unless waived by the City Manager.
• Meet the following eligibility requirements/annually submit to staff liaison:
o Proof of 501(c)(3) status
o Detailed accounting of prior year actual revenue and expenses
o Summary of prior year activities
o Proposed budget plan
o Fundraising plan
Sister City Citizen Committee Responsibilities (Not Receiving City Support):
• Identify, manage, coordinate and implement all activities related to the Sister
City Program.
• Establish a formal, incorporated 501 (c) (3) structure, with officers and
appropriate functional sub committees.
• Solicit donations and in-kind contributions from the local community as
appropriate.
• Maintain communication with the affiliate Sister City Committee, ensuring the
counterpart committee is equally committed to the program.
57
City of Cupertino Responsibilities (With regard to City supported Sister City Committees):
Coordinated through the City Manager’s Office, the City will serve as a support for
programs and activities by:
• Providing for set-up and complimentary access to a large City facility for three
community events per Sister City per fiscal year. All cost of food, drinks, and
materials are the responsibility of the Sister City Committee.
• Accepting gifts from the Sister City. Said gifts are the property of the City and
shall be displayed at a City facility or distributed at the City's discretion.
• Providing up to $2,500 per year for a Sister City with a student exchange
program of 5 to 9 student delegates and up to $5,000 per year for a Sister City
with a student exchange program of 10 or more student delegates.
Coordinated through the City Manager's Office, the City will serve as a support for Sister
City programs and activities by:
• Providing access to postage, fax, copying, and printing equipment to Sister City
Committee members for support of Sister City events in which the City is
participating. City staff is not responsible for preparing mailings or printed
materials.
• Providing the use of meeting room space (up to 18 per calendar year) at no cost
to the Sister City Committee for related activities. Meeting room space does not
include Cupertino Community Hall or the Quinlan Community Center’s
Cupertino Room.
• Providing City promotional gift items typically given at community events to
government representatives from visiting countries. These include, but are not
limited to: logoed t-shirts, pens, reusable bags, and lapel pins. The cost of each
promotional gift or gift bag shall not exceed $25. Additional gifts presented to
members of a Sister City delegation are the responsibility of the Sister City
Committee.
• Facilitating participation of City officials.
City of Cupertino Responsibilities (With regard to non-City supported Sister City
Committees):
• The City shall maintain registration with the Sister Cities International
organization.
• Provide the use of meeting room space (up to 4 per calendar year) at no cost to
the Sister City Committee for related activities. For additional meeting room
uses, non-City supported Sister City Committees shall be charged the facility use
58
resident rate on the rental of any City facility. Meeting room space does not
include Cupertino Community Hall or the Quinlan Community Center’s
Cupertino Room.
Travel and Program Expenses:
Program Expenses:
• The City Council will, as part of its annual budget adoption process, establish a
program budget for anticipated City supported Sister City program activities.
This budget will include up to $2,500 for a Sister City with a student exchange
program of 5 to 9 student delegates and up to $5,000 for a Sister City with a
student exchange program of 10 or more student delegates, as funds allow. An
additional $5,000 will be considered for adult delegation visits every 5 years. This
adopted budget, less the cost of the Sister City membership fee, will be remitted
to the Committee once an accounting of the prior year expenditures have been
received and reviewed by the Finance Department. These funds represent the
City's sole monetary commitment each fiscal year with the exception of the items
listed above.
Travel Expenses:
• The City will pay for 50% of one trip per year, per Councilmember, provided the
trip is in conjunction with an official delegation.
All other Council or City Staff travel for Sister City programs must be funded by Sister City
Committee fundraising activities, or by the individual traveling council or staff member,
unless authorized in advance by the City Council.
New Affiliations:
To ensure that there is a broad base of community support for a global partnership, the
citizen committee responsible for implementing the Sister City Program should include
at least 10 active Cupertino residents who are committed to making a new affiliation
successful.
No more than one Sister City relationship may be established in any given country.
Proposal Process
The new Sister City Committee will prepare and submit the following to the City of
Cupertino:
• Detailed demographic profile of the prospective city
• Application for a formal, incorporated 501(c)(3) structure, with officers and
appropriate subcommittees
59
• Documentation of broad-based community support, with a minimum of 10
members on the organizing committee
• A preliminary program plan outlining objectives and funding sources
If the City Council adopts a resolution establishing a new Sister City relationship, the
City shall register that new Sister City with Sister Cities International. If the proposed
new Sister City Committee desires to operate a student exchange program (with a
minimum of 5 student delegates and open to any school within the Cupertino Union
School District and/or Fremont Union High School District boundaries) and
demonstrates that it can meet its responsibilities as a City supported Sister City
Committee, the City shall adjust the budget for the following year to provide for
appropriate financial support.
Terminating a Sister City Affiliation
While regrettable, it is sometimes necessary for a city to terminate a Sister City
affiliation. Sister City affiliations are meant to be long-standing, official city linkages
that involve extensive community participation beyond government. For a variety of
reasons, a Sister City relationship may lose community interest and support, and
Cupertino or the Sister City may opt to terminate the Sister City relationship.
If a Sister City affiliation is inactive for a period of three years and there is a lack of
community support for the Sister City relationship to continue, the City may initiate the
process to terminate the Sister City affiliation with the Sister City and Sister Cities
International.
FRIENDSHIP CITIES
Intent of Friendship City Affiliations:
The City recognizes the value of developing people-to-people contacts as a way to
further international communication and understanding. Friendship City partnerships
can be effective in fostering increased global cooperation and communication.
Friendship cities may be established, however, they will not be considered official Sister
Cities and are not eligible for City funding.
New Affiliations:
All proposed Friendship City relationships must have Councilmember and community
sponsorship and be approved by the City Council. The Friendship City will submit a
Friendship City application to the City of Cupertino, which requires sponsorship from a
Council Member and a citizen’s committee to ensure the new affiliation is successful. If
approved, the City will issue a signed Letter of Intent establishing the Friendship City
60
relationship.
A Friendship City affiliation will be effective for two years and may be renewed every two
years.
Friendship City Committee Responsibilities:
• Identify, manage, coordinate, and implement all activities related to the
Friendship City program.
• Maintain communication with the affiliate Friendship City, ensuring the
counterpart is equally committed.
• Work with city staff at least two months in advance in arranging official
promotional gifts and meetings for foreign delegations. For local groups
traveling abroad and bringing city gifts, similar notice is required, unless waived
by the City Manager.
City of Cupertino Responsibilities:
Coordinated through the City Manager’s Office, the City will:
• Issue a signed Letter of Intent establishing the Friendship City relationship in an
effort to assist international delegation visits from the Friendship City
• Provide City promotional items typically given at community events to
government representatives from visiting countries as the budget allows. These
may include, but are not limited to: City t-shirts, pens, reusable bags, and lapel
pins, to the extent there remains a budgeted amount to purchase such gifts and
promotional items.
• Facilitate meetings with City officials.
• Conduct tours of city facilities.
Travel and Program Expenses:
Friendship City travel and program expenses will be treated as those of international
delegations and will follow the guidelines outlined in this policy in the “Travel and Program
Expenses” section under “INTERNATIONAL DELEGATIONS.”
Renewal of Friendship City Relationship
Friendship City renewals should be requested by an official of the Friendship City with
support of the Friendship City Committee. The Friendship City Committee should submit a
renewal application, which includes:
61
• Intent to renew letter from Friendship City official on official letterhead.
• Summary of Friendship City delegation visits to Cupertino hosted by the Committee
over the last two years.
• Summary of Cupertino delegation visits hosted by the Friendship City.
• Description of activities held and outcomes.
• How the relationship has been mutually beneficial for Cupertino and the friendship
community.
• An updated profile of the Friendship City Committee.
Notification of the intent to renew the Friendship City relationship should be sent to the City
at least 60 days in advance to ensure sufficient time to process the renewal. Friendship City
Committees will also be expected to prepare a presentation to the City Council when the
renewal is being considered.
Terminating a Friendship City Affiliation:
A Friendship City affiliation will be effective for two years. After two years, the Friendship
City affiliation will automatically expire unless renewed.
While regrettable, it is sometimes necessary for a city to terminate a Friendship City
affiliation prior to the end of the two year term. For a variety of reasons a Friendship City
relationship may no longer be mutually beneficial, and Cupertino or the Friendship City may
opt to terminate the Friendship City relationship.
INTERNATIONAL DELEGATIONS
Intent of International Delegations:
The City recognizes the value of developing people-to-people contacts as a way to
further international communication and understanding.
Delegations must contact city staff at least 60 days in advance in arranging meetings,
unless waived by the City Manager.
City of Cupertino Responsibilities:
Coordinated through the City Manager's Office, the City will:
• Provide City promotional items typically given at community events to
government representatives from visiting countries. These may include, but are
not limited to: City t-shirts, pens, reusable bags, and lapel pins, to the extent there
remains a budgeted amount to purchase such gifts and promotional items.
• Facilitate meetings with City officials.
• Conduct tours of city facilities.
62
Travel and Program Expenses:
Program Expenses -
The City Council will, as part of its annual budget adoption process, establish a program
budget for promotional items for delegations. Promotional gifts or gift bags shall not
exceed the cost of $25 each.
Councilmembers on an official delegation visit to a Sister City or Friendship City
typically present a gift to the host city dignitary, such as the Mayor. This host-city
dignitary gift should not exceed $200.
Travel Expenses -
International travel shall be at the expense of the traveling Councilmember unless
authorized in advance by the City Council.
63
Friendship City List (Sorted by Approval/Expiration Date)
City Country Friendship Approval Date Friendship Experation Date Listing Notes
Changzhou People's Republic of China September 20, 2016 September 20, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Chengdu People's Republic of China September 20, 2016 September 20, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Nanjing People's Republic of China September 20, 2016 September 20, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Taipei Taiwan (Republic of China)September 20, 2016 September 20, 2018
Pending
Council
Approval
Committee has
reached out with
interest in renewing
Taizhou People's Republic of China September 20, 2016 September 20, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Taichung Taiwan (Republic of China)October 4, 2016 October 4, 2018
Pending
Council
Approval
Committee has
reached out with
interest in renewing
Guro South Korea December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
Committee has
stated that they will
not renew
relationship
Jiangmen People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018
Pending
Council
Approval
Committee has
reached out with
interest in renewing
Luoyang People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Active
Renewed by
Cupertino City
Council (November
20, 2018)
Nanchang People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Qingdao People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Shanghai People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
64
Friendship City List (Sorted by Approval/Expiration Date)
Shenzhen People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Active
Renewed by
Cupertino City
Council (November
20, 2018)
Suzhou People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
Committee
president stated he
is not involved with
the committee and
gave no contact
information
Wuhan People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018 Expired
No response from
committee
Yilan Taiwan (Republic of China)December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018
Pending
Council
Approval
Committee has
reached out with
interest in renewing
Zhaoqing People's Republic of China December 6, 2016 December 6, 2018
Pending
Council
Approval
Committee has
reached out with
interest in renewing
Beijing People's Republic of China May 16, 2017 May 16, 2019 Active
Guangzhou People's Republic of China May 16, 2017 May 16, 2019 Active
Guiyang People's Republic of China May 16, 2017 May 16, 2019 Active
Huizhou People's Republic of China May 16, 2017 May 16, 2019 Active
Xuzhou People's Republic of China May 16, 2017 May 16, 2019 Active
Haikou People's Republic of China July 5, 2017 July 5, 2019 Active
Jilin People's Republic of China July 5, 2017 July 5, 2019 Active
Nanning People's Republic of China July 5, 2017 July 5, 2019 Active
Nantong People's Republic of China July 5, 2017 July 5, 2019 Active
Tongxiang People's Republic of China October 17, 2017 October 17, 2019 Active
65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4926 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/30/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch), 19399
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch),
19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch), 19399
Stevens Creek Boulevard
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™66
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch), 19399
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch), 19399
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Description
Name of Business: Pacific Catch
Location: 19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 47 – On-Sale General – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Person-to-Person Transfer
Discussion
A Conditional Use Permit (U-2015-01) for the previous tenant (Lyfe Kitchen) was approved by
Planning Commission on January 20, 2016 to allow a separate bar facility. This prior approval
remains active for Pacific Catch as an existing use pending ABC license issuance.
There are no other zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as
proposed. Therefore, staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 47
authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the licenses premises
and authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the licenses premises. This
business is located in Main Street Cupertino.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jeffrey Tsumura, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Interim Director of Community Development
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
67
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
68
69
70
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4927 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/30/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout Burgers &
Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout
Burgers & Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout Burgers & Beers
Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™71
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout Burgers &
Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road.
Recommended Action
Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the
Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout Burgers &
Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road.
Description
Name of Business: Stout Burgers & Beers Cupertino
Location: 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Original Fees, Annual Fee
Discussion
A Conditional Use Permit (U-2017-02) for this business was approved by Planning Commission
on June 13, 2017 to allow a separate bar facility.
There are no other zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as
proposed. Therefore, staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41
authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. This
business is located in Nineteen800 (formerly Rosebowl). There have been no previous tenants in
this space prior to this business.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jeffrey Tsumura, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Interim Director of Community Development
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
72
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
73
74
75
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5004 Name:
Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/12/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Study Session on new budget process
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Study Session on new budget process
Conduct study session on new budget process and provide any input to staff
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™76
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Study session on new budget process
Recommended Action
Conduct study session on new budget process and provide any input to staff.
Discussion
The most commonly used methodologies in governmental budgeting include line item
budgeting, program budgeting, performance based budgeting, and zero-based
budgeting. These budget methodologies are outlined further in the chart below.
Types of Budgets1 Description Advantages Disadvantages
Line Item A budget in which
each type of expense is
separately accounted
for, and placed in a
separate line for
readability and
analysis.
Easy to prepare
Micro-level of
expense control
Easy to justify
Flexible control
Reliance on past
data
Lack of
Analysis
May encourage
unnecessary
spending
Program A budgeting system
that describes and
gives the detailed costs
of every program that
is to be carried out
within your
organization with a
given budget.
More clearly
allocated dollars to
programs/ services
If a program is
eliminated, dollar
savings are known
Can track changes
in costs associated
with a specific
program over time
Staff tracking
and reporting
Labor intensive
to develop and
monitor
Doesn’t
necessarily
mean you’re
getting the
results you
should for the
dollars you’re
spending
1 Source: Government Finance Officers Association, Budget Training Academy workbook
77
Results/Performance
Based
The practice of
developing budgets
based on the
relationship between
program funding
levels and expected
results from that
program.
Require a discussion
of goals & objectives
Established clearer
expectations
Helps in prioritizing
allocation of
resources
Links costs to
results
Financial
System
limitations
Staff tracking &
reporting
Labor intensive
to develop and
monitor
Zero-Based A system of budgeting
where budgets are
zeroed at the
beginning of the
budget process and
departments/divisions
must justify all
expenditure allocations
rather than simply
justifying increases
over the previous fiscal
year.
More detail-oriented
than other forms of
budgeting
Easier to detect and
eliminate over-
inflated budgets
Costs and programs
are re-evaluated
each year
Labor intensive
to develop and
monitor May
be more biased
toward
revenue
producing
departments
Financial
system
limitations
Staff tracking &
reporting
In November 2018, City staff began a zero-based budget process for FY 2019-20. This
process starts all budgets for materials and contracts to zero dollars and requires
departments to build their base budgets from the ground up, justifying expenditures
they want included on an ongoing basis. In addition, staff was asked to provide
workload indicators for all full-time positions and provide an overview of tasks
provided by each position. Workload indicators are used by many surrounding cities as
a way to track increases in work for a given department/division. For example, a finance
division might track the number of paychecks or accounts payables processed or the
building division might track the number of permits issued. The review of staffing and
workload indicators were added to this base budget review on the recommendation of
former Interim City Manager, Amy Chan, who had similar indicators when she worked
for the City of Sunnyvale.
The last time the City reviewed base budgets was in FY 2013-14 when base budgets were
determined primarily by looking at actuals of the prior three fiscal years. At this time
staffing was not reviewed.
Budget team staff chose to review the base budget again, six years later, due to:
Large savings in materials and contracts over the last few fiscal years;
Unused contingency funds2; and
2 Appropriations for contingencies is a buffer of 5% of total budgeted materials and contracts
included in almost all City budgets in addition to 5% of total General Fund materials and
contracts that is included in the City Manager’s contingency fund.
78
Having three years’ worth of data in the City’s Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) software New World to assist in building the base budget.
Departments received instructions on the new zero-based budgeting process at the end
of November. To ensure timely completion of base budgets, budget team staff
scheduled three meetings with each department before January 8, 2019 to provide
support and ensure that department staff understood the new process. Once base
budgets were received, the budget team reviewed and edited the requests to remove any
one time or new requests that should have been included in the current year or should
be included as a proposed budget request. In addition, any requests that lacked detail
and/or methodology were sent back to departments for additional information. If none
could be provided those requests were eliminated. Workload indicators were also
reviewed.
Aside from resulting in a 9.6% savings as described in the fiscal impact section below,
the base budget process produced the following results:
Fundamental understanding of what each program budget funds
Variances more easily explained
Consistency when charging to various accounts such as meeting expenses,
conferences and meetings, and small tools and equipment
Consolidation of charges citywide expenses such as landline charges and multi-
function printers
A way to document reoccurring, non-annual expenses
More accurate budgets
An understanding of what indicators may drive workload and may result in
additional funding requests
Next Steps:
Looking forward to FY 2020-21 and beyond, budget team staff will work with
departments to further refine the base budget and expand workload indicators as
appropriate. The budget team and department staff will continue to review and refine
performance measures and work toward more complete funding requests. Budget team
staff will continue to utilize technology to ensure the budget process is efficient and
transparent. To date City staff uses the OpenGov software including the Transparency
Portal, Budget Builder and Workforce Planning, the City’s ERP System, Collective
Budget, GovInvest and Microsoft Word, Excel and Adobe PDF to prepare the City’s
annual budget.
The FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Financial Report is scheduled to come before Council on
March 5, 2019. FY 2019-20 Proposed Budget Hearing is scheduled in May 2019 and Final
Budget Hearing is scheduled in June 2019.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
79
Fiscal Impact
The City has realized savings of approximately $3.6 million over FY 2018-19 base budget
of $37.6 million across all funds for materials and contract expenditure categories. A
summary of decreases by department is provided in the following table:
Department Approximate Savings Description
Admin Services $400,000 Reduction of costs for non-annual
reoccurring expenses related to contract
negotiations which were funded in the
current year and to bring budgeted costs
in line with prior year ongoing actuals
I&T $200,000 Bring budgeted costs in line with prior
year ongoing actuals
Community
Development
$100,000 Bring budgeted costs in line with prior
year ongoing actuals
Public Works $2,000,000 Resource Recovery due to the City no
longer paying landfill cost on debris
boxes resulting in decreased cost of
approximately $1.4 million. This expense
also had offsetting revenue, resulting in
a cost neutral change
Bring budgeted costs in line with prior
year ongoing actuals
Recreation and
Community
Services
$500,000 Bring budgeted costs in line with prior
year ongoing actuals
City Attorney $400,000 Outsourcing of this function
Total All
Departments
$3,600,000
____________________________________
Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
80
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4971 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/4/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Provide direction for the use of increased County staffing budget for the Santa Clara County
Library for FY 19/20 of $428,596
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - SCCLD Increased Personnel Budget Options
B - Go Go Biblio Flyer
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Provide direction for the use of increased County staffing budget for the Santa Clara
County Library for FY 19/20 of $428,596
Provide staff direction whether to:
1. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year to reduce the City's
existing $468,023/year contribution for 12 additional Library hours per week and redirect
$428,596 of City funding toward a new program room attached to the Library (Option 3 as
provided by the Santa Clara County Library District); or
2. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year (including
consideration to add additional City funds over and above the $468,023/year) to implement one
or more of the options provided by the Santa Clara County Library District (Options 1A, 1B,
2A, 2B, 2C, 4 or any combination thereof).
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™81
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
Provide direction for the use of increased County staffing budget for the Santa Clara
County Library for FY 19/20 of $428,596.
Recommended Action
Provide staff direction whether to:
1. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year to reduce the
City’s existing $468,023/year contribution for 12 additional Library hours per week
and redirect $428,596 of City funding toward a new program room attached to the
Library (Option 3 as provided by the Santa Clara County Library District) ; or
2. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year (including
consideration to add additional City funds over and above the $468,023/year) to
implement one or more of the options provided by the Santa Clara County Library
District (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 4 or any combination thereof).
Background:
At the October 25, 2018 Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) Board meeting, the JPA approved an increase to the SCCLD staffing
budget for FY 19/20. The purpose of this action is to open all SCCLD libraries seven days
per week with at least four (4) hours of service on Sundays, by providing additional
staffing for the Campbell, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and Saratoga community libraries
beginning July 1, 2019. With the City’s existing funding for 12 additional hours, the
Cupertino Community Library already achieves this goal.
To preserve funding equity in accordance with the JPA’s Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement funding formula, an additional $428,596 will be allocated to the Cupertino
Community Library for staffing in fiscal year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. As the City
currently provides funding for additional library hours and staff time to accommodate
Library events that are programmed at Community Hall, these additional County staffing
dollars provide a variety of options.
82
The SCCLD has provided a number of options for the City to consider when providing
recommendations for the use of the increased budget. These options are included below
and detailed in Attachment A.
These options were presented to the Cupertino Library Commission on January 9th, 2019.
The Commission recommended that the City Council consider implementing both
Options 1A and 2A with the understanding that these two options together include an
additional estimated contribution from the City of $113,892 per year. The Commission
also provided a secondary recommendation of Option 2C.
Staff recommends that increased funding for the anticipated two years be set aside to fund
costs associated with the new Library program room expansion (Option 3), as proposed
in the adopted Civic Center Master Plan. Because it is still unknown if these increases will
be ongoing, it is prudent for the City to use one time dollars on one time costs. In addition,
once services are enhanced, be it additional hours or services level increases, those
enhancements may be hard to reverse. If the enhanced services were to continue after any
elimination of increased library funding, it would result in a nearly 100% increase in costs
over the City’s existing contribution for the 12 additional library hours.
The increased revenue of $428,596 comes from higher than expected property tax and
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) payments. The JPA estimates that
revenue will continue at this level for at least two years, but cannot predict the likelihood
of availability beyond this period.
Discussion:
The City Council may decide to use all or part of the increased budget to offset the existing
City contribution. Any funds not used to offset the existing contribution may be applied
toward the various options provided by SCCLD and listed below, or potentially other
options, agreeable to the SCCLD, that relate directly towards library staffing. Some of the
potential options are:
Option 1A ($308,531) - Extend the hours of operation of the Cupertino Library by
adding hours on:
Saturdays from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.)
Sundays from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
Option 1B ($421,258) - Extend the hours of operation of the Cupertino Library by
adding hours on:
Saturdays from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.)
Sundays from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (hours of operation 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.)
Option 2A ($233,957) – Enhance the SCCLD’s “Go Go Biblio” outreach to 55
regular community stops every month at schools, preschools and other
community locations.
83
Option 2B ($116,974) – Enhance the SCCLD’s “Go Go Biblio” outreach to 30 regular
community stops every month at schools, preschools and other community
locations.
Option 2C ($425,505) – Combination of Options 1A and 2B.
Option 3 ($428,596) – Use the additional staffing budget to reduce the City’s
existing contribution and redirect the funds toward a new program room
attached to the Library.
Option 4 ($428,596) - Reduce the existing $468,023/year of funding the City
provides for 12 additional library hours per week with the $428,596/year increased
staffing budget, for a revised total City contribution of $39,427 for FY19/20 and
FY20/21.
Library Commission Option ($542,488) – Combination of Options 1A and 2A. This
option uses the full portion of the increased budget and requires the City
contribute an additional $113,892 per year to fully implement the option.
This funding is currently guaranteed for the next two years only. If the funding were to
be reduced or eliminated after two years, the City Council would need to reconsider any
adjustments to its contribution levels or expansions to the Library’s level of service.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact with providing direction to the SCCLD.
Fiscal Impact
The Fiscal impact to the City is dependent upon the City Council’s decision for the use of
the increased staffing budget.
The option with the least fiscal impact to the City would be Option 4, which offsets the
City’s existing yearly contribution, for the additional 12 hours per week in library hours,
from $468,023 annually to $39,427 annually for at least the next two years.
The option with the greatest fiscal impact to the City would be the combination of Options
1A and 2A, as recommended by the Cupertino Library Commission. This approach
requires the City to continue its existing annual contribution of $468,023 and then
increasing the contribution by an additional $113,892 per year, for a total annual
contribution of $581,915.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works
84
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – SCCLD Increased Personnel Budget Options
B – Go Go Biblio Flyer
85
BACKGROUND : SCCLD INCREASED PERSONNEL BUDGET FY 2019 -2020
As stated in the Santa Clara County Library District
(SCCLD) letter to the City of Cupertino, the Joint
Powers Authority approved an increase to the
District’s personnel budget--ensuring every SCCLD
library will be open seven days a week. To
preserve the funding equity stipulated in the JPA’s
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement funding
formula, an additional $428,596 in personnel
funding will be allocated to the Cupertino Library
in fiscal year 2019-2020.
The Cupertino Library is incredibly popular with
your residents, so popular, in fact, that your
public’s usage falls within the top ten in the entire
nation, earning a 4-Star library designation for
SCCLD. SCCLD sees the budget increase as an
opportunity to further enhance that service for the City of Cupertino.
OPTION 1 A : ADD SAT. HOURS 6:30 P.M. TO 9 P.M. & SUN 6:30 P.M. TO 7 P.M.
2016 User Satisfaction survey: 63% of library users
said they would visit Saturday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Did not
survey for Sunday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., but Friday was 53%
Track record for usage after additional hours were
added in June 2018 from 66 hours to 72 hours:
o 3% increase in library cards
o 4% increase in visitation
o 6% increase in borrowing
Memorable schedule of Monday-Saturday 10 a.m. to
9 p.m., and Sunday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Current schedule: Monday-Friday 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Saturday-Sunday 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Option 1a: Cost
Expense Est. Cost Remaining Additional Budget Reduce Contribution to
1 FT Librarian $140,829
2 PT Library Clerks $93,124
3,328 EH Page Hours $53,632
988 EH Clerk Hours $20,946
Total $308,531 $120,065 $347,958
86
OPTION 1 B : ADD SAT. AND SUN. HOURS FROM 6:30 P.M. TO 9 P.M.
Option 1b: Cost
Expense Est. Cost Remaining Additional Budget Reduce Contribution to
1 FT Librarian $140,829
1 PT Library Assistant $58,359
3 PT Library Clerks $139,686
3,744 EH Page Hours $60,336
1,040 EH Clerk Hours $22,048
Total $421,258 $7,338 $460,685
OPTION 2 A : 55 MONTHLY SCHOOL, P RESCHOOL AND COMMUNI TY VISITS
55 regular community stops every month at schools, preschools, and the community spots
28,000 student library cards were created for Cupertino Union & Fremont Union High School District(s)
Model reading, online tutoring, and greater convenience for regular library access
Option 2a: Cost
Expense Est. Cost Remaining Additional Budget Reduce Contribution to
1 FT Librarian $140,829
1 FT Clerk $93,128
Total $233,957 $194,639 $273,384
87
OPTION 2B: 30 MONTHLY SCHOOL, PRE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY VISITS
30 regular community stops every month at schools, preschools, and the community spots
28,000 student library cards were created for Cupertino Union & Fremont Union High School District(s)
Model reading, online tutoring, and greater convenience for regular library access
Option 2b: Cost
Expense Est. Cost Remaining Additional Budget Reduce Contribution to
1 PT Librarian $70,412
1 PT Clerk $46,562
Total $116,974 $311,622 $156,401
OPTION 2C : COMBINE OPTION 1A AN D 2B
Option 2c: Cost
Expense Est. Cost Remaining Additional Budget Reduce Contribution to
1 FT Librarian $140,829
2 PT Library Clerks $93,124
3,328 EH Page Hours $53,632
988 EH Clerk Hours $20,946
1a Subtotal $308,531
1 PT Librarian $70,412
1 PT Clerk $46,562
2b Subtotal $116,974
Total $425,505 $3,091 $464,932
OPTION 3 : ADDRESS THE NEED FOR DEDICATED PROGRAM SPACE
City of Cupertino augments library funding for services. Addressing the need for dedicated library program space,
we could consider the use of city funding for this purpose augmented by Library District funding for staffing costs
of an equal amount.
OPTION 4 : SUSPEND CITY CONTR IBUTION
Suspend the City of Cupertino’s funding for a minimum of two years from $468,023 to $39,427 with no change to
current open hours. Should the increased property tax and ERAF revenue no longer be available after two years
(beginning July 1, 2021), the city’s current contribution of $468,023 (adjusted for increases in salary and benefit
costs) would be needed to maintain the current 72 (to become 73) additional open hours per week.
QUESTIONS: CONTACT
88
Cynthia Rios Garcia, Executive Assistant to Nancy Howe, County Librarian
criosgarcia@sccl.org
(408) 293-2326 x 3090
89
Say Hello to Cupertino Library’s
Go Go Biblio!
Los Altos Library Saratoga Library The Anywhere Go Go
Introducing our new electric
powered mini Bookmobiles
— the Go Go Biblios!
Keep an eye out for them at local
community events.
Carrying precious cargo of books,
movies and more, they are
“Powered by Imagination”.
Coming soon to an
event near you
CUPERTINO LIBRARY | 10800 Torre Avenue | Cupertino, CA 95014 | www.sccl.org/cupertino
90
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4757 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/17/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: 2018 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2019-103 contract award
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - 2019 Overlay Street List
B - Contract Documents
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: 2018 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2019-103 contract award
Authorize the city Manager to award a contract to G. Bortolotto & Co. in the amount of
$2,584,568 and approve a construction contingency of $258,000 for a total of $2,842,568.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™91
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2019
Subject
2018 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2019-103 contract award
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to G. Bortolotto & Co. in the amount of
$2,584,568 and approve a construction contingency of $258,000 for a total of $2,842,568.
Discussion
On January 22, 2019, the City received five bids for the 2019 Pavement Maintenance
Project. This project provides for asphalt overlay on 37 streets throughout the City.
Included in this project are the streets identified in a resolution adopted by the City
Council on April 3, 2018 for funding by the State’s Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (SB 1). Work on this project will begin in earnest near the end of
this school year and will be completed by August 2019.
The majority of the streets improved are in residential areas on streets with a pavement
condition index (PCI) that is poor (PCI of 25 – 49) to a PCI that is fair (PCI of 60 – 69).
The only collector street on the list is Stelling Road from north of the Highway 280
overpass to Homestead Road. The following is a summary of bids deemed complete:
Bidder Bid Amount
Engineers Estimate $3,000,000
G. Bortolotto & Co. $2,584,468
O’Grady Paving Co. $2,698,904
De Silva Gates Construction $2,998,694
Interstate Paving and Grading $3,079,368
Joseph J Albanese, Inc. $3,381,810
The engineers estimate for this project was based upon the competitively bid unit costs
of a similar project completed this year.
A second pavement project - the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, is scheduled for
construction later this year. This project will either slurry or chip seal an additional 20
streets.
Upon completion of this project and the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2 project,
the City-wide street network PCI is expected to be 85.
92
Sustainability Impact
Maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will
reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the
pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduced vehicle
emissions helping the City achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
reductions goals.
Fiscal Impact
For FY18/19, $6.83M was budgeted for asphalt and concrete improvements. Award of
the project will result in a fiscal impact of up to $2,842,568. Sufficient funds have been
budgeted and are available from accounts #270-85-821-900-921 (Street Pavement
Maintenance) and #270-85-821-400-437 (SB1 Road Maintenance). SB 1 is scheduled to
provide $978,000 to this project.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jo Anne Johnson, Public Works Project Manager
Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – 2019 Overlay Street List
B – Contract Documents
93
2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1
Street List
STREET NAME FROM TO PCI
FELTON WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 55
ORLINE CT JOLLYMAN END 34
STARLING CT STARLING END 36
GRAPNEL PL AMULET END 40
PEBBLE PL AMULET END 40
ALICIA CT ALCALDE END 41
BLOSSOM LN FELTON END 42
KRISTA CT VOSS END 42
STANDING OAK CT VOSS END 44
JOLLYMAN LN STELLING END 45
RUPPELL PL KINGSBURY END 46
CRESTON DR 150' N/O RIVERCREST (CITY LIMIT)END 47
DEGAS CT MEDINA END 48
MARIANI AVE DE ANZA END 48
PORTAL AVE STEVENS CREEK END (N)50
HANFORD DR BEARDON END 51
VOSS AVE KRISTA CT END 52
ACADIA CT BEARDON END 53
DRAKE CT DRAKE END 54
JOHN WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 54
STONYDALE DR CRESTON END 55
EL PRADO WY VOSS MEDINA 56
LEOLA CT GREENWOOD END 56
LONNA LN KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 56
RODRIGUES AVE WESTERN DE ANZA 56
SALEM AVE ANTHONY FOOTHILL 56
MOLTZEN DR RUPPELL CANDLELIGHT 58
GREENWOOD DR MILLER END (E)59
ALVES DR SAICH BANDLEY 60
POPPY DR FOOTHILL END 60
MEDINA LN EL PRADO LOCKWOOD 61
ELENDA DR GLEN COE End 62
DRAKE DR PORTAL AUBURN 65
PARADISE DR TERRY CHERYL 68
HANFORD DR GLEN COE BEARDON 69
STELLING RD 450' N of 280 (10870
N. Stelling Rd)
Homestead Rd 69
GLEN COE DR ELENDA HANFORD 72
Attachment A
94
ATTACHMENT B
Contract
This public works contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the City of Cupertino
(“City”), a municipal corporation, and G Bortolotto & Company, Inc. (“Contractor”), for work on the
2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Project (“Project”).
The parties agree as follows:
1. Award of Contract. In response to the Notice Inviting Bids, Contractor has submitted a
Bid Proposal and accompanying Bid Schedule, a copy of which is attached for convenience
as Exhibit A, to perform the Work to construct the Project. On February 19, 2019, City
authorized award of this Contract to Contractor for the amount set forth in Section 4 below.
2. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents incorporated into this Contract include
and are comprised of all of the following:
2.1 Notice Inviting Bids;
2.2 Instructions to Bidders;
2.3 Addenda, if any;
2.4 Bid Proposal and attachments thereto;
2.5 Contract;
2.6 Payment Bond, Performance Bond and, if required, a Warranty Bond;
2.7 General Conditions;
2.8 Special Conditions;
2.9 Project Drawings and Specifications;
2.10 Change Orders, if any;
2.11 Notice of Award;
2.12 Notice to Proceed;
2.13 City of Cupertino Standard Details; and
2.14 The following: Location Map
3. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor will perform all of the Work required for the Project,
as specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must provide, furnish, and supply all
things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work,
including all necessary labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, transportation, and
utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must use its best
efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or
exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents.
4. Payment. As full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and
completion of the Work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract
Documents, City will pay Contractor $2,584,568.12 (“Contract Price”) for all of Contractor’s
direct and indirect costs to perform the Work, including all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs, in accordance with the
payment provisions in the General Conditions.
5. Time for Completion. Contractor will fully complete the Work for the Project within 100
days from the commencement date given in th e Notice to Proceed (“Contract Time”). By
signing below, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion.
6. Liquidated Damages. If Contractor fails to complete the Work within the Contract Time,
City will assess liquidated damages in the amount of $1000.00 per day for each day of
unexcused delay in completion, and such liquidated damages may be deducted from City’s
payments due or to become due to Contractor under this Contract.
95
ATTACHMENT B
7. Labor Code Compliance.
7.1 General. This Contract is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of
Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, including requirements pertaining to wages,
working hours and workers’ compensation insurance.
7.2 Prevailing Wages. This Project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements
applicable to the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft,
classification or type of worker needed to perform the Work, including employer
payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, apprenticeship and similar
purposes. Copies of these prevailing rates are available online at
http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR.
7.3 DIR Registration. City may not enter into the Contract with a bidder without proof
that the bidder and its Subcontractors are registered with the California Department
of Industrial Relations to perform public work under Labor Code section 1725.5,
subject to limited legal exceptions.
8. Workers’ Compensation Certification. Under Labor Code section 1861, by signing this
Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code
section 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’
compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that
code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
Work on this Contract.”
9. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors and agents, may not
have, maintain or acquire a conflict of interest in relation to this Contract in violation of any
City ordinance or policy or in violation of any California law, including under Government
Code section 1090 et seq. and under the Political Reform Act as set forth in Government
Code section 81000 et seq. and its accompanying regulations. No officer, official,
employee, consultant, or other agent of the City (“City Representative”) may have,
maintain, or acquire a “financial interest” in the Contract, as that term is defined under the
Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000, et seq., and regulations
promulgated thereunder); or under Government Code section 1090, et seq.; or in violation
of any City ordinance or policy while serving as a City Representative or for one year
thereafter. Any violation of this Section constitutes a material breach of the Contract.
10. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor under this Contract and
will have control of the Work and the means and methods by which it is performed. Contractor
and its Subcontractors are not employees of City and are not entitled to participate in any health,
retirement, or any other employee benefits from City.
96
ATTACHMENT B
11. Notice. Any notice, billing, or payment required by or pursuant to the Contract Documents
must be made in writing, signed, dated and sent to the other party by personal delivery,
U.S. Mail, a reliable overnight delivery service, or by email as a PDF (or comparable) file.
Notice is deemed effective upon delivery unless otherwise specified. Notice for each party
must be given as follows:
City:
Name: City of Cupertino
Address: 10300 Torre Avenue
City/State/Zip: Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408-777-3245
Attn: Director of Public Works
Email: joannej@cupertino.org
Copy to: pwinvoices@cupertino.org
Contractor:
Name: G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.
Address: 582 Bragato Road
City/State/Zip: San Carlos, CA 94070-6227
Phone: (650) 595-2591
Attn: Robert Bortolotto
Email: gbort@pacbell.net
Copy to:____________________________________
12. General Provisions.
12.1 Assignment and Successors. Contractor may not assign its rights or obligations
under this Contract, in part or in whole, without City’s written consent. This
Contract is binding on Contractor’s and City’s lawful heirs, successors and
permitted assigns.
12.2 Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries to this
Contract except as expressly provided in the General Conditions or Special
Conditions.
12.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Contract will be governed by California law and
venue will be in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and no other place.
12.4 Amendment. No amendment or modification of this Contract will be binding
unless it is in a writing duly authorized and signed by the parties to this Contract.
12.5 Integration. This Contract and the Contract Documents incorporated herein,
including authorized amendments or Change Orders thereto, constitute the final,
complete, and exclusive terms of the agreement between City and Contractor.
12.6 Severability. If any provision of the Contract Documents, or portion of a provision,
is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of
the Contract Documents will remain in full force and effect.
12.7 Authorization. Each individual signing below warrants that he or she is authorized
to do so by the party that he or she represents, and that this Contract is legally
binding on that party. If Contractor is a corporation, signatures from two officers of
the corporation are required pursuant to California Corporation Code section 313.
97
ATTACHMENT B
[Signatures are on the following page.]
98
ATTACHMENT B
The parties agree to this Contract as witnessed by the signatures below:
CONTRACTOR
______________________________ CITY OF CUPERTINO
<insert full name of Contractor above> A Municipal Corporation
By By ___________________________
Name_______________________ Roger Lee
Title Acting Director of Public Works
Date _______________________ Date________________________
By
Name_______________________
Title
Date _______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________________
Name__________________________
City Attorney
Date___________________________
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Grace Schmidt
City Clerk
Date____________________________
Contract Amount: _________________
P.O. No. ________________________
Account No. _____________________
END OF CONTRACT
99
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4906 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/23/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Initiation of declaratory relief or other appropriate action to determine validity of referendum
petition against Resolution No. 18-085 and receipt of City Attorney memorandum regarding this and
three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:City Attorney Memo regarding Vallco Referendum Petitions
A - Dec. 6, 2018 letter from Sean Welch
B - Dec. 18, 2018 letter from Sean Welch
C - Resolution No. 18-085 (presented to and voted on by Council)
D - Table LU-1 (as appears in certified resolution provided to proponents)
E - Modified Table LU-1 (as it appears in referendum petition)
F - Ordinance No 18-2178 (adopted by Council & provided to proponents)
G - Modified Zoning Map (as it appears in referendum petition)
H - City Clerk’s Feb. 13, 2019 Receipt Rejecting Referendum Petition
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Initiation of declaratory relief or other appropriate action to determine validity of
referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 and receipt of City Attorney memorandum
regarding this and three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan
Project.
That the City Council authorize the City Attorney, on behalf of the City Clerk, to initiate a
declaratory relief action or other appropriate action to determine whether a referendum petition
against Resolution No. 18-085 (approving a General Plan amendment for the Vallco Town
Center Specific Plan Project) substantially complies with Elections Code requirements. The
City Council will also receive a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the status of
this and the three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan
Project.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™100
To: Honorable Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council
From: Heather Minner, City Attorney
Date: February 13, 2019
Re: Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project Referendum Petitions
SUMMARY
This memorandum addresses alleged legal deficiencies in two of the four
referendum petitions submitted to the City protesting the City Council’s
approvals for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project (“Project”). At the
December 18, 2018, City Council meeting, the City Clerk certified that all four
referendum petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for
placement on the ballot or repeal by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code
Section 9241. As detailed below, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office,
the City Clerk has since concluded that one of the challenged referendum
petitions (which protests the ordinance rezoning the Vallco property) is
procedurally defective and must be rejected because it does not comply with the
Elections Code’s requirement to include the full text of the challenged ordinance.
The City Clerk accordingly informed the referendum proponents on February 13,
2019, that she has rejected that referendum petition.
The City Clerk believes that the other challenged referendum petition (which
protests the General Plan Amendment for the Project) “substantially complies”
with the “full text” requirement and all other Elections Code requirements.
However, under the applicable case law, it is not clear whether the City Clerk (as
opposed to a court) has discretion to make such a substantial compliance
determination on her own. Accordingly, the City Attorney has recommended
that the City Clerk file an action for declaratory relief in Santa Clara County
Superior Court to establish whether this referendum petition substantially
complies with the full text requirement. At the February 19, 2019, City Council
meeting, the City Attorney and the City Clerk will request that the City Council
authorize the City Attorney to file such litigation on behalf of the City Clerk.
101
Page 2 of 9
Once the Court determines whether the referendum challenging the General
Plan Amendment substantially complies with the Elections Code, staff will bring
the two unchallenged referendum petitions (which protest approval of the
development agreement and specific plan for the Project) back to the Council for
a determination whether to place them on the ballot or repeal them pursuant to
Elections Code section 9241. If the Court determines that the General Plan
Amendment referendum substantially complies with the Elections Code, then
the City Council would have these same two options with respect to the
referendum on the General Plan amendment.
The purpose of this memorandum is primarily to inform the City Council and
the public of the City Attorney’s recommendations to the City Clerk regarding
the two challenged referendum petitions. The only City Council action this
memorandum recommends is to authorize the filing of litigation to determine
the validity of the referendum petition against the General Plan Amendment.
BACKGROUND
In September and October 2018, the City Council adopted three resolutions and
enacted three ordinances in connection with its approval of the Vallco Town
Center Specific Plan Project. Opponents of the Project filed a total of four
referendum petitions challenging two of the resolutions (No. 18-085, amending
the City’s General Plan, and No. 18-086, adopting the Vallco Town Center
Specific Plan) and two of the ordinances (No. 18-2178, adopting zoning
designations and amending the City’s Zoning Map, and No. 18-2179, adopting a
development agreement). The City Clerk accepted the petitions for signature
verification. On December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s
certification that each referendum petition contained sufficient valid signatures.
In the meantime, the City received two letters from attorneys representing Vallco
Property Owner, LLC, the developer and applicant for the Project. The first letter,
dated December 6, 2018, claimed that the referendum petition against Resolution
No. 18-085 (the General Plan Amendment) failed to include the full “text” of that
Resolution as required by the Elections Code. The second letter, dated December
18, 2018, claimed that the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178
(the Zoning Amendment) similarly failed to include the full “text” of the
Ordinance. The two letters are attached to this report as Attachments A and B.
102
Page 3 of 9
DISCUSSION
The City Attorney’s office and outside counsel have carefully reviewed the
arguments contained in both letters and discussed these issues with the attorneys
for both Vallco and the referendum proponents. On the basis of that review, the
City Attorney’s office has recommended that the City Clerk proceed as follows:
(1) seek a ruling from the Santa Clara County Superior Court regarding whether
the Referendum Against Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment)
substantially complies with the Elections Code; (2) reject the Referendum
Against Ordinance No. 18-2178 (Zoning Designations and Zoning Map) for
failure to actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code; and (3) after
the Court determines whether the referendum on the General Plan Amendment
substantially complies with the Elections Code, return to the City Council with
options on the remaining referendum petitions. These recommendations are
discussed in detail below.
1. Seek a ruling from the Santa Clara County Superior Court regarding
whether the Referendum Against Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan
Amendment) substantially complies with the Elections Code.
Resolution No. 18-085 amended the City’s General Plan to accommodate the
development anticipated in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Those
amendments included changes to General Plan Table LU-1, which establishes
specific allocations for commercial, office, hotel, and residential development
throughout the City, including in the Vallco Town Center area. As shown in an
exhibit to Resolution No. 18-085 adopted by the City Council, Table LU-1 depicts
the new development allocations in underlined red text, and the previous
development allocations in blue text with red “strikethrough” lines indicating
those allocations have been eliminated. A copy of Resolution No. 18-085 and
exhibits, as presented to and voted upon by the City Council on September 18
and 19, 2018, is attached to this memorandum as Attachment C.
Vallco’s December 6 letter claimed that the referendum petition challenging
Resolution No. 18-085 failed to include the full text of the resolution. Specifically,
Vallco claimed the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition
omitted the “strikethrough” lines identifying the prior development allocations
eliminated by the General Plan Amendment. Vallco argued that this discrepancy
deprived potential petition signers of critical information about the effect of the
General Plan Amendment and the referendum.
103
Page 4 of 9
The City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s office, determined that
the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition omitted some of
the “strikethrough” lines shown in the version adopted by the City Council. Staff
further determined, however, that the “strikethrough” lines also were missing
from the certified, printed version of Resolution No. 18-085 that the City Clerk
maintained in her files and provided to the referendum proponents. A copy of
Table LU-1, as it appears in the certified version of the Resolution provided to
referendum proponents, is attached to this report as Attachment D.
This certified version—although incorrect—was the version provided to the
referendum proponents prior to the circulation of petitions. In response to the
Vallco letter, and with the assistance of the City’s IT department and vendors,
staff subsequently determined that the “strikethrough” lines were inadvertently
eliminated during printing of the certified resolution due to a software setting
affecting the printing of PDF documents.1
The City Clerk and City Attorney further determined that the version of Table
LU-1 attached to the referendum petition also differed from the certified version
provided to referendum proponents. For example, the words “With Vallco Town
Center Tier 1” and “With Vallco Town Center Tier 2” were replaced with “With
VTC Tier 1” and “With VTC Tier 2.” Moreover, some—but not all—of the
“strikethrough” lines inadvertently omitted from the certified version of the
resolution appear to have been restored in the version of Table LU-1 attached to
the referendum petition. A copy of Table LU-1, as it appears in the referendum
petition, is attached to this report as Attachment E.
A referendum petition must include the “text” of the challenged resolution or
ordinance. See Elec. Code § 9238(b)(2). Court decisions have made clear that the
relevant “text” includes not only the text of the resolution or ordinance itself, but
also any other documents attached to, or expressly incorporated by reference
into, the resolution or ordinance. See Lin v. City of Pleasanton (2009) 176
Cal.App.4th 408, 419-20. The purposes of the “text” requirement include
reducing confusion, informing prospective petition signers regarding the effect
of the challenged resolution or ordinance, and providing voters with the
1 The version of Resolution No. 18-085 available on the City’s website continues
to contain the same software “glitch” that either shows—or does not show—the
strikethrough depending on how the document is printed. Pending completion
of our investigation into this matter, we recommended that the City staff make
no changes to this document. Pending further clarification from the Court, we
likewise recommend that City staff make no changes to this document as it
appears on the City’s website.
104
Page 5 of 9
information they need to exercise their right of referendum intelligently. Billig v.
Voges (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 962, 966.
The California Supreme Court has held that “substantial” compliance with
Elections Code requirements—as opposed to strict “technical” or “actual”
compliance—is sufficient to allow a referendum to proceed to the ballot, so long
as technical deficiencies do not deprive potential signers of critical information,
mislead the public, or otherwise affect the integrity of the electoral process “as a
realistic and practical matter.” Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1012-
13. This is particularly the case where the deficiency was inadvertent rather than
intentional. See id. at 1029; see also MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of
Santee (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1389-91 (ballot title and summary
inadvertently prepared for wrong version of initiative sufficiently reflected
initiative’s substance and did not invalidate city’s adoption of initiative
ordinance). Other courts have suggested that referendum proponents may rely
on the ordinances, resolutions, and exhibits provided by a city in preparing their
petitions, and need not conduct their own investigations into what exactly the
city might have intended to adopt. See Lin, 176 Cal.App.4th at 419.
Here, the City Attorney believes—and the City Clerk agrees—that the version of
Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition substantially complies with the
Elections Code’s “text” requirement notwithstanding the omission of some of the
“strikethrough” lines shown in the exhibit to Resolution No. 18-085 adopted by
the City Council. The “strikethrough” was omitted due to an entirely
inadvertent technical error by City staff. City staff then provided referendum
proponents with a copy of Resolution No. 18-085 that contained this inadvertent
error.
Under the applicable case law, it is our view that referendum proponents are
entitled to rely upon the documents provided to them by City officials in
preparing referendum petitions. Moreover, even without the “strikethrough,” it
is reasonably clear from the context in which Table LU-1 appears in the
referendum petition that the underlined, red text is new text added by the
challenged resolution, and that the figures shown in blue in the table were
replaced by the new text. Finally, the other changes in the referendum petition
table made by the referendum proponents, although apparently intentional, do
not materially affect the meaning of the table, and if anything appear to have
been intended to improve the readability of the table compared to the version
provided by the City.
105
Page 6 of 9
These conclusions are not free from doubt. One Court of Appeal decision
invalidated a referendum petition that omitted three words from the title of the
challenged ordinance, finding the omission created ambiguity as to the
ordinance’s effect. Hebard v. Bybee (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340-41. That
case, however, did not involve a referendum proponent’s reliance on a city’s
inadvertent error in attachments to the challenged ordinance. The case also was
decided prior to Costa and must be read in light of the Supreme Court’s
subsequent determination that an “inadvertent good-faith human error” will not
invalidate a petition unless, “as a realistic and practical matter,” the error
undermines the integrity of the electoral process or frustrates the underlying
purpose of the statutory requirements. Costa, 37 Cal.4th at 1027-28. On
balance—and considering that courts generally will uphold the exercise of the
referendum power wherever reasonably possible—the City Attorney agrees with
the City Clerk that the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085
substantially complies with the Elections Code.
That said, it is unclear under the applicable court precedents whether the City
Clerk has the authority to determine on her own that the petition is substantially
compliant. A city clerk’s evaluation of a referendum petition is generally limited
to comparing the petition itself with relevant statutory requirements, a
ministerial exercise that does not allow for substantial discretion or subjective
judgment. See Lin, 176 Cal.App.4th at 420-21; Alliance for a Better Downtown
Millbrae v. Wade (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 123, 133-34.
Accordingly, our office has advised the City Clerk that the most appropriate
course of action under these circumstances is for the City Clerk to file an action
for declaratory relief—essentially, a request that the Superior Court determine
whether the referendum petition substantially complies with the Elections Code.
Such an action is particularly appropriate here, where there is some legal
uncertainty, and where any decision by the City Clerk—either to accept or reject
the petition—would almost certainly result in litigation by either Vallco or the
referendum proponents. Accordingly, the City Attorney recommends that the
Council authorize the initiation of litigation on behalf of the City Clerk.
2. Reject the Referendum Against Ordinance No. 18-2178 (Zoning
Designations and Zoning Map) for failure to actually or substantially comply
with the Elections Code.
Ordinance No. 18-2178 amended the zoning designations applicable to parcels
within the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and made corresponding changes to
the City’s official Zoning Map. A copy of Ordinance No. 18-2178, as adopted by
106
Page 7 of 9
the City Council and provided to the referendum proponents by the City Clerk,
is attached to this report as Attachment F.
Vallco’s December 18 letter claimed that the referendum petition against
Ordinance No. 18-2178 “fail[ed] to include the full-text” of the ordinance and
contained “wildly inaccurate exhibits.” Specifically, Vallco asserted that the
version of the Zoning Map attached to the petition was “substantially and
meaningfully different” from the Zoning Map attached to Ordinance No. 18-
2178. A copy of the Zoning Map attached to the referendum petition is attached
as Attachment G.
The City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, determined that
the version of the Zoning Map attached to the referendum petition differs in
numerous respects from the Zoning Map attached to Ordinance No. 18-2178.
The deviations from the Zoning Map adopted by the City Council are substantial
and material enough to create confusion and undermine potential signers’
understanding of the effect of the ordinance. See Hebard, 65 Cal.App.4th at 1340-
41 (incorrect ordinance title in petition created ambiguity and multiple
interpretations of how ordinance might affect particular parcels); Chase v. Brooks
(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 657, 664 (petition omitting exhibit describing property
affected by ordinance failed to inform prospective signers of effect or breadth of
ordinance).
Moreover, the deviations in the version of the Zoning Map attached to the
referendum petition are entirely due to actions taken by the referendum
proponents. Unlike with the General Plan Amendment, there were no
inadvertent good faith errors by City staff in providing the proponents a version
of the document that differed from what was actually adopted by the City
Council.
Accordingly, and on the advice of the City Attorney, the City Clerk has
determined that the referendum challenging Ordinance No. 18-2178 does not
actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code. Under the applicable
case law, the City Clerk thus has a legal duty to reject the petition against
Ordinance No. 18-2178 as procedurally defective. A copy of the City Clerk’s
February 13, 2019, Receipt Rejecting [this] Referendum Petition is attached as
Attachment H. Pursuant to the Elections Code, there is no further action for the
City Clerk, or the City Council, to take in connection with this referendum
petition.
107
Page 8 of 9
3. Return to the City Council with options on the remaining referendum
petitions after the Court determines whether the referendum on the General Plan
Amendment substantially complies with the Elections Code.
As noted above, the City Clerk on December 18, 2018, certified that all four
referendum petitions had sufficient valid signature to qualify for placement on
the ballot or repeal by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code section 9241.
Neither Vallco nor anyone else has identified any defects in the remaining two
referendum petitions, which protest the City Council’s adoption of Resolution
No. 18-086 (approving the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan) and Ordinance No.
18-2179 (approving the Vallco development agreement). Accordingly, the City
Council must ultimately determine what actions to take with respect to these two
referendum petitions (i.e., whether to (1) repeal one or both of the challenged
enactments entirely; (2) place one or both of them on the ballot for the “next
regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of the
election”; or (3) place one or both of them on the ballot for a special election
occurring not less than 88 days after the order).
The Elections Code does not specify any particular deadline for the City Council
to take one of these specified actions, and the “next regular” municipal election
on which the referendums could potentially appears is not until November 3,
2020. Although there is no published case law directly on point, it is possible
that a court might conclude that the City Council must take one of the authorized
actions within a reasonable period of time.
Under the circumstances, and because the City Council’s decision with respect to
these two referendums may depend upon the outcome of the declaratory relief
action that we recommend the City Clerk file regarding the General Plan
Amendment, we recommend that the City Council not make any decision on
whether to repeal or place these two referendums on the ballot until after the
Court has issued a decision in that case. Accordingly, we have recommended
that City staff return to the City Council for possible action on the two
unchallenged referendum petitions once the court has issued a decision
regarding whether the General Plan Amendment referendum petition
substantially complies with the Elections Code. If the court determines that the
General Plan Amendment referendum petition does substantially comply with
the Elections Code, the City Council would consider possible action on that
referendum petition as well at the same time.
108
Page 9 of 9
Attachments:
A – Dec. 6, 2018, letter from Sean Welch regarding alleged defects in referendum
petition against Resolution No. 18-085
B – Dec. 18, 2018, letter from Sean Welch regarding alleged defects in referendum
petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178
C – Resolution No. 18-085 and all exhibits, as presented to and voted upon by the
City Council on September 18 and 19, 2018
D – Table LU-1, as it appears in the certified version of Resolution No. 18-085
provided to referendum proponents
E – Modified Table LU-1, as it appears in the referendum petition
F – Ordinance No. 18-2178 (including the Zoning Map and other all exhibits), as
adopted by the City Council and as provided to referendum proponents
G – Modified Zoning Map, as it appears in the referendum petition
H – City Clerk’s February 13, 2019, Receipt Rejecting Referendum Petition
1081250.4
109
December 6, 2018
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Grace Schmidt, City Clerk City of Cupertino Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Re: Referendum of City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085 Dear Ms. Schmidt: We are writing on behalf of Vallco Property Owner, LLC regarding the referendum (the “Referendum”) of City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085, titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving a General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and Development Standards Related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area” (the “General Plan Amendment”). On October 30, 2018, we submitted a Public Records Act request for a blank copy of the Referendum petition. We received your response to our request on November 9, 2018, and have reviewed the petition for compliance with the mandatory requirements of the California Elections Code. In short, the Referendum petition fails to provide the full and accurate text of the resolution being referred, as required by the California Elections Code. This failure to comply with the Elections Code unlawfully deprived signers of the statutorily required information necessary to intelligently exercise their electoral rights. The Referendum petition is therefore facially defective and cannot be certified.
1. The Referendum Petition Failed to Include the Full Text of the
Ordinance in Violation of Elections Code section 9238. The Referendum petition plainly fails to comply with section 9238 of the California Elections Code, which mandates that the “full text” of a municipal referendum be included in a petition circulated for voter signatures. The General
110
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk December 6, 2018 Page 2
Plan Amendment indicates what changes are being made to the General Plan by showing additions in underline and deletions in strikethrough. Page LU-13 of the General Plan Amendment contains a critically important table, titled “Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040.” In Table LU-1, the General Plan Amendment makes significant alterations to the development allocations for Vallco, reducing the square footage allocated to office by up to 1,250,000 square feet, and increasing the number of units allocated to residential development by as much as 2,543 units (or more than 7.5 times the number of residential units previously allocated). These changes are shown by striking out the current development allocations, and replacing them with new allocations in underlined text. Significantly, these key changes to the development allocations are not shown or otherwise discussed elsewhere in the GPA Resolution. In short, the amendments contained in Table LU-1 are arguably the most significant change to the City’s General Plan. As shown in Exhibit A hereto, however, Referendum proponents failed to faithfully reproduce the General Plan Amendment as adopted by the City Council, and the Referendum petition circulated for voter signatures completely omitted the strikethroughs of the current allocations. As such, signers had absolutely no way to determine how the allowable uses for the Vallco property were changing. They were left completely in the dark. A long line of California cases have struck down initiative and referendum petitions that failed to comply with the formatting provisions of the Elections Code, especially those such as section 9238, which is intended to provide information to petition signers. (See, e.g., Mervyn’s v. Reyes (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 93, 104-05 [relying on an “unbroken line of initiative and referendum cases covering the period 1925 to 1998” to strike down a petition for failing to include the full text of the measure].) Moreover, where, as here, a referendum petition fails to comply with the statutory requirements, local elections officials have the
ministerial duty to reject the petition and must refuse to take any action on it. (Id.; see also Billig v. Voges (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 962, 968-69 [“a city clerk who refuses to accept a petition for noncompliance with the statute is only performing a ministerial function involving no exercise of discretion”].) For example, in Chase v. Brooks (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 657, proponents of a referendum petition against a rezoning ordinance included references to a city map number and reclassification of the property affected, but failed to attach a
111
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk December 6, 2018 Page 3
related exhibit which contained the legal description of the property affected. The Court of Appeal held that proponents were required to faithfully reproduce the exhibit in their petition. Accordingly, having failed to comply with the “full text” requirement, the petition was illegal. (Id. at 663; see also Mervyn’s, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at 97-98 [“The purpose of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient information so that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the initiative petition and to avoid confusion”]; Creighton v. Reviczky (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1232 [invalidating petition because it “failed to provide the electors with the information [] they needed in order to exercise intelligently their rights under the referendum law”].) Even far less egregious violations of the full text requirement have produced the same result. In Hebard v. Bybee (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1331, a referendum petition challenging an ordinance altering a land use designation in a city’s general plan merely misstated the title of the ordinance by inadvertently omitting three words. (Id. at 1338-40.) The Court of Appeal invalidated the referendum petition for failing to technically or substantially comply with the full text requirement. In misstating the correct title of the ordinance, the Court held, the petition failed to adequately inform voters which land was involved and thereby deprived them of vital, mandatory information. (Id. at 1340-41 [“[I]t is the responsibility of the petition proponents to present a petition that conforms to the requirements of the Elections Code”].) Here, the strikethroughs and underlines on the Development Allocation table were the only way for potential signers to know that the General Plan was being amended to significantly reduce the amount of commercial office space planned for the Vallco area of the City, and replace it with at least 1,645 units of much needed housing. Yet the strikethroughs of the current allocations are completely absent, leaving signers with no way to determine which allocations are going away and which allocations are replacing them. To the contrary, the information provide provided to the voters was completely nonsensical. These changes were not merely technical edits. Rather, they provide critical information about a central component of the General Plan Amendment. “Better Cupertino”—the group responsible for circulating the Referendum petition—has been vocal in its opposition to the transformation of Vallco into an alleged “office complex.” It is completely misleading for this group to oppose proposed development at Vallco because it includes “too much office,” and “worsens the
112
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk December 6, 2018 Page 4
housing shortage,” and then fail to provide potential signers with information showing that the proposed Vallco Town Center development would actually
reduce the amount of office currently allowed at Vallco by more than half. In fact, Referendum proponents falsely told potential signers that the project would still include 2 million square feet of office. (See Exhibit B.)
Furthermore, the housing crisis in the Bay Area is a topic of serious concern for many voters, and it is reasonable to assume that many would be reluctant to sign a Referendum petition if they knew that the resolution being referred provided for an additional 1,645 to 2,534 units of housing for Cupertino residents. By failing to show the changes being made to the residential housing allocations, this critical information was withheld from potential signers. As clearly illustrated by the cases discussed above, failure to provide signers with the complete and accurate text of the resolution being referred fails to satisfy the clear legislative purpose of the full text requirement. This is a plain, direct, and facial violation of the Elections Code. The Referendum petition must be rejected.
2. City Clerks Have a Ministerial Duty to Reject an Initiative Petition that
Fails to Comply With the Requirements of the Elections Code. Pursuant to the Elections Code and well-established case law, where, as here, a referendum petition fails to comply with mandatory statutory requirements, local elections officials have the ministerial duty to reject the petition and must refuse to take any action on it. (See, e.g., Billig v. Voges (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 962, 969 [clerks have a ministerial duty to reject a petition that facially violates the statutory requirements of the Elections Code].) California courts have not wavered on this point: [C]lerks throughout the state are mandated by the constitution to implement and enforce the statute’s procedural requirements. In the instant case, respondent
had the clear and present ministerial duty to refuse to process
appellants’ petition because it did not comply with the
procedural requirements.
113
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk December 6, 2018 Page 5
(Id. [upholding clerk’s rejection of petition for omitting a portion of the measure’s full text (emphasis added)]; see also Myers v. Patterson (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 130, 136 [rejecting argument that clerk could in any way waive proponents’ statutory violation: “Defendant’s duties as city registrar include the ministerial function of ascertaining whether the procedural requirement for submitting an initiative measure have been met” (internal quotations omitted)].) When faced with petition errors and omissions, the clerk must not be put in a position where she must make a judgment call, resort to her own discretion, or rely on extrinsic evidence regarding the petition’s alleged compliance with the law: If, according to appellants, a petition must be accepted regardless of its compliance with the statute, then the statute is unenforceable. . . . Therefore, a city clerk who refuses to accept a petition for noncompliance with the statute is only performing a ministerial function involving no exercise of discretion. (Billig, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at 968-69 [rejecting the flawed argument that a clerk can simply ignore petition errors (underscoring added)]; see also Ley v.
Dominguez (1931) 212 Cal. 587, 602 [the “duties and powers of the city clerk in reference to his examination of referendum petitions … is purely ministerial and not judicial” (underscoring added)].)1
Based on the foregoing, it is without question that the Referendum is not entitled to be processed for the ballot or to otherwise be acted upon. (See, e.g.,
Billig, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at 969.) Given that the City’s duties in this respect are purely ministerial, the City has no authority to excuse proponents’ failure to comply with the law. To the contrary, the City is obligated, as a matter of law, to 1 See also Rodriguez v. Solis (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 495, 501-02 [“A ministerial act is an act that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such act’s propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exist. Discretion, on the other hand, is the power conferred on public functionaries to act officially according the dictates of their own judgment” (underscoring added)].) Thus, there is simply no room for discretion or judgment on the part of the clerk when reviewing the petition.
114
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk December 6, 2018 Page 6
reject this defective Referendum in order to avoid the waste of taxpayer funds and protect the integrity of the electoral process. Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. Please note that we reserve all rights in connection with this matter. I can be reached at (415) 389-6800. If I am not available to speak with you, please speak to Hilary Gibson, who is working with me on this matter. Sincerely, Sean P. Welch SPW/pas cc: Rocio Fierro, City Attorney Mayor Darcy Paul and City Council
115
EXHIBIT A
116
Table LU-1 on page LU-13 in City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085:
Table LU-1 in the Referendum Petition of City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085:
117
EXHIBIT B
118
119
120
December 18, 2018
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mayor Scharf and Councilmembers Sinks, Paul, Willey and Chao City of Cupertino Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Re: Referendum Against City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-085; Referendum Against City of Cupertino Resolution No. 18-086; Referendum Against City of Cupertino Ordinance No. 18-2178; and Referendum Against City of Cupertino Ordinance No. 18-2179 Dear Mayor Scharf and Councilmembers: We are writing on behalf of Vallco Property Owner, LLC regarding the above referenced referenda. We understand that the City Attorney’s office is in the process of evaluating the legal defects with respect to the referendum petition against the General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 18-085), as raised in our letter dated December 6, 2018, and will advise the City Clerk and City Council regarding the results of that evaluation prior to the Council’s next regularly scheduled meeting in January 2019. This letter raises two additional key points. First, as you may already be aware, the legal defects in the referenda petitions are not limited to the referendum petition against the General Plan Amendment. For example, the referendum petition against City of Cupertino Ordinance No. 18-2178 (Rezoning the Parcels within the Vallco Special Area) not only fails to include the full-text of the ordinance in violation of Elections Code section 9238, but—similar to the petition against the General Plan Amendment—it contains wildly inaccurate exhibits that were necessary for signers to be able to intelligently decide whether or not to sign the petition. Namely, the “recreation” of the Zoning Map provided by proponents to voters in the petition fails to match and is, in fact, substantially and meaningfully different than the true and correct copy of the actual Zoning Map. (See letter dated December 6, 2018, regarding City Clerk’s legal duty to reject facially defective petitions.)
121
Mayor and City Council December 18, 2018 Page 2
Second, as noted in the Staff Report in connection with this matter for the City Council meeting scheduled for December 18, 2018, a duly qualified referendum petition must be presented to the city council at the council’s next regular meeting, at which time the council must either rescind the referred approval or submit it to the voters at either the next regular municipal election or at a special election called for that purpose. (See Elec. Code § 9241.) Because there are serious legal defects in the referenda petitions requiring the City to reject them, we agree that rescission or placement on the ballot at the City Council meeting on December 18, 2018 would be improper. Moreover, per the Staff Report, we understand that the City will decisively address this matter at or before the City Council’s first meeting in 2019, which is scheduled for January 2. Please note, however, that in the event the City Council attempts to delay the timely processing of the referenda for their final, legal resolution, we will take appropriate legal action. Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. Please note that we reserve all rights in connection with this matter. I can be reached at (415) 389-6800. If I am not available to speak with you, please speak to Hilary Gibson, who is working with me on this matter. Sincerely, Sean P. Welch SPW/pas cc: Rocio Fierro, City Attorney Perl Perlmutter, Special Counsel Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
122
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 18-085
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT
ALLOCATIONS, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER
SPECIAL AREA
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: GPA-2018-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: 10101 to 10333 N Wolfe Rd
APN#s: 316-20-080, 316-20-081, 316-20-103, 316-20-107, 316-20-101, 316-20-105,
316-20-106, 316-20-104, 316-20-088, 316-20-092, 316-20-094, 316-20-099,
316-20-100, 316-20-095
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan identifies the Vallco
Town Center Special Area as being appropriate to accommodate at least 389 dwelling
units to be developed pursuant to a specific plan for the Vallco Town Center; and
WHEREAS, the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan has been developed pursuant to City
Council direction to initiate a project to prepare a specific plan for the Vallco Town Center
Special Area, including any required changes to the adopted goals and objectives for the
Special Area, in order to implement the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan
and to plan for anticipated future development activity; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council direction to conduct extensive public outreach
the City conducted multiple forms of public outreach including two multi-day charrettes,
online civic engagement, open houses and brown bag presentations, comment meetings
etc.; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, the General Plan
Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special
Area (the “General Plan Amendment”) is part of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan,
all as fully described and analyzed in the May 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018022021), as
amended by the July 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
Amendment (“EIR Amendment”) and by text revisions in the August 2018 Vallco Special
Area Specific Plan Final EIR document which contains Response to Comments to the
Draft EIR and the EIR Amendment, and the August 2018 and September 2018
123
Supplemental Text Revisions to the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report; (together, the “Final EIR”);
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Environmental Review Committee
(“ERC”) for review and recommendation on August 31, 2018, and after considering the
Final EIR, and Staff’s presentation, the ERC recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City
Council certify the EIR; and
WHEREAS, following necessary public notices given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on September 4, 2018 to consider the General Plan Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on September 4,
2018 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify
that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and implement all of the mitigation measures for the Project that are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in Findings, in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6860); and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-1 vote
(Liu: no) that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2018-05), in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6861) with
additional recommendations to amend Strategy LU-19.1.2, correct Table LU-1, and
consider a middle tier Development Allocation for the Vallco Town Center Special Area
as more particularly described in Resolution no. 6861; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2018, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least
one public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record,
at the public hearing on September 18, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-
084 certifying the Final EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, adopting Mitigation Measures, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the Final EIR and finds
that the scope of this Resolution falls within the certified Final EIR, in that the aspects of
the General Plan Amendment proposed in this Resolution that have the potential for
124
resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment have been examined in the Final EIR and
therefore, no recirculation of the Final EIR is required.
SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
After careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the City Council hereby adopts:
1. Amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2018-05) as shown in
Exhibit GPA-1 and authorizes the staff to make grammatical, typographical,
numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist in production of the final
published General Plan; and
2. Changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GPA-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The City Council finds this Resolution is within the scope of the EIR and directs the
Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa
Clara County Recorder in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September 2018, at a Special Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Darcy Paul
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
125
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
LU-1
Figure PA-1
SPECIAL AREAS
PA-4
North Vallco
Park Special
Area
Heart of the City
Special Area
South De Anza
Special Area
North De Anza
Special Area
Homestead
Special Area
Vallco Town Center
Shopping District
Special Area
Bubb Road
Special Area
Monta Vista
Village Special
Area
west
crossroads central east
South Vallco Park
Gateway
City
Center
Node
Oaks Gateway
North Crossroads Node
North Vallco
Gateway
Stelling Gateway
North
De Anza
Gateway
Civic
Center
Node
De Anza College Node
Community Recreation Node
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Los Altos
0 1000
0 500
2000 3000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Special Areas
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Heart of the City
Vallco Town Center Shopping District
North Vallco Park North
De Anza
South De Anza
Homestead
Bubb Road
Monta Vista Village
EXHIBIT GPA-1
126
PA-6
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
The City Center subarea is located south of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard
subarea, between De Anza and Torre Avenue/Regnart Creek. The primary use
for this area is office/residential/hotel/public facilities/commercial retail/mixed-
uses. This subarea is further defined into the City Center Node and Civic Center
Node. The City Center Node includes Cali Plaza. The Civic Center Node includes
City Hall, Cupertino Community Hall, Cupertino Public Library, as well as the
Library Plaza and Library Field.
The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located at the east end of the
Heart of the City Specific Plan area and extends from Portal Avenue to the
eastern city limit. The area is largely defined by the South Vallco Park Gateway
immediately east of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area,
which includes Nineteen 800 (formerly known as Rosebowl), The Metropolitan
and Main Street developments. This area is intended as a regional commercial
district with retail/commercial/ office as the primary uses. Office above ground
level retail is allowed as a secondary use, with residential/residential mixed-use
as a supporting use per the Housing Element.
VISION
The Heart of the City area will continue being a focus of commerce, community
identity, social gathering and pride for Cupertino. The area is envisioned as a
tree-lined boulevard that forms a major route for automobiles, but also supports
walking, biking and transit. Each of its five subareas will contribute their
distinctive and unique character, and will provide pedestrian and bicycle links to
adjacent neighborhoods through side street access, bikeways and pathways.
While portions of the area is designated as a Priority Development Area (PDA),
which allows some higher intensity near gateways and nodes, development will
continue to support the small town ambiance of the community. The Stevens
Creek Boulevard corridor will continue to function as Cupertino’s main mixed-
use, commercial and retail corridor. Residential uses, as allowed per the
Housing Element, should be developed in the “mixed-use village” format
described later in the Land Use and Community Design Element.
127
PA-8
VISION
The Vallco Town Center Shopping District will
continue to function as a major regional and
community destination. The City envisions this
area as a new mixed-use “town center” and
gateway for Cupertino. It will include an
interconnected street grid network of bicycle
and pedestrian-friendly streets, more
pedestrian-oriented buildings with active
uses lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Wolfe Road, and publicly-accessible parks
and plazas that support the pedestrian-
oriented feel of the revitalized area. New
development in the Vallco Town Center Shopping
District should be required to provide
buffers between adjacent single-family
neighborhoods in the form of boundary walls,
setbacks, landscaping or building transitions.
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT
CONTEXT
The Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area encompasses
Cupertino’s most significant commercial center, formerly known as the Vallco
Fashion Park. This Special Area is located between Interstate 280 and Stevens
Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of the city. The North Blaney
neighborhood, an established single-family area, is adjacent on the west side
of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District. Wolfe Road bisects the area in a
north-south direction, and divides Vallco Shopping District into distinct
subareas: Vallco Shopping District Gateway West and Vallco Shopping District
Gateway East. In recent years there has been some façade improvement to
the Vallco Fashion Mall; however, there has been no major reinvestment in
the mall for decades. Reinvestment is needed to upgrade or replace older
buildings and make other improvements to that this commercial center is
more competitive and better serves the community. Currently, the major
tenants of the mall include a movie theater, and a bowling alley and three
national retailers. The Vallco Town Center Shopping District is identified as a
separate Special Area given its prominence as a regional commercial
destination and its importance to future planning/redevelopment efforts
expected over Vallco.
Quasi-Public / Commercial
Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.)
Residential Land Use Designations
Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.)
Public Facilities
City Boundary
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Parks and Open Space
Land Use Map
Commercial / Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.)
Transportation
High Density (>35 DU/Ac.)
Neighborhood Commercial / Residential
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.)
0 1000
0 500
2000 3000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Boulevards
Avenues
Neighborhood Connectors
Neighborhood Center
Commercial Center
Employment Center
Education/Cultural Center
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential
�nd�strial/Residential
�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Commercial/Office/Residential
Parks and Open Space
��asi����lic/�nstit�tional
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Office/Residential
81
26
23 101
101
182
323
26
280
WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT
SPECIAL AREA DIAGRAM
Quasi-Public / Commercial
Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.)
Residential Land Use Designations
Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.)
Public Facilities
City Boundary
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Parks and Open Space
Land Use Map
Commercial / Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.)
Transportation
High Density (>35 DU/Ac.)
Neighborhood Commercial / Residential
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.)
0 1000
0 500
2000 3000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Boulevards
Avenues
Neighborhood Connectors
Neighborhood Center
Commercial Center
Employment Center
Education/Cultural Center
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential
�nd�strial/Residential
�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Commercial/Office/Residential
Parks and Open Space
��asi����lic/�nstit�tional
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
LEGEND
Commercial/Office/Residential
81
26
23 101
101
182
323
26
280
WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
128
CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
PA-32
NORTH BLANEY
CONTEXT
The North Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern portion of Cupertino,
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and east of De Anza Boulevard. This area,
predominantly defined by single-family residential homes, is on the valley
floor with minimal grade changes. Bounded generally by De Anza Boulevard,
Highway 280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Perimeter Road, this area is served
by amenities including Portal Park, which includes a number of recreational
amenities such as a tot lot and a recreation building. The Junipero Serra
drainage channel runs along the northern edge of the neighborhood along
Interstate 280. North Blaney is a major north-south corridor through the area.
The Portal Plaza Shopping Center, located in the Heart of the City Special Area,
variety of neighborhood serving uses. Proximityincludes grocery facilities and a
to the Vallco Shopping Mall Special Area in the Heart of the City Special Area
provides opportunities for shopping for this neighborhood within close walking
distance. Housing types located in this neighborhood include duplexes, townhomes
and apartments closer to the freeway. The North Blaney Neighborhood includes
Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School.
VISION
The North Blaney neighborhood will continue to be mainly
a residential area. It is anticipated that there may be
limited residential growth in this area on sites that may
be subdivided or redeveloped. No other land use changes
are anticipated in this area. Bicycle and pedestrian
enhancements to North Blaney Avenue will improve the
north-south connection through the city. There is also a
potential to improve the east-west pedestrian and bicycle
connection along the Junipero Serra channel along
Interstate 280.
NORTH BLANEY NEIGHBORHOOD DIAGRAM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
LEGEND
51
101 182
CollinsElementary
Portal
Park
Lawson
Middle
School
DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre)
Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada
Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre)
Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre)
Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
High Density (>35 DU/Acre)
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial/Residential
0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
Parks and Open Space
2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM
Riparian Corridor
Creek
Transit Route
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre)
Residential (10-15 DU/Acre)
Neighborhood Commercial/Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre)
26
0B3EF9
Commercial/Residential
$PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM
LEGEND
51
101 182
Collins
Elementary
Portal
Park
Lawson
Middle
School
DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280
129
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
LU-1.2.3: Unused Development
Allocation.
Unused development allocations
may be re-assigned to the citywide
allocation table per Planning Area,
when development agreements and
development permits expire.
LU-1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation.
Allocate residential units in
neighborhoods through the building
permit process unless subdivision
or development applications are
required.
POLICY LU-1.3: LAND USE IN ALL
CITYWIDE MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
Encourage land uses that support the
activity and character of mixed-use
districts and economic goals.
STRATEGIES:
LU-1.3.1: Commercial and Residential
Uses.
Review the placement of commercial
and residential uses based on the
following criteria:
1.All mixed-use areas with
commercial zoning will require
retail as a substantial component.
The North De Anza Special Area is
an exception.
2.All mixed-use residential projects
should be designed on the “mixed-
use village” concept discussed
earlier in this Element.
3.On sites with a mixed-use residential
designation, residential is a permitted
use only on Housing Element sites and
in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.
4.Conditional use permits will be
required on mixed-use Housing
Element sites that propose units above
the allocation in the Housing Element,
and on non-Housing Element mixed-
use sites, unless otherwise allowed in
a Specific Plan.
LU-1.3.2: Public and Quasi-Public Uses.
Review the placement of public and
quasi-public activities in limited areas
in mixed-use commercial and office
zones when the following criteria
are met:
1.The proposed use is generally
in keeping with the goals for
the Planning Area, has similar
patterns of traffic, population
or circulation of uses with the
area and does not disrupt the
operations of existing uses.
2.The building form is similar to
buildings in the area (commercial
or office forms). In commercial
areas, the building should maintain
a commercial interface by
providing retail activity, storefront
appearance or other design
considerations in keeping with the
goals of the Planning Area.
LU-12
130
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
POLICY LU-1.4: PARCEL ASSEMBLY
Encourage parcel assembly and
discourage parcelization to ensure
that infill development meets City
standards and provides adequate
buffers to neighborhoods.
POLICY LU-1.5: COMMUNITY HEALTH
THROUGH LAND USE
Promote community health through
land use and design.
POLICY LU-1.6: JOBS/HOUSING
BALANCE
Strive for a more balanced ratio of
jobs and housing units.
Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040
commercial (s.f.)office (s.f.)hotel (rooms)residential (units)
current built
(Oct 7,2014)
buildout available current built
(Oct 7,2014)
buildout available current built
(Oct 7,2014)
buildout available current built
(Oct 7,2014)
buildout available
Heart of
the City 1,351,730 214,5000 793,270 2,447,500 2,464,613 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469
Shopping
District**
1,207,774 120,7774 --2,000,000 2,000,000 148 339 191 -389 389
Homestead 291,408 291,408 -69,550 69,550 -126 126 -600 750 150
N. De Anza 56,708 56,708 -2,081,021 2,081,021 -126 126 -49 146 97
N. Vallco 133,147 133,147 -3,069,676 3,069,676 -123 123 -554 1154 600
S. De Anza 352,283 352,283 -130,708 130,708 -315 315 -6 6 -
Bubb ---444,753 444,753 -------
Monta Vista
Village 94,051 99,698 5,647 443,140 456,735 13,595 ---828 878 50
Other 144,964 144964,-119,896 119,896 ----18,039 18,166 127
Major
Employers ---109,935 633,053 523,118 ------
3,632,065 4,430,982 798,917 8,916,179 11,470,005 2,553826,1116 1429 313 21,412 23,294 1,882
LU-13
600,000 750,000 750,000 2,034 2,034
24,939 3,52710,220,005 1,303,826
Tier 1 1,207,774
Tier 2 1,207,774 485,000 1,500,000**1,500,000**2,923 2,923
With Vallco Town Ctr Tier 1 3,823,208
CitywideWith Vallco Town Ctr Tier 2 3,708,208 10,970,005 2,053,826 25,828 4,416
** Buildout totals for Office and Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan
is not adopted by that date, City will consider the removal of the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco Shopping District. See the Housing Element (Chapter 4) for additional
information and requirements within the Vallco Shopping District.
* The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan authorizes a community benefits density bonus as an alternative to the State Density Bonus if proposed development meets specified criteria.
The applicable Development Allocations, if the City approves a community benefits density bonus, are identified as Tier 2 in Table LU-1.
** For a Tier 2 project in the Vallco Town Center Special Area, an additional 250,000 square feet of allocation is allowed for office amenity space, as defined in the Vallco Town Center
Specific Plan, for a total allocation of 1,750,000 square feet.
Vallco
Town
Center
*148
148
339
339
191
191
1,116
1,116
1,429
1,429
313
313
3,632,065
3,632,065
123 123
315 315
--
131
n
tiotioooonononononon
ioiooottiti
sitsitititsitsit
Hi
l
lsi
d
e
T
id
e
T
de
T
r
a
n
s
id
e
T
r
a
n
s
sisiiti
sit
i
iiononnoio
iti
o
280
280
280
85
85
SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE
SANTA CLARA
STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD
Homestead Special Area
Maximum Residential Density
As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map;
15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites
Maximum Height
30 feet
Homestead Special Area
North Vallco Park Special Area
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map
15 units per acre (southeast corner of Homestead Road
and Blaney Avenue)
Maximum Height
30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Residential Density
25 (north of Bollinger) or 5-15 (south of 85) units per acre
Maximum Height
30 feet
Maximum Residential Density
20 units per acre
Maximum Residential Density
25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 30 feet where designated by hatched line
Maximum Residential Density
Up to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map
Maximum Height
Up to 30 feet
Heart of the City Special Area
North De Anza Special Area
South De Anza Special Area
Monta Vista Village Special Area
Vallco5PXO$FOUFSShopping District Special Area
Neighborhoods
North De Anza Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Stelling Gateway
West of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density
15 units per acre (southwest
corner of Homestead and
Stelling Roads) 35 units per
acre (northwest corner of
I-280 and Stelling Road)
Maximum Height
30 feet
East of Stelling Road:
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
Oaks Gateway
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
North Crossroads Node
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet
South Vallco Park
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet, or 60 feet with retail
North Vallco Gateway
West of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
60 feet
East of Wolfe Road:
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet
of the property lines abutting Wolfe
Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple
Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)
City Center Node
Maximum Residential Density
25 units per acre
Maximum Height
45 feet or as existing, for existing buildings
Building Planes:
• Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads AreaDQGWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD.
• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.
•)RUWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHDVHHWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLILF3ODQ
• For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review.
• For the North and South Vallco Park areas (except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area): Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot
RIEXLOGLQJKHLJKW VORSHOLQHGUDZQIURPWKH6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYGDQG+RPHVWHDG5RDGFXUEOLQHVDQGEHORZ VORSHOLQHGUDZQIURP:ROIH5RDGDQG7DQWDX$YHQXHFXUEOLQH
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they areenclosed, centrally located on the roof and not
visible from adjacent streets.
Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sitesidentified in the adopted Housing Element shall
be as reflected in the Housing Element.
Legend
City Boundary
Special Areas
Homestead
North Vallco Park
North De Anza
South De Anza
Bubb Road
Vallco 5PXO$FOUFS
Shopping District
Monta Vista Village
Avenues (Major Collectors)
Boulevards (Arterials)
Key Intersections
Neighborhood Centers
Heart of the City Hillside Transition
Urban Service Area
4QIFSFPG*OˍVFODF
Urban Transition
Avenues (Minor Collectors)
Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods
Figure LU-2
COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM
Maximum Height
60 feet
Maximum Height
45 feet
%XEE5RDGSpecial Area
Maximum Height
45 feet
West of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
5JFS35 units per acre
5JFSVOJUTQFSBDSFJO
BSFBTXIFSFUIF7BMMDP5PXO
$FOUFS4QFDJGJD1MBO
BVUIPSJ[FTBDPNNVOJUZ
CFOFGJUTEFOTJUZCPOVTBTBO
BMUFSOBUJWFUPUIF4UBUF
%FOTJUZ#POVT
Maximum Height
1FS4QFDJˌD1MBO
East of Wolfe Rd
Maximum Residential Density
35 units per acre
Maximum Height
3HU6SHFLILF3ODQ
132
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
POLICY LU-19.1: SPECIFIC PLAN
Implement the Vallco Town Center
Specific Plan and apply the adopted
vision, policies or development
standards in the review of any
development on the site including the
street layout, land uses, design
standards and guidelines, and
infrastructure improvements required.
The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan
will be is based on the following
strategies:
STRATEGIES:
LU-19.1.1: Master Developer.
Redevelopment will require a master
developer in order to remove the
obstacles to the development of a
cohesive district with the highest
levels of urban design.
LU-19.1.2: Parcel Assembly.
Parcel assembly and a master site development
plan for complete redevelopment of the site is
required prior to issuance of other implementing
permits adding residential and office uses.
Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to
preserve the site for redevelopment in the future.
Accommodate parcelization needs of certain
development types, such as senior housing or
affordable housing, or if demonstrated to be
necessary for financing reasons.
LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The “town
center” Any site development plans should be
based on complete redevelopment of the site in
order to ensure that the site can be planned to
carry out the community vision in the specific plan.
LU-19.1.4: Land Use.
The following uses are allowed on the site (see
Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria):
Uses allowed on the site shall be as shown in the
Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and generally
include residential, office, commercial
(including retail, restaurant, entertainment, and
cultural uses), and hotel uses.
GOAL LU-19
Create a distinct and memorable mixed-use
"town center" that is a regional destination
and a focal point for the community
VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA
The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall
into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and
the community. This new Vallco Town Center Shopping District will become a
destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley.
LU-50
133
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040)
1.Retail Commercial: Include Hhigh-
performing retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum
of 600,000 square feet of retail that
provide a good source of sales tax for the
City. Entertainment uses may be included
but shall consist of no more than 30
percent of retail uses.
2.Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel
with conference center and active uses
such as including main entrances, lobbies,
retail and restaurants, at key locations, on
the ground floor .
3.Residential: Allow residential on upper
floors with retail and active uses on the
ground floor per the Vallco Town Center
Specific Plan. Encourage a mix of units for
young professionals, couples and/or active
seniors who like to live in an active “town
center” environment.
4.Office: Encourage high-quality office
space arranged in a pedestrian-oriented
street grid with active uses, such as
lobbies, cafes, break rooms, active office
amenities, on the ground floor in key
locations publicly-accessible street and
that front plazas/green space.
LU-9.1.5: “Town Center Layout" Create
streets and blocks laid out using
“transect planning” (appropriate
street and building types for each
area), which includes a discernible
center and edges, public space at
center, high quality public realm, and
land uses appropriate to the street
and building typology.
LU-19.1.6: Connectivity.
Provide a newly configured
complete street grid hierarchy of
streets, boulevards and alleys that
is pedestrian-oriented, connects to
existing streets, and creates walkable
urban blocks for buildings and open
space. It should also incorporate
transit facilities, provide connections
to other transit nodes and coordinate
with the potential expansion of Wolfe
Road bridge over Interstate 280
to continue the walkable, bikeable
boulevard concept along Wolfe Road.
The project should also contribute
towards a study and improvements to
a potential Interstate 280 trail along
the drainage channel south of the
freeway and provide pedestrian and
bicycle connections from the project
sites to the trail.
LU-19.1.7: Existing Streets.
Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard
and Wolfe Road to become more bike
and pedestrian-friendly with bike
lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees,
improved pedestrian intersections
to accommodate the connections to
Rosebowl Nineteen800, and Main
Street and in the vicinity.
LU-51
Table LU-1 identifies the development
potential on the site in two levels: Tier 1 and
Tier 2. Tier 1 identifies the maximum
development potential for the site under the
base density as defined in Figure LU-2 and the
Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Tier 2
identifies the maximum development potential
for the site for projects that have applied for
and received a community benefits density
bonus, as an alternative to the state Density
Bonus law, which is further defined in the
Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and which
requires certain community benefits to be
incorporated into the project.
134
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SPECIAL AREA
MONTA VISTA
VILLAGE
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
Cemetary
Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon
Residential Development
Inspiration Heights
Urban Service Area
Rancho
San Antonio
County Park
Urban
S
er
vi
c
e
Ar
e
a
PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
Former Quarry
#
#
§¨¦ 280
§¨¦ 280
StevensCreekHEART OF
THE CITY
SPECIAL AREA
RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85
#
#
VALLCO SHOPPING
DISTRICT
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan
SARATOGA
SAN JOSE
SANTA CLARA
SUNNYVALE
LOS ALTOS
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
Stevens Creek Blvd
NORTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL AREA
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL AREA
HOMESTEAD ROAD
SPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZA
SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveProspect Rd
McClellan Rd
Homestead Rd
Boll
i
n
g
e
r
R
d
Rainbow Dr
Pruneridge Ave
S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd
S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd
N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd
Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way
Fargo Dr
Sh elly Dr
Dunbar Dr Larry Way
Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr
La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave
Corv ette Dr
Shadygrove Dr
Rollingdell Dr
Northwood Dr
B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l
Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln
Pacifica Dr
To
m
p
k
i
n
s
D
rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln
Cliff
o
r
d
D
r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr
Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln
Chia
l
a
L
n
La Mar Dr
Fallenleaf Ln
Pendleton Ave
Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn
D
r
Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr
PeacockCt
Arro
wheadLn
Bollinger Rd
Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent
u
r
a
DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr
Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa
k
V
all
ey
Rd
Stern AveVall
c
o
P
k
w
y
Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln
Lorne Way
Greenleaf Dr
Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr
Barnhart Ave
Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr
Alves Dr
Ti
l
s
o
n
A
v
e LoreeAv e
Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy
c
amo
r
e
D
r
B
e
a
u
c
h
a
m
p
s
L
n
Ca la ba z a s C ir
Leo na rd AveDumas Dr
Via Huerta
Brookv
a
l
e
D
rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr
Cristo
Re
y
D
r
WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr
Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay
Linnet LnRollin
g
Hills
RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop
PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir
K
e
ntw
o
odAve
Gle
n
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
W Riv
e
r
s
i
d
e
W
a
y
Chelmsford DrWright AveSte
r
l
ing
B
lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt
ev
en
s
Cr
e
ek
F
wy
Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve
Via
Esplen
dor
Rodrigues Ave
Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon
RdProuty Way!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
!(HE
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SPECIAL AREA
MONTA VISTA
VILLAGE
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
Cemetary
Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon
Residential Development
Inspiration Heights
Urban Service Area
Rancho
San Antonio
County Park
Urban
S
er
vi
c
e
Ar
e
a
PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
Former Quarry
#
#
§¨¦ 280
§¨¦ 280
StevensCreekHEART OF
THE CITY
SPECIAL AREA
RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85
#
#
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan
SARATOGA
SAN JOSE
SANTA CLARA
SUNNYVALE
LOS ALTOS
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
LOS ALTOS
HILLS
UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY
Stevens Creek Blvd
NORTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL AREA
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL AREA
HOMESTEAD ROAD
SPECIAL AREA
SOUTH DE ANZA
SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveVallco Town Center
Prospect Rd
McClellan Rd
Homestead Rd
Boll
i
n
g
e
r
R
d
Rainbow Dr
Pruneridge Ave
S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd
S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd
N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd
Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way
Fargo Dr
Sh elly Dr
Dunbar Dr Larry Way
Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr
La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave
Corv ette Dr
Shadygrove Dr
Rollingdell Dr
Northwood Dr
B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l
Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln
Pacifica Dr
To
m
p
k
i
n
s
D
rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln
Cliff
o
r
d
D
r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr
Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln
Chia
l
a
L
n
La Mar Dr
Fallenleaf Ln
Pendleton Ave
Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn
D
r
Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr
PeacockCt
Arro
wheadLn
Bollinger Rd
Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent
u
r
a
DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr
Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa
k
V
all
ey
Rd
Stern AveVall
c
o
P
k
w
y
Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln
Lorne Way
Greenleaf Dr
Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr
Barnhart Ave
Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr
Alves Dr
Ti
l
s
o
n
A
v
e LoreeAv e
Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy
c
amo
r
e
D
r
B
e
a
u
c
h
a
m
p
s
L
n
Ca la ba z a s C ir
Leo na rd AveDumas Dr
Via Huerta
Brookv
a
l
e
D
rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr
Cristo
Re
y
D
r
WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr
Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay
Linnet LnRollin
g
Hills
RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop
PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir
K
e
ntw
o
odAve
Gle
n
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
W Riv
e
r
s
i
d
e
W
a
y
Chelmsford DrWright AveSte
r
l
ing
B
lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt
ev
en
s
Cr
e
ek
F
wy
Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve
Via
Esplen
dor
Rodrigues Ave
Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon
RdProuty WayPrepared by the Community Development and GIS Departments
Adopted: November 15
'UDIW'DWH $XJXVW
00.5
Miles
LEGEND
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE MAP'UDIW
Urban Service Area
Special Center Boundaries
Sphere of Influence
Heart of the City!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vallco Town Center
City Boundary
(HE Housing Element Sites
Creeks
Low Density (1-6 DU/Ac.) Rancho Rinconada
Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Ac.)
Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.)
Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.)
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Residential Land Use Designations
High Density (> 35 DU/Ac.)
Neighborhood Commercial / Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Ac.)
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Ac.)
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Residential (10-15 DU/Ac.)
Sites designated are Priority Housing Sites as identified in the adopted Housing Element
Commercial areas in neighborhoods have a residential density of 15 DU/AC.
Notwithstanding the densities shown above, sites are designated as Priority Housing Sites in the adopted Housing Element shall have the densities shown in the
Housing ElementXQOHVVDOORZHGDGLIIHUHQWGHQVLW\ZLWKD6WDWH'HQVLW\%RQXVRUWKH&RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV'HQVLW\%RQXVLQWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD
Commercial properties in the Homestead Special Area except those on the South side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling have a density of 15 DU/Ac.
(HE
Commercial / O ffice / Residential
Commercial / Residential
Industrial / Residential
Office / Industrial / Commercial / Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Industrial / Residential / Commercial
Quasi-Public / Institutional Overlay
Parks and O pen Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public / Institutional
Transportation
Riparian Corridor
County
EXHIBIT GPA-2
135
136
137
ORDINANCE NO. 18-2178
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO REZONING THE PARCELS WITHIN THE V ALLCO
SPECIAL AREA
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No: Z-2018-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: 10101 to 10333 N Wolfe Rd
APN#s: 316-20-080, 316-20-081, 316-20-103, 316-20-107, 316-20-101, 316-20-105,
316-20-106, 316-20-104, 316-20-088, 316-20-092, 316-20-094, 316-20-099,
316-20-100, 316-20-095
SECTION II: RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan identifies the Valko
Special Area as being appropriate to accommodate at least 389 dwelling units to be
developed pursuant to a specific plan for the Vallco Special Area; and
WHEREAS, the Valko Special Area Specific Plan has been developed pursuant to City
Council direction to initiate a project to prepare a specific plan for the Vallco Special Area,
including any required changes to the adopted goals and objectives for the Special Area,
in order to implement the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan and to plan
for anticipated future development activity; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council direction to conduct extensive public outreach
the City conducted multiple forms of public outreach including 14 small group
Interviews, eight presentations, five open studio times, three brown bags, three EIR
public comment meetings, three open houses, two student/youth outreach sessions, one
online civic engagement survey, one Fine Arts Commission check-in/update, one
Housing Commission check-in/update, one Parks & Recreation Commission check-
in/update, one Teen Commission check-in/update, one Economic Development
Committee check-in/update, one Block Leader Group check-in/update; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning of parcels within the Valko Special Area Specific Plan
("Rezoning") is part of the V allco Special Area Specific Plan, all as fully described and
analyzed in the May 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2018022021), as amended by the July 2018 Valko
Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Amendment ("EIR
Amendment") and by text revisions in the August 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan
Final EIR document which contains Response to Comments to the Draft EIR and the EIR
138
Ordinance No. 18-2178 Valko Special Area -Rezoning
Amendment, and the August 30, 2018, September 11, 2018, and September 13, 2018
Supplemental Text Revisions to the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report; (together, the "Final EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Environmental Review Committee
("ERC") for review and recommendation on August 31, 2018, and after considering the
Final EIR, and Staff's presentation, the ERC recommended that the City Council certify
the EIR; and
WHEREAS, following necessary public notices given as required by the procedural
ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on September 4, 2018 to consider the Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on September 4,
2018 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify
that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and implement all of the mitigation measures for the Project that are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in Findings, in
substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6860); and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote
that the City Council adopt the Zoning Map Amendment (Z-2018-01), in substantially
similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6862); and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Council's consideration of the Rezoning, following
a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2018 ( continued from September 18,
2018), the Council adopted Resolution No. 18-085, adopting a resolution to adopt a
General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map
and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, adopted
Resolution No. 18-086, adopting a resolution to adopt the Valko Town Center Specific
Plan; and adopted Ordinance No. 18-2177, adopting amendments to the Municipal Code
to allow implementation of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses as amended and the Vallco Special Area Specific
Plan as adopted; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018) and October 2,
2018, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least two public hearings to consider
the Rezoning; and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Ordinance;
Page 2 of 6
139
Ordinance No. 18-2178 Valko Special Area -Rezoning
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record,
at the public hearing on September 19, 2018 (continued on September 18, 2018), the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 18-084 certifying the Final EIR, adopting Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting Mitigation Measures, and adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its
independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the Final EIR and finds
that the scope of this Ordinance falls within the certified Final EIR, in that the aspects of
the Rezoning proposed in this Ordinance that have the potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment have been examined in the Final EIR and therefore, no
recirculation of the Final EIR is required; and
SECTION III
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
That after careful consideration of the facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the City Council adopts the Rezoning based upon the findings
described above, the public hearing record, the Minutes of Planning Commission
Meeting of September 4, 2018, and the Minutes of City Council Meetings of September
18, 2018 and September 19, 2018, and subject to the conditions specified below:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.
Section 2.
19.152.020.C:
The City Council finds the following as set forth by Municipal Code
1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with Title 19 of the Municipal Code and the
City's Comprehensive General Plan (Community Vision 2040).
The Housing Element of the General Plan calls for the City to enact a specific plan to permit at
least 389 dwelling units in the Vallco Special Area. The General Plan Amendment (adopted at
the September 19, 2018 City Council meeting (continued from September 18, 2018) with
Resolution no. 18-085) modifies the Land Use Element of the General Plan to designate late and
define development standards that are consistent with the level of development contemplated in
the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan. The proposed zoning amendments would designate land in
the Vallco Special Area as a new Vallco Special Area Specific Plan zone to implement the General
Plan and the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, and therefore the proposed zoning is consistent
with the General Plan and other relevant portions of the Municipal Code.
Page 3 of 6
140
Ordinance No. 18-2178 Vallco Special Area -Rezoning
2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
As set forth above, the City examined the environmental effects of the Project, including the zoning
amendments adopted herein, in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. On September 19, 2018 (continued from
September 18, 2018), the City Council adopted Resolution no. 18-084 to certify that the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR ") for the Project; and adopting CEQA Findings, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, which Resolution together with the EIR is incorporated herein by reference.
The significant environmental effects of the project have been fully analyzed and disclosed in
compliance with CEQA. All mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been adopted
and incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts of new development to the extent feasible .
Therefore, the proposed zoning complies with the provisions of CEQA.
3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of
utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for
the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).
The sites being rezoned have access to utilities and are compatible with adjoining land uses. To the
extent that there are deficient utilities, the City has adopted mitigation measures to ensure that
any future development would need to provide the appropriate utilities to accommodate the
development. In addition, in connection with the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan process, the
site has been analyzed thoroughly to ensure that the site would not constrain future development
proposed under this zoning designation. The proposed zoning would implement the Vallco Special
Area Specific Plan, which includes development standards to require appropriate transitions from
adjoining land uses.
4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City.
The sites being rezoned will promote orderly development in the City by allowing a critical mass
of development to be proposed along the City's Priority Development Area (PDA) in which future
development is anticipated. This would also allow the easier applicability of zoning regulations
adopted under the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan.
5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels.
The proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare
since these are conforming changes that are necessary to implement adopted changes in the Land
Use Element of the City's General Plan. Additionally, where health or safety impacts have been
identified in the Project's EIR, mitigation measures have been identified which would be applicable
to any development on these sites.
Page 4 of 6
141
Ordinance No . 18-2178 Valko Special Area -Rezoning
Section 3. The City Council approves the following:
1. That the property described in attached Exhibit Z-1 have a zoning designation as
that shown and is incorporated into the Master Zoning Map (Exhibit Z-2) of the
City of Cupertino; and
Section 4. The City Council finds the Rezoning is within the scope of the EIR
and directs the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination
with the Santa Clara County Recorder in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
Section 5.
adoption.
This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its
INTRODUCED at a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 19th day of
September 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018) and ENACTED at a regular meeting
of the Cupertino City Council on this 2nd day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan
Paul, Scharf
None
None
6-:~~L.,~-f
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk //) J_. I%
APPROVED:
c_~---//
Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino
Page 5 of 6
142
EXHIBIT Z-1
APN Current Zoning New Zoning
316-20-080 P(CG) Valko Town Center
316-20-081 P(CG) Valko Town Center
316-20-088 P(Regional Shopping) Valko Town Center
316-20-092 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
316-20-094 P(Regional Shopping) Valko Town Center
316-20-095 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
316-20-099 P(Regional Shopping) Valko Town Center
316-20-100 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
316-20-101 P(Regional Shopping) Valko Town Center
316-20-104 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
316-20-105 P(Regional Shopping) Valko Town Center
316-20-106 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
316-20-107 P(Regional Shopping) Vallco Town Center
Page 6 of 6
143
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
CITY OF CUPERTINO )
I, GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino, California, do hereby certify the attached
to be a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 18-2178, which was
enacted on October 2, 2018, and that it has been published or posted
pursuant to law (G.C. 40806).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this 2nd day of October, 2018.
GRACE SCHMIDT, City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California
144
R1-7.5
P(R1)
PR
R3
R1-7.5
R1-10
BA
P(R2)
P(CG)
RHSR1-20
R1C-2.9
Pre R1-10
P(Res10-20)
R1-10
R1-10
R1-10
R1-7.5 P(R1C)
R1C
P(Res 10-20 Mini-Stor)
P(CG, ML, Res 35)
R1-a
P(R1C)
P(Res)
P(CG)
R1-7.5
P(CG)BQ
Pre-PR
PR
BQ
R1-6
R1-6e
BQ
PR
BQ
P(R1C)
R1-10
P(R1C)
R1-10
R1C
R1-10
R1-10
P(R1C)
P(Res 5-10)
R2-4.25
P(R1)
R1-10
R1-6
R1-7.5
R1C
R1-10
R1-10
ML
P(CG)
R1-20
A1-43
R1-20
RHS-15
RHS-40
RHS-90
RHS-400RHS-120
RHS-180
RHS-70
RHS-80
RHS-40
RHS-21
RHS-40
RHS
RHS-100
RHS-12
RHS-40
R1-8
A1-43
RHS-120
R1-10
RHS-120
PR
Pre-RHS
RHS-30
RHS-30
P(Res)R2-4.25
R1-7.5
P(R1C)
P(R3)
R1-6
BQ
R1-6
BA
BA
R1-7.5
P(R1-7.5)
R1-7.5
R1-8
P(R1)R1-7.5
R1-7.5P(R1)
R1C-7.5
R1-8
OA
R1-10
BA R2-4.25
R1-7.5
BQ
R2-4.25
R1-10
(25' Front Setback)
R3
BQ
PR
P(Res)
RHS-80
RHS-175
RHS-120
A-215
RHS-100
RHS-40
P(R1C)
R1-10RHS-218
RHS-21
R3
P(CG)
P(Res)
R2-4.25
P(R1)
R2-4.25
R2-4.25
R2-4.25i
R2-4.25 PR
R2-4.25
R2-4.25i
R2-4.25i
R1-7.5
R2-4.25
R1C
R2-4.25
R2-4.25i
R1-7
R1-7.5
RHS-21
RHS-30
RHS-21
RHS-400
BQ
RHS-260
R1-7.5
R2-4.25
P(R1)
R1-7.5
FP-o
R1C-7.5
R1-32.5
R1-7.5
R1-10
A1-40
BA
BA
BQ
R1-6
R1-7.5
R1C-7.5
BQ
P(CG)
R3
R1C
BQ
P(Hotel)
BQ
Pre-T
R1-7.5
BA
BA
R1-10
P(R1)
R1-6i
P(R3)
P(Res)
P(R3)
P(Res)
PR
RHS-70
RHS-70RHSRHS-150
RHS-170
RHS-80
RHS-440
RHS RHS-40
RHS-120
RHS-8
RHS
RHS-80
PR
RHS-100
RHS-70
PR
RHS-190
RHS-60
RHS-170
RHS-21
OS
RHS-80
RHS-30
RHS-218
RHS-100
R1-10
P(Res)P(Res 4-8)
P(Res)
R1C
BQPR
P(Res)
P(Res)
PR
P(Institutional)
PR
P(Res)
Pre-BQ
A
A
R1-10
R1-20
R1-7.5
R1-10
R1-10
BA
R1-10
R1C-3.2
R1C
P(CG)
P(BQ,Mini-Stor)
BA
R1-7.5
BA
P(CG)
P(Rec,Enter)
P(Rec,Enter)
P(CG)
P(CG)
P(Res10-20)P(R1C)
P(CG)
P(R2, Mini-Stor)R3
BQ
R1C
P(R1C)
P(Res)A1-43
R1-7.5
Pre-R1-7.5
P(CG, Res)
BQ
BA
R1-10P(CG, OA)
R1-10
R2-4.25
R1-7.5i
P(R3)
R1-10i
RHS
R1-7.5
RHS-40
R1-10OS
RHS-240
RHS-30
BQ
R2-4.25R2-4.25
RHS-21
RHS-218
RHS-120RHS-100
RHS-40
RHS-60
RHS-40
RHS-40 RHS-10 RHS-20
RHS-12
R1-20
RHS-8
A1-43
R1-22
R1-10
R1-7.5
PR
R1-20
P(CG,OA)
P(R1C)
P(R3)
P(ML)
P(Res)
P(Res)
P(Res 4.4-7.7)
P(R1)
P(Res 4.4-12)
P(R1)
R1-7.5
P(Res)
P(R2)
P(Res)
R2-4.25i
BQ
P(Res 10-20)
P(CG)
BQ
P(CG)
R3
R3
BA
R3
R1-10
BQ
R2-4.25
P(CG, ML, BQ, Res)
BQ
BQ
BQ
P(R1C)P
BQ
BQ
R1-6i
BA
BQ
R1-6
P(Res)
P(Res 10-20)
P(CG)
R3
R1-7.5
P(Res 5-10)
P(Res)
P(Res)
P(Res5-10)
R1-10
P(CG, ML, Res 4-10)
P(R1-7.5)
R2-4.25
R1C
P(CG, ML, OA)
R1-10
R1-10
R3
BA
A1-43
CG-rg
PR
R3
R2-4.25i
R2-4.25
P(Res)
BA
R3
R1-6
BA
P(Res)
P(R2)
BQ
BQ
R1-5
R1-7.5
R1-7
RHS-70
BQ
P(CG)
P(OA)
P(R1)
P(Res)
P(Res)
P(Res)
P(Res)
R1-10
RHS-200
RHS-21
RHS-30RHS-40
P(Res 4.4-7.7)
P(Res)
R1C
P(Res)
P(R1C)
R1-10
R1-7.5
R1-10
P(MP)
P(CG,Res)
R3-2.2
R2-4.25
P(Res, CG)
R3
PR
ML-rc
R3
R3
R1-10
R1C
PR
BQ
P(R1C)
BA
PR
P(CG, Res)
P(CG, Res)
P(CG, OP, Res)
P(Res)
PR
R1-6
R1-7.5P(R1)
P(CG,
Res5-15)
P(CG, ML, Res)
P(CN, ML, Res 4-12)
R1-10
Pre-PRPR
R1-6
P(CG, OP, ML, Res)
P(MP, CG)
P(R-3) 10-20
P(OP)
P(CG, Res)
P(CG, Res)
P(Res)
PR
P(CG, OP, Res)
R3 (10-20)
P(CN)
P(ML,CG)
P(R0-2)
BA
PR
P(CG)
Town Center
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
8
0
INTERSTATE 280
FORD
GARDENSIDE CIR
GARDENSIDEPALOSBERLEY LNCRHATCH CIRBOLLINGER RD
BOLL
I
N
G
E
R
R
D
M INSTER CT
ADDINGTONCTMT CREST RDCTMARIAVILLACRE P(Res)
WALLIN CTBERRY CTBYERLYWYOAKENGLISHWYOAKMAJESTICWY
OAKCALIFORNIAAMISTADCTSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
SOUTH DE ANZA BLVDGREENLEAF CTUPLAND CTCAMLAMPLIGHTER SQPOPLAR GROVE SQ
POTTERSRIDGEWAY DRSURREY MOSSY OAK CTDOVE OAK CTCIR
LAWRENCE EXPWYFLOWER CT
WILDFLOWER WILDFLOWER CTSOUTHSHORE CTCTCTNORTH TANTAU AVENORMANDY CTSPRINGSPRING CTSPRING
P
KWY
S
P
R
INGSWESTSHORE CTPINEBROOK LNPIN
E
B
R
O
O
K
C
T SEVENTR
IN
I
TY
SPR
ING
CT
SIERRA
W
O
O
D
H
I
L
L
C
T
SHASTAPLACEROLIVEWOOD
DE PALMA LN
LA ONDAS CTBRITTANY CTSOMERSET CTSHADYGROVEPHIL PLHOWARD
LNASHBOURNEBRIDGE
CTBARRING
TON
GARDEN TERRACECTPL
A
C
E
ORANGEWOOD STROSEWOOD RDMAPLEWOOD RDPHIL CTGARDEN CREST DRCTGARDEN
GARDEN MANOR CT
CYPRESS
BLACKWOOD DR
GARDENSIDEPLANTHONYWESTCTBERKSHIRECTHILLCRERSTLUN
A
R
C
T PLOBSIDIANCLASSIC CTMEYERHOLZCTGRAPNEL PLAMULET PLPEBBLE PLMONTEREY CTVERDES CTREDONDO CTLA PLAYA
C
T
CONRADIA CT OROGRA NDE CT
OASIS CT
RANCHOPLALMADENLNSWAN OAK LNLIBERTY OAKWEEPING OAK CTAMADOR OAK CTROYAL OAK WY
LAZY OAK CT
SPANISH OAK CTQUEENS OAK CTLONG OAK LNVIAN DE ANZA BLVDAPRICOT CT
INTERSTAT
E
2
8
0
SEVILLECORTE DECORTE DEMADRIDSHARONMANORCTW
Y
TON
CT
DRAKECHANTEL CT
RDPERIMETER
PERIMETERRDRDPERIMETERPERIMETERRDCT
COTTON
W
O
O
D
CANDLEWOOD
W
Y
SQUAREFORDENORTHSQUARECOLUMBUSAVE
ANN CT
GREEN DRACCESS VALLEY
GREEN DRACCESS VALLEYCTWYFORGELA CONNER DR
SQUARE
WYHEIGHTSSCENICHO
RA
N
C
CIRVILLAPARKVILLACIRCIRVILLA
DR
DGEBRISTONE WINSTON WYAVEDRDR
DR RAINTREE DRRAINTREE CTBENTOAKLNDR
WUNDERLICHBIGOAK CTDR
BIGOAK
DRGREENOAKDRWHITEOAKDR
OAKTREEDRHUNTINGTONST
KIMBERLY
WYPROUTYAVEJOHNSONCTHARLANOLMO CTNARCISO CTDR
CASTANO
AMAPOLA
DR
TOMPKINS
DR
HARLANAVEHY
D
E AVEHY
D
E
MURIEL LN
CT
JOHANSENMINETTTE
TILSON
LORE
EARATA WYAVEAVEAVE
DR
DANBURYDR
CORVETTELNALDERBROOKDRDRLANCERCLARENDON
CTCHARLENE
BLANEYAVEW
Y
MASO
N
WY
W RIV
E
R
S
I
D
ESTSTLN
WINDSORAVONDALEJAQUELINECYNTHIAAVEPERMANENTESTONE PLR
E
YCRISTO
LN
FRIARSCT
WYKRING
R
E
Y
CRISTO PLCEDAR
MOLTZEN DR
PLKINGSBURYWY
CANDLELIGHTCRESTLINE DRPLHOLLANDERRYCTLOCKFORDTUSCANY PLCT
HI
L
L
S
L
NCOLONY
LNCHASES
T
E
E
P
L
E
FLINTSHIRE ST
COLUMBUS
LA PALOMA DRLINDABEL AIRE CTWILKINSONTERRACE DR PALOSCLARKSTONDE
A
N
Z
ADREA RDNS
CI
R
ANZADE
MTSTPLREGNARTCT
LINDY
LINDY PL
DR
REGNA
R
T
DR CRAIGAVEMILLERDR
EDSEL
WY
IMPERIAL
WY
DE VILLE
WY
CAPRI
LN
BELVEDEREAVEBLANEYS
ST
MELV
I
NARLINGTONST
WINDSORSTAVONDALELNAVEPHYLLISWEYBURNDR LN
CHI
A
L
A
DR
GOLDEN GATE
VIA VICO
HILL
NEWSOM
AVECARVER DRHUNTER
CT
CULBERSTONTANTAUAVEMORENGOTUGGLE PLJOHNSO
NSQUARESQUARESQUARESQUARESQUAREWOODS LN
WY
ASPEN
WYSEQUOIA
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
PI
N
E
C
R
E
S
T
AVE
PASADENAIMPERIALAVEAVE AVEGARDENVIEW LN
MONTE CT
CORTE MADERA LNMA
N
N
CT
WOODBURY DR
OAKDELL PL
NOLL
OA
K
CREEKSIDE MEADOW
SILVER OAK CT
C
T
MELISSA CTDEGASCTEL PRADOWYA
L
I
C
I
A
C
T
SAN FELIPE RDLONGDOWN
LOCKWOOD DRS
A
L
E
M
AVE
BIXBY DR
MELLO
BLUE
LNBARK
DRCORONADO
DRGALLIGALLI CT
DR
RAINBOW
RD
WESTMOOR WY
CRZAS
C
A
L
A
B
A
CT WYLONGFELLOWWYBUCKTHORNEWY
KINTYREWYWINDSOR
BLANEYE
D
D
ING
T
O
N
P
L
DARTMOOR
McGREGOR WYWYDEVON
LOCH LOMONDPROSPECTCTTRIUMPHDRSHARON
DUCKETTT WY
DRBROOKVALEDRCTORCHARDCTSEVEN
CT
CANYON
CANYON
RD
PALO
M
A
RDBALBOA
EL
RD
CERRITO RDJU
A
N
SAN
RD
L
A
PORTORDJACINTOSAN
F
E
R
NANDO
D
R
D
R
RDNORANDA DRCTLARRYLUCILLE DR
CT
WI
C
KPREST
PL
SHE
T
L
A
N
DCTKILLDEER LINNETLARKPL
SELKIR
K
LNPLKINGLETPARNELL PL
FINCHAVESALLELAMAGELLAN AVE
AVESOTODE
CODY CT
RANDOLPH AVECTFULTONAVE
HILLSDALEDRMONTCLAIRWY
DANIELDR
HERRANLADRLOWELLCTGRINNELLDRDAWSONDRMACKENZIEDRBALDWIN
DRHANCOCKDRHOWARD DR
SULLIVAN
CTHILLSDALE
DR
HUDSONAVECARLYSLE
AVEMEADOWDRGIANNINI AVEHUBBARD
DRSHASTA
LNMELODY
CTLOMOND
LOCHWY
CARMONACTLOMITA AVE
VIS
T
A
DR
LA PALOMA DR
TOMKI CT
RIVERCREST CTCLOVERLY CTKINST
EATON PL
DRSPRIN
SEVENSPRING CTSPRING CTSPRING CTSUNRISEFIRWOOD DRVOSS
DR
C
R
I
C
K
E
T
RD
H
I
L
L
BRIDGE
DR
JU
A
NLOCKWOODM
E
D
I
N
A
LOCKSUNARTBLVD
DE ANZADRCHARLOTTEQUEENBELLEVILLELEAFFALLENELMARSHALL CTSTEVENS PLSERENO AVEEXPWYLAWRENCEDRSWALLOWQUAIL AVEAVEPEACOCKWYLORNEWYLORNE
NIGHTINGALE AVEMEADOWLARK LNRDWOLFEDRLONDONDERRY
HERON AVEHERON AVEDRLONDONDERRY
LAMBETH CT
WYLANGPORT DR
CANARY DRBLUE JAY DRKODIAK CT
RDHOMESTEAD
LA GRANDE DR
ONTARIO DRHOLLENBECK AVENEW BRUNSWICK AVECTLOWELL
DRLOUISEST
SAMEDRAAVEHOLLENBECKAVEMARYS.KA
M
S
A
C
K
C
TDRKAMSACK
RDHOMESTEADRDHOMESTEAD
AVE
SALLELA
MACKENZIE DRDR
KARAMEOSDROLYMPUS CT
WYLAURENTIANAVETELLOPOCAKIMBERLYLAMONT CTKARAMEOS CTAVEWRIGHTCTCHETAMONAVEPENDLETONCTCHITAMOOKBANFF DRCALGARY DRAVEPEYETTE
DR
W
A
L
L
A
C
E
MAXINESY
CDR
HONE
Y
S
U
C
K
L
E
C
T
DEODARA
D
R
DR
LNWISTAR
IA
CTWISTARI
A
REDWOODVINEYA
R
D
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
C
TCT
SYCAMOREDR
DE
O
D
A
R
A
E
XPW
YVIA ESCALERACHULETA CTMADEROSVIADR
CTANCORACT
CAM
P
A
N
A
S
LASDRVENTURA VIA
SIERRA
WINDIM
E
R
DRHUE
R
T
A
DR
C
T
ST MAR
KWYMATTHEWWOODVI
EW TER.STONEHAVEN DRDR
HI
G
H
L
A
N
D
S
LOCKHAVENTIONCITADR
OXFOR
D
CIR.
CT
STONEHAVENKEN
TDR
OXFORDWYANDOVERDRREGENTYORKSHIREAVEVOSS
LNKIRWIN
PL
CTCTOREVERDEPLBELLASPRING CTGS CTSPRINGS
CTINGL
N
FF
E
R
WOOD
CT
RD
RD
SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RDLN
OAKVIA RONCOLEJAMESTOWNCTNARITAN
CTADA
GR
A
N
MEADOW OAK W
Y
WYMAUREEN
PROSPECT GALWAY DRPL
DRDONEGAL POPPYDRJAMESTOWNPRIMROSEBARNHARTLNCT AVE
LEEDS
DRWATERFORD
CTDR
WY
DR ROSEGARDENLNPLUM BLOSSOM
WY
SARATOGA VILLA PLLNJULIE
DRARROYOCREEKASTERNEWCASTLE
NORMANDY
PEACH BLOSSOM
DR
STAU
SEEBER CT ASTERSWALLOWDRFORGE
AVE
P
R
U
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
HOMESTEAD
RDNILE DRDRDR
DRSUISUN
DRSOMERSET
CTSPRINGSPRINGSPRING CTCTSPRINGSPRSPR
DRSPRINGSING
CTPARKSPRING CTSPRING CTSPRING CTLN BIRCHCEDAROAKBRIDGE
VINEYARDTIMBEROLIVEPALMWALNUTRI
D
G
E
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
D
O
R
O
T
H
Y
A
N
N
W
Y
M
A
R
I
A LNHILL
S
LN
BLUERAINBOWUPLANDWY
RDHILLSROLLING
RE
G
N
A
R
T
PROSP
E
C
T
R
D
RDREGNART
BOW
HILL
CTSTELLING
RD
BUR
N
E
T
T
D
R
RDRANCHRDCTPARKERRANCHCAMARDA
CAROL LEE DRCHAVOYA DR
LNRANDYDRVISTA CTWILL CTMINERPARLETTDRBANDLEYWYSAICHCIRPARKBEARDONELENDA DR
N PORTALN BLANEYDRWHEATONMYER PLCTTONIBILICH PLRIEDEL PLCALI AVE
TULA LNTULA CT
STSOLA DRWESTERNLN BONNY DRBONNY DRDRWESTACRESWYTONITAPARADISE DRTERRY WYDRCHERYL
NANCY CT
CTCRAIG
DRSHELLY
AVE
DRSUNRISE
DR
SCOFIELD MCLAREN PLCOLBYDENISONNORWICHAVE
TWILIGHT CT
AMHERST
AVERDWOLFEAVEAVEAVECTCTDR
MERRITT
DR
AUBURNDEODARA DRCTBAYWOODPLUMTREE LNFIGTREEPEARTREEPEAR TREE
DR
BAYWOODCYPRESS DRAVEVISTA DRPRUNETREE LNCHERRYTREE LNPEACH TREE LN
DRAPPLE TREE CTORANGETREECEDAR TREE LN
DRMERRITTLNWYRANDYINFINITE LOOPPLPLPLDR
ACADIA CT
DR
GREENVALLEY
AVEMARIANIDR
BANDLEYGREENLEAF DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
GARDEN GATE
HANFORD
FARGO
DUNBAR
GREENLEAF GREENVIA VOLANTE
NORTHFIELDNORTHVIEWNORTHRIDGENORTHOAKNORTHCOVE
NORTHGLEN
NORTHCREST
NORTHWIND
NORTHSHORENORTHSKYNORTHSEALNORTHBROOK
NORTHWEST
HOMESTEAD
DR
DRAKE
BEEKMAN (PVT)DRONDASLAS
DANU
B
E
D
R
RD RD
LNCTCTBECKER LNAVECTRODA DRCTAVE
LN
JOHN
DR
DRWY
LASONDASWYEDRFINCHJOLLYMAN DRWOLFECT
STILSON
AVE
CREEKSIDE PARK FOUNTAIN BLUE APTSMcCLELLAN PLRIDGEVIEW CTAVEMILLERSWANCOMPLEX
CUPERTINO CITY CENTERCIRPARKAVELAZANEO DR
MARIANI BLUE JAY DRNORTHHURST DRGREEN DRACCESS VALLEY LOMBARDOPAVISOCALLE DE BARCELONA
PHIL
PARKVIEWVIA SORRENTOPAVISO DR
MILLER AVEVIA SAN
M
A
R
I
N
O
VIA PALAM
O
S
VIA POR
T
OFINO
VIA NAPO
L
I
BRENDA CT
LINDA
CTDRCHELMSFORDDRCHELMSFA
R
M
I
N
G
H
A
M
DR
EDMINCHELMSFORD DRGUES
DR
DRDRPL
TUGGLE AVE
AVECYNTHIA
DRW
U
N
D
E
R
L
I
C
H
HANNA DR
NEWSOM
AVE DRGASCOIGNESQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
CELESTE CIR
WYWYDRORANGE BLOSSOM
COZETTE LN
LOREE AVE
RALYA CT
RUNO CT
PRING
CRABTREEAVE
JOHNSONAVEDRCALVERTWUNDERLICHMENHARTDRMORETTIDRSTERNBRETLN
AVE
BLVDLOREE AVE
JUDYTWIG LN
TILSON
BARNHARTDRPENDERGAST AVE
AVE
BARNHART
STERLINGSTARRETT CT
MEDICUS CT
AVE
CT
CIRHOMESTEAD
NORTHWOOD DR
RD
VALLEY
HOMESTEAD
DUMAS DRK
E
N
T
W
O
O
D AVEANZAVILLA DEAVEBLANEYCELESTE CIR DRDR VIRGINIALAZANEO
PARISH PLPKWYPINTAGE
PHILLN
ESTATESCTCT
Y
O
S
H
I
N
O
WY
SAKURAPL
CIR
ANTOINETTE DRMICHAELPINOLE CTDR
JOHN
LA AVEBLANEYDRRODALALA RODAFARALLONEFARALLONELYNTON CT
PATRIC CTWY
MARTINWOODWY
GILLIC
K
WY
CLIFDENWYWHITNEYSTCLAY
AVESILVERADO
DRCT
GREENWOODLEOLA CTGREENWOOD
ROSEMARIEPL
CT
DR
MAR
LA PORTALAVE
DRIRO
DR
VICKSBURG DRAUBURN(PVT)VICKSBURGDRE ESTATESDRRICHWOODAVECOLD HARBORAVOCADO PLPRICEFRANCO CTCT
CEDAR TREELNMEIGGS
SUTTON PARK PL
AVE
AVEHYDELNWILLOWGROVE DRFERNGROVELNBROOKGROVEDISNEY LNSTENDHAL CTDRSHADYGROVELNLN
WY
CT DRCANDLEWOODAVEMILLERLA MAR
ATESESTATHERWOOD AVE
MYRTLEWOOD DRLNDRCOTTONWOODBLAZINGWOODALDERBROOKDR
BROOKWELLDR
E ESTATESW ESTATESWILLOWBROOK WYLINDE
N
B
R
O
O
K BRENTCTAVEBETLINBETTEAVEDR
CLI
F
F
O
R
D
RAMP
A
R
T
A
V
E
AVE
DAVIS
O
N AVEPINEVI
L
L
E
AVE
ILLEOAKVMALVERNAV
ELINDSAY
AV
ELANDSDALE
AVE
GLE
N
V
I
E
W
JOHNLNBOLLINGER
DRHEATHERWOOD
DRDE LA FORGE DRWESTLYNNDRDUMAS
DRDE FOEVERNIESTKIMLNKIRWIN
WYERIN
BLOSSOM LNWY
FELTONWYLONNASTKIMAVECLEO
RUPPELL PLDRRAINBOW
LN
D
R
S
C
O
T
L
A
N
D
A
V
E ROLLINGDELL CTANNETTE WYROLLINGDELL
PLSTANFORD
LNTIPTOE
LN
FALLENLEAFORLINE CTBIANCHI WYDRGLENCOEGLENCOEDRGRANADA
RIFREDI CT
SPRINGS LNSPRING CTCTSPRINGROCK SPRINGSPRINGWELLCT
FOLKESTONE
STAFFORDSUNDERLAND
RAINBOW CTPUMPKIN
LN
S
A
N
SAN FERNANDO AVEPLSCENICPAR THREE
DR
VALENCIA
BARRANCASEGOVIADORADO
MALAGA
GRANADA
CORDOBA
AVILA
VIL
L
A
RE
A
L
STLUBEC
DR
PAR
K
W
O
O
D DRPARK
PL
GLEN
RAMONA CTPLWYHOO
HO
O CARMEN RDDRDRAVECLEARCREEK
CT
PHARLAPDROAKLEAFCT
OAKLEAFRDADRIANAASPEND
R
RD
D
R
C
T
MIMOSA
ARBORETUMLN
F
IR LNBEECHWOODDR
CTOAKCRESTCREEKHENEY
PLPOPPY DR
SALEM
DR DRDR
BARR
A
N
C
A
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
R
A
V
E
PERMANENTE
HAMMOND
W
Y HAMMOND WYCRISTO REY DRSERRA S
T
CANYONOAK
WY
PE
R
A
L
T
A
C
T
MA
D
R
O
N
E
M
A
D
R
O
N
E
C
TMANZANITA CTM
A
N
Z
A
N
I
T
A
JUNIPE
R
C
T
O
A
K
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
McCLELLAN
GREENLEAF
D
E
M
P
E
S
T
E
RDOS PALOSBEAVE
N
DR
CHISHOLM AVEBREWER AVEMARYLI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
Mc CLE
L
L
A
N
CLEARWOOD
R
A
E
LNSCENICMIRAVISTACTSCENICCIRRIVIERARDJANICE AVE
BELLEVUE AVE
AVEBLVD ADELHEIDCTCTDEAN CT
CT
LM
E
I
R
STOCK
QUINTERNORD CT
CRESAINSWORTH
RDST
STONYDALE DRAMELIA CTCENT
CRESC
E
N
T
C
T
CT
VARIAN WY
HYANNISPORTPL
HYANNISPORT
SHATTUCKDR DRCRISTO REY DRS
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
BL
A
C
K
O
A
K
BELKNAP
BELKNAP CTDR
DR
YORKSHIREDR
DR
WYROBINDELL
WYMILKY
STELLINGPLHUNTERSTONDRDERBYSHIRELNORION
CR
PUMPKIN
DRAVE
KRZICH
VAI AVE
WOODLARK WYPENNINGTON LNDRNOVEM
B
E
RCREEKLINE
SHADOWHILL
BERLAND CTSHOLLYHEAD LNWEST HILL LNHILL CTW
E
S
T
CTDRELMSFORD
DR CTMANITA
CTSQUIREHILL
LN
WEYMOUTH DRDR
LILY AVEANTON WYFENWAYCTLAURETTA
HAZELBROOK CT
GRENOLA DRAVEDRHALE PLGARDENA CTGARDENA DR
DR
C
T
LEONG
DR
CTJEANNETTE
AM
O
R
E
C
T
BALB
O
ASTJOSEPHAVE ORCHARD CT
ALPINE
CORDOVAANDREW
S
S
T
FIR
ECHO HILL CT
T
R
E
S
S
L
E
R
C
T
LAKE SPRING CTWYDRRE
S
U
L
T
S
W
Y
PARKPARK
RD
RDRDCT HOOSHANGSANTA CLARA
UNIVERSITY WY
S
TOK
ES
A
V
E
FITZGERALD DR
HERMOSA AVE
OAKVIEW LN
ALMADEN AVEAVEMINAKERCT OLIVE AVEAVECTVIEW LN
AVEDRPENINSULA
AVE
NO
E
L
AV
EAVE
ALHAMBRABUBBGRAND AVE
RUMFORD
MARYAVEAVEAVEEMPIRE ANSONDEXTER DR
DR
M
A
D
E
R
A
CAROLINE DR
DRST I
NO
CA
M
VIA
CTCTALDERNEYBERKELEY CTDR
C
R
E
S
T
O
N
BITTER OAK STSWEET OAK STCTHI
B
I
S
C
U
SDR
CT
BENN
E
T
T
I
STOKE
SFLO
DRRENCE D
R WILSONCTAV
E
DR AVEMILLARD LN
METEORNATHANSON
AVEAVEMILFORDPLMETEORDR
DRESQUIRE PLCASTINEAMULET
DR AVEANN ARBORLILY
ROSE BLOSSOM DRD
R
F
E
S
T
I
V
A
L
KENMCT DR
LILAC
CT
CT
LILY
AVE
LILAC
CATALINA CTLA JOLLA CTTERRA BELLA DRSANTAREGNA R T
RD
MONROVIA
ST BUBBRDLN
RD
R
D
RICARDO
MI
R
AM
O
N
T
E
KESTER DRCANYONRDCANYON VIEW
CIR
AVELEAVESLEYVISTADRYDEN AVEROSARIOBAXLEY CT
EVULICH CT
WY
CASTLETON
AVE
RUCKER DR
SANTACOLUMBUS
EDWARDRONALD WYTERESAMARIA ROSA WYCRANBE
R
R
Y
DR
PLRDSTEVENSDRCHACECT
HARTMAN DR
BLVDSTARLING
LINDA ANN
KENDL
E
VI
S
T
A
K
N
O
L
L
B
L
V
D
A
L
P
I
N
E BAHL ST
DRCTVICEROY
DR
CUPERTINO RD
CASSJANICE AVESTVENTURA
OAK WY
DRLOMITA
EL
D
E
R
W
O
O
D
SILVERSUNSETSEVENFOREST RAINTREECOPPERFALL CREEKEVENINGMORNINGCT LNOAK MEADOWPHAR LAPB
L
O
S
SO
MROSERDLUCKY OAK STDR GROVELANDCRESTON
AINSWORTH
DR
DA VISTALINPLMADRID
DR
DRAVEFT BAKER DROLD TOWNNEW HAVENCTPRESIDIO
CTDOLORES AVE
ALCAZAR AVE
McCLELLAN
FERNANDO AVE
RDBYRNESAN
CT
IMPERIALNOONAN CTORANGEAVESEPTEMBERSHANNON CT
HOLLY OAK DR
CTLIBERTYPROVIDENCECTDR
DR
CTELM CT
BUBBFESTIVALNOVEMBER
CRANBERRYCT
FIESTA
SEPTEMBER DRAUGUS
T
L
N
OCTOBER
FALL CT
CIR
CLIFF
DRVISTA DRCYN VISTADRST
CHADWICK PLCOLLINGSWORTH STSUTHERLAND DRLN
L
INDY
COUNTRY
VIA ESPLENDOR
N. STELLINGSPRING CTSPRING CTSQUIREWOOD WY
JOLLYMAN LNOAK
VAL
L
E
Y
CT HOMESTEADCT AVETAMARIND
VISTACTLAVINA
CTTULITA
DR
MARCYCTDR
FIR
RED
RD
NOBLE FIR
RDCTCORYFIRWHITE
WY
CTCARRIAGE CL
HUN T RIDGE LNFLORA PEPPERTREE
FAIRWOODS
SAGEL
N
SANRDCORDOVAMERCEDES
L
N
NIDACTKRISTACTOAKSTANDING FOOTHILLDUBON AVEPRADO VISTA DRCAMINO VISTAWOODRIDGE CT
RANCHO
PALOVISTAWALNUT CRAVE
AVEPAULASANTA
SAN LEANDRO AVECLUBHOUSE LNRD
DRCLIFFDRDEEP McCLELLAN RDMcCLELLAN RDMCKLINTOCK LNMERRIMAN RDMEADOW PLAVE
RDRD
CANYONALCALDELEBANONLN
LEBANON AVE
MEDINA
SAN
STEVENSSA
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
R
D
RIVERSID
EMERRIMAN AVENORTH
SOUTH
PALM
McCLELL
A
N
BALUST
R
O
L
C
T
CARNO
U
S
T
I
E
C
T
CARTA
BL
ANC
A
SILVER OAK LN VIABARBARA LNRDMcCLELLAN
RODRIGUES RODRIGUES
FOREST
PARKSIDE LNHALL CT
AVE
SORENSON AVE
ANNE LN
SOUTH TANTAU AVEPKWY
VALLCO
DRANN ARBOR CTCHRISTENSEN
DR
WYSENATEWYALVES DR
PATRIOT
SOUTHSTELLINGRDALVES DRNORTH STELLINGRDAVETORREPACIFICA PARISH PLAVE DEEPROSEPLAVEWINTERGREEN DR CRAFTRICHWOOD CT DR
AVESOUTH DE ANZA BLVDTOWN LNCENTER
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
LANEMACADAM
ALLEYCONGRESS PLPLUNITEDFREEDOM HOGUECTVISTA
CARTWRIGHT
WY JOSEPH CR
CHARSANSILVERSS58
[\^082EHE2
HE2
HE5
HE4
HE3
Heart of the City
HE1
Vallco
0.25
Miles
See Master Plan/Specific Plan/
Conceptual Plan for details
°
City of Cupertino
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Zoning Map
Prepared by the Community Develpoment Department
Created: October 15, 2000
Last Updated: August 27, 2018
Ord. No. 18-2178 Second Reading: October 2, 2018
- City Boundary
- Open Space / Public Park / Recreational Zone
- Residential Duplex
- Multiple Family Residential
- Residential Hillside
- Office / Planned Office
- Mixed Use Planned Development
- Planned Industrial Zone
- Light Industrial
- General Commercial
- Quasi- Public Building
- Public Building
- Agricultural Residential
- Single Family Residential
- Single Family Residential Cluster
- Transportation
A1
BA
BQ
CG
ML
MP
P
OA/OP
OS/PR
R1
R1C
R2
R3
RHS
T
- Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Numbers following zoning designations denote minimum
lot sizes divided by one thousand.
The "Pre" designation denotes a prezoned
unincorporated area and is colored white.
Sites designated are Priority Housing Sites as identified in the adopted Housing Element
CG-rg Adopted by by Ordinance 436
FP-o Adopted by Ordinance 1574
P-Hotel Adopted by by Ordinance 1368
ML-fa: Adopted by Ordinance 350
HEO-Vallco Town Center
EXHIBIT Z-2
VTC
145
146
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
RECEIPT REJECTING REFERENDUM PETITION
Petition Name: Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council;
Ordinance No. 18-2178
A total of 24 petition sections protesting the adoption of Ordinance No. 18-2178 were
submitted to my office on October 29, 2018. These sections were in a 202-page, spiral-
bound format. The page marked “Petition Signatures, Page 1 of 34” contained the title
of the petition, a notice to the public, a statement of intention, and six signature blocks.
The pages marked “Petition Signatures, Page 2 of 34” through “Petition Signatures,
Page 33 of 34” each contained the title of the petition, a notice to the public, and nine
signature blocks. The page marked “Petition Signatures, Page 34 of 34” contained the
title of the petition, a notice to the public, six signature blocks, and a declaration of the
circulator.
Following “Petition Signatures, Page 34 of 34” was a copy of Ordinance No. 18-2178
consisting of six pages, the sixth of which contained Exhibit Z-1 to Ordinance No. 18-
2178. The following page of the petition contained the City Clerk’s certification as to
the correctness of Ordinance No. 18-2178. Following the City Clerk’s certification was
an 11x17 bifold color page purporting to contain Exhibit Z-2 to Ordinance No. 18-2178
and entitled “City of Cupertino Zoning Map.” The next four pages of the petition
contained color enlargements of sections of the 11x17 bifold color page, each showing
approximately one-quarter of the image depicted on the 11x17 color page. Following
these four pages, the petition contained a copy of Resolution No. 18-084, consisting of
five pages, followed by Exhibits EA-1 and EA-2 to Resolution No. 18-084, which
comprised the balance of the 202-page petition.
Elections Code section 9238(b)(2) requires each section of a referendum petition to
contain “the text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of
the referendum.” The required “text” includes any documents attached to or
incorporated by reference into the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum.
147
I find that the petition sections submitted to my office do not actually or substantially
comply with Elections Code 9238(b)(2) because they do not contain an accurate copy
of the “City of Cupertino Zoning Map,” which was attached as Exhibit Z-2 to
Ordinance No. 18-2178. The pages in each petition section purporting to contain
Exhibit Z-2 reflect several substantial differences from the true and correct version of
Exhibit Z-2 that was attached to Ordinance No. 18-2178 as adopted by the City Council
and as maintained by my office and provided to the referendum proponents. Those
differences, moreover, appear to reflect major changes made by the person or persons
who prepared the referendum petitions.
For the foregoing reasons, I am required to reject the petition sections as not
complying with the procedural requirements of the Elections Code.
All signatures were presented on petition sections in the format described above. As
a result of this analysis, and because all of the petition sections are defective, I find
that there are no signatures on valid petition sections. Therefore, I am rejecting the
petition sections and taking no further action on this referendum petition.
2/13/19
_______________________ ____________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Date
148
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4781 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/20/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:2/19/2019
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council2/19/2019 1
Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/13/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™149