Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 07-19-99
AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ SPECIAL MEETING CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SPECIAL MEETING 10300 Torte Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, July 19, 1999 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL 6: 00 PROPOSED CUPERTINO VALLCO 'REDEVELOPMENT 1. Joint meeting of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Planning Commission to consider a redevelopment project, at Vallco Fashion Park: (a) Overview of redevelopment process and briefing concerning proposed Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project (b) Introduction of representatives of the Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., Vallco Fashion Park property owner. (c) Receipt of advice concerning the conflict disclosure requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency meetings recess and City Council remains in session. 2. City Council takes the following actions: (a) Approve and authorize execution of an agreement for payment of costs between the City, the Agency, and the Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., Resolution No. 99- 209 (b) Approve and authorize execution of an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., Resolution No. 99-210 (c) Approve and authorize execution of cooperation agreement between the. City and the Agency, Resolution No. 99-211 (d) Designate the Redevelopment Survey Area, Resolution No. 99-212 City Council meeting recesses and the Planning CommisSion reconvenes. 3. Planning Commission selects Project Area Boundaries and approves Preliminary Plan for Project, Planning Commission Resolution No. 5054. Page 2 Cupertino City Council July 19, 1999 Planning Commission adjourns. City Council remains in recess, and the Redevelopment Agency convenes. 4. Redevelopment Agency takes the following actions: (a) Adopt Bylaws and appoint officers, Resolution No. RA-99-01 (b) Adopt Personnel Rules, Resolution No. RA-99-02 (c) Adopt Environmental Review Procedures, Resolution No. RA-99-03 id) Approve and authorize execution of cooperation agreement between the City and the Agency, Resolution No. RA-99-04 (e) Designate a newspaper of general circulation for official .notices, Resolution No. RA-99-05 (0 Adopt Conflict of Interest Code, Resolution No. RA-99-06 (g) Authorize amended filings with the Secretary of State and County Clerk for the roster of public agencies, Resolution No. RA-99-07 (h) Approve and authorize execution of Agreement for Payment of Costs between the City, the Agency, and the Richard Ii. Jacobs Group, Inc., Resolution No. RA-99-08 (i) Accept the Preliminary Plan and authorize the transmittal of information to the taxing officials/entities, Resolution No. RA-99-09 Redevelopment Agency adjourns and City Council reconvenes to complete its regular agenda. 6: 45 CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - 6:45 p.m. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 6:50 (5) 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 minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. · , July 19, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 3 6:~5 (5) 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 5 through 16 be acted on simultaneously. 5. Accounts payable: (a) June 30, 1999, Resolution No. 99-231 (b) July 2, 1999, Resolution No. 99-213 (c) July 9, 1999, Resolution No. 99-214 6. Payroll: July 9, 1999, Resolution No. 99-215 7. Minutes: July 6, 1999, regular meeting. 8. Making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated "Imperial Avenue 99-07% approximately 0.457 acre located on the east side of Imperial Avenue between Olive Avenue and Alcazar Avenue~ Yeh (APN 357-19-049), Resolution No. 99- 216 9. Recommendation from Telecommunications Commission approving public access grant. 10. Improvement agreements: (a) Sonia and Surinder Singh, 10633 Johansen Drive, APN 375-37-059, Resolution No. 99-217 (b) Zankich Construction, Inc., a California Corporation, 10181 Forest Ave., APN 316-33-131, Resolution No. 99-218 (¢) Y R Dev., LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-17-055, Resolution No. 99-219 (d) Thomas J. Hutton & Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-025, Resolution No. 99-220 1 i. Easements: (a) Y R Dev, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-17-055, Resolution No. 99-221 (b) Masters Capital, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10181 Forest Avenue, APN 316-33-131, Resolution No. 99-222 (c) Public utilities,. Thomas J. Hutton & Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-02-5, Resolution No. 99-223 Page 4 Cupertino City Council July 19, 1999 12. Quitclaim: (a) Y R Dev, LLC, a California Limited Liability Co., 10675 Santa Lucia Rd., APN 342-1%055, Resolution No. 99-224 (b) Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton, 22820 San Juan Rd., APN 342-21-025, Resolution No. 99-225 13. Support for the High-Speed Rail to serve Santa Clara County, Resolution No. 99-226 14. State-Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement No. SLTPP-5318 and Program Supplement Agreement No. 001, Resolution No. 99-228. 15. Annual rate adjustment and revisions for Los Altos Garbage Co., Resolution No. 99-229. 16. Setting date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "San Femando Avenue 99-08", property located on the west side of San Femando Avenue between San Fernando Avenue and San Femando Court; approximately 0.207 acre, Wang (APN 357-12-003), Resolution No. 99-230. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 (5) 17. Ordering vacation of a portion of a public utility easement, 22362 Regnart Road. Resolution No. 99-227. 7:05 (45) 18. Public hearing to consider an appeal of Plarming Commission approval of Application 4- ASA-99. The application requests architectural and site approval to allow the construction of first and second story additions to an existing one-story duplex located at 10333 Degas Court. The appeal was filed by Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh. Continued from July 6, 1999. 7: 50 (10) 19. Public hearing regarding delinquent accounts with Los Altos Garbage Company. PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 8:00 (10) 20. Request from Valley Transportation Authority to increase its number of bus shelters with advertising. . July 19, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 8:lb (5) ORDINANCES 21. Second reading of Ordinance 1831, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amen'ding Chapter 19.80 (Accessory Structure)." 22. Second reading of Ordinance 1832, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, City Council - Salaries." 8: 15 STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Dean: Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team - Alternate Environmental Review Committee Legislative Review Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Santa Clara County Solid Waste Committee West Valley Mayors and City Managers Vice-Mayor Statton: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Economic Development Team Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program - Alternate Santa Clara County Library JPA Board Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and City Managers - Alternate Councilmember Bumett: Environmental Review Committee - Alternate Library Expansion Committee North Central and Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative, ABAG Board of Directors Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Block Grant Program Santa Clara County Library JPA Board - Alternate Santa Clara County Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Design Committee Page 6 Cupertino City Council July 19, 1999 Councilmember Chang: Association of Bay Area Governments Joint Venture Silicon Valley Public Sector Round Table - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Expansion Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Councilmember James: Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Leadership Cupertino Santa Clara County Cities Association - Alternate Santa Clara County Drug and Alcohol Board Senior Center Expansion Design Committee' CLOSED SESSION Significant exposure to litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9Co)(1): Mr. Henry Adelman and Dr. Nancy Adelman. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting of August 2, 1999, has been canceled. The next regular meeting will be on Monday, August 16, 1999, at 6:45 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 99-231 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JLR~E 30~ 1999 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the' availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, tile said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows tile following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter sel forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: ica PASSED AND ADOPTED at ~, regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: Cransacc.ck_dace between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ........ ~ .... FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570100 06/29/99 1350 A & R BOOTH RENTAL 1106448 REG AND FOOD BOOTH 0.00 340.00 1020 57D101 06/29/99 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 1104540 PROPERTY LIAB CLAIM 6/ 0.00 1481.12 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 AB~ POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108530 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 3612.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108501 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 5244.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108503 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1327.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG PONER-ELECTRICAL 110850? ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 737.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 5708510 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 3247.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 5606620 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1860.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG P~WER-ELECTRICAL 5606640 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 223.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 A~ POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108504 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 5940.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 AB~ POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108602 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 212.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 AB~ POWER-ELECTRICAL 110 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 7/99 0.00 36287.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108506 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 177.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 5208003 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108602 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 ' 0.00 9004.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108314 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1869.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108303 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 33}1.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108315. ELECtrIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 265.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108312 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 172.00 10~0 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108322 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 2043.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 755' 1020 570103 06/29/99 20 ADVANTAGE GP~IX 1107200 TRANSPARENCY FILM COLO 0.00 8.00 1020 570103 06/29/99 20 ADVANTagE GRAFIX' 1107301 SOLUTIONS HANDBOOK 0.00 66.30 1020 570103 06/29/99 20 ADVANTAGE Gq~AFIX 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 250.27 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 324.57 1020 570104 .06/29/99 25 AIR COOLED ~TGINES 6308540 11301998 18.10 237.50 1020 570104 06/29/99 25 AIR COOLED ~NGINES 6308540 11301998 1.32 17.36 TOTAL CHECK 19.42 254.86 1020 570105 06/29/99 34 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL IN 6308540 LABOR DISPOSAL F~ES 0.00 556.40 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AMERICAN T~FIC SUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 322.83 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 A~RICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 CUSTOM SIGNS 0.00 535.84 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 /M4ERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 CUSTO~ SIGNS 0.00 357.23 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AJ~RICAN TR~FIC SUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 269.98 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1485.88 1020 570107 06/29/99 57 ARAMARK 1104510 ENPLOYEE COFFEE 0.00 261.31 1020 570108 06/29/99 M ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST 1107501 P.~NEWAL 0.00 42.00 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 AUTOCRATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 113098 ADD NEW ACCT TO 0.00 771.13 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 A~TIC RAIN CC~ANY 1108312 113098 ADD NEW ACCT TO 0.00 129.57 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 AUTOWAT~C RAIN COHPANY 1108312 113098 ADD NEW AC~T TO 0.00 226.25 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 1126.95 1020 570110 06/29/99 71 B & R ICE CK~J~4 DIST 5606620 11301998 0.00 2 DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:55 - FIN~CIAL ACCOUNTI~ 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND TION CRITERIA: =ransac=.ck_da~e between -06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT. 1020 570110 06/29/99 71 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 5606620 11301998 0.00 289.54 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 555.84 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 GAS FILTER · 0.00 4.48 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 36.44 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 63.98 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 104.90 1020 570112 06/29/99 80 BARRY & VOLKI~I~/~IN 5709209 SERVICE ~REEM~NT FOR 0.00 4834.23 1020 570113 06/29/99 100 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 ' 11301998 3.51 46.01 1020 570114 06/29/99 106 BRIDGE RADIO C(I~JNICATI 1108501 SUPPLIES 0.00 78.00 1020 570115 06/29/99 872 BSA ARCHITECTS 4239214 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 327.30 1020 570115 06/29/99 872 BSA ARCHITECTS 4239214 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2298.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2626.29 1020 570116 06/29/99 M BUILDER MAGAZINE 1~07501 SUBSCRIPTION REN~AL 0.00 74.32 1020 570117 06/29/99 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5606620 11301998 0.00 1025.01 570118 06/29/99 179 CC~4PUSA INC 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 266.13 1, 570118 06/29/99 179 COMPUSA INC 6104800 SUPPLIES 0.00 345.32 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 611.45 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 145.15 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 47.80 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108507 11301998 0.~0 99.23 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108501 11301998 0.00 100.00 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 228.33 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 11083~2 11301998 0.00 23.70 TOTAL CHECK 0.U0 644.21 1020 570120 06/29/99 198 CUPERTINO UNIONSC~LDIS 5806349 FACILITY US~E 0.00 1183.05 1020 570121 06/29/99 1344 DESMOND JOHNS0~, APPRAXS 4209110 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 7057.50 1020 570122 06/29/99 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 444.21 1020 570123 06/29/99 225 DO~E RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 PROFESSIC~AL SERVICES 0.00 4475.41 1020 570124 06/29/99 855 DULIN ADVERTISING INC 1104520 ~TISB~NT 0.00 587.25 1020 570125 06/29/99 1345 EAR~I~IQUAI(~ OUTLET 1104400 SUPPLIES 0.00 72.66 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108101 STANDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 14.00 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FED~AT~ ERPIt~SS CORP 1108601 STANDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 22.25 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FEDERAL ERPRF. SS CORP 1108101 STANDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 14.00 T0~aLCHECK 0.00 50.25 1~.. 570127 06/29/99 776 GCS NESTERN POt~R & EQUI 6308540 PARTS ~.00 14.73 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TTME 08:45:55 - FINANCIAL 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570128 06/29/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 137.16 1020 570128 06/29/99 298 GRAINOER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 279.60 1020 570128 06/29/99 298 . GI~AINGEE INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 20.09 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 436.85 1020 570129 06/29/99 339 ICBO 1107503 SUPPLIES 0.00 3.71 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108502 WATER TREATMENT 6/99 0.00 159.49 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108501 WATER TREATI~NT 6/99 0.00 159.49 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108504 WATER TREAT~ 6/99 0.00 159.49 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 478.47 1020 570131 06/29/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.22 1020 570132 06/29/99 440 MISSION V~y FOND INC. 6308540 REPAIR DIESEL SYSTEM 0.00 558.02 1020 570133 06/29/99 1346 NARCO MODESTO 5806349 SUPPLIES. 0.00 45.70 1020 570134 06/29/99 M NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 1107503' MEMBERSHIP 0.00 115.00 1020 570135 06/29/99 M OLD-HOUSE JOU~/qAL 1107501 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 1020 570136 06/29/99 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 1106265 SUPPLIES 0.00 248.45 1020 570137 06/29/99 534 PET CENTRE 1106647 SUPPLIES 0.00 7.23 1020 570138 06/29/99 611 S C CO TRANSPORTATION 5506549 PLASH PASS 6/99 0.00 248.00 1020 570139 06/29/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 724.19 1020 570140 06/29/99 1018 SPORTTIME 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 335.94 1020 570140 06/29/99 1018 SPORTTIM~ 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 40.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 376.14 1020 570141 06/29/99 671 ST~ARD BUSINESS MACHIN 5606680 SUPPLIES 0.00 109.33 1020 570142 06/29/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 PARTS a SUPPLIES 0.00 786.02 1020 570142 06/29/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 329.46 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 1115.48 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.94 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 5.39 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TA]~GET STORES 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 48.55 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 11.62 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 117.50 1020 570144 06/29/99 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 64.51 1020 570144 06/29/99 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP 6308540 PARTS 0.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:56 - FINANCIAL ACCOU~ING 0~15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ; TING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK R~GISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570145 06/29/99 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 256.77 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 305.42 1020 570146 07/01/99 1232 RICK YAMASHI~O 1106248 SERVICE ~REEMENT FOR 0.00 400.00 1020 570147 06/30/99 18 ADONA OIL CORPORATION 110~005 HAZ WASTE TRUCKING 0.00 4000.00 1020 570147 06/30/99 18 ADONA OIL CORPORATION 2708405 HAZ WASTE TRUCKING 0.00 4360.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8360.00 1020 570148 06/30/99 M AINSLEY HOUSE 5506549 TOUR/LUNCH 0.00 336.75 1020 570149 06/30/99 45 AMERICAN T~FIC SUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 535.84 1020 570150 06/30/99 66 AUTO PA~TS CLUB 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 85.10 1020 570150 06/30/99 66 AUTO PA~TS CLUE 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 44.15 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 129.25 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC PAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 103.85 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTO,TIC RAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 169.39 1~ 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 98.54 i 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTC~TIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 771.13 1~ 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 420.87 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 Ab"TOMATICR~NCOMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 411.20 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COe4PANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 917.88 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 17.70 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 ATJTC~TIC RAIN COMPANY 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 720.05 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3630.61 1020 570152 06/30/99 69 B & B LANDSCAPE CON INC 2709422 PROFESSIOAL SVC/FINAL 0.00 36255.00 1020 570153 06/30/99 M BABU, SURESH 58000~0 RECREATION REFUND 0.~0 7.00 1020 570154 06/30/99 M BAPAYE, RAJASHREE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 162.00 1020 570155 06/30/99 83 BATTERIES PLUS 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 170.83 1020 570156 06/30/99 85 BAY ALARM COMPANY 1108505 MONITORING FEE 1283322 0.00 234.00 1020 570156 06/30/99 85 BAY ALARM COMPANY 1108502 MONITORING FEE 3110222 0.00 669.22 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 903.22 1020 570157 06/30/99 1348 BAYSHORE FENCE CO INC 5708510 INSTAZ~d SNING GATE 0.00 582.00 1020 570158 06/30/99 87 BRARCOM 1108501 SERVIUE CALL 0.00 187.50 1020 S70159 06/30/99 1305 B=r&~APLY BUSINESS FORMS 1107502 FORMS/BUILDING PERMIT 0.00 1029.28 1020 570160 06/30/99 86S BILL'S TREE SERVICE 1108315 TR~E WORK 0.00 2450.00 : 570161 06/30/99 100 BMI IM~U3ING SYSTEMS 1104300 MICROFILMING 299.68 3932.21 lb.. 570161 06/30/99 100 BMI IMAGING SYSteMS 1104300 MICEOFILMING · 11.58 151.~5 TOTAL CH~CK 311.26 4084.06 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:57 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE $ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.ck_da=e between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FDND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570162 06/30/99 M BRANDT, LINDA 110 REFUND DEPOSIT 0.00 100.00 1020 570163 06/30/99 113 SRUNSWICK HOMESTEAD LANE 5806349 BOWLING 0.00 167.50 1020 570164 06/30/99 M BUENO, ROXANN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 9.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108507 REROOF 0.00 555.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108502 REROOF 0.00 11346.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108507 REROOF 0.00 14540.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 26441.00 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 13.53 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIUN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 673.86 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 32.48 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 125.22 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES' 0.00 2~1.68 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00' 738.63 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 22.74 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106442 SUPPLIES 0.00 25! 68 1020 570166' 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 71. TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2887.06 1020 570167 06/30/99 813 CAMP DRESSER & MCIi~E INC 4209801 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 12090.37 1020 570168 06/30/99 137 CAPITOL (]MC TRUCK 6308540 PARTS 0.00 161.12 1020 570169 06/30/99 152 CEE 1101500 PUBLICATION 0.00 70.45 1020 570170 06/30/99 M CHAMPLAIN PLANNING PRESS 1107301 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 50.00 1020 570171 06/30/99 M CHAN, BRENDA 5800000 R~CREATIONRNFUND 0.00 48.00 1020 570172 06/30/99 M CHIN, MARIE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570173 06/30/99 M CHU, VICKIE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 123.00 1020 570174 06/30/99 829 JONAS CLAUSEN 1103501 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 190.00 1020 570175 06/30/99 1363 CLEAN SOURCE 1108501 SUPPLIES 0.00 313.93 1020 570176 06/30/99 1352 COFFEE BRE~R DOCTORS 1106265 REPAIR COFFEE SYSTEM 0.00 63.01 1020 570177 06/30/99 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 INSUI~CE PREMIUM 7/99 0.00 60.68 1020 570178 06/30/99 179 COMPUSA INC 6104800 SUPPLIES 0.00 2451.20 1020 570179 06/30/99 M CONSTANT, TINA 5800000 RECREATION REFIFgD 0.00 1020 570180 06/30/99 163 COTTON SHIR~S & ASSO IN 110 GEOLOGIC SVC/G'UD~SO 0.00 1000.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:58 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07~.5/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ; ~TING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570180 06/30/99 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO IN 110 GEOLOGIC SVC/HUTTON 0.00 140.50 1020 570180 06/30/99 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO IN 1107301 GEOLOGIC SVC/RAINBOWS 0.00 495.25 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1635.75 1020 570181 06/30/99 1353 CREDIT BUREAU OF MOUNTAI 1100000 CLIENT LETTER SERVICE 0.00 3.00 1020 570182 06/30/99 984 CROSSROADS CHEVRON SERVI 6308540 FUEL/CITY VEHICLES 0.00 1795.16 1020 570183 06/30/99 1306 CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTR 1108303 0.00 77.50 1020 570184 06/30/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 6.16 80.82 1020 570185 06/30/99 197 CUPERTINO TO~N C~R 1101500 RENT 0.00 2894.00 1020 570186 06/30/99 198 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL~IS 2308004 TRANSPORTATION 0.00 354.48 1020 570187 06/30/99 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308540 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 140.73 1020 570187 06/30/99 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308540 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 291.32 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 432.05 ? 570188 06/30/99 1229 DAVIS, LANODON ADAMSON 4239214 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 12600.00 1020 570189 06/30/99 206 STACY DAY 5506549 YOGA INSTRUCTION 0.00 280.00 1020 570190 06/30/99 890 DE ANZA PRINTING SERVICE 5208003 PRINTING CHARGE 0.00 48.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZASERVICES INC 1108503 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1663.12 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 JANITORI~J~ SVC 6/99 0.00 1019.26 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 409.49 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 3582.21 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA'SERVICES INC 1108507 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 280.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108322 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00' 875~00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 602.55 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ARZA SERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 566.55 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 4476.65 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZASERVICE$ XNC 1108314 SPECIAL JANITORIALSVC 0.00 5881.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 55.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES IN~ 1108507 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1206.40 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 JANITORIAT~ SVC 6/99 0,00 281.62 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5708510 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1861.61 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DR ANZA SERVICES INC 1108511 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 708.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JANITORIAL S%rC 6/99 0.00 1931.42 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 90.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 25490.08 1020 570192 06/30/99 M DEACHA, ~ 5800000 RECREATION REFTa'ND 0.00 21.00 1~.~1. 570193 06/30/99 13i3 DELTA SAFETY SUPPLY CO 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 59.97 1~_. 570194 06/30/99 M . DENNIS a KAMEN PABOOJZAN 110 REPTJND PERFOI~4P~NCE BON 0.'00 6771S.00 1020 570195 06/30/99 214 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATI0~ 1108602 SAFETY LIGHTING 4/99 0.00 89.28 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:58 ~ FINANCIAL ACCOUI%~ING 07/15/99 CITY OF CI/PERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.ck_da=e be=ween "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENEP. AL FUND CASH'ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR~ ............ FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570196 06/30/99 1354 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 22.00 1020 570196 06/30/99 1354 DIRECT SAFE~ COMPANY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 69.27 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 91.27 1020 570197 06/30/99 225 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 MATERIALS 0.00 264.97 1020 570197 06/30/99 225 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 L~OR & MATERIAL 0.00 5014.77 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5279.74 1020 570198 06/30/99 228 DUBAY~S TIRE SERVICE INC 6308540 ALIG~ 0.00 85.00 1020 570199 06/30/99 855 DULIN ADVERTISING INC 1104520 ADVERTISEMENT 0.00 587.25 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 EDS ENGINEERING DATA SER 110 R#1836 LEGAL NOTICE 0.00 86.43 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 EDS ENGINEERING DATA SER 110 R#1832 LEC4~L NOTICE 0.00 62.51 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 EDS ENGINEERING DATA SER 110 R#1818 LEGAL NOTICE 0.00 61.52 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 210.46 1020 570201 06/30/99 240 ELIZABETH ELLIS 1101070 TRANSCRIPTION 0.00 425.00 1020 570202 06/30/99 M EQUIVIASo JOSE M 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#2224 0.00 1~. 102~ S70203 06/30/99 251 EVANS NEST V~LLF% SPRAY 1108303 WEED/FEED. 0.00 4400.00 1020 570204 06/30/99 253 ERCI~GE LII~ SERVICE 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 87.94 1020 570204 06/30/99 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.28 1020 570204 .06/30/99 253 EXC~4AI~E LINEN SERVICE 5606249 LiI~RENTALS 0.00 26.70 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 287.92 1020 570205 06/30/99 818 FLOYD D BROWN FIRST AID 6308540 FIRE EXTINGUSHIER SVC 0.00 30.00 1020 570206 06/30/99 268 FOSTEN BROS SECURITY SYS 5708510 SUPPLIES 0.00 242.91 1020 570207 06/30/99 274 FRY'S ELECTRONIC 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.'00 77.90 1020 570208 06/30/99 275 SUSAN FUKUBA 5806449 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 1235.40 1.020 570209 06/30/99 281 C4%RDEI~ 6308540 SUPPLIES 11.19 146.79 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 C~I~ 5308540 CREDIT 6/25/99 0.00 -189.13 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 GAEDENLAND 6308540 11301998 5.59 73.39 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 GAg. DENLAND 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 12.67 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 GA~Di~ITaAND 6308540 SUPPLIES 6.48 85.03 TOTAL CHECK 23.26 128.75 1020 570210 06/30/99 M GEE, RITA 5800000 REC~ATION REFUND 0.00 125.00 1020 570211 06/30/99 M GINYARD, HARRIS 110 RECREATION NEFUND 0.00 100'"0 1020 570212 ~6/30/99 291 GOLDEN TOUCH LANDSCAPING 1108314 PARTS & LABOR 0.00 1020 570213 06/30/99 1340 GOLFLAND WATERSLIDES 5806349 A/~qISSION 0.00 625.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:45:~9 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 0 99 CITY OF CUPERTINO- PAGE 8 AC~..J~ITING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransac~.ck_da=e between '06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999' FUND - 110 - G~NERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~NDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570213 06/30/99 1340 GOLFLAND WATERSLIDES 5806349 ADMISSION 0.00 364.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 989.00 1020 570214 06/30/99 M GONZALEZ, MARIA 110 R~FUND DEPOSIT R#27630 0.00 100.00 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 BARRICADE TAPE NITRILE 0.00 272.14 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAIN(ER INC 1108502 SUPPLIES 7.39 96.97 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108321 ' CREDIT 5/6/99 0.00 -326.95 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 326.95 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 166.53 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1105505 SUPPLIES 1.21 15.82 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GEAINGER INC 11~8504 SUPPLIES 0.73 9.58 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 G~AINGER INC 1108530 SUPPLIES 16.02 210.21 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGEE INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 8.30 1020 579215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 55.35 1020 S70215 06/30/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1T08312 SAFETY EYEWEAR 0.00 107.09 TOTAL CHECK 25.35 941.99 10~A. 570216 06/30/99 M GREENE, PAT~IC~ 5800000 HECREATION REFUND 0.00 . 63.00 10,. 570217 06/30/99 1364 gRIFFIN PAINTING INC 1108507 PARTS & LABOR 0.00 1647.00 1020 570218 06/30/99 M GU, TIJ~N LUN 5800000 R~CRRATION REF;~ID 0.00 49.00 1020 570219 06/30/99 311 GUARDIAN SANITARY SUPPLY 5606620 SUPPLIES 21.05 276.25 1020 570220 06/30/99 1180 HARRY L I~JRPHY INC 1108502 RO~OVE/REPLACE CA~PNT 0.00 17660.00 1020 570221 06/30/99 M HAYNB, JOHN S6000~0 HNFUND/GOLF TOOP,NAMENT 0.00 600.00 1020 570222 06/30/99 323 BURL B HAYNES III 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 '800.00 1020 570223 06/30/99 325 D~NIEL HEDDHN 1106500 SVC SR CTE 6/19 6/22 0.00 135.00 1020 570224 06/30/99 M HSIANG, KO-F/M~G 5800000 R~CREATION R~FUND 0.00 81.00 1020 570225 06/30/99 M HSU, SPAN-CHUN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 48.00 1020 570226 06/30/99 M HUANG, N~NLIN 5800000 RECP~ATIONREFUND 0.00 98.00 1020 570227 06/30/99 M IM~ZATO, TAEKO 5800000 RECITATION R~FOND 0.00 98.00 1020 570228 06/30/99 349 INTERIM PERSOI~EL 1108101 T~4P PLACEMENTS A~/~OL 0.00 99.00 1020 570228 06/30/99 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1108601 T~MP PLAt'~)~NT S ARNOL 0.00 33.00 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 132.00 1G~. 570229 08/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYSTEM UPGRADE 0.00 894.17 I 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYST~4UPGRADE 0.00 2143.30 10~v 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTI0~S 6104800 SSY~M UPGRADE 0.00 444.84 1020 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYSTEM UPGEADE 0.00 1253.63 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4735.94 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_da~e between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH'ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570230 06/30/99 1205 J & M TERMITE CONTROL IN 1108507 CONTRACT COSTS 0.00 940.00 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 CREDIT 3/24/99 0.00 -22.73 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 1077.24 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 209.27 1020 57.0231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 66.34 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 378.57 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 188.78 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 1194.15 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3091.62 1020 570232 06/30/99 1067 JIM'S REFRIGERATION 5609105 SWAMP COOLER 0.00 2000.00 1020 570233 06/30/99 1257 JOE'S TRACTOR SERVICE 1108302 . MOWING 0.00 1000.00 1020 570234 06/30/99 M JOHNSON, GEORGEANNA 5500000 TRIP I~EFUND 0.00 75.00 1020 570235 06/30/99 806 WENDELL JAMES JOHNSON JR 1108314 SERVICE CALL 0.00 103.Q0 1020 570236 06/30/99 M KAPUR, RENUFu%. 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 1020 570237 06/30/99 935 KAR PRODUCTS 6308.540 SUPPLIES 0.00 217.67 1020 570238 06/30/99 M XATZ, SHIRLEY 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#7481 0.00 500.00 1020 570239 06/30/99 366 EDWIN KAUKALI 5606620 LIFEGWJARD 0.00 500.00 1020 570240 06/30/99 M KAY, MARGARET 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570241 06/30/99 M KIAD~H, SHARZAD 5606620 REiMBURSm-MENT 0.00 105.00 1020 570242 06/30/99 M KOLA, VANI 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 35.00 1020 570243 06/30/99 M KOUSHTK, SARITA 110 REFIH~D DEPOSIT R#2444 0.00 100.00 1020 570244 06/30/99 1258 DOI~ I~ 1101000 REIt~UNSEMEIT~ 0.00 791.31 1020 570245 06/30/99 382 KWIK-KOPY PRINTIN(~ ~506549 PRINTING CHARGE 0.00 308.51 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LA~ SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 153.57 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 318.59 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LAB sAFETy SUPPLY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 201.07 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 673.23 1020 570247 06/30/99 M LAM, NGA-HUAN~ 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 317.25 1020 570248 06/30/99 M LANKA, SRIDI~%~A 5700000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 1. 1020 570248 '' 06/30/99 M LANKA, SRIDHARA 5800000 RECREATION CLASS FEES 0.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 73.00 1020 570249 06/30/99 1355 LARSHN SYSTEMS INC 1108504 SUPPLIES 0.00 129.90 ...~'~1}- RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:01 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 0.. ~/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_da~e between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570250 06/30/99 M LEE, CRISTI~ 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 75.00 1020 570251 06/30/99 M LEE, TSAI YU 5806000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108322 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE°S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108321. POND SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108303 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 844.22 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108303 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 1284.65 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 5606620 POOL SUPPLIES 0.00 133.14 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE°S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108303 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2657.05 1020 5702~3 06/30/99 404 LONGS DRUG STORES #260 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 1.61 1020 570254 06/30/99 405 LONGS DRUGS #114 1108601 SUPPLIES 0.00 15.02 ~0~0 570255 06/30/99 406 LOS ALTOS GARBAGE CO 110000O PARTIAL PMT/GARB LIEN 0.00 50.00 1~.., 570256 06/30/99 408 LOS GATOS I~ATS 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 603.17 1020 570256 06/30/99 408 LOS GATOS MEATS 5606620 sUPPLIES 0.00 1398.85 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2002.02 1020 570257 06/30/99 M LUONG, LESLIE 5800000 RECREATION REF~qD 0.00 7.00 1020 570258 06/30/99 M LY, FAYE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 34.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 96.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MAT~u~u~A, SHINOBU 5800~00 RECREATION REFUND 0,00 96.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUXA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 276.00 1020 570260 06/30/99 1356 MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY 1101500 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 234.67 1020 570261 06/30/99 M MAYO CLINIC HF~LTH ~ETTE 5506549 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 8.00 1020 570262 06/30/99 M M~HTA, BHUPEN 110 REF~D DEPOSIT R#81506 0.00 100.00 1020 570263 06/30/99 1264 ~LLO PIPELINE 2159620 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 0.00 10450.00 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 MESITI MILLER ENGINEERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL SVC/PMT 5 0.00 3706.48 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 NESITI MILLER ENGINBERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL SVC/PMT 3 0.00 1809.75 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 MESITI MI?.T.I~q BNGINEERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL S~C/PMT 4 0.00 3125.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8641.73 ...~-.. 570265 06/30/99 437 kU~-AO NEWSPAPERS 1104300 PUBLIC HEARING 0.00 455.00 1~,~ 570265 06/30/99 437 lq~KO N~WSPAPERS 1104300 PUBLIC HEARING 0.00 590.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1045.00 1020 570266 06/30/99 443 MIT-T-~nqNI~ I~CHANICAL IN 1108507 LABOR & PARTS 0.00 1426.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:02 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1, ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ........... '---V~NDOR ........ ; .... P~JND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570267 06/30/99 446 STUART MISFELDT 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 200.00 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 74.95 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 379.27 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 13.96 L020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 58.50 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 162.05 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 43.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 278.50 1020 570270 06/30/99 454 PARLO A MOLINA JR S606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 400.00 1020 570271 06/30/99 463 VICTOR G MOSSOTTI 5806449 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 3 1020 570272 06/30/99 465 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 56.18 1020 570272 06/30/99 465 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108322 SWJPPLIES 0.00 454.12 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 S10.30 1020 570273 06/30/99 M MUEIJ~ER, JL~RGEN 1100000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 1020 570274 06/30/99 M NAGEL, MALKA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 72.50 1020 570275 06/30/99 473 NASER DISTRIBUTORS INC 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1833.23 1020 570276 06/30/99 1357 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 38.87 1020 570276 06/30/99 1357 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 39.00 TOTAL CHECK 0'.00 77.87 1020 570277 06/30/99 479 NATURES WOOD 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 373.25 1020 570278 06/30/99 1358 NORTHERN TOOL & EOUIPMEN 6308540 PARTS 0.00 68.98 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 O'GRADY PAVING INC 5606620 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 16000.00 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 O'GRADY PAVING INC 5609105 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 6000.00 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 O'GP. ADY PAVING INC 5609105 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 1200.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 23200.00 1020 570280 06/30/99 499 DEBBIE'O'NEILL 5606620 PERFORMER 7/11/99 0.00 170.00 1020 570281 06/30/99 M OCON, ~JLIA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 2~ q0 1020 570282 '" 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108322 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 175~.u5 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108322 LABOR &MATERIALS 0.00 125.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 800.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR &MATERIALS 0.00 800.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:02 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ~ ..3/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 12 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DiSBURSeMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 680.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 5708510 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 375.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 400.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4934.05 1020 570283 06/30/99 M OUo YUH-HYA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 7.00 1020 570283 06/30/99 M OU, YUH-HYA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 18.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 25.00 1020 570284 06/30/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108504 SERVICE CAL~ 6/4/99 0.00 168.00 1020 570285 06/30/99 M PARK, BIqJNGHUN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570286 06/30/99 1359 PEAPOD 5806249 FOOD 0.00 16.27 1020 570287 06/30/99 M PENG, EILEEN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 198.00 102 570288 06/30/99 529 PENTAMATION 6109850 I~ATA LINE CHARGES 0.00 86.12 570288 06/30/99 529 PENTAMATION 6109850 DEDUCTION PER DONNA 0.00 -12.60 ~. ~ CHECK 0.00 73.52 1020 570289 06/30/99 531 PSPSI-COLACOMPANY 5806349 SODA 0.00 72.80 1020 570289 06/30/99 531 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 5806249 SODA 0.00 59.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 132.64 1020 570290 06/30/99 M PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTI 1100000 PARTIAL REI:%~ID R#1836 0.00 1329.60 1020 570290 06/30/99 M PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTI 110 LEGAL NOTICE R#1836 0.00 200.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1529.60 1020 570291 06/30/99 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 1655.00 1020 570292 06/30/99 M PORAT, TAMAR 5800000 RECREATION REFU/qD 0.00 45.00 1020 570293' 06/30/99 570 RADIO SHACK FILE #96062 1106265 SUPPLIES 0.00 30.69 1020 570294 06/30/99 M RAMADAS, I(RISHNA 5800000 RECREATION REI~A~) 0..00 116.00 1020 570295 06/30/99 M RANGJJALA, d-T,~4ANA 110 REF~A~D DEPOSIT R#9560 0.00 500.00 1020 570296 06/30/99 575 RECYCAL SUPPLY 5208003 SUPPLISS 0.00 1192.97 1020 570297 06/30/99 M REED, MARILYN 5700000 REFUND/ALBERT RSSD PAS 0.00 315.00 1020 570298 06/30/99 579 ]C~VIN REID 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 1590.00 1~Jl 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIOtqAL SERVICES 0.00 1413.70 ; 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108602 PROFRSSI(H~I~ SERVICES 0.00 960.00 1~.., 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0100 600.00 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 1362~37 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIUNAL SERVICES 0.00 525.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4861.07 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:03 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 13 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and #07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX' AMOUNT 1020 570300 06/30/99 584 BRENDON REUTEBUCH 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 100.00 1020 570301 06/30/99 1045 KEITH REUTER 570851~ REMOVAL OF BEES 0.00 175.00 1020 570302 06/30/99 M REYES, SHELBY 5506549 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 82.87 1020 570303 06/30/99 588 BART RIBOTTA 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 1540.00 1020 570304 06/30/99 607 RYKOFF-SEXTON 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 216.71 1020 570305 06/30/99 608 S & C FORD 6309820 TRUCK 0.00 29709.21 1020 570306 06/30/'99 1069 SAFE-HIT CORPORATION 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 529.61 1020 570307 06/30/99 M SALTON, CATHERINE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 70.00 102~ 570308 06/30/99 620 SAN JOSE CONSERVATION CO 1108601. INTERN 4/99 D CAMARILL 0.00 1856.00 1020 570309 06/30/99 1047 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 5506549 SUBSCRIPTION D-0340677 0.00 12% 1020 570310 06/30/99 M sANoo AKIRA 5800000 RECREATION.REFUND 0.00 29.00 1020 570311 06/30/99 633 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SECURITY 0.00 1529.60 1020 570312 $6/30/99 1360 SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHO 2308004 TRANSPORTATION 0.00 243.00 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 'SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.54 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020' 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108302 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 TOTAL CHECK 0.~0 867.62 1020 570314 06/30/99 M SCHOENI~LDER, CORINNA 5800000 HECREATIUN REFUND 0.00 68.00 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 465.48 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS ;806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 1466.79 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 757.75 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 921.21 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 1433.13 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5044.36 1020 ~70316 06/30/99 645 S~RS ~RCIAL CREDIT 6308540 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 146.10 1020 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIGERU 5800000 RECREATION CLASSES 0.00 -218 ~1 1020 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIGERU 5800000 RECREATION HEFL~D 0.00 13 1020 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIG~RU 5800000 RECREATION HEFI~ID 0.00 138.,~ TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 58,00 1020 570318 06/30/99 M SHENOY, ICt~UJDA 110 REru~iD DEPOSIT R#10974 0.00 100.00 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:04 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ~ ~/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 14 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT. FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_c~ate between ~06/26/1999~ and w07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSU~ DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570319 06/30/99 M SHIMOMURA, REIKO 5800000 I~ECR~ATION REFUND 0.00 48.00 · 1020 570320 06/30/99 M SI~OAD, NOA 110 REFDND DEPOSIT R#9929 0.00 100.00 1020 570321 06/30/99 652 SIEI~A SPRING WATE~ COMP 1101500 ~MPLOYEE WATER . 0.00 7.13 1020 570322 06/30/99 658 SILVF~ SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 ~MPLOYEE WATER 0.00 164.00 1020 570322 06/30/99 658 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 EMPLOYEE WATER 0.00 115.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 279.50 1020 570323 06/30/99 M SIMONINI, PP~dq 560 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 1020 57.032~ 06/30/99 M SKILLPATH SEMINM~S 1107301 REGISTRATION 8/17/99 0.00 99.00 1020 570325 06/30/99 M SMITH, TOMASINA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 39.00 10.~ 570326 06/30/99 1074 SNAP UN TOOLS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 31.83 1, 570327 06/30/99 665 SOT~ BAY METROPOLITAN 5806449 T~qPII~S 5/99 0.00 1749.00 1020 570328 06/30/99 877 SOUT~ LT~qBE~ CO 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 322.55 1020 570329 06/30/99 668 SPINNaKeR SAILING 5806449 RECREATION PROORAM 0.00 990.00 1020 570330 06/30/99 M SREEDPu~A, NAGESH 110 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 100.00 1020 570331 06/30/99 iq STANICH, KATHY 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#7281 0.00 500.00 1020 570332 06/30/99 1016 JOHN STATT~ 6104800 REIMEURSEMENT 0.00 595.35 1020 570333 06/30/99 1361 ~ ST~J~RT RENTAL COMPAN 1106448 ~ENTAL/TENTS 0.00 3029.36 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 S~YVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 138.32 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SOHNY3FALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 47.09 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SL~/qYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 97.67 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 53.22 lO2O 570334 06/30/99 690 S~YVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 84.76 TOTAL CHECK 0 · 00 421.06 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 CREDIT 6/18/99 0.00 -31.28 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1318.36 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 589.19 1020 S70335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 105.58 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1215.36 ~ CHECK 0.00 3197.21 1~,- 570336 06/30/99 M TACHIBANA, SHUNJI 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 96.00 1020 570336 06/30/99 M TACHIBANA, SH~H~J~ 5800000 RECREATIO~q REFOND 0.00 244.80 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 340.80 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108503 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:05 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 15 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransac=.ck_da~e be=ween #06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENE~J~ FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108501 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.42 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 5708510 SUPPLIES 0.00 248.19 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108505 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 933.51 1020 570338 06/30/99 697 RANDELL K TAKESHITA . 6104800 WEB SITE UPDATES 0.00 990.00 1020 570339 06/30/99 1266 TECHNICAL SERVICES 1108322 ~M DX12 CONT ASSY 0.00 2623.11 1020 570340 06/30/99 M THOMAS, MA~IA 110 ~EFUND DEPOSIT R#2060 0.00 500.00 1020 570340 06/30/99 M THOMAS, MA~IA 1100000 REFUND ROOM P, ENTAL FEE 0.00 185 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 68 1020 570341 06/30/99 709 LOU THUPJ~AN 5806449 RECE~ATION PHOGP~M 0.00 487.50 1020 570342 06/30/99 M TIEU, HONG 5800000 RECREATION REPTJND 0.00 102.00 1020 570343 06/30/99 M TRACY, JOi{N 110 ~EFUND DEPOSIT R91481 0.00 100.00 1020 570344 06/30/99 716 THE T~AVELSMITHS 1108601 AIP, FANE 0.00 133.00 1020 570345 06/30/99 719 CHRIS Ti~'VISAN 5806449 RECREATION PROGPulV4 0.00 8180.25 1020 570346 06/30/99 720 TEOJANBATTERY INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 1020 570347 06/30/99 M TEOSTL~, MA~Y 5800000 REClamATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570348 06/30/99 M TSAI, HUNGCHOU 5800000 RECP~TION REFDND 0.00 192.00 1020 570348 06/30/99 M TSAIo HUNGCHOU 5800000 REt'~ATIONREFUND 0.00 192.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 384.00 1020 570349 06/30/99 M TSENG, KENNETH 5800000 HECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 1020 570350 06/30/99 725 TWISTFJ~S GYI~iASTICS INC 5806449 RECRF, ATION PROGRAM 0.00 12132.00 1020 570351 06/30/99 726 U S L~GENDS INC 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 526.16 1020 570352 06/30/99 727 U S POSTMASTE~ 5208003 POSTAGE 0.00 103.97 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~T~.~Y OIL CONPA~TY 6308540 FT~EL 0.00 23 1020 570353 '' 06/30/99 738 VALLEY OIL C0iqPANY 6308540 FUEL 0.00 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~?~.~y OIL CONPANY 6308540 CREDIT 12/15/98 0.00 -1106.88 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~?.r.;y OIL COMPANY 6308540 FU~L 0.00 421.?] 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~?~.~Y OIL COHPANY 6308540 FO~L 0.00 861.57 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~?~Y OIL CONPANY 6308540 CREDIT 12/15/98 0.00 -12~.85 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:05 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 16 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER'- DISBURSEMENT'FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ch_date between '06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999# FUND - 110 - OENEI~L FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK 0.00 618.61 1020 570354 06/30/99 750 VISION SERVICE PLAN 110' VISION INS 7/99 0.00 1834.80 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMi INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 6.18 81.18 1020 S70355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103~01 . EQUIPMENT I~AL 10.31 135.31 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 4.13 54.13 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 2.89 37.89 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMJ~NT RENTAL 10.31 135.31 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 5.36 70.36 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUiI~ENT RENTAL 12.38 162.38 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMJ-~ RL%JTAL 2.06 27.06 TOTAL CHECK 53.62 703.62 1020 570356 06/30/99 M VOLDEN, SYLVIA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 47.00 1~. 570357 06/30/99 M WADAWAN, DINESH 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 100.00 1~ 570358 06/30/99 M WANG, LI-CHUNE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 123.00 1020 570359 06/30/99 M NANG, Y~ 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570360 06/30/99 756 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 121.77 1020 570360 06/30/99 756 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 80.27 1020 570360 06/30/99 756 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 130.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 332.04 1020 570361 06/30/99 1243 #Ci 1108564 SUPPLIES 0.00 21.24 1020 570362 06/30/99 761 WEDEMEYRRBAKERY 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 206.10 1020 570363 06/30/99 769 NEST STAR DISTRIBUTING I 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.83 1020 570364 06/30/99 771 NEST V~T.?.J~y SEC~ITY 1106265 KEYS 0.00 15.91 1020 570364 06/30/99 771 NEST Vi~TJ~¥ SECURITY 6308540 KEYS 0.00 24.82 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 40.73 1020 570365 06/30/99 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 281.69 1020 570366 06/30/99 1362 WESTERN POOL SEMINARS 5606620 TRAINING COURSE 0.00 205.00 1020 570367 06/30/99 1334 WISE-BUYS INC. 5706450 DIRECT MAIL 0.00 750.00 1020 570368 06/30/99 M WOODARD, HELAHIE 110 REFX~qD DEPOSIT R#15830 0.00 100.00 ~ 570369 06/30/99 N WOODS, LYNN S800000 RECRFATIONREFOND 0.00 47.00 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.~7 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.7~ 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 19.46 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 NOOLWORTH NURSERY 5606680 SUPPLIES 0.00 114.91 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:46:06 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 17 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA= transac~.ck_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/01/1999" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 58.39 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 296.30 1020 570371 06/30/99 794 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 SUPPLIES 7.93 104.08 i020 570372 06/30/99 795 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 BASE CHARGE 5/99 92.18 1209.62 1020 570373 06/30/99 1080 YAI~ OOLF CARS OF CALI 5606640 CREDIT 6/17/99 0.00 -12.89 1020 570373 06/30/99 1080 YAMA~IA GOLF CARS OF CALI 5606640 PARTS 0.00 96.76 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 83.87 1020 570374 06/30/99 798 MERCY ZAMORA 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 900.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 563.74 545362.17 TOTAL FUND 563.74 545362.17 TOTAL REPORT 563.74 5453~ RESOLUTION NO. 99-213 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING .JULY 2~ 1999 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: · ABSENT: .ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransac=.yr="99" and =ransack.period="12# and =ransacc.=rans_da~e between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 55514 V 04/23/99 M C~TA 1104200 CONFERENCE/L THORNTON 0.00 -20.00 1020 55823 V 05/07/99 M CARLOS MURPHY'S 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#6933 0.00 -100.00 1020 55836 V 05/07/99 M CHINA BEACH CAFE 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#7410 0.00 -100.00 1020 55842 V 05/07/99 M CONTINENTAL LAWYERS TITL 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#5790 0.00 -100.00 1020 55845 V 05/07/99 M CROUTON'S 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#6227 0.00 -100.00 1020 55845 V 05/07/99 M CHOUTONtS 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#7215 0.00 -100.00 1020 55845 V 05/07/99 M CROUTON'S 1100000 RFD/SIGN PERMIT R#6227 0.00 -100.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 -300.00 1020 55897 V · 05/07/99 301 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 1108506 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 -70.34 1020 56198 V 05/21/99 M ART MARK SIGNS 1100000 RFD DEPOSIT/TEMP SIGN 0.00 -100.00 1020 56358 V 05/21/99 1272 PENS BOORSMA 1106343 DJ FOR CO-OP DANCE 5/2 0.00 -300.00 1020 56477 V 06/04/99 1142 A.M. BEST COMPANY INC 1108101 RENEWAL/ACCT#817640500 0.00 -177.49 1020 56692 V 06/11/99 1306 CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTR 1108303 CONNECTION PERMIT 0.00 -377.50 1020 56935 V 06/18/99 M PANG, LILLIAN 5500000 RFD/GRAPE ESCAPE 0.00 -1. J 1020 570100 06/29/99 1350 A & R BOOTH RENTAL 1106448 REG AND FOOD BOOTH 0.00 340.00 1020 570101 06/29/99 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 1104540 PROPERTY LIAB CLAIM 6/ 0.00 1481.12 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABA(; POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108507 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 737.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 AB~ POWER-ELECTRICAL 5708510 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 3247.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTrICAL 1108530 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 3612.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108501 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 5244.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POtlER-ELECTRICAL 1108322 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 2043.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108312 ELECTRIC LEV PM~ 6/99 0.00 172.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWeR-ELECTRICAL 1108315 ELECTRIC LEV P~T. 6/99 0.00 265.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108503 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1327.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108303 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 3331.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-EL~;CTRICAL 1108602 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 212.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108314 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1869.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABA(; POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108602 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 900~.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 5208003 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 5606640 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 223.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABA(; POWER-ELECTRICAL 5606620 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 1860.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108506 ELECTRIC [~V PMT 6/99 0.00 177.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 1108504 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 6/99 0.00 5940.00 1020 570102 06/29/99 10 ABAG POWER-ELECTRICAL 110 ELECTRIC LEV PMT 7/99 0.00 36287.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 75551.00 1020 570103' 06/29/99 20 ADVANTAGE GRAFIX 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 250.27 1020 570103 06/29/99 20 ADVANTAGE GRAFIX 1107301 SOLUTIONS HANDBOOK 0.00 DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:26 - FTNANCIAL ACCOT.q~TING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGS 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND £ TION CRITERIA: cransacu.yr=#99" and =ransack.period="12# and ~rans4cu.~rans_da=e between #06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ..... 1 SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570103 06/29/99 20 ADVANTAGE GRAFIX 1107200 TRANSPARENCY FILM COLO 0.00 8.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 324.57 1020 570104 . 06/29/99 25 AIR COOLED ENGINES 6308540 11301998 18.10 237.50 1020 570104 06/29/99 25 AIR COOLED ENGINES 6308540 11301998 1.32 17.36 TOTAL CHECK 19.42 254.86 1020 570105 06/29/99 34 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL IN 630~540 LABOR DISPOSAL FEES 0.00 556.40 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 CUSTOM SIGNS 0.00 357.23 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 · CUSTOM SIGNS 0.00 535.84 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 322.83 1020 570106 06/29/99 45 AMERICAN TRAFFICSUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 269.98 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1485.86 1020 570107 06/29/99 57 ARAMARK 110~510 EMPLOYEE COFFEE 0.00 261.31 1020 57010~ 06/29/99 M ARCHITECTURAL~IGEST 1107501 RENEWAL 0.00 42.00 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 AUTOM]~TIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 113098 ADD NEW ACCT TO 0.00 771.13 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 113098 ADD NEW ACCT TO 0.00 129.57 1020 570109 06/29/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY' 1108312 113098 ADD NEW ACCT TO 0.00 226.25 T CHECK 0.00 1126.95 1020 570110 06/29/99 71 B & R IC~ CREAM DIST 5606620 11301998 0.00 289.54 1020 570110 06/29/99 71 B & R IC~ CJtEAM DIST 5606620 11301998 0.00 265.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 555.84 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 63.98 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 GAS FILTER 0.00 4.48 1020 570111 06/29/99 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 36.44 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 104.90 1020 570112 06/29/99 80 BARRY & VOLJ(MAHN 5709209 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00. 4834.23 1020 570113 06/29/99 100 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 11301998 3.51 46.01 1020 570114- 06/29/99 106 BRIDGE RADIO C09t4UNICATI 1108501 SUPPLIES 0.00 78.00 1020 570115 06/29/99 872 BSA ARCHIT~CTS 4239214 SERVICE AGR~EM~T FOR 0.00 2298.99 1020 570115 06/29/99 872 BSA ARCHITECTS 4239214 SERVIC~ AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 327.30 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2626.29 1020 570116 06/29/99 M BUILDER MAC4~ZINE 1107501 SUBSCRIPTION R~NENAL 0.00 74.32 1020 570117 06/29/99 173 COCA-COLABOTTLIN~ OF CA 5606620 11301998 0.00 1025.01 1020 570118 06/29/99 179 COMPUSA INC 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 266.13 1020 570118 06/29/99 179 COMPUSA INC 6104800 SUPPLIES 0.00 345.32 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 511.45 · 1. 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 228.33 RON DATE 07/01/99 TI~ 18:25:27 - FINANCIAL 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.yr~"99" and ~ransac~.period-"12" and ~ransac~.=rans_cla~e between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCHIFTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020. 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 23.70 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.~0 145.15 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 47.80 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108501 11301998 0.00 100.00 1020 570119 06/29/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108507 11301998 0.00 99.23 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 644.21 1020 570120 06/29/99 198 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 FACILITY USAGE 0.00 1183.05 1020 570121 06/29/99 1344 DESMOND JOHNSON, APPRAIS 4209110 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 7057.50 1020 570122 06/29/99 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 444.21 1020 S70123 06/29/99 225 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 4475.41 1020 570124 06/29/99 855 DULINADV~RTiSING INC 1104520 ADVeRTISeMENT 0.00 587.25 1020 570125 06/29/99 1345 EAR, QUAKE OUTLET 1104400 SUPPLIES. 0.00 72.66 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108101 STANDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 14.00 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 ST~qDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 22 25 1020 570126 06/29/99 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108101 .STANDARD OVERNIGHT 0.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 L · 1020 570127 06/29/99 776 GCS WESTERN POWER & EOUI 6308540 PARTS 0.00 14.73 i020 570128 06/29/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 279.60 1020 570128 06/29/99 298 GRAING~R INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 137.16 1020 570128 06/29/99 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 20.09 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 436.85 1020 570129 06/29/99 339 ICEO 1107503 SUPPLIES 0.00 3.71 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 INSER~ CO~PANY 1108502 WATER TREATMENT 6/99 0.00 159.49 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 INSERV CO~P~/~Y 1108504 WATER TR~ATMENT'6/99 0.00 159.49 1020 570130 06/29/99 995 XNSERV C0~PANY 1108501 WATER TR~ATM~I~T 6/99 0.00 159.49 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 478.47 1020 570131 06/29/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.22 1020 570132 06/29/99 448 MISSION V~T.~y FORD INC ~308540 REPAIR DIESEL SYSTEM 0.00 558.02 1020 570133 06/29/99 1346 NASCO MODESTO 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.70 1020 570134 06/29/99 M NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 1107503 M~MBERSHIP 0.00 115.00 1020 570135 06/29/99 M OLD-HOUSE JOURNAL 1107501 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 27.00 1020 570136 06/29/99 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 1106265 SUPPLIES 0.00 248.45 1020 570137 ..06/29/99 534 PET CENTRE 1106647 SUPPLIES 0.00 . ..~ RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND &. £ION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.yr-"99" and ~ransac~.period-~12" and ~ransact.~rans date between #06/26/1999" and #07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASE ACCT CHECK NO iSSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570138 06/29/99 611 S C CO TRANSPORTATION 5506549 FLASH PASS 6/99 0.00 248.00 1020 570139 06/29/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 724.19 1020 570140 06/29/99 1018 SPORTTIME 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 335.94 1020 570140 06/29/99 1018 SPORTTIME 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 40.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 376.14 1020 570141 06/29/99 671 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHIN 5606680 . SUPPLIES 0.00 109.33 1020 570142 06/29/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 329.46 1020 570142 06/29/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 786.02 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 1115.48 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 48.55 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.94 1020 5T0143 06/29/99 701 TARGET STORES 5~06349 SUPPLIES 0.00 11.62 1020 570143 06/29/99 701 TAP~GET STORES 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 5.39 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 117.50 ] 870144 06/29/99 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP 6308540 PARTS 0.00 13.68 i 570144 06/29/99 724 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 64.51 TOTALCHECK 0.00 78.19 1020 570145 06/29/99 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 258.77 1020 570145 06/29/99 746 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 48.65 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 305.42 1020 570147 06/30/99 18 AD(~(A OIL CORPORATION 1108005 HAZ WASTE TRUCKING 0.00 4000.00 1020 570147 06/30/99 18 ~ OIL CORPORATION 2708405 HAZ WASTE TRUCKING 0.00 4360.00 TOTAL CHECK 0..00 8360.00 1020 570~48 06/30/99 M AINSLEY HOUSE 5506549 TOUR/LT]~TCH 0.00 336.75 1020 570149 06/30/99 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 535.84 1020 570150 06/30/99 66 AUTO PARTS CLUB 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 44.15 1020 570150 06/30/99 66 AUTO PARTS CLUB 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 85.10 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 129.25 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOI~TIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 420.87 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTC~SATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 771.13 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN C~MPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 917.88 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 ~TIC RAIN CC]4PANY 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 17.70 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AJJTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 103.85 1020 5701S1 06/30/99 67 AUT(XqATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108312 SUPPLIES · 0.00 411.20 1020 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 98.54 102~0 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 169.39 2 570151 06/30/99 67 AUTOMATIC RAIN COMPANY 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 720.05 T~ CHECK 0.00 3630.61 RTJtq DATE 07/01/99 TIMB 18:25:29 - FINANCIAL 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.y r="99" and transact.period-'12'' and transact.trans_date between '06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570152 06/30/99 69 B & B LANDSCAPE CON .INC 2709422 PROFESSIOAL SVC/FINAL 0.00 36255.00 1020 570153 06/30/99 M BABU, SURESH 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 7.00 1020 570154 06/30/99 M BAPAYE, P~JASHREE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 162.00 1020 570155 06/30/99 83 BATTERIES PLUS 11083~3 SUPPLIES 0.00 170.83 1020 570156 06/30/99 85 BAY ALARM COMPANY 1108505 MONITORING FEE 1283322 0.00 234.00 1020 570156 06/30/99 85 BAY JtT~ARM COMPANY 1108502 MONITORING FEE 3110222 0.00 669.22 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 903.22 1020 570157 06/30/99 1348 BAYSHORE FENCE CO INC 5708510 INSTALL SWING GATE 0.00 582.00 1020 570158 06/30/99 87 BEARCOM 1108501 SERVICE CALL 0.00 187.50 1020 570159 06/30/99 1305 BET~ERPLY BUSINESS FORMS 1107502 FORMS/BUILDING PERMIT 0.00 1029.28 1020 570160 06/30/99 865 BILL*S TREE SERVICE 1108315 TREE WORK 0.00 2450.00 1020 570161 06/30/99 100 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 MICROFILMING 11.58 1~ 1020 570161 06/30/99 100 BMI IMAGING sysTEMS 1104300 MICROFILMING 299.68 39i TOTAL CHECK 311.26 4084.06 1020 570162 06/30/99 M BRANDT, LINDA 110 REFUND DEPOSIT 0.00 100.00 1020 570163 06/30/99 113 BRUNSWICK HOMESTEAD LANE 5806349 BOWLING 0.00 167.50 1020 570164 06/30/99 M BUENO, ROXAI~N 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 9.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108507 REROOF 0.00 14540.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108507 REROOF 0..00 555.00 1020 570165 06/30/99 1265 ' CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO IN 1108502 R~ROOF 0.00 11346.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 26441.00 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGH 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 125.22 1020 570166 06/50/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 251.68 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 738.63 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 22.74 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 712.29 1020 S70166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106442 SUPPLIES 0.00 251.68 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 1106342 SUPPLIES 0.00 673.86 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 13.53 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 64.95 1020 570166 06/30/99 809 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 32.48 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2887,06 1020 570167 06/30/99 813 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC 4209801 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0,00 12090.~7 1020 570168 '.'06/30/99 137 CAPITOL (;MC TRUCK 6308540 PARTS 0.00 16, . RUN DATE 07/01/99 TINE 18:25:30 - FII~]tNCIAL ~wLT~q~TING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND s ZION CRITERIA: ~ransac=.yr-"99" and =ransac=.period-"12" and =ransack.frans_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FU~ - 110 - G~P~AL F~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570169 06/30/99 152 CEB 1101500 PUBLICATION 0.00 70.4~ 1020 570170 06/30/99 M CHAMPLAIN PLANNING PRESS 1107301 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 50.00 1020 570171 06/30/99 M CHAN, BREND~ 5800000 RECREATION REFUND O.00 48.00 1020 570172 06/30/99 M CHIN, M~RIE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570173 06/30/99 M CHU, VICKIE 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 123.00 1020 570174 06/30/99 829 JONAS CLAUSEN 1101501 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 190.00 1020 570175 06/30/99 1363 CLEAN SOURCE 110~501 SUPPLIES 0.00 313.93 1020 570176 06/30/99 1352 COFFEE BRENER DOCTOP~ 1106265 REPAIR COFFEE SYSTEM 0.00 63.01 1020 570177 06/30/99 178 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 INSURANCE PREMIUM 7/99 0.00 60.68 1020 570178 06/30/99 179 COMPUSA INC 6104800 SUPPLIES 0.00 2451.20 I 570179 06/30/99 M CONSTANT, TINA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 99.00 1020 570180 06/30/99 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO IN 1107301 GEOLOGIC SVC/EAINBOWS 0.00 495.25 1020 570180 06/30/99 183 COTTON SHIRES & ~SSO IN 110 GEOLOGIC SVC/GUD~E~DSO 0.00 1000.00 1020 570180 06/30/99 183 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO IN 110 GEOLOGIC SVC/HUTTON 0.00 140.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1635.75 1020 570181 06/30/99 1353 CREDIT BUREAU OF MOUNTAI 1100000 CLIENT LETTER SERVICE 0.00 3.00 1020 570182 06/30/99 984 CROSSROADS CHEVRO~ SERVI 6308540 FUEL/CITY V~HICL~S 0.00 1795.16 1020 570183 06/30/99 1306 CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTR 1108303 0.00' 77.50 1020 570184 06/30/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 6.16 80.82 1020 570185 06/30/99 197 CUPERTINO TO~N C~NTF~t 1101500 RENT 0.00 2894.00 1020 570186 06/30/99 198 CUPERTINO t~ION SCH~ DIS 2308004 TRANSPORTATIC~ 0.00 354.48 1020 570187 06/30/99 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308540 PARTS & SUPPLXES 0.00 140.73 1020 570187 06/30/99 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308540 PARTS A SUPPLIES 0.00 291.32 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 432.05 1020 570188 06/30/99 1229 DAVIS, LAI~'DC~ON 4239214 PItOF~SSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 12600.00 1020 570189 06/30/99 206 STACY DAY 5506549 YOGA INSTRUCTION 0.00 280.00 1020 570190 06/30/99 890 DE ANZAPRINTINGSERVICE 5208003 PRXNTINGCHARGE 0.00 48.00 '1, 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 J~ITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 281.82 RUR DATE 07/01/99 TII~ 18:25:30 - FXN~NCZAL ACC~Jtm'-.uK.~ 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.yr-"99# and ~ransac=.period=#12" and =ransac=.=rans_da=e between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 102~ 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108503 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1663.12 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 90.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE AN?~A SERVICES INC 1108322 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 875.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1019.26 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 570851~ JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1861.61 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 602.55 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507. JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1206.40 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 4476.65 1020 570191. 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 280.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 55.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA-SERVICES INC 1108511 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 708.00 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 1931.42 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 409.49 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 SPECIAL JANITORIAL SVC 0.00 5881.00 102~ 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZASERVICES INC 1108509 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 566.55 1020 570191 06/30/99 209 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 JANITORIAL SVC 6/99 0.00 3582.21 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 25490.08 1020 570192 06/30/99 M DEACHA, KAREN 5800000 I~CREATiON REFUND 0.00 21.00 1020 570193 06/30/99 1313 DELTA SAFETY SUPPLY CO 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 59.97 1020 570194 06/30/99 M DENNIS & KAREN.PABOOJIAN 110 REFUND PERFORMANCE SON 0.00 677. , 1020 570195 06/30/99 214 DEFT OF TI~ANSPORTATION 1108602 SAFETY LIGHTING 4/99 0.00 89.28 1020 570196 06/30/99 1354 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 69.27 1020 570196 06/30/99 1354 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 22.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 91.27 1020 570197 06/30/99 225 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 MATERIALS 0.00 264.97 1020 570197 06/30/99 225 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 LA~OR & MATERIAL 0.00 5014.77 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5279.74 1020 570198 06/30/99 228 DUBAY*S TIRE SERVICE INC 6308540 ALI(H~4ENT 0.00 85.00 1020 570199 06/30/99 855 DULINADVERTISING INC 1104520 ADVERTISEMENT 0.00 587.25 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 ];DS ENGINEERING DATA SEE 110 R#1832 LEGAL NOTICE 0.00 62.51 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 EDS ENGINEERING DATA SEE 110 R#1836 LEGAL NOTICE 0.00 86.43 1020 570200 06/30/99 234 IDS ~NGINEERING DATA SEE '110 R#1818 LEGAL NOTICE 0.00 61.52 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 210.46 1020 570201 06/30/99 240 ELIZABETH ELLIS 1101070 TRANSCRIPTION 0.00 425.00 1020 570202 06/30/99 M EQUIVIAS, JOSS M 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#2224 0.00 100.00 1020 570203 06/30/99 251 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1108303 NEED/FEED 0.00 4400.00 1020 570204 06/30/99 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 ~ 1020 570204 06/30/99 253 EXCJ~LNGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 STJ'PPLIES 0.00 17, .d RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:31 - FINANCIAL ACCOTJ2qTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE ~ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISB~SEMENT FUND S .'ION CRITERIA: ~ransacu.yr-#99' and ~r&nsac~.period-#12# and ~ransac~.~rans_date between #06/26/1999# and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 102D 570204 06/30/99 253 EXCNANGE LINEN SERVICE 5806249 LINEN ~ENTALS 0.00 26.70 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 287.92 1020 570205 06/30/99 818 F~OYD D BROWN FIRST AID 6308540 FiRE EXTINGUSHIER SVC 0.00 30.00 1020 570206 06/30/99 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY S¥S 5708510 SUPPLIES 0.00 242.91 1020 670207 06/30/99 274 FRY'S ELECTRONIC 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 77.90 1020 570208 06/30/99 275 SUSAN FUKUBA 5806449 RECREATION PROGraM 0.00 1235.40 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 GARDENLAND 6308540 SUPPLIES 11.19 146.79 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 ~ENLAND 6308540 11301998 5.59 73.39 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 GARDENLAND 6308540 SUPPLIES 6.48 85.03 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 OARDENLAND 6308540 CREDIT 6/25/99 0.00 -189.13 1020 570209 06/30/99 281 OARDENLAND 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 12.67 TOTAL C~CK 23.26 128.75 1020 570210 06/30/99 M OEE, RITA 5800000 RECREATION NEFUND 0.00 125.00 1020 570211 06/30/99 M GINYA~D, HARRIS 110 RECR~TION ~F~2~D 0.00 100.00 i 570212 06/30/99 291 OOLDEN TOUCH LANDSCAPINO 1108314 PA~TS & LABOR 0.00 750.00 1020 570213 06/30/99 1340 GOLFLANDWATE~SLIDES 5806349 ADMISSION 0.00 625.00 1020 570213 06/30/99 1340 ~OLFLAND WATEr, gLIDES 5806349 ADMISSION 0.00 ' 364.00 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 959.00 1020 570214 06/30/99 M O0~J~EZ, MARIA 110 RSF~ND DEPOSIT R#27630 0.00 100.00 1020 570215 06/30/99 296 OP~LZNG~ INC 1108502 SUPPLIES 7.39 96.97 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GRAINOER INC 110850~ SUPPLIES 1.21 15.82 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 O~AI~k~k INC 1108530 SUPPLIES 16 02 210.21 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 O~AIN~ INC 1108504 SUPPLIES 0.73 9.58 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 GP~INOE~ INC 1108312 SAFETY EYEW~A~ 0.00 107.09 1020 57021~ 06/30/99 298 O~AINOER INC 1108312 BARRICADE TAPE NITRILE 0.00 272.14 1020 570215' 06/30/99 298 ORAINO~ INC 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 326.95 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 O~A~NO~ INC 1108321 C~DIT 5/6/99 0.00 -326.95 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 O~AING~ INC 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 166.53 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 O~AI~K)~k INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 8.30 1020 570215 06/30/99 298 0~INO~ INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 55.35 TOTAL CH~CK 25.35 941.99 1020 570216 06/30/99 M GREE~., PATRICE . 5800000 RECREATION REFT~iD 0.00 63.00 1020 570217 06/30/99 1364 GRIFFIN PAINTING INC 1108507 PARTS & LABOR 0.00 1647.00 1020 570218 06/30/99 M GU, T/AN LDH 5800000 RECP~ATION REFUND 0.00 49.00 zr 570219 06/30/99 311 GUARDIAN SANITARY SUPPLY 5606620 SUPPLIF~ 21.05 '276.25 1020 570220 06/30/99 1180 HARRY L MURPHY INC 1108502 ROMOVE/NEPLACE CARPET 0100 17660.00 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:32 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transacE.yr-"99" and transact.period="12" and tra~sact.trans_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570221 06/30/99 M HAYNE, JOHN 5600000 REFUND/GOLF TOUP/qAMENT 0.00 600.00 1020 570222 06/30/99 323 BURL B HAYNES III 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 800.00 1020 570223 06/30/99 325 DANIEL HEDDEN 1106500 SVC SR CTR 6/19 6/22 0.00 135.00 1020 57~224 06/30/99 M HSIANG, KO-FANG 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 81.00 1020 570225 06/30/99 M HSU, S~,N-CHUN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 48.00 1020 570226 06/30/99 M HUAI~G, WENLIN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 98.00 1020 570227 06/30/99 M .IMA~ATO, TA~KO 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 98.00 1020 570228 06/30/99 349 INTERIM PE~SOI~NEL 1108601 TEMP PLACEMENT S A~NOL . 0.00 33.00 1020 570228 06/30/99 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1108101 T~MP PLA~MENT S A~OL 0.00 99.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 132.00 1020 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYSTEM UP(]RADE 0.00 2143.30 1020 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYSTEM OP(]RADE 0.00 1020 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SYSTEM UPGRADE 0.00 1020 570229 06/30/99 1291 IS SOLUTIONS 6104800 SSYT~M UP~E 0.00 444.84 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4735.94 1020 570230 06/30/99 1205 J & M TERMITE CONTROL IN 1108507 CO--CT COSTS 0.00 940.00 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SE]~VIC~S INC 2709502 C]U~DIT 3/24/99 0.00 -22.73 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 209.27 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 1194.15 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 66.34 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 ' · JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 188.78 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 1077.24 1020 570231 06/30/99 952 JAM SERVICES INC 2709502 SUPPLIES 0.00 378.57 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3091.62 1020 570232 06/30/99 1067 JIM'S REFRIGE~ATIO~ 5609105 SWAMP COOLER 0.00 2000.00 1020 570233 06/30/99 1257 JOE'S'TRACTOR SERVICE 1108302 HONING 0.00 1000.00 1020 570234 06/30/99 M JOHNSON, C~ORGEANNA 5500000 TRIP REFTHqD 0.00 75.00 1020 570235 06/30/99 806 WENDELL JAMES JOHNSON JR 1108314 SERVICE CALL 0.00 103.00 1020 570236 06/30/99 M KAPUR, RENUEA 5800000 I~ECR~ATIONREFUND 0.00 21.00 1020 570237 06/30/99 935 KAR PRODUCTS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 217.67 1020 570238 06/30/99 M KATZ, SHIRLEY 110 REFO/%D DEPOSIT R#7481 0.00 5~ " 1020 570239 06/30/99 366 EDWIN KAUEALI 5606620 LIFEG'U~,RD 0.00 500.00 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:33 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/0~/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 A" 'TING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK R~GISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr-"99" and transact.period-"12" and transact.trans_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570240 06/30/99 M KAY, MARGARET 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570241 06/30/99 M KIADEH, SHARZAD 5606620 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 105.00 1020 570242 06/30/99 M KOLA, VANI 5800D00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 35.00 1020 570243 06/30/99 M KOUSHIK, SARITA 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#2444 0.00 100.00 1020 570244 06/30/99 1258 DONNA KREY 1101000 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 791.31 1020 570245 06/30/99 382 KWIK-KOPY PRINTING 5506549 PRINTING CHARGE 0.00 308.51 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 153.57 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 201.07 1020 570246 06/30/99 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 318.59' TOTAL CHECK ' 0.00 673.23 1020 570247 06/30/99 M LAM, NGA-HUANG 5800000 RECR~ATIONREIrtA~ID 0.00 317.25 i 570248 06/30/99 M LANKA, SRIDHARA 5800000 RECREATION CLASS FEES 0.00 -70.00 1~ 570248 06/30/99 M LANKA, SRIDHARA 5700000 RECREATION REFLqlD 0.00 143.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 73.00 1020 570249 06/30/99 1355 LARSENSYSTEMS INC 1108504 SUPPLIES 0.00 129.90 1020 570250 06/30/99 M L~E, CRISTIN 5800000 RECREATION REPL~ID 0.00 75.00 1020 570251 06/30/99 M LL~, TSAI YU 5800000 RECR~ATIONP.~FUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLXE~S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108303 POND SUPPLIES 0.20 1284.65 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE*S POOL SUPPLIES X 1108303 P0t~D SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 1020 570252 06/3'0/99 397 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108303 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 844.22 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLXE~S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108321 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 LESLIE*S POOL SUPPLIES I 1108322 POND SUPPLIES 0.00 131.68 1020 570252 06/30/99 397 L~SLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES I 5606620 POOL SUPPLIES 0.00 133.14 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2657.05 1020 570253 06/30/99 404 LONGS IHtUG STORES #260 5805349 SUPPLIES 0.00 1.61 1020 570254 06/30/99 405 ~ D~UGS #114 1108601 SUPPLIES 0.00 15.02 1020 570255 06/30/99 406 LOS ALTOS GARBAGE CO 1100000 PARTIAL PMT/GARB LIEN 0.00 50.00 1020 570256 06/30/99 408 LOS GATOS I~ATS 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1398.85 1020 570256 06/30/99 408 LOS GATOS I~ATS 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 603.17 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2002.02 i 570257 06/30/99 H LU(~G, LESLIE 5800000 RECREATION REFT~D 0.00 7.00 1020 570258 06/30/99 M LY, FAYS 5800000 RECREATION REFT. I~D 0.00 34.~0 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25.'34 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1! ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: CransacC.yr="99" and cransac=.period-"12# and ~ransac~.Crans_date be=ween -06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND o 110 - GF/~ERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 R~CREATION REFUND 0.00 96.00 1020 570259 06/30/99 M MATSUZUKA, SHINOBU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 96.00 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 276.00 1020 570260 06/30/99 1356 MATTHEW SENDER & COMPANY 1101500 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 . 234.67 1020 570261 06/30/99 M MAYO CLINIC HEALTH LETTE 5606549 SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 8.00 !020 570262 06/30/99 M MEHTA, BHUPEN 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#81506 0.00 100.0G 1Q20 570263 06/30/99 1264 MELLO PIPELINE 2159620 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 0.00 10450.00 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 MESITI MILLER ENGINEERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL SVC/PMT 3 0.00 1809.75 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 MES~TI MILLER ENGINEERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL SVC/PMT 5 0.00 3706.48 1020 570264 06/30/99 900 MESITI MILLER ENGINEERIN 1108503 PROFESSIONAL SVC/PMT 4 0.00 3125.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8641.73 1020. 570265 06/30/99 437 METRO N~WSPAPSRS 1104300 PUBLIC HEARING 0.00 1020 570265 06/30/99 437 METRO NEWSPAPERS 1104300 P~BLIC HEARING 0.00 45. TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1045.00 1020 570266 06/30/99 443 Mltt~q~NI~ M~CHANICAL IN 1108507 LABOR & PARTS 0.00 1426.00 1020 570267 06/30/99 446 STUART MISFELDT 5606620 LIFBGUARD 0.00 200.00 1020 570268 '06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFOP~4 SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERVICES 0.00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFOI~4 SERVICE 1108201 I~IFORM SERVICES 0.00 74.95 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION ONIFORM SERVI~ 1108201 UNIFOP~4 SERVICES 0..00 76.08 1020 570268 06/30/99 447 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 UNIFORM SERViCES 0.00 76.08 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 379.27 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 43.99 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTHERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 162.05 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELL BROTIIERS 6308540 PARTS 0.00 58.50 1020 570269 06/30/99 449 MITCHELl, BROTHERS 6308540 SUPPLIBS 0.00 13.96 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 278.50 1020 570270 06/30/99 454 PABLO A MOLINA JR 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 4OO.00 1020 570271 06/30/99 463 VICTOR G MOSSOTTI 5806449 RECREATION PROGRAM 0.00 368.00 1020 570272 06/30/99 465 MOUNTA/lq VIEW GARDEN CBN 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 56.18 1020 570272 06/30/99 465 MOUNTAIN VIEW C.~D~N CEN 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 4S4.12 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 510.~0 1020 570273 '-06/30/99 M I~u'ELLER, u-T,,T&T, GEW 1100000 RE~TION REFUND 0.00 3~..u 1020 570274 06/30/99 M NAGEL, MALKA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 72.50 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:34 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ~ ~' /99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 12 ~ ,RTING PERIOD: 12/99 CH~CK R~GISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransact.~r-'99" and =ransact.period-"12~ and =ransac=.=rans_da=e be=ween #06/26/1999# and #07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FT~qD CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570275 06/30/99 473 NASRR DISTRIBUTORS INC 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1833.23 1020 570276 06/30/99 1357 NATIONAL PE~CORPORATION 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 39.00 1020 570276 06/30/99 1357 NATIONAL PER CORPORATION 5506549 SUPPLIES 0.00 38.87 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 77.87 1020 570277 06/30/99 479 NATURES WOOD 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 373.25 1020 570278 06/30/99 1358 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN 6308540 PARTS 0.00 68.98 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 0'GRADY PAVING INC 560p105 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 1200.00 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 O'GRADY PAVING INC 5606620 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 16000.00 1020 570279 06/30/99 496 O'GRADY PAVING INC 5609105 PAVING AT BBF 0.00 6000.00 TOTAL CHRCK .. 0.00 23200.00 1020 570280 06/30/99 499 DEBBIE O'NEILL 5606620 PERFORMER 7/11/99 0.00 170.00 1020 570281 06/30/99 M OCON, JULIA 5800000 RECREATI0(q REPT~TD 0.00 20.00 i 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108322 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 1754.05 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 5708510 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 375.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108322 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 125.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBOI~NE 1108530 LABOR &NAT~RIALS 0.00 800.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR & MATERIALS 0.00 800.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR &MAT~.IALS 0.00 680.00 1020 570282 06/30/99 507 DAN OSBORNE 1108530 LABOR &MATERIALS 0.00 400.00 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 4934.05 1020 570283 06/30/99 M OU, YUH-HYA 5800000 RECiEATIO~ REFUND 0.00 18.00 1020 570283 06/30/99 M OU, YUH-HYA 5800000 I~.CREATION REFI~iD 0.00' 7.00 TOTAL CI-I~CR 0.00 25.00 1020 57028~ 06/30/99 515 PACIFIC NEST SRCURITY IN 1108504 SERVICE CALL 6/4/99 0.00 168.00 1020 570285 06/30/99 M PARK, BY~GHUN 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570286 06/30/9~ 1359 PEAPOD 5806249 FOOD 0.00 16.27 1020 570287 06/30/99 M P~NG, EILE~N 5800000 RECREATION REFV.q~D 0.00 198.00 1020 570288 06/30/99 529 PENTAMATION 6109850 DATA LINE CHARGES 0.00 86.12 1020 570288 06/30/99 529 PENTAMATION 6109850 DE1XICTION PER DONNA 0.00 -12.60 TOTAL CZ-I~CR 0.00 73.52 1020 570289 06/30/99 531 PEP$I-COLAC0MPANY 5806249 SODA 0.00 59.84 lO2~.~o. 570289 06/30/99 531 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 5806349 SODA 0.00 72.80 7 CHECK 0.00 132.64 1020 570290 06/30/99 M PINN BROTHERS COHS-~U~-~-! 1100000 PARTIAL REIq]HD R#1836 0.00 1329;60 1020 570290 06/30/99 M PINN BROTHERS CO~SxKU=-~-! 110 lEGAL NOTICE R#1836 0.00 200.00 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:35 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr-"99" and transact.period--12, and transact.trans_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1529.60 1020 570291 06/30/99 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 1655.00 1020 570292 06/30/99 M POP, AT, TN4AR 5800p00 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 45.00 1020 570293 06/30/99 570 RADIO SHACK FILE #96062 1106265 SUPPLIES 0.00 30.69 1020 870294 06/30/99 M RAMADAS, KRISHNA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 116.00 .1020 570295 06/30/99 M RANGWALA, JUMANA 110 R~FUND DEPOSIT R#9560 0.00 .1020 570296 06/30/99 575 RECYCAL SUPPLY 5208003 SUPPLIES 0.00 1192.97 1020 570297 06/30/99 M REED, MARILYN 5700000 REFUND/ALBERT REED PAS 0.00 315.00 1020 570298 06/30/99 579 KEVINREID 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 1590.00 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108602 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 960.00 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 13 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 14. J 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 600.00 1020 570299 06/30/99 1071 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 525.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4861.07 1020 570300 06/30/99 584 BRENDON R~=£~OCH 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 100.00 1020 570301 06/30/99 1045 KEITH REUTER 5708510 REMOVAL OF BEES 0.00 175.00 1020 570302 06/30/99 M REYES, SHELBY 5506549 REI~URSEMENT 0.00 82.87 1020 570303 06/30/99 588 BART.RIBOTTA 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 1540.00 1020 570304 06/30/99 607 EYICOFF-SEXTON 5606620 SUPPLIES '0.00 216.71 1020 570305 06/30/99 608 S & C FORD 6309820 TRUCK 0.00 29709.21 1020 570306 06/30/99 1069 SAFE-HIT CORPORATION 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 529.61 1020 570307 06/30/99 M SALTON, CATherINE 5800000 ~CEEATI0~ REFUND 0.00 70.00 1020 570308 06/30/99 620 SAN JOSE CONSERVATION CO 1108601 INTERN 4/99 D CNqARILL 0.00 1856.00 1020 570309 06/30/99 1047 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 5506549 SUBSCEIPTIOND-0340677 0.00 124.06 1020 570310 06/30/99 M SANO, AKIEA 5800000 I~EC~ATION'~EFt~ID 0.00 29.00 1020 570311 06/30/99 633 SANTA CLARA ~ SIIF~RI 5606620 SECURITY 0.00 15 1020 570312 06/30/99 1360 SA/~TA CLA~AT~IZFZED SCEO 2308004 TE3*NSPOETATION 0.00 243.00 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPEI~ INC 1108315' SUPPLIES '0.00 173.54 RUN DATI~ 07/01/99 TIME 18=25:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ~ /99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 14 ACCOUNTING PERIOD= 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA= transac~.yr-"99" and transact.period-#12" and ~ransac=.~ran$_da=e between "06/26/1999" and '07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAI~ER INC 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108302 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 1020 570313 06/30/99 640 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108~03 SUPPLIES 0.00 173.52 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 867.62 1020 570314 06/30/99 M SCHO~NFELDER0 CORINNA 5800000 · RECR~ATIONREFU~D 0.00 68.00 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIG~qS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0,00 757.75 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 1433.13 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0,00 1466.79 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 921.21 1020 570315 06/30/99 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 T-SHIRTS 0.00 465.48 TOTAL CHECK 0,00 5044.36 1020 570316 06/30/99 645 SEARS C~gJ(F~RCIAL CREDIT 6308540 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0,00 146.10 1020 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIGERU 5800000 RECREATION CLASSES 0.00 -218.00 ? 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIGERU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 138.00 1 570317 06/30/99 M SEKINE, SHIGERU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 138.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 58.00 1020 570318 06/30/99 M SHENOY, I(UMUDA 110 RRFUND DEPOSIT R#10974 0.00 100.00 1020 570319 06/30/99 M SHIMOMURA, REIKO 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 48.00 1020 570320 06/30/99 M S~WARGAD, NOA 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#9929 0.00 100.00 ~020 570321 06/30/99 652 SIERRA.SPRING WATER COMP 11015~0 EMPLOYEE WATER 0.00 7.13 1020 570322 06/30/99 658 SILVER~O SPRINGS BOTTL~ 1104510 EMPLOYEE WATER 0.00 164.00 1020 570322 06/30/99 658 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTI~E 1104510 ~LOYEE WATER 0.00 115.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 279.50 1020 570323 06/30/99 M SIMO~INI, FRAN 560 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 1020 570324 06/30/99 M SKILLPATH SEMINAI~g 1107301 RRGISTRATZON 8/17/99 0.00 99.00 1020 570325 06/30/99 M SMITH, TGMASZNA 5800000 RRCREATIONREFT~D 0.00 39.00 1020 570326 06/30/99 1074 SHAPONTOOLS 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 31.83 1020 570327 06/30/99 665 SOUTH BAY I~,'I'ROPOLZTAN 5806449 b~4PIRES 5/99 0.00 1749.00 1020 570328 06/30/99 877 SOOTHERNL~,~BRCO 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 322.55 ~ 570329 06/30/99 668 SPINNAKER SAILING 5806449 RECREATION PROGRJ~4 0.00 990.00 1020 570330 06/30/99 M SRREDHARAo NAGESH 110 RECR~ATIONREF~,HqD 0.00 100.00 1020 570331 06/30/99 M STANICH, KATHY 110 REFOHDDEPOSIT R#7281 0.00 500.00 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:37 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBU~.SEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransact.yrw"99" and transa~.period-"12" and ~ransac~.~rans_da=e between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 S70332 06/30/99 1016 JOHN STATTON 6104800 REIMBURSEMENT 0.00 595.35 1020 570333 06/30/99 1361 ' THE STUART RENTAL CO~AN 1106448 RENTAL/TENTS 0.00 3029.36 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 47.09 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 97.67 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 53.22 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 84.76 1020 570334 06/30/99 690 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308540 PARTS 0.00 138.32 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 421.06 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1215.36 1020 S70335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 1318.36 1020 570335 06/30/99. 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 CREDIT ~/18/99 0.00 -31.28 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806349 SUPPLIES 0.00 105.58 1020 570335 06/30/99 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806249 SUPPLIES 0.00 589.19 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3197.21 1020 570336 06/30/99 M TACHIBANA, SHUNJI 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 J 1020 570336 06/30/99 M TACHIBANA, SHUNJI 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 244.80 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 340.80 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108501 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 5708510 SUPPLIES 0.00 248.19 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108505 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108503 SUPPLIES 0.00 45.55 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108322 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.42 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108314 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 1020 570337 06/30/99 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.45 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 933.51 1020 570338 06/30/99 697 RANDELL K TAKESHITA 6104800 WEB SITE UPDATES 0.00 990.00 1020 570339 06/30/99 1266' TECHNICATa SERVICES 1108322 RM DX12 CONT ASSY 0.00 2623.11 1020 570340 06/30/99 M THC~qAS, MARIA 1100000 REFUND ROOM RENTAL FEE 0.00 185.00 1020 570340 06/30/99 M THC~qAS~ MARIA 110 REIr~iD DEPOSIT R#2060 0.00 ~00.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 685.00 1020 570341 06/30/99 709 LOUTHURMAN 5806449 RECREATION PR0(3RAM 0.00 487.50 1020 570342 06/30/99 M TIEU, HONG 5800000 RECRRATION REFUND 0.00 102.00 1020 570343 .. 06/30/99 M TRACY, JOHN 110 REFUND DEPOSIT R#1481 0.00 1020 570344 06/30/99 716 THE TRAVELSMITHS 1108601 AIRFARE 0.00 133.00 1020 570345 06/30/99 719 CHRIS TREVISAH -5806449 RECREATIUN PROGRAM 0.00 8180.25 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:38 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 16 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER.- DISBURSEMI~NT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rr-'99' and transact.period-"12' and transact.trans_date between '06/26/1999" and N07/02/1~ FU~TD - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~NDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570346 06/30/99 720 T~OJAN BATTERY INC 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 52.07 1020 570347 06/30/99 M TROSTLE, MARY 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1020 570348 06/30/99 M TSAI0 HUNOCHOU 5800000. RECREATION REFUND 0.00 192.00 1020 570348 06/30/99 M TSAI, HUNOCHOU 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 192.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 384.00 1020 570349 06/30/99 M TSENG, K~NN~TH 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 30.00 1020 570350 06/30/99 725 TWISTERS OY]~qASTICS I~C 5806449 ~U~CI~ATION PROGRAM 0.00 12132.00 1020 570351 06/30/99 726 U S LEGENDS INC 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 526.16 1020 570352 06/30/99 727 U S POSTMASTER 5208003 POST~E 0.00 103.97 2' 570353 06/30/99 738 V~.~y OIL COlqPANY 6308540 CREDIT 12/15/98 0.00 -1106.88 1. 570353 06/30/99 738 V~T~?.~Y OIL C~qPANY 6308540 FUEL 0.00 238.43 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~T.~y OIL COMPANY 6308540 FUEL 0,00 330.61 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 V~T.T.~y OIL COMPANY 6308540 FUEL 0,00 421.73 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 VATaLEY OIL C0~PANY 6308540 FUEL 0.00 861.57 1020 570353 06/30/99 738 VALLEY OIL C~qPANY 6308540 CP~DIT 12/15/98 0.00 -126.85 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 618.61 1020 570354 06/30/99 750 VISION S~VICB PLAN 110 VISION INS 7/99 0.00 1834.80 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 E~UIPMENT I~ENTAL 10,31 135.31 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 .VMI INC 1103501 EOTJ~PMENT P, ENTAL 6.18 81.18 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 2.89 37.89 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPgl~NT P~NTAL 10.31 135.31 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT 9~NTAL 5.36 70.36 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 SQUIPM~NT R~NTAL 4.13 54.13 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 EQUIPMENT R~NTAL 2.06 27.06 1020 570355 06/30/99 745 VMI INC 1103501 ~QUIPMEI~T P.~NTAL 12.38 162.38 TOTAL CHECK 53.62 703.62 1020 570356 06/30/99 M VOLD~N, SYLVIA 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 47.00 1020 570357 06/30/99 M HR, Z)J~(,~I', DINESH 5800000 RECg~ATION REFOND 0.00 100.00 1020 570358 06/30/99 M NANG, LI-CH~B 5800000 REC~ATION REFT~ID 0.00 123.00 1020 570359 06/30/99 M HANG, YT~T 5800000 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 42.00 1 570360 06/30/99 756 #AT~I~ SAFETY P~O/)~CTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 130.00 1~ 570360 06/30/99 756 WATER SA~ PRODUCTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 121.77 1020 570360 06/30/99 756 NATE~ SAFETY PRODUCTS 5806449 SUPPLIES 0.00 80.~7 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 332.04 1020 570361 06/30/99 1243 NCI 1108504 S~PPLZ~S 0.00 21.24 RUN DATE 07/01/99 TIME 18:25:39 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/01/99. CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 17 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 12/99 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: =ransac~.yr-#99' and ~ransac~.period~"12- and =ransact.~rans_date between "06/26/1999" and "07/02/19 FUND - 110 - GENE~/= FOND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570362 06/30/99 T61 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 SUPPLIES 0.00 206.10 1020 570363 06/30/99 769 WEST STAR DISTEIBOTING I 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 91.83 1020 570364 06/30/99 771 WEST VALLEY SECURITY 6308540 KEYS 0.00 24.82 1020 570364 06/30/99 771 W~ST V~LEY SEC~I~ITY 1106265 K~YS 0.00 15.91 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 40.73 1020 570365 06/30/99 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PEODUCTS 2708404 SUPPLIES 0.00 281.69 1020 570366 06/30/99 1362 HESTERN POOL SEMINARS 5606620 T~AINING COURSE 0.00 205.00 1020 570367 06/30/99 1334 WI~E-BUYS INC. 5706450 DIRECT MAIL 0.00 750.00 1020 570368 06/30/99 M WOODARD, MELANIE 110 ~FUND DEPOSIT R#15830 0.00 100.00 1020 570369 06/30/99 M WOODS, LYNN 5800000 P, EC~EATION REFUND 0.00 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 58.39 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.77 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 SUPPLIES 0.00 51.77 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108321 SUPPLIES 0.00 19.46 1020 570370 06/30/99 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 5606680 SUPPLIES 0.00 114.91 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 296.30 1020 570371 06/30/99 794 X~ROX CORPORATION 1104310 SUPPLIES 7.93 104.08 1020 570372 06/30/99 795 XEROX OORPO~ATION 1104310 ~ASE C~A~GE 5/99 92.18 1209.62 1020 570373 06/30/99 1080 YAMAHA GOLF CA~S OF CALI 5606640 PARTS 0.00 96.76 1020 570373 06/30/99 1080 Y~AHA GOLF CA~S OF CALI 5606640 CREDIT 6/17/99 0~00 -12.89 TOTRL CH~CK 0.00 83.87 1020 570374 06/30/99 798 MERCY E~tMORA 5606620 LIFEGUARD 0.00 900.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 563.74 543216.84 TOTAL FUND 563.74 543216.84 'TOTAL REPORT 563.74 543216.84 RESOLUTION NO.' 99-214 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING .YtlLY 9, 1999 WHEREAS, the Director ~f Administrati~,e Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands aud to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set 'forth in Exhibit "A'. CERTIFIED: D'~o2f A~rvice~s PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,1999, by the following vote: .. Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: · ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check no between "570375" and "570467" FUND - 110 - GENEP. AL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ....... z ..... FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570375 07/02/99 1336 LARRY GP. AFF 1106248 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 500.00 1020 570376 07/07/99 M PENINSULA DIVISION 1101000 7/8 MEETING 0.00 25.00 1020 570376 07/07/99 M PENINSULA DIVISION 1101000 7/8 MEETING 0.00 25.00 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 50.00 1020 570377 07/09/99 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 1104540 G~N LIAB & ADMIN 99/00 0.00 122896.10 1020 570378 07/09/99 8 ABA~ PLAN CORPORATION 6204550 RESERVE REPLE WC 0.00 26747.15 1020 570379 07/09/99 28 AiRGAS 6308540 WELDING HELMET 0.00 279.17 1020 570380 07/09/99 36 A?.?.~N'S PRESS CLIPPING 1103300 JYJNE REGULAR CLIPPING 0.00 36.00 1020 570381 07/09/99 888 A~OHA POOL MAINTENANCE I 5708510 JUNE MONTHLY SERVICE 0.00 342.80 1820 570381 07/09/99 888 ALOHA POOL MAINTENANCE I 5708510 DURA CAS PUMP 0.00 453.88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 796.68 1020 ~70382 07/09/99 45 AMERICAN TI~AFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 PARTS AND SUPPLIES 0.00 6~.79 1020 570383 07/09/99 80 BARRY & VOLI0~%NN 5709209 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 14935.72 1020 570384 07/09/99 1377 BAY A~ DISTRIBUTING CO 2708405 S~PLIES 0.00 1' 1020 570384 07/09/99 1377 BAY AR~A DISTRIBUTING CO 6308540 SUPPLIES 0.00 25. J TOTAL CHECK 0.00 447.60 1020 570385 07/09/99 1371 JERRY HRAGER 1107503 SAFETY SHOES 0.00 100:00 1020 570386 07/09/99 106 HRID(~E P~DIO COMM(/NICATI 1108501 HI CAP RAPID RATE RATT 0.00 134.28 1020 570387 07/09/99 108 BROOKS CUPERTINO GLASS 1108507 REPAIR WINDOW 0.00 221.54 1020 570388 07/09/99 113 BRUNSWICK HOMESTEAD LANE 5806349 BOWLING FOR S~ CAM 0.00 216.71 1020 570389 07/09/99 872 BSA ARCHITECTS 4239214 SERVICE ~RE~MENT FOR 0.00 1468.07 1020 570390 07/09/99 1367 C A P I 0 1103300 ANNUAL D~3~S 0~00 125.00 1020 570391 07/09/99 1366 C.T.I./VALURLINE 1108101 MYLAR FOR COPY MACHINE 0.00 505.28 1020 570392 07/09/99 1375 CALIFOHNIA ELECTRIC SERV 1106265 COFFEE POT REPAIR 0.00 96.90 1020 570393 07/09/99 1024 CALIFORNIA JO~NAL 1101000 13 ISSUES FOR W DEAN 0.00 39.95 1020 570394 07/09/99 132 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108312 11-67-05-0815-1 0.00 17.70 1020 570394 07/09/99 132 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108509 11-64-05-2860-3 0.00 22.19 1020 570394 07/09/99 132 CALIFORNIA WATEH SERVICE 1108312 11-66-10-0895-1 0.00 42.28 1020 570394 07/09/99 132 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108322 11-66-05-1485-1 0.00 45.19 TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 127.36 1020 570395 07/09/99 137 CAPITOL (]MC TRUCK 6308540 PARTS ~ SUPPLIES 0.00 I RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:36:32 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND rION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.check_no be=ween "570375,' and "570467" FUND o 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 10~0 570396 07/09/99 146 CASH 5800000 CREDIT M~O 0.00 4.00 1020 570396 07/09/99 146 CASH 5806349 PETTY CASH 6/25 0.00 33.45 1020 570396 ' 07/09/99 146 CASH 5806349 PETTY CASH 6/25 0.00 38.75 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 76.20 1020 570397 07/09/99 147 CASH S506549 PETTY CASH 0.00 61.49 1020 570397 07/09/99 147 C_~H 5506549 P~-~-~-~ CASH 0.00 61.62 1020 570397 '07/09/99 147 CASH 5506549 PETTY CASH 0.00 3.99 1020 570397 07/09/99 147 CASH 1106500 PET~I'Y CASH 0.00 38.00 1020 570397 07/09/99 147 CASH 5506549 ' PETTY CASH 0.00 41.11 TOT~J~ CHECK 0.00 206.21 1020 570398 07/09/99 152 CEB 1101500 CA GOVT TORT LIAB 0.00 191.03 1020 570399 07/09/99 155 CENTRAL ~TrlOLESALE NURSER 1108312 PLANTS 0.00 298.01 1020 57~40~ 07/09/99 1312 COUNTRY CLU~ C~ WASH 6308540 50 WASH TICKETS 0.00 350.00 1020 570401 07/09/99 841 ROBERT COWAM 1107200 CONF REGISTRATION 10/1 0.00 335.00 10~,~ 570402 07/09/99 190 C~]~4ING HENDERSON INC 6308540 11301998 0.00 298.19 lv. 570403 07/09/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 11301998 0.00 58.33 1020 570403 07/09/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108303 11301998 0.00 127.93 1020 570403 07/09/99 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108315 11301998 0.00 7.44 TOTAL CIiECK 0.00 193.70 · 1020 570404 07/09/99 211 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CA 110 JULY D~NTAL COVERAGE 0.00 9522.72 1020 570405 07/09/99 211 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CA 110 RETRO 7/1/98-6/30/99 0.00 6483.65 1020 570406 07/09/99 214 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 1108602 11301998 0.~0 466.47 1020 570407 07/09/99 850 DIDD~MS AMAZING PARTY ST 5806349 PARTY SUPPLIES 0.00 22.43 1020 570408 07/09/99 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 SUPPLIES FOR S~H~R CA 0.00 22.65 1020 570409 07/09/99 1376 DUDLEY ACOUSTICS INC 1108602 CEILING PARTS 0.00 352.90 1020 570410 07/09/99 B55 DULIN~DVERTISING INC 1104510 SJ MERCURY NEWS AD 0.00 710.55 1020 570411 07/09/99 242 EMPL~ DEVEL DEPT 110 STATE #/H 7/4 0.00 15907.26 1020 570412 07/09/99 243 EMPLO%q4~NTDEVBLOPN~NT 110 ST DISAB INS 776-5260- 0.00 504.01 1020 570413 07/09/99 258 FAMILY SUPPORT TRUSTEE 110 MICHaeL DRAKE 0.00 100.00 1020 570414 07/09/99 260 FEDERAL ~XPR~.SS CORP 1107200 FREIGHT 6/28 JACOBS GE 0.00 23.25 ] 570415 07/09/99 264 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE & 2708404 NHITEACYLIC PLOYM~I~ 0.00 412.32 07/15/99 TIMS 08:36:33 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between #570375" and ,~570467" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020' 570416 07/09/99 821 FOOTHiLL-DE ANZA COLLEGE 5208003 INVITATION POST CARD 0.00 48.00 1020 570417 07/09/99 1268 GALLI PRODUCE 5806249 CATERING PRODUCE 0.00 22.75 1020 570417 07/09/99 1268 GALLI PRODUCE 5806249 CATERING PRODUCE 0.00 20.55 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 43.30 1020 570418 07/09/99 281 GARDEI~ 1108312 SUPPLIES 0.00 281.59 1020 570418 07/09/99 281 GARDENLAND 1108322 PO 14376 SUPPLIES 0.00 183.57 TOTAL CHECK ~ 0.00 465.16 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 5108706 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 32.76 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108504 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 294.84 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108504 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 172.54 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108501 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 118.57 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108504 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 70.33 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107501 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE" 0.00 27.89 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107501 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 95.83 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108501 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 58.97 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108102 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 110.59 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108101 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 70.43 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GT~ WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 28..J0 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 &. J 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 39.82 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 56.11 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108602 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 34.52 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108201 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 46.94 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108201 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 36.62 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 37.90 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 25.50 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 55.47 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GTE WIRELESS 5208003 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 20.80 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 : G~ WIRELESS 1108102 CELLULAR PHONE S~RVICE 0.00 449.72 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 G~TE WIRELESS 1108102 CELLULAR PHOI~ SERVICE 0.00 43.18 1020 570419 07/09/99 310 GT~ WIRELESS 1108505 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 0.00 33.59 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2083.99 1020 570420 07/09/99 1378 GYM PRECISION 5706450 LIFESTRIDE REPAIR 0.00 454.04 1020 570421 '07/09/99 M HART, DAVE 1106265 VENDING MACHINE SHIPPI 0.00 150.00 1020 570422 07/09/99 915 MARK H~NDERSON 6104800 PER DIEM 7/19-23 0.00 190.00 1020 570423 07/09/99 341 ICE CHALET 5806349 CLUB 99 6/28 0.00 122.50 1020 570424 07/09/99 343 IC~4A RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 DEFEI~D CC~qPENSATION 0.00 6613.75 1020 570425 07/09/99 347 INDUSTRIAL WIPER 6308540 BOX I~S 0.00 249.06 1020 570426 07/09/99 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1108601 TEMP PLAC~ PW 0.00 1~ : RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:36:34 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAG£ 4 ACCOUtrING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSE~ F~ ~ ?ION CRITERIA: ~ransact.¢heck_no between "570375" and "570467" FUND - 110 - G£NEP~AL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT. 1020 570426 07/09/99 349 II. RIM PERSONI~L 1108101 ~24P PLACEMENT PW 0.00 49~.00 1020 570426 07/09/99 349 II~IM PERSONNEL 1107501 PLANNING TEMP 0.00 1080.00 1020 570426 07/09/99 349 IIT~RIM PERSONNEL 1108101 TEMP PLACEMENT 0.00 495.00 1020 570426 07/09/99 349 INTERIM PERSONNEL 1108601 TEMP PLACEMENT 0.00 165.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2400.00 1020 570427 07/09/99 1374 JENSEN TOOLS'INC 1108601 CASS FF PELICAN BLK 0.00 189.44 1020 570428 07/09/99 1380 JOBTRAK 1104510 PLANNER I AD 0.00 90.00 1020 570429 07/09/99 368 FRED KELLEY 110 YVONNE KELLEY 0.00 65.00 1020 570430 07/09/99 1372 THE KIPLINGER C~IFORNIA 1101200 12 MOIT~H SUBSCRIP D BR 0.00 73.00 1020 570431 07/09/99 373 KIRK XPEDX 110~310 11301998 0.00 1077.67 1020 570432 07/09/99 391 LEA~TJ~ OF CALIF CITIE~ 1106100 REGIS~q~ATION 8/4-6 0.00 275.00 1020 570433 07/09/99 398 X~XIS ~ PTJBLISHING 1101500 CA DEER C~VT 0.00 167.67 1020 570434 07/09/99 437 ~u~&~O I~SPAP~RS 1104300 11301998 0.00 35.00 102~ 570434 07/09/99 437 !~0 N~WSPAPERS 1104300 1~301998 0.00 35.00 ~ 570434 07/09/99 437 lq~'&'KO I~SPAPEP~ 1104300 11301998 0.00 47.50 1~ 570434 07/09/99 437 METRO I~SPAPERS 1104300 11301998 0.00 35.00 1020 570434 07/09/99 437 !~I~O l~SPAPERS 1104300 11301998 0.00 47.50 1020 570434 07/09/99 437 ~&~O N~WSPAPERS 1104300 11301998 0.00 35.00 1020 570434 07/09/99 437 l~O NEWSPAPERS 1104300 11301998 0.00 35.00 1020 570434 07/09/99 437 METRO N~WSPAPEItS 1104300 11301998 0.00 36.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 305.00 1020 570435 07/09/99 1373 MOC~ 1104530 BJ~RRIER SHORTS 0.00 278.28 1020 570436 07/09/99 461 140KEllY.ND SCHOOL DIS~ICT 5806349 11341998 0.00 107.50 1020 570437 07/09/99 470 ~ffJSSO~ THEATRICAL 1106265 ROLLS OF GAFFERS TAPE 0.00 182167 1020 57043~ 07/09/99 486 NOBLE FORD TRACTOR INC 6308540 IGNITIOt~ KEYS 0.00 26.82 1020 570439 07/09/99 1358 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN 6308540 NEW BRIGGS ENGINE 0.00 410.67 1020 570440 07/09/99 496 O~6~Y PAVII~ INC 2708404 CI~ STD ROAD BU~qPS ON 0.00 6400.00 1020 570440 07/09/99 496 O~GRADY PAVING INC 2708404 CITY STDB~PS ON VARI 0.00 4100.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 10500.00 1020 570441 07/09/99 500 OPERATING EN~XNEERS 1104510 JULY RETXREES 0.00 544.00 1020 570441 07/09/99 500 OPI~RATXN~ ~I~(~INE~S 1104510 ~Y RETIREES W/SPOUSA 0.00 2720.00 1020 570441 07/09/99 500 OPERATING ENGINEERS 110 JULY PI~I~ 0.00 4416.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 7680.00 102~ 570442 07/09/99 501 OPERATXNG ENGINEERS #3 110 ~XON DUES 0.00 378.00 1~ 570443 07/09/99 1379 OPTXM NUTRITION INC 5706450 MO~Z~XN LIFT 0..00 108.00 RON ~ 07/15/99 TX~ 08:36:34 - FIN~NCIALACCOU~ITXNG 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between "570375" and "570467" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 P E R S 110 RETIREMENT 0.00 109.87 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 P E R S 110 RETIRF2~IENT 0.00 2953.76 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 ,. P E R S 110 RETIREMENT 0.00 20730.16 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 P E R S 110 R~TIREMENT 0.00 1172.24 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 P E R S 110 RETIR~NT 0.00 579.37 1020 570444 07/09/99 833 P E R S 110 RETII~MENT 0.00 263.46 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 25808.86 1020 570445 07/09/99 508 P E R S - HEALTH 1104520 JULY PRF2~IUM 0.00 14282.70 1020 570445 07/09/99 508 P E R S - HEALTH 110 JULY PREMIt]M 0.00 36143.68 1020 570445 07/09/99 508 P E R S - HEALTH 1104520 ~-t~LY PREMIUM 0.00 255.42 1020 570445 07/09/99 508 P E R S - HEALTH 1108315 JESSE GREEN ON LEAVE 7 0.00 176.13 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 50857.93 1020 570446 07/09/99 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108501 PHONE 5/17-6/16/99 0.00 19.59 1020 570447 07/09/99 513 PACIFIC CAS & ELECTRIC 1108602 ELECTRIC-SVC 6/99 0.00 8.09 1020 570447 07/09/99 513 PACIFIC CAS & ELECTRIC 5606620 GAS SVC 6/99 0.00 · 48.08 1020 570447 07/09/99 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108322 ELECTRIC SVC 6/99 0.00 7.42 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 63 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108511 SERVIC~ CALL 0.00 75 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5708510 SERVICE CALL 0.00 75.00 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 S~I~VICE CALL 0.00 75.00 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 SERVICE CALL 0.00 170.00 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108511 SERVICE CALL 0.00. 75.00 1020 570448 07/09/99 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 SERVICE CALL 0.00 200.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 670.00 1020 570449 07/09/99 533 PEPS LONG T~ CARE PROG 110 LONG T~RM CARE 0.00 456.45 1020 570450 07/09/99 540 PICC ~NC 5609105 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0..00 51995.54 1020 570451 07/09/99 542 PINE COWE LUMBER 2708404 ROLLER 0.00 ' 28.56 1020 570452 07/09/99 1247 MARIE PRESTON 1104300 CONF HOTEL ACCOP~4ODATI 0.00 341.00 1020 570453 07/09/99 1302 S & C HANDHOLE COVEPS 1108530 HANDHOLE COVER PLASTIC 97.97 1285.47 1020 570453 07/09/99 1302 S & C HANDHOLE COVERS 1108530 HANDHOLE COVER PLASTIC 0.00 1285.46 TOTAL CHECK 97.97 2570.93 1020 570454 07/09/99 345 SAN FRANCISCO ELEVATOR 1108502 O/T CALL BACK 0.00 688.50 1020 570455 07/09/99 677 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 DEFERRED COMPERSATION 0.00 650.38 1020 570456 07/09/99 700 TAROET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303. 10 BA~S OF PENDUL~ 0.00 466.88 1020 570456 07/09/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 AQUA SHADE 0.00 170.73 1020 570456 07/09/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 LAKEPAK 0.00 289 1020 570456 07/09/99 700 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 LAKE PACK 0.00 TOTAL CHECK '"' 0.00 997..~ RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:36:35 - FINaNCiAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 AC~p~qTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT F~ND S~. ,£ION C~ITERIA: transact.check_no betwee~ "570375" and "570467' FUND - 110 - GEN~P, AL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. V~NDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT, 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STOILES 5806449 2 CORDLESS PHONES 0.00 140.70 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 CANDY BARS F~R CAMPERS 0,00 18.32 1020 5704.57 07/09/99 701 TARGET STOI~ES 5806349 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 0,00 25.44 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 BIRD SEEDS 0.00 3.24 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806449 SHELVING UNITS 0,00 54.10 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806%49 CANDY BARS 0.00 19.06 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 DAYCAMP'SUPPLIES 0.00 15.11 1020 570457 07/09/99 701 TARGET STORES 1106265 BATTERIES 0.00 47.35 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 323.32 1020 570458 07/09/99 1370 LOIS K THORNTON 6104800 PER DIEM 7/19-23 0.00 190.00 1020 570459 07/09/99 1014 TOTAL ~EBOUND 5806349 VELCHO OL~T4PICS 7/19 0.00 644.50 1020 570460 07/09/99 724 TUI~F & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP 1108315 SUPPLIES 0.00 255.85 1020 57~461 07/09/99 840 BERT VISKOVICH 1L08001 MEETING W/MAYOR 7/6 0.00 60.43 1020 570462 07/09/99 1365 WA~LE COI~ITIES INC 1108601 PEDESTRI2~_N AUDIT 5/20 0.G0 1000.00 i 570463 07/09/99 302 WASHINOTON ~ 110 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 0.00 18799.37 1020 570464 07/09/99 794 XEROX CORPOEATION 1104310 11301998 0.00 926.04 1020 570464 07/09/99 794 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 11301998 0.00 668.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 '1595.03 1020 570465 07/09/99 1081 YAM~MI'S NURSERY 1108303 PLANTS 0.00 '268.47 1020 570465 07/09/99 1081 Y/~I'S NURSERY 1108303 PLANTS 0.00 473.23 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 741.70 1D20 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1108661 PETTY CASH 0.00 3.78 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1106100 PETTY CASH 0.00' 35.14 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1106647 PETTY CASH 0.00 41.27 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 6104800 P~CASH 0.00 87.40 1020 570466 07/13/99 149' CASH 1104510 PETTY CASH 0.00 9.20 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1107301 P~&-~'~ CASH O.00 20.00 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1101200 PETTY CASH 0.00 57.25 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1107501 PETTY CASH 0.00 40.00 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 5806649 PETTY CASH 0.00 51.26 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1107301 Pmz-&'~ CASH 0.00 22.59 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1104400 P~F~Y C~H 0.00 11.34 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1104000 P=&-&'~ CASH 0.00 39.00 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CJtSH' 1104000 Pmk,'f CASH 0.00 51.11 1020 570466 07/13/99 149 CASH 1101200 PETTY CASH 0.00 40.00 TOTAL C~IECK 0.00 509.34 1020 570467 07/13/99 1171 DEPARTMENT OF CC~TSERVATI 110 SVC FEES 4/1-6/30/99 0.00 1334.15 1~.0~ 570467 07/13/99 1171 DEPARTmeNT OF CONS~RVATI 1100000 SMIP SVC FEES 4/1-6/30 0.00 -186.05 i 570467 07/13/99 1171 DEPAR~ OF CC~SERVATI 110 SVC F~S 4/1-6/30/99 0.00 2386.75 T(,_ ~ CHECK 0~00 3534.85 RUN DAT~ 07/15/99 TIME 08:36:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 07/15/99 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 1/00 CHECK REGISTER - DISBL~SEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between "570375" and "570467" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 97.97 403963.51 TOTAL FUND 97.97 403963.51 TOTAL REPORT 97.97 403963.51 RUN DATE 07/15/99 TIME 08:36:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NIflV[BBR 99-2~5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS.PAYABLE IN THE AIV[OUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON FOLY O9, 1999 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified' to the accuracy of the folio.wing claims and demands and to the availability of funds .for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $402,819.97 Less Employee Deductions $(119,803.13) NET PAYROLL $283,016.84 Payroll check numbers issued 42018 through 42307 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cup .ertino this day of ,1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regt/lar Meeting Tuesday, July 6, 1999 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Dean called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Wally Dean, Vice-Mayor John Statton, and Council members Don BurneR, Michael Chang, and Sandra James. Council members absent: None. Staffpresent: Acting City Manager Bert Viskovich, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Bob Cowan, Human Resources Officer Bill Woska, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling, Planner Vera Gil, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS: Item # 15, appellants request continuance until July 19. Item #22, staff requests continuance to July 19. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. CONSENT CALENDAR James moved to approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Burner seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 1. Accounts payable: (a) June 18, 1999, Resolution No. 99-193 (b) June 25, 1999, Resolution No. 99-194 2. Payroll: June 25, 1999, Resolution No. 99-195. 3. Minutes: June 21, 1999, regular meeting. '-- 4. Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - May 1999. 7../ Page 2 Cupertino City Council July 6, 1999 5. Adoption of amendments to terms and conditions of employment: (a) Memorandum of understanding between the City of Cupertino and the Operating Engineers Union Local No. 3, Resolution No. 99-188 (b) Memorandum of' understanding between the City of Cupertino and the City Employees' Association, Resolution No. 99-189 (c) Unrepresented compensation program, Resolution No. 99-190 (d) Administrative rules and regulations of the Personnel Code, Resolution No. 99- 191 (e) Fixing the employer's contribution under the Meyers-Geddes State Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act, Resolution No. 99-192 6. Making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated "Almaden Avenue 99-05," approximately 0.2088 acre located on the south side of Almaden Avenue, between Byme Avenue and Orange Avenue; MacHale (APN 357-15- 029), Resolution No. 99-196. 7. Setting date for consideration of reorganization of areas designated: (a) "Greenleaf IMive 99-03," property located on the north-side of Greenleaf Drive between Beardon Drive and Stelling Road; approximately 0.235 acre, Wang (APN 326-09-05), Resolution No. 99-197 (b) "Almaden Avenue 99-04," property located on the north side of Almaden Avenue between Byrne Avenue 'and Orange Avenue; approximately 0.228 acre, Lin (APN 357-15-022), Resolution No. 99-198 8. Authorizing execution of renewal of Joint Use Agreement between the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the property located adjacent to McClellan Ranch Park, Resolution No. 99-199. 9. Authorizing execution, of second amendment to agreement 4-1677-A2, California Department of Transportation, Resolution No. 99-200. 10. Authorizing execution of tract agreement, Pacific Rim Financial Corporation, a California Corporation, Tract # 9143, 10525 Miller Avenue, Resolution No. 99-201. 11. Authorizing execution of first amendment to agency agreement for countywide Household Hazardous Waste Program, Resolution No. 99-203. 12. Conversion of existing Public Works contract with Tally Enterprises to a maintenance agreement with same terms and conditions: (a) Authorizing execution of maintenance agreement for sidewalk construction projects, Resolution No. 99-204 July 6, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 3 --- (b) Contract change order No. 3 for Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters & Sidewalks, Project 98-107, Resolution No. 99-205 13. Environmental review of Senior Center expansion: demolition of the 6,500 sq. ft. Senior C~nt©r and construction of a 15,920 sq. ft. new Senior Center, application 18-EA-99, 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard. A Negative Declaration is recommended. Vote Councilmembers Ayes: BurneR, Chang, Dean, James, and Statton Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Conducting an annual review of the storm drainage service charge; no' increase recommended, Resolution No. 99-206. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich' reviewed the staff report, which said that the current annual fees are $12.00 per premise for single family/townhomes/condos, $144.00 per acre for commercial/industrial/apartments, and $36.00 per acre for unimproved/recreation. Viskovich said that the only change is that there is an increase in revenue as a result of the Rancho Rinconada annexation. Staff is recommending no change in the assessment of fees. Mayor Dean opened the public hearing. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. James moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-206. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 15.' Consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application 4-ASA-99. The application requests architectural and site approval to allow the construction of fist and second story additions to an existing.one-story duplex located at 10333 Degas Court. The appeal was filed by Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh (appellants request continuance until July 19, 1999). This item was continued to July 19. 16. Consider amending Chapter 19.80 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding accessory buildings/structures to change the review for second-story decks from the Planning Commission .to the Residential Design Review Committee. The project is located citywidc. Page 4 Cupertino City Council July 6, 1999 (a) Ordinance No. 1831: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.80 (Accessory Structure)." Community Development Director Bob Cowan reviewed the staff report and said that this ordinance would change the venue of the review process regarding decks to make it match the balance of the review process. Until now decks only had to meet the regulations for setbacks, but this ordinance will require review and decks will also be subject to the regulations regarding landscaping for privacy protection Mayor Dean opened the public hearing. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. Statton moved to approve the application per Planning Commission Resolution No. 5052. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The City Clerk read the title of ordinance No. 1831. Burnett moved and James seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 17. Amending Chapter 2.16 of the Municipal Code adjusting City Council compensation. (a) Ordinance No. 1832: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, City Council - Salaries." Human Resources Officer Bill Woska reviewed the staff report which said that Govemment Code Section 36516 provides that compensation of city council members may be adjusted by an amount equal of 5% for each year fi'om the last adjustment. On several occasions the council has elected not to adjust compensation, and as a result their present compensation of $535.80 per month is approximately 34% less than that which is authorized by law. Any change would not go into effect until after the next election. The City Clerk read the title of ordinance No. 1832. Bumett moved and James seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. July 6, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 5 18. Consideration of request from Cupertino-Hsinehu Friendship City Association to conduct a cultural festival at Memorial Park, September 11 and 12, 1999. Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling reviewed the staff report and said the only concern was about the timing of the event, which would make it thc first of three consecutive major events in Memorial Park. Three consecutive festivals may dilute the success of each individual fundraiser, and the necessity to reduce turf irrigation schedules will damage thc landscaping. Some park neighbors may also object to overbooking thc park. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Fernando Chen, 21145 Loretta Dr., said this festival would showcase cultural harmony in the community and be a fun activity for all ages. They expect to have over 100 booths and a number of shows per hour. The co-chairs for this event will be Daisy Chu and Lucille Wu. Statton moved to approve the request for the use of Memorial Park on September 11 and 12, 1999, for the Moon Festival. James seconded and thc motion carried 5-0. 19. Review of bids and award of contracts: (a) Fuel tank replacement, Project 98-117 (b) Cupertino Scene printing Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the staff report regarding the fuel tank replacement. Statton moved to award the bid to Tank Protect Engineering in the amount of $265,555.00 based on thc lowest bid received, and to authorize a 15% contingency amount. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. The Public Information Officer reviewed the report regarding Cupertino Scene printing. Statton moved to award the contract to the lowest bidder, Casey Printing, in the amount of $32,626. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 20. Approving a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the County of Santa Clara for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Years 2000-2002, Resolution No. 99-207. Planner Vera Gil reviewed the staff report and explained that the Census Department does not agree with Cupertino that the population is over 50,000, so the city cannot apply for 'entitlement status directly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Staff recommends that the city renew the YPA with the County for CDBG funds for another 3-year cycle. By that time the 2000 Census will be complete and the population figures will allow the city to apply directly to HUD. Page 6 Cupertino City Council July 6, 1999 James moved to approve the joint powers agreement with the amendments referenced in the staff report and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 21. Resolution regarding the Cupertino Code of Campaign Ethics and the American Association of Political Consultants Code of Ethics for the 1999 city council election, Resolution No. 99-208. The City Clerk explained that council had adopted a resolution for the 1997 election directing the clerk to distribute campaign ethics forms prepared by the Cupertino Ethics Committee. The forms are voluntary, and are designed for both candidates and political. consultants. Completed forms are filed with the League of Women Voters, and any questions regarding the forms, or potential violations, will be directed to that organization. Bumett moved to adopt resolution No. 99-208 for the distribution of campaign ethics forms for the 1999 council election, to direct staff to post a blank copy of the ethics forms on the web site, and to provide council with a copy of the complaint procedures and the selection process of the committee Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 22. Consider activation of Redevelopment Agency. This item was continued to July 19, 1999. ORDINANCES 23. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1830 amending 'Chapter 10.21, newsracks, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Cupertino Amending Title 10 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regulating Placement and Design of Newsraeks on Public Rights-Of-Way." The City Clerk read the'title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and James seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would Constitute the second reading thereof. Motion carried 5-0. Bumett moved and James seconded to enact ordinance No. 1830. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF REPORTS Public Information Officer Donna Krey said that as a result of TCI's upgrade running behind schedule; that company has agreed to provide coupons worth one month of basic service to 10,000 TCI customers, as well as providing $200,000 worth of funding for digital equipment in the City Channel and support for public access. Staff is still negotiating with them regarding bandwidth options. July 6, 1999 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Public Works Director Bert Viskovich said that escrow on the Stocklmeier property closed on July 1 and that is now owned by the City of Cupertino. He also noted that the Stevens Creek overlay project will be starting, and the work will be done from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. in order to avoid traffic disruption. COUNCIL REPORTS All the council members congratulated staff and the Fourth of July committee on the celebration and fireworks display. Vice-Mayor Statton reported that he attended the Historical Society annual barbecue, and he congratulated president Sharon Blaine on her hard work. Also, outgoing Rotary Club President Kathy Nellis is turning the gavel over to David Steams. Statton also thanked Donna Krey and the Telecommunications Commission for their work on the TCI upgrade project and negotiations. Coun¢ilmember Bumett reported that the Alquist bill, regarding animal shelters, has passed both houses. The result is that 6,000 adoptable .affimals will be saved this year, and the local cities will have more time to arrange for additional ltennel space. He also noted that the water district is working diligently on permits for stream maintenance. Councilmember James reported that Leadership Cupertino is doing well and they are working now to adopt and refine a teen leadership program. James said Supervisor Simitian is supporting the affordable housing project proposed for excess land by the fire station and negotiations are going well. She and Don Burnett attended a meeting of the Silicon Valley Manufacturers regarding housing/jobs balance, and she and Diane Snow toured an affordable housing project designed for seniors. James said that they will be proposing to the Cupertino Rotary Club that next year's golf tournament proceeds go toward furnishings for the new Cupertino Senior Center. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT At 7:20 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Thursday, July 8, 12:30 p.m., for a quarterly city council/city manager workshop at the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San Fernando Avenue. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 99-216 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "IMPERIAL AVENUE 99-07", APPROXIMATELY 0.457 ACRE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF IMPERIAL AVENUE BETWEEN OLIVE AVENUE AND ALCAZAR AVENUE; YEH (APN 357-19-049) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0.457 acre on the east side of Imperial Avenue (APN 357-19-049) has been filed by property owner James J. Yeh and Doris Yeh; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-168 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Imperial Avenue 99-07"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 35150.5 of the California Government Code states that the Local .Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 'Cupertino as follows: 1. That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 35150.5 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated "Imperial Avenue 99-07", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; 2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: a. That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.457 - acre. Resolution No. 216 Page 2 b. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. c. The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. d. The City Council on May 16, 1983, enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory to City of Cupertino R1-7.5 zone. e. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. f. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions. h. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's mad annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. i. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. · j. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. 1. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. m. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. 3. That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 35151 et seq. of the Government Code. 4. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to 'give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. Resolution No. 216 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__fthe City Council AYES:. NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA. ENTITLED: IMPERIAL AVE. 99.07 Ail that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being all of Parcel One as shown upon that certain Record of Survey filed in Book 111 of Maps at Page 39, Santa Clara County Records and a portion of Imperial Avenue as shown upon said Record of Survey, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel One on the Easterly line of Imperial Avenue, 60 feet wide; Thence along the Northerly line of said Parcel S89°57'30"E 135.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner thereof; Thence along the Easterly line of said Parcel, also being the Westerly line of that certain annexation of the City of Cupertino entitled "McClellan lA", South 79.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Parcel; Thence leaving said Westerly line of said annexation and along the Southerly line of said Parcel One, N89°57'30"W 135.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner thereof on the East- erly line of Imperial Avenue;' Thence continue N89°57'30"W 60.00 feet to the Westerly line of Imperial Avenue; Thence along said Westerly line North 154.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner of that certain annexation of said City entitled "Imperial Avenue 98-08"; Thence leaving said line of Imperial Avenue and along the Southerly line of said annexation, S89°57'30"E 60.00 feet to the Easterly line of Imperial Avenue; ' Thence leaving said southerly line of said annexation and along the Easterly line of said Imperial Avenue, South 75.00 feet to the point of beginning; -~ , Containing 0.457 of an acre, more or less. Date: April 20, 1999 . APN: 35F-19-049 .... OLIVE AVF__. Line ~ propo~d ~ne~on ALCAZA~ Av~ ~ 41c~z~ PROP05ED ANNEXATION /HcClell~n ~e~AL T0 THE CIT~ 0F CUPERTIH0 V~ct~T~ ~~ I MPEEIALA~E. 99'O7 N~T T0 SCALE Hall 10300 Torte Avenue · ~" Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3262 ~itv of FAX: (408) 77%3366 Cupertino SUMMARY Agenda Item ~ Date: July 19, 1999 Subject: Approval of recommendation from Telecommunications Commission for awarding one public access grant. Background: At its meeting July 7, the Telecommunications Commission reviewed an application for a public access grant in the amount of $250. The commission has a $2,000 grants budget, and funding for such projects throughout the year come from this source. The grant proposal was submitted by Shelby Reyes, to offset costs for a program on the differences between public access and public broadcasting. Following discussion of the project, the commission unanimously approved the grant requests. Recommendation: The City Council approve the recommendation from the Telecommunications Commission to award a grant in the amount of $250 to Shelby Reyes, access producer. Submitted By: D°Publ~n~c.c iKrenfcYrmation Off/cer PHnted on Recycled Paper ~ .~ / Cupertino Teleco.....~nnkg~Jom Commb~u GRANT APPLICATION FORM Printable. Publi~ a_~_-__,s producers wi~hi,~ to apply for grant, up to $250 for pro~a ...... in_~ thst meets the stated goals must complete the application below and submit it to ~me Publi~ luformatkm Officer, City of Cupe~__~., 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, CA 9~014. Please submit'eight c~mpies of your complea~! application. Desdllne fow Applleo*im~: October 15 or each yem* PROJECT OUTLINE AND TUMBNAIL SCRIPT ~_~ MANY PEOPLE WHEN YOU TELL TUEM YOU ARE WITH PUBLIC ACCESS TELAVISION, THEY SAY OH YOUR WITH CHANEL 9, I WATCH ALL THE TIME, AND I LOVE YOUR PROGRAMS WITH YAN CAN COOK. THEN I TRY TO EXPLAIN WHO AND WHAT PUBLIC ACCESS.T.V IS ABOUT. TIIEREFORE'I WOULD LIKE TO DO A SHOW TELLING ABOUT ~ DIFERANCE OF THE T.V SYSTEMS, AND HOW PUBLIC ACCESS T.V IS A PLUS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. · . T~I~ WILL ENVOLVE TALKING AND TAPING TIlE PUBLIC ACCESS STATION AS WELL AS THECOMMI~ION AND PERSONAL THAT MAKE PUBLIC ACCESS WORK, AND ALSO TAPING A SHOT WITH A PBS STATION CHANNEL 9 AS WELL AS A cOMMERCIAL T.V STATION AND EDITING ~ VERIOUS SEGMENTS TO MAKE TI~IS PROJECT. I FEEL THAT TO DO TIHS RIGHT WE WOULD HAVE A PRODUTION TIMELINE ABOUT TWO MONTHS. I WILL USE TWO CAMERAS AND PORTABLE SOUND EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS LIGHTING EQUIFMENT. I ALREADY HAVE A TENATIVE CREW THAT I FEEL WILL BE ABLE TO DO A FIRST RATE PRODUTION. BUDGET FOR PUBLIC ACCESS SHOOT. TAPE 1 (BRICK) 10 RLS FUJI HI 8 TAPE M-221 P6 TAPE $67.20 SHAPING $ TRAVEL TO SAN FRANCISCO TO CHANNEL 9 AND CHANNEL4 AND PARKING FEES MISC. LO~ATION COSTS $~0.00 TOTAL BUDGET COST $253.70 SHELBY REYES PRODUCER RESOLUTION NO. 99-217 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHOR/ZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER SONIA SINGH AND SURINDER SINGH, 10633 $OHANSEN DR/VE, APN 375-37-059 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Sonia Singh and Surinder Singh, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 10533 $ohansen Drive and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City' Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of Suly, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: · ATTE S T: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. Page 2 EXHIBIT '~A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Single Family Home Sonia Singh and Surinder Singh LOCATION: 10633 Johansen Drive A. Faithful Performance Bond: Off-site: $ 4,000.00 On-site: $ 2,000.00 FOUR THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 4,000.00 FOUR THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $1,515.00' ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTEEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Indirect City Expenses: N~A E. Development Maintenance DePosit: $ 500.00 FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin #2 $ 183.00 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE AND 00/100 DOLLARS G. One Year Power Cost: $ 75.00 SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS H, Street Trees: By Developer I. Map Checking Fee: N/A J. Park Fee: N/A K. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A L. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #23 of agreement RESOLUTION NO. 99-218 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER ZANKICH CONSTRUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; 10181 FOREST AVENUE, APN 316-33-131 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Zankich Construction, Inc., a California Corporation, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 10181 Forest Avenue and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Multi-Family Homes Zankich Construction, Inc., a California Corporation LOCATION: 10181 Forest Avenue A. Faithful Performance Bond: $13,750.00 THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $13,750.00 THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 1,975.00 ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Indirect City Expenses: N/A E. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin #2 $ 365.00 THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS G. One Year Power Cost: - N/A H. Street Trees: By Developer I. Map Checking Fee: N/A J. Park Fee: N/A K. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A L. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #23 of agreement - RESOLUTION NO. 99-243 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A NUISANCE AT 19337 PHIL LANE - WEEDS, GARBAGE, AN INOPERATIVE, UNREGISTERED VEHICLE, AND A SUBSTANDARD ROOF WHEREAS, Section 1.09.03A of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines a nuisance as anything which is declared by the City Council to be or likely to become injurious to the senses, or an obstruction to the flee use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property; and WHEREAS, there exists an accumulation garbage in the front yard, there, are weeds growing in the front yard, and there is an inoperative, unregistered vehicle parked · in the driveway at 19337- Phil Lane; and WHEREAS, the roof at 19337 Phil Lane is substandard; and WHEREAS, as provided by Ordinance No. 794, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to determine whether or not said condition constitutes a public nuisance and, if said determination is made, the City C~uncil shall require abatement of said public nuisance by immediate removal of all weeds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino does, upon adoption of this resolution, establish the date of September 20, 1999, 6:45 p.m., as the time and 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California as the place wherein public testimony will be taken relative to' the determination as to whether or not a public nuisance exists and if so determined, what type of abatement is necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th day of August, 1999, by the following vote: Vote .Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ,- City Clerk' Mayor, City of Cupertino nuisance/intcnLdoc RESOLUTION NO. 99-219 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER Y R DEV LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 10675 SANTA LUCIA. ROAD, APN 342-17-055 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a propbsed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Y R Dev LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 10675 Santa Lucia Road and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. 99-219 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Single Family Home Y R Dev LLC, a California Limited Liability Company LOCATION: 10675 Santa Lucia Road A. Faithful Performance Bond: Off-site: $19,000.00 On-site: $ 20,000.00 NINETEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $19,000.00 NINETEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 1,975.00 ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Indirect City Expenses: N/A E. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin #3 $ 264.00 TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR AND 00/100 DOLLARS G. One Year Power Cost: $ 75.00 SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS H. Street Trees: By Developer I. Map Checking Fee: N/A J. Park Fee: $15,750.00 FIFTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS K. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A L. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #23 of agreement RESOLUTION NO. 99-220 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHOKIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER THOMAS J. HUTTON AND. PAULA L. HUTTON; 22820 SAN JUAN ROAD, APN 342-21-025 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 22820 San Juan Road and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of ..... CulSertino this 19~a day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. 99-220 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: · Single Family Home Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton LOCATION: 22820 San Juan Road A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 275,500.00 TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 275,500.00 TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 13,775.00 THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Indirect City Expenses: N/A E.. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. Storm Drainage Fee: Basin #3 $ 1,316.00 ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS G. One Year Power Cost: N/A H. Street Trees: By Developer I. Map Checking Fee: N/A J. Park Fee: N/A K. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A L. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #23 of agreement RESOLUTION NO. 99-221 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM Y R DEV LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 10675 SANTA LUCIA ROAD, APN 342-17-055 WHEREAS, Y R Dev LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part h~reof, which is as follows: All that certain real propert~ situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 10675 Santa Lucia Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: 'NOES: 'ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHiBiT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION STREET DEDICATION All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: Being the northeasterly 30.00 feet of Section 126, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Inspiration Heights, Monte Vista", which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of Cal'ifornia in Book "P" of Maps at page 13. ~-VNo'' ~ 4'JO'i Prepared by: _EXp. R.C.E. No. 14001 . Expires 3/31/2001 I ~ , _ I ! I. , ~(~ . !,..-- ~oz t ~o~.oo ~ ' ~.oo ... 144 I / e 0 126 [ i"' X -~,.o~.~ .,o,.oo · .:~.. ~HIBII B ~o. $~ ~08~, ~g ~fil~8 {408} ~84-05~1 RESOLUTION NO. 99-222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM MASTERS. CAPITAL LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 10181 FOREST AVENUE, APN 316-33-131 WHEREAS, Masters Capital LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situhte in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 10181 Forest Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~' day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o_._f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXH i :i 'l? "A :' DESCRIPTION OF A DEDICATION TO THE CTY OF CUPERTINO, CA. FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITIES PURPOSES Ail that certain real property situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being the southerly ten feet and the westerly ten feet of lands described in Grant Deed to Masters Capital L.L.C. recorded on January 7, 1998 under Recorder's Series No. 14001969· Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said lands distant S89°56'W 96.82 feet from the southeasterly corner of Lot 8 of Tract No. 4043, filed in Book 244 of Maps at page 30, Santa Clara County Records; Thence along the westerly line of said lands S0°19'45"E 105.74 feet to the southwesterly corner thereof; Thence'along the southerly line thereof N89°49'35"E 96.82 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof; Thence along the easterly line thereof N0°19'45"W 10.00 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 108 of Tract No. 2953 filed in Book 188 of Maps at Pages 20 and 2]., Santa Clara County Records; Thence parallel with the centerline of Forest Avenue and distant therefrom 30 feet, right angle measure, S89°49'35"W 66.87 feet; Thence along a curve to the right, tangent to the preceding course, having a radius of 20 feet through a centraI angle of 89°50'40'' an arc length of 31.36 feet; Thence parallel with the centerline of Vista Drive and distant therefrom 30 feet, right angle measure, N0°19'45"W 75.78 feet to the southwesterly corner of the above referred to Lot 8 of Tract No. 4043; Thence along said line and the westerly extension thereof· S89°56'W 10.00 feet to the point of beginning; Containing 0.046 of an acre, more or less. Date: April 29, 1999 //~~. APN: 316-33-131 PREPARED BY: E.J. Hahamian Civil Engineer ~ ~ · ' ~. ~ No. C1335~ · ~ X \ X.X 3:kIDICA'l'E5 DEPlcAT~0 N AREA RESOLUTION NO. 99-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES FROM THOMAS $. HUTTON AND PAULA L. HUTTON; LOCATED 22820 SAN JUAN ROAD, APN 342-21-025 WHEREAS, Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton have executed a Grant of Easement which is in good and sufficient form, conveying to the City of Cupertino, Grantee, an easement for public utility purposes over the property situate, in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 22820 San Juan Road, APN 342-21-025. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said. grant so tendered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said Grant of Easement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19t~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A ! All of that certain property situate in the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California described as follows: BEGINNING at the most We.sterly corner of Section 296 as shown on the map entitled "Map of Inspiration Heights Monta Vista" which map was recorded in Book P of Maps at page 14, Santa Clara County Records; thence along the Northerly line of said Section N42°41'00"E 83.99 feet; thence leaving said line and proceeding along a nontangent curve to the .right with an initial tangent bearing N65°39'05"E, a radius of 108.00 feet, an internal angle of 58°18'03" and a length of 109.89 feet to a point of tangency; thence S56°02'52"E 132.04 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 110.00 feet. an internal angle of 33°58'02" and a length of 65.21 feet to point of nontangency on the Eastedy line of Section 297 as shown on the above mentioned Map; thence along said line the following two courses: S10°41'00"E 47.28 feet and S13"09'00"W 132.50 feet; thence leaving said line and proceeding N85°18'09"W 13.79 feet; thence N1°24'24"E 131.39 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 70.00 feet, an internal angle of 57°27'16" and a length of 70.19 feet; thence N56°02'52"W 132.04 feet; thence along' a tangent curve to the left with a radius of 68.00 feet, an internal angle of 60°30'38" and a length of 71.82 feet; thence S63°26'30"W 76.29 feet to a point in the Westerly line of the above mentioned Section 296; thence along said line N16°33'32"W 10.54 feet to the point of BEGINNING. Containing 18,000 square feet more or less and consisting of a portion of Sections 296 and 297 as shown on the above mentioned Map. ~docsV'tuf-exe ilc-2. RESOLUTION NO. 99-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM Y R DEV, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 10675 SANTA LUCIA ROAD, APN 342-17-055 WHEREAS, Y R Dev, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, has executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A' and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19a day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__f the City Council AYES: · NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHiBiT A LEGAI~ DESCRIPTION WATER OUIT CLAIM All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: All of Section 126, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Inspiration Heights, Monte Vista", which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California in Book "P" of Maps at page 13. --'2. I I z KIRKEBY ENGINEERING PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION SCALE: ~. ZO' Z3STFOREST AVENUE WATER QUITCLAIM OA~: SAN JO~E, ~A ~128 (408) ~84-0331 JOe mo. RESOLUTION NO. 99-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM THOMAS $. HUTTON AND PAULA L. HUTTON, 22820 SAN JUAN ROAD, APN 342-21-025 WHEREAS, Thomas J. Hutton and Paula L. Hutton, have executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their fights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, bz shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said ._ "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o___f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A (Dedication of Underground Water Rights) All that certain Real Property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE= All of Sections 296 and 297 and portion of Sections 298 and 305, as shown upon that certain Map entltled, "Map. of Insp~ration Heights Monta Vista", which Map was filed for Record in th~ Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on April.il, 1917 in Book P of Maps, Page 14, said Portion of Sections 298 and 305 being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Northern Line of Section 298 with the Southeastern line of San Jacin~o Road, as said Section and Road are eho~ upon the Map above referred to; and running thence South '85 deg. 15' Bast 265.1 feet to the Westerly line of Blena Road, aB shown on said Map; thence along the last named line South 13 deg. 09' West, 5.1 feet; thence leaving the last l~amed line South 55 deg. 54' West 190.9 feet; thence North 84 deg. 55' West 179.4 feet to the said line of the said San Jacinto Road; thence along the last named line North 32 deg. 01' East 139.2 feet to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL TWO: Beginning at the intersection of the Southeasterly line of the 2.684+/- parcel shown on the Record of Survey Map for Louis J. Paviso filed in Book 220 of Maps at Page S0, Santa Clara County Records with the Westerly side line of San Juan Road (formerly Elena Road) as shown on the above said Map; thence along above said Southeasterly line South 56 deg. 05' West 190 feet; then,, leaving above said llne, North 33 deg. 55' West 21.14 feet and North 55~egS%{East 190.55 feet to above said Westerly sideline of San Juan Road; thence along said Road sideline South 32 deg. 29' Bast 21.76 feet to the Point of Beginning. RESOLUTION NO. 99-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING STRONG SUPPORT OF THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVING SANTA CLARA COUNTY WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California created the California High-Speed Rail commission to prepare a blueprint for statewide High-Speed Rail service; WHERE. AS, High-Speed Rail is proposed to connect Southern and Northern California through the Central Valley; WHEREAS, the voters of the State of California will decide whether or not to fund the $23 billion of implementation costs for statewide High-Speed Rail service in the November 2000 election; WHEREAS, High-Speed Rail service would serve the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose; WHEREAS, the statewide High-Speed Rail service will utilize the latest, most feasible and technically proven technology available with estimated speeds in the order of 150 miles per hour; WHEREAS, the City of San Jose is home to the largest population and serves as the ee0nomic center for the Silicon Valley; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council fully supports the initiation of statewide High-Speed Rail service in Santa Clara County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council believes' the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) preferred alignment, which would service the Bay Area through Paeheco Pass, is the best route alternative because it would significantly increase ridership in the Bay Area. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~' day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /3`/ Sen~ . , CONGEST[O~ blANAGEMEN7 PROGRAM 408 321 5723; 07t0@!~ 12:51PM;JS~.~x ~do;rage o:w DATE: July 9, 1999 TO: Policy Advisory Comrmttee Santa Clara ValJ.e~ Tr_'aztsporr~tion Authority Director, Congestion Management and H[ghwa,y Programs SUBJECT: Cit. y of Miipitas Resolutioa ia Support of High-Speed Rail FOR LNFORM&TION At the Policy Advisory Committee meeting last night, Ccsmmittee Chairman Maaaym~ mmounced that the City of Milpir~z has adopted a letter of resolution i~ suing suppor[ of the current proposal by the High Speed Rml Commlasion for a high-speed al~ment that would serve'Santa Clara County through Pacheco Pass. At the request of members of the Poi/c? Advisory Commitlee, a copy of the letter of resolution adopted by the Milpitas City Council is attached for the information of other PAC members who ma? wish to encourage their own city/town councils to adopt similar resolutions or letters of support. The VIA Board or' Directors supports the Pacheco Pass aligrm~ent, and Pacheco Pa~s is also the alignment preferred by the MeU'opolit~n Trar~portation. Commmsion. Atta, cl~ent c: Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager Sandra Weymouth, Board Secretax7 3331 Perth First Street · Son Jose, CA 9f)134-1~06 · Administrotion 468.-'421.$$$S - Ceslomer Soo'vice 408.321.2360 JUL,-Og'gg:FRI} 08:37 CITY OF~iLPITAS TEL~408 26~ 6511 P, O01 A lETTER OF RF~O~UTION OF TH~ C~TY COLr~C[~ OP T~ ~ OF MI~ IN ~ONO S~~ OF ~OH ~EED ~ ~O ~A C~ CO~ S~ R~ C~~ m ~ a blu~ for I~e ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ ~e N~b~ 20~ ~; ~~S, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~e ~e ~ ~ ~ O~d ~ ~ as ~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; NOW, ~~, BE ~ ~L~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~~ ~y NOW, THE~FO~, BE ~ ~ ~OL~ ~ ~e Mfl~ ~W ~ Bay ~ea ~ou~ ~a~ ~s, ~ ~ ~t rou~ '~t~a~e ~aae it ~utd ~i~c~ ~e~ ~d~ ~ ~ ~ ~a. . ..... , ....... NO~,(~(5) -~- ..... ~ ~" POLICY ADVISORY COMMI*ITEE CAMPB][L_I;, CI'IT OF Jane CF): (4o8) CUP--O, CITY OF Don Buruett (~:. (4o8) GILROY, CITY OF Suetten C. Rowlison (F):. (4o8) 847-1z2~ LOS ALTOS, C _r~*Y oF ~ ~ bar (~. (650) 941-7419 LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF William Siegel (tO: (65o) 948-93.87 LOS GATOS, TOWN OF Rand.y Attaway (1~: (,408) 34%1847 MI]PI'FAS, CITY'OF Henry Mauayan 455 F~_~t C~laveras Blvd. (F): (408) 263..6541 or (408) 946-4793 MONTE SERF, NO, CITY OF Gordon . (F): (408) 39~7653 MORGAN ~ CITY OF Dennio Kennedy. (F): (408) 779-3117 MOUlqT~ VIEW, CITY OF (F): C650) 964.79~ PALO ALTO~ (~ITY OF Dens Mossar C,S-malt): dmo~oo, com SAN JOBE, CITY OF Linda J. LeZotCe (F): (408) ~.77-5t92 SANTA CLARA, CITY OF Rod Diridon Jr. (~: 008) S~TOGA, CI~ OF N~k ~: (~) ~1080 S~~E, CI~ OF M~! ~e~o (~: (~) ~7~9 or (~) ~7474~ (~) ~no~ W~cox, ~e~ (~m~); ~o955~1.~m SANTA CLARA _COUNTY Jim Bean BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Fax: (408) 299.2038 CUPERTINO RESIDENTIAL LIENS 1~8 ~r,~t'--~ Customm N~te-- '-- ~e-~A__~-_d__rer4__ A P N Service ~ B~lance 17J31----~8 Ad---~in. Fee Total Due 72~95 Adrian Ionel -- --~04! 1 Tuia Lane .... 35913119 311/96-12/31/96 $i47.83 ~.~{~ $172.8-~ -- 188318 Nan W. Russell 7453 Bollng~r Rd. 35923022 5/1/c.:jS-12/31~J8 $121.77 ......$25.00 $146.77 286989 Andrea E. Dammi 916 Seplmnlx~ Dr. 36214006 12/1~97-12/31198 $231.96 $25.00 $256.96 184812 Daniel Mullen 862 Be~ Ave 36924048 ?11FJ6-12/31/96 .__ $480.62 --$25.00 $505.62 573691 David Mc Kell 21239 Gardena Drive 32640(X)5 8/1/97-12/31/98 .... $255.78 $25.00 $280.78 488023 E~zabelh -I~le~rs.- ---' 1_~_-16 Will Co~. rt .... 31625024 Iil/98-12/31/98 $168.78 .... $25.00.__. $193.78 1764)74 Erie ~. __ __10131 NhanllXa Ave 34~.623027 11/1/96-12/31/98 __ $384.75 S25.00 268037 Gerald W. Byouk ---' 168--~ ,~ ~-m~h~',ul'--ar Ave. --' 326O3029 11/1/97-12/31/98 $661.08 $25.00 $686.08 239160 Jack & Jane Rosenlhal 22061 ~ Ume___ __.35627013 2/1/97-12/31,98 __$665.63 $25.00 $690.63 572867 James Campbell 10292 Deg,_ Ct B 3423006/~/96-12/31/98 $480.62 $25.00 $505.62 657064 James Malinez 10191 Santo Clara Ave. -- 32622031 8/1/96-12/3t/98 $42?.74 $25.00 $452.74 - '~6805 Jacly Dav~ · 10292 ~ Court 3423iX)28 6/1/96-12/3119~ $527.06 $25.01) $552.06 722488 Ka~l PoN 10077 Santa Clara Ave. 326251)09 5/1/98-12/31~38 $122.12 $25.00 $147.12 265637 KaU~ Shaw -- -- 10152 Patelt Place --3162605,1 6/1~6-12/31~8 $469.66 $25.00 ~,~1.--66 698019 K~m Zankich -- 11350 S. Stelling Road .... --. 36225027 2/1/98-12/31/98 $365.10 --~-~.00 485094 I.any_~-- 20659 Shel~l)~ve 35911024 2/1/98-12~/~--'-_-- ...... --~-~t~.'~4- $25.00 $191.44 -- 620195 Mink Ruclner 7537 Rair~bow ~ 36230018 8/1/98-12/31/98__ $77.10 $25.00 $102.10 -- 48i863 ~ Thy Phuong --~'1455 Hoi~ Oak Drive__ 3G202015 1/1/98-17.r31/98 --- $168.4S __ $25.00 $191.46 71~1 RiG~Tcl F~on 10t~ IWlle~ Av~ 37501~ 111~12/31~ ~14.74 ~.00 ~3~).74 -- 1~8'/71~ Rmlim~. R(xldques --20568BIo~V~n/ __ 35918034 '11~1/97-1;1M ;11.11 __$25.0O ~.11 4738O1 SLw~g I~oon 1~5 Steve~ ~ ~16134 1111~12/31M__ $384.75 ~ T; ~ 1~ G~e~nmKNxI ~ 11 __S$~4 4/1/0~/'-1;1/98 $401.g<) $25.01) t486.~ ~73 Tc)rl~ J= 10()10CanTlen Rcecl __ 320~ 111197-12J31/913 $422:.22 I25.01)__ :TMI47.22 588434 Wlijid Rizvi 20156 Paciflca Dliva :36928020 5/1/97-12/31/98 $298.77 $25.00 $323.77 -' 203455 WilEamHallnell 22688 Cticl~et Hill Road 34235017 5/1/96-12/31/98 $432.06 $25.00 $457.06 552604 Yvelte Namg 22425 Rancho Venture S __ 35701076 5/1/96-12/31/98 $735.04 $25.00 $760.04 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue ~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 City o£ FAX (408) 777-3333 Cupertino PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM / ~ AGENDA DATE July 19, 1999 SUB,1ECT AND ISSUE Authorization for execution of State-Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement No. SLTPP-531 $ and a Program Supplement Agreement No. 001 BACKGROUND The City has been awarded a grant for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Overlay from the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program. The amount of the grant is $141,164.00. In order to obtain the funds, a State-Local agreement must be executed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99-~ g', authoriziag the Mayor to execute the State-Local entity Master Agreement STLPP 04-5318 and Program Supplement No. 001. crt J Vl~c-6vicli ~ Printed on Recycled Paper RESOLUTION NO. 99-228 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP-5318 AND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 001 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a State-Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement No. SLTPP-5318 and a Program Supplement Agreement No. 001 to the above menti6ned agreement covering construction for the Stevens Creek Boulevard' overlay fi.om Stelling Road to Stem Avenue; and WHEREAS, all agencies are requested to execute this agreement and program supplement; and WHEREAS, the provisions, terms, and conditions of the aforementioned agreement and supplement have been reviewed and approved by the City Attomey and the Director of Public Works. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said agreement and program supplement agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19t~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino STATE-LOCAL ENTITY MASTER AGREEMENT NO.SLTPP 044318 .-. STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (Pursuant to S&H Code Section 2600 et seq.) 04 5318 District Agency THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate this ~ day of ,199--, by and between the City of Cupertino, a City, County, or LOCAL ENTITY, as defined in Streets and Highways Code Section 2601 (a), hereinafter referred to as "LOCAL ENTITY," and the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, herein referred to as "STATE." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, as provided by Section 2600 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code, LOCAL ENTITY, has applied for State Share funds to be used for an "Eligible Project" as defined, herein referred to as "PROJECT" selected by LOCAL ENTITY. WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with LOCAL ENTITY to delineate certain responsibilities relative to prosecution of the said PROJECT. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - Contract Administration 1. Projects shall be constructed in accordance with this agreement and as described in the Project Termini and Type of Work of the Program Supplemental Agreement. 2. Unless otherwise provided in the Program Supplement, the LOCAL ENTITY shall advertise, award and administer the construction contract for the PROJECT. 3. The construction work for PROJECT shall be performed by contract. As a condition of acceptance of the State Share Funds provided for this PROJECT, LOCAL ENTITY will abide by the State/Local Partnership Program policies, procedures, guidelines and any special covenants in the Program Supplement which is made part of this agree.ment by this reference. 4. The estimated cost and scope of PROJECT will be shown in the approved Project .-. Application which, by reference herein, is made part of this agreement. A contract for an amount in excess of said estimated may be awarded and expenditures may exceed said estimate provided 1 LOCAL ENTITY will provide the additional funding and that sufficient LOCAL ENTITY money is available to finance same. 5. If the total State Share for all eligible PROJECTS exceeds the amount specified in subdivision (b) of Section 2600 of the Street and Highways Code, the STATE shall compute the pro rata share of State Share funds to be available so that each eligible PROJECT will receive the same ratio of State Share to local share funding.. 6. The LOCAL ENTITY agrees that the payment of State Share Funds will be limited to the' lesser of the product of multiplying the calculated pro rata percentage as determined by the STATE by either: (a) the Total eligible State/Local Partnership Project Cost in the approved State/Local Partnership Program Application. (b) the award amount. (c) the Final Cost amount. and accepts any consequent increase in LOCAL .ENTITY funding requirements. 7. Subsequent tO the Legislature appropriating the State Share funds and after the LOCAL ENTITY has entered into: a) this State-Local Entity Master Agreement; b) a project specific Program Supplement; and c) awarded the contract for an eligible project, the LOCAL ENTITY may request and shall receive payment for eligible work as follows: (a) STATE will pay it's proportionate "State's Share" of the eligible participating costs upon LOCAL ENTITY submittal of acceptable monthly progress pay estimates for expenditures. Initial progress billings should cover completed or underway contract work. (b) If PROJECT is a cooperative project and includes work on a STATE highway, PROJECT shall be the subject of a separate cooperative agreement bi~tween the STATE and LOCAL ENTITY. 8. The Legislature of the State of California and the Governor of the State of California, each within their respective jurisdictions, have prescribed certain employment practices with respect to contract and other work financed with State funds. LOCAL ENTITY shall ensure that work performed under this agreement is done in conformance with the rules and regulations embodying such requirements where they are applicable. 9. After completion of all work under this agreement and after all costs are known, LOCAL ENTITY shall contract for a financial audit of the project costs. The Final Audit, to be accomplished at the LOCAL ENTITY's expense, may be done on an individual project basis, or may be included in the LOCAL ENTITY's annual Single Audit. If an individual project audit is done, the auditor must prepare a Final Audit Report. If the LOCAL ENTITY chooses the Single Audit option, a Management Letter will be required for the State Share funding. In either case, 2 thc audit will includc compliancc tests required by thc Single Audit Act and its implementing directive, OMB Circular A=128. The compliance testing should ensure controls are in place to -~- assure that: (a) Reimbursement claims submitted to the State for the project are supported by payment vouchers and canceled checks. (b) Charges for the various categories of eligible costs incurred by the LOCAL ENTITY are fully supported. (c) Ineligible costs were not claimed as reimbursable on the project. (d) Local match funds were from an approved source. 10. The Final Project Expenditure Report must be completed within 120 day~ of project completion and should be in the format described in Volume I, Section 19, Exhibit 19-1 a of the Local Programs Manual. The Final Audit must be completed by December 30th following the fiscal year of project completion. Project completion is defined as when all work identified in the approved State/Local Partnership Application and Program Supplement Agreement has been completed and final costs are known. The report documents (Final Project Expenditure Report · and Final Audit Report) will be sent to the appropriate State Department of Transportation District Office. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements may result in withholding of future allocations by the Commission. 11. The State reserves the right to conduct separate technical and financial audits if it is determined necessary. After the financial audit, LOCAL ENTITY shall refund any excess State Share funds reimbursed to LOCAL ENTITY beyond its entitlement. 12. Should the LOCAL ENTITY fail to pay STATE claims within 30 days of demand, the STATE, acting through State Controller, may withhold an equal amount from future apportionments due the LOCAL ENTITY from the Highways Users Tax Fund. The STATE may, at its option, intercept and apply any monies otherwise due the LOCAL ENTITY to pay' these claims. 13. When THE PROJECT includes work to be performed by a railroad, the contract for such work shall be entered into by LOCAL ENTITY. LOCAL ENTITY shall enter into an agreement with the railroad providing for maintenance of the protective devices or other facilities installed under the service contract and for Railroad Protective Insurance during construction as necessary. ARTICLE II - Right of Way 1. All related fights-of-way as are necessary for the construction PROJECT shall be acquired by LOCAL ENTITY at its own expense and no contract for construction of PROJECT, or any --- portion thereof, shall be advertised until the necessary rights-of-way have been secured. 2. The furnishing of rights-of-way as provided for herein includes but may not be limited to: 3 (a) all real property required for THE PROJECT free and clear of obstructions and encumbrances. (b) the payment of damages to real property not actually taken but injuriously affected by the proposed improvement. (c) the cost of relocating owners and occupants pursuant to Government Code Sections 7260-7277. (d) the Cost of demolition and sale of all improvements on the right of way. (e) the cost' of all utility relocation, protection or removal legally obligated to be done by the LOCAL ENTITY. (f) the cost of all hazardous materials and waste clean up not reimbursable by prior owners. (g) the costs which arise out of delays to the contractor because utility facilities have not been removed or relocated, or because rights-of-way have not been made available to the contractor for the orderly prosecution of the work. 3. Should LOCAL ENTITY, in acquiring right of way for PROJECT, displace an individual, family, business, farm operation, or nonprofit organization, the LOCAL ENTITY shall provide relocation payments and services as required by California Government Code, Sections 7260- 7277. ARTICLE III - Engineering 1. "Preliminary Engineering" costs may not be financed with State Share funds and shall be financed by the LOCAL ENTITY with other sources of funding available to the LOCAL ENTITY. 2. Unless the parties shall otherwise agree in writing, LOCAL ENTITY's employees'or engineering consultant shall be responsible for all engineering work. When construction engineering is performed by STATE, charges therefore shall include an assessment on direct labor costs in accordance with Section 8755.1 of the State Administrative Manual. The portion of such charges not financed at State cost shall be paid from funds of LOCAL ENTITY. ARTICLE IV - Miscellaneous Provisions 1. The cost of maintenance performed by LOCAL ENTITY forces during any temporary suspension of the work or at any other time may not be charged to the PROJECT. 4 2. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shill be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by LOCAL ENTITY under .... or in connection with any work, authority, or .jurisdiction delegated to LOCAL ENTITY under this agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, LOCAL ENTITY shall fully indemn!fy and hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by LOCAL ENTITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to LOCAL ENTITY under this agreement. 3. Neither LOCAL ENTITY nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any world, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully indemnify and hold LOCAL ENTITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under agreement. 4. Auditors of STATE shall be given access to LOCAL ENTITY's book and records for the purpose of verifying costs and pro rata share to be paid. All project documents will be available for inspection by authorized state personnel at any time during project development and for a three-year period from date of final payment under the contract or one year at, er the audit is completed or waived by the STATE, whichever is longer. If a State audit is conducted, the source of local match funds will be checked to determine if the source complies with the program requirements. ARTICLE V - Accommodation of Utilities 1. Utility facilities may be accommodated on the right of way provided such use and occupancy of the right of way does not interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic or otherwise impair the roadway or its scenic appearance; and provided a Use and Occupancy Agreement, setting forth the terms under which the utility facility is to cross or otherwise occupy the right of way is executed by the LOCAL ENTITY and OWNER. The Use and Occupancy Agreement setting forth the terms under which the utility facility is to cross or otherwise occupy the right of way must include the provisions set forth in Volume I, Section 12 of the LOCAL PROGRAMS MANUAL published by the STATE, unless otherwise approved by the STATE. 2. If any protections, relocation or removal of utilities is required within STATE's right of way, such work shall be performed in accordance with STATE policy and procedure. LOCAL ENTITY shall .require any utility company performing relocation work in the STATE's right of way to obtain a State Encroachment Permit prior to the performance of said relocation work. Any relocated utilities shall be correctly located and identified on the as-built plans. ARTICLE VI - Condition of Acceptance 5 As a condition of acceptance of the State Share Funds provided for this project, LOCAL ENTITY will abide by the State policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to the State/Local Partnership Program. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation City of Cupertino By By Chief, Office of Local Programs Project Implementation Date Date 6 PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 001 Date:July 06, 1999 to Location: 04-SCL-0-CPO .-~TATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Pro j &ct N,,m~er: SB99-53 ] 8(001) d~TNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP-S~18 E.A. N,,~er: 04-923182 This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement for State Share Funds which was entered into between the Local Entity and the State on / / and is subject to all the terms and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Article I of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No. , approved by the Local Entity on (See copy attached). The Local Entity further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with any covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages. PROJECT LOCATION: Stevens Creek Blvd - Stelling Rd to Stern Ave TYPE OF WORK: Overlay LENGTH: 0 (MILES) PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE (S) OF WORK [X] Construction Estimated Cost State Share Funds Matching Funds --- FY1999 $141,164.00 LOCAL OTHER $1,134,534.00 FY2000 $0.00 $993,370.00 $0.00 $0.00 FY2001 $0.00 CI~ OF ~PERTINO STATE OF CALI~IA Depar~ent of Transportation ~ief, Office of Local Progr~s Date Project Implementation' Attest Date Title 324 1998 26~-101~2 98-~ ~.25.010.1ffi C 258010 ~2~ 141,164.ffi Program Supplement SLTPP-$318-001- Page i of 2 04-SCL-0-CPO 07/06/1999 $B99-5318(001) SPECIAL COVENANTS OR ~S 1. It is mutually understood between the parties that this contract may have been written before ascertaining the availability of legislative appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of. both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the agreement were executed after that determination was made. The total ~mount of State-Local Transportation Partnership funds payable by the State shall not exceed the sum of the "State Share Funds" column on page i of this Progrmm Supplement. The funds to be encumbered and re~m~ursed are according to the schedule shown under the aforementioned column. Any increase in State PartnershiP funds will require a'revised program supplement. Any decrease in State Partnership funds will require a revised finance letter. 2. In accordance with the S~ate-Local Transportation Partnership Program Guidelines dated July 1, 1996, project eligibility is limited to contract items plus locally funded State or Local Entity furnished materials and Supplemental Work (if eligible). Supplemental Work eligibility is further defined under the Project Eligibility section of the Guidelines. 3. The Reimbursement Ratio for this Cycle 9 (98/99) Project is 16.59%. Program Supplement SLTPP-5318-001- Page 2 of 2 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue ~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 of FAX (408) 777-3333 Cupertino PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM /2 AGENDA DATE July 19, 1999 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Solid Waste Cost-of-living Increase and Rate Revisions BACKGROUND The. current agreement with Los Altos Garbage Company has a cost-of-living minus growth formula. This formula uses certain cost-of-living indices and subtracts the growth in the company for the fiscal year assessed. The calculation indicates that the cost-of-living based on the May 1999 Bay Area Consumer Price Index is 4.6%. The Los Altos Garbage positive growth for fiscal year 98-99 added to the above cost-of-living index yields the final cost-of-living, as per agreement, 1.01%. Attached is Resolution No. 99- , establishing the new rate for each category with the old rate shown for comparison. The new rate structure would be effective as of August 1, 1999. Based on a one-can customer, the rate will increase from $15.42 to $15.58 per month. New this coming fiscal year, additional container sizes (4 and 8 cubic yard) will be offered for front loader services. The rates are based on last year's per unit cost rate structure. Rear loader 1 and 2 cubic yard services have been eliminated. The two remaining customers will be switched to toter service. The minimum tons for a rock box have been raised from 3 tong to 6 tons. The lower ton rates were misleading to customers since rock boxes typically weigh 7 to 8 tons. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 99-Z:t.'t establishing the new rate structure for solid waste collection service as of August 1, 1999, and approving minor service changes. /Director ,f Public Works ~t~ cD~ M~a~e~' RESOLUTION NO. 99-229 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING NEW RATES FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE AND APPROVING A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN SERVICE RATES CHARGED BY LOS ALTOS GARBAGE COMPANY WHEREAS, a new' rate structure is needed to accommodate changes in container sizes offered by Los Altos Garbage Company; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the franchise agreement between the Los Altos Garbage Company and the City of Cupertino, a cost of living adjustment in service rates is to be evaluated each year; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the formula established in the agreement for e. omputing the adjustment, a 1.01% increase is in order. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves a 1.01% cost of living adjustment 'for rates charged by Los Altos Garbage Company for refuse service, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof, to be effective August 1, 1999. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19~ day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members o__fthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL August 1, 1999 Current New SINGLE FAMILY (monthly rate): From I can $ 15.42 $ 15.58 Front 2 cam $ 30.84 $ 31.16 Front 3 cam $ 46.26 $ 46.74 'Front ca ~ddition~l can $ 15.42 $ 15.58 Back 1 can $ 23.72 $ .23.96 Back 2 cans $ 47.44 $ 47.92 Back 3 cans $ 71.16 $ 71.88 Back ca ~,adi~ic~l can $ 23.72 $ 23.96 HILLSIDE (monthly rnte): Roadside I can $ 25.50 $ 25.76 Roadside 2 cans $ 51.00 $ 51.52 Roadside 3 cans $ 76.50 $ 77.28 Roadsido ca ~litlnn~! can $ 25.50 $ 25.76 DUPLEX/MULTIPLE UNITS & YARDWASTE EXEMI~ (n/onthly rate): Front lcan $ 13.06 $ 13.19 ~. Front 2 cans $ 26.12 $ 26.38 Front 3 cans $ 39.18 $ 39.57 Front ca ndaltlonnl can $ 13.06 $ 13.19 Back 1 can $ 20.18 $ 20.38 Back 2 cans $ 40.36 $ 40.76 Back 3 ~ $ 60.54 $ 61.14 Back ca additional can $ 20.18 $ 20.38 SENIOR C:l'rlZ~ (monthly rate): Frmltyalxl/B~kya~ I can $ 7.71 $ 7.79 Fatm~ (no yardwnste) 1 can $ 6.53 $ 6.60 ~ 1 can $ 12.76 $ 12.89 ADDITIONAL CHARGES: Exlza Bag Tag $ 4.48 $ 4.53 10 Bag Tags $ 42.69 $ 43.12 Extra Can O-time) S 7.73 $ 7.81 Waste Whcci~ (rental) $ 2.59 $ 2.62 Addltlo~! Yard Waste Toter $ 5.33 $ 5.38 24 HR CONTAINER SERVICE: · -' Bin By The Day 4 yd $ 99.78 S 100.79 6 yd $ 122.21 $ 125.44 7 yd $ 133.42 $ 134.77 Page 1 · EXHIB1T A-2 CITY OF CUPERTINO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL August 1, 1999 Current New COMPACTOR RATE (per cubic yard): $ 25.41 $ 25.67 COMPACTOR RATE- MIXED RECYCLABLE: Hauling o~ly $ 236.41 $ 238.80 Per ton $ 35.00 $ 35.35 ROLL-OFF SERVICE (DEBRIS BOX): Rock BoTt 6 tons $ 471.74 $ 476.50 7 t0~s $ 528.05 $ 533.38 8 tons $ 584.36 $ 590.26 ea adaitlo~nl ton $ 56.31 $ 56.88 16 CY Container 3 tons $ 302.81 $ 305.87 4tons $ 359.12 $ 362.75 5 tons $ 415.43 $ 419.63 ea additional ton S 56.31 $ 56.88 26 CY Container 4 tons $ 463.37 $ 468.05 5tons $ 519.68 $ 524.93 6 tans $ 575.99 $ 581.81 ea additional ton $ 56.31 $ 56.88 30 CY Container 5 tons $ 547.89 $ 553.42 6 tons $ 604.20 $ 610.30 7 tom S 660.5! $ 667.18 ea additional ton S 56.31 $ 56.88 40 CY Container 6 tons $ 584.48 $ 590.38 7 tons $ 640.79 $ . 647.26 8 tons $ 697.10 $ 704.14 ea ~aitlo~ ton $ 56.31 $ 56.88 Weekly rental f~e (beyond normal 7 days): $ 91.52 $ 92.44 Page 2 ?/].V~ EXHIBIT A-3 CITY OF CUPERTINO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL August 1, 1999 Current New 98-99 99-00 COMMERCIAL - FRONT LOADER CONTAINERS: 1-1/2 CY Comainer Ix week serwc~ $ 90.00 $ 90.91 2x $ 180.00 $ 181.82 3x $ 270.00 $ 272.73 4x $ 360.00 $ 363.64 5x $ 430.00 $ 454.55 6x $ 540.00 $ 545.45 F. xIra pimp $ 28.28 $ 28.57 2 CY Co~tnl,er lx week se~ie, e $ 108.00 $ 109.09 2x $ 144.00 $ 218.18 - 3x $ 180.00 $ 327.27 4x $ 216.00 $ 436.36 5x $ 252.00 $ 545.45 6x $ 288.00 $ 654.54 Extra piclcup $ 35.33 $ 35.69 3 CY Co~iner lx w~k service $ 144.00 $ 145.45 2x $ 288.00 $ 290.91 3x $ 432.00 S 436.36 4x $ 576.00 $ 581.82 5x $ 720.00 $. 727.27 6x $ 864.00 $ 872.73 Extra pickup $ 38.66 $ 39.05 4 CY Container Ix week servico $ 181.82 2x $ 363.64 3x $ 545.45 4x $ 727.27 5x $ 909.09 6x $ 1,090.91' Extra pi__elmp ' $ 48.67 6 CT' Container lx week seroco $ 252.00 $ 254.55 2x $ 504.00 $ 509.09 3x $ 756.00 $ 763.64 4x $ 1,008.00 $ 1,018.18 5x $ 1,260.00 $ 1,272.73 6x $ 1,512.00 $ 1,527.27 F, xtm picimp $ 67.06 $ 67.74 8 CT' Comainer lx week servu:o $ 327.27 2x $ 654.54 3x $ 981.82 4x $ 1,309.09 5x $ 1,636.36 6x $ 1,963.63 ~ pi_eltttp $ 87.61 Page 3 EXI-IIRIT A-4 CITY OF CUPERTINO RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL August 1, 1999 / Current New COMMERCIAL - FRONT LOADER CONTAINERS: continued Pushout lx wcek ~vice $ 31.68 $ 32.00 2x $ 63.54 $ 64.18 3x $ 95.13 $ 96.09 4x $ 126.93 $ 128.21 5x $ 158.68 $ 160.28 6x $ 190.52 $ 192.44 Key Service $ 35.27 $ 35.63 COMMERCIAL CAN RA~E: Por can piolcup $ 14.30 $ 14.44 SPECIAL SERVICES: Steam cleaning, ro-de, livory and/or furnishing chains $ 60.74 $ 61.35 (OhO fimo 0nly) REAR LOADER SERVICE: Mamu'c- 1 CY 'lxweekse~ce $ 139.17 $ 140.58 2x $ 292.12 $ 295.07 3x $ 445.20 $ 449.70 4x $ 598.21 $ 604.25 5x $ 751.41 $ 759.00 Extra pick-up $ 57.14 $ 57.72 LATE CHARGE FEE: 1.2% per month delinquent (not compounded), applic~ to all rates Pag~ 4 7/14/99 RESOLUTION NO. 99-230 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "SAN FERNANDO AVEN-tJE 99-08", PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SAN FERNANDO AVENUE BETWEEN SAN FERNANDO AVENUE AND SAN FERNANDO COURT; APPROXIMATELY 0.207 ACRE, WANG (APN 357-12-003) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has received a request for annexation of territory designated "San Femando Avenue 99-08" from property owner, Eunhee Kim; and WHEREAS, the property, 0.207+ acre on the west side of San Femando Avenue between San Femando Avenue and San'~emando Court (APN 357-12-003) is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, this territory is uninhabited and was prezoned on May 16, 1983, to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review completed an initial study and granted a Negative Declaration for annexation; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56826, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certification has been paid; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56826 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the. City; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the - territory designated "San Femando Avenue 99-08" and detachment from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District at their regular meeting of August 16, 1999. Resolution No. 99-230 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk · Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED SAN FERNANDO AVE. 99-08 DATE: MAY, 1999 All that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: Being all of Lot 58 and a portion of Lot 57 as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Tract No. 211 STEVENS CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 4", which Map was filed for record in Book 7 of Maps at page 31, Santa Clara County Records, BEGINNING at the northeasterly comer of said Lot 58, said point being on the westerly line of San Fernando Avenue (50 feet wide) and the westerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "San Fernando Ave. 84-01"; thence along the line of said Annexation "San Femando Ave. 84-01" and the San F?rnando Avenue South 75.00 feet; thence leaving said lines West 120.00 feet to the westerly line of Lot 57 as shown on said Map of Tract No. 211; thence along the westerly line of said Lots 57 and 58 North 75.00 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot 58; thence along the northerly line of said Lot 58 East 120.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land containing 9,000 square feet or 0.207 acres, more or less. Prepared by: ' '- - t' h~ ~' '-'~ Marvin D. Kirkeby R.C.E. No. 14001 ~~ Expires 3/31/2001 ~ No. 14001 ~ ~ f Revised: June 24, 1999 ' ,, .. ~ ~~'~ ~ ~,~. i ". .. F~RIV& m O0 ~xtsH~g~nnel~ion ~ound~r~ j ~ j ~~1 /~~ ~ // /- -- I ~ ---~.- ... , , ~.~ ~.~. -// I ' ~ ~ ~ I --., .. ~sr mo.~ ~ --. -- .. :' . ,:, , ..r~.,t ~/,,~///// / /////~ ~ ~ · .~ ~., / '//~reo = O. 207 Oo.///_ ~ ~ ] ~ . /' ~'/k-~ //, ////,~ ~{ ~' . t _._ ' ~aST mo. oo · , ~ ~ / ~.'~..~ X ~;:: I , ...... I ~ .,~.. ~, ' I t:/ '~' .", ~ X . ' L KIRKEBY ENGINEERING P~O~EO ~NNEX~T/ON ~ ~E SCALE: /",50" 2397 FOREST AVENUE C/~Y O¢~PE~¢/~o E~TIT¢O DATE: ~4r SAN JOSE, CA 95128 (408i 984~0331 '$4N F~NO0 RYe, ~ ~-08' JOB NO. STAFF REQUESTS CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 17 TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 16. RESOLUTION NO. 99-227 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDERING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PURSUANT TO SECTION 50430 ET SEQ. OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOT 18, TRACT 6310, 22362 REGNART ROAD WHEREAS, hearing on Resolution of Intention No. 99-169 was held on July 19, 1999, at a regular meeting of the City Council at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California; and WHEREAS, it appears that notice thereof was duly given as required by law; and WHEREAS, from the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, it appears to be to the best interests of the City to vacate said public utilities easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That all or any protests against the vacation of said public utilities easement be and hereby are overruled and denied; 2. That that certain portion of the public utility easement 10 feet in width on Lot 18, Tract 6310 at 22362 Regnart Road within the City, more particularly described in description and plat attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be and hereby is instructed and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution, attached to and sealed with the official seal of the City, to be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, California, forthwith. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of July, 1999, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino --- June 3, 1999 GUDMUNDSON RESIDENCE P.U.E. TO BE ABANDONED UNDER'LOCATION OF NEW HOUSE A. portion of a certain P.U.E. 10 feet in width shown in Lot 18 as shown on the map of Tract No. 6310, recorded April 16, 1979 in Book 439 of Maps, Official Records of Santa Clara County, the centerline of said portion being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of the "18' Emergency Access Easement and Private Road & P.U.E. & I.S.D.E." as shown on said lot at the northerly extremity of the course labele~ North 10"00'00" West 22.09 feet; THENCE South 89"34'24" East ~no'~nce shown on map) and North 18"00" East 58.67 feet to th~ termination of the abandonment herein described at an angle point distant South 51"11' West 9.8 feet from the easterly boundary of said Tract 6310, all as shown on said Tract Map. , .... GUDMUNDSON RESIDENCE · 22362 REGNART ROAD CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE July 19, 1999 APPLICATION SUMMARY: APPEAL of an Architectural & Site Approval, File .No. 4-ASA- 99, to allow a first and second story addition to an existing one-story duplex located at 10333 Degas Court. BACKGROUND: There are two different appellants in this matter: 1) Erh-Kong & Ding Wei Chieh, the ASA applicants, who have appealed the Commission d.ecision in order to expedite the decision-making process (Exhibit A), and 2) Henry and Nancy Adelman, 10334 E! Prado Way, represented by the law offices of Owen Byrd, who have appealed the decision based on assertions that the Planning Commission erred in making the findings required to support the approval (Exhibits B & C). The Planning Commission reviewed this item at its hearings on May 10"' and June i 4"'. Copies of the previous staff reports are attached (Exhibits D & E). Project Information APPLICATION NO.(S): 4-ASA-99 APPLICANT: Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei Chieh LOCATION: 10333 Degas Court General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential 5-10 DU per acre Zoning. Designation: Residential Duplex R2-4.25 (4,250 sq.ft., land area/dwelling unit) Environmental Clearance: Categorical Exemption under Section 15301, Class 1 (e)(1) C EQA Guidelines Lot Area Net: 9,235 sq. fi. Lot Area Gross: -9,873 sq. fi. (with flag, not half street) Existing Lot Coverage: 36.2% Corrected Proposed Lot Coverage: 37.2% Existing FAR: 36.2% Corrected Proposed FAR: 47.2% (previously 47. 6%) Building Height: 23' 2" (previously 25feeO Corrected Existing Building Area: 3,348 sq.fi. (previously 3,340 sq.fi.) Corrected Proposed Building Area, l't Floor Unit A Kitchen Bump-out 25.32 sq.ff. 2 Unit A Bay Windows (floor area): 28 sq.ft. Unit A Entry Fill-in: 21.38 sq.ft. Unit B Dining Area Expansion: 20 sq.ft. Total Proposed 1't Floor Area: 94.7 sq.ff. Revised Proposed Building Area, 2na Floor*: 921 sq.ft. (previously 954 sq.fi.) Corrected Total Building Area: 4,364 sq.ff. (previously 4, 397 sq.fi) *Note: Using the new floor area definition, the stairwell square footage was counted 'tbr the first and second stories DISCUSSION: Stafflssues: Staff erroneously issued a building permit for an addition to this duplex without Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) in February 1999. When .mitigating design changes to the duplex could not be mediated by staff between the affected parties and the applicant, staff issued a stop work order on construction in late April 1999. When the applicants submitted an ASA application, staff initially recommended a set of"R-1 style" privacy protection measures which included: 1) privacy landscaping per the R-! plant list, 2) obscure glass windows and 3) an architectural planter box to block the line of sight from the applicant's master bedroom to the neighbor's rear yard. This recommendation was rejected by the Planning Commission in favor of more restrictive measures to protect privacy'(,gee Pltmning Commission Issues). Applicant Issues: The applicant, Mr. Chieh, stated the objectives of his ASA application were to: 1) provide an addition of two bedrooms, 1 bath and 1 family room to accommodate his 2 children and out-of-the-area in-laws; 2) minimize disturbance of unit B where the Chiehs are currently and the other set of in-laws reside); 3) control construction costs by using some of the former layout and structures; and 4) maintain the integrity of the duplex. The applicant discussed the various design alternatives suggested by the neighbors and explained why each of them did not meet their needs. The first alternative was a one-story addition in the courtyard which would net only about 300 square feet because of building coverage restrictions and awkward arrangement of rooms. The second alternative would consolidate unit A & B into a single unit and build the second unit above the garage and the old unit B. This alternative did not work 'tbr the Chiehs because the in-laws that would be living in unit B are elderly and not in good health which would make it difficult to climb the stairs daily. The third alternative would move the in- laws to the existing unit A and build a larger dwelling out of unit B over the garage and a portion of unit B. This alternative was also rejected by the Chiehs based on Commission direction to limit the size of the second story square footage base on the first story unit. Neighbor Issues: One neighbor, the Adelmans, who reside on El Prado Way, have prepared a more detailed appeal letter dated July 14, 1999 (Exhibit C) through their attorney Owen Byrd. The letter states why the ASA findings cannot be made and thus the reasons why their appeal should be granted. Staff has prepared comments on each assertion made in the Adelman appeal letter. IA.The project at the proposed location will be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity because of a substantial loss of privacy to surrounding neighbors, loss of direct'and indirect natural light to neighbors and to heat pool, imposition of artificial light at night, and unbuffered noise from the second story addition. Staff Comments: Privacy design features have been required in the project to an even greater extent than required in the'R-1 zoning district. Measures include privacy land~'caping; windows with high window sills, obscured glass, minimum sized openings and/or fixed or reverse awning window types and rearrangement of floor plan. There will be some blockage of direct sunlight to neighbors caused by the privacy lqndscaping, not the building. The building height will be reduced to a little mbre than 23./bet (30./bet is allowed in an R-2 zoning district). The perceived building height to the Adelmans will be actually 19feet since the project site is 4feet lower than the western neighbors. The same privacy landscaping that blocks some direct sunlight will block the art!/icial night light the ' neighbors are concerned about. Staff is not sure what type of potential second-story noises the neighbor finds objectionable. Solar heating of the pool is not an issue. The effective height of the proposed building is ! 9./bet, which is setback 20+feet from the property line and 25+feet from the pool and wouM not cast shadows on the pool. The privacy landscaping may cast some morning shadows on the pool hut the pool is more effectively heated by noontime and afternoon sunlight which is nol a pro./ect issue since it is located to the east of these neighbors. IAI. Reversing the second-floor bedroom and bathroom will not mitigate the privacy impacts because there will still be a bathroom window. Staff Comments: Staff does not agree with the appellant's argument regarding the loss of privacy. Flipping the floor plan to put the master bedroom on the east side and the bathroom and walk-in closet on the west side toward the neighbors is a major improvement in heighhor privacy because you substitute a larger bedroom window for a smaller bathroom window which is required to have a sill height of 5 '6" per Condition #2 of Planning Commission Resolution #5049. The tallest member of the Chieh househoM is 5 'I1 ". The required window sill height is 6 inches taller than required in the R-1 ordinance. lA2. The proposed landscaping will not mitigate the privacy impacts because landscaping near the fence is in a wire clearance easement and must be pruned to a 15-foot height which reduces its screening value. ! Staff Comments: The Planning Commission did not require the applicant lo move the privacy landscaping closer to the duplex because that area was 4feet lower than the adjacent properties and it would take longer for the vegetation to grow to an adequate height lo a.[]brd any screening effect. The appellants have also misread the PG&E wire clearance easement, which limits buildings and structures, not vegetation, to no more than 15feet in the easement area. While it may not be desirable to have 15+feet tall vegetation in the easement area, it is not prohibited. There are numerous examples of trees in the neighborhood, on the applicant :~' properly and on the appellant's property which are more than 15+feet tall and in the wire clearance easement area. In situations involving low voltage lines like these and mature vegetation, P. G & E. 's policy is to prune, rather than, remove trees. lA3. The project will cause a reduction in the Adelman's property value of at least 10% which is detrimental and injurious. Staff Comments: Staff are not realtors or appraisers and are not qualm/led to evaluale spec~/ic decreases or increases in value. We know however that many factors, including general economic conditions, affect housing values and that realtors/appraisers during the R-! zoning amendment hearings made just the opposite argument that the lack of ability to add a second story to a dwelling (square footage) will also decrease property values. lB. The project proposes an abrupt change in building scale and will result in an abrupt transition in height and bulk between new and existing buildings. Staff Comments: In staff's opinion, a new two-story duplex in a neighborhood of moslly, one- and some two-story duplexes is not "an abrupt change in building scale ". The proposed building height of 23 '2" to the ridge of the roof is modest considering the maximum height in the R-2 zoning district is 30feet and the lower grade difference to the easterly neighbors o./'4 feet. Contrary to the appellant 's opinion, staff believes the hipped roof makes a significant difference in the mass of the structure which is a function of its height, length and width. Typically, a partial flag lot situation, such as the applicant's lot, makes it d~fficult to relate the design to so many affected lots (6 in this case), but staff feels the applicant has done a superior job in mitigating privacy effects and mass. The multitude of affected lots is however not unique in this R-2 subdivision;for example, the adjacent property, 10322 Degas C'ourl, abuts 5 duplexes and 10311 Lockwood Drive abuts 5 duplex properties as well. The appellants have misinterpreted staff comments with respect to the inapplicability finding 2a to the project (Exhibit F). Staff asserts that ~lSA finding 2a (CML' Section 19.134.080) which states: "~lbrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. ~ gradual transition rektled ' to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings. "does not apply lo this particular project because it is based on General Plan Policy 2-25, strategy #5 (Exhibit F) which states: "Generally, abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. ~4 more gradual transition between buildings of one and two stories and low-rise to-mid-rise buildings should, be achieved using three-story and four-sto'ry buildings at the edge of the pro./ect site." ThL¥ ASA finding was meant to apply to development sttuations where there were high-rise buildings proposed next to one- and two-story buildings not a situation where a two-story building is proposed next to a one-story building. lC1, 1C2, & 1C3. The location and height of the walls will not harmonize with adjacent development because the project does not comply with the new R-1 development standards. Staff Comments: It would be difficult to "harmonize" the second story walls with adjacent development since all of the abutting duplexes are one-story in height. Recognizing this. the Planning Commission directed the applicant to use the R-1 development standard¥ as a guide in modifying the design of the duplex even though the property is zoned R-2. In addition, the Commission directed that the applicant to use a more restrictive formula./hr 2nd story square footage to 1st story square'_footage. The net effect is a 2nd story to 1st story square.]bolage ratio of21.1% in lieu of the R-1 maximum of 35%. The comparisons are summarized in Table 2 o./'the June 14th staff report. In most other aspects the approved duplex design meets or exceeds the R-I standards except for: 1) second story side setbacks (36.58' vs. 45 ') and 2) maximum one- story height without second-story-type setback (14.5' vs. 12' (former standard was 15 ')). Contrary to appellant's statement, the approved duplex meets the 'R-I standard of having 50% of the perimeter second story wall offset a minimum of 4 feet from the first story wall plane. 1 C4. The three existing second-story duplexes in the neighborhood have greater second-story setbacks, fewer rooms, less square footage and are located on comer lots which is further evidence that the project will not harmonize with adjacent development. Staff Comments: Staff did not have time to research completely the sizes and room counts o./'the other 2-story duplexes at 22861 Medina Lane, 10303 Degas Court and 22753 I/oss ,~venue. The duplexes on Medina Lane and Degas Court appear smaller than the project but the one on k'oss Avenue is definitely larger. Records show a 4,809 square foot, two-story duplex with a 55% F.A.R. For the sake of comparison the appealed Degas Ct. duplex is. proposed at 4, 364 square feet with a 47.2% F.A.R. The garage square footages do not appear to be in the appellant's duplex comparisons. ID. Lighting will spill-over and impact adjoining property owners. Staff Comments: As previously stated, privacy landscaping that inhibits views into surrounding properties will also act to alleviate nighttime light intrusion. 1E. The design of this new project in an existing residential neighborhood will not protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects. Staff Comments: The duplex addition is for an extended family which includes both sets o./'in- laws. Light and visual effects have already been addressed in previous comments. ,gta./f is still unsure what additional noise the appellant finds offensive. The garage is not being expanded, so staff is unsure what significant amount of new traffic will be generated. II. & IV. If the findings can not be made for this project, then this project must be denied. Thc illegal partial construction to date should not influence the Council to approve the project. Staff Comments: In reference to the June 14th staff report, the City Attorney advised the Commission that a second story on the property cannot be denied carte blanche unles.v the Commission were to make findings that the applicant could not mitigate privacy and des(~,,n issues. The City Attorney emphasized that the primary objective of the Architectural and ,q'ile Approval process is to evaluate design related mitigation measures such as greater building setbacks, wing walls, window shutters and non-transparent glass. Planning Commission Issues The Planning Commission majority concluded that the applicant met the Commission's direction given at its meeting of May l0th and approved the ASA application on a 3-1-1 vote (.Doyle dissenting and Harris absent). Commissioner Doyle, who was not present at the May i 0u' meeting, stated that he hoped the neighborhood could work things out. He stated that the second story should be rendered invisible as much as possible. He stated more work needed to be done and could not support the present proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the appeals be denied and that the approval of application no. 4-ASA-99 be supported. Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5049 Approved Plans Exhibit A: Chieh appeal letter Exhibt B: Adelman (Owen Byrd) appeal letter Exhibit C: Revised Adelman (Owen Byrd) appeal letter Exhibit D: Planning Commission staff report dated May 10, 1999 Exhibit E: Planning Commission staff report dated June 14, 1999 Exhibit F: ASA finding and General Plan Policy on "Abrupt Changes in Scale" Composite Plan (Original submittal and recommended plan set) Planning Commission meeting minutes for May 10~ and June 14th, 1999 Neighbor Petition Reviewed by: Approved by: Robert S. Cowan Director of Community Development City Manager G:planning/pdreport/cc/ccchieh 4-ASA-99 MODEL RESOLUTION CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 5049 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AKCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPKOVAL TO CONSTKUCT A 1016 SQUARE FOOT .ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX SECTION I: PKOJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: 4-ASA-99 Applicant: Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh (David Pemg, Architect) Location: 10333 Degas Court SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in this Kesolution; and WHEREAS, the proposed duplex expansion, as modified by conditions attached hereto, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, general welfare or convenience; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with' the general plan, including policies 2-18 through 2-20 relative to privacy protection, and complies with the Duplex Kesidential (K-2) zoning ordinance, and adheres to the following specific criteria a. The maximum height of the duplex is 23 feet, 2" versus 30 feet allowed by ordinance and the finish grade of the building site is 3',4' lower than the finish grade of adjoining properties located to the west. Additionally, most wall lines of the second story addition are offset from the first floor wall lines. The use of hip roofs reduces visua! mass.These factors mitigate the potential for an abrupt change in scale between one story and two story buildings. b. The materials, texture, and colors of the building harmonize with surrounding buildings. The proposed landscaping will reduce exposure of two story walls to adjoining neighbors which will enable the structure to harmonize with the existing neighborhood. The use of fixed windows and obscured glass will further reduce the pttential for privacy intrusion. Resolution No. 5049 4-ASA-99 June 14, 1999 Page 2 c. The new addition will not result in increase noise, traffic, light, and visual intrusion because of the use of buffering, larger than required side yard setbacks, landscaping, and through use of visual barriers and obscured glass. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of plans, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Application No. 4-ASA-99 is hereby approved. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is granted based upon the plan set labeled "Mr. & Mrs. Chieh Addition", sheets A-lC through A-3C'labeled 6/8/99 and color board as may be modified by additional conditions contained herein. .~':;~: ;,2. ARCHITECTUR~ The sill height of the exterior window for the West facing master bath shall be increased 6" (5'6" from floor). 2. LANDSCAPE The applicant shall comply with the privacy protection requirements contained in the R-1 ordinance including appendix A and B. A single tree shall be planted in the vision cone for the west-facing window for bedroom #4: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14t~ day of June, 1999, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok, Stevens NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Doyle - ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Harris ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Robert S. Cowan /s/ David Doyle Robert S. Cowan, Director of David Doyle, Chairman Community Development Cupertino Planning Department g/planning/r~/4asa992 Exhibit .A RECEIVED' ].une 21, 1999 Mayor Wally Dean and Cou:'~eii~ernbers City of Cupe~ino 10300 Torte Avenue Cuperfno, CA 9502-~ Re: Appeal of PIannln§ C,)mmission Approval of 10333 Deg.~s Court, 4-ASA-99 And Request for Con,:in,,ance Dear IVlayor Dean and Coun,.-ikne~ers: '% This off~ce represents 1VIr. I'{,:nry Adelman and Dr. Nancy Adelman, property owners and residents of 10334A E1 Prad,3 Way, adjacent [o the above-referenced p'roperry. This letter shall serve as the Adelrnans' request for the City Counc~l ro hear their appeal of the Planning Commissmn's app coral of the above-referenced Architectural Size Approval application, pursuan[ ro Cu ~ernno Zoning Code Sections 19. I36.020 and 19.136.060. The Adeimans'assert that the Pla nning Corva~ussion erred in rnakin~ the findm§s required to suppor¢ approval of the application. In an interesrin§ procedural twist, on ]'u.ne 16~' the applicants f%led their own appeal of the Planixin~ Cornnxissiott d~ion in their favor, conditioned upon the City's receip~ of an additional appea] by an a§~r[eved neighbor, in order to advance the lrera to the City Council as promptly as possfl~le. Though such an appeal does not appear ~o be allowed by the City's Zonin~ Code, Cky staff we=,~ ahead and a~endized the appeal for a hearin~ before the City Council on July 6, 1999. The Adelmans respectfully request that the appeal hearing on rbas matter be continued until July 19'~, which is the next City C. oundl hearing after ~uly 6'. This request i~ made for two reasons: 1) I am unavailable to repre:~enz the Adelmans on the evening of July 6 ' because I have a previously scheduled hearing to attend for a different client in a different city; and 2) Dr. AdeLman is on call zhat evez, ing in her med/cal practice and may thus be unable to attend. Dr. Adelman and I are availabR, on ]'uly 19~. Thank you for your conside:-ation of these appeal and continuance requests. Owen Byrd c.c.: Mr. I-Ien~/Adelma~ ar,d Dr. N'anc¥ A.d.elman O?'14'gg 14:46 FRO~ T-I?Z P.OZ/Og F-434 Exhibit C LAW OFI:ICE$ Of; OWEN BYRd:) P/~.O ALTO. C^~JFOKN~, g~.30~-~2'0~ July I,~, 1999 Ma¥o~ Waily Dean and Cou~,:ilmembers City of ~upernno 10300 Torre Aven~e Cuperdno, ~A 95024 Re: Appeal of Planning Ce.remission Approval of 10333 Degas Court, 4-ASA-g9 Dear Mayor Dean and Counc.ilmembets: This office represents Mt. Hel~y Adelman and Dr. Nancy Adelman, property owners and residents of 20334 El Prado Way, adjacent to ].0333 Degas Cou~t. The Adelmans respectfully request that the City Council grant their appeal and deny approval of the second-story addition at 10333 Degas Cou::.t propos~ed by Mr. Erh-Kong Chieh and Ms. Ding-Wei Chieh.. 1. THE REQUIRED FINDII~iGS CANNOT BE MADE TO SUPPORT ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN APPI~C',~VA£ OF THE PROJt[CT Section 19.134.080 of the Zon lng Code requires that certain findings be made m order for project to be approved. The Adelmans assert that the fmdm~ cannot be made for the project and that it must, therefore, b~: demed. A. The Projgct. ar the ~'~-opo::~,d Locating. Will be Detrimenta! or Tr~juriou~ to Pro~er~ in the The project will cause a substimtial loss of pnvacy by the surrounding neighbors, who wLU have a large two-story structure lo.;~ming over them. The p~oiect will also cause the loss of direct sunlight and L,~dltect natural Iight for its neighbors, will impose artificial light impacts at night, and will subject neighbors to ~,mbuffered noise emanating from the second-story addition. The loss o[ direct sunlight will be ~specially injurious to the Aclelmans, because the water in their backyard pool is heated by solar energy and the project will prevent direct sunlight from reaching the pool. 1. Reversing the ~c¢;nd-Floor Bedroom anc~ Bathroom Will Not Miti_~ate the Privacy Impqct The modifications that were r.~ade to the project in response to Planning Conumssion direction have not mitigated its negative privacy impacts. Reversing the second-floor bedroom and bathroom sunply exposes the Adelmans to privacy intrusion f~om the bathroom, instead of from the master bedroom. Tl:e Adelmans do not care what room a member of the Chieh household ts standing in whe..~ he or she states down into the Adelmans' bedroom and backyard. The Adelmans do not want anyone starin~ down into their bedroom and back~,ard. While the Claiehs claim that rl~e bathroom window ~ proposed just ~or light and ventilation, a window is a window, tf light: and'air can get in, eyes can see out, even with the elevated sill. O?-14-gg 14:45 FROM- T=I?R P.O3/Og F-434 Mayor Wally Dean/and Cour~dlmembers July 14, 1999 Page 2 2. The proposed La~ltscapir~g Will Not 1Viit~ate the Prtva~r Impacts The Chiehs have chosen not t.:~ follow the Plama/ng Commission's original suggest/on to locate pr/racy landscaping closer to. their building. Instead, they have proposed to locate it at the proFe_ rty line, in the PG&E e~.sement. Landscape. in the easement, hc~wever, must be pruned to a 15 foot height, which will e..;fectively prevent that landscape from having any significant screenLug varec. 3. Th9 Project W~ C.;tuse a Reduction in the Adel'mans' Proper~ Value The impacts of the project will cause actual injury to the Adelmam' property. The Adelmans recently had Coldwell Ban,ke~ perform an initial preliminary appraisal of the impact of the Chiehs' project on their proF.erty value, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.~ Coldwell Banke~ determined that up ~ l0 percent of the total value of their property could be lost. If the ~,delmans' duplex listed for $?00,000, for example, that is a teal-worldreduction in value of $70,000, which is dearly detri mental and injurious to their property, preventing the required finding from being made. B. The Project Proposes ~al~ ,!~br~4p~ Chan_~e in Building Scale and ~/ill Result in an Abrupt Transition in Height and Btt~¢ ]~r~ ~New az!d .l~xistin~ ]~ulldin_~s The prolect proposes to site .:~ tall two-story sm~cture on a flag lot that is surrounded by six one-story duplexes, or twelv,.· one-story residences. The project's location on a flag lot makes this finding especially diffic~lt to mal~, because the project must relate to so many other structures. Irt contrast, a reg,.dar interior lot with normal street frontage woulcl have fewer structures with which to blend. The hipped roof that has be~n added to the project does not mitigate the abrupt change in scale. Height and bulk are a function of the overall height of the structure, not just the shape of its roof. Because the project continues to propose a bmlcling that will be twice as tall as the surrounding homes, this fred.rog cannot be made. At the Planning Commissiorl hearing, City staff referred to General Plan Goal D, Policy 2-25, Strategy 5, on page 2-29 of tl~ e La~d Use and Community Character l~lement, to suggest that' the project will not provide a.n abrupt change in building scale. The figure that illustrates Strategy 5, however, states a preference for a transition from low buildings to taller buildings, not a preference for a tall buJ.[ding surrounded by low buildings. The Adelmans assert that the project will not comply with this section of the General Plan. C. The ! ocatig~t a~d ~eight of the Walls Will Not Uarmon~ze With Ac!lacent Development The monolithic wails of the l:,roject that will face the Adelmans will dominate the v~ew to the east from their property, to tlae excluston of all otb. er built and rtatural ~eatures. The wails of this seven-bedroom, five-batl~room duplex will not harmonize with adjacent development. They will completely overpo,~rer it. In order to protect the neighbors, the Planning Commission direct~l_ that the project comply with the City's recently revis,~ Single Family Residential Zoning (Ordinance 1808, amending Section 19.28). Not only do !:he location and height of the wails of the proposed project not harmonize with adjacent development, they do not comply with revised Section 19.28. O?-14-gg 14:47 FROM- T-17Z P.O4/Og F-4~4 , 1VIayor Wally Dean and Councilrnembers July 14, 1999 Page 3 l. The .qecozlcl-Story.Side-Yard Setbacks Will Not Meet the Exis_tin~ Single Family Residen_a~. Zor~in~;. The project will only provics., a combined second-story side yard setback of 36.58 feet (18.29 on each side), where the Zoninti: Code requires a total of 45 feet. Section 19.20.060(D)(2) and(3). 2. The ~p~.-well Heillht Will Not Meet the ~ 5'.ingle.Family .P,~.idetl. tial gequiren~ts The proposed height of the slairwell wall does not comply with the 12 foot maximum contained in The new Section 19.28.06(l(E)(1)(b)(1). 3. The [-Ieieht of the ,~,cond-Stok'y Walls Wil[ Nc~ Meet the [~vised Residen~al Zoni~li. Requirements The new rules require: '_'Fifty percent of the total perime~r length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights o! greater than 6 feet, and shall have a minimum 2 foot high overlap of the adjoining first story ata'.mst the second floor wall. The overlap shall..b~, structural and shall be offset a minimum of ~, feet trom the first story exterior wall plane.' Sechon 19.28,060(D)(5)(a). The project does not meet th:,.s requirement. The height of the second story walls appears to exceed six feet for more than half of the total perimemr length. 4. The Thre~ F_~_ ~_:g Secorlcl-Stor% l~plexos in the Neighborhood Have Greater -e-,q~ond-Sfory .Se..tl.,a~as. Fewer Rooms. l.ess Square l:ootage and are Located on Corner Lg~s The three exisdng two-story ,luplexes in dais neighborhood appear ro have greater second-story setbacks, substantially fewe~ rooms and less square footage than the proposed project, providing [urthe~ evidence rha~ the project will not harrnoni~.e with adjacen~ development. COMPARI$1Ot~[ OF TWO-STORY DUPLEXES IN NEIGHi~ORHOOD FEATURES 1i2861 22~$$ VOSS 10303 1052~3 DEGAS (UNITS A ~- B) MEDINA MEDINA (PROPOSED) Bedrooms, A 3 $ 3 Bad~oorr~, A 2 2.5 2.5 Bedroom.~_, B 2 3 2 2 Ba_throoms, t~ 1 2.5 2 2 Dinin~l Room, ~ .:,mall ~mall With Kitchen Lari~e Kitchen, A '.i~nall Small Small Large ' D~nh~ l~oom, B Wit!, Kitchen Small With Kitchen With K~tchen Kitchen, B :!;mall - Small Small Small Floor Area, A '1400 1600 1600 2375 Floor Area, B '800 1400 1050 1050 In addition, the corner lots o[x wht.'ch &e other three duplexes are located are more appropriate for second-story bulk and m.~s than rlxe .flag 1o~ at 105~$ Degas Court. One of the original 14:47 FROM'- T-i?Z P.O5/OI F-4~4 Mayoz Wally Dean and Coun.:ilmembers ]'~y 14, 1999 Page 4 developers of this subdivisiort told the Adelmans that eight t~o-story duplexes were originally proposed for this area, but the City denied all of them because the CiD' wanted to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbo rs. The City eventually allowed the developer to build two two- story duplexes on two corner lots in the neighborhood, because second-stories on comer .lots presented fewer privacy impl~cts than on interior lots. The third corner lot was later built-out with a second-story over thai; Unit's detached garage, but not over the living unit adjacent to its In contrast, this project proposes a second-story, not just on any interior lot, but on the only flag lot in the neighborhood, ~zhere the privacy m~pacts will be maximized, not minimized. D, Li~htin~ Will Spill-Over ~nd Impact ,a, djoinin_e Propertlt Owners The height of the proposed l:,roject, combined with its location on a flag lot, will cause artificial light m intrude on all the surrounding residences. t:. The De~i_en of This New ]~roiect in an Existing Residetati4l Neiehborhood Will NQt Protect Residents from Noise. Tral~fi,:'. l.i_~ht and Visually lntk-ttsjve Hi(ec!~ ' The project imposes all the.si, impacts on all the nearby residents. Because the project will contain substantially more b,i:droorns and bathrooms than any other duplex in the neighborhood, it will bY i~s own design, enable more people to live there, generating mom noise, traffic, light and visual inu-u:iion. II. IF THE FINDINGS CAb;NOT BE MADE I~OR THIS PROJI~CT, THI~N TH!~ PROJECT MUST BE DENIED At the Planning Comrrussion heating, there appeared to be some ccn~usion among Planning Commissioners regarding thl.~ir authorit3r to deny the project. At least one Commissioner expressed the opinion that tl.~ Architectural and S~te Design findings did not provide an opportunity to deny a second-story addition, but only to address issues such as color, materials, and the shape anti location of architectural features that could mitigate privacy impacts. The two-story configuration of the project, however, is an integral part oi~its design and causes the impacts float ~.,esult in the inability to make rim required findings. If the findings cannot be made for this slm:ific project, then this specific project must be denied. Whil~ the Adelmans believe, at this time. that it is not possible to lrlake the findings for se¢ond-stgry addition ~.0 thi.'i, proper~y, thai broader i~sue i~ l~ot before the Ci~ Co_u-nci!. ola this ilp. p.t~. If this project is den:md, the C~i_ 'ehs retain the right to submit a different second-story project. The Chiehs could p~ropose to locate the majority of an addition on the first floor and a portion on the second floor. Alternatively, they could propose to locate a second-story addition over tim existing gl:rage, or over Unit B, on the southern portion of the existing duplex. IH. A SINGLE-STORY ADDITION COULD MI~£T THE CHIEHS' I',I£EDS AND AVOID IMPACTING THEIR NF. IG,ItBORS At the request of their neigh!~ors, the Chiehs' prepared two conc _eptual massing studies ~or single-story additions. Thel;e studies prove that a City Council dbcision to deny the second- story addition, becau~ o~ ~.e inability to ~ the design review Rndingr, would not prevent the. Chiehs ~om expanding Ihei~ duplex.. 07'!4'99 14:48 FROM' T-172 P.06/09 F'434 lVlayor Wally Dean and Coun~.'flmembers July 1999 Page 5 At the neighborhood meetinl];, the Chiehs rejected these single-story alternatives, in part because they believed that the 330 ad..iirional square footage that they are allowed under the R-2 site coverage rules would not pfc.vide them with sufficient additional space. While their massing studies suggest that 330 squa re feet in fact could work, the Chiehs also did not consider whether the findings could b,;: made to support a variance to increase their site coverage ' maximum from 40°/° to 4.5%. Such a variar,.ce would provide them with 807 potential new square feet, instead of 330 sq?are feet. This development potential would be substantially equivalent to the 921 square ~eet of new development proposed in their application, and would not have to accommodate a stairwell, interestingly, new Single Family Residential Zone Section 19.28.060(A) increases lot coverage for that zone from 40% to 45%, perhaps to encourage single-story additions. It maizes httle sense for the City to allow 45%1ot coverage for single family residences, but to restrict duplexes to 40% lot coverage. The Adelmans' believe that the variance fiztdings required[ by Section 19.124.080 could be made, and they would support suc~t a variance request if made by the Chieha. Specifically, (1) The flag lot presents exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply to other properties in the same distri.;t, (2) The variance would prevent unreasonable loss or hardship and, perhaps most importanI.ly, (3) The variance would not be demmental or injurious to property in the vicinity. In f~tct, it would prevent the injury to property in the vicinity that a second-story addition wouk! cause. The Adelmans' urge the City Council both to deny the current application and to invite the Chiehs to submit an applica~:ion for a single-story project with a variance for increased site coverage. IV. THE ILLEGAL PARTIAL CONSTRUCTION TO DATE SHOULD NOT INFLUENCE THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE 1'HE PRO~ECT The City issued a btulding p.:..rmit and the Chiehs began construction without this required Architectural and Site Revie,~r. At this point, who is to blame for that mistake - the City for not alerting the Chiehs, or the Cidehs for not reading the Code - is less important than preventing an even greater mistake. W ~le the Adelmans believe that it would be a mistake to approve the proposed design, City staff oppears worried that the City might bear liability to the Chiehs if the approval is not granted. The Adelmans request that lhe C~ty Council make its decision to deny the application based on the findings, and that ~t not .~pprove the project, even with mitigations, in an attempt to redress any perceived harm to the C'.hiehs caused by the issuance of a building permit prior to Architectural and Site Review. In fact, if any Count! _member believes that he or she canr,.ot vote to deny the application beca.use it would be unfair to the Chiehs, given the partial consu-uction to date, that Councilmembec has a responsibility to acknowledge that bias and recuse him_self or herself from voting. What matters is what will b.., built, not what has been illegally built so fat. For the Adelmans, the only silver lining in the :mauthorized construction that has occurred to date is that the partial framing of the secon.i-storlr outhnes, better than any architectural elevation ever could, just how imposing this stm~:rure will be. 07-14-6g 14:49 FRO~I- T-I?Z P.O?/Og F-434 Mayor Wall¥ Dean and Coun~;i!__members / July 14, 1999 l~age 6 V, TI-II! NEIGHilORHOOD OVERWHI!LMINGL¥ OPPOSES THE PROJECT The Adelmans request that the City Coundl take note of the depth of opposition to the Chiehs' project/n the nei~borh~d. ~. petition signed by over 100 nearby residents opposing the project has previously been s:~bmitted to the Ciw by the Adelmans. The depth of opposition to ~ project is/llustrated on tI~e neighborhood w. ap atrachecl hereto as Exhibit "13," which identifies where the people ~'ho signed the petition either l/ye or own property. While design review should not be just a popularity contest, it is worth noting that when the City Council extended Archil.ectural and Site Review to R-2 disr~ic'ts, it did so to provide these R-2 residents with the same 12*vel of compatibility review enjoyed by R-1 neighborhoods. As the map and the petition indicat/l., the residents of th/s nei~borhoocl do not believe that the Chiehs' project/s compat/ble with th.~: place that they call home. VI, CONCLUSION For the reasons sta~ed above, the Adelmans respectfully request that the CiD' Council grant their appeal and deny apprc.val of the proposed second-story addii/on at 10333 Degas Court, based on an inability to makt: the recluired f/ridings. Respectfully, /3 Owen Byrd c.c.: Mr. Hem'y Adelman and Dr. Nancy Adelman O?-t4-gg 14:46 FROM' %172 P.08/06 F'434 i WANTED TO SUMMiI~!~-r MY VI~"WINO OF YOUR PR~R~? TO~Y. ~ ~OA ~ ~[~OX C~D~TION ~ YOUR P~P~ ~U~I~ ~ THE ~E::K, ~G YOUR VIEWS ~O ~RU~U~ ~OC~C: YO~ VIEW& ~W C~ TO YOUR Y~ ~ B~K ~KATQGA, ~ g50~0 t~Al~aJ~l~ Exhibit D Hc y 10 st( ff report DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPLICATION NO.(S): 4-ASA-99 APPLICANT: Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei & Chieh LOCATION: 10333 Degas Court PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential 5-10 DU per acre Zoning Designation: Residential Duplex R2-4.25 (4,250 sq.ft, land area/dwelling unit) Lot Area Net: 9,235 sq. ft. Building Area Existing: 3,340 sq.ft. Lot Area Gross: -9,873 sq. ft. (with flag, not half street) Building Area Proposed: 974 sq.tl. Existing FAR: 36.2% Total Building Area: 4,314 sq.ft. Proposed FA.R: 46.7% Building Height: 25 feet ' "~L'~' APPLICATION SUMMARY: The applicants' request is to seek approval of an Architectural Site Approval application to authorize the construction of a 974 square foot addition to an existing duplex. The City of Cupertino inadvertently issued a building permit for the building and therefore a portion of the building addition has already been constructed without having undergone architectural and site approval review. The subject application is intended to remedy that situation. BACKGROUND: Orctmance ~ect~on 19.32.090 requires Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) review fbr new construction in a duplex zone. On February 22, the Department of Community Development issued a building permit for th.e subject duplex. The requirement of ASA review was overlooked. Staff became aware of the problem following contact from a neighboring property owner who inquired about the construction activity (Exhibit A describes the relationship of the applicant's property to 'surrounding properties) In mid April, staff scheduled a meeting with the applicant and owners of property located to the west (rear of the subject duplex). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible solutions to potential privacy problems. As a result of internal staff meetings. Staff was under the impression that the city Could not stop work and. both parties were informed. There was an initial agreement to explore switching second story bedroom space and bathroom space to have less window exposure to the west. The applicant determined that the switch was not acceptable. Subsequent attempts to reach a satisfactory solution, including an additional meeting on site and two meetings at City Hall, were unsuccessful which lead the City Attorney to determine that the building permit.would be suspended pending review and approval of an ASA application. R2 ZONING REGULATIONS: Unhke the 1<1 zoning ordinance, the R2 ordinance does not contain specific development standards relative to privacy protection. The ordinance contains conventional setback and height regulations to control building location and mass. Last month, the Planning Commission ! approved a two story duplex for a site on Vista Drive and Forest Avenue. The commission recognized that the R2 ordinance did not contain privacy requirements and accordingly look to the R1 standards to control privacy via tree planting. Since R1 privacy prdtection standards may provide guidance in the subject application, a comparison between R1 and R2 standards follows: Table 1 - Comparison orR1 and R2 Standards ............. ~ .......~i, '~va~'~/;- .... -~' ....... ~i."~.~.:~.~,~. ..... : ~' -' .... ~r~!-'--~ ' ": ..... ~ ...'~.~:~':"...';~. ~'.~,~:'.~;' .'i ........ .: .~'~:' ':. . · .... · ~/ ~ :~-;~:' ~!~/~~~~.:..~..~.:, ..~:,.,:..~:;., :..:.,?.~.~...R2,.,. ............ .~T/r'A~,J~./~.~ ~'~'{I~~~~~.;.~..~.. ~.:.,...>:.. :...~ ~......~.. ~ ..~.~,~.~,. .... .. Height 28 f~et 30 ~et Front Setback 20 t~et (l~tstory) 20 feet 25 feet (2na story) + surcharge Rear Setback 20 I~et (1"t story) l0 t~et (1~` story) 25 feet (2nd story) 20% of lot depth (2nd story) Side Setback 5'/10' (1~t story) 20% of lot width (I,~ story), min. 6 I~i~et 10'/10' ('2nd StOry) + surcharge 20% of lot width + ,3 t~et (2,,a story), m in. 9 Ii:et FAR 45% (> 35% & 2 stories needs No requirement archite~-tural review Design - 2''a Story Mass 50% of 2"a story walls must be No reqmrement offset 4' from extra 1 st story walls and be 6' or less or less in height. The remaining 50% of walls must be art. iculated every 24' of lineal wall Privacy Tree planting uses 30 degree visual No requirement cone for 2~d story Windows for rear and sides. Side yard window cannot align with No requirement 2nd story windows on adjoining properties Applicants Proposal 'l'he applicant proposes to use elements of the R1 ordinance to solve the privacy problem. 'Fhe applicant prepared two options labeled A and B. The building space/height, and setbacks remain constant for both plans. Option (plan) A utilizes trees to solve the problem and B uses a faux deck in front of the west facing master bedroom window to provide a physical barrier to prevent views into adjoining property. Exhibit B is a sight line diagram which describes how the barrier will function. The exact height of the "deck" rail' would be established in the field based upon the degree of privacy protection approved by the Planning Commission. The west- facing hemisphere shaped window located in a stairwell will be glazed with obscure glass. Privacy protection for the remaining west facing second story bedroom window will be provided with tree screening. The south facing bedroom windows will be obscure. The east fhcing upper story window will be regular glass with privacy protection provided by tree screening. Evaluation: Stal-t recommends the Planning Commission approach this application based upon the assumption that construction has not started. However, staff does not recommend that the Planning Commission take the position that a two story building can be rejected. The two-story design, could be rejected if the applicant falls to comply with ordinance requirements and cannot demonstrate feasible mitigation measures. The City utilizes a 'T' zone to restrict second story construction. The subject site is in a R2 zone, not R2i. Three two-story buildings currently exist in the general duplex neighborhood. Please refer to Exhibit A. The ASA process is intended to control design in order to ensure the preservation of the neighborhood harmony. The Commission should focus on design, shape, color, materials, landscaping and other qualitative elements (Section 19.134.010) The development proposal,places the second story element on the unit occupied by the applicant, who is located on the western half of the site. While it is possible to place a second story over the adjoining second unit to the east, it would not meet the owners objective and it would place living space next to adjoining property owners located to the south which enjoy less setback and less grade difference. (The grade of the properties to the west are approximately 3 to 4 [eet higher) It would also be possible to place the second story space over the garage. However this would also not meet the owners objective to add on to their living space (duplex unit) and it would place living space over a garage which would eliminate the potential to consolidate lower floor and upper space in a compact living arrangement. Had the application been submitted for ASA review prior to initiation of construction, staff would have treated the review similarly to the aforementioned recently approved duplex on Vista Drive. The applicants proposal to locate the second story over the existing floor space that the owners occupy is valid as long as the.R2 development standards are met and findings contained in the ASA ordinance can be made. Compliance with R2 Development Standards Exlaltnt C compares the reqmred and proposed setbacks. The proposed side yard setbacks are in excess of that required. The rear setback depicted on the site plan is in compliance. However,' staff measurement of the northwest comer of the building to the rear fence line indicates that the building is approximately 8 inches closer to the rear (west) fence line than described on the plan. In the case of residential additions, fence lines are assumed to be correctly located on common property lines. Exhibit C describes the deviation between the plan information and field measurement. The deviation results in a small triangular shaped incursion into the setback. The setback can be brought into compliance by creating an indentation in the building. The depth · and width would be determined in the field. The probable effect is a depth of 4"-8" and a width of 3'. The building height is 25 feet which is 5 feet below the maximum allowed. The grade difference between the properties to the west and the subject property is approximately 3-4 feet, which reduces the perceived height of the building as viewed from the west. The applicant proposed to use the same-paint color (beige/tan color) for the body over a dark color brown trim. The composition roof will be a dark brown color. Samples will be available at the meeting. Compliance with RI Design and Privacy Standards ~mce tlae R-2 orctmance does not contam privacy standards, the Commission recently used R- ! privacy standards relative to tree placement to conditionally approve the aforementioned Vista Drive and Forest Avenue duplex. The applicant proposed option A describes the application oi' the R-1 tree planting approach. The use of obscured windows on the south bedrooms resolves the side yard window alignment standard contained in the R-1. The incorporation of other obscured glass and the faux deck approach would exceed R-1 privacy requirements. In terms of building mass, the proposal would not comply with the 50% reduced wall height rule because the first floor to second floor offsets on the south and west elevations are less than [bur feet. However, the use of (~ffsets in general softens the building mass. RECOMMENDATION: ~talI recommencts approval of the application subject to a combination of the privacy control mechanisms depicted on staff Exhibit labeled "Staff Composite Plan", which is a composite of the applicant's proposal labeled A & B. The approval is based upon recommended findings and conditions contained in the model resolution. Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A: Property Ownership & Existing Two-Story Duplexes Exhibit B: Degas Court/E1 Prado Way Sight Line Diagram Exhibit C: Rear Setback Analysis for 10333 Degas Court Plan Set Municipal Code Chapter 19.134 Architectural & Site Review Municipal Code Chapter 19.32 Residential Duplex (R-2) zones Ordinance 1799: Privacy Protection General Plan excerpts on privacy protection '""":'~ Vista Drive/Forest Avenue Duplex Site Plan and Elevations · . ';:.., Approved bY: Robert S. Cowan, Director of Community Development pl~nnin g/pdr~porl/pc/4 ~99 EXHIBIT A; Property Ownership and Existing Two-Story Duplexes .... ,---, , '"' . ~t I ,~ I I I · I I ~ I , . ~~ ...~ .. i ., ', ~ I ,~ ', ' . ....... ~ ~ ; ~ ~_ .~ .,. - ~ , ~ ~ 33~~Eol UO ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ TR. ~9 4]~B AVE. . 19.134.010 Chapter 19.134 19.134.020 Authority of the Planning ..-- Commission. ARCMITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW' Subject to the provisions of this chapter and to the general purpose and intent of this rifle, the Plan- Sections: ning Commission shall review the architectural and 19.1:34.010 Purposes. site design, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new 19.134.020 Authority of the Planning development, redevelopment, or modification in Commission. such zones where such review is required or when 19.1:34.030 Application for architectural required by a condition to a use permit, variance, or and site approval, any other entitlement of use. (Oat 1791 § 1 (part), 19.134.040 Action by the Director. '1998) 19.134.050 Notice or consideration. 19.134.060 Action by the ?lamaing 19.1:34.030 Application for architectural and · , Commission--Appeals. site approval. 19.1:34.070Limitations regarding Planning A. When architectural and site review is not part ~ __ Commission decisions, of another application for development, a separate 19.134.080 Findings and conditions, application for such review shall be made by the 19.1:34.090 Revocation, extensions, and owner of record of property for which the approval duration, is sougim 19.134.100 Reports. B. The application shall .t~ made to the Director, on a form provided by the City, and shall comaln " Prior o,~m= m,u~: o~. 177s. th~ following: 1. A descripflon and map showing the location 19.134.010 Purposes. of the property for which thc review is sought; This chapter is hereby enacted to provide for an 2. Detailed plans as required by thc Director orderly process to review the architectm'al ~nd site showing the proposed development or changes to designs of buildings, structures, signs, li.ghfing, ~md occur on the property; landscaping for prescribed types of land develop- 3. Such additional information as the Director merit within the City in order to promote the goals may deem pertinent and essential to the applicatio.n. ~and objectives contained in the' Genera/Plan, to C. Any such applic.~rion for review shall be protect and stabilize, property values for the general accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council welfare of the City, to maintain the character and resolution, no part of which shall be r~fon~i. (Ord. integrity of neighborhoods by promoting high start- 1791 § I (part), 1998) dards for development in harmony therewith, and by -~' preventing the adverse effects associated with new 19.134.040 Action by the Director. construction by giving proper a~nflon to the. de- Unless otherwise provided by Section 19.04.090 sign, shape, color, materials, landscaping and other regardhag combined applications, the following qualitative elements related to the design of develop- actions shall be taken by the Direct. or to process an menu and thereby creating a positive and mcmora- application under this chapter. ble image of Cupertino. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) A. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director shall, within thirty days from the date the .. application is deemed complete, canse the applica- tion ID be agendized for consideration before thc Planning Commission a~ a regular or special meet- I9:134.040 Lng, unless the application is diverted for admir~fstra- 4. Reference to the application on file for partic- tire approval, pursuant to Sec~on 19.132.030. Con- ulars; sideration of the application by the Planning Corn- ~. A statement ~ any interested person, or mission shall commence forty-five days of the date agent thereof may appear and be heard. it is set. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) Typo~oraphical errors in the notice shall not inval- idate the notice flor any City action related thereto. 1!}.134.050 Notice of consideration. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (pan), 1998) Mailed written notice of consideration of any application under this chapter by the Planning Corn- 19.134.060 Action by the Planning mission shall be given by the Director to all owners Commission--Appeals. of record of real property (as shown ia the last A. At the time and place set for consideration of assessment roll) which abut the subject property, as the application, the Planning Commission shall well as property, and its abuttin,.g properties to the consider evidence for or against the application. left and fight, directly opposite the subject property Within a reasonable time after conclusion of its and located across a street, way, highway or alley, consideration, the Commission shall make fmdin~ Mailed notice shall include owners of property and shall render a derision regarding the application whose oi;iI~ contiguity to the subject site is a single which is supported by the evidence contained in the point_ Said notice shall be mailed by first class mall application or presented at the meeting. The decision at least ten days prior to the Planning Commission of the Planning Commission is subject to appeal as meeting inwhichthe application wiIlbe consiliered, provided in Chapter 19.136. (Ord. 1791 § I (pan), If the Director of Commullity Development believes 1998) the project may have negative effects beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly negative 19.134.070 Limitations regarding Planning effects on nearby residential areas, the Director, in Commission decisions. his discretion, may expand noticing beyond the Inits consideration of arohitectural and site appli- st~t-d requirements, cations, the Plarming Commission iS limited to Compliance with the notice proves, ions get forth considering and rendering decisions solely upon the in this section shall Constitute a good-faith effort toissues described in Section"19.134.020 and is pre- provide notice, and the failure to provide notice, and cluded fwm considering or x~ndering decisions ~ the failure of any person to r/ceive notice, shall nst regarding other planning, .zoning, or subdivision :"' prevent the City from'proceeding to consider or to issues with respect to the subject property unless take action with respect to an application under this said application is combined with th.~ aplpropriate chapter, application or appll:cations wba'ch ~dre~.s those B. The notice of consideration shall contain the additional issues. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part~, 1998) following: 1. The exact address of the property, if known, 19.134.080 Findings and conditions. or the location of the property, if the address is not A. The Planning Commission may approve an known, and the existing zoning district or districts application only if all of the following findings are applicable; made: 2. The ~ime, date, place, and purpose of the 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will consideration; not be detrimental or injurious to property or ira- 3. A brief description, the content of which shall provements in the vicinity, and will not be detriment- be in the sole discretion of the City, of the proposed tal to the public health, safety, general welfare, or project; convenience; 588-99 19.134,080 2. The.,proposal is consistent with ~ purposes B. The Commission may impose mason~le .z ...... of this cl~pter, the General Plan, any specific plan, conditions or r~su'ic~ions which it deems ncc~ss~y zoning ordinances, applicable conditional use per- to s~cum the purposes of the General Plan, and this mits, v. ariances, subdivision maps or other entitle- t/fie and to assum that the proposal is compatible menu to us= which mgula~..the subject property with existing and potential uses on adjoining proper- including, but not limited tn, adherence to the fol- ties. (Ord. 1791 § 1 '(part), 1998) lowing specific criteria: a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be 19.134.090 Revocation, extension% and avoided. A gradual Uansitlon related to height and duration. bulk should be achieved between new and existing A. The revocation of any approval under this buildings, chapter is governed under the same procedures as b.. In order to preserve design harmony between deSCribed in Sccdon 19.124.100 regarding mvoca- new and existing buildings and in order tn pre. serve tion, extensions and dural/on. and enhance property values, the materials, textures B. An archimctural and site approval application and colors of new buildings should harmonize.with granted under this chai~r which has not been used ~'.'.~dj~t development by being consistent or com- within two years following its approval, shall be- patible with design and color schemes, and with the come null and void and.of no effect unless a sho~r futura character of the neighborhood and purposes ~me period is specifically pre. scribed by thc condi- of thc zone in which they am situated. Thc location,, tions of thc approx;al. Such approval shall be height and materials of wails, fencing, hedges arid deemed to have been"used" when actual substantial screen planting should harmoniz~ with adjacent and continuous construction activity has taken plac~ deveiopment. Unsightly stnrag¢ areas, utility instal- upon the land pursuant tn the approval. lahOns, andunsighfly elements 0fparking lots should C. Thc Planning Commission may extend such be concealed. Thc planting of ground cover or vari- time for a maximum of one additional year only ous types of pavements should be used to prevent upon application filed with the Director before the dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of expiration of thc two-year limit, or thc expiration of existing health trees should be avoided. L. ighting for such limit as may be specified by the conditions of devclopment should be adequate to me. et safety approval. requirements as specified by the engineering and D. All decisions related to revocation and extcn- ~Jbullding depa~iments, and provide shielding to pm- sions of approvals contained in this section ar~ vent spill-over light to adjoining property owners, subject to the appeals procedure contained in Chap- c. Thc n,~raber, location, color, size, height, ter 19.136. (Ord. 1791 § I (part), 1998) ~ lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising - - signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards 19.134.100 Reports. and shall positively affe~'t the general appearance of Thc Dimctnr sh~ll mak~ writ~n reports tn thc the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent City Council describing Planning Commission deci- dcvcIopmenr, sions under this chapter to be forwarded tn the City d. With respect to new projccts within existing Council within five calcndar days from thc dam of residential neighborhoods, new development should such decisions. (Ord.- 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by usc of buffer- ing, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropri- '- ate design measures. ~c~v~o s-~) 588-100 19.32.010 Chapter 19.32 C'. Horace.occupations in each unit of a residen- rial duplex dwelling subject, when accessory to per- RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX (R-2) ZONES mitted residential use as provided in Chapter 19.92 of this title, and .subject to any use permit require- ' Sections:' ments contained in tlm chapter, 1932.010 Purpose_ D. 'the keeping in each dweIling unit of a maxi- 193:Z.0:Z0 Applicability of regulations, mum of four adult household pets; provided that no 1932.030 Permitted uses. more than two aduit dogs and two adult cats may be 1932.040 Conditional uses. kept in each unit; 1932.050 ~eight of buildings and E. Utility fadlities essential to provision of structures, utility services to the neighbothood, but excluding 1932.0~0 Lot area and ~dth. business offices, construction orstorage yards, main- 1932.070 Building eo]terage and tenance facilities, or corpor/tion yard; setbacks. .... F. Small-family day care home, in each unit; 19-~2.080 Permitted yard encroachments. G. Large-f~m~ly day care home, which meets the 19.32.0~0 Architectural and site re~,iew, paf~ng criteria contained in Chapter 19.100, and -- which is at least tIaree hundred feet f~m any other 19.3:2.010 Purpose. Iarge-f~r~ly day care hOme. The Director of Corn- The residential duplex zoning district is intended munity Development or his/her designee shall to allow ~ second dwelling unit under'the same administratively approve large day care homes to ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate ensure compliance with the parking and proximity sites in areas.designated for multiple f~m~ly use by 'requirements; the Cupertino General Plan. The residential dnplex · H. l~esidential ca~ facility with six or less ~.si- " district is intended to increase the variety of housingde~ts not including the provider, provider f~m~ly or oppertmaities available within the community while st~f~, in ea~ah mait, that has a license from the appro- maintaining the existing neighborhood chara~r, pilate State, County agency or department; (Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) I. Congregate residence with ten or less ~si- dents, in each unit. (Ord. 1688 '§ 3 (part), 1995; 19.32.0:20 Applicability oF regulations- Ord. 1657 (par~), 1994; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), ~-'?-~.. . No building, structure'or land stroll be used, and 1992) no building or strucm~ shall .be hereafter erected, structurally alte~l or enlarged in an P~-2 residential 19_~.040 Conditional uses. ~ , duplex district other than in conformance with the The following'uses may be-conc~tionally allowed provisions of this chapter and other applicable in the 1~.-2 residential duplex district subject to issu- provisions of this rifle. (Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), ance of a conditional use permit: 1992) A. Issued by the Director of Community Devel- opment: 19.31.030 Permitted uses. 1. Temporary uses, subject to ~egularions estab- The following uses shall be permitted in the R-2 lished by Chapter 19.124; residential duplex district: 2. Home occupations which require a condi- A. Two-family use under one ownership; tional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this B. Accessory facilities and uses customarily rifle; " incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conform- 3. Large-family day care home, which other, vise ing with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The 19.32.040 conditional use permit shall be pro~essed as pr~vid- affixing to the R-2 zoning district symbol the desig- ed by Section 1597.46 (35 of the State of California nation "i." (Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) Health and Safety Code. B. I~sued by the Planning Commission: 19.32.0g0 Lot area and w/dth. 1. Residential care home. in each unit; A. Lot areashall correspond to the number (mul- 2. Residential ca~ facility, in each unit, that is tiplied by one thousand square feet) following the not re~pfir~ to obtain a license by the s~t~., county R-2 symbol. Examples are as follows: agency or depa~h~em and has six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; lVlinimum Lot Area 3. Residential care ~acility, in each unit, that has Zoning Symbol Number in Square Feet the appropriate state, county agency or department license and has seven or greater residents, not in- R-2 8.5 8,500 cludiag the provider, provider family or,tar-f, is a R-2 10 10,000 mi~mum distance of five hund~ feet fxom the.-' .. R-2 12 12,000 ~_~<~erty bouadary of mother residential ca~ facili- R-2 15 15,000 4. Residential ca~ facility, ia eac~ unit, that is The minimum lot ~ ia an R-2 zone is eight not required to obtain a pem~t f~m the state, thousand five htmdred ~a~ feet. county agency or depaxtment license and has sev~n . B. Exis~g legal lots of record which contain or greater x~idents, not inciuding the p~vider, less a~athan ~i~l by Section 19.32.060A, but provider family or s~ff, is a minimam ~staace of not less thaa seven thousand five hundred squa~ five hundred feet ~xom the proper'cy bo~,r,~ry of feet, may nevertheless be used as b~ldiag ~ites another residential ca~ facility and. has a mi~mum provided that all other applicable re~en~s of t'''~ of seventy-five square ~eet of usable mar yaxd area this title axe ful.~lled. per occupant; C. Notwitl~mdiag ~ restrictions co,tanned in 5. Congregat~ residence with eleven or more. subsection 19.32.060A of th~s section, a ~luction residents which is a m~imum distance of one thou- ia the mi~im-m lot size of no mox~ ~ five per- sand feet f~m the boundary of another cong~gate cent of the net Iot ax~a is permit~d for a lot when .9~i.'dence and has a minimum of seve0, ty-five ~luaxe~a~ty percent or more of the net lot area is adjacent '~!~o~ of usable rear yard ax~a per occupant. (Ord. to a curviliaea~ street. 1688 § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657 (part), 1994; Ord. . D. ~ minimum lot width in an R-2 zoning 1601 Exh. A (part), 1~92) 6istrict is seventy feet at the~ building se~bac~line, exc~t that with x~-pect to lots whicl~ have a net lot 1932.050 l~eight of buildings and area ofniae thousand sclua~ feet or more and ~hich structures. ~ace a cul-de-sac, the minimum lot width is sixty The height of buildings and structm~s in R-2 feet. (Ord. 1784 (paxt), 1998; Ord. 1601"~xh. A zones ahall be restri~ as follows: (paxt), 1992) A. The maximum, height shall betwo stories, not exceeding a total of ~ feeC 19.32.070 Building coverage and setbacks. B. Accessory buildings shall be ]im]t~ I~ a Building coverage and setback regulations in R-2 height of one story not exceeding a total of fifteen zoning districts are as follows: feet; A. The maximum lot coverage by all permanent C. The City Council may prescribe that. all buildings on a lot in an R-2 zone is forty percent of buildings in a desig~t-d area be limited to one the net lot area. story ia height (not to exceed eighteen feet) by .. 19.32.070 / B. The minimum front-yard setback is twent7 / f~t, provided'that the mirlimunl may be reduced tn fifteen feet with respect tn lots having curved drive- . ways which enter the side of a garage. C. The minimum fide-yard setback shall be twenty percent of the lot width measured at the front setback line. No side setback may be less than six feet. The minimum side-yard setback shall be in- 5 8 8-13 ¢c~-~o a-~s~ 19.32.070 creased by three feet for each story above the first ~ story on any building. The minimum side-yard setback on the street side of a comer lot is twelve feet. twenty feet or no Icss~lu~, 'L,wa~t)r~rcent of thc lot depth, whichever is greater, provided that the mini- mum rem-yard setback may be reduced to ten feet on condition that thc required rear-yard setback area is no less than eight hundred fifty square feet or twenty times the lot width. In no event, however, may a two-story sel~ment of a duplex building be . closer to a rear lot ]inv. l~han the*distance equal t~ twenty l~erc~nt of the lot depth. (Ord. 1601 Exh. A; (part), 1992).__ 19.32.080 Permitted yard encroachments. Encroachments into required yard setback areas in t-2 zones are permit~d as follows: , A. Cornices, canopies, coves, decks (more than eighteen inches above finished grade), and other architectural features may extend into a required yard setback at~ no more than two feet six inches. " B. Unenclosed patio covers may extend into the required mar-yard setback area, provided that it shall not be closer than ten feet from the rear property line. (Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part),'1992) ~.~) 19.32.090 Architectural .and site review. '..':. No building, structure, or sign shall be erected, structurally altered, or enlarged, nor shall any land- scaping or parking plan be implemented or modi- fied, in an R=2 zone, without architectural and site review pursuant to Chapter 19.134 of the municipal '~' code. (Ord. 1779 § I(B), 1998) 588-14a ce.~,,~ s-gs) Ri Privacy Requirements ORDINANCE NO. 1799 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF TIlE CUPERTINO MO~ICIPAL CODE, PRIVACY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Title 19, Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: I. AMENDMENT 19.28:. Lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and privacy mitigation measures for non=acce, ssory buildings and structures. F. Privacy Protection Kec~uirements. 1. Reauired Landscape Planting. A. Plantin~ Plan. A building permit application for a new two story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location and species' of existing and proposed trees or shrubs located on the applicant's property lines which are within a cone.of vision defined by a 30 degree angle from the side window jambs of all ~econd story windows (Exhibit I). The purpose of the planting is to provide screening between second story windows and immediately surrounding yards as viewed from the cone of vision. The planting is required on the applicant's property, unless Option C is applied . .,~.~... B. Plantin~ Requirements. The minimum size of the proposed trees shall be 24" ;~;:?,.:.... box and 8' minimum planting height. The m~nlmum size of the shrubs shall be 15 gallon and 6' planting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years from planting. The st~ecies and planting, distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. C. Ootions. Where planting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners lot in lieu of their own lot or the affected property owner may modify the numbers of shrubs or trees, their types and locations by submitting a waiver to the Community Development Department along with the building permit (Appendix B). D. Aoolicabilitv. This requirement shall not apply to skylights, window with sills above 5' from the floor, windows facing a right-of-way, louvered windows that prevent views into adjoining properties, and windows facing a non- " residential zoning district. E. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for.~ particular species. Where' required planting dies it Privacy Invasion Mitigation required in shaded areas L//'W~ndow Yard '~' Jamb Window Second Floor . Window Ordinance No. 1799 Page 2 ! must be replaced within 30 days with the size and species as described Appendix A of this ordinance. The affected property owner with privacy protection planting on their own lot is not required to maintain the landscaping. 2. Window Alignment. A. Window Alignment. A building permit application for a new two story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a site plan which includes the adjacent buildings and their existing second story windows. New side two story windows shall not align with existing two story windows on adjacent buildings. The architect shall provide horizontal and vertical projections from the proposed windows to the adjacent windows. B. Waiver. Where window alignment occurs, the applicant may modify this requirement upon receipt of written approval from the affected property owners (Appendix B). C. A~plicability. This requirement shall not apply to skylights, windows with a sill height above 5' from the floor, windows facing a right-of-way, louvered windows that prevent .views into adjoining properties, and windows facing a non-residential zoning district.. 3. Excention. A. With respect to a request for two story development which dales not meet the development requirements contained in 19.28(1:) of this chapter, the Community Development Director may grant an exception to allow two story development if the subject development, based upon substantial evidence, meets all of the following findings: '"' .": 1. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. 3. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the purposes of Chapter 19.28. 4. The adjoining property owner is otherwise protected from unreasonable privacy impacts. :' B. An application for.exception must be submitted on a form as prescribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by a fee prescribed by Ci~ Council resolutibn, no part of which shall be Ordinance No. 1799 ' Page 3 refundable, tdthe applicant. Upon receipt of an applidation/for an exception, the Director shall issue a Notice of Public Hearing before the Director of Community Development for an exception under this chapter in the same manner as provided in Section 19.120.060 (relating to zoning changes). After a public hearing, and consideration of the application.in conjunction with the mandatory findings contained in subsection A above, the Director of Community Development shall approve, conditionally approval or deny the application for an exception. The decision of the Director of Community Development may be appealed to the Planning Commission as provided in Section 19.136'. 010. C. An exception which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such permit or variance. An exception permit shall be deemed to have been "used" in the ~.....~ event of the erection of a structure when sufficient building activity, has. · occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. One additional one-year extension may be granted by the Director of Community Development if an application is filed before the expiration date as provided in Section 19.124.100(I3). D. In addition to any other remedies, the City attorney is authorized to commence and maintain a civil action to enforce the provisions of this chapter or any conditions attached to the granting of any permit or exception granted under this chapter. II. ExEMPTION The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to any building for which a building permit application was accepted for a new second story building or addition on or,before August 31, 1998 and issued by February 18, 1999. The privacy protection requirements for window alignment contained in Section 19.28.F.2 are not required for any building for which a bull,ding permit .. application was accepted for a new second story building or addition between September 1, 1998 and November 5, 1998. Any exemption hereunder applies only to the original applicant. III. PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in accordance with Government code § 36933, shall certify to the '-' adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. Ordihance No. 1799 Page 4 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 21 st day of September, 1998 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 5u~ day of October 1998, by the following vote: Vote. Members of the City Council AYES: BURNETT, DEAN, JAMES, STATTON, CHANG NOES: NONE ABSENT: 'NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: APPROVED: Ci Mayl City of Cupe Ordinance No. 1799 " Page 5 /Appendix A Landscape Mitigation Measures PKIVACY SCKEENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES Planting Planting Height S r_Sp._r~d Distance -Max Distance -Max A. Ced_ms Deodara - Deodara Cedar to 80' 40' ~ ground 20' B. Melaleuca Linarifolia - FlaxleafPaperbark 30' 12-15' 6' C. Pinus Helipensis - Aleppo Pine 40-60' 20-25' 10' D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos - Silverdollar 20-60' 10-15' 5' E. Cinnamomom Camphora- Camphor 50' 50' 20' O. Magnolia Orandiflora - Southern Magnolia 80' 40' 20' The minimum tree size shall be 24" box minimum and a minimum of 8' high planted height. II. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittosporum Eugenoides 40' 20'' 5' B. Pittospomm Tenuifolium 40' 20' 5' C. Pittosporum Crassifolium 25' 15-20' ' 8' D. Pittosporum Undulamm -.Victorian Box 15-40' 15-40' 8' E. Cupressus Sempervirens - Italian Cypress 60' 3-6' 5' F. Podocarpus Oracilior - Fern Pine 60' 20' 10' ".'~-~. O. Privet Ligustmm -Glossy Privet 35-40' 20' 10' H. Laurus Nobilis - Grecian Laurel 15-40' 20' 10' I. Rhus Lancia - African Sumac 25' 20' 10' .. The minimum shrub size shall be 15 gallon minimum and a mirdmum of 6' high planted height'. Notes: Other sPecies than those listed above may be used subject to approval by the Community Development Department. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for apprOval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter . from an Internationally Certified Arbofist or Landscape Architect stating that the '- materials proposed will meet or exceed height, spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property. The goal is to provide a partial screening after 3 years growth following planting. Ordinance No. 1799 ' Page 6 Appendix B Release of Privacy Protection Measures Sinele Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two story additions or homes be required, to complete privacy protection measures. A modification or deletion to these, requirements may be granted by staff if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirements. Date Property Location Address: I agree tO waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: ': Land Use/Comrnunih/ Character 2- 23 · Policy 2-17: Housing ¥,,riation in the Urban Core Encourage variations from the regulations of the zoning district for prop- erties in the urban core area in housin§ type and increased density, mak- ing sure that the development is consistent with the visual character of surrounding buildings. PR{VACY A successful residential environment should give people a chance to sociali~-e when they choose to and space to be alone, both inside and outside the home. City attention to privacy consideration during the development approval process can go a long way to set homesites apart from each other. Complete privacy is not possible in a city and people must balance the need for isolation and the need to live within an urbanized area. · Policy 2-18: Privacy in Site Design ~ Ensure that the site design for a residential project has private indoor and outdoor spaces for each unit and common outdoor recreation space. · Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection Greater Separation Protect residential neighborhoods Sm~ Poucv 2-35, from noise, traffic, light and visually ~ ~ Pouc~_~ 4-5 ~a~rn 4-6 -:. intrusive effects from more intense.de- ~ i · .. velopments with adequate buffering ~' 6 6' setbacks, landscaping, w~U_% activity -~-- 6' (_. I_. B limitations, site design and other ap- ~.~...,~i~ ............. ~':' ~"'~'~" ~.~~'" ".~'..'~ propriate measures. Lesser Separation For each planning area, create --on- / ~~ .--~,.---.,.. lng or specific plans that consider ~ ~ the follow, lng measures to reduce ~" & 8' ~ { incompatibilities between new _ development and existing residen- -~ 6' ~ ~ rial neighborhoods: daylight ~j~j~~~~ : planes, minimum setback stan- dards, landscape screening, acous- tical analysis, location and orientation of service areas away from residential uses and limitations on hours of operation. Privacy Controls ~ --- Wing Wall -~i ~ Fixed Shutters-~ ~ : ~ View ~ / ew Dense ~... -= ~ ~ Fixed Plant~.... Shutters 1/98 THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2- 24 Land Use/Community Cham. cter ~ Pol~ 2-20: M~m~z~ PH~cy ~eep ~e s~8~ts ~ so.ds o~ ~e ~e~g~bo~s ~o~ ~g o~ ~es~. Te~ues c~ ~clu~e ~eater b~g serial, ~g ~, w~o~ s~ut- t~s ~ ~o~-~p~t NEIGHBORHOOD AWARENESS B~gl~, v~d~m, sol~g ~es ~ ~e job o~ ~e poUce; ~e prev~on ~ eve~one's job. ~si~ of n~ b~ m~t ~dude sec~ measles, so f~ s~e ~d so poUce won't have to re~ond to so m~y c~s. B~g desi~ ~d p~ce- m~t ~o~d let nei~bors wat~ ea~ o~er's proper~es ~d ~'s play ~eas. PoZi~..2-21: Desi~ingfor S~ Pou~ ~39 Use d~i~ te~u~ ~ new dev~opm~t ~d r~b~on to ~ease :;~ se~ ~d perso~ ~e~ ~d to ~ease n~ghborhood aw~ess. Economic Development Balancing land use iz~tensity against the traffic-carrying capacity of the street network is a major emphasis of the City's land use policy. The objective of the devdopment aUoca- tion policies is to ensure that desired development will not overtax the tra_qsportation sys- tem. The policy, however, must also consider the economic health of the community a. od find ways to encourage redevelopment of older retail centers, as well as provide for ~e growth of the City's business community. VISTA DRIVE DUPLEX "i I ' ~ ' ' · I I' ~,' ~ ' .D~I t' ' ....... "' :' ;" ;:;'" "" .... "' ........ :":' .................. ' ' ~k~ " '~ " VISTA DRIVE DUPLEX" i?_2__I . 'a~, ~.~a~'o., ~ "Exhibit E June stQff report DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPLICATION NO.(S): 4-ASA-99 APPLICANT: Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei & Chieh LOCATION: 10333 Degas Court PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Low Density Residential 5-10 DU per acre Zoning Designation: Residential Duplex R2-4.25 (4,250 sq.ft, land area/dwelling unit) Environmental Clearance: Categorical Exemption under Section 15301, Class l(e)(1) C EQA Guidelines Lot Area Net: " 9,235 sq. f~. Lot Area Gross: " -9,873 sq. fL (with flag, not half street) Existing Lot Coverage: 36.2% , Corrected Proposed Lot Coverage: 37.2% Existing FAR: 36.2% Corrected Proposed FAR: 47.2% (previously 47.. 6%) Building Height: 23' 2" (previously 25feet) Corrected Existing Building Area: 3,348 sq.ft. (previously 3,340 sq..ft.) Corrected Proposed Building Area, 1st Floor Unit A Kitchen Bump-out 25.32 sq.ft. .2 Unit A Bay Windows (floor area): 28 sq.ft. Unit A Entry Fill-in: 21.38 sq.ft. Unit B Dining Area Expansion: 20 sq.fL Total Proposed 1st Floor Area: 94.7 sq.ft. Revised Proposed Building Area, 2nd Floor*: 921 sq.fl. (previously 954 sq.fi.) Corrected Total Building Area: 4,364 sq.ft. (previously 4, 397 sq../'t) *Note: Using the new floor area definition, the stairwell square footage was counted for the first and second stories BACKGROUND: Application 4-ASA-99, a request to authorize the construction of a first and second story addition to an existing one-story duplex, was continued from the meeting of May 10 to enable the applicant to prepare new plans in response to direction provided by the Planning Commission. Table 1 describes the Commissions direction. TABLE 1' Matrix of Planning Commission's May 10u' Directives Regarding 4-ASA-99 i / ~~4~'.~~~:...¢;'... :4 '. '¢.i~!~. ':'.:.' ..?:i..:c.6mmission,s: position 1. Should the application be approved as presented? No 2. Should the modified plan recommended by staff be No .. -. approved (window treatments and landscaping)? 3. Should a second story on the lot be denied outright? No 'i 4. Should the recently adopted R-1 standards be used Yes ~' .: as a guide (example offsets, floor'area ratio, 35/65 ..'. i'..2:..., proportion rule)? · ~ 5. Specific Elements : a. Should the master bedroom/bath be shifted so that Yes '.' :'i'""-.... the bath is facing,the west? · ' ' b. Should the second story be shifted over the garage? No · '..:.'i' ~,..'i ... c. Should the second story be shifted over the No ~ .... ::,~.~,.~ "secondary unit"? :* ..'& ~;. x 'Y.'.. ~: 'L .:...,:..,~:~.,.~... t:..,:,j:..~d'. Should encroachment into setbacks be eliminated? Yes (define the property line) :~a:.~.~,;~, e. Should privacy planting be located close to the Yes ~:':"":'~'~'""'~ house instead of on the rear property line? f. Should stairwell be evaluated based upon K-1 or R-2 2 members R-2, I member fbr R-I and ': rules? one member noncommittal :' g. Should a floor area ratio be used for 2~a floor space? Yes, 2nd floor space may not exceed .. 50% of combined space of lower ·floor and ~ of garage. · ' .... ' DISCUSSION: '.. :.: The Evaluation of Applicants response to Commissions direction: .' ..'.i ' General Description of Applicants Proposed Changes ':'".:-' ~-:.., ~- The applicants new proposal switches the bedroom/bath replaces a gable roof plan with a hip, i';.~."I ..... offsets the western walls both to comply with the revised setback requirements and to provide · 5~ ........_ ~..~ ~i~-'~i~ additional offset distance. You may also note that the roof element over the stairwell has been -"'-'." .*~':'.'~ changed to minimize the wall height. The wall height is in compliance with the previous 15' -:-~':-'~.g~:':.,~:~-'.- wall height to the determined second story but is not in compliance with the new 12"wall height 7'Z':'?;:;.'; ? .:~' ...~::-.: requirement. ..: ~::.:..: , ~ · ,'-: ~;.: Response to Questions 1 and 2 : .":'~;-'.','i~.!:; The f~rst two questions in Table 1 are academic at this point because the applicant is submitting a .:::':(:i.)..i:~! revised plan. ....':'.:'. :,'*. ".: ".:':;~-":i · -'..'~... ,.~, Response to Question 3 '";~'q.' :. Question No. 3 has been addressed by the City Attorney. The City attorney advised the · ;~ ,)).: Commission that a second story on the property cannot be denied carte blanche unless the · :' :." commission were to m.ake findings that the applicant could not mitigate privacy and design · .' issues. As you may recall, the C. ity Attorney emphasized that the primary objective of the · .. ~. Architectural and Site Approval process is to evaluate design related mitigation measures such as · '" greater building setbacks, wing walls, window shutters and non-transparent glass. In addition to these measures, the City has recently adopted privacy control measure/window locations ibr side yard and the use of planting within specified cones of vision. Response to Question 4 In question no. 4 the Commission asked staffto utilize the new R-1 ordinance provisions as a guide in the evaluation of the project. Table 2 compares the original and revised proposal to the R-1 and R-2 zoning standards. The revised changes bring the proposal much closer into compliance with the R-! zone. most difficult section is the R-1 standard for 2na story setbacks for flag lots. The requirement is 20 feet on both sides and a 5 foot surcharge on one side. The total combined side yard setback requirement for R-1 is 45 feet. The applicants revised plan has a combined 2''a story sideyard setback of 36.5 feet. The p~oposed above item complies with the R-2 2',a story side yard setback (21 feet). The requirement that 50% of upper floor perimeter walls be offset 4' and having a reduced wall height to 6' or less, is close to being met. Staff required construction drawings to reach a final conclusion. Drawings will be submitted on Friday and a verbal report will be made at the hearing on this item. Response to Question 5 "Specific elements" 5a. Revision of Floor Plan to Flip Master Bedroom & Bath The applicant has revised the floor plan, flipping the master bath and closet to the West Side o[' the property. A narrow bathroom window with a sill height of 5 feet is proposed tbr light and ventilation. There was discussion during the June 9th neighborhood meeting to reduce the size to further reduce the potential for privacy intrusion. 5b; and 5c. Shifting of expansion area to other locations This issue was discussed by the applicants and neighbors to the west and south on June 9th. Please see comments below. 5d. Potential Encroachment into Second Story Rear Yard setback/Determination of Property Line Location: The commission desired clarity relative to the rear yard setbacks. The City retained a Civil Engineer, (Marius Nelsen), to locate the rear property line, the fence line and house location. The map labeled "Exhibit A," House and Fence Location, lot 25 of tract 4188 10333 Degas Court" is attached. The purpose of the survey is to assist staff in clarification of the property line. The map will not be recorded. The applicant's initial drawing reflected setback dimensions that differ from the survey submitted by Mr. Nelsen. The scaled and actual dimensions are as follows: ~l~llllllll~i~urenieng~bp~.:'12ine to: 20.50 19.54 19.69 25.8 24.66 24.80 3 The difference in the southwest comer can be explained by the 1.23 fbot offset ['rom property line to the center of the fence. The survey indicates that the building is closer to the rear property line than as shown on the site plan. Therefore the second story wall-lines must be shit'ted. Thc site plan describes the necessary shifL This information resolves the basic encroachment issue discussed on May l0th . The revised plans submitted by the architect are in compliance with thc rear setbacks based upon the new information. The west wall line of Bedroom #2 will be approximately 1' 8". The west wall oft. he master bath will be offset approximately 4'3" which is 9 inches beyond the earlier proposal. The Planning Commission's consensus regarding thc application of R-1 rules to the stairwell encroachment will be discussed below. 5e. Privacy Landscaping Location The Commission questionefl the location of the proposed privacy landscaping suggesting that such landscaping be moved closer to the building. The location makes a difference because the strip of land closest to the rear property line is 2 to 4 l"eet higher than the ground elevation of the duplex. Planting here would result in more effective screen earlier, rather than, later. A 5-foot public utility easement and 5-foot wire clearance easement run along this rear property line and do not prohibit the planting of landscaping in this area. While the potential height of landscaping near the wire clearance easement may be a concern. Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Management Specialist with P.G.& E., stated to city staff that the existing secondary power lines were relatively low voltage and considered low hazard. P.G. & E's policy would be to prune, not remove, such landscaping to improve safety. This also applies to the existing, more mature trees along the boundary that serves as screening..(Also see discussion under "Wire Clearance Easement"). 5f. Stairwell: R-1 or R-2 rules The proposed stairwell complies with the setback requirement of the R-2 zone. The proposed reduced height stairwell wail would have complied with the previous R-I rule of 15 feet, but not ,-'-- the new (June 3rd) R-1 rule for a maximum 12 foot high wall. ., ~. 5g. Floor Area Ratio for 2nd Floor Space The applicant's revised plan complies with the Commission direction: Existing low level floor area = 1,485 ½ Existing garage space (T16/2) 388 Total Base 1,873 50% of base is 936 The p~;oposed upper floor contains 921 'square feet which is less than 936 square t'eet maxinmm allowed. The lower floor base used in the calculation above does not include proposed lower floor expansion area which would increase the allowable 2na story space. Wire Clearance: The closest approach of the building to any easements is on the southern boundary. There are side by side public utility easement (P.U.E.) and a wire clearance easement (W.C.E.) on the interior side. No buildings are allowed in the P.U.E.; and no buildings over 15 feet tail.above the grade at the ground line of the poles are allowed in the W.C.E. The pole is situated on an elevated portion of the lot which is several feet above the grade of the duplex. The proposed east elevation of the duplex shows the W.C.E. as the hatched box. The building and eaves are outside of the easement area. Neighborhood Meeting: Discussion of Alternative Sites for Expansion New public hearing notige~ were mailed to all adjoining owners and those that participated in and/or sighed a petition. Per the Commission's advice, the Chieh's contacted the immediately adjoining neighbors via a letter. Meetings were held on Thursday, June 3 and June 9. Three or' the seven lot holders directly adjoining the site attended the meeting. Although'there was no consensus regarding the ultimate design solution, the applicant agreed to prepare study sketches describing possible development options. This includes filling in the entry court with first floor building space over the secondary unit and garage. There are an unlimited number of design options that could be developed for the building expansion. It is understandable that the owner (applicant) seeks to expand the unit with a more attractive rear yard and partial use of' the t'ront aourtyard as opposed to the more conf'ming side yard and partial use courtyard used by the second dwelling unit. It is also understandable that adjoining owners desire to shitI the second story space as far as possible from their dwelling. The applicant and neighbors will discuss the alternatives in light of their respective needs. Recommendation: Staff supported the previous application, which involved landscaping and privacy screening techniques on existing windows. In staff's judgement the new proposal substantially meets thc {"'-"'"':" direction provided by the Planning Commission and thus recommends approval. Enclosure: Model Resolution Exhibit A: House and Fence Location of 10333 Degas Court Table 2: Development/Design Comparison of proposed Chieh Duplex Addition and R-I Standards Initial Plan Set (Staff Composite Plan) Plan Set dated June 6, 1999 Prepared by: Colin Jung/Robert S. Cowan Approved by: Robert S. Cowath Director of Community Development g/planningtpdreport/pcJpcchieh 4-ASA-99 MODEL RESOLUTION CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 974 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX SECTION I: PROJECT D~ESCRIPTION · '"~' Application No.: 4-ASA-99 ::~'~'""~'"'Applicant: Erh-Kong and Ding-Wei Chieh (David Perng, Architect) Location: 10333 Degas Court SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application '~br an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the proposed duplex expansion, as modified by conditions attached hereto, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, general welfare or convenience; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan, including policies 2-18 ~.'.i'::": through 2-20 relative to privacy protection, and complies with the Duplex Residential (R-2) . -. zoning ordinance, and adheres to the following specific criteria a. The maximum height of the duplex is 23 feet, 2" versus.30 feet allowed by ordinance and the finish grade of the building site is 3'-4' lower than the finish grade ofiadjoining properties located to the west. Additionally, most wall lines of the second story addition are offset from the first floor wall lines..The use of hip roofs reduces visual mass.These factors mitigate the potential for an abrupt change in scale between one story and two story buildings. b. The materials, texture, and colors of the building harmonize with surrounding buildings. The proposed landscaping will reduce exposure of two story walls to adjoining neighbors which will enable the structure to harmonize with the existing neighborhood. The use of fixed windows and obscured glass will [hrther reduce the potential for privacy intrusion. c. The new addition will not res~tlt in increase noise, traffic, light, and visual intrusion because of the use of buffering, larger than required side yard setbacks, landscaping, and through use of visual barriers and obscured glass. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of plans, thcts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Application No. 4-ASA-99 is hereby approved. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approach is granted based upon the plan set labeled "Mr. & Mrs. Chieh Addition", sheets A-1C througl,r A-3C labeled 6/8/99 and color board as may be modified by additional conditior~s contained herein. '-:: '-.. 2. ARCHITECTURE ':?': The sill height of the exterior window for the west facing master bath shall be increased 6' ($'6" from floor). 2. LANDSCAPE The applicant shall comply with the privacy protection requirements contained in the R-I ordinance including appendix A and B. A single tree shall be planted in the vision cone for the west-facing window for bedroom #4. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14~ day of June, 1999, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: (" ' ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: APPROVED: Robert S. Cowan, Director Of David Doyle, Chairman Community Development Cupertino Planning Department g/pla~ning~te.s/4asa992 · .' City of Cupertino MEMORANDUM 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 June 1 l, 1999 To: Planning Commissioners From: Colin Jung, Associate Planner ~ RE: Supplemental Material for June 14tn PC Agenda, Item No. 3: File No. 4-ASA-99, 10333 Degas Court At the neighborhood meeting involving city staff, the project architect, the Chiehs (applicants) and the neighbors: Adelmans, Mr. Kolev and the Besemers, the neighbors asked the Chiehs to {¥.-"? consider three altemative plans for the addition. Please note that the first sheet of the enclosure is the existing duplex floor plan. The Chiehs live in the larger Unit A and one set of the Chiehs' parents live in Unit B. The three suggested alternatives were: 1) Build only a one-story addition in the courtyard area; 2) Expand Unit A into the existing Unit B building area, and create a new, second-story Unit B over the garage and a portion of the old Unit B space. 3) Move parents into existing Unit A and create a larger family dwelling out of Unit B and a new, second-story addition over the garage and a portion of Unit B. After reviewing the alternatives with their architect, the Chiehs rejected Alternative #2. They said it was unreasonable to expect the elderly parents to continue to be physically able to climb the stairs of a second-story dwelling. Conceptual floor plans were prepared by the project architect for Alternative #1 (pages 2 & 3) and Alternative #3 (pages 4,5 & 6). The applicants will be prepared to discuss these alternatives at the hearing. H:worddo/DegasCt7 .J L---II ~"~ IW Exhibi! F ! l. The propos~l, .r the proposed loc~don, will not be deu'knental or injurious to property or im- pmvemenr, s in ~e vicinity, and win not be det.4men- tal to the public health, s~ety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. Thc proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable conditional use per- mits, variances, subdivision. maps or other entitle- ments to use .which regulate, the subject property including, but not limited tn, adherence to the fol- lowing specific criteria: a. Abrupt c2mnges in building scale should be avoided. A ~m'adt/al transition related t~ height and bulk should be. achieved between new and existing buiklings. 5. Desigxx Guidelines. Consider developing thematic architectural design guidelines for different areas in the City. Generally, abrupt chan~ in building scale should be avoided. A more ~radual simon between buildings of one and t~ro stodes a~d low-rise to mid-rise buildings should [~ r~ be ac~eved by' u~in~ three-story and fou.r-st~ry buildings at: the edge of the project site. Provide Transition Between Low Buildings and .~'~7~ I~'°~'~ Mid- and High-Rise Structures Policy 2-15: Scale of Residential D~velopment Ensure that the scale and density of new residential development and re- modeling is reasonably compatible with the City's predominan~ singledam- ily residential pattern, except in areas desig'na~ed for higher de_~ity housing. Strategies 17 Residential Development Compatibility With Neighborhood. Develop- ment intensity may be reduced below the minimum irt the land use diagram if neighborhood compatibility standards 'cannot be met. 2. Reduction of Building's Apparent Size. Keel= visual in~-usion into estab- lished neighborhoods to a minimum and reduce the apparent size of the building by using ~d~erent land levels. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility Work Program. Staff shall work with the Planning Commlssi. on to develop additional residential zoning and subdi- vision controls to pr. otect neighborhood character from incompaffble new residential construction. Possible tools include height lirrdta~ions and art indexed floor area ratio ~AR). .' b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or com- patible with desig'n and color schemes, and with the... future character of the neighborhood and pu ~rposes 6.f the 'zSne'in which ~ey are situate.cl. ~he location, 'height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Urmig.htly storage areas, utility instal- lariorm and uusi~tly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or vari- ous types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnec.~sary destruction of existing health tre~ should be avoided. Lighting for development should be ad~qu ,am to meet safety requirementS as spediied by the enoMneering and building departments, and provide shielding to pre- vent spill-o'cer li~.,ht to adjoining property owners. d. With respect to new projects v~thin existing / / residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect ms, dents from noise, traffic, light and visually Lntrusive effects by use of buffer- Lng, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropri- ate desitin measures. PRIVACY A successful residential envizormnent should ~ve people a chance to' sociali~e when they choose to amd space to be alone, both irmide amd outside the home. City attention privacy cotusideration during the development approval process can go a long way to set homesitefapart from each other. Complete privacy is not possible irt a cib/and peoEle_._mus__~ balance ~e need for isolation and ~he need to live w/~d.n an urbanized area. I Policy 2-I8: Privacy in Site Design Ensure Rat ~e site design for a residential project has private indoor and outdoor spaces for each urdt and commbn outdoor recrea~/on space. I Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection Greater Separation Protect residential neighborhoods · t from noise, tragic, light ~nd visually ~ . intrusive effects from more intense de- ~ag~ velopments with adecluate buffering p~,~..~,~e,.v.T ~ ' setbaC:ks, tartdscapi~tg, wails, activity ~ 6 ~_ / __ M~L~,M ~.~ t~o ~), Strateg.F ~esser Separation + For each plannirtg area, create eon- I / - the 'follow. irtg measures to reduce ~'J incompatibilities between new ' I~." development a~d exist~g residen- ~ 6' T ~'-- g~.~tes~jr~C planes, minimum setback stan- dards, landscape screerd~g, acous- tical analysis, location and orientatior~ ~ service areas away from T~ __residential .uses and ].~l~tat~ons on hours of operation. C~u~. ilo I ~ Prfvacy Controls 1Do Pc~"~ Wing Wall l~ Fixed Shutters ) Fixed Plant' '"'-= .-. Shutters Policy 2~20: Minimizing Privacy Intrusion Keep the sights and sounds of the neighbors from intruding on residents. Techniques can include greater building setbacks, wing walls, window shut- ters and non-transparent glass. May 10 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Minutes 2 May I0, I t)t)t> / MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to postpone Application 2-(~PA-98, 28-EA-98 to the June 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATION: None cONSENT CALENDAR: None ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL 2. Application No.: 4-ASA-99 Applicant: ,- Erh-Kong & Ding-Wei Chieh Location: " 10333 Degas Court Architectural and Site approval to allow the construction of a 974 square foot second story addition to an ,".:~?-'-"':-'~ existing one-story duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for approval, of a 974 square foot addition to an existing duplex, which has already been partially constructed, as the city inadvertently issued a building permit without having undergone architectural and site approval review. The building permit has been suspended until the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. St~ff has met with the applicant and two property owners located to the west of the Chieh's parcel which will be negatively affected by the second story additioni however, the applicant and the other property owners have been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement. The applica.nt plans to incorporate the privacy protection elements from the R-1 ordinance, and also prepared two optional plans to show ways to prevent the neighbors t'rom being able to look onto each other's property, as outlined in the attached staff report. Staff recommends approval of the application provided the applicant incorporates privacy control mechanisms from both Option A and Option B into the project. A decision will be considered final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Chair Harris noted that the application will be approached based on the assumption that construction has not started. However, staff does not recommend that the Planning Commission 'take the position that a two story building can be rejected, unless the applicant fails to comply with ordinance requirements and cannot demoflstrate feasible mitigation measures. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, concurred that the application should be considered as it' it were a new application in the sense that there would be no building on the property. He said he felt it was an architectural and site review, which allows second stories in this zone subject to the guidelines with respect to privacy and mass intrusion that may be found. It does not provide for a carte blanche denial or thc second story, which is covered under the single family residential; therefore what is presented is a determination of whether the staff recommendations are adequate to protect the privacy and are otherwise reasonable. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, said that it was a unique situation that warranted additional review. Referring to a conceptual map of the neighborhood, he illustrated the location or two other two story duplexes and the location of the applicant's property showing the relationship to thc adjoining properties. He said that the General Plan, general duplex ordinance and precedent and t~ndings for approval of an architectural site approval needed to be considered in reaching a decision on thc application. Mr. Cowan reviewed the background of the item, the R2 zoning regulations, compliance with R2 development standards, and compliance with RI design and privacy standards, as summarized in Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 10, 1999 staff report. He explained that the applicant proposes to use the planting of trees and the use of obscured windows for privacy mitigation as well as architectural changes. Mr. Cowan answered Commissioners' questions regarding the application. Mr. Erh-Kong Chieh, applicant, said that he has lived in the duplex for more than 10 years, with his parents living in unit B. He said the addition to the duplex was needed to accommodate his mother-in-law residing with him for part of the year. Mr. Chieh said that the city indicated that the duplex was located in an R2 zone which permits a second story addition, and noted that some two story duplexes already existed in the neighborhood. He said that when they began the plans for the addition last May, they were misinformed by city staff that a public hearing was not necessary for the R2 zone. He noted that the plans did not include demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a massive building, but only adding enough living' space to accommodate their needs for family use. He reported that the application was filed in December 1998, and received the building permit in February 1999, but because of inclement weather, they did not begin the addition until March 1999. Mr. Chieh said that it was not until later that he was informed of the necessity for a public hearing~and that it was not properly included in the approval process. In April, the city arranged for a meeting with the city officials, the architect, the Kolevs and the Adelmans who would be impacted by the addition, and the applicant. He said that he has been woi'king with the architect to come up ,,,:~:.::, with options to address the privacy issues. Mr. Chieh said that he felt his proposal adequately addressed the · ,..~:;~ privacy issues, and he understood that the permit allowed the addition to be legally built. He said that he has spent approximately $70,000 for the construction already, which does not include costs involved in work stoppage orders. He said that he visited several neighbors and they.'did not have additional privacy issues to be addressed based on the proposal. Mr. Chieh answered questions regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the possibility of switching the location of the second story bedrooms and bathroom for less window exposure to the west. He said it was not cost effective to switch the bathroom location, and there were design issues involved in switching the bedrooms. In further discussion, it was noted that if the bedrooms and bathroom locations were switched, further architectural mitigation and use of screening trees would not be necessary, except one window. He said that if a violation exists with the setbacks, he would address it and comply with the regulations. Mr. David Perng, architect, explained the potential problems with switching the location of the bedroOms and bathroom, because of code requirements for window size. He also discussed the setback issue. I.. : :~ Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Erna ~Iackman, 14515 Oak St., Saratoga, owner of the duplex located at 10305 E1 Prado Way, said that although the property was located within the 300 foot radius, she had not received notification of the proposed two story addition. She said that it was'a tall addition, close to the property, with a high ridge roof. She said that trees and opaque glass would not alter the fact that all that can be seen fi'om the back of the Adelman's and Kolev's property is wall space. She referred to the parcel map and illustrated the location of the other properties with two story additions, noting that they were built with the original tract, and were located on a corner, not impacting other's views. She said that the Adelman's view 'of Mt. Hamilton is now' replaced with the view of the second story addition and a palm tree. Ms. Jackman said that she was informed that the application did not meet the required setbacks; and said that aside ~om mining three . adjacent properties, if it proceeds, the city will not be justified in denying other requests for second story additions and will ruin the compatibility of the neighborhood. She said she felt that the second story addition must be removed and the building returned to a one story building. She concluded that if the city did not do this, she would join several other neighbors in a lawsuit against the city. Mr. Owen Byrd, an attorney repres, enting the Adelmans, said the Adelmans were opposed to the proposal and urged denial of the application. He pointed out two procedural defects which he said should convince 'the Planning Commission to take no action. First, Section 19.134.040a of the zoning code requires that the Director of Community Development agenaize a Planning Commission hearing on an architectural site Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 10, 1999 review application only upon receipt of a complete application. In this case, the hearing was agendized / before the application was complete. He smd that on April 30, staff confirmed that the apphcat~on was not complete, and because it was not complete until last week, the hearing on it should have been agendized for tonight, May l0*. He said there appeared to be a rush to process the project, which denied the Adelmans the orderly process required by the code, intended to give time to fully review and respond to the application. The second procedural issue is a lack of CEQA review. The staff report contains no mention of whether CEQA requires an analysis of this project's environmental impacts; and if required, it is not in the staff report. If the project has a CEQA exemption, no explanation of that exemption is contained.in the staff report, and until staff presents an environmental determination under CEQA, final action cannot be taken. He said that if the Planning Commission proceeds at this meeting, in spite of the completeness and CEQA issues, the Adelmans request that the application be denied because the findings cannot be made to support the project as currently designed. Mr. Byrd said that the Planning Commission should not approve this or any other project unless the findings required by the zoning code c, an be made, and said in this ease the findings could not be made, specifically the privacy impacts on neighbors and loss of direct sunlight and indirect natural light for its neighbors, which for the Adelmans would rain their solar heating system for their pool. The project will also impose . ..~';d~ artificial light impacts at night and will subject neighbors to unbuffered noise emanating from the second :~?.,.'~!~ story. He said that a recent real estate appraisal on the Adelman's property determined that up to 10% of the total property value could be lost. The project is not consistent with the General Plan and zoning code in four other specific ways. The project proposes an abrupt change ih build, ing scale, and would result in an abrupt transition in height and bulk between the existing residences surrounding the project, and the new project itself. Its location on a flag lot makes the finding more diffcult to make because the project must relate to so many other structures, while a regular interior lot with normal street frontage would have fewer structures with which to blend. In addition, the location and height of the walls do not harmonize with the adjacent development; the monolithic wall facing the Adeimans will dominate the view to the east from their property to the exclusion of all.else. The wall of the proposed 7 bedroom, 5 bathroom duplex does not harmonize with the adjacent development; they overpower it. Lighting is not shielded from spilling over into adjoining properties as required by code; in fact, artificial light spilling from the second story will intrude on 'all surrounding residences. The new project in an existing residential neighborhood, is not designed to protect residences from noise, traffic, light and visually inmasive effects as required by code. Its design imposes all these impacts on all nearby resident. Mr. Byrd said that since the findings cannot be made, the project should not be approved. (.'.. :: Mr. Byrd, addressed issues raised earlier in the meeting. He referred to the other two story duplexes, and "' said that because they existed, a two story duplex is appropriate. He pointed out that the original developer of the tract said that originally eight two story duplexes were proposed, but the city denied all of them because they wanted to protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. The city eventually approved 2 two sro. fy duplexes on comer lots since second stories on comer lots present fewer privacy impacts than on interior lots. The third on a comer lot was later built out with a second story addition over the detached garage, and not over the living unit adjaeent to its neighbor. In contrast, the proposed project has a second story on a flag lot where the privacy impacts are maximized, not minimized. Relative to rear yard setbacks, the staff report conftrrns the Adeiman's belief that the existing structure does not comply with the required setbacks, and while the staff report claims that the ener°aehment is 8 inches, the Adeiman's believe it is 2 feet. Though the encroachment can be cured by creating an indent in the building, the fact that it exists, graphically points out how intrusive the second story will be. Setbacks provide minimum distances, not maximum, and this project's impacts are maximig, ed by building the project out to the literal edge of the setback. Relative to the staff proposed mitigations, there is a site obstructing false balcony and a 'landscaping screening to be combined to reduce privacy impacts. The Adelmans object to this approach for three reasons. Firstly, the combination of the approaches will not mitigate all the impacts of the project, therefore it doesn't meet their objective. Secondly, the false balcony will make an imposing structure, even more unattractive by having an out-of-scale feature hang off the large rear wall and into the setback. It would merely look like the aRerthdught that it is. Thirdly, the landscape screening is proposed to be cited in the 5 foot PG&E easement that runs across the back of the Chieh's lot. state law requires utility companies Planning Commission Minutes $ May 10, 1999 to regularly prune trees growing near power lines. In short, the proposed trees 'would require so much pruning that they could not provide the screening they are intended to provide. Mr. Byrd said that the permit was issued and the Chiehs began construction without the required site review. He said at this point, pointing the blame for the mistake was less important than preventing an even greater mistake. He said that while the Adelrnans believe it would be a mistake to approve this proposed design, the city may fear that it might bear liability to the Chiehs if the approval is not granted; and the Adelmans have been told that the city attorney fears that the Chiehs will sue the city if the city does not approve the application. He said this fear should have no bearing on the f'mdings required to make when approving or denying the project. In fact, the city runs the risk of lawsuit by any applicant or an opponent in any land use' controversy. Mr. Byrd continued, stating that the Adelmans ask that the project be denied based on the findings even with the proposed mitigations and said not to address any perceived harm to the Chiehs caused by the · issuance of the building permit prior to this review. If found that they are unable to vote to deny the application because it would be unfair to the Chiehs given the partial construction to date, he said they felt the Planning Commission/cit~" has the responsibility to acknowledge their error, and what matters is what will be built, not what has inadvertently been built thus far, and for the Adelmans the only silver lining in the unauthorized consmaction that has occurred to date is that the partial fi'aming of the second story : ~; ..... outlines better than any architecural elevation could, just how imposing the structure will be. Mr. Byrd $.~i~i." illustrated four overheads that showed different views from different areas of the Adeiman's home before and after construction of the two story addition. He also provided a petition signed by over 100 people opposing the Chieh's project. He concluded by stating that the Adeimans Were requesting that the Planning Commissioners ask themselves, would they want to live with the impacts ~f the project or would they want the city officials to apply the findings and deny the project to.protect you from those impacts'?. In response to Chair Harris' questions, Mr. Cowan noted that the project was categorically exempt fi.om CEQA. He explained that there was no timeline for an architectural site approval application, but they normally liked to have items three weeks before. He said there were instances where there were projects submitting emergency projects, signs, for example, just three days before the matter is heard. There is no set rule when the application has to be completed. Mr. Kilian added that it was apparent that the neighbors had adequate time to prepare; they presented a clear presentation, they had an attorney represent them; they had ample opportunity so that any problem with the filing that would cause them to be rushed to judgment, is not applicable as they had ample time to respond. Com. Kwok asked if there was any legal prohibition against putting up a second level building, assuming i~.'~ .. that the applicant meets the setbacks and height requirements. Mr. Kilian responded no, as indicated in .the "'! beginning, it is solely architectural and site review; there is no real basis to deny under a blanket prohibition against second stories; what the law requires is to review any second story applications with the idea of reasonably mitigating any privacy and massing of the building; therefore unless it is not mitigatable at all, the Planning Commission would be hard pressed to deny the application outright. He added that it was more appropriate to ask if the staff's recommendations or the applicant's recommendations for mitigating these problems are sufficient or not; and what other mitigations can be utilized to make the problem less onerous on the neighbors because of the application. He said that it would be difficult to justify out of hand denying the two stories; noting that if it were the case, it would be an R2i zoning district. Ms. Cheryl Besemer, 10333 Degas Ct., asked that Mr. Byrd's comments be fully considered, and noted that she signed the petition. She said one of the design factors of the units was the privacy factor as the living area is in the back of the units. She said the bulk of the proposed unit is intrusive on the surrounding units; and the obscure glass was a consideration but did not alleviate the mass. She said she did not feel the setbacks were 24.8 feet back fi.om her fence. Ms. Besemer commented that the applicant's unit was huge and took away the privacy fi.om her tenants, and as a result, in the future might have a negative effect on renting th~ units because of the lack of privacy. She said that she felt that if the project had been reviewed at the appropriate time, it would have been denied. She said that there are certain lots and properties .throughout the city that are approp~'iate for two story buildings, even if they 'are in a one story development Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 10, 1999 and other properties that are not. Ms. Besemerznoted that it has been said many ti/r/es that this the worse case scenario with the flag lot affecting many hofisehoids. Mr. Emil Kolev, 10344 E1 Prado Way, also represented his wife, Mrs. Anita Kolev, illustrated the location of' his property, master bedroom and pool, and said he was seriously affected by the two story duplex. He noted what he felt were errors in the staff report relative to work stoppages, and items related to notice of the public hearing. He said that the General Plan contained specific guidelines about land use controls, codes and enforcement, building code violations, visual considerations, retaining the natural settings and views as much as possible, scale of residential development, visual impacts, etc. which were not considered. He said that only a portion of the purpose of the architectural site review process was included in the staff report, and it was the means to achieve the purpose; the purpose being to protect and stabilize property values, maintain the character and integrity of the neighborhood, prevent adverse affects associated with new construction; and only the means were there. Ma'. Kolev said that the propesed application was for three families, and the purpose of the duplex is to house two familie& He said ~hat it did not comply with the R2 standards relative to rear setbacks, and there is already a violation of the original illegal plan. He referred to overheads which illustrated some discrepancies fi-om the plans and the information in the staff report. He recommended denial of the · :~i~.:~:;. application and to look for solutions that comply with the Cupertino General Plan, including denial of the second story addition, if not physical solutions can be achieved. He also suggested that mistakes be corrected in the staff report, and initiate investigation of current building process to eliminate all code violations. He said that when he purchased his unit recently, Mr. Adeln~an came with plans illustrating what would be in his back yard, which he was not aware of. He said if the building permit was issued properly, all records would be updated and he would have received notifications and be aware of what was going on across f~om his back yard, which did not happen. He said his family was deprived .of the knowledge of the disclosures; there was no SAR to express his input, the city allowed a prejudicial situation to develop and he paid an unjustified amount for his house, which amounted to about a 10% loss in money on his property. Ms. Lorrie Reid, 22841b Medina Lane, said she lived adjacent to a second story duplex, which she felt should' not have been built. She said that prior to living on Medina Lane, she had lived in a duplex on Lockwood Drive adjacent to a duplex with a second story, that experienced work stoppage and engendered animosity with the neighbors. She said often the property owner does not follow through on the recommendations for privacy protection alter approval has been granted. She pointed out that the property .~'i.-'!: on Lockwood has been for sale 5 or 6 unsuccessful times and does not fit in the neighborhood. She ' '~:".""' conclu.ded that her experience with second story duplexes was regrettable. Ms. Dianah Marr, 22773b Voss Ave., said that she was contacted by the Chiehs and discussed privacy issues. She said that she was affected by only 2 windows which would be obscured and they also discussed the planting of tall shrubs for privacy mitigation. She said she felt reassured that her privacy would be maintained. Ms. Mart said that she was not aware of the petition which was circulated, and said that it indicated her neighbor had signed the petition, when in fact he said that he had not, nor had she.. She said that she felt the shrub planting was also adequate mitigation. Mr. Richard Tsui, 1117 Valley Quail Circle, San Jose, spoke on behalf of Mr. Chieh, his brother-in-law, and expressed his admiration for his taking the responsibility of having the four elderly parents live with him. He said he hoped that the public hearing would result in a win-win situation on the issue, which would allow the family to live together. -. Mr. Paul Lu, said that he was Mr. Chieh's friend, and he felt that some of the people signed the petition because they thought the addition was illegally constructed. He said he felt the petition was misrepresented. He pointed out that the Chiehs followed all the regulations put forth by the city and did not knowingly construct the second story addition' illegally. . Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 10, 1999 Ms. Arlen~e Lu, 428 Paco Dr., Los Altos, said sht was Mr. Chieh's sister, and noted that there would be no extra traffic because of the additional people living in the home, as the in-laws did not drive. She said that privacy issues were a mutual concern and would not be neglected. Ms. Lu said that there would not be extra noise added from the elderly couple since they had been living in the home since Mr. Chieh purchased the home. She also expressed her admiration for her brother's decision to have the elderly in-laws reside with him. Chair Harris clarified that when an addition, particularly second story, is approved, it is not approved just for the family that owns the property at the time, because that addition will remain for at least 50 years; therefore the particular present circumstances are not considered, as some people build the property to live in and some build to sell, and circumstances change over time. She pointed out that was the reason for considering issues such as traffic and noise at the time of approval of such a proposal. Ms. Nancy Adelman, said that relative to the petition signatures, she did receive a signature from the person on parcel 36. Ms..loan DelSecco, 10333 Degas Ct., said that she lived in the area 16 years, and moved there because of its serenity and harmony. She said that the second story unit on the comer was built lower than hers; therefore there was no privacy impact to her yard; and the unit on the comer with the above-garage addition did not have windows. She said she was not aware of any problems relative to the other two story duplex. Ms. DelSecco said that she felt badly for what happened and said that the city made a horrendous mistake in not following the R2 code, which as a result put everybody in a bad light. She said she was very upset over what had occurred; and said the petition did not mention any illegalities. Relative to the traffic impact, she concurred that the unit might eventually be sold, and there would be a large amount.of people living in the duplex which would add to the traffic. She said that she was not aware of the impending addition until she returned from vacation and saw the massive sU'ucture, and noted that the city had not notified the residents. She said that the project has had a negative impact on the neighborhood, which had been a congenial neighborhood. Ms. DelSeeeo said thht the permit probably would not have been granted if the proper. process was followed by the city, since the neighbors would have objected strenuously to the proposal. She exp~,essed her disappointment with the city for the error, and said that she felt threatened for the future of her home and the neighborhood, as more units would likely be sold, and questioned whether more two story additions would be approved. She said that the harmony of the neighborhood has been destroyed and she felt the second story addition should be taken down. · .~;". Chair Harris reiterated that the Planning Commission would address the issue as if there were no addition · .....' constructed on the premises; and would look at the application having been brought forward and all of the input heard would be considered as if there was no existing addition. She said they would not be prejudiced by the fact that the addition had been started. C. hair Harris noted receipt of a petition form containing 11 signatures of Degas Ct., Medina .Lane, Lockwood Dr., Voss Ave., and El Prado Way residents, stating they had no problem with the Chieh's proposal and no concerns regarding privacy issues. Mr. Chieh thanked the participants for their input. Relative to the petition, he said that those neighbors he spoke to were concerned whether he had the proper permit for the addition, and whether he was addressing the privacy issue. He said that because the petitioners heard only one side of the story, they may not be represented here. He said that for the 1t2 zone, there were no privacy standards, and they basically abstracted from the RI requirements. He said he felt his proposal not only met, but exceeded the R1 requirements for the privacy issues. He said that if people felt there should only be one story duplexes in the area, then perhaps the zoning should be modified for the future. However, it is presently an R2 zone, and he felt he was eligible to apply for a second story. He said when he purchased the home 10 years ago, he saw there were other two story duplexes in the neighborhood, and felt that they would be able to expand to accommodate their needs became it was zoned 112. In conclusion, Mr. Chieh said that he met ail the city Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 10, 1999 requirements', and considered all the mitigation they could provide to resolve the issues of the neighbors to the best of their ability. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris summarized the issues: (1) Approve as presented with two mitigations measures, the screened deck outside the bedroom and opaque windows, and tree plantings? (2) Deny a second story at this location? (3) Do the architectural review in light of the R1 standards just developed, since it is similar to an R1, which would require looking at it in terms of 65/35% and 4 foot offsets and other mitigations contained in the R1 plan? (4) Specific elements, (shift bedroom, move over garage, move over other unit); (5) Planting close to subject property; (6) Move encroachments; and (7) FAR. Referring to the architectural site review doeumant, Com. Stevens questioned, whether the Planning Commission had to make the finding that the proposed project maintains the character and integrity of the neighborhood.. Mr. Kilian explained that there are a number of purposes, and not all the purposes are necessarily met by any particular application. He said that neighborhood character is a concern in this case, and if determined that it was totally inconsistent with the neighborhood, it may be reason to find the more specific findings contained in the finding provision of the chapter on Pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the staff report. Mr. Kilian reiterated that the findings are what is legally required; the purposes are why the findings exist and what supports the £mdings. If it is found to be totally inconsistent with the neighborhood either as it exists or is reasonable to become, then the Planning Commission would have the authority to deny the request based upon one of the findings. He said that the General Plan specifics are contained on 2-23 and 2-24 and the privacy strategy under Policy 2-19 protects residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering, setbacks, landscapings, walls, activities, limitations, etc. If the mitigations do not meet the reasonable expectations of privacy to the neighbors, the permit could be denied. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine what is reasonable in that regard. Com'. Stevens said that he was concerned with the project, visited the property, and was not supportive of what was presented because he felt the moving of the bedrooms would be a much better solution. He said that R2 states that a second story can be built, and there are no FAR requirements, and he said he could not look at things other than setbacks. He said he could not deny the second story as a blanket rule; however, he (.'..-i .. felt that a precedent has been set in three different areas, one on Vista, and two located in this neighborhood " in that .they are all on corner lots which means that the privacy issue is mitigated on two sides of the second story addition automatically. He said the subject project is a flag lot with up to 7 properties backing.onto it, and if he denied the project, it would be because it is a flag lot. Com. Stevens said he would like to apply R1 standards; however, the FAR ora duplex is governed by 40% of the lot size, and it does not give it as a floor area ratio, it gives it as a footprint. If you add to it, and this is something the city should be looking at, that means you could.have a FAR of 80% because it can be doubled if there is no other requirement. Com. Stevens recommended the maneuver of the bedroom and bathroom for a better privacy solution; use of deck, opaque windows, planting close to the slructure and away from the wires to alleviate the wire clearance problem. He said it would also assist ~ae neighbors in not blocking the sun from their solar heaters if the planting was done closer to the house. He said if there is a legal R2 encroachment, it should be corrected. Relative to the stairwell, he said he would support the R2 standard, and move the 4 inches.. Relative to the FAR, with a minor modification, he supported the 50% ratio of the house portion on the top of whatever the existing structure is, rather than 100% which is in concert with allowing and 40% coverage on the main floor. Com. Kwok said he had been to the property and talked with the neighbors and concurred with Com. Stevens. He said that he felt he could not support the denial of a second story, with the existing precedent .of three two story duplexes in the 'neighborhood. Relative to shifting the bedrooms, he said he concurred · with Com. Stevens as he felt it would be a c. ompromise with the applicant tO mitigate the privacy concerns. Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 10, 1999 He said that moving the addition to the existing building would just shift the problem to someone else and he did not support that. He said that the plantings, deck and opaque windows were efforts made by the applicant to protect the neighbors' privacy and he supported that. Com. Kwok said he would approve the overall project as presented with the false deck, opaque windows and the planting on the property line. Relative to the RI standards, he said he felt it met the height requirements; the fi'ont and rear setbacks would be addressed at encroaclunent time. He said the applicants have already agreed that if it is in violation of the setback requirements, they would rectify the problems to comply with the requirements, and he supported moving the encroachments to meet the setback requirements. Relative to the FAR, he said he supported Com. Stevens recommendation of the 50% of the lower level. He said he was supportive of planting close to the property because of the wires; the 4 inch encroachment, but not the stairwell. Com. Kwok said he was supportive of the application as designed with the bedroom facing west, and the mitigations proposed by staff and the size proposed by applicant. Com. Corr said that given the R2 zoning in the area, he felt the second story was a fait accompli, and in terms of presentation he felt h'e could not approve it as presented even though a noble effort was made to try to resolve a nasty issue. He'said he felt it was appropriate to apply the R1 standards and agreed that in looking at specific elements, shifting the bedroom made sense, moving it around changes the whole attitude ..... :. of what happens on the west side of the house; moving it over the garage doesn't make sense; the planting ',.ci~/ closer to the property both on the west and south was appropriate. Relative to the encroachments, he said he still was unclear, and felt something Occurred in the past regarding the jog in the fence, and it was imperative to define where~ the property line is, and if the setback has been'encroached upon, it needs to be moved back and removed. He said the FAR at 65/35% was appropriate. Chair Harris said that she could not approve it as presented even with staff mitigations. She said she felt she could not deny the second story totally, since they went to a great deal of trouble to write the RI standards, and although not necessarily applying them here, they could be used as a guide in the architectural review. She said she would like to see all the project reviewed in light of the standards with the offsets and the FAR and the 65/35% which is 50% 6n the side where that part of the duplex is looked at as a house, double the size on the ground and half above. Relative to the encroachments, she said she concurred with Com. Con', to first determine if there is an encroachment, otherwise people could move their fence out and claim ownership of the property. She said she felt if they looked at the RI, then the stairwell encroachment would require moving; and if there is an 'encroachment, shifting the bedroom would be appropriate because everybody wins and the people that are close to that property don't have their privacy infi'inged upon. Cbm. Harris said that she preferred putting the addition over the garage; however, there is no support for that (.. because it moves it up on the lot and away from everyone else. She said that she was not in favor of putting it over.the second unit, because it shifts the impacts. Relative to the FAR, she said she concurred with the other Commissioners; and planting close to the subject was appropriate. Chair Harris explained to the applicant that the application would not be approved as presented and explained the process that would follow. Mr. Chieh requested clarification if the bedroom was shifted, would it meet the requirements or would they still need to meet other requirements? Chair Harris clarified that four of the Planning Commissioners suggested that staff look at the project in light of the recently approved R1 standards to see how it meets it. Staff indicated in most cases it does meet it; however, not in the size which is too large, and would require scaling back for certain, and perhaps one or two other elements staffwould determine. Relative to the 50% FAR he asked if it included the garage. Chair Harris said that the suggestion was to take a par~ of the property that is the ground floor of the side of the duplex where the second story is, and the second floor can be 50% of that. She said they were not suggesting that the garage be included as part of the calculation. Relative to the issue of the Vista Drive duplex being approved, Chair Harris clarified that the purpose of an architectural review is to allow the community to come forward to submit input, and Mr. Chieh's circumstances differed since it was'a flag lot that directly affected several other properties. She said no one · contested the issue at the Vista Drige hearing, because as many property owners were not impacted. Com. . Kwok suggested to Mr. Chieh that he work. with the architect and the neighborhood as well. Chair Harris Planning Commission Minutes l0 May 10, 1999 pointed out that in the majority of cases, the applicant working with the staff and community usually worked out beneficially and rdight be advisable for Mr. Chieh to do. Chair Harris explained that there was a circumstance in the R1 that allows for accessory units, for families to have a unit for their parents, relative or housekeeper on site; and when addressing those, they do not look at the accessory unit even if it is attached as if it is the house; the house is reviewed as the RI and then the accessory unit counts in the FAR. She pointed out that the suggestion was different, in that the unit that is the house be looked at as a house with the ground floor being 100%, and the second floor being 50%. She said that they were welcome to present a different proposal and .reason for it, for approval. Mr. Pemg (architect) asked what the 50% was based on. Com. Stevens said that he suggested 50% of the unit to prevent somebody saying it meant both units and then take the total that was available and use it; which would prevent the person owning the other unit fi-om using a portion; therefore it is limited to where the unit is being built, over the applicant's unit. He clarified that whatever unit size the applicant's unit is, 50% of that size could be buil~. If using the FAR on the RI, the garage would be included, allowing a bigger unit to be built, which'would allow for consistency or half the garage, which may be the better way to proceed. ~.. L ', ~.!!: :~, Chair Harris asked that the applicant make a decision following the break. Chair Harris declared a recess fi-om 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.' Mr. Chieh said he would prefer a continuance of a month. MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 4-ASA-99 to the June 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting SECON-D: Com. Corr ABSENT: Com.' Doyle VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 Items 4 and 5 were considered together because the location and issues are the same, although a separate vote will be taken. 4. Application No.: 2-EXC-99 (:.~)~..,.., Applicant: Tony Wong Location: 11346 S. Ste.lling Road Fence exception to locate a 7-foot high fence on a portion of the side (south) property line. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed 5. Application No.: 3-EXC-99 Applicant: Rupinder Sekhon Location: 7667 Echo Hill Court Fence exception to locate a 7-foot high fence on the south property line. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Staff oresentation: The video presentation reviewed the applieatictas for fence exceptions on two 'lots both located on £eho Hill Court, noting that an approval of the request would change the status of the fences fi-om temporary to Permanent and not require the owners to relocate the fences farther back into their properties. Staff recommends that the fences remain where they are along the 48 foot strip of the Echo Hill cul de sac because pushing them back would not impact safety, and the fence exceptions be approved. A · decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council unless an appeal is filed . within 14 calendar days. June 1/, Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 14, 1999 9. Application No. (s): 3-Tlvl-99, 14-EA-99 Applicant: Judy Chert ' Location: 7359 'Rainbow Drive Tentative map to subdivide a 14.661 square foot lot into seven lots for an approved townhouse development. Tentative Ciiy Council hearing date June 21, 1999 MOTION: Com. Con' moved to continue Items 5 and 9 to the June 28, 1999 meeting, and Item 7 to the July 12, 1999 meeting. SECOND: Com. Stevens ABSENT: Com. Harris VO~: Passed ' 4-0-0 ORAL COMML~CATIONS: None .' ~}.?.~ CONSENT CALENDAR: Com. Kwok r~U~ted that Item 2 be remov~ Rom the Con~t C~I~ for di~sion. ' 2. A~licafion No.: 7-~A-~ Applicant: RWC, LLC (Grosvenor International) Location: 1-5 Results Way Architectural and site review to.modify thc entry landscaping at an existing industrial complex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed There was a brief discussion regarding the size of the oleander trees. Chair Doyle opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. I' ? MOTION: Com. Kwok moved to approve the Consent Calendar ":'"' SECOND: Com. Con' ABSENT: Com. Ha~s VO~: Passed 4-0-0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: .......... -~ppii~. ................... ~-~"~ D~g-W~ C~ Location: 10333 Degas Court Arctfitectm'al and Site approval to allow the construction of a 978 square foot first & second story addition to an existing one-story duplex. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from May I0, 1999 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for reconsideration to construct . a first and second story addition to an e%i,'sting one-story duplex. A permit was erroneously issued to begin construction although the application had not gone through the architectural and site Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 14, 1999 approval procedure first. The incon-e~tly issued permit and construcfio~n of the addition triggered opposition from several of the applicant's surrounding neighbors, who are concerned about massiveness of the addition and privacy mitigation. The city attorney has advised the Planning Commission to allow for the second story addition unless it is concluded that the applicant cannot mitigate both privacy and design issues. The applicant has prepared a revised proposal in an attempt to address the privacy mitigation and design issues, and is in compliance with all duplex setback measurements. Proposed changes include switching the master bedroom/bath; replacing a gable roof plan with a hip roof; offsetting the west side walls to comply with the revised setback requirements and pro,de additional offset distance; and changing the roof element over the stairwell to mhaimi~.e the wall height. As a result of two meetings with the adjacent neighbors, the Chiehs prepared study sketches describing possible develov,,,ent options. The applicant wishes to add to the primary unit to take advantage of a rear yard along with partial use of the proposed front courtyard, whereas the neighbors wish to _~hifi the second story space as far from their dwellings as possible. Staff recommends approval of the application; a decision if reached will be considered final and not fonvarded to'the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Mr. Robert Cowan, Community Development Director, provided a sa~mmm'y of the application and ~'~.~:~' :. reviewed the findings and tentative position of the Pl~ining Commission, as outlined in the attached staff report. He referred to various drawings and overlays of the original elevations and proposed elevations and explained the applicant's proposed changes..' Mr. Cowan discussed Table .2, Development/Design Comtmrison of Proposed Chieh Duplex Addition and R-1 Standards, noting the problem area in terms of applying the R-1 standard of the second st~o~y~ setback, side yards. Relative to the stairwell, he noted that the requirement prior to June 3 was 15 feet; however, it did not comply with the new requirements of 12 feet. He said that the proposed application meets the R-2 ordinance, and most of the requirements for R.-1. Mr. Cowan reviewed sketches la, lb, 3a, 3b and 3c provided by the applicator at the request of the neighbors, which illustrated various options for the building expansion. He stated that staff felt the applicant had taken great strides to comply with the Plmming Commission's directions, and said the design changes provide privacy protection and tend to reduce the scale of the building. Mr. E. Chieh, property owner, explained the objectives of the proposed applicationi (1) Addition (~i'.'" of 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1 family room to meet the needs of his family to acco,~caodate 2 children -.' and in-laws; (2) M~nimlze the disturbance of Unit B; (3) Control construction costs by using some of the former layout and structures; (4) Maintain the integrity of the duplex, Mr. Chieh reviewed the sohitions/respouses to Pl~nnlng Commissioners' concerns, which were outlined in his handout. (I) Switched sides of the master bedroom and bathroom to improve the Privacy protection; (2) Met all setback requirements; (3) Met the 50%0, 2~ story to 1~t story ratio; (4) Met the 50%, 4 ft. offset and reduced wall height on 2~ story; (5) Changed the roof structure designs to reduce the overall visual mass; building height reduced by 2 feet; roof design chenged from gable style to hip style; (6) Sloped ceiling of the stairwell to further reduce the visual mass; (7) Change the window style on south side as requested by neighbors; (8) Reduced window size on staixwell and changed the window style on the master bedroom; (9) Used obscure material for bathroom windows, stairwell window, and bedroom windows; and (10) Received a copy-of the owner's cert.ficate from Santa Clara County showing that there is no wire clearance issue arising from planting trees next to the fence. Mr. Chieh discussed the alternatives suggested by neighbors, which he said did not meet his objectives: (1) Build a one stoxy addition in the courtyard areas; (2) Consolidate Unit A and B as one unit; create a new second.story Unit B over the garage and the' old Unit B; and (3) Move Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 14, 1999 parents to existing Unit A and build'~ larger dwelling out of Unit B and a new second story addition over the garage and a portion of Unit B. · Chair ·Doyle opened the meeting for public input. lVlr. Owen Byrd, repreSenting Henry and Nancy Adelman, said that they continue to oppose the Chieh's apphcation and request that it be denied for the following reasons: The impacts of the two story proposal have not been fully mitigated; the modest changes made since last presented, ' do not adequately address the privacy impacts of this design on the surrounding neighbors, nor the incompatibility of the design with the neighborhood. He said that the planning Commission could deny the second story addition on the property, if it is determined that the design review findings eaunot be made. He said that the Adelmans submit that the unique characteristics of this property, particularly its flag lot configuration and the design of the surrounding single story residences, can prevent the Commission fi:em making the required findings for any second story addition on the property. He reviewed the~required findings fi:om the .code and noted the privacy intrusion on the Adelmans from the bathroom if the bedroom/bath were switched as propose& He said they were opposed to anyone invading their privacy from the adjacent home. Mr. Byrd said that the applicants elected not to follow the Co~,~fi-~sion's direction to cite privacy landscaping closer to the building. He said that it is true that the strip'qf land closer to the property line is at a higher elevation than the land closer to the Chieh's building, but the PG&E requirement that the landscaping in that zone be kept pruned to a 15 foot height will effectively prevent the landscaping fi:om having significant screening value for the Adelemans. He said that the proposed project proposes an abrupt change in building scale and would result in an abrupt transition in height and bulk; the hipped roof does not mitigate this impact because the impact is a function of the overall height which, has been stepped down only 1 foot 10 inches. The issue is not just the shape of the roof; the building itself rem,in_~ twice as tall as the sm'rounding residences. He said that the location and height of walls do not harmonize with the adjacent development; the revised second story setb~ do not mitigate this impact. He illusWated photos of the three other second story duplexes in the neighborhood which have much greater second story setbacks. He said that the fourth finding was that the new project in an existing residential neighborhood is not designed to protect residents from noise, tr-fl~c, light and visually intrusive impacts. The proposed project (".,... covmlns substantially more bedrooms and b:~ths than any other duplex in the neighborhood. He ..... pointed out that the Chieh's.home would total'2375 square feet, while the other two story duplexes were only 1400 to 1600 square feet, aid had 6 windows facing neighbors' yards, while the neighbors' had none. He said that the proposal was a much more intense project on the only flag lot in the subdivision, and was not compatible with the neighborhood. He said that beyond the findings, the spedfic findings 'enumerated in the code, the revised K-1 standards have not been fully met; the Commission directed the project comply with the new P,-1 ordinance; and of all those provisions, the second story side yard setback requirement has' not been met, yet it would appear to be one of the most significant for this project, given the intensity of its privacy impacts. As the staff report concedes, this project provides a combined second story side yard setbacks of 36-1/2 feet, but the neW ordinsnee requires 45 feet. In addition the proposed stairwell wall does not comply with the setback requirements of the new R-1 ordinance. Relative to the option of a single stow addition, Mr. Byrd said that the Adelmans submit that the variance findings could be made and they would support the variance request if made by the Chiehs, specifically because the flag lot presents exceptional and extraordinary drc~,m-~;ances that do not apply to other properties in the district; the variance would prevent unreasonable loss or hardship for the applicant and · would not be detrimental or injurious to'property in the vicinity. He showed a photo of the construction fi:om the Adelman's window and asked the Commission to consider if they would Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 14, t999 want/to live wi~ the permanent unmitigatible impacts of the proposed project, or would they want the city officials to apply the findings and d~ty the project to protect residents from those impacts. Mr. Emil Kolev, 10344 El Prado Way, also speaking on behalf of his wife Anita, said that the addition would be built in an area wh~e three of the neighbors oppose it. He rfferred to an overhead of comparison of two story duplexes, and noted that there were no other similar duplexes with as many rooms and floor area. He pointed out that the Chieh's residence was adjacent to six neighbors, whereas the other two story duplexes only had two. He noted that the other two story duplexes were probably built to accommodate the size of the lot, and were all the same square footage. Based on the comparison, he said he felt that no second story addition should be built as proposed. Mr. Kolov said that the findings of the code could not be met with the proposed addition; his prope~y value would decrr, ase; if the addition is built, his family would bear an unfair high property tax based on an ulirealistic price they paid for the house. He said he was not aware of the proposed addition when he purchased his home, and if the addition is approved, he may seek legal ways to recover bis losses. He said he felt tim change in building scale of the proposed addition ~i:: was too abrupt. He said the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with '- adjacent development, location, hdght, and materials of walls, fencings, hedges, and screen planting. He said the item is more achievable although they would.prefer walls of lower height; there is no viable solution for prop~ hndscaping at this time as the a~plicant do~s not want to plant any trees nm the housq and in his opinion the bank near the fenc~line will not support any good veg~ation because it is too narrow and too we~tk. He said new developm~t should be designed to protect residen~ from noise, traffic, light and visually inmusive eff~--ts. Mr. Kolev said that ~ven with the proposed changes, his privacy and light are still effected and the noise and traffic will . increase due to tho close proximity of the addition and the numl~ of people living in the home. He said that based on the above findings, his family recommealds &mial of the proposal and given a continuation he would propose to tho applicants to mcploro the following ideas: first utili~.e to a maxlmmn degree the court ar~a between the two units of their duplex, and if the area in the courtyard is not snfficient, the n~cessary additional space can be built over the garage or Unit B of the duplex, but only after the first floor has been fully utilized. Ms. Cheryl Besemer, 22783 Voss Avenue, said that she agr~l that the privacy issm~ were of concern on the proposed addition. She said she appreciated the Chieh's efforts in addressing the neighbors' concerns, but felt that the roof style of the second story could be further mitigated to lower the overall height of the building and set back the peak of the building for a visual appearance of less bulk. Relative to planting flees again_hr the feaceline, she suggested they be planted closer to the house to eliminate the branches and wire problem and allow the neighbors as much space as possible. She said she felt that a flag lot was the least appropriate for a second story addition in an existing one story residential area. Mr. Mark Ischia, 10315a El Prado Way, said that the new addition on the Chieh's home obstnmts the view the residents had, and trees would not alleviate the problem. He said he felt allowing such a largo homo in thc midst of the commllnity was not appropriate. He noted that he was not previously aware that there was a two story duplex on the comer until it was pointed out to him, which illush~ed that if in the right location, it wonld not be intrusive on thc neighbors' privacy. Chair Doyle closed the public input portion of the meeting. Mr. Chich thanked the speakem for their.input. He noted the growth in population of Cupertino over the past thirty years, and point.ed out that duplexes were .'established in the area for Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 14, 1999 medium/low density multi-family hous~g. He said that he attempted to meet as many of the R-1 guidelines as possible, adhered to the rules and tried to meet all the suggestions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Chieh said that he was hopeful that his efforts would be recognized and a reasonable and fair decision reached. In response to Com. Kwok's question about location of the trees, l~[r. Chieh said that he would prefer they be located closer to the fence for privacy mitigation, and noted that if too close to the house, they could damage the structure. Mr. David Pemg, architect, briefly discussed the tree plantings for privacy mitigation. Com. Stevens said that duplexes were two homes on the same lot that an R-I would be on; the FAR of an R-1 is usually much smaller initially than what is found in a duplex, and therefore that is the 40% rule; in effect wh,~t~ the duplex R-2 is for is to allow expansion initially upon building a building for larger space and more bedrooms. He said the flag lot is a major problem because of the amount of people living around it. He said he felt the proposal resubmitted with the bedroom switched, privacy mitigation issue of windows has been addressed; the ~ont windows look over the ..,;;._.~ applicant's courtyard and own garage which is not a privacy problem; tree planting closer to the "::'"" house would initially be better because of the cone of vision. Com. Stevens said that he felt the architectural review h_,s been met, and it was explained by the assistant city attorney that denial could not be based on two story alone. Com. Corr said that the applicant attempted to address all cone, ems; and the one area where a discrepancy existed even though they were asked to look at the R-l, the R-1 really doesn't apply. They were able to get very close with the exception of the 14-1/2.£eet at the stairwell which would have met the former R-1 but is short of making the new one. Given tha~ it met all the other R-Is. He said that he agreed that planting the trees closer to the house was more suitable. He said reversing the bedrooms to the east met with their requirement. Although nothing was submitted relative to color and materials, he said he felt they met their obligations. Com. Kwok said he was conoemod whether sari#led that the privacy control measures had beern met. He said the a~plicant met tim guidelines and directions given at the last meeting, and based on that could not deny the construction of the second story addition. Chair Doyle said he had hoped that the eommuulty and applicant would come together with a compromise that would meet everyone's requirements, but they had not reached that point yet. He said it was the role of the plsnnln$ Commi_,~s!.'on in such eases to define the gray area. He said he felt the colors and materials should be consistent with the existing residences to blend in as closely as possible; composite roofs were discussed and the others are shake roofs, which could be an issue. He said the issue was to try to mitigate the impacts of the property on the neighbors; the mitigation should be the responsibility of' the applicant not the people imp, acted with it. He said he felt the issue of one story vs. two story would become the biggest pl,nnlng difficulty for the next five yems, and as such, setting a precedent in these areas is rli~cult and would em. me it to be revisited many times. He noted as a general nile, it should be a requirement that th~ second story units be hidden. Chair Doyle commended the applicant on the work completed, but said there was still a lot to do yet, and thru he could not suppoxt the proposal in its present state. Com. Stevexls cl,qxi:fied ttmt he would li~e to have it lower, and have the str~ctm~ hiddexl .~imilar to those on John Way. He said he still had a reservation about the flag lot. ' Com. Corr said that he supported the pro~osal. Planning Commission ,Minutes 7 June 14, 1999 Chair Doyle said that he was not certain if the design flexibility given to this type of agevelopment has been pushed in that direction far enough yet. He said it might be possible to take and potentially split the difference between the upstairs space and the com?ard, and shift everything in that direction to reduce the mitigation by a certain .amount. Also attempt to get the roofline down four to five feet to about the 21 foot level. A discussion ensued regarding potential options, wherein Mr. Pemg answered questions. Com. Stevens said that because there were no solid guidelines, and the applicant met the requirements and did a very good job of it, with the caveat of having the trees closer to the house, he supported approval of the proposal. Chair Doyle expressed concern that it would be setting a precedent to have a detailed design review for each story. He said that if a more definitive set of guidelines was set that indicated no impacts on the neighbors, it would have to be mitigated on the site with the intent that the second stoqt would not be viewable from off the property. ...:' -5. MOTION: Com. Stevens moved to approve Application ~ASA-99 with the proposed conditions in the model resolution SECOND: Com. Kwok ABSENT: Com. Harris NOES: Chair Doyle VOTE: Passed 3-1-0 Chair Doyle declared a recess from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m. 4. Application No.: 6-ASA-99 Applicant: Harold Ohazvini Location: 10061 Pasadena Venue Architeennal review of modifications to an ~pproved use permit for a new 4,059 square foot mixed i ..' ', use office/commercial/residential building. Planning Commission decision.final unless appealed Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for architectmal review of modific~ons to an approved use permit for a 4059 sq. fh mixed use building as outlined in the attached staff report. A use permit was granted in November 1998; however, inaccuracies in the architect's site plan were discovered and require site plan changes, architectmal changes, and landscaping changes. Staff recommends ~vproval of the application on the condition that two of the p~lm trees be retained and the window design features proposed for the south elevation be made of spandrel glass rather than p~dnted on to create the illusion of a window. A decision if reached will be considered final and not forwarded to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, refen'ed to the site plan, and noted the proposed dmnges including hrger setback on the south of the lei~ side, eonsolidming the front entry, and narrower Landscape strip and setback on .the north, and interior stairwell. She also pointed out the design changes, including the dormers; center entry, new whdow treatment and rendering perspective of .' ttm building. Staff recommend~ that the ~enter p:~lm tree be removed. To whom it may concern: We have discussed with Mr. And Mrs. Chieh regarding their 2na story addition, we have no problem with their proposal and we have no privacy concern. Sincerely, · .% ~'~,,?~._,, ,:'.,,.!.:_ / · ..¢... ? OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL .AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPER~O, CALIFO~A The following Cupertino_ residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a pl'oposed second-story addition at 10~. Degas'Cmart. As neighbors of the vroposed p~ec~ we believe that ~ tmdinss ~ ~y Zonins .C. ode Sec~ 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. _The proposed addition will harm create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing and view~, and intrude on th~,,.l~.'.vacy.of, ~.urmunding residen. E. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this ~pplication an4 to not nttempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditiom or resti'i~ons on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS ! OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 101;;33 DEGAS COURT CU H .T O, CAL ORN A The followin~ Cupertino_ t~idents OPPO6E Application t-ASA-99 for Site and Desi~rt Approval of a l~'.oposed second-story addition at 1(I3,33 De~as' Cou~ As neighbors oi the proposed prc~.ct, we believe that ~.e tndirtSs t~luired by ~ Code Section 19.1~i. OSO cannot be made to Sul~port tltts ~ The proposed addition will harm our property ~alues, c~eate an abrupt chan~ m. building ~cale in relation to existing tesid .en~, create unre~onable noise impacts, mte~fe:e with existing dayli~t patterns cuperUno to DI~NY thts al~.'licatio~ and to not attempt to miUsate the impa~ by imposinS conditions or re~atctions on the pzoposed project NAM]/ ADDRESS OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE AppHcation 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ^ 1 ADDRESS % OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL .AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA' The following Cupmino rmicl~ts OPPOSIt Application i-ASA-99 for Site ~ Design Approval of a p~'oposed second-story addition at 10~. De,as'Court. As nel~bors of ~ ~osca ~ w. ~a~cvc ~t ~ ~ re~-ea ~ ~ .c. oac scc~o~ 19.~.080 cannot be made to support ttzis project. The proposed addition will han~ an abrupt dmng~ in building scale in relation to exis~g our property values, create . . residences, create unreasonable nmse impacts, in ..t~e with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on ~ pr?acy.of, s. urro~ residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to D....ENY this ap.p.'.li.c, ation and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by impo~ conditions or restrictiom on the proposed project NAME ADDRESS OPPOSTION TO ~ ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create ru~easonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. fl~ ADDRESS OPPOSTION TO ' ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude.on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS ...... ~.~ · &.~.... ,,." II.,..-. ' OPPOSTION ! TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude en the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS .Jvc, , OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Tl~e following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10,333 Degas' Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in b~ildir~ ~cale in relation to existing residences, cre.a~ unreasormble noise impact~, interfere with existing daylight pat~-ns and views, and intrude or~ the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of · Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impact~ by imposing condition~ or restrictions on the proposed project. OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design ApproVal of a proposed second-story addition at 10,333 Degas' Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unre~onable noise impacts, interfere with e~isting daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS i OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTIHO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Sim and Design Approval of a proposed second-stoz3r addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of h% praposed project, we believe hhat the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our proper~ values, c~sate an abrupt change in building scale in rdation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, in~er/eze with existing daylight pattams and views, and intrude on the privacy of. surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing condit/ons or restrictions on the proposed project. /aa/z/A/~ ~1 '~.q~ [~.k,¢.1, e.u~ . · ' . OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by "'""3 imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. .N~~ ADDRESS OPPOSTION To ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE AppHcation ~-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change irt building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this application and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS ~.,t~ .,'"~ e..~.t.,, ,.,t I1"t~,~'I ~-..." ~ ['"t ~>]t Dr, ~.-~..,~ . 'OPPOSTION , TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA The following Cupertino residents OPPOSE Application 4-ASA-99 for Site and Design Approval of a proposed second-story addition at 10333 Degas Court. As neighbors of the proposed.project, we believe that the findings required by Zoning Code Section 19.134.080 cannot be made to support this project. The proposed addition will harm our property values, create an abrupt change in building scale in relation to existing residences, create unreasonable noise impacts, interfere with existing daylight patterns and views, and intrude on the privacy of surrounding residents. We urge the City of Cupertino to DENY this %pplication and to not attempt to mitigate the impacts by imposing conditions or restrictions on the proposed project. NAME ADDRESS OPPOSTION TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR SECOND-STORY ADDTION AT 10333 DEGAS COURT CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA May 7, 1999 To the Planning Commission, City of Cupertino: The addition of a second story to the duplex at 10333 Degas Court, if completed, will take the last corridor of light and view that I have from my living room and kitchen. Many of my neighbors will also lose their light, view and privacy. I have lived in the Monte Vista and Cupertino area for 41 years, 26 of those years at my present address, 10354 El Prado Way. I consider this area one of the loveliest in Cupertino: , · ~ I feel that allowing existing duplexes to become two stories would be detrimental to the neighborhood, which is almost exclusively single story. During the 26 years I have lived here, there has never been a second story addition. The proposed second story at Degas Court is out of character for the neighborhood. Its size and height go far beyond the typical single story duplex and I understand that parking is already a problem on Degas Court, I was never notified by the City Of Cupertino of a plan to allow a second story at this location, or I would have protested sooner. Mary R. Eade by: COLDWELL SARATOGA ADB gQ6 084g; nR/ln/~ 1~:~4; Set.~.n.T._#A28;Page 2/14 I W~T~ TO ~UMM~ MY V~WING 0 F YOUR PROP~R'I'Y TODAY. T~E ~O~ ~ ~~OR COND~ON OF YOUR PROP~ ~ O~= 8T~D~G. YOU~ ~C~T UPG~D~ AND P~NED FUTUR~ UPGI~ES YOUR PROP~ & V~WS OF '~t FOOTHH J-q 18 A~O OF V~UE AS AS T~ SCHOOL D~~. GOO~ A~C~8S TO TIlE F~WAY, LOT AND S~U~ FOOTAGE{~7~ ~ FURTHUR ~IT~. T~ ~ NtGATIV~ T~T 1 ~ FOR YOURI'R~~ 1~ THE NEW CON- ~RU~ION ~ 'FH~ ~CK, a~~O YOUR VtaWS ~n OV~aL~X~N~ ~OTH ~ACK Y~S ~D THE HACK UF T~ ~OUS~ WE WOU~ D~COU~ TO 10~ OF T~ ~AL V~UE OF YOUR ~OM~ ~a ~~ ~ YOUR ~O~ W~ ~aT~O ~a ~M,00n. ~T COULD VERY ~ at A CO~ O~ ST0&00. O~ STRU~U~ ~OC~NG YOUR VIEWSs ~OW CLOSE TO YOUR Y~ ~D BACK YOU~ N~S ~ THS ~U~ ~ARON PAU~ON COLD~ S~TOGA, ~ 9S070 COLDUJ(~LL:: BAilI(eR r~ City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 City of Telephone: (408) ??%3220 Cupe rt.in o ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Agenda Item No../F~ Meeting Date: July 19, 1999 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review and Approval of Property Liens for Delinquent Garbage Service. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 6.~4, an administrative hearing was held by the Director of Administrative Services on June 30, 1999 to consider any objection or protest to delinquent garbage service charges. All property owners were mailed a notice of the hearing on June 7, 1999. The minutes from this hearing are attached. The accompanying list titled "Report of Delinquent Garbage Charges" are accounts that still have not paid for garbage service as required by Municipal Code Section 6.24. To place a lien on property for delinquent charges, City Council is required to hold a public hearing to hear evidence as to why the delinquent report or any portion thereof should not be confirmed. City Council may adopt, revise, reduce or modify any charge shown on the report or overrule any or all objections as it deems appropriate. ' RECOMMENDATION: Hold public hearing to hear evidence regarding delinquent charges, make appropriate adjustments and approve resolution to place lien on subject property. Submitted~~- ~. ~ by: Apsro~ion: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services City MaTmger Printed on Recycled Paper City of Cupertino Administrative Hearing Garbage Liens June 30, 1999 r of .10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, CA Cupertino MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Jennifer Chang called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in City Council Chamber, Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torte Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL City Staff Present: Accountant Jennifer Chang 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Andra Slem~ spoke concerning his delinquent garbage bill. He stated that he had paid the bill in full and that a lien should not be placed on the property. Jennifer Chang stated that she would work with Los Altos Crarbage Company to ensure that the payment was received and credited to his account. 4. ADJOURNMENT The administrative hearing was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Je~,~ffer C~g, Accoun~r~ City of Cupertino Delinquent Garbage Liens PAST DUE AMOUNT PLUS NAME SERVICE ADDRESS PARCEL # SERVICE PERIOD $25.00 CITY ADMIN FEE Jack T. & Ying-Ying Wang 7453 Bollinger 359-23-022 5/1/98 ~ 12/31/98 $146.77 George& Miranda J. Chang 10411Tula Lane 359-13-119 3/1/98- 12/31/98 $172.83 William L. & Elmy D. Dameri 916 September Drive 362-14-008 12/1/97 - 12/31/98 $256.96 Daniel W. Mullen 862 Bette Avenue 369-24-048 7/1/96 - 12/31/98 $505.62 David McKell 21239 Gardena Drive 326-40-005 8/1/97 - 12/31/98 $280.78 Elizabeth Meyers 10216 Will Court 316-25-024 1/1/98 - 12/31/98 $193.78 W. R. & Erie Keys 10131 Alhambra Avenue 326-23-027 11/1/96 - 12/31/98 $409.75 Jack & Jane Rosenthal 22061 Lindy Lane 356-27-013 2/1/97 - 12/31/98 $690.63 James Campbell 10292 Degas Court 342-30-028 6/1/96 - 12/31/98 $505.62 James Martinez 10191 Santa Clara Avenue 326-22-031 8/1/96 - 12/31/98 $452.74 John & Inge Tonder 10128 Mann Drive 326-19-006 11/1/95 - 12/31/98 $578.20 Judy Davis 10292 Degas Court 342-30-028 6/1/96 - 12/31/98 $552.06 Karl Pohl 10077 Santa Clara Avenue 326-25-009 5/1/98 - 12/31/98 $147.12 Kathleen Shaw 10152 Parlett Place 316-26-054 6/1/96 - 12/31/98 $494.66 Kathy Ward 10093 Alhambra Avenue 326-40-002 7/1/98 - 12/31/98 $146.77 Keith M. Nall 10697 Par Three Drive 356-07-038 7/1/98 - 12/31/98 $146.77 Larry G. & Yolanda Squarcia 20659 Shelly Drive 359-11-024 2/1/98 - 12/31/98 $191.44 Mark R. Rudner 7537 Rainbow Drive 362-30-018 8/1/98 - 12/31/98 $102.10 Minh Phuong & Janice Chin 21455 Holly Oak Drive 362-02-015 1/1/98 - 12/31/98 $191.46 Richard Ferguson 10160 Miller Avenue 375-01-002 1/1/95 - 12/31/98 $339.74 Marcella Mahon 22045 Regnart Road, #C 366-46-004 5/1/98 - 12/31/98 $299.65 Rosalinda Rodriguez 20569 Blossom Lane 359-18-034 11/1/97 - 12/31/98 $236.11 Bartunek Trust 1131 S. Stelling Road 362-22-012 12/1/96- 12/31/98 $495.46 Jeff& Loren Toews 10645 Stevens Canyon Road 342-16-134 11/1/96 - 12/31/98 $4'09.75 CUPER TINO Agenda No. ~ o Agenda Date: July 19, 1999 SUBJECT Request from Valley Transportation Authority to iricrease the number of advertising Bus Shelters BACKGROUND: In June of 1995, the City,Council agreed to participate in the Santa Clara Bus Shelter program, which included the use of special domed shaped plexi-glass enclosed shelters with certain shelters to include advertising. The project involved a three-phase installation program with the provision that the City had the ability not to participate in any one of the phases. Attachment A describes the shelters approved for phases 1 and 2. The authority would like to proceed with Phase 3. Staff has chosen the review this program again with the Council prior to the phase 3 · installation in response to comments from individual councilpersons with regard to maintenance, particularly with respect to the lack of repair to plexi-glass panels. Upon discussing this matter with Mr. George Tacke' (Valley Transportation Operations) staff was assured that the agency '- will adhere to the maintenance requirement contained in the agreement. The agreement requires that the contractor repair any vandalism or other damage to the shelter within 48 hours of either the observation of vandalism during weekly inspection or by telephone or written notice o[' such vandalism to the contractor in Santa Clara and the agency by the participating entity where the shelter is located". Paragraph 6.3d permits the City to identify "high maintenance shelters" which are reviewed twice a week. The "high maintenance" designation is limited to I/3 of shelters in a cities jurisdiction. If the damage is ora hazardous nature, the repairs will be done in 24 hours. Mr. Tacke' notified the maintenance contractor to review all the shelters in Cupertino and to complete repairs. Henceforth, when staff or citizen notices vandalism, staff will take the initiative and forward a repair request to the agency via fax as quicklY as possible in order to initiate maintenance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the phase three elements of the bus shelter program, which includes nine additional "domed" shelters of which three will be non-advertising, be installed. As indicated above, staff will take a pro-active approach to identify vandalized stations in order to assure more timely response by the Valley Transportation Authority. l~anager Robert S. Cowan, Director of Community Development Enclosures: Attachment A Agreement describing the maintenance policy F,o. At'tclchment A Ad Shelter Progresa Report " BooMing City Phase 'Stop~ Lo~ation Location Rider~hip Install. Date Shelter Type Cupertino One 2t$503 ' ~ Stevens Creek Blvcl. NS Mary Ave 95 7/30/96 Dome S - AA Cupertino Ons ;2t 6605 EB Stevens Creek Blvd. OPP Mary Avenue 159 8/1/96 Dome S -AcS Cupe~no One 248805 WB Stevens Creek Blvd. FS Wolfe Rd. 100 8/1/96 Dome S - Ad Cupe~no' One 256602 NB WoKe Rd. FS Stevens Creek Blvd. 49 7/29/96 Dome S - Ad Cuperlino Two 21~602 NB Stalling F$ Stevens Creek 118 4/'21J99 Dome $ - AA Cupe~no Two 216804 WB Stevens Creek FS Stalling 90 4/22/99 Dome S -Ad Cuperlino Two 215806 KB Stevens Creak F$ Stalling 282 4/23/99 Dome S - Ad Cupertino Two' 2'1660S S8 Stalling F8 Btevens Creek 157 ~ Dome Non-ad Cupertino Two 216805 $B Sterling FS HomesteAd 63 4/20/99 Dome S - Ad Cupertino Two 246808 SB Miller NS Richwood 59 4,21J99 Dome Non-id Cupertino Two 256603 WB Stevens Creek FS Finch 37 4/20/99 Dome $ - Ad ~...: ';?"Jl~. rlJno Three 226605 NB DeAnzl F$ Stevens Creek 66 Dome S · Ad Cup't/no Three 226609 EB Stevens Creek OPP B~ndley 107 Dome $ -AA Cupertino Three · 2S6605 GB Stevens Creek F$ Miller 207 Dome S - Ad cupertino ' Three 256606 EB Stsven$ Creek F$ Miller 207 Do.me Non-ad Cupertino Three 256606 EB St~verm Cme]~ FS Finch 125 Dome Non-.cS Cupertino Three 226506 S8 DeAnza F$ McClelLmt I Dome $ - AA CupertJno Three ?.26~07 WB Stevens Creek F$ Banclley S3 Dome S - Ad Cupertino Three 23846~ WB Bollinger F$ Blaney 32 Dome Non-ad Cupertino Three 256804 WB Stevens Creek FS Tanmu 24 Dome $ - Ad Cuporlino Three 2K80S SB Wolfe FS Homest~cl 17 Dome S - Ad (-., NO'I'E: "~'S" meat~s £a~ si. de oJ~ J.t~t:e~'secc~.on J.n the cli~ecClo~ o~ t:~:aYe]. Effective 7/8/99 Page I of 1 c'~e,~ge~e~p~'tm~=mgre,are~of~.~.x~ ~ ~2," Section § from ( greement Entity, at its sole pption, may request a non-standard design for any new shelter constructed in its area pursuant to this Agreemefit, provided that (i) the Participating Entity requests such non-standard design at the time of the approval of the shelter location pursuant to Section 4.b, and (ii) the Participating Entity reimbm'ses COntractor for any additional expense for the construction, installation and/or maintenance of such non-standard design shelter. With regard to shelters of non-standard design existing in any Participating Entity's jurisdiction prior to the Effective Date, (a) such shelters may only be replaced by Contractor if Contractor, at Contractor's cost, replicates the existing non-standard design in the replacerrient shelter, and (b) no additional expense may be charged by Contractor for the maintenance of such existing non-standard shelters or any replication thereof. 6. Maintenaiaee of Shelters. ..' a. Maintenance Obligation. During the term of this Agreement, "':"' ~ Contractor shall maintain all new and exis '.ting shelters in the areas of jurisdiction of Participating Entities in a clean, safe, and first-class condition and in accordance with all provisions of this Section 6. .- b. Minim-rn Weekly Maintenance. Contractor shall inspect each new and existing st{elter at lea.st once each week and Shall perform at least the following maintenance: (I) All trash shall be collected; (2) Shelter shall be cleaned, including without limitation removal of all graffiti, stickers, extraneous posters, litter, dust and dirt; (3) Weeds and litter shall be removed from a 15-foot radius around each shelter; (' (4) Shelter shall be washed if needed; and (5) Defective lights shall be repaired to working order on illuminated shelters. c. Repsir ofl'lsmaged or Vandalic. ed Shelters.' (1) Contractor ~hall repair any vandalism, gra~ti or other damage to a shelter within forty-eight (48) hours of the earlier of (i) the observation of such vandalism or damage by Contractor during weekly maintenance, or (ii) telephonic or written notice of such vandalism or damage to Contractor and SCCTD by the Participating Entity where the shelter is located. (2)- Notwithstanding the foregoing, if shelter vandalism or .... damage is.ora hazardous nature, or if light sources need repair or replacement, Contractor shall repair such deficiencies within twenty-four (24) hours. 5 (3) Contractor expressly agrees that, if Contractor fails to meet its obligations as set forth in Subsections (1) and (2) above, then SCCTD or the Participating Entity where the shelter is located shall have the right to perform such obligations on Contractor's behalf, withbut notice to Contractor with regard to those obligations in Subsection (2) and after three (3) days' telephonic or written notice to Contractor with regard to those obligations in Subsection (1). Contractor shall reimburse SCCTD or such Participating Entity upon demand for the expenses incurred by SCCTD or such Entity in such performance by SCCTD or such Entity on Contractor's behalf. d. Hit, h-MaintenanceShelters. In addition to the other maintenance responsibilities of Contractor hereunder, Contractor shall, at its sole cost, at least twice a week inspect and perform the maintenance set forth in subparagraph 0v ) above, for those shelters designated by a Participating Entity from time to time as a "high-maintenance shelter." A Participating Entity may not designate from time-to-time more than one-third (1/3) of the Shelters-in its area of jurisdiction as "high-maintenance shelters." e. Maintenance l.op. Contractor shall submit a monthly log of shelter inspection and maintenance to SCCTD and, for the shelters in the Participating Entity's jurisdiction, to each Participating Entity who has requested in writing to receive the monthly log: 7. Advertisin~ Agreement Rights. a. Approvals ~nd Rights. Notwithstanding anything in the Adve~'tising Agreement, SCCTD and Contractor expressly acknowledge and agree that the following approvals or rights granted to SCCTD in the Advertising Agreement shall, instead, be approvals and ~ights granted to each Participating Entity where the shelters are located, and SCCTD shall have no right of participation in such approvals or fights except as set forth below: Section I-B-3 Option to require illumination of shelters, as of Advertising amended by Section 4.d hereof' Agreement .. Section I-D4 Right to approve removal or reloci~tion of"unsui.table or economically unfeasible" shelters (to be jointly exercised with SCCTD) Section III Right to require that an advertising shelter be changed to a non-advertising shelter, as amended by Section 4.c hereof Section IV-B Right to use available unsold advertising display space. SCCTD shall, provide to each Participating Entity the 6 --. ORDINANCE NO. 1831 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 .(ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.80 is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 588-50b Sections: 19.84.30 Applicability of regulations 19.80.020 Accessory uses and facilities. 19.80.030 Site development regulations. 19. 80. 040 Second-Story Deck Review Page 588-51 j. Second story decks in R1 zoning districts are required to obtain an exception _ to this ordinance by the Residential Design Review Committee in order to address privacy protection to adjoining properties except decks facing non-residential zoning districts and a fight-of-way. The remainder of the conditions remain as written. Page 588-52 19.80.040 Second-Story Deck Exception All second-story decks are required to obtain an exception by the Residential Design Review Committee in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties.' The goal of the exception requirement is not to require complete visual protection but address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. After a public hearing, the Pl*v'_uing C~mmi££ion Residential Design Review Committee may grant an exception to this ordinance upon making the following finding: A. The deck design is such that it decreases privacy intrusion to adjoining properties to the greatest extent. To decrease privacy intrusion, required mitigation may include the introduction of walls or landscaping to block the most sensitive views or having the smallest deck possible. Ordinance 1831 Page 2 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of July 1999 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,1999, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino -- ORDINANCE NO. 1832 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY COUNCIL- SALARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDAINS that Chapter 2.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.16.10 Statutory basis. Section 36516 of the Government Code of the State authorizes the City Council to enact an ordinance providing that each member of the City Council receive a salary in accordance with a schedule set forth in said section. 2.16.20 Amount of salary - Effective date. A. Each member of the City Council ~hall receive a salary of five hundred thirty- five dollars and eighty cents ($535.80) per month, or fraction thereof. B. Upon beginning a new term of office for a Councilmember, the Council shall receive a salary of five hundred sixty-two dollars and fifty-nine cents ($562.59) ._. per month, or fraction thereof. 2.16.30 Reimbursement. The salaries prescribed herein are and shall be exclusive of any amounts payable to each member of the Council as reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by him/her in the performance of official duties for the City. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of July, 1999, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City. of Cupertino this day of July 1999, by the following vote: · VOTE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino o2-/ AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR AD,IOURNED MEETING Blackberry Farm Retreat Center 21975 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino Thursday, July 8, 1999 12:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NEW BUSINESS 1. Lunch with Sheriff Laurie Smith/Captain Wilson regarding general discussion on law enforcement in Cupertino. 2. Presentation and discussion of Compaq COmputer suggestions regarding development ideas for Stevens Creek Boulevard property. ADJOURNMENT