Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-07-19 Searchable Packet
CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 5:30 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, May 7, 2019 Televised Special Meeting Study Session (5:30) and Regular Meeting (6:45) NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, May 07, 2019, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: Study Session for an application by AT&T to locate a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80 foot tall treepole, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator at the Cupertino Sports Center located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Recommended Action: Provide comments on AT&T’s proposed personal wireless facility, and, during the Study Session, facilitate a community engagement forum where residents can comment on and receive additional information on the project. Page 1 1 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA Staff Report A - Project Description B - Plan Set C - Photo Simulations D - Noise Study E - Coverage Map F - Electromagnetic Energy Exposure (EME) Report G - Arborist Memo Report H - Public Comment ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: <hack> Cupertino Winner Proclamations and brief presentations Recommended Action: Accept brief presentations and present proclamations to <hack> Cupertino winners: 1st place: The Right Price app (Daniel Duan, Vincent Lim, Deepak Ramalingam) 2nd place: Tino Walks (Kyle Lin) 3rd place: FaceAttend (Vidit Agrawal, Siddhant Kumar) 2.Subject: Presentation by Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association (CHSCA) regarding its recent Cupertino Student Delegation trip to Hsinchu City, Taiwan Recommended Action: Receive presentation by Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association (CHSCA) regarding its recent Cupertino Student Delegation trip to Hsinchu City, Taiwan 3.Subject: Proclamation for Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2019 Recommended Action: Present proclamation for Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2019 4.Subject: Proclamations for Public Works employees Karl Olsen and Curtis Bloomquist Recommended Action: Present proclamations for Public Works employees Karl Olsen and Curtis Bloomquist POSTPONEMENTS Page 2 2 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5.Subject: Approve the April 16 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the April 16 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 6.Subject: Reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Recommended Action: Approve reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Staff Report 7.Subject: Resolution supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-040 supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 Staff Report A- Draft Resolution SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.Subject: Conduct a public hearing and consider public comments on and written protests of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; tabulate protests and consider adopting a Resolution stating whether a majority protest exists and, if not, direct a property owner ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution. Page 3 3 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive input and consider all protests of property owners related to the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and 2. Tabulate protests to determine if a majority protest exists; and 3. If a majority protest is found not to exist, adopt Resolution No. 19-041 stating that a majority protest does not exist and directing the City to conduct a ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution; and 4. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 19-2183 : “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code to Establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee,” an ordinance that is subject to property owner approval through a ballot proceeding; and 5. Direct staff to place on a future Council agenda an amendment of the Joint Use Agreement with Cupertino Unified School District to establish cost sharing of the new Clean Water fees for applicable schools at which the City maintains joint use sport fields if the ballot measure is affirmed on July 16th. Staff Report A - Notice of the Fee Proposal B - Valid Protest Letters received as of 4-25-19 C - Public Comments Received as of 4-25-19 D - Draft Resolution of No Majority Protest E - Draft Ordinance F - Drafts of the ballot packet documents G - Chamber Support Letter ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 9.Subject: Options regarding three referendum petitions challenging approvals related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan: Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment for Vallco Town Center), Resolution No. 18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan), and Ordinance No. 18-2179 (Development Agreement for Vallco Town Center) Page 4 4 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA Recommended Action: As required by California Elections Code Section 9241, the City Council must choose one of the following options for each of the referendum petitions: Repeal the resolution(s) and/or ordinance in their entirety; or submit the resolution(s) and/or ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election (November 3, 2020) or at a special election called for that purpose on a date determined by the Council, but occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., not before July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019): a.)Resolution No. 19-042 repealing Resolution No. 18-085 b.)Resolution No. 19-043 submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to Nov. '20 regular election c.)Resolution No. 19-044 repealing Resolution No. 18-086 d.)Resolution No. 19-045 submitting Resolution No. 18-086 to Nov. '20 regular election e.)Resolution No. 19-046 repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 f.)Resolution No. 19-047 submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 to Nov. '20 regular election Staff Report A - Resolution No. 18-085 Approving a General Plan Amendment B - Resolution No. 18-086 Adopting Specific Plan C - Ordinance No. 18-2179 Approving DA D - City Attorney Memo regarding Vallco Referendum Petitions E - Election Cost Estimates F - Draft Resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-085 G - Draft Resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-085 for Nov 2020 H - Draft Resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-086 I - Draft Resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-086 for Nov 2020 J - Draft Resolution repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 K - Draft Resolution submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 for Nov 2020 10.Subject: Reject all bids received for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project (Project No. 2017-01.05) Recommended Action: 1. Receive report on bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project; and 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to reject all bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project Staff Report 11.Subject: A Resolution of the Council of the City of Cupertino to support the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along Page 5 5 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources needed to develop these projects. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-048 supporting the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources to develop these projects. Staff Report A - Draft Resolution REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 12.Subject: Annual Report on the Pavement Management Program Recommended Action: Receive the report. No action is required. Staff Report A - Pavement condition index table B - Street improvements for 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 & 2 C - Street improvements for FY1819 Pavement Management Projects 13.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 6 6 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx? page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during Page 7 7 May 7, 2019City Council AGENDA consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 8 8 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5154 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/12/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Study Session for an application by AT&T to locate a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80 foot tall treepole, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator at the Cupertino Sports Center located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Project Description B - Plan Set C - Photo Simulations D - Noise Study E - Coverage Map F - Electromagnetic Energy Exposure (EME) Report G - Arborist Memo Report H - Public Comment Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Study Session for an application by AT&T to locate a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80 foot tall treepole, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator at the Cupertino Sports Center located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Provide comments on AT&T’s proposed personal wireless facility, and, during the Study Session, facilitate a community engagement forum where residents can comment on and receive additional information on the project. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Study Session for an application by AT&T to locate a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80-foot tall treepole, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator at the Cupertino Sports Center located at 21113 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Recommended Action Provide comments on AT&T’s proposed personal wireless facility, and, during the Study Session, facilitate a community engagement forum where residents can comment and receive additional information on the project. Background Over the past decade, the City has consistently made expanding cellular coverage a part of the Council Work Program. The City, through its Wireless Facilities Master Plan, also identifies various public buildings, structures and properties around the community as acceptable locations for personal wireless service facilities, includ ing the Cupertino Sports Center. AT&T’s objective in locating a facility at this site is to provide improved in-building and in-transit wireless coverage to close a significant service coverage gap in personal wireless service and provide improved coverage in an area along near Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. The Proposed Facility will improve coverage to the surrounding residential areas and support De Anza Community College. During the City Council Study session, Staff seeks to accomplish the following: Facilitation of a significant opportunity to engage the community, in coordination with the City Council, to address any issues and answer questions from the public related to AT&T’s proposed facility, prior to the May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing. Receive City Council feedback on the proposed design and location of AT&T’s proposed wireless facility. 10 EXC-2014-14, DP-2014-09, & ASA-2014-14 Cupertino Sports Center Cell Tower May 7, 2019 Discussion Timeline for City Review of AT&T’s Proposed Wireless Facility The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that local governments review and act on most wireless facility applications within a 150-day period. This time limit for review is referred to as a “shot clock.” The shot clock begins to run on the date a wireless facility application is filed with a local government. The shot clock can be paused in certain circumstances and also extended by mutual agreement of the local government and the applicant. The FCC’s goal in setting this time limit is to speed up deployment of wireless service around the country, including of a national public safety broadband network to improve communications interoperability among first responders. While the shot clock sets a time limit for local government review of a wireless facility application and related permits, it does not limit a local government’s time to negotiate a lease of its property for a wireless facility. AT&T’s application for this project was submitted on November 6, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the City notified AT&T that its application was incomplete, pausing the 150-day shot clock for several years, until December 2018, when AT&T provided the needed information. Although the shot clock set to expire in March 2019, City Staff and AT&T agreed to extend it until May 31, 2019. On May 28, 2019—before the shot clock expires— the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the following permits and approvals at a public hearing on the project: Height Exception (EXC-2014-14) to allow a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80-foot-tall treepole wireless cell tower, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator, where a 55- foot tower is allowed. Development Permit (DP-2014-09) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA- 2014-14) to evaluate the location and aesthetics of a personal wireless service facility consisting of 16 panel antennas mounted on an 80-foot-tall treepole, a base equipment station, and an emergency power generator at the Cupertino Sports Center. The City Manager’s negotiation of a draft lease agreement of the facility, for subsequent City Council review and consideration, is not subject to the May 31, 2019 shot clock deadline. Location and Aesthetics As mentioned earlier in this report, the City’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan identifies various public buildings, structures and properties around the community as acceptable locations for personal wireless service facilities, includ ing the Cupertino Sports Center. 11 EXC-2014-14, DP-2014-09, & ASA-2014-14 Cupertino Sports Center Cell Tower May 7, 2019 The overall goal is to locate and design facilities to be as unobtrusive as possible. In general, non-residential locations (such as the Sports Center) are preferable to residential locations because such facilities are less noticeable in non-residential locations and may be more accepted by the public. AT&T chooses locations for its wireless facilities that meet the technical objectives of radio frequency (RF) engineering and that support other key criteria including, but not limited to, accessibility, utility connections, zoning compatibility, minimal or no visual impact, liability and risk assessment, site acquisition, maintenance and construction costs. For this project, two alternative sites in the immediate area were considered: De Anza College and Union Church of Cupertino at 20900 Stevens Creek Blvd. Both were ultimately considered unviable. De Anza College appears to lack interest in hosting a wireless facility, and the Union Church site had insufficient residential setbacks. Please review the Project Description (Attachment A). The applicant provided a Coverage Map (Attachment F) to demonstrate the gap in coverage in the area to further justify the placement of the facility in this area. The Wireless Facilities Master Plan provides specific siting and design guidance for wireless projects in Cupertino. In general, wireless facility equipment should be sited to blend in with its surroundings. Because this facility is proposed to be placed next to large, mature trees, the monopole is designed to be camouflaged as an artificial tree, in this case a pine. Its form is similar to the surrounding trees and it will be constructed of materials with a natural appearance. It is also designed to allow the colocation of other wireless providers. Please refer to the Plan Set (Attachment B) and Photo Simulations (Attachment C). Radio Frequency & Noise Under Federal law (the 1996 Telecommunications Act), the City is prohibited from denying permits to construct a wireless facility based on health concerns over RF emissions, as long as RF emissions from the facility meet FCC standards. This facility is designed to comply with FCC RF standards, according to the Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Exposure Report (Attachment F). The proposed project includes a base station and a back -up generator. Most personal wireless service facilities have back-up battery powered generators, to run the base station for some number of hours in the event of a power outage. The biggest concern is the effect of the noise emanating from the generators onto neighboring properties , either during a power outage or routine maintenance of the equipment . Section 12 EXC-2014-14, DP-2014-09, & ASA-2014-14 Cupertino Sports Center Cell Tower May 7, 2019 10.48.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) establishes “Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels” of 60 dBA for daytime hours and 50 dBA for nighttime hours for residential uses, and 65 dBA for daytime hours and 55 dBA for nighttime hours for non-residential uses. According to the applicant’s noise study, the maximum calculated noise levels from the generator at the neighboring properties to the east and north, for the combined operation of all fans in all six cabinets, are 48.9 for daytime hours and 43.1 dBA for nighttime hours. The generator therefore would comply with the CMC noise limits. Please review the Noise Study (Attachment D) for further details. Technology Information Communication Commission On April 3, 2019, the Technology Information and Communication Commission (TICC) reviewed the application as required by CMC Chapter 19.136 Wireless Communications Facilities. Staff presented the project and the applicant was available to respond to questions. The TICC expressed support as long as all FCC regulations for safety were met and community outreach was completed. Community Outreach In an effort to solicit comments on the project from the community, City Staff has done the following: In early April 2019, Staff created a project webpage. The webpage describes the project in detail and contains links to the submitted materials as required for the application. The link to the webpage is: www.cupertino.org/CupertinoSportsCenterCellTower. Community Development Staff manned a booth at the Creekside Farmer’s Market on April 19, 2019. The purpose was to provide materials about the project and to answer any questions from the community. On April 22, 2019, Staff sent notices to neighboring property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The notice contained a project description, the webpage address, dates of the City Council Study Session and Planning Commission hearing, as well as contacts for the staff project manager. Staff set up a “Pop-up table” at the Cupertino Sports Center on April 25, 2019. The City Engineer and Community Development Staff were on hand to answer questions about the project. Handouts were left behind in the lobby of the Sports Center. On April 29, 2019, Sports Center Staff sent an email to Sports Center members . The notice contained a project description, the webpage address, dates of the City Council Study Session and Planning Commission hearing, as well as contacts for the staff project manager. 13 EXC-2014-14, DP-2014-09, & ASA-2014-14 Cupertino Sports Center Cell Tower May 7, 2019 As of the date of publishing this Report, Staff has received two emails from the public asking clarifying questions about the project in general, effects of existing cellular and cable service if and when the cellular antennae become live, and general impressions of the overall appearance of monopoles. Please see the Public Comment (Attachment H) for the emails. Next Steps At a noticed public hearing on May 28, 2019, the project will be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and consideration of the requested Height Exception, Development Permit, and Architectural and Site Approval. The City Manager will negotiate a draft lease with AT&T for construction and operation of the wireless facility at the Sports Center, for subsequent review and consideration by the City Council. Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Interim Director of Community Development Approved by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: A. Project Description B. Plan Set C. Photo Simulations D. Noise Study E. Coverage Map F. Electromagnetic Energy Exposure (EME) Report G. Arborist Memo Report H. Public Comment 14 January 6, 1998 Wireless Telecommunication Facility SITE: AT&T Site CCL04011 Cupertino Sports Center Address: 21111 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino, CA. 95014 REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Johnson TSJ Consulting Inc. 27130 Paseo Espada #A-1426 San Juan Capistrano, CA. 92675 Phone: 925-785-3727 tom@tsjconsultinginc.com 15 Page 2 January 6, 1998 Introduction: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) is a registered public utility, licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). As a public utility, AT&T Mobility is mandated by the FCC to provide wireless communication services throughout California. AT&T is dedicated to providing customers with wireless technology designed to enrich their lives as their mobility is increasing. AT&T’s vision is to simplify the wireless experience for its consumer and business customers by offering easy-to- understand, affordable rate plans and excellent customer service. AT&T is bringing next- generation wireless data products - from corporate e-mail to downloadable ringtones - to customers nationwide through its advanced networks. The network performance goals include providing the best quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop-free connections. AT&T's wireless network is based on LTE technology. These technologies are wireless communication standards that require reusing specific frequencies across defined frequency bands. Due to the need for frequency reuse, LTE require numerous sites to provide customers with suitable signal strength to deliver services. These sites are typically built on existing buildings, lattice towers and freestanding poles in order to provide a network of sites that provide seamless coverage over an area. In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues; AT&T is in the process of deploying its 4G LTE service in the County of Santa Clara with the goal of providing the most advanced personal wireless experience available to residents of the Cities. AT&T holds a license with the FCC and has a responsibility to utilize this spectrum to provide personal wireless services in the City. 4G LTE is capable of delivering speeds up to 10 times faster than industry-average 3G speeds. LTE technology also offers lower latency, or the processing time it takes to move data through a network, such as how long it takes to start downloading a webpage or file once you’ve sent the request. Lower latency helps to improve the quality of personal wireless services. What's more, LTE uses spectrum more efficiently than other technologies, creating more space to carry data traffic and services and to deliver a better overall network experience. This is particularly important in the City of Cupertino because of the likely high penetration of the new 4G LTE iPad and other LTE devices. Efforts are currently underway in the City to establish the required infrastructure. AT&T is currently seeking the review and approval of a Minor Development Permit to allow the construction, operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility in this A zoned property (“Proposed Facility”). Background: AT&T serves millions of voice and data customers across the United States. Wireless communications continue to change the future of telecommunications with easy-to-use, lightweight and highly mobile communications devices including: smartphones, tablets, e-readers and notebook computers. Wireless communications provide voice, e-mail, 16 Page 3 January 6, 1998 texting and high-speed Internet access capabilities for customer’s communications needs virtually anywhere and at any time. The wireless network being developed by AT&T uses state of the art digital technology. The benefits include call privacy and security, improved voice quality, high-speed data, texting, video conferencing, visual voicemail, and an expanded menu of affordable products and services for personal and professional communications needs. The Proposed Facility will enhance the area’s public safety infrastructure by providing wireless communication services to the surrounding neighborhood and local community. The general public, police, fire fighters, and other emergency personnel rely heavily on wireless communications for fast and dependable communications at all times, but especially during natural disasters or other emergencies, such as earthquakes and fires. Like other carriers in the industry, AT&T is working diligently to respond to the customer demand for mobile services, by expanding services to its customers from where they have historically used mobile phones, while traveling in the vehicle at their offices to where they are demanding more and more service in the residential communities, in- building coverage in their homes. AT&T is requesting the review and the approval of a permit to allow the construction, operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility (“WTF”). The project is proposed to close a significant service coverage gap and enhance personal wireless services in the area surrounding the site. AT&T's service coverage area in the city must be improved to handle the growing number of voice calls and wireless data usage. To remain competitive, AT&T must improve services in the areas where consumers are increasingly using their phones and data services. The project consists of: Installation of up to sixteen (16) panel antennas which will be located on a new 80’ tall stealth monopine. Also proposed are (21) remote radio units (RRUs), and (5) surge suppressors. As part of this installation there will be a new equipment shelter placed within a new fenced compound adjacent to this tower. The subject site is also located in the area where there are several large mature pine trees that will help with natural screening of this facility. Once constructed and operational, the Proposed Facility will provide 24-hour service to customers seven (7) days a week. Apart from initial construction activity, an AT&T technician will service the facility on a periodic basis. It is reasonable to expect that routine maintenance/inspection of the facility will occur about once a month during normal working hours. Beyond this intermittent service, AT&T requires 24-hour access to the Proposed Facility to ensure that technical support is immediately available if and when warranted. 17 Page 4 January 6, 1998 Height Justification: The height of this tower has been increased to a total height of 80’ in order to adequality screen the antennas from public view. Due to the nature of this design, the antennas are taking 2 positions on this tower which requires an increase in height in order to achieve the necessary coverage and have the antennas over the existing large pine trees that are on site. Currently the top of the pine trees are at approximately 45’ to 50’ in height. The base of the proposed antennas will be at 57’ which will be roughly 7’ above the tops of the pine trees. This will allow the signal to be unobstructed by the existing trees. If the tower were to be lowered then it would begin to have interference by the existing trees and degrade the service area. Pine trees, in particular, cause interference with signal propagation due to the metallics in the pine needles. Since antenna signals are line of sight technology, any material that is proximity of the antenna will cause this interference. DeAnza College is a heavily trafficked area for the network and optimum service is needed to handle this capacity. Overview of Site Design/Location Criteria The network of AT&T cell sites throughout the region is “location dependent,” meaning that there is a necessary and logical interrelationship between each proposed site. Eliminating or relocating a single cell site can lead to gaps in the system and prohibit AT&T from providing uninterrupted or reliable service to customers in a defined coverage area. Further, the elimination or relocation of a cell site will most often have a “domino” effect on other cell site locations and necessitate significant design changes or modifications to the network. In identifying the proposed location, AT&T network deployment personnel have selected the Proposed Facility because it meets the technical objectives of RF engineering and provides the best site option with regard to other key criteria including, but not limited to, accessibility, utility connections, zoning compatibility, minimal or no visual impact, liability and risk assessment, site acquisition, maintenance and construction costs. Description of Coverage Area AT&T’s objective in locating a WCF at this site is to provide improved in-building and in-transit wireless coverage. The Proposed Facility is needed to close a significant service coverage gap in personal wireless service and provide improved coverage in an area along near Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. The Proposed Facility will improve coverage to the surrounding residential areas and support De Anza Community College. Site Development Standards and General Plan The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the Proposed Facility will not create unusual noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed use is consistent with this finding in that: 18 Page 5 January 6, 1998 The proposed equipment associated with the telecommunication structure operates quietly or virtually noise free. The equipment does not emit fumes, smoke, or odors that could be considered objectionable. The Proposed Facility will be unmanned and only requires periodic maintenance, which equates to approximately one trip per month. The Proposed Facility will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health, safety and the general welfare. The proposed use is consistent with this finding in that: Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan or other land use plans, the location of WTFs are based on technical requirements such as network design criteria, service area, elevations, topography, heights of nearby structures, alignment with neighboring sites and customer demand. The Proposed Facility will be unmanned, have no impact on circulation systems, and generate no noise, odor, smoke, or any other adverse impacts to adjacent land uses. The proposed facility will allow commuters and residents within the coverage area wireless access to the rapidly expanding communications infrastructure by providing voice and data transmission services not currently available. The installation of antenna sectors and transmission equipment will not result in any material changes to the character of the local community. This Proposed Facility will operate in full compliance with applicable state and federal laws, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Regulating Agencies AT&T is regulated by the FCC and is authorized to operate in the frequencies established for PCS operators. AT&T’s WTFs operate at the lowest possible power levels and are well below established standards used by the FCC for safe human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. These standards have been tested and proved safe by the American National standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). As explained in the RF engineering analysis provided by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, submitted with this Application, the Proposed Facility will operate well within all applicable FCC public exposure limits. 19 Page 6 January 6, 1998 Alternative Sites 1) De Anza Community College- This candidate was deemed not viable for lack of interest by the College. There were multiple attempts over several months to try and engage interest with the College but no return interest was ever provided. Further this project is to help offload the campus traffic and a site on the campus was the desired location. 20 Page 7 January 6, 1998 2) Union Church of Cupertino- 20900 Stevens Creek Blvd. This location was determined interested by the church but due to residential setbacks it was ruled as not viable. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Tom Johnson TSJ Consulting Inc. 925-785-3727 tom@tsjconsultinginc.com 21 T-1 DRIVING DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAWING INDEX DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS ZONING DRAWING ENGINEERING GENERAL NOTES UNDERGROUND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SERVICE ALERT OF 800-642-2444 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SITE NUMBER: CCL04011/CNU4011 FA NUMBER: 10147297 LTE 1C MRSFR001479, LTE 2C MRSFR044791, LTE 3C MRSFR044716, LTE 4C MRSFR044684, LTE 5C MRSFR044762, LTE 6C MRSFR044755 PTN# 3701A0DT8K, PTN# 3701A0DT4K, PTN# 3701A0DT2R, PTN# 3701A0B1QH, PTN# 3701A0DT7N, PTN# 3701A0DT1V SITE NAME: CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER 21111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 · · · · · · · · · · · · 22 A-1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SITE PLAN 1ANTON WAYSTEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD STELLING ROAD23 A-2 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY ENLARGE SITE PLAN 1STELLING ROADSECTOR 'A' 30° SECTOR 'C' 215° SECTOR 'D' 145° SECTOR 'B' 310° 24 A-3 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY 2 PROPOSED ANTENNA PLANPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PLAN (P) ANTENNA SCHEDULE SECTOR 'A' 30° SECTOR 'C' 215° SECTOR 'D' 145° SECTOR 'B' 310° AT RAD CENTER 70' AT RAD CENTER 60' SECTOR 'A' 30° SECTOR 'C' 215° SECTOR 'D' 145° SECTOR 'B' 310° 25 A-4 EAST ELEVATION 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SOUTH ELEVATION2 · · · · 26 A-5 WEST ELEVATION 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY NORTH ELEVATION2 · · · · 27 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY IRRIGATION PLAN L-1STELLING ROADDIG-ALERT NOTE 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION (2 WORKING DAYS OR 48 HOURS). CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING LOCATION OF UTILITIES AS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY LOCATION.INSPECTION NOTES 1. PRIOR TO START OF WORK THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL MEET AND REVIEW UTILITIES AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. AT COMPLETION OF WORK A FINAL INSPECTION SHALL BE MADE AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER AND GOVERNING JURISDICTION. 2. THIS PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC AND ALLOWS FOR ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE TO ACCOMODATE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. 3. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL MEET STANDARD SHOWN UNLESS SUPERSEDED BY LOCAL STANDARDS. 4. PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ALL UTILITIES, STRUCTURES ON SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES AND REPLACEMENT. 5. THE CONTRATOR SHALL REMOVE ALL DEBRIS, WEEDS AND TRASH FROM COMMUNICATION SITE AREA AT COMPLETION OF WORK. 6. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN SITE FOR 30 DAYS. 7. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION SITE IS DEFINED WITHIN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH OWNER. EXISTING IRRIGATION NOTES 1. ALL IRRIGATION DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF ENCLOSURE WALLS SHALL BE REPLACED AND CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING IRRIGATION MATERIALS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO INSTALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE C-27 CERTIFIED. IRRIGATION DETAIL NOTES 1. APPLY TEFLON TAPE TO ALL THREADED PIPE CONNECTIONS. CHECK VALVE NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE CHECK VALVES TO PREVENT LOW HEAD DRAINAGE. MAINTENANCE NOTE LANDSCAPE TO BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY CONDITION FREE OF WEEDS, PESTS OR DISEASES. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNER AND AT&T. P.O.C. CONTRACTOR TO CONNECT TO EXISTING IRRIGATION AT LOCATION OF EXISTING CONTROLLER VALVES. IF DAMAGED, CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE EXISTING VALVE WITH NEW. CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT ALL MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES AND REPLACE IF DAMAGED OR WARN. IF DAMAGED CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE SPRAYHEADS AT LOCATION WITH NEW HEADS. CONTRACTOR TO ADD NEW SMART CONTROLLER WITH RAIN-CLIK (PER NOTES, THIS PAGE). IRRIGATION NOTES 1. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PREVENT RUNOFF, OVER-SPRAY, LOW-HEAD DRAINAGE AND OTHER SIMILAR CONDITIONS. SOIL TYPES AND INFILTRATION RATES SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHEN DESIGNING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, MANAGED, AND MAINTAINED TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN OVERALL EFFICIENCY AS POSSIBLE. 2. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL INCLUDE: A. A SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER, OR OTHER EQUIVALENT TECHNOLOGY WHICH AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTS THE FREQUENCY AND/OR DURATION OF IRRIGATION EVENTS IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING WEATHER CONDITIONS, SHALL BE REQUIRED. B. ANTI-DRAIN CHECK VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PREVENT LOW-HEAD DRAINAGE IN SPRINKLER HEADS. C. A PRESSURE REGULATOR WHEN THE STATIC WATER PRESSURE EXCEED MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED OPERATION PRESSURE OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. D. A RAIN SENSOR WITH AN AUTOMATIC RAIN SHUTOFF FEATURE SHALL BE REQUIRED. 28 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY IRRIGATION DETAILS L-2 A POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER: REFER TO IRRIGATION LEGEND PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCH PVC LATERAL PIPE MODEL SBE-050 BARB ELBOW: RAIN BIRD 1/2-INCH MALE NPT x .490 INCH RAIN BIRD MODEL SP-100 SWING PIPE, 12-INCH LENGTH: POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER N.T.S. 2 3 6 5 4 11 2 3 6 3 54 BRASS BALL VALVE N.T.S. AS REQUIRED PVC MAINLINE PVC MALE ADAPTER 3/4" PEA GRAVEL BALL VALVE, LINE SIZE VALVE BOX EXTENSION, LENGTH FINISH GRADE 9" DIAMETER ROUND GREEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 6 5 4 3 1 2 PLASTIC VALVE BOX W/ G.V. 18" MIN. BURNED INTO LID (MIN. 2" HIGH) BRICK SUPPORTS8 8 UTILIZE PURPLE VALVE BOXES FOR RECLAIMED LINES NOTE: REMOTE CONTROL VALVE N.T.S.B.G. STANDARD VALVE BOX (10 WRAPS AROUND A 1/2" DIA. PIPE). - PROVIDE EXPANSION COILS AT EACH WIRE CONNECTION IN - ALL WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED PER LOCAL CODE. 10 9 7 5 NOTES: 3 2 11 10 8 11 4 8 9 7 3/4" PEA GRAVEL PVC SCH. 40-1120 PIPE PVC SCH.40 S AND T ELL PVC SLIP FITTING PVC MAINLINE 6 5 2 1 1 6"MIN.4 6 3 LOCKING COVER OR EQUAL AMETEK GREEN PLASTIC CONTROL VALVE PVC SCH. 80 NIPPLE (TYP.) FINISH GRADE; COMPACT SOIL AROUND VALVE BOX CHRISTY I.D. TAG; NUMBERED PVC UNION TO MATCH PLANS 12 1212" MIN.12 BRICK SUPPORTS VALVE BOX W/ GREEN AND "RMV" BURNED INTO LID ( MIN. 2" HIGH) IN GROUND COVER/ SHRUB AREA AND FLUSH - SET BOXES 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR MULCH COVER WITH FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREA. WALL MOUNTED CONTROLLER N.T.S. ELECTRICAL METER TO BE INSTALLED OPPOSITE SIDE IRRIGATION ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL COMPLY W/ LOCAL AND NATIONAL CODES. CONTROLLER PER MFG.'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 IRRIGATION CONTROLLER MOUNTED TO WALL. REFER TO IRRIGATION LEGEND, SHEET L-1 FOR CONTROLLER SPECIFICATIONS. JUNCTION BOX BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 110V WIRE AND CONDUIT TO ELECTRICAL CONNECTION BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 2" CONDUIT AT MINIMUM 18" BELOW GRADE AND INSTALL TO 3' ON OUTSIDE WALL. CONTROL WIRES TO REMOTE CONTROLLER VIA MAINLINE TRENCH. FINISH GRADE. 2 3 6 4 548"PIPE & WIRE TRENCHING DETAIL N.T.S. 10' 18" 12" * 12" * 12" MAIN SUPPLY, LATERAL AND WIRING. PLAN MAIN SUPPLY ±2 1/2" AND SMALLER: 18" 3' AND LARGER: 24" LATERAL.120 VOLT WIRING. REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WIRING. PROVIDE A 20" LOOP IN WIRE AT ALL CHANGES OF DIRECTION GREATER THAN 30°. REMOVE TIES AFTER ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. INSTALL ALL 120 VOLT WIRE IN CONDUIT PER LOCAL CODE. SNAKE ALL PLASTIC PIPE INTO TRENCHES AS SHOWN. ALL MAINLINE SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. TAPE AND BUNDLE WIRING AT 10' O.C. MAX. SECTIONWIRING LATERAL MAINLINE PER LOCAL CODE. B C ED 29 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY PLANTING NOTES 1. THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES FURNISHING ALL MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTING, BACKFILL, IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE WORK OUTLINED IN THESE DRAWINGS. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH PLANTING WORK AND UNDER SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED FOREMAN. 2. PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS ARE DIAGRAMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD BEGINS. 3 BEFORE ANY PLANTING OCCURS, ALL PLANTED AREAS ARE TO HAVE BEEN GRADED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER TO ASSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE PER THE GRADING NOTES. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING SOIL AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE TOP 6" OF NATIVE SOIL: 3 CUBIC YARDS - NITROGEN AND IRON FORTIFIED ORGANIC AMENDMENT 30 LBS -6 - 20 - 20 ORGANIC GRO-POWER FERTILIZER 5. DIG PLANTING PITS 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL. BACKFILL PITS WIITH 70% NATIVE ON SITE SOIL AND 30% NITROLIZED SHAVINGS OR EQUIVILANT. SAMPLE BACKFILL: 70% NATIVE SOIL BY VOLUME 30% NITROLIZED SHAVINGS OR EQUIVILANT 16 LBS GRO-POWER PLUS, PER CUBIC YARD MIX * OTHER AMENDMENTS PER SOIL ANALYSIS 6. IF APPLICABLE, ALL TREES TO BE STAKED AS SHOWN IN THE TREE PLANTING DETAIL. 7. WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, PLANT NO TREE CLOSER THANT 18" TO AN EDGE OF PAVING OR HEADERBOARD. 8. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS. 9. USE PLANT MATERIALS ACCLIMATED TO THE AREA. 10. WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, DO NOT PLANT SPECIMEN TREES CLOSER THAT 4'-0" FROM THE EDGE OF PAVING, HEADERBOARD, OR ROOF LINES. DEEPROOT OR APPROVED ROOT BARRIERS ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL. REFER TO PLANTING LEGEND FOR SPECIES REQUIRING DEEP ROOT BARRIERS. 11. WARNING: PLANT MATERIAL LISTED MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPER FOR STATUS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL OR DENIAL. PLANT MATERIAL NOT CONFORMING WITH QUARANTINE LAWS MAY BE DESTROYED AND CIVIAL ACTION TAKEN. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSSIONER'S OFFICE. ALL PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE FREE OF DISEASE. 19. NO SHRUBS ARE TO BE PLANTED WITHIN 12" OF HARDSCAPE, MEASURED FROM CENTER OF SHRUB. PLANTING NOTES 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED AS A PART OF THIS PERMIT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING TREES AT LOCATION OF PROPOSED ENCLOSURE AND ANTENNAS. IF EXISTING TREES (INDICATED TO REMAIN) ARE REMOVED OR DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF ENCLOSURE AND INSTALLATION OF ANTENNA, CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE WITH LIKE SPECIES. 2. ALL FERTILIZERS AND AMENDMENTS USED DURING PLANTING PREPARATION SHALL BE DERIVED FROM ORGANIC-BASED MATERIALS AS A BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE FOR STORM WATER SOURCE CONTROL. NO SEWAGE SLUDGE IS ALLOWED. 3. A 3" DEEP LAYER OF APPROVED ORGANIC MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED TO COVER THE SOIL WITHIN 30' OF THE MONO-TREE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AFTER THE PLANTING IS COMPLETE. DIG-ALERT NOTE 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION (2 WORKING DAYS OR 48 HOURS). CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING LOCATION OF UTILITIES AS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY LOCATION. PLANTING PLAN L-3STELLING ROADSHRUB PLANTING N.T.S. TWICE ROOTBALL DIA. 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 ROOTBALL4"2 3 5 4 6 SET CROWN 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 3" DEEP BASIN WITH BARK MULCH (3" DEPTH) OR EQUAL. FINISH GRADE. AMENDED BACKFILL. SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL. 21 GRAM PLANT TABLETS. NOTE: 1. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PIT. 2. ON SLOPES, PROVIDE SAUCER RIM ON DOWNHILL SIDES. VINE - SELF CLIMBING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" VINE SPACING PER PLAN 3 2 1 ADJACENT WALL OR FENCE. SELF-CLIMBING VINE. REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES. FINISH GRADE. NOTE: 1. SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL TENDRILS AND SPREAD ONTO ROUGH SURFACED WALL OR FENCE. SECURE TENDRILS TO SURFACE TO AID IN PROPER GROWTH. 5 43 2 1 A B 30 PROPOSED EXISTING Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant. BLUE WATER DESIGN bluewater-design.net michelle@bluewater-design.net p 425.615.0944 APPLICANT LOCATION Microsoft® Virtual Earth™ X VIEW 1 Completed March 23, 2019 View from the East looking West CONTACT TSJ Consulting Inc. 27130 Paseo Espada, Suite #A-1426 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p 925.785.3727 Tom Johnson AT&T Mobility San Ramon, CA 94583 5001 Executive Parkway CCL04011 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 CNU4011 Cupertino Sports Park PROPOSED MONOPINE LOCATION PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION 31 PROPOSED EXISTING Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant. BLUE WATER DESIGN bluewater-design.net michelle@bluewater-design.net p 425.615.0944 APPLICANT LOCATION Microsoft® Virtual Earth™ X VIEW 2 Completed March 23, 2019 View from the Southeast looking Northwest CONTACT TSJ Consulting Inc. 27130 Paseo Espada, Suite #A-1426 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p 925.785.3727 Tom Johnson AT&T Mobility San Ramon, CA 94583 5001 Executive Parkway PROPOSED MONOPINE LOCATION CCL04011 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 CNU4011 Cupertino Sports Park PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LOCATION 32 PROPOSED EXISTING Photo simulation accuracy is based on information provided to Blue Water Design by the applicant. BLUE WATER DESIGN bluewater-design.net michelle@bluewater-design.net p 425.615.0944 APPLICANT LOCATION Microsoft® Virtual Earth™ X VIEW 3 Completed March 23, 2019 View from the Northeast looking Southwest CONTACT TSJ Consulting Inc. 27130 Paseo Espada, Suite #A-1426 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 p 925.785.3727 Tom Johnson AT&T Mobility San Ramon, CA 94583 5001 Executive Parkway CCL04011 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 CNU4011 Cupertino Sports Park PROPOSED MONOPINE LOCATION 33 AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CCL04011) 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Cupertino, California F6ZD Page 1 of 3 Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of AT&T Mobility, a personal telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. CCL04011) proposed to be located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting sound levels from the installation. Executive Summary AT&T proposes to install a new base station at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, consisting of equipment cabinets at ground and antennas on a tall pole. Noise levels from the equipment operations will comply with the City’s permitted limits. Prevailing Standards The City of Cupertino sets forth limits on sound levels in its Municipal Code. Section 10.48.040 “Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels” sets forth the below maximum allowed noise levels at receiving properties, according to land use: Land Use at Point of Origin Daytime Nighttime 7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to 7 am Residential 60 dBA 50 dBA Nonresidential 65 55 Section 10.48.030 provides an “emergency exception” from these noise limits “in the performance of emergency work,” which §10.48.010 defines to include “restoration of conditions … to their status prior to the emergency,” such as the use of a back-up generator to restore wireless telecommunications services in the event that commercial power is lost; for the purpose of this study, just the generator’s operation during periodic, no-load testing is evaluated for compliance. Figure 1 attached describes the calculation methodology used to determine applicable noise levels for evaluation against the prevailing standard. General Facility Requirements Wireless telecommunications facilities (“cell sites”) typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic base transceiver stations (“BTS” or “cabinets”) that are connected to traditional wired telephone lines, and the antennas that send wireless signals created by the BTS out to be received by individual subscriber units. The BTS are often located outdoors at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. The BTS typically require environmental units to cool the electronics inside. Such cooling is often integrated into the BTS, although external air conditioning may be installed, especially when the BTS are housed within a larger enclosure. 34 AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CCL04011) 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Cupertino, California F6ZD Page 2 of 3 Most cell sites have back-up battery power available, to run the base station for some number of hours in the event of a power outage. Many sites have back-up power generators installed, to run the station during an extended power outage. Site & Facility Description Based upon information provided by AT&T , including zoning drawings by Interlocity, LLC, dated August 23, 2018, that carrier proposes to place several equipment cabinets within a new fenced compound to be constructed on the west side of North Stelling Road, about 260 feet north of the intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of the Cupertino Sports Center tennis courts located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino; its land use is “Parks and Open Space,” which is nonresidential. The six equipment cabinets with active cooling fans are two Emerson Model F2016064 and four Purcell Model FLX16WS.* AT&T also proposes to install a Polar Power Model 8340Y-3TNV88-001 back-up diesel generator, on a concrete slab, about 20 feet north of the equipment compound, for emergency use in the event of an extended commercial power outage. The generator is typically operated with no load for a single 15-minute period once a week during daytime hours on a weekday, to maintain its readiness for emergency operation. Several directional panel antennas are proposed to be installed on a tall pole near the equipment compound, this portion of the base station is passive, generating no noise. The nearest neighboring parcels are located to the located to the east across North Stelling Road, about 110 feet from the cabinets, and to the north, about 205 feet from the closest cabinet. Neighboring properties in other directions are farther away. Study Results The manufacturers provide the following maximum noise levels from their equipment: Maximum Reference Equipment Noise Level Distance (2) Emerson F2016064 71.0 dBA† 1.5 meters (4) Purcell FLX16WS 64.7 dBA 5 feet Polar Power 8340Y-3TNV88-001 65.1 dBA 23 feet It is assumed that there are no other installed noise sources nearby. The maximum calculated noise levels at the neighboring properties to the east and north, for the combined operation of all fans in all six cabinets, are 48.9 and 43.1 dBA, respectively, meeting the * This model assumed for the limited purpose of this study. † This is the noise when this cabinet is in the “emergency mode,” conservatively assumed for the limited purpose of this study. Noise under normal operation is 64.7 dBA. 35 AT&T Mobility • Proposed Base Station (Site No. CCL04011) 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard • Cupertino, California F6ZD Page 3 of 3 City’s applicable 65 dBA daytime and 55 dBA nighttime limits for noise emanating from a non- residential property. On the day the generator is tested, the levels at those locations rise to 53.5 and 48.4 dBA, respectively, still well below the City’s applicable daytime limit. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that the operation of the AT&T Mobility base station proposed to be located at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California, will comply with that City’s requirements for limiting acoustic noise emission levels. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2019. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. William F. Hammett, P.E. 707/996-5200 October 30, 2018 36 Noise Level Calculation Methodology Methodology Figure 1 Most municipalities and other agencies specify noise limits in units of dBA, which is intended to mimic the reduced receptivity of the human ear to Sound Pressure (“LP”) at particularly low or high frequencies. This frequency-sensitive filter shape, shown in the graph to the right as defined in the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard No. 179, the American National Standards Institute Standard No. 5.1, and various other standards, is also incorporated into most calibrated field test equipment for measuring noise levels. The dBA units of measure are referenced to a pressure of 20 !Pa (micropascals), which is the threshold of normal hearing. Although noise levels vary greatly by location and noise source, representative levels are shown in the box to the left. Manufacturers of many types of equipment, such as air conditioners, generators, and telecommunications devices, often test their products in various configurations to determine the acoustical emissions at certain distances. This data, normally expressed in dBA at a known reference distance, can be used to determine the corresponding sound pressure level at any particular distance, such as at a nearby building or property line. The sound pressure drops as the square of the increase in distance, according to the formula: where LP is the sound pressure level at distance Dp and LK is the known sound pressure level at distance DK. Individual sound pressure levels at a particular point from several different noise sources cannot be combined directly in units of dBA. Rather, the units need to be converted to scalar sound intensity units in order to be added together, then converted back to decibel units, according to the formula: where LT is the total sound pressure level and L1, L2, etc are individual sound pressure levels. Certain equipment installations may include the placement of barriers and/or absorptive materials to reduce transmission of noise beyond the site. Noise Reduction Coefficients (“NRC”) are published for many different materials, expressed as unitless power factors, with 0 being perfect reflection and 1 being perfect absorption. Unpainted concrete block, for instance, can have an NRC as high as 0.35. However, a barrier’s effectiveness depends on its specific configuration, as well as the materials used and their surface treatment. LP = LK + 20 log(DK/DP), 30 dBA library 40 dBA rural background 50 dBA office space 60 dBA conversation 70 dBA car radio 80 dBA traffic corner 90 dBA lawnmower LT = 10 log (10L1/10 + 10L2/10 + …), 37 (c) 2007 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.CCL04011 Coverage Propagation MapAugust 28th, 201838 LegendIn‐Building ServiceIn‐Vehicle ServiceOutdoor ServiceProposed siteExisting siteLTE 700 Existing coverage39 LegendIn‐Building ServiceIn‐Vehicle ServiceOutdoor ServiceProposed siteExisting siteLTE 700 Coverage with proposed site –CCL04011 21111 Stevens Creek Blvd,Cupertino, CA 9501440 ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY (EME) EXPOSURE REPORT Site Name: Site ID: USID: FA Location: Site Type: Location: Latitude (NAD83): Longitude (NAD83): Report Completed: AT&T M-RFSC Prepared By: Cupertino Sports Center CCL04011 210412 10147297 Stealth Pole External Array 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 37.3238080 -122.0417310 September 05, 2018 Casey Chan Prepared for: AT&T Mobility c/o Caldwell Compliance, Inc. 6900 Koll Center Parkway. Ste. 401 Pleasanton, CA 94566 41 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 2/13 Site Overview and Description • The antennas are mounted on a monotree • The site consists of four (4) sectors with a total of sixteen (16) antennas (12 transmitting and 4 spare antennas) • The site is within a fenced in area, access to the site is via a gate • The site is not co-located Sector A Sector B Sector G Sector D Azimuth 30º310º215º145º Number of antennas 3 + 1 Spare 3 + 1 Spare 3 + 1 Spare 3 + 1 Spare Bottom tip of antenna above ground (ft.)57 57 57 57 Technology LTE LTE LTE LTE Antenna Make and Model Quintel QS6458-5 Quintel QS6458-5 Quintel QS6458-5 Quintel QS6458-5 Site Compliance Status (FCC & AT&T Guidelines)Compliant with recommendations 42 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 3/13 Compliance Notes Occupational Safety & Compliance Engineering (OSC Engineering) has been contracted by Caldwell Compliance, Inc. to conduct an RF (radio frequency) computer simulated analysis. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set limits on RF energy exposed to humans on a wireless cell site in order to ensure safety. The FCC has also mandated that all RF wireless sites must be in compliance with the FCC limits and a compliance check should be performed annually to ensure site compliance. This report is an in depth analysis summarizing the results of the RF modeling provided to us by AT&T and in relation to relevant FCC RF compliance standards. A reanalysis is recommended upon the site going on air. OSC Engineering uses the FCC OET-65 as well as AT&T Standards to make recommendations based on results and information gathered from drawings and Radio Frequency Data Sheets. For this report, OSC Engineering utilized Roofview® software for the theoretical analysis of the AT&T Cellular Facility. A site-specific compliance plan is recommended for each transmitting site. This report serves as a single piece of the overall compliance plan. Information utilized for this report: RFDS: 10147297.CCL04011.PM201.PrelimRFDS.180706 DWGs: CCL04011 100% ZDs 08-13-2018 - Compliance Release For the purpose of theoretical simulation, OSC Engineering models antennas as if they are operating at full power (100% capacity). This assumption yields more conservative (higher) results. On-site measurements may yield different results, as antennas do not always operate at full capacity. To the right is a result diagram of the site in question. The diagram is a color-coded map per ND-00059 levels, which coincide with FCC MPE Limits. Any exposure resulting in a level higher than 100% exceeds the Limits and requires further action, such as barriers. A level exceeding 100% does not make a site out of compliance. All results are given in General Population percentages even when a site may be considered Occupational. 43 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 4/13 Compliance Results of the Proposed Site (theoretical simulation) Max RF Exposure Level simulated (AT&T antennas @ ground): 10.5 % FCC General Population MPE Limit 44 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 5/13 FCC Regulations and Guidelines from OET 65 When considering the contributions to field strength or power density from other RF sources, care should be taken to ensure that such variables as reflection and re-radiation are considered. In cases involving very complex sites predictions of RF fields may not be possible, and a measurement survey may be necessary The process for determining compliance for other situations can be similarly accomplished using the techniques described in this section and in Supplement A to this bulletin that deals with radio and television broadcast operations. However, as mentioned above, at very complex sites measurements may be necessary. In the simple example shown in the below diagram, it is desired to determine the power density at a given location X meters from the base of a tower on which are mounted two antennas. One antenna is a CMRS antenna with several channels, and the other is an FM broadcast antenna. The system parameters that must be known are the total ERP for each antenna and the operating frequencies (to determine which MPE limits apply). The heights above ground level for each antenna, H1 and H2, must be known in order to calculate the distances, R1and R2, from the antennas to the point of interest. 1 1 OET Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Page 37- 38 45 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 6/13 Computer Simulation Analysis The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) governs the telecommunications services, facilities, and devices used by the public, industrial and state organizations in the United States. “RoofView® is a software analysis tool for evaluating radiofrequency (RF) field levels at roof-top telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas of the type commonly used in the cellular, paging, PCS, ESMR and conventional two-way radio communications services.”2 “RF near-field levels are computed from selected antennas by applying a cylindrical model that takes into account the antenna’s aperture height, mounting height above the roof, azimuthal beam width for directional antennas and the location of the antennas on the roof Resulting, spatially averaged power densities are expressed as a percentage of a user selectable exposure limit depending on frequency. The entire roof is composed of one-square-foot pixels and RF fields are computed for each of these pixels for each selected antenna.”3 Computer simulations produced for clients are simulated with “Uptime = 100%”. This means that all transmitters associated with an antenna are considered to be “on”. 4 RoofView® uses a near-field method of computing the field based on assuming that the total input power delivered to the antenna, at its input terminal, is distributed over an imaginary cylindrical surface surrounding the antenna. The height of the cylinder is equal to the aperture height of the antenna while the radius is simply the distance from the antenna at which the field power density is to be computed. Within the aperture of the antenna, this approximation is quite accurate but as the antenna is elevated above the region of interest, the model output must be corrected for mounting height. 5 2 Roofview User Guide 4.15, Page 7, Richard A Tell Associates 3 Roofview User Guide 4.15, Page 7, Richard A Tell Associates 4 Roofview User Guide 4.15, Page 10, Richard A Tell Associates 5 Roofview User Guide 4.15, Page 45, Richard A Tell Associates 46 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 7/13 Certification The undersigned is a Professional Engineer, holding a California Registration No. 19677 Reviewed and approved by: John B. Bachoua, PE Date: September 05, 2018 The engineering and design of all related structures as well as the impact of the antennas on the structural integrity of the design are specifically excluded from this report’s scope of work. This report’s scope of work is limited to an evaluation of the Electromagnetic Energy (EME) RF emissions field generated by the antennas listed in this report. When client and others have supplied data, it is assumed to be correct. 47 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 8/13 FCC MPE Limits (from OET-65) OSC Engineering uses the FCC’s and clients’ guidelines to model the computer simulation. Explained in detail in Office of Engineering & Technology, Bulletin No. 65 (“OET-65”) “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation”. Occupational/controlled6 exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. As discussed later, the occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply to amateur radio operators and members of their immediate household. General population/uncontrolled7 exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. 6 OET-65 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields pg. 9. 7 OET-65 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields pg. 9. 48 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 9/13 Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)8 “The FCC Exposure limits are based on data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300MHz where whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies whole-body absorption is less efficient, and, consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.”9 8 OET-65 “FCC Guidelines Table 1 pg. 72. 9 OET-65 “FCC Guidelines for Evaluating Exposure to RF Emissions”, pg. 8 49 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 10/13 Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) continued 10 “MPE Limits are defined in terms of power density (units of milliwatts per centimeter squared: mW/cm2), electric field strength (units of volts per meter: V/m) and magnetic field strength (units of amperes per meter: A/m). In the far-field of a transmitting antenna, where the electric field vector (E), the magnetic field vector (H), and the direction of propagation can be considered to be all mutually orthogonal (“[plane-wave” conditions], these quantities are related by the following equation: 10 OET-65 “FCC Guidelines Table 1 pg. 72. 50 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 11/13 Limitations OSC Engineering completed this evaluation analysis based on information and data provided by the client. The data provided by the client is assumed to be accurate. Estimates of the unknown, standard, and additional transmitting sites are noted and based on FCC regulation and client requirements. These are estimated to the best of our professional knowledge. This report is completed by OSC Engineering to determine whether the wireless communications facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Radio Frequency (RF) Safety Guidelines. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET-65) Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation has been prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)11 . As each site is getting upgraded and changed, this report will become obsolete as this report is based on current information per the client, per the date of the report. Use of this document will not hold OSC Engineering Inc. nor it’s employees liable legally or otherwise. This report shall not be used as a determination as to what is safe or unsafe on a given site. All workers or other people accessing any transmitting site should have proper EME awareness training. This includes, but is not limited to, obeying posted signage, keeping a minimum distance from antennas, watching EME awareness videos and formal classroom training. 11 OET-65 “FCC Guidelines for Evaluating Exposure to RF Emissions”, pg. 1 51 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 12/13 AT&T Antenna Shut-Down Protocol AT&T provides Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) procedures in Section 9.412 (9.4.1- 9.4.9) in the ND-00059. These procedures are to be followed in the event of anyone who needs access at or in the vicinity of transmitting AT&T antennas. Contact AT&T when accessing the rooftop near the transmitting antennas. Below is information regarding when to contact an AT&T representative. 9.4.7 Maintenance work being performed near transmitting antennas Whenever anyone is working within close proximity to the transmitting antenna(s), the antenna sector, multiple sectors, or entire cell site may need to be shut down to ensure compliance with the applicable FCC MPE limit. This work may include but is not limited to structural repairs, painting or non-RF equipment services by AT&T personnel/contractors or the owner of a tower, water tank, rooftop, or other low-centerline sites. The particular method of energy control will depend on the scope of work (e.g., duration, impact to the antenna or transmission cabling, etc.) and potential for RF levels to exceed the FCC MPE limits for General Population/Uncontrolled environments 9.4.8 AT&T Employees and Contractors AT&T employees and contractors performing work on AT&T cell sites must be trained in RF awareness and must exercise control over their exposure to ensure compliance with the FCC MPE limit for Occupational/Controlled Environments (“Occupational MPE Limit”). The rule of staying at least 3 feet from antennas is no longer always adequate to prevent exposure above the Occupational MPE Limit. That general rule was applied early in the development of cellular when omni-directional antennas were primarily used and later when wide-beamwidth antennas were used. That application was then appropriate for the Occupational exposure category. However, the current prevalence of antennas with 60- and 70- degree horizontal half-power beamwidths at urban and suburban GSM and UMTS/HSDPA sites raises some question about the continued reliability of the 3-foot rule. Antennas with low bottom-tip heights and total input powers around 70-80 W can produce exposure levels exceeding the Occupational MPE Limits at 4 feet, and these levels can be augmented by emissions of co-located operators. Therefore, AT&T employees and contractors should apply the above general work procedures and use an RF personal monitor to assess exposure levels within the work vicinity. 9.4.9 Other Incidental Workers All other incidental workers who are not trained in RF safety are considered general public and subject to the FCC MPE limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Environments. In such instance, the M-RFSC (primary contact) or R-RFSC (secondary contact) must refer to the Mobility RF site survey plan to assess the potential RF exposure levels associated with the antenna system. If capable of exceeding the FCC General Population/Uncontrolled MPE limit, then local sector/site shutdown is necessary. The FE/FT must also follow the local shutdown procedure and use their RF personal monitor as a screening tool for verification, as necessary. 12 ND-00059_Rev_5.1 “Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Procedures” Page 45. 52 OSC Engineering Inc. Page 13/13 RECOMMENDATIONS If work is being performed in the vicinity of the transmitting antennas, site shut-down procedures must be followed. See page entitled AT&T Antenna Shut-down protocol for further information. •AT&T Access Point(s): Caution Sign 2B (Tower) @ base of monotree (to be posted) •AT&T Sector A No signage or barrier action required •AT&T Sector B No signage or barrier action required •AT&T Sector G No signage or barrier action required •AT&T Sector D No signage or barrier action required 53 ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. LOCATIONS | ATLANTA, GA | BALTIMORE, MD | BURLINGTON, MA | CHICAGO, IL DALLAS, TX | DENVER, CO | HOUSTON, TX | LOS ANGELES, CA | NEW YORK, NY | PHOENIX, AZ PORTLAND, OR | SAN FRANCISCO, CA | SEATTLE, WA | YORK, PA 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 Tel: (781) 273-2500 Fax: (781) 273-3311 www.ebiconsulting.com October 23, 2018 Ms. Ashley Brown Compliance Specialist Vinculums Services Inc. 350 Fisher Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Arborist Report for the AT&T Telecommunications Facility (Site No. CCL04011/CNU4011) Address: Cupertino Sports Center, 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014 EBI Project #6118008496 Dear Ms. Brown: EBI Consulting (EBI) is pleased to provide you with the attached Arborist Report for the above-referenced Site identified as ‘Cupertino Sports Center’ (herein the Subject Property), which is located at 1111 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014. The focus of this assessment was to provide a tree survey, conducted by a qualified arborist, to be submitted to the City of Cupertino as part of the environmental review process. A full summary of the field work and methodology completed as part of this assessment, as well as the associated findings from this work, can be found in the attached report. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the email or phone number listed below should you have any questions or concerns regarding the findings of this assessment. Regards, Bill Arnerich Biologist EBI Consulting Phone: 707.322.5769 Email: barnerich@ebiconsulting.com Attachments: Figures & Site Plan Arborist Report 54 Figures & Site Plan 55 EBI GIS, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 1: Site Location Map PN: 6118008496 Date: 10/23/2018· Legend Site Radius ^_Project Site at 250', 500', 1000', ½, ¾ & 1 mile CCL04011 CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER 21111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 56 EBI GIS, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Figure 2 - Topographic Map PN: 6118008496 Date: 10/23/2018·USGS 24K Quad: Cupertino, CA 1986 Legend Site Radius ^_Project Site at 250', 500', 1000', ½, ¾ & 1 mile CCL04011 CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER 21111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 57 T-1 DRIVING DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAWING INDEX DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS ZONING DRAWING ENGINEERING GENERAL NOTES UNDERGROUND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SERVICE ALERT OF 800-642-2444 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SITE NUMBER: CCL04011/CNU4011 FA NUMBER: 10147297 LTE 1C MRSFR001479, LTE 2C MRSFR044791, LTE 3C MRSFR044716, LTE 4C MRSFR044684, LTE 5C MRSFR044762, LTE 6C MRSFR044755 PTN# 3701A0DT8K, PTN# 3701A0DT4K, PTN# 3701A0DT2R, PTN# 3701A0B1QH, PTN# 3701A0DT7N, PTN# 3701A0DT1V SITE NAME: CUPERTINO SPORTS CENTER 21111 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 · · · · · · · · · · · · 58 59 A-1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SITE PLAN 1ANTON WAYSTEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD STELLING ROAD60 A-2 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY ENLARGE SITE PLAN 1STELLING ROADSECTOR 'A' 30° SECTOR 'C' 215° SECTOR 'D' 145° SECTOR 'B' 310° 61 A-3 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY 2 PROPOSED ANTENNA PLANPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PLAN (P) ANTENNA SCHEDULE SECTOR 'A' 30° SECTOR 'C' 215° SECTOR 'D' 145° SECTOR 'B' 310° 62 A-4 EAST ELEVATION 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY SOUTH ELEVATION2 · · · · 63 A-5 WEST ELEVATION 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: Walnut Creek, CA 94598 575 Lennon Ln #125 Signal Hill, CA 90755 1875 Coronado Ave A NUWAVE COMPANY NORTH ELEVATION2 · · · · 64 Arborist Report 65 10/22/18 (\\ptr11\projects\EBI1804\Tree memo.docx) BERKELEY CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: October 22, 2018 TO: Bill Arnerich, EBI Consulting FROM: Eric Lichtwardt and Tim Milliken SUBJECT: Arborist Report for the AT&T Telecommunications Facility (Site No. CCL04011/ CNU4011) at the Cupertino Sports Center, 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California INTRODUCTION AT&T proposes to construct a telecommunications facility at the above referenced project site in the City of Cupertino (City). As part of the project environmental review, the City requested a tree survey by a qualified arborist. Deodar cedars (Cedrus deodara), a non‐native tree species that grows to a large size and are popular as ornamental trees, are present on the project site and according to the City’s tree ordinance (Title 14, Chapter 14.18.) this species is considered protected.1 METHODS LSA certified arborist, Tim Milliken, conducted the tree survey of the project site on October 15, 2018. For each tree encountered during the survey, Mr. Milliken identified the tree to species, attached a sequentially numbered metal tag to the trunk, measured the diameter at breast height (DBH) in inches, and noted general condition of the tree. RESULTS Three Deodar cedars trees are present on the project site (Table A). The project will result in the removal of one cedar and the others will be avoided. Table A summarizes the size of the surveyed trees, their condition, and disposition (remove/retain). 1 Mature specimen Deodar cedars on private property with a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) of 12 inches are considered protected by City ordinance. 66 10/22/18 (\\ptr11\projects\EBI1804\Tree memo.docx) 2 Table A: Trees Tree Number Species DBH Condition / Notes Retain/Remove 1 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) 12 Good/non‐native species Retain 2 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) 14 Good/non‐native species Remove 3 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) 14 Good/non‐native species Retain CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project will result in the removal of one Deodar cedar and retain two Deodar cedars, all protected trees. The City’s tree ordinance states: “No person shall directly or indirectly remove or cause to be removed any protected tree without first obtaining a tree removal permit”. An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the City’s Department of Community Development. The City may require tree replacement for the planned tree removal. The application shall include a drawing showing the location of the protected trees and proposed replacement trees. Tree Replacement Mitigation If tree replacement is required, two 24’ box trees or one 36” box tree should be planted on site. If it is not feasible to plant the replacement trees onsite, an in‐lieu fee shall be paid to the City’s Tree Fund. The City’s Director of the Department of Community Development shall determine the amount of in‐lieu fee. General Tree Protection Measures Based on the City’s tree ordinance, the following general measures are recommended to protect trees during project construction. 1. A site plan shall be prepared describing the relationship of proposed grading and utility trenching to the trees designated for preservation. Construction and grading should not significantly raise or lower the ground level beneath tree drip lines. If the ground level is proposed for modification beneath the drip line, the architect/arborist shall address and mitigate the impact to the tree(s). 2. All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a 6‐foot‐high fence around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be determined by the landscape architect or arborist. The tree protection shall be placed before any excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the construction work. 67 10/22/18 (\\ptr11\projects\EBI1804\Tree memo.docx) 3 3. No construction operations shall be carried on within the drip line area of any tree designated to be saved except as is authorized by the Director of Community Development. 4. If trenching is required to penetrate the protection barrier for the tree, the section of trench in the drip line shall be hand dug so as to preclude the cutting of roots. Prior to initiating any trenching within the barrier approval by staff with consultation of an arborist shall be completed. 5. Trees which require any degree of fill around the natural grade shall be guarded by recognized standards of tree protection and design of tree wells. 6. The area under the drip line of the tree shall be kept clean. Neither construction materials nor chemical solvents shall be stored or dumped under a tree. 7. Fires for any reason shall not be made within 50 feet of any tree selected to remain and shall be limited in size and kept under constant surveillance. 8. The general contractor shall use a tree service licensee, as defined by California Business and Professional Code, to prune and cut off the branches that must be removed during the grading or construction. No branches or roots shall be cut unless at first reviewed by the landscape architect/arborist with approval of staff. 9. Any damage to existing tree crowns or root systems shall be repaired immediately by an approved tree surgeon. 10. No storage of construction materials or parking shall be permitted within the drip line area of any tree designated to be saved. 11. Tree protection regulations shall be posted on protective fencing around trees to be protected. 68 From:Gian Martire To:"Delores Carson" Cc:Chad Mosley Subject:RE: AT&T Application for CU Sports Center Date:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:46:00 AM Attachments:image017.png image018.png image019.png image020.png image021.png image022.png image023.png image024.png Hi Delores, See my responses below in red. Gian Martire Associate Planner Planning Division GianM@cupertino.org (408) 777-3319 From: Delores Carson [mailto:snazacarson7@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 6:41 PM To: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org> Subject: AT&T Application for CU Sports Center Dear Gian Paolo Martire, Project Manager Re: AT&T application to locate a personal wireless service facility....at The Cupertino Sports Center located @ 21113 Stevens Creek Blvd. Our home is in The Commons and within the 500' of the proposed treepole/16 panel antenna and emergency power generator. My questions: 1.) We use Verizon phones. Will the proximity of the AT&T facility interfere with our service? Service is not anticipated to be interrupted. The City has a similar cell tower at City Hall (Verizon) and service for other carriers service has not been disturbed. These towers, such as the City Hall tower, are built to be collocate different carriers (mostly two). 2.) Our landline, computers & tv are with Comcast. Will the AT&T 69 facility interfere with reception? It is not anticipated to disrupt Comcast service. 3.) Why did the city reject the proposed equipment @ Memorial Park several years ago? In February of 2010, the City approved the replacement of a 60’ tall light pole with a 75’ tall cell tower. This tower has 6 antennae and also functions with baseball field lights. 4.) A few years ago a tall crane was windblown down from the Cupertino Westgate Mall. What guarantee would there be for the safety of the AT&T facility? [State law requires we allow neighboring homes to put dish/satellite antenna on their home with the stipulation if it should fall it cannot fall into the nearby neighbor's yard.] Safety is the City’s concern also. The City has a rigorous approval/permitting process that ensures the cell tower installation meets all prevailing building/safety codes for its erection and continued safe placement. The City Hall Tower being the most recent example of tower installation. 5.) Are you employed by AT&T? No, I am an Associate Planner in the Community Development Department in Cupertino. Thank you for your time in emailing me answers to the above questions I have upon initially hearing of this project. Sincerely, Delores Carson, 10062 Senate Way, Cupertino, CA 95014 snazacarson7@comcast.net Total Control Panel Login To: gianm@cupertino.org From: snazacarson7@comcast.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: Custom Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Custom (55): Pass Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 70 From:Ronny Tey To:Gian Martire Subject:Re: AT&T cell phone tower at Cupertino Sports Center Date:Monday, April 29, 2019 1:57:55 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Thanks, Gian. Those fake trees are always so funny-looking to me. They never look like they fit in the area and this one certainly doesn't as it towers over all the other trees around it and will be an eyesore for those playing tennis on those nearby courts. Have they looked at putting it on the corner of Stevens Creek and Stelling behind the signage for the Cupertino Sports Center. Seems like that would be less obvious and intrusive. -Ronny. From: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org> To: Ronny Tey <ronnytey@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:01 PM Subject: RE: AT&T cell phone tower at Cupertino Sports Center Sorry, forgot to answer the second part of your question. The tower is proposed to be located in the landscape area between the tennis courts and Stelling. See below: 71 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:219-5080 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/28/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: <hack> Cupertino Winner Proclamations and brief presentations Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 2 Subject: <hack> Cupertino Winner Proclamations and brief presentations Accept brief presentations and present proclamations to <hack> Cupertino winners: 1st place: The Right Price app (Daniel Duan, Vincent Lim, Deepak Ramalingam) 2nd place: Tino Walks (Kyle Lin) 3rd place: FaceAttend (Vidit Agrawal, Siddhant Kumar) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™72 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5391 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/25/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Presentation by Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association (CHSCA) regarding its recent Cupertino Student Delegation trip to Hsinchu City, Taiwan Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Presentation by Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association (CHSCA) regarding its recent Cupertino Student Delegation trip to Hsinchu City, Taiwan Receive presentation by Cupertino-Hsinchu Sister City Association (CHSCA) regarding its recent Cupertino Student Delegation trip to Hsinchu City, Taiwan CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™73 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-4999 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/11/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Proclamation for Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2019 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Proclamation for Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2019 Present proclamation for Public Works Week, May 19-25, 2019 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™74 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5316 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/17/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Proclamations for Public Works employees Karl Olsen and Curtis Bloomquist Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Proclamations for Public Works employees Karl Olsen and Curtis Bloomquist Present proclamations for Public Works employees Karl Olsen and Curtis Bloomquist CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™75 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:118-4772 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/20/2018 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Approve the April 16 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Approve the April 16 City Council minutes Approve the April 16 City Council minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™76 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 16, 2019 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul (5:15 p.m.), Rod Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey (5:35 p.m.). Absent: None. STUDY SESSION 1. Subject: Study Session regarding Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) Review and Implementation Action Items related to possible amendments to the Municipal Code related to Mobile Vendors, allowing Incubator/Co-working uses in General Commercial zoning districts, and an Innovation District Vision Plan in the Bubb Road Special Area Recommended Action: Review EDSP and provide direction on regulations regarding Mobile Vendors and Incubator/Co-working Space; and provide direction on possible Innovation District Vision Plan Review EDSP; and provide direction on regulations regarding Mobile Vendors and Incubator/Co-working Space; and provide direction on possible Innovation District Vision Plan Written communications for this item included emails to Council, a staff presentation, and EDSP background draft report. Economic Development Manager Angela Tsui and Director of Urban Design Consultant Tom Ford from M-Group reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Cathy Helgerson (Cupertino resident) Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) 77 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Council reviewed the EDSP and provided the following direction: Mobile Vendors Regulations: Present draft ordinance to Planning Commission. Consider specifying allowed areas, limiting the number of approved permits, enforcement, and penalties. Incubator/Co-working Space Use: Research and return with more information on the breakdown of office users and square footage. Confirm which office users are at Main Street. Identify which Cupertino businesses are significant sales tax producers and confirm office space occupied and/or needed. Consider enforceable criteria to prevent change of use from incubator/co-working space to traditional office. Return to Council prior to further policy development. Innovation District Vision Plan: Confirm what uses are allowed in Light Industrial zoning. Identify which type of services benefit residents and work to protect those uses (e.g., auto services and repairs, solar, etc.). Wait for new CDD Director to provide guidance and recommendations. Return to Council prior to further policy development. ADJOURNMENT Council recessed from 6:25 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. before the Regular Meeting. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Regular City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod 78 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None. Mayor Scharf introduced incoming City Manager Deborah Feng who said a few words. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Proclamation to Allan Gontang, Office of Emergency Services (OES) volunteer retiring after 17 years of service Recommended Action: Present proclamation to Allan Gontang, Office of Emergency Services (OES) volunteer retiring after 17 years of service Mayor Scharf presented a proclamation to Allan Gontang, Office of Emergency Services (OES) volunteer retiring after 17 years of service. 2. Subject: Proclamations recognizing Autism Awareness Month Recommended Action: Present proclamations recognizing Autism Awareness Month Mayor Scharf presented proclamations to Tayjas Sure, Siri Chettipally, and Julian Huang recognizing Autism Awareness Month. 3. Subject: Safe Routes to School Program Update Recommended Action: Receive Safe Routes to School Program Update Written communications for this item included a presentation. Acting Director of Public Works Roger Lee introduced Safe Routes to School Coordinator Cherie Walkowiak who reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individual spoke: Jean Bedord (Cupertino resident) Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Staff answered questions from Councilmembers. Council received the Safe Routes to School Program update. POSTPONEMENTS 79 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 3a. Subject: Item #6, Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy and Library Expansion Strategy has been postponed to a date to be determined City Clerk Grace Schmidt noted that item number 6 was postponed to a date to be determined. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cathy Helgerson (Cupertino resident) talked about Lehigh Hanson (distributed written comments). Roy Rocklin (Sunnyvale resident) talked about Regnart Creek Trail. Herb Knoesel (Cupertino resident) talked about Apple funding for walk and bike projects. Cupertino Librarian Clare Varesio talked about the Food For Fines program happening throughout the month of April at the Cupertino Library. Linda Wyckoff (Cupertino resident) talked about Regnart Creek Trail. Kathy Chole (Cupertino resident) talked about Regnart Creek Trail (distributed written comments). Jennifer Griffin talked about Highway 17. Janet Van Zoeren (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Housing Choices Cupertino Task Force talked about an inclusionary ordinance for moderate and extremely low income renters (distributed written comments). Lisa Warren talked about trees at Vallco and the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Benaifer (Cupertino resident) talked about disrespect toward Vice Mayor Chao during Council meetings. CONSENT CALENDAR Paul moved and Scharf seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Ayes: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 4. Subject: Approve the April 2 City Council minutes 80 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve the April 2 City Council minutes 5. Subject: Summary Vacation of a Portion of an Emergency Access Easement within The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Property at 23500 Cristo Rey Drive Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-037, summarily vacating a portion of an emergency access easement within The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Property at 23500 Cristo Rey Drive STUDY SESSION 6. Subject: Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy and Library Expansion Strategy Recommended Action: Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy and Library Expansion Strategy has been postponed to a date to be determined Under postponements, this item was postponed to a date to be determined. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Fee Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-038 approving the FY 2019-20 Fee Schedule Written communications for this item included a presentation. Finance Manager Zach Korach reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened the public hearing and the following individual spoke: Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) Mayor Scharf closed the public hearing. Paul moved and Sinks seconded to adopt Resolution No. 19-038 approving the FY 2019-20 Fee Schedule. The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 8:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 81 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 8. Subject: Appoint Deborah L. Feng as City Manager, Approve the Employment Agreement, and amend the Appointed Employee’s Compensation Program Recommended Action: Appoint Deborah L. Feng as City Manager, effective June 3, 2019; authorize the Mayor to execute the Employment Agreement for City Manager; and adopt Resolution No. 19-039 to amend the Appointed Employees’ Compensation Program Interim City Manager Timm Borden introduced the item. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individual spoke: Marie Liu (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Cupertino For All. Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Paul moved and Sinks seconded to appoint Deborah L. Feng as City Manager, effective June 3, 2019; authorize the Mayor to execute the Employment Agreement for City Manager; and adopt Resolution No. 19-039 to amend the Appointed Employees’ Compensation Program. The motion carried unanimously. 9. Subject: Award of a construction contract for the McClellan Road Separated Bikeway-Phase 1B Project (Project No. 2017-01.06) for intersection improvements at McClellan Road & Bubb Road and McClellan Road & Stelling Road. Recommended Action: Award a construction contract for the McClellan Road Separated Bikeway-Phase 1B Project and authorize the Acting Director of Public Works to execute the contract in the amount of $1,365,420 with Redgwick Construction Company; and further authorize the Acting Director of Public Works to execute any necessary change orders up to a construction contingency amount of $136,000, for a total possible authorized contract amount of $1,501,420. Written communications for this item included a presentation. Acting Director of Public Works Roger Lee reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Janet Van Zoeren (Cupertino resident) Jennifer Griffin 82 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Paul moved and Sinks seconded to award a construction contract for the McClellan Road Separated Bikeway-Phase 1B Project and authorize the Acting Director of Public Works to execute the contract in the amount of $1,365,420 with Redgwick Construction Company; and further authorize the Acting Director of Public Works to execute any necessary change orders up to a construction contingency amount of $136,000, for a total possible authorized contract amount of $1,501,420. The motion carried unanimously. 10. Subject: Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, endorse scope of actions identified in the Plan as the proposed project for purposes of conducting environmental review Recommended Action: Endorse the scope of the actions included in the Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") as the proposed project for purposes of conducting environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Written communications for this item included a presentation and a written comment. Director of Recreation and Community Services Jeff Milkes introduced the item and Parks Restoration and Improvement Manager Gail Seeds reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Jennifer Griffin Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) Neesha Tambe (Cupertino resident) Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Staff answered questions from Councilmembers. Paul moved and Sinks seconded to endorse the scope of the actions included in the Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") as the proposed project for purposes of conducting environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") with input received by the Council regarding potential items and bring back within 3 months the Draft Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan ("Master Plan") for consideration of Chapters 4 and 5 regarding prioritization. The motion carried unanimously. 83 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Council recessed from 11:00 p.m. to 11:07 p.m. 11. Subject: Adopt positions opposing Senate Bills 50 and 330 Recommended Action: Adopt positions opposing Senate Bills 50 and 330 and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to the State Legislature Written communications for this item included emails to Council. City Attorney Heather Minner reviewed the staff report. Mayor Scharf read a draft letter of opposition on SB50 (distributed written comments). Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Jennifer Griffin Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident) Govind (Cupertino resident) Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Paul moved and Scharf seconded to adopt positions opposing Senate Bills 50 and 330 and authorize the Mayor to send letters of opposition to the State Legislature in a timely manner for each letter with the understanding that if there is more time on SB330 then to utilize the time. The motion carried unanimously. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 12. Subject: Update regarding 2018 community shuttle survey and provide input on an 18- month pilot program. Recommended Action: Receive update and provide comment. Written communications for this item included a presentation. Senior Transit and Transportation Planner Chris Corrao reviewed the presentation. Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Jennifer Griffin Neesha Tambe (Cupertino resident) 84 City Council Minutes April 16, 2019 Mayor Scharf closed public comment. Council received the update regarding 2018 community shuttle survey and provided comment on an 18-month pilot program. 13. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. Councilmembers requested the following: Town Hall meetings once a month beginning either the first Friday in May or the first Friday in June (Willey) Bring SB4, SB5, AB67, and AB68 to Legislative Review Committee (Scharf/Chao) Add a presentation regarding Below Market Rate (BMR) for sale and rental (Scharf) Interim City Manager Timm Borden talked about the upcoming community workshop “Budget and Bites” at Quinlan Community Center on 4/18/19 from 6 -8 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 1:03 a.m. on Wednesday, April 17, Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting. ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk 85 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5416 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/1/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Approve reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019 . CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™86 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Recommended Action Approve reimbursement of up to $1,750 in travel expenses for travel to Copertino, Italy, by the Mayor to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. Discussion The Mayor has been asked to join the adult delegation to Copertino Sister City in September 2019. The current City Council Policies and Guidelines on Sister Cities, Friendship Cities, and International Delegations for the City of Cupertino states that the City will pay for 50% of one trip per year, per Councilmember, provided the trip is in conjunction with an official delegation. This request for up to $1,750 will exceed the 50% allowance. Staff is scheduled to bring changes to the Sister Cities Policies and Guidelines, including the travel reimbursement policy, to the City Council for consideration on June 18, 2019, however the Mayor has requested to have this permission granted in advance so that travel arrangements can be made. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact Transfer of $1,750 in funds from the City Manager’s Discretionary Budget to the Council Budget. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: None 87 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5387 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/25/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Resolution supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A- Draft Resolution Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Resolution supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 19-040 supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™88 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Resolution supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017. Recommended Action Adopt the draft resolution supporting State implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017. Description The Buy Clean California Act of 2017 (AB 262), requires the State of California Department of General Services to publish maximum acceptable Global Warming Potential (GWP) for State public works projects for the following materials; Carbon rebar Flat glass Mineral wood board insulation Structural steel The Department of General Services (DGS) has set up a website for AB 262 implementation and to help suppliers with resources and guidance. Currently, there is no information on associated costs of doing this. The timeline is as follows: January 1, 2019 – State agencies will request submission of Environmental Product Disclosures (EPDs) from their contractors. January 1, 2020 – State agencies will require submission of EPDs from their contractors. January 1, 2021 –Department of General Services will publish the maximum acceptable Global Warming Potential for eligible materials. July 1, 2021 – State agencies will gauge Global Warming Potential compliance of eligible materials with Environmental Product Disclosures. Sustainability staff has been following the Buy Clean effort since 2017. In its 2019/2020 Work Program, the Sustainability Commission has requested that staff provide brief quarterly updates on the State progress. The attached draft resolution is to support the State’s 89 2 implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017 implementation. The Buy Clean California effort does not include concrete as one of the materials required to submit an EPD. Staff is also tracking a related effort by the County of Marin, which received a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Climate Protection Grant Program. This project aims to reduce embodied emissions in the built environment by creating local specifications and model policies for low embodied-carbon concrete, developed through a robust regional stakeholder engagement process. Project website: https://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/sustainability/low-carbon-concrete-project Sustainability Impact Support for State Buy Clean California implementation is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Fiscal Impact Unknown _____________________________________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Misty Mersich, Sustainability Manager Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Resolution of Support for Buy Clean California Act of 2017 90 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SUPPORTING STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUY CLEAN CALIFORNIA ACT OF 2017 WHEREAS, the 2018 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report states that we have 12 years to make “massive and unprecedented changes” to global energy infrastructure to limit global warming to moderate levels; and WHEREAS, the death and destruction already wrought by global warming of approximately 1°C demonstrate that the Earth is already too hot for safety as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods, rising seas, diseases, droughts and extreme weather; WHEREAS, immediate action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; WHEREAS, the State of California is a demonstrated leader in the fight against climate change; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature passed the Buy Clean California Act ( AB 262) in 2017, the country’s first bill that addresses greenhouse gas emissions within State purchases for public works projects; and WHEREAS, the bill requires the Department of General Services to establish a Global Warming Potential (GWP) limit for eligible materials; and WHEREAS, “eligible materials” include structural steel, carbon steel rebar, flat glass, and mineral wool board insulation; and WHEREAS, successful bidders on contracts for California State public works projects are required to submit an Environmental Product Declaration ( EPD), which provides emission information on greenhouse gas emissions produced during manufacture, for each of the eligible materials to be used in construction; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Cupertino supports and encourages timely implementation of the Buy Clean California Act by the State and will continue to monitor the progress; and PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote: 91 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ___________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-4883 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/17/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Conduct a public hearing and consider public comments on and written protests of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; tabulate protests and consider adopting a Resolution stating whether a majority protest exists and, if not, direct a property owner ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Notice of the Fee Proposal B - Valid Protest Letters received as of 4-25-19 C - Public Comments Received as of 4-25-19 D - Draft Resolution of No Majority Protest E - Draft Ordinance F - Drafts of the ballot packet documents G - Chamber Support Letter Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Conduct a public hearing and consider public comments on and written protests of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; tabulate protests and consider adopting a Resolution stating whether a majority protest exists and, if not, direct a property owner ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution. 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive input and consider all protests of property owners related to the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and 2. Tabulate protests to determine if a majority protest exists; and 3. If a majority protest is found not to exist, adopt Resolution No. 19-041 stating that a majority protest does not exist and directing the City to conduct a ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution; and 4. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 19-2183 : “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code to Establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee,” an ordinance that is subject to property owner approval through a ballot proceeding; and 5. Direct staff to place on a future Council agenda an amendment of the Joint Use CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™93 File #:19-4883,Version:1 5. Direct staff to place on a future Council agenda an amendment of the Joint Use Agreement with Cupertino Unified School District to establish cost sharing of the new Clean Water fees for applicable schools at which the City maintains joint use sport fields if the ballot measure is affirmed on July 16th. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™94 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Conduct a public hearing and consider public comments on and written protests of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; tabulate protests and consider adopting a Resolution stating whether a majority protest exists and, if not, direct a property owner ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution. Recommended Action 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive input and consider all protests of property owners related to the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and 2. Tabulate protests to determine if a majority protest exists; and 3. If a majority protest is found not to exist, a dopt Resolution No. 19-XXX stating that a majority protest does not exist and directing the City to conduct a ballot proceeding for the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution; and 4. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 19-XXX : “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Adding Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code to Establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee,” an ordinance that is subject to property owner approval through a ballot proceeding; and 5. Direct staff to place on a future Council agenda an amendment of the Joint Use Agreement with Cupertino Unified School District to establish cost sharing of the new Clean Water fees for applicable schools at which the City maintains joint use sport fields if the ballot measure is affirmed on July 16th. Background On June 5, 2018, the City Council held a study session on potential revenue measures related to business license tax and storm drain charges. The business license fee was subsequently discussed by Council separately from the storm drain charges, and Council directed staff to report back with recommendations as soon as practicable to increase storm water charges to achieve full cost recovery for the program. At this study session, current property related storm fees of $12 per residential parcel and $144 per acre for 95 2 apartments/commercial/industrial that have not changed since 1992 were described as funding about one-half of storm water pollution prevention costs. Costs include clean water costs along with operation and maintenance costs. Clean water costs are incurred to comply with Federal Clean Water Act and State storm water pollution prevention requirements. In FY 18/19, clean water costs are estimated to be $727,000 while property related storm fees are estimated to generate only $372,000. The balance of approximately $355,000 is subsidized by the general fund along with an additional $477,000 in operation and maintenance expenses. For FY 19/20, an estimated $1.1M of general fund subsidy will be needed for the clean water and operation/maintenance elements of the storm water program. At the Council meeting of August 21, 2018, staff presented a report titled the “Storm Water Management Fee Study and Ballot Initiative,” with several recommended actions to increase property related storm water fees in FY 19/20. These actions included a statistically valid survey to determine the level of support and priorities of the public for new funding of a Clean Water and Storm Protection program. Because Council supported this recommendation, the City entered into an agreement with SCI Consulting Group (SCI) to conduct a survey, and on January 15, 2019 the survey results were presented to the Council. After hearing the survey results, Council approved the funding for the remaining steps in the process and directed the completion of a Fee Report with SCI. The purpose of the Fee Report was to calculate clean storm water and operation/maintenance costs for different types of parcels and then to calculate the appropriate fee needed for each of the parcel types so that costs and revenues balance. The overall benefit that a parcel receives from the programs as well as the amount of impervious surface were considered within the Fee Report. At the recommendation of staff, Council took several actions on March 5, 2019 to initiate a Proposition 218 proceeding to establish a new property related fee to fund the clean water and operation/maintenance elements of the storm water program. These actions were: Approval of the Fee Report by SCI, which recommended a fee structure based on a $44.42 annual fee for an average single-family home; and Adoption of Resolution No. 19-022 formally initiating the Proposition 218 process by approving the Fee Report, setting a public hearing for May 7, 2019, and directing mailing of a notice to all affected property owners about the hearing and their right for protest; and Adoption of Resolution No. 19-023 establishing procedures for conducting a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding. 96 3 Notices of the Fee proposal and tonight’s public hearing were mailed 45 days in advance to approximately 15,448 property owners. The notice (included as Attachment A) informed property owners of the subject of the hearing and also invited them to attend four community meetings to learn more about the proposed fee and to hear their comments. Those meetings were held on the following dates and locations: March 28, 2019 at the Quinlan Community Center April 9, 2019 at the Cupertino Senior Center April 13, 2019 at the City Hall April 30, 2019 at the Cupertino Senior Center Attendees of these meetings received a presentation by staff followed by a questions, answers and general discussion. 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Ordinance (Fee Ordinance) A new Fee Ordinance will be required if the ballot measure is affirmed on July 16th. Recommended features of the Fee Ordinance include: a. If additional program costs are incurred, an annual adjustment for inflation equal to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (“CPI-U”) capped at up to 3% for any year. b. The fee can only be used for Clean Water and Storm Protection programs (not for other programs). c. No sunset clause for the fee. d. A 25% reduced fee for multi-family residential (condominium or apartment) or commercial properties that implement low impact development storm water improvements (281 parcels currently qualify for this reduction). e. Fiscal controls and accountability such as: An appeals procedure to allow any property owner who disagrees with the calculation of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee to appeal. Requirement of annual audits. Citizens’ oversight. All revenues deposited into an account that is separate from the general fund. Annual review of revenue needs. f. Annual public hearing regarding the collection of fees on the annual property tax bill. Other Potential Fee Mitigation Measures Proposition 218 precludes incorporating subsidies into the r ate calculations if it causes the rates for other property owners to be higher. Accordingly, any rebates or subsidies need to be funded from non-rate revenues such as the general fund. Three subsidy measures that staff recommend are: 97 4 a. One-time rebates for residential properties that implement features such as pervious driveways, rain barrels, or rain gardens. Up to $25,000 annually would be available for these rebates (this is similar to the Palo Alto program); and b. Establish cost sharing of proposed new fees with Cupertino Union School District for applicable schools at which the City maintains joint use sport fields. If the ballot measure is affirmed on July 16th and Council directs these measures to be implemented, staff would return to Council with recommended actions in August. Next Steps If a majority protest occurs with at least 8,302 parcel owners submitting written protests, then no further action can be taken by the City. Valid protests and comments received at the writing of this report are included in Attachments B and C, respectively, and will be included in the tabulation with any written protests that may be received during the hearing. If no majority protest exists, Council may then: Adopt the draft Resolution (Attachment D) confirming that no majority protest exists and ordering the ballot proceeding; and Introduce the Fee Ordinance (Attachment E) In adopting the Resolution and introducing the Fee Ordinance, Council will direct the final steps in the balloting proceeding that will include: Ballots being mailed (May 20, 2019) Balloting period closing (July 5, 2019) Tabulation of ballots by City Clerk in publicly accessible location (July 8-12, 2019) Recommendation that Council certify ballot results and, if a majority of property owners vote to approve, adopt a resolution to include fee on the 2019-20 property tax bills, and conduct second reading of ordinance (July 16, 2019) Attachment F contains the draft ballot, ballot guide and envelopes. Depending on actions taken by Council with this report, updates to the ballot guide may be needed. Sustainability There are no negative effects from this action. Proper funding of storm water pollution prevention programs and improving existing storm water infrastructure will improve the water quality of storm runoff entering the Bay and reduce the likelihood of property loss due to flooding. Fiscal Impact 98 5 The Clean Water and Storm Protection program is currently underfunded. The proposed fee, with the provision of additional inflationary adjustment revenue not to exceed the actual increase in costs, will reduce funding deficits. If the proposed fee is approved, it will generate an estimated revenue of approximately $1.1 million per year. If the proposed fee is not approved, the general fund will need to continue to provide a subsidy and, consequently, cause a reduction of the availability of funding for other important programs. If the funding measure is approved, there will be an enhancement of services. These would include more efficient street sweeping, more frequent cleaning of storm drain inlets, and increased environmental education programs. As a result of these enhancements, program costs will increase $150,000 per year. Included in this cost is funding to convert an existing part-time position to a full-time position in the Public Works Storm Drain Maintenance Division. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Cheri Donnelly, Environmental Programs Manager Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: A. Notice of the Fee Proposal B. Valid Protest Letters received as of 4-25-19 C. Public comments received as of 4-25-19 D. Draft Resolution No. 19-XXX stating that a majority protest does not exist and directing a property related ballot proceeding for the City’s 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee E. Draft Ordinance No. 19-XXX : “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Establishing Chapter 3.38 of the Municipal Code to Adopt the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee,” (inclusive of Fee Report) F. Drafts of the ballot packet documents (inclusive of ballot, notice and ballot guide and outgoing and return envelopes) G. Chamber Support Letter 5-1-2019 99 March 18, 2019 Dear Property Owner: I’m reaching out to you to inform you of an upcoming public process related to the City’s proposed new 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee for stormwater services. As property owners in Cupertino, you are currently paying a Storm Drainage service charge as part of your annual property tax bill. The current charge for residents is $12 per year, which has never been increased in its 27-year history. Since the program’s inception in 1992, these fees have partially funded the City’s clean stormwater and storm protection programs. These programs have been essential in protecting our community’s stormwater infrastructure, local creeks, regional wetlands, San Francisco Bay, and ocean. However, the costs to maintain the City’s aging stormwater infrastructure and preserve clean water has far surpassed the fee’s revenues. A dedicated and reliable funding source, which would be in addition to the current fee, is needed to provide for clean stormwater, improved maintenance, and enhanced services. The proposed new fee amount varies depending on what type of property you own and is included in the pages that follow. Most single-family residential parcels will be asked to pay an additional $44.42 per year. Non-single- family residential and commercial parcels will be asked to pay an additional amount as well. I encourage you to read the important information in this packet and become involved in the process. In addition to the public hearing on May 7, 2019, you are invited to attend the community meetings listed on the last page. If the new proposed fee is not protested by a majority of parcel owners on May 7, you will receive a ballot by mail. This new proposed fee will only be charged if a majority of parcel owners submitting a ballot are in favor. Please visit our website for more information: www.Cupertino.org/CleanWater. If you have any questions about this process, contact us at (408) 777-3354 or environmental@cupertino.org. Sincerely, Timm Borden Interim City Manager 100 2 Notice of Public Hearing 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee for properties within the City of Cupertino. The Public Hearing has been scheduled for: May 7, 2019 6:45 p.m. City Council Chambers 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California At this public hearing, the City Council will consider the proposed fee and hear all persons interested in the matter. The public is encouraged to attend. The public hearing is held in accordance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) and with the procedures adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 5, 2019. The procedures may be accessed on the City’s web site at www.Cupertino.org/CleanWater. Any owner of a parcel of real property subject to the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee may object to the proposed fee by filing with the City Clerk, at or before the time of the hearing, a written protest containing a legible signature of the property owner and identifying the parcel by address or assessor’s parcel number. The mailing address for a written protest is as follows: 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest, c/o City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014. The property owner may also appear at the hearing and be heard on the matter. If the City Clerk does not receive written protests from a majority of property owners regarding the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee before the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing, the City Council may authorize a mail ballot proceeding on the question of whether to approve the fee. Under this scenario, ballots would be mailed to all property owners whose parcels are subject to the fee. 101 3 The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Program would be managed by the City of Cupertino, and the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would be collected and used strictly for the stormwater services as summarized below. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE Reason for the Proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. The stormwater maintenance and pollution prevention program that started in 1992 has been operating at a deficit because the current fee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the necessary operations, maintenance, and regulatory requirements required to proactively service the system and ensure that stormwater flowing to the Bay and creeks is clean. For instance, in the current fiscal year, the estimate costs of the program total $1.197 million, but the revenue from the current fee is only about $379,000 per year. In 2019 the City prepared a comprehensive 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report, to determine the amount of revenue needed by a new fee to fund the program. As shown in the table below, this resulted in a rate of $44.42 for a typical single-family home. This would be in addition to the $12 per year currently paid by each single-family residential property owner. This rate compares favorably to the rates in other Bay Area cities, which are about $92 in San Jose, $164 in Palo Alto, $150 in Burlingame, and $109 in Santa Cruz. If property owners do not approve the proposed fees, the City’s General Fund may be used to continue subsidizing the Clean Water and Storm Protection Program, but at the cost of reduced services for other critical community priorities such as public safety, roads and parks. PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE RATES If approved, these fees will be collected on the annual property tax bill along with the current storm drainage service charge and other fees and charges. The new fee for a single-family home on a medium sized parcel between 0.13 and 0.23 acres, which is the most common fee, is proposed to be $44.42 per year. The entire schedule of proposed annual fee rates is shown in the table on the next page. 102 4 Schedule of Proposed Clean Stormwater Fee Rates Single-Family Residential * Small (Under 0.13 acre)36.58$ per parcel Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre)44.42$ per parcel Large 0.23 to 0.40 acre)55.58$ per parcel Extra Large (over 0.40 acre)106.42$ per parcel Condominium 1 (1 story)36.58$ per parcel Condominium 2+ (2+ stories)11.99$ per parcel Non-Single-Family Residential ** Multi-Family Residential 30.88$ per 0.1 acre Commercial / Retail / Industrial 40.38$ per 0.1 acre Office 30.88$ per 0.1 acre Church / Institutional 26.13$ per 0.1 acre School (w/playfield)19.00$ per 0.1 acre Park 7.13$ per 0.1 acre Vacant (developed)2.38$ per 0.1 acre Open Space / Agricultural Land Use Category no charge Proposed Fee FY 2019-20 * Single-Family Residential category also includes du- tri- and four-plex units ** Non-SFR parcels are charge per the tenth of an acre or portion thereof *** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-single- family properties. Low Impact Development Adjustment ***25% Fee Reduction DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION PROGRAM NEEDS Operations and Maintenance Effective operations and maintenance are critical to the City’s stormwater drainage system. Regular operations and maintenance tasks include storm-day preparations, periodic video inspections, timely storm system repairs, as well as ensuring green infrastructure facilities are working properly. All of these tasks are necessary to maximize the useful life of essential infrastructure and minimize the risk of flooding during storms. The proposed fee will allow the City to perform maintenance and inspection activities more frequently. Safe, Clean and Healthy Water The City’s stormwater system must comply with strict State and Federal clean water standards to ensure that water discharged from the system is safe, clean and healthy, in order 103 5 to protect our local creeks, the Bay, and the ocean . Trash, oil, and other pollutants accumulate on our streets and sidewalks on a daily basis. Without our clean water program, these pollutants would be swept into our creeks and the Bay. Street sweeping and other elements of the clean water program keep our waterways clean by removi ng these pollutants from the water before it is released into the creeks or the Bay. The City has a strong compliance program, but the current financial analysis indicates that additional funds will be required to continue to address increasing water quality standards. This additional revenue will also allow for additional street sweeping services and enhance the environmental education program offered to elementary school students within the City . Summary The total additional amount to be collected by the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee in Fiscal Year 2019 -20 is $1,097,787. This proposed fee will fully address the annual structural financial shortfall of the operations and mai ntenance and water quality requirements of the stormwater syst em. A summary table showing a four -year financial projection for fee revenues and expenditures is shown below. Current Future Fiscal Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5-Yr Revenues $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 1,895 Expenses $ 1,197 $ 1,443 $ 1,487 $ 1,550 $ 1,597 $ 1,647 $ 7,724 Shortfall $ * (818) $ (1,064) $ (1,108) $ (1,171) $ (1,218) $ (1,268) $ (5,829) New Revenues $ 1,098 $ 1,131 $ 1,165 $ 1,200 $ 1,236 $ 5,828 SUMMARY OF FISCAL ACTIVITY AND PROJECTIONS All numbers are in thousands. For example: $1,197 = $1,197,000 * Subsidized by City’s General Fund ADMINISTRATION OF THE 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE How the Fee Is Calculated. The proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is based on the quantity of rain water runoff produced by each parcel or category of parcel. This runoff is based upon the proportional impervious area (e.g. roof tops and pavements) on each category of parcel. A copy of the full Clean Stor mwater Fee Study can be found on the City’s website at www.cupertino.org/CleanWater . Properties Subject to the Fee. All properties are subject to the fee except for undisturbed open space, agricultural land, and other undeveloped parcels that do not include measurable impervious area. 104 6 Annual Inflation Adjustment. In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change in the Consumer Price Index, but will be limited to 3% in any single year. Accountability and Oversight Provision. The proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee revenues will be collected and deposited into a separate account that can only be used for specified storm protection projects, maintenance and operations, and regulatory activities. COMMUNITY MEETINGS The City will be conducting four community meetings to provide additional opportunities for the public to receive information and provide input regarding the stormwater protection system in Cupertino. The date, time and place of the meetings are shown below: Community Meeting #1: March 28, 2019 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. Craft Room Quinlan Community Center 10185 N. Stelling Rd., Cupertino, CA Community Meeting #2: April 9, 2019 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA Community Meeting #3 (During Earth Day Festival): April 13, 2019 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. Room TBD City Hall 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA Community Meeting #4: April 30, 2019 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 105 106 107 March 27 , 2019 2019 Clean Water and Storm Project Fee Protest c/o City Clerk 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 9501 4 Honorable Councilmembers: CUPERTINO CITY CLERK We are residents of Cupertino and received an informational letter about the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Project Fee. We are opposed to the fee as long as an Annual Inflation Adjustment is included in the program . If no Annual Inflation Adjustment is included , we do not oppose the proposed increase . T hank you . ftudtu~~ Paula Bettencourt Hm11~ BctQ;v~ Harry Bettencourt 11553 Upland Court Cupertino CA. 95014 108 109 c/o City Clerk 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee Protest 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Charles Chu Mong-Wei Chu I 0585 Merriman Road Cupertino, CA 95014 March 29 , 2019 Re: Parcel# 342-16-079 (Address: 10585 Merriman Rd , Cupertino) Dear Sir/Madam: We are owners of the property located at 10585 Merriman Rd , Cupertino. Its Parcel# is 342-16-079. The purpose of this letter is to file our written protest against the proposed 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee for Cupe1iino . prope1iies. Yours Sincerely, Charles Chu & Mong-Wei Chu 110 c/o City Clerk 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee Protest 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino , CA 95014 Charles Chu Mong-Wei Chu 10585 Merriman Road Cupertino, CA 95014 March 29, 2019 Re; Parcel# 357-03-040 (Address: 10340 Walnut Circle , Cupertino) Dear Sir/Madam: We are the owners of the property located at 10340 Walnut Circle, Cupertino. Its Parcel# is 357-03-040. The purpose of this letter is to file our written protest against the proposed 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee for Cupertino properties. Yours Sincerely, Charles Chu Mong-Wei Chu 111 c /o City Clerk 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee Protest 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Charles Chu Mong-Wei Chu 10585 Merriman Road Cupertino , CA 95014 March 29 , 20 19 Re: Parcel# 375-22-011 (Address: 10840 Wunderlich Drive , Cupertino) Dear Sir/IYladam: We are the owners of the property located at 10840 Wunderlich Drive, Cupertino. Its parcel# is 375-22-011. The purpose of this letter is to file our written protest against the proposed 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee for Cupe1iino properties. Yours Sincerely, a?~ /fr{Ylr~v0~~ Charles Chu & Mong-Wei Chu 112 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest C/0 City Clerk 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino City Council, April 02, 2019 I am writing to protest the imposition of a substantial tax increase for the maintenance of the city's storm drains. While I recognize the need for such a service, I find the fee increase to be excessive. As a middle school teacher in Cupertino who has to fight for a minimal (if any) increase in salary and benefits I'm insulted by a 560% increase in that fee. I strongly suggest the city examine all of its budget and cut out some excessive or unnecessary expenses and apply them to this storm drain issue. Thank you for your consideration, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-202-8547 113 114 William Rassieur and Freda Xu 20045 De Pa l ma Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 April 6 , 2019 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protectici ,1 Fee Protest % City Cl 9 rk 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: the proposed fee increase for storm drain maintenance We protest the fee increase on the grounds that the expenses contemplated for the Regnart Bike Trail , which we hope is not built, could more than cover the expenses needed for the storm drain maintenance. To be clear, we are in favor of the sto rm drain mainten a nce. But we are most certainly not willing to underwrite the bike trail p ro ject by accepting a fee increase to cover expenses the city could otherwise address with avail a ble funds. We understand and have read that the revenues collected for the storm drain maintenance would be kept in a separate account and not used for other purposes. That's fine, but that does not invalidate the notion that the several millions of dollars the City may be budgeting for the bike trail c ould be used instead for the storm drain ma inte nance. My wife and I have lived at 20045 De Palma Lane since June, 2000. William Rassieur and Freda Xu 115 City Clerk: April 10, 2019 To whom it may concern, My wife and I have been a long time resident of Cupertino. We are protesting the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee. My wife and I are senior citizens. I have been on permanent disability for the past 11 years and and my wife works part time. We are on fixed incomes and cannot afford any more fees. We have seen our property tax go from $5,000.00 per year to $8,000.00 per year. Our PG&E water rates are so expensive now. Increases of our social security cannot keep up with all of California's taxes. Cupertino used to be a great quaint little "Town." Because of all of the "Tech" companies, city councils only care about tax revenues and are trying to make big cities out of small towns. The city council does not care about their elderly citizens and are forcing many of them to relocate. Again, we are protesting theses proposed taxes. Sincerely, Gregory A. Johnsivde 10841 W Estates Dr. Cupertino , CA 95014-4537 --~ 116 <-C •. ~-W i t/{)'/.-7 L i ct Mj c,l_ q () 4.16.2019 ,/' To: Cupertino City Clerk, 10300 Torre Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 From: Brent G Bardsley {APN 375 16 004), 10408 Men hart Lane, Cupt CA 95014 Subject: 2019 Storm Protection Assessment Fee By this letter I regi~tef a ci,t~zen. protest to1 this new feq Here's why:/ tu , j;:v. e.,"'. nu. +~e 1 5 1'V\c.", ff/fJJZe,1. 1"1,u; v .t a ~. • • Lack elf a provision for elderly property owner's (over 65 years old) to opt out • Lack of a provision for a single family residential owner to secure a similar 25% reduced fee by . modifying their property to reduce run-off. • • • • Inequitable fee based on property type. A commercial property such as Target generates a much higher run-off per acre due to their large roof and almost total parki;gJf91JP."ii-e-mi~~i;"J:"'iL~f,i·~~~: Inequitable fee due to a lack ~f provision for property slope. A sloped foot!~'.i1J}ffi~~N' {;L property generates a much higher run-off per acre than a flatland propertv, j~•M~f Ra_ncho area.. ; ;f' ;;.· Inequitable fee due to agricultural-~oned la~~ ~aving no fee at all. Agricultri~Jr}P l(~~rates'as' ' :i , ! ,1 ! f; I much runoff as any other land, particularly 1f 1t 1s on sloped ground. 1 / I i · ·' ! i" i Inequitable fee due to no provision charging for the area contained by cit~ ~e.~¥,.~~~~:.,,_F:;J ., roads. Paved ro~ are a mf in source of lo ca.I run-off, yet no lee is assess~4f-t;::~.::Lt2'.l~LJ'_"/L:· ·· DM\t\k G ~~\,~ ... "••---.. ·----·--·.-~-.. 117 April 10, 2019 Mr. Timm Borden Interim City Manager Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Gary Wong 10358 Lozano Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ("Fee") Dear Mr. Borden: Via Post and email We are responding to your letter dated March 18, 2019 pertaining to the proposed fee referenced above. Our household opposes the proposed fee . While you articulate persuasive reasons for the need to upgrade and maintain our storm drainage system, we oppose the Fee, because there are sufficient City resources to pay for these costs. For example, we feel the Regnart Creek Trail project has expended funds unwisely, that key steps were skipped or addressed late in the process, such as not starting with a survey and soil testing, before embarking on a costly marketing and consulting campaign. On any project development, knowing the dimensions and conditions and usability of your site, is a critical first step so that one understands what is buildable . Notwithstanding constant, community suggestions to approach the project planning differently, such suggestions are ignored, using our tax dollars and city resources irresponsibly . Secondly, poor financial controls and oversight allowed $792,000 to be embezzled. Your letter describes the current condition of the City's Water Drainage System . However, it doesn't address the cause or impact from urbanization, the profound changes to hydrology in Cupertino from increasing imperviousness of the watershed. Looking at commercial development over the past decade, there appears to be little evidence of efforts to manage runoffs, to treat waste water before being pushed off property lines from the hotels and commercial buildings that have been built. It seems that the proposed fees place much of the burden on residences vs commercial , retail and industrial occupants. Using a building's footprint as the key metric, ignores the height of the building and the total square footage . More occupants, greater water usage and treatment required. That would be a more equitable approach. 118 April 13, 2019 To the City of Cupertino, My husband and I are opposed to the current version of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for stormwater services. The recently proposed fee represents a HUGE increase in the amount that residents of Cupertino will pay. As longtime property owners (since 1994) of a parcel which is slightly over 1 acre, and a parcel that has no structures on it but is between .10 and .40 acres, we would go from paying a total of $24.00 per year to paying approximately $150.00 per year for this one fee alone. That is a ridiculous increase. Particularly since our home is about 1500 square feet, so the amount of non-permeable ground on our property is very small compared to the full size of the property, as well as being much lower than many, many homes in Cupertino whose lot size is smaller. We are also both over 60 years old, and feel that this represents an extremely unfair tax on us, and all of our elderly neighbors. We are not opposed to paying the same as every other resident, similar to the current structure. I still feel that an additional $44.42 per year is excessive, and that the city of Cupertino could use the large amount of income it receives to avoid taxing residents this additional amount ... more that 3x more than before, in addition to the existing tax. Unless the proposal is rewritten to be the same amount per residence (with a house/ condo/ etc. on it) and less than $44.42 extra, we are firmly opposed to the measure. Sincerely ~UJ<JW May Koski (and Paul Koski) 22030 Regnart Road Cupertino, CA 95014 119 DATE COMMENT 21‐Mar‐19 Kathleen and several of her neighbors have no problem with the fee if there is a subsidy for low‐income or seniors. She asked that the message be conveyed. Will there be low income and/or senior discounts, subsidies, or exemptions? 21‐Mar‐19 The property fee is Greek to her. She said the City should've explained how to convert square footage to a percent of an acreage. I told her I'd update the webpage by the next day. 21‐Mar‐19 Prop Owner has no problem with the fee, but doesn't want to pay for 3 parcels. He has one large parcel and has added two small 712sf and 400sf vacant lots to his lot, but he is taxed as 3 separate parcels. On Mar 22, 2019 confirmed with consultant that the two small parcels are in the vacant land category and will be charged at $2.35 each per year. Called prop owner back; he had already requested the form from the County to merge the parcels, but is not as concerned about $2.35 per year for 2 parcels. 21‐Mar‐19 See PDF from Berg&Berg Developers, Inc. 3‐21‐19. Objection Storm Sewer Tax Just Say No ‐ storm sewer program includes an optional 3rd grade creek field trip the fee funds a "feel good" program for 3rd graders? City has run away pension liabilities employees drawing $300K in annual pensions plus paid medical. (Letter, but no signature, re‐sent with signature). 22‐Mar‐19 Was looking at 2018 property tax bill and sees there is a fee called "Safe Clean Water" for $65.36 and was wondering if that covers similar things or what it is. She was able to figure out what the new fee would be for her property but did ask about the existing $12 and if it would be replaced or added. Staff told her it would be an additional separate fee and that the original $12 would remain as is. Wendy called back on 4/1/19 and heard about Safe Clean Water being the Water District's fee for in‐creek and creek‐bank care which does not cover the City's storm drain system maintenance and repair; and controls to keep water clean before it reaches the creeks. 22‐Mar‐19 A resident (84) wishes to remain anonymous. She would support the fee if low‐income subsidies are offered by the City wherein the City would pay 75% of the fee and the low‐income property owner would pay 25%. She says that some of her neighbors could not afford this fee. 22‐Mar‐19 We are opposed to the fee as long as an Annual Inflation Adjustment is included in the program. If no Annual Inflation Adjustment is included, we do not oppose the proposed increase. I think there is a much better chance of success if the inflation adjustment is not included. Most people do not like to commit to increased for an indefinite period of time. * Note this was City of Palo Alto's comment when they had failed to pass the fee the first time and succeeded the next. They did not have an escalator for the fee that passed. After the fee sunset and was approved again in 2017, the City of Palo Alto included an escalator. 120 25‐Mar‐19 Condo owner called to advise she is unable to determine which property the fee is referencing as she is the trust administrator for properties nationwide and no address, owner name, or APN provided. She stated she has no way to search by APN. Staff can look up property address and other information using the City's Intranet Quick Search for Property Info, using owner name, address, or APN #. AW has more property owner info. 26‐Mar‐19 Owner asks about fee if only 1/4 acre of lot is developed and the rest is unusable slope. What size would that be characterized as? Is the X‐L rate capped or is there a larger fee? Does 3% increase per year end after 5 years? If indefinite, the 3% each year gets added to what gets increased the next year. Is there a cap? More comments to the right. 26‐Mar‐19 Manage and partly own building at 20605 Lazaneo. Sees that building is classified as C/R/I at $40.35/0.10 acre. "How do I figure the calculations and where is it listed on the property tax bill Currently AND in the Future?" 23‐Mar‐19 Call Rec'd 3/23 (Sat) on Clerk voicemail, forwarded on 3/28 to Cheri. Bruce’s wife wanted to know if the $44 fee would be in addition to the $12 fee. She says they are retired and pinching every penny and they don’t want to have to move. 31‐Mar‐19 I read in the Cupertino Courier that the City proposes a fee increase on top of the fee already in place for Storm Water Abatement and Clean Water. This increased fee is exorbitant! Why such an outrageous 300% increase in fees on top of the current $12/ year fee we already pay. I have not heard of any outreach effort on the part of the City to explain why this increased fee is necessary or what current mitigation measures have been taken to justify such an increase. I am totally against this outrageous unnecessary fee increase. We as citizens of Cupertino are frustrated with ever ongoing charges. Instead, why not try to get better management who thoroughly looks into this matter to determine root causes and come up with a plan to mitigate the cause. If more money is 2‐Apr‐19 Returned Susan's call after finding out how we determined her parcel is a condominium. Her question was How do you know she has a condo for determining the fee? 15‐Apr‐19 I was surprised to see on page 6 of your Notice a provision that the prosed Fee May increase up to 3% each year (in perpetuity, I assume.) That means that overtime this fee will double, triple and then continue to increase even more without accountability or the consent of the property owners. I strongly urge the council to delete this part of the proposal if they want support of the property owners for a fee increase. 23‐Apr‐19 Ms. Kot believes that Clean Water and Storm Protection services is a basic service that should be provided to residents with exisitng revenue sources. Clean Water and Storm Protections should be priority over other non‐essential projects such as shuttle bus services and median improvements. 121 Resolution No. 2019-XXX 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 19-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FINDING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST DOES NOT EXIST AND DIRECTING A PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT PROCEEDING FOR THE CITY’S 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE, A PROPERTY-RELATED FEE CONFORMING TO ARTICLE XIII D, SECTION 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopted Resolution 19-022 initiating proceedings to obtain approval of the proposed new 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee (“fee”), which is a property related fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution; approving the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee (“Fee Report,” dated February 2019); and setting a public hearing before the City Council on May 7, 2019 in the City Council Chambers at 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 at 6:45 pm to consider all property owner protests to the proposed fee; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopted Resolution 19-023 adopting ballot procedures applicable to the proposed fee pursuant to Article XIIID, Section 6(c) of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, the City has provided 45-day written mailed notice to each record owner of parcels of real property subject to the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee of a public hearing, which was held at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 7, 2019 at 6:30 pm in the City Council Chambers on the issue of whether the proposed property related fee should be levied and collected as proposed in the Fee Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20; and WHEREAS, the mailed notice of the public hearing contained the following information: (a) the total amount of fee proposed to be levied for fiscal year 201 9-20; (b) the fee chargeable to each owner’s parcel; (c) the reason for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; (d) the basis upon which the amount of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee was calculated; (e) the date, time and place of the public hearing as specified in this resolution; and (f) a summary of the effect of a majority protest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 122 Resolution No. 2019-XXX 2 SECTION 1. Tabulation of the Written Protests. The tabulation of written protests by the City Clerk is complete. A total of _______ written protests have been submitted representing _____% of the 16,602 identified parcels subject to the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that a majority protest does not exist as defined in Section 6(a)(2) of Article XIIID of the California Constitution and Sections 53755(b) and (d) of the California Government Code with respect to the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee SECTION 2. Voter Approval for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII D, Section 6(c) of the California Constitution, the City of Cupertino shall conduct a ballot proceeding to obtain property owner approval of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee consistent with the procedures described in Resolution No. 19-023. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ______________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 1108264.3 123 1 ATTACHMENT E ORDINANCE NO. 19- XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.38 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino (“City”) oversees and manages a municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”), which includes making capital improvements, overseeing maintenance and operations, and conducting activities to ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the Clean Water Act and the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit; and WHEREAS, the City’s MS4 is made up of a comprehensive drainage infrastructure system that includes man -made drainage elements such as curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch basins (inlets) and outfall structures; and WHEREAS, the City, through its MS4, provides storm drainage services (“Services”) that include, but are not limited to, collecting, conveying, protecting, treating, and managing storm water runoff from improved parcels within the City; and WHEREAS, in 1992, the City adopted a $12 per residence storm drain service charge to conserve and protect the MS4 from the burden placed on it by the increasing flow of nonpoint source runoff and to otherwise meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations and the City’s NPDES permits, which charge has not been increased since its inception; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently have adequate funding to fully finance the system needs of its MS4, and in order to finance the infrastructure, maintenance, and regulatory oversight of the MS4 and the provision of services, the City Council has determined that there is a need to adopt an additional fee (“Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee”), in compliance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), to cover the costs associated with capital improvements, operations and maintenance, and regulatory compliance needs of the MS4; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2019, the City Council approved the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report (“Fee Report”) that sets forth the basis and the amount of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fees on various parcels of land in order to finance, in compliance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, the clean water and storm protection program needs and is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March 5, 2019 adopted Resolution No. 19-022 initiating proceedings in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, approving the Fee Report, and setting the date of May 7, 2019 for a public hearing and directing the mailing of a notice to the owners of real property affected by the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, which included a description of the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, the amount to be charged, the total amount to be collected, and the right of property owners to protest the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March 5, 2019 adopted Resolution No. 19-023 establishing procedures for conducting a ballot proceeding in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is a property-related fee, subject to Proposition 218. 124 2 WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of a public hearing on March 19, 2019 and conducted said public hearing on May 7, 2019 and heard testimony from residents and property owners regarding the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, and a majority protest was found not to exist; and WHEREAS, the City Council introduced this Ordinance on May 7, 2019, after a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, Article XIIID of the Constitution requires that the property-related fees defined in the Fee Report and included in this Ordinance shall not be imposed unless and until that fee is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and WHEREAS, upon introduction of this Ordinance, the City Council will direct that it be submitted to the affected property owners in a mail ballot proceeding in accordance with Article XIIID of the Constitution, Section 53755.5 of the Government Code, and City of Cupertino Resolution No. 19-023. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Cupertino does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE – Chapter 3.38 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby established to read as follows: 3.38.010 Purpose of the Fee–Limitation of Use. A. The purpose of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is to conserve and protect the City’s essential values of maintaining our aging storm drainage infrastructure, encouraging groundwater replenishment, and maintaining a sustainable environment in accordance with the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations and the City’s NPDES permits. B. The specific purpose of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee established pursuant to this chapter is to derive fee revenue, which shall only be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of the storm drainage system of the City or related green infrastructure or other activities required by the City’s NPDES permits, to repay principal and interest on any bonds which may hereafter be issued for said purposes, to repay loans or advances which may hereafter be made for said purposes, and for any other purpose set forth in Section 3.38.160. C. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fee is imposed pursuant to Articles XIII C and D of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 38900 – 38901 and 53755 – 53756, and Health and Safety Code Section 5471 – 5473.11. D. Proceeds from the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee will be deposited in the “environmental management / clean creeks fund” created by Section 3.36.170 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code (Storm Drainage Service Charge) as the “storm drainage service charge fund” and subsequently renamed, and may be comingled with the revenues of the City’s storm drainage service charge because they are authorized to be used for the same purposes. 3.38.020 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions in this section shall govern the construction of this chapter: 125 3 A. “City” means and includes all territory lying within the municipal boundaries of the City of Cupertino as presently existing plus all territory which may be added thereto during the effect term of the ordinance codified herein. B. “Condominium” means a parcel that is an individually-owned single residential unit attached to an undivided or joint ownership of the remaining portion of the property. The “Condominium 1” category refers to a condominium complex where each residential unit has no other units above or below it. The “Condominium 2+” refers to a condominium complex where residential units are built above or below other residential units. C. “Director of Public Works” means the Director of Public Works and his/her duly authorized agents and representatives. D. “Fee Report” means the report prepared by SCI Consulting Group dated February 2019 which was approved by the City Council on March 5, 2019 in Section 2 of Resolution No. 19-022. The Fee Report sets forth the rate structure and methodology of apportionment of the fee to various categories of parcels and shall be the basis for the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. E. “Director of Administrative Services” means the Director of Administrative Services of the City of Cupertino and his/her duly authorized agents and representatives. F. “Impervious Area” means any part of any parcel that has been modified by the action of any person in a manner which reduces the land’s natural ability to absorb and hold storm and surface water. This includes, but is not limited to, activities such as: grading of property, the creation of any hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle, or the hardening of an existing surface which causes water to flow at an increased rate. Common impervious areas include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walk-ways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, or any cleared, graded, paved, graveled, or compacted surface or paved earthen materials used for vehicular travel, or areas covered with surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water into soil mantle. Impervious area can be expressed as a percentage of a parcel’s total size. G. “Maintenance and operation” means the administration, operation, maintenance and repair of any facility in the City’s storm drain system, including, but not limited to: 1. Items ordinarily recognized as capital items (e.g., acquisition of interests in land) when reasonably necessary to support operations; 2. Street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and capture and removal of trash from the storm drain system; 3. Replacement of portions of existing facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of accident or natural disasters or found to be of inadequate size or condition; 4. Damages or settlements paid in the course of, or because of, threatened or actual legal actions related to the City’s storm drain system or non-point source program; 5. Regional monitoring, permit fees, public education and awareness programs regarding the City’s storm drain system and the City’s nonpoint source program; 6. Management of the City’s non-point source program including, but not limited to, BMP manuals, public outreach, printed materials, City staff and legal costs related thereto. 126 4 H. “Multi-Family Residential” means parcels improved or used for a residence for five or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking and which is not separately assessed by the county tax assessor for each such family dwelling. This term is synonymous with “apartment.” I. “Open Space” means land that is substantially in a natural condition and includes agricultural or other lands that demonstrate storm water absorption equal to or greater than natural conditions. J. “Parcel” means a unit of land which is designated by the tax assessor of Santa Clara County for property tax purposes. K. “Rate Category” means a group of parcels that are of similar imperviousness characteristics and are charged the same rate. Single-Family Residential Parcels are categorized by size; Non-Single- Family Parcels are categorized by impervious percentage ranges. L. “Single-Family Residential” means parcels, other than multi-family parcels, improved or used solely as a residence for one, two, three or four families living separately in separate dwelling units. M. “Storm drainage system” means any pipe, conduit, or sewer of the City designed or used for the collection, conveyance and management of storm and surface waters and drainage including unpolluted cooling water and unpolluted industrial process water but excluding any community sanitary sewer system. N. “Vacant (developed)” means a parcel which has been altered from its natural condition through grading or compaction activity or in another manner which reduces the land’s natural ability to absorb and hold storm and surface water without any structure existing upon it. 3.38.030 Determination and Imposition of Fee for Fiscal Year 2019-20. For purposes specified in Section 3.38.010, the Clean Water and Storm Protection fees established pursuant to this chapter are hereby prescribed and imposed, and shall be paid to and collected by the City, for services and facilities furnished by the City in connection with its storm drainage system to or for each parcel which is benefited directly or indirectly by said storm drainage system or any part thereof, or from which any storm water is conveyed or discharged directly or indirectly into the storm drainage system. Said fee is imposed annually and will be assessed and collected as follows: A. Single-Family Residential Class Category Parcel Size (acres) Annual Fee per Parcel Small Under 0.13 $36.58 Medium 0.13 to 0.22 $44.42 Large 0.23 to 0.40 $55.58 Extra Large Over 0.40 $106.42 Condominium 1 Na $36.58 127 5 Condominium 2+ Na $11.99 B. Non-Single-Family Residential Class Category1 Annual Fee per 0.10 Acre of Parcel Size2 Multi-Family $30.88 Commercial / Retail / Industrial $40.38 Office $30.88 Church / Institutional $26.13 School with play field $19.00 Park $7.13 Vacant (developed) $2.38 Rate Structure Notes: 1. The Rate Category for any Non-Single-Family parcel shall be assigned by the description of the land use of the parcel. For Non-Single-Family land uses that do not fit the descriptions in Table 5 of the Fee Report (for example, mixed use parcels), the rate with the nearest percent impervious area shown in Table 5 of the Fee Report shall be assigned to a parcel. 2. Non-Single-family fees are calculated in 0.1-acre increments. For example, an office parcel is charged at $30.88 for each tenth of an acre or portion thereof. C. Non-single-family parcels and condominium parcels that comply with the version of Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment Requirements) of the City’s NPDES permit that is applicable at the time of building permit issuance shall have their fees reduced by 25% in recognition of the reduced impact on the City’s storm drainage system inherent in C.3 compliance, as documented in the Fee Report (Low Impact Development Rate Adjustment). Other single-family residential parcels do not qualify for this rate reduction. C.3 compliance will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Public Works, who may also establish procedures to verify and validate such compliance on a periodic basis. D. For non-single-family residential parcels that have both improvements and significant open space areas (described in the Fee Report as “hybrid parcels”), the chargeable acreage shall be adjusted downward in recognition that the open space areas do not increase the need for the fee. 128 6 E. Open space and agricultural parcels are not subject to the Clean Water and Storm Protection fees. 3.38.040 Annual Review of Fee. Commencing with Fiscal Year 2020-21, the City Council shall, by resolution, annually determine the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee in accordance with the following: A. In no event shall the rate for any category of property be increased beyond the rate approved by a majority vote of property owners subject to the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee. Commencing in Fiscal Year 2020-21, the amount of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee may be increased by an amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the area including Santa Clara County (the “CPI”), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of December of each succeeding year, not to exceed a maximum increase of three percent (3%) in any single year. Adjustments will only occur if actual additional costs are incurred. B. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fee shall not be deemed to be increased in the event the actual fee upon a parcel in any given year is higher due to a change in use of the subject parcel or an increase in the amount of the impervious area of the subject parcel. C. In any year in which the City Council does not change the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee rate, pursuant to the voter-approved CPI allowable annual increase, the previously adopted fee shall continue in full force and effect for the next fiscal year. D. The City Council shall not be required to enact a CPI increase each year, but the City Council may accumulate the inflationary increases and impose the cumulative amount in accordance with Section 3.38.040.A. 3.38.050 Various Actions. Without a vote of the property owners, in any year the City Council may do any and all of the following: (a) discontinue the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee; (b) reduce the rate for all parcel categories; or (c) increase the rate up to or below the maximum voter-authorized rate if it has been previously set below such rate. 3.38.060 Effective Date of Fees. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fees shall become effective on July 1, 2019. 3.38.070 Fees Collected with General Taxes. A. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter set forth, the City elects, as an alternative procedure for the collection of Clean Water and Storm Protection fees prescribed or imposed by the provisions of this chapter, to have all such Clean Water and Storm Protection fees for each fiscal year collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as, and together with and not separately from, its general taxes. B. The Director of Public Works is hereby directed to prepare and file with the City Clerk, on or before the fifteenth day of June of each year, or such other date or dates as the City Council may specify by resolution, a written report containing a description of each and every parcel of real property receiving the benefit of the storm drainage system mentioned in this chapter, except for those parcels the fees for which are not to be collected on the tax roll, and the amount of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fees 129 7 for each parcel for the forthcoming fiscal year, computed in conformity with the fees prescribed by the provisions of this chapter. C. The City Clerk shall cause notice of the filing of said report and of a time and place of hearing thereon to be published, prior to the date for hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City. The publication of said notice shall be once a week for two consecutive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or more often, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates, not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day. D. At the time stated in the above-mentioned notice, the City Council shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the report referred to in said notice, and may continue the hearing from time to time. If the Council finds that protest is made by owners of a majority of separate parcels of property described in the report, then the report shall not be adopted, and fees shall be collected separately from the tax roll and shall not constitute a lien against any parcel or parcels. E. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify any fee or overrule any or all objections and shall make its determination upon each fee as described in said report, which determination shall be final. F. 1. On or before the first day of August of each year following such final determination, the City Clerk shall file with the Finance Director a copy of the report with a statement endorsed thereon over the City Clerk’s signature that it has been finally adopted by the City Council. 2. The Finance Director shall thereupon cause said fees to be placed on the property tax roll and collected by the County for the City, as hereinafter provided. The County’s tax collector shall enter the amounts of the fees against the respective parcels as they appear on the current assessment roll. If the property is not described on the roll, the County’s tax collector may enter the description thereon, together with the amounts of the fees as shown in the report. G. The amount of the fees shall constitute a lien against the parcel against which the fee has been imposed as of noon on the first Monday in March immediately preceding the date of the levy. H. The tax collector shall include the amount of the fees on bills for taxes levied against the respective parcels. Thereafter the amount of the fees shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the City, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties. I. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the City including, but not limited to, those pertaining to matters of delinquency, collection, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such fees. J. The tax collector may, at the tax collector’s discretion, issue separate bills for such fees and separate receipts for collection on account of such fees. K. If any parcels receiving benefit from the storm drainage system are omitted from the abovementioned report or said tax roll, either because the fee therefor shall not have yet been ascertained by the City as of the date of said report, or for any other reason, the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for such parcels shall be collected in the manner provided elsewhere in this chapter. If the fee for any parcels, as shown on said report for the forthcoming fiscal year, should be less than what should be the 130 8 fee therefor under the provisions of this chapter, the balance of such fee shall be collected in the manner provided elsewhere in this chapter. If, however, the fee for any parcels shown in the report and collected on the tax roll should exceed the correct fee for such parcels for the fiscal year, the Finance Director shall refund the excess amount so collected. 3.38.080 Payment of Balance of Fee. A. If the fee for any parcels placed on the tax roll, or for any parcels collected based upon billing, was less than what should be the fee therefor under the provisions of this chapter due to error, the balance of said fee shall be collected by a bill or invoice based on a detailed statement showing the basis of the calculations, the location of the parcels and other relevant information, and prepared on or after January 1st for the preceding six months from July to December during which a discrepancy between the amount collected and the correct fee is discovered, and on or after July 1st for the preceding six months from January to June during which such a discrepancy is discovered. The Finance Director shall mail said bill or invoice to the person or persons listed as the owners of the parcels on the last equalized assessment roll of the County at the address shown on such assessment roll or to the successor in interest of such owner if the name and address of such successor in interest is known to the Finance Director. Failure to mail any such bill or invoice, or failure of any owner to receive any such bill or invoice shall not excuse the owner of any parcels from the obligation of paying the balance of any Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for any parcels owned by him or her. B. The interested owner may, at any reasonable time, review the detailed statement prepared by the Finance Director. C. The balance of the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for such parcels shall be due and payable on the date the bill or invoice referred to in this section is mailed. 3.38.090 Collection of Fees Omitted from Tax Roll–Billing. A. The Finance Director shall semi-annually, on or after July 1st, prepare or cause to be prepared a detailed statement containing the basis of the calculations, the location of the parcels and other relevant information, showing the total monthly fee for the preceding six months from January to June and on or after January 1st, for the preceding six months from July to December for any parcels the fee for which should be collected on the tax roll pursuant to Section 3.38.070A but was omitted from the report referred to in Section 3.38.070B, or parcels the fee for which is collected pursuant billing. B. An invoice may be rendered for a period of less than six months if the commencement date of fees is other than July 1st or January 1st, as may be the case with new accounts. C. On the basis of the statement, the Finance Director shall prepare a bill or invoice showing the total fee for such six months or less, and shall mail said bill or invoice to the person or persons listed as the owners of the parcels on the last equalized assessment roll of the County at the address shown on such assessment roll, or to the successor in interest of such owner if the name and address of such successor in interest is known to the Director. Failure to mail any such bill or invoice, or failure of any owner to receive any such bill or invoice shall not excuse the owner of any parcels from the obligation of paying any Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for any parcels owned by him or her. D. The interested owner may, at any reasonable time, review the detailed statement prepared by the Finance Director. 131 9 E. The Clean Water and Storm Protection fee for such parcels shall be due and payable immediately upon receipt of the bill or invoice referred to in this section. 3.38.100 Payment of Fees–Owner Responsibility. The owner of any parcel is and shall be responsible for payment of any and all Clean Water and Storm Protection fees applicable to parcels owned by him or her. It shall be and is hereby made the duty of each such owner to provide to the Finance Director information sufficient to calculate the land area of the parcels within thirty days after request of the Finance Director and ascertain from the Finance Director the amount and due date of any such fee applicable to parcels owned by such owner and to pay such fee when due and payable. It also shall be and is hereby made the duty of all owners of all parcels to inform the Finance Director immediately of all circumstances, and of any change or changes in any circumstances, which will in any way affect the applicability of any fee. In particular, but not by way of limitation, an owner of any parcel shall immediately inform the Finance Director of any sale or transfer of such parcel by or to such owner. 3.38.110 Payment of Fees–Location. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this chapter, all Clean Water and Storm Protection fees shall be payable at the office of the Finance Director in the City Hall of the City. 3.38.120 Payment of Fees–Delinquency Date. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this chapter, each Clean Water and Storm Protection fee shall be delinquent if not paid on or before the fortieth day immediately following the date upon which such Clean Water and Storm Protection fee became due and payable. 3.38.130 Penalty for Delinquency. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this chapter, whenever any Clean Water and Storm Protection fee becomes delinquent, there shall be imposed a penalty equal to one hundred percent of the amount as set forth under Section 3.38.030. 3.38.140 Disputed Fees. If any owner disputes the amount of the fee in any bill or invoice, the owner shall, within thirty days from and after the date such bill or invoice is mailed, and no later, file a claim with the Finance Director accompanied by detailed supporting factual data in support of the claim. It shall be the duty of each such owner to prove to the Finance Director, that such fee is in error and the correct amount thereof. If the Finance Director determines that the bill or invoice was in error, the Finance Director shall correct said bill. Failure to dispute the amount of the fee in accordance with this section shall be deemed acceptance of the correctness of the fee. 3.38.150 Fiscal Accountability A. The City shall retain an independent auditor to conduct an annual audit of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee and environmental management / clean creeks fund as part of its comprehensive annual financial report. The auditor shall include an accounting of the revenue received from the fee and expenditures thereof in the audited financial statements. The auditor's report shall be presented to the City Council and made available to the public. The Director of Administrative Services or the Director of Public Works shall prepare and present to the City Council an annual report in conjunction with the 132 10 annual audit that reviews the status and performance of the programs, services and projects funded wholly or partially with proceeds of the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. B. The City Council shall either select a citizen’s oversight committee or assign oversight duties to a pre-existing oversight committee to review and report annually on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the storm drainage service charge fund authorized by this chapter. 3.38.160 Special Fund–Restricted Use of Revenues. A. All revenues collected pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be placed into a special fund, which is known as the “environmental management / clean creeks fund,” created by Section 3.36.170 of Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code (Storm Drainage Service Charge). Such revenues may be used for the purpose specified in Section 3.38.010, and for no other purpose; provided, however, that moneys deposited in the fund may be used for direct and administrative costs of the City in collecting the Clean Water and Storm Protection fees imposed by this part and for direct and indirect overhead costs of the City in performing any tasks, including, but not limited to, calculation of the benefits received by properties from the storm drainage system. B. As used in this section, “direct costs” means wages and salaries and costs of employee fringe benefits incurred by the City, and mileage reimbursement attributable to said collection activities. As used in this section, “administrative costs” includes, but is not limited to all costs for computer service, materials, postage, supplies and equipment. C. Notwithstanding subsections 3.38.160A and 3.38.160B, interest on revenues in the environmental management / clean creeks fund may be credited to the general fund of the City or to any other fund in the discretion of the City Council. 3.38.170 Refunds. Whenever any refunds should become owing by virtue of any relief granted by the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.38.140 or by virtue of any error made in ascertaining the fee applicable to any parcels, the Finance Director is authorized to make such refunds and to expend for such purpose the moneys in the environmental management / clean creeks fund. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.38.140, any claim for refund for fees collected under Section 3.38.070 must be made within one year after the date bills for taxes are received by the owner. The City shall not be liable for interest or any amount determined to be refundable. 3.38.180 Inspection of Parcels Authorized. The Director of Public Works, the Finance Director and their authorized representatives are hereby given power and authority to enter upon and within any parcels to ascertain the nature of such parcels; to inspect, observe, and review the benefit received from the storm drain system as may be allowed by law. 3.38.190 Payment of Delinquent Fees–City Enforcement Powers. A. Notwithstanding other remedies, in the event of the failure of any owner to pay when due any Clean Water and Storm Protection fees applicable to parcels owned by such owner, the City may enforce payment of such delinquent fees by instituting action in any court of competent jurisdiction to collect any fees which may be due and payable in the same manner as any other debts owing to the City may be collected. 133 11 B. Any and all delinquent payments may be placed on the tax roll, and collected with property taxes, as provided in Section 3.38.070. C. Such other action may be taken as may be authorized by law and by the City Council. D. Remedies under this section are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil and criminal. SECTION TWO – CEQA EXEMPTION The City Council finds, based on its own independent judgement, that the proposed amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code are statutorily exempt from the requirement so the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines 15273(a) – Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges and categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Clerk. SECTION THREE – INCONSISTENCIES REPEALED This Ordinance is intended to be controlling on the authority to establish the Clean Water and Storm Protection fee, and shall supersede all prior ordinances, resolutions, rules or regulations that in conflict wherewith. Any provision of the Cupertino Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, or any other ordinances of the City inconsistent herewith, are repealed only to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further. SECTION FOUR – IMPLEMENTATION The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take any action and sign any documents necessary to implement this ordinance. SECTION FIVE – SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Council of the City of Cupertino hereby declares that they would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION SIX – EFFECTIVE DATE; PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is directed to post and publish this ordinance in accordance with law in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Santa Clara, or as otherwise required by law. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by Government Code Section 36937. 134 12 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 7th day of May 2019 and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino after certification of the ballot results . Vote: Members of the City Council: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit A - Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report 135 136 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 PAGE i CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Steven Scharf, Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, Councilmember Rod Sinks, Councilmember Jon Willey, Councilmember INTERIM CITY MANAGER Timm Borden PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Roger Lee, Acting Director ENGINEER OF WORK Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group 137 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 PAGE ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1 CITY’S FACILITIES ............................................................................................................ 1 STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE ................................................................... 2 FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 4 FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5 SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS .............................. 5 ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................... 6 RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK ..................................................... 7 NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ..................................................................... 9 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT .............................................................. 11 STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................... 12 ANNUAL COST INDEXING ................................................................................................ 14 MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS ............................................................ 14 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A – REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS ..................... 15 APPENDIX B –PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS ...................................... 28 APPENDIX C – STORMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES .................................. 30 138 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 PAGE iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES ........................................................................ 5 TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS .............................................................................. 6 TABLE 3 – ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ....................................................... 6 TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ............................................... 9 TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS ......................................................................... 10 TABLE 6 – LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS ..................................... 12 TABLE 7 – PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE ................. 13 TABLE 8 – PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN ........................ 28 TABLE 9 – PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN ............ 29 TABLE 10 – RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES .......................................................... 31 TABLE 11 – SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ................................................. 32 139 CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT – 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The City of Cupertino (“City”) has engaged SCI Consulting Group to study, make recommendations, and assist in the implementation of a funding approach for its municipal separate storm sewer system1 (“MS4”) including environmental programs, maintenance and operations, and compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System2 (“NPDES”) permit. Since 2013 the City’s Public Works Department has developed several planning documents pertaining to its Clean Water and Storm Protection program (“Program”). These include the Trash Reduction Plan (2014), the Green Infrastructure Plan currently under development (to be completed in 2019) and the Storm Drain Master Plan (“SDMP,” completed in 2018). These plans made it clear that the Program would need to expand its levels of service to achieve the goals of responsible environmental stewardship and smart investment in the City’s aging infrastructure. In 2018, the City embarked on a two-phase project to determine the feasibility of implementing a dedicated, sustainable revenue stream to fund the City’s Clean Water and Storm Protection needs. The first phase included exploring potential funding sources, estimating user rate ranges for various budget scenarios, and conducting a public opinion survey of Cupertino residents and property owners to determine storm drain-related priorities and willingness to support a fee for these services. The City Council has now embarked on the second phase: implementation of a funding mechanism. This Fee Report is the first step in that process. CITY’S FACILITIES The City operates and maintains a storm drainage system, as it is empowered to do per Government Code Sections 38900 and 38901. This system is comprised of integrated storm drain pipes, inlets, outfalls. culverts, and ditches which divert stormwater to local creeks to prevent flooding. As the community grew and neighborhoods and business districts expanded, the City’s storm drainage system was developed. When the first NPDES permit was issued in the early 1990s, the City recognized the fiscal burden these new clean water requirements would bring and established a property fee on most parcels to fund this activity. Since that time the City has worked diligently and efficiently to continue meeting the ever- increasing requirements of the NPDES permit, while the State’s clean water requirements have evolved into a comprehensive environmental stewardship program. 1 In this report, the terms “storm sewer,” “storm drainage,” “storm protection,” and “stormwater” are used interchangeably, and are considered to be synonymous. 2 Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program is authorized by the EPA to allow state governments to perform many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program. 140 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 2 The operations and maintenance (“O&M”) side of the Program has also developed many activities that support a clean water supply and maintain the City’s aging infrastructure to protect the neighborhoods and businesses from local flooding. On average, the industry- standard life expectancy of a storm drain system is approximately 60 years. The majority of the City’s storm drain pipes were installed approximately 50 or more years ago, leaving the City with a system that is approaching the end of its useful life. Moreover, as noted in the Storm Drain Master Plan, some of the drainage system does not have adequate capacity. STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND The City historically has funded its clean water program and storm drain maintenance activity primarily through two sources: The General Fund and the Storm Drainage Service Charge3 established in 1992. The 1992 charge, established at $12 per year for single-family residential and $144 per acre for commercial parcels, has not been increased since its inception.4 For more than a decade, the General Fund has carried the increasing burden of the Program. As a result, the City has needed to limit capital expenditures and keep operations and maintenance activities to a less than desirable level of service, mostly responding to storm-related emergencies and basic regulatory compliance. The scale and projected needs of the system in a time of competing demands on the General Fund point toward the need for developing a separate, dedicated and sustainable funding stream. As many other municipalities in California have done, including San Jose and Palo Alto, the City of Cupertino is considering developing a new, additional, more secure and predictable source of funding for the Program. This Fee Report is the first step in that process, should the City decide to proceed. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE This Report calculates the Stormwater Fee as a property-related fee. Property-related fees are subject to the requirements of Articles XIIIC and D of the State Constitution, which were approved by voters in 1996 through Proposition 218, as well as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Sections 53750 – 53758). Any property-related fee must comply with requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6. These include the following: ▪ Revenues derived from the fee shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service; ▪ Revenues derived from the fee shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee was imposed; ▪ The amount of a fee upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel; 3 Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 3.36. 4 This “freeze” on the stormwater fees are due primarily to the stringent requirements of Proposition 218 for a ballot measure to increase fees. 141 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 3 ▪ No fee may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees based on potential or future use of service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with the assessment section of the code; and ▪ No fee may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to the property owners. 142 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 4 FACILITIES AND SERVICES The City operates and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system within the City’s boundaries. The system is made up of man-made drainage systems including, but not limited to, curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch basins (inlets) and outfall structures. The natural creek system that runs throughout the City serves as the backbone of the City’s system. While primary maintenance of those creeks is the responsibility of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City, through its Program, collaborates with the Water District for creek stewardship and educational activities. The system serves the entire City. The primary storm drainage service provided by the City is the collection, conveyance, and overall management of the stormwater runoff from parcels. By definition, all parcels that shed stormwater into the City’s system, either directly or indirectly utilize, or are served by, the City’s storm drainage system. The need and necessity of this service are derived from property improvements, which historically have increased the amount of stormwater runoff from the parcel by constructing impervious surfaces such as rooftops, pavement areas, and certain types of landscaping that restrict or retard the percolation of water into the soil lens beyond the conditions found in the natural, or unimproved, state. As such, open space land (in a natural condition) and agricultural lands that demonstrate stormwater absorption equal to or greater than natural conditions are not charged a fee. Other vacant land that was once improved or has been prepared for future improvements do not qualify as open space or natural land and will typically be charged a fee. The 2018 SDMP contains a thorough set of maps and lists of various elements within the stormwater system. Those descriptions are the basis for this Report. 143 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 5 FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS As part of the fee implementation task, the SCI team conducted an analysis of the City’s Clean Water and Storm Protection system needs. This analysis is contained in a technical memorandum dated February 20, 2019 from the firm of Larry Walker Associates and is included in Appendix A of this Report. This analysis reviewed existing revenues and estimated the true costs to the Program of preventing local flooding and remaining in compliance with the current NPDES permit, commonly known as the Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) issued by the Water Board to all Phase 1 permittees in the San Francisco Bay area. The first MRP was issued in 2009. The second MRP was issued in 2015 and is referred to as MRP 2.0. PROGRAM REVENUES The first step of the analysis was to review the revenues available to the City’s Program. Based on information provided by the City, the existing revenues are projected through Fiscal Year 2023-24 as shown in Table 1 below. These values are drawn from Appendix A, Table 1. TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES Current Future Shown in thousands Revenue Category 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Stormwater Charges 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ Other Revenue 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ General Fund Transfer In 818$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL Revenues 1,197$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ PROGRAM COSTS The City’s Program is influenced primarily by the requirements to prevent local flooding and to comply with the MRP 2.0. Cost estimates were based on budgetary and supplemental information provided by the City. In broadly assessing the Program’s costs and following the City’s current Budget structure, two main categories were used: Operations and Maintenance (“O&M”) Costs, and Clean Water Program5 Costs. These categories reflect how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-to-day storm drainage-related operations. 5 The City’s Budget document uses “Non-Point Source” as the name for the Clean Water program. 144 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 6 More detailed information can be found in Appendix A. The program costs are summarized in Table 2 below. The total costs shown in the right-hand column is for the five future years. These values are drawn from Appendix A, Table 2. TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS Current Future Shown in thousands Category 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 TOTAL O & M 477$ 552$ 569$ 586$ 603$ 622$ 2,932$ Clean Water 721$ 891 918 964 994 1,025 4,792 TOTAL COSTS 1,197$ 1,443$ 1,487$ 1,550$ 1,597$ 1,647$ 7,724$ ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT The proposed fee is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20. Therefore, the data presented in Appendix A for prior years do not factor into the analysis. What remains is a five-year window in which projected revenue sources and projected costs are presented. Over the five fiscal years, the projected costs exceed revenues by $6.0 million. This is the amount that the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would need to generate in order to bring the Program into balance. The resulting revenue requirement is therefore based on an annual revenue, adjusted for inflation at 3.0% per year over the five-year period, that totals $6.0 million over those five years. These projections are summarized in Table 3 below. TABLE 3 – ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT Current Future Shown in thousands Category 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 TOTAL Revenues na 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 1,895$ Expenditures na 1,443 1,487 1,550 1,597 1,647 7,724 Shortfall na (1,064)$ (1,108)$ (1,171)$ (1,218)$ (1,268)$ (5,829)$ Revenue Requirement * 1,098$ 1,131$ 1,165$ 1,200$ 1,236$ 5,828$ * Revenues are increased by 3.0% annually for inflation 145 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 7 RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS Proposition 218 states that the amount of a fee upon any parcel shall not exceed the proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel. It also states that no fee may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property. As noted earlier, all properties that shed stormwater into the City’s system are served by that system. In compliance with Proposition 218, the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee will only be imposed on properties that shed water, directly or indirectly, into the City’s system. Additionally, the amount of use attributed to each parcel is proportionate to the amount of stormwater runoff contributed by the parcel, which is, in turn, proportionate to the amount of impervious surface area on a parcel (such as building roofs and pavements). SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK The most widely used method of establishing storm drainage rates6 is to use the average or median single-family residential parcel7 (“SFR”) as the basic unit of measure, or benchmark, which is called the single-family equivalent, or “SFE.” Since the metric for this fee structure is impervious surface area, a benchmark amount of impervious surface area (“ISA”) must be established. Cupertino has a wide range of sizes of SFR parcels, which have varying percentages of impervious area (“%IA”). Generally, smaller, denser parcels tend to have a higher proportion of impervious area than larger, less dense parcels, which tend to have a lower percentage of impervious area. (This can be best visualized by the fact that larger residential properties tend to have a larger proportion of pervious landscaping, and therefore a smaller proportion of impervious area.) Therefore, the range of SFR was broken into four size categories as shown in Table 4 below with the medium category containing the largest number of parcels. The City’s 2018 SDMP includes an analysis of the %IA for Cupertino.8 The SDMP findings of %IA for various land uses were used as a basis for this Report. Since the categories in the SDMP don’t completely align with the rate categories established in this Report, some adjustments were made. A summary of these adjustments is shown in Appendix B. The median sized SFR parcel is 0.17 acre (approximately 7,405 square feet), which is also the median parcel size for the medium SFR rate category. That size of parcel is considered 6 Stormwater Utility Survey, 2017, page 2, Western Kentucky University. 7 The SFR category also includes multiplex parcels of two, three or four units, since the lot development characteristics do not vary significantly from the SFR parcels of similar size. In all, this includes the approximately 496 multiplex parcels in the City, which were distributed to the same four parcel size categories as the other SFRs. Any residential structure with five or more units is categorized as multi-family residential (“MFR”), which is calculated separately. 8 Section 2.2.3, page 2-6 of the City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan. 146 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 8 to fall into the low-density residential category of the SDMP, which is reported to have a %IA of 55%. Therefore, the median parcel in Cupertino contains 4,073 square feet of impervious surface area (“ISA”) as shown in the calculation below. This will be used as the benchmark (1 SFE) for all other size categories and other non-residential land uses. 1 SFE = %IA x Median Parcel Size =55%x 7,405 sf = 4,073 sf This becomes the basis for calculating the SFEs for all other types of land uses. The %IA for each size category was applied to the median size parcel in that category to calculate its median ISA. The SFE per parcel for each size category is a simple ratio of the median ISA for each category to the ISA (4,073 sf) for the benchmark category of medium-sized parcels as shown in the following formula: Median ISA 4,073 SFE per Parcel = SPECIAL NOTES ON CONDOMINIUMS Condominium units are particularly difficult to categorize as they are often on very small individual parcels yet share larger common areas that are made up of landscaped (pervious) areas, parking lots and shared roofs, and other recreational uses (either pervious or impervious). The data for these variables is not readily available, so some assumptions are made about their characteristics. Condominiums can be grouped into two categories: High density where they tend to have units on multiple floors (similar to apartment buildings), and medium density where they are only one unit high (i.e., townhomes). For the medium-density condominium units, the presence of common areas with landscape features make them very similar to the small-lot SFR parcels, and therefore they are assigned the same ISA (3,354 sf) and SFE per parcel as a small-lot SFR parcel. For the high-density condominium units, further analysis was done. Fourteen condominium complexes with 1,246 units were identified throughout the City. Using aerial photographs, measurements were made of the impermeable areas. A strong trend was found such that the average ISA per unit was 1,099 square feet. Therefore, the high-density condominiums are assigned an ISA of 1,099 square feet. This is 33% of the ISA for the medium-density condominiums. Table 4 below shows a summary of the SFEs for single-family residential parcels. 147 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 9 TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS Lot Type Total Parcels* Total Acres* Median Parcel Size % I A**I S A SFE per Parcel Acres SF SF Small under 0.13 1,526 159 4,792 70%3,354 0.82 Medium 0.13 to 0.22 8,958 1,510 7,405 55%4,073 1.00 Large 0.23 to 0.40 1,542 420 11,326 45%5,097 1.25 Extra Large over 0.40 345 460 27,878 35%9,757 2.40 Condos 1 (one story) 2,221 95 na na 3,354 0.82 Condos 2+(2+ stories) 1,246 46 na na 1,099 0.27 15,838 2,690 Parcel Size Range * Total Parcels and Acres do not factor into the basis of the SFE calculation; they are shown for informational purposes only. NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS Unlike the SFR parcels, the non-SFR parcels can vary widely in size as well as characteristics. For this reason, the parcels have been grouped into land use categories according their %IA characteristics (as shown in Appendix B). The SFE for each land use category is based on a per-acre basis, so size can be a variable in the calculation of the fee. The SFE-per-acre can be computed for each category using the following formula: (43,560 sf / acre) x % I A 4,073 sf SFE per Acre = where 4,073 square feet is the amount of ISA in one SFE. Table 5 below shows a summary of resulting the non-single-family parcel SFEs for each non-SFR land use category. 148 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 10 TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS Land Use Category Total Parcels* Total Acres*% I A** SFE per Acre Multi-Family (Apartments)79 200 65%6.95 Commercial / Retail / Industrial 256 441 85%9.09 Office 217 372 65%6.95 Church / Institutional 39 98 55%5.88 School (w/playfield)16 329 40%4.28 Park 3 53 15%1.60 Vacant (developed)134 153 5%0.53 Open Space / Agricultural 240 1,192 TOTAL 984 2,837 ** %IA is taken from Appendix B na * Total Parcels and Acres do not factor into the basis of the SFE calculation; they are shown for informational purposes only. Each individual parcel’s SFE is then calculated by multiplying the parcel size (in acres9) times the SFE per acre for that land use category, as shown in the following formula: SFE = Parcel Size (acres) x SFE per Acre DEVELOPED VACANT10 PARCELS Developed vacant parcels are devoid of obvious structures or improvements but are distinguished from undeveloped vacant land by one of several characteristics. Typically, a developed vacant parcel has been graded to be ready for building construction (possibly as part of the original subdivision or adjacent street grading). In some cases, the parcel previously contained a structure or improvement that has been removed, but its fundamental alteration from a natural state remains. Although developed vacant parcels may have significant vegetative cover, the underlying soil conditions resulting from grading work or previous improvements usually cause some rainfall to runoff into the storm drainage system. The %IA for developed vacant parcels is reasonably assumed to be 5%, which is also used as a minimum value of imperviousness for any land use type (excluding open space and agricultural land – see next section). Vacant parcels that have significant impervious paving remaining from prior improvements may be classified as Commercial or some other classification best representing the %IA of the parcel. 9 Parcel size for non-SFR parcels is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof. 10 “Vacant” in this Report refers to land that is devoid of improvements. It does not refer to land with vacant buildings or improvements, which would continue to shed water to the MS4 the same as if they were occupied. 149 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 11 OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL PARCELS ARE NOT CHARGED The City’s storm drain system was developed in response to land development over the many decades. Tracts of land that have not yet been developed, or have been used primarily for agricultural purposes, have not created an impact on the system beyond the natural condition, and are therefore considered to receive no service from the system. In practical terms, these parcels generate no additional storm runoff beyond the natural condition. For these reasons, open space and agricultural parcels are not charged a Fee. HYBRID PARCELS Some parcels may have both improvements as well as significant open space areas. For such parcels that contain a residence, the open space acreage does not increase the fee because residential parcels are not charged on a per-acre basis. Rather, they are charged based on the median ISA for that size category. For such parcels that contain non-residential improvements (which are charged on a per- acre basis), the chargeable acreage should be adjusted downward to reflect the improved area only, leaving the open space area “invisible” to the fee calculation. Where parcels have been found in this category, that acreage adjustment has been made. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT The current NPDES Permit requires certain properties to construct stormwater treatment and attenuation facilities, also known as low impact development (“LID”). These facilities are typically designed to capture a portion of the storm flows, retain them, and enable them to infiltrate into the ground. While this is intended to help filter pollutants from the water, it also can reduce the parcel’s stormwater runoff quantity to some extent, which in turn can reduce a parcel’s impact on the system. In addition to NPDES-required LID, other parcel owners may elect to follow LID guidelines voluntarily. The section of the MRP that requires LID facilities is Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment). Compliance with C.3 is a well-established and convenient metric on which to base customer activities that further Program goals and affect Program costs. C.3 compliance can have impacts to many of the Program elements. In order to analyze the extent to which C.3 compliance will impact Program costs, each Program element was rated with one of four impact levels: none (0%), minor (25%), medium (50%), and major (80%). By applying those impact levels to the costs of each Program element, it was determined that compliance with Provision C.3 equates to approximately 25% of the overall Program costs. Table 6 below shows the results of that analysis. Based on that analysis, a commensurate reduction in the fees for certain C.3-compliant parcels is warranted. However, C.3 compliance brings with it some additional administrative burdens to verify ongoing compliance. While this burden is relatively minor, for single-family parcels where the annual fee is also relatively small, the administrative burden negates the LID benefits to the program. Therefore, single-family residential parcels do not qualify for the reduced fee. Conversely, C.3 compliance for condominiums is typically accomplished on a collective basis, so the minor administrative burden is spread across many parcels 150 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 12 making it insignificant. Therefore, a 25% reduction in fees will be applied to all C.3-compliant parcels that are either non-single-family or condominium. TABLE 6 – LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS NoneMinorMediumMajorNotes Program Management Does not lessen Program Management burden C.2 Municipal Operations Reduces storm flows in minor storm, reducing burden on operations C.1 Permit Compliance Is a small part of overall Program Compliance C.2 Municipal Operations Does not lessen Municipal Operations compliance burden C.3 New Development and Redevelopment Is all about C.3 C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls Provides controls C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Does not lessen Illicit Discharge burden C.6 Construction Site Control Does not lessen Construction Controls burden C.7 Public Information and Outreach Aids in educating property owners C.8 Water Quality Monitoring Does not lessen WQ Monitoring burden C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control Capture & infiltration may filter out pesticides C.10 Trash Load Reduction Many C.3 devices are considered a partial trash capture device C.11 Mercury Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out pollutants C.12 PCBs Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out pollutants C.13 Copper Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out pollutants C.17 Annual Reports Does not lessen reporting requirements Impact Level Clean Water Program Operations & Maintenance MRP Provision STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION The primary metric in this analysis is the SFE as illustrated above. To arrive at the fee amount for the various land use categories, the total City-wide SFEs must be divided into the total revenue requirement to arrive at the rate per SFE. Using the analysis above, that calculation is represented by the following formula: 151 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 13 Annual Revenue Requirement Total SFEs =SFE Rate Or, using numbers from the analysis: $1,097,787 24,713.810 per SFESFE Rate ==$44.42 This SFE rate amount is then multiplied by the SFEs per parcel or acre for the various land use categories to arrive at the Stormwater Fee Rate Schedule shown in Table 7 below. TABLE 7 – PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE SFE Rate Single-Family Residential * Small (under 0.13 acre)0.824 36.58$ per parcel Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre)1.000 44.42$ per parcel Large (0.23 to 0.40 acre)1.251 55.58$ per parcel Extra Large (over 0.40 acre)2.396 106.42$ per parcel Condominium 1 (1 story)0.824 36.58$ per parcel Condominium 2+(2+ stories)0.270 11.99$ per parcel Non-Single-Family Residential ** Multi-Family Residential 0.695 30.88$ per 0.1 acre Commercial / Retail / Industrial 0.909 40.38$ per 0.1 acre Office 0.695 30.88$ per 0.1 acre Church / Institutional 0.588 26.13$ per 0.1 acre School (w/playfield)0.428 19.00$ per 0.1 acre Park 0.160 7.13$ per 0.1 acre Vacant (developed)0.053 2.38$ per 0.1 acre Open Space / Agricultural *** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-single-family properties. Low Impact Development Adjustment ***25% Fee Reduction Land Use Category Proposed Fee FY 2019-20 no charge ** Non-SFR parcel size is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof. * SFR category also includes duplex, triplex and four-plex units. 152 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 14 ANNUAL COST INDEXING The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index-U for the San Jose Area as of December of each succeeding year (the “CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. Any change in the CPI in excess of 3% shall be cumulatively reserved as the “Unused CPI” and shall be used to increase the maximum authorized rate in years in which the CPI is less than 3%. The maximum authorized rate is equal to the maximum rate in the first fiscal year the Fee was approved adjusted annually by the lower of either 3% or the change in the CPI plus any Unused CPI as described above. MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS The City shall deposit into a separate account(s) all 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee revenues collected and shall appropriate and expend such funds only for the purposes outlined by this Report. The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific programs and projects listed, and the division of revenues and expenses between the two primary categories (Clean Water and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future revenue needs and are not intended to be binding on future use of funds. The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific programs or projects listed, and the division of revenues and expenses between the two primary categories (Clean Water and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future revenue needs and are not intended to be binding on future use of funds. Dated: February 20, 2019 Engineer of Work By Jerry Bradshaw, License No. C48845 153 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 15 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS On the following pages is a regulatory assessment and cost and revenue analyses, drawn from a technical memorandum prepared for this project by Larry Walker Associates. The information contained in this Appendix forms a basis for the fee calculations in the main body of this Fee Report and is referenced as appropriate. 154 Memorandum DATE: Rachel Warren Airy Krich-Brinton 1480 Drew Ave., Suite 100 Davis, CA 95618 530.753.6400 RachelW@lwa.com AiryK@lwa.com February 20, 2019 TO: Susan Barnes, SCI Consulting Group SUBJECT: Fee Study Report: Regulatory Assessment & Cost and Revenue Analysis Cc: Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group Cheri Donnelly, City of Cupertino Jo Anne Johnson, City of Cupertino Karen Ashby, Larry Walker Associates 1. INTRODUCTION In the early 1990s, in response to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) amendment of 1987 to address urban stormwater runoff pollution from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and the pending federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations that would implement the amendment, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) issued municipal stormwater Phase I NPDES permits to the countywide urban areas of Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and Contra Costa. These countywide areas had individual permits until 2009, when the Regional Water Board issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP).1 The MRP was subsequently reissued in 2015.2 The current MRP regulates stormwater discharges from municipalities in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties (including the City of Cupertino), as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo in Solano County. The MRP includes requirements for the following components, including an increased focus on requirements for control of specific pollutants to address some of the more persistent water quality issues: • C.1 Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations • C.2 Municipal Operations • C.3 New Development and Redevelopment • C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls • C.5 Illicit Discharge and Elimination • C.6 Construction Site Controls • C.7 Public Information and Outreach 1 Order R2-2009-0074 as amended by Order No. R2-2011-0083 2 Order No. R2-2015-0049 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 16 155 • C.8 Water Quality Monitoring • C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls • C.10 Trash Reduction • C.11 Mercury Controls • C.12 PCBs Controls • C.13 Copper Controls • C.14 Bacterial Controls • C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges • C.16 Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance • C.17 Annual Reports The City of Cupertino (City) is committed to water quality and watershed stewardship by continuing to build a safer, healthier, and more aesthetically pleasing community through programs, initiatives, and ordinances that align with MRP activities. Over the years, the range of actions taken by the City has greatly increased in response to evolving regulatory requirements and community needs. As a part of the stormwater program initiative, the City leverages its resources by participating in a comprehensive effort in the Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which was initiated in 1990 and is organized, coordinated, and implemented in accordance with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between its 15 member agencies. The Santa Clara Valley collaboration is further supplemented by participation in the regional Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). In addition to directly benefitting member agencies with access to better science, the regional collaborations enhance technical approaches and ensure consistent messaging to the public and community decision makers. Implemented when the first stormwater permits were issued to Santa Clara Valley permittees, the collaboration has effectively assisted member agencies in maintaining stormwater programs that achieve federally and State-mandated water quality regulations. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to develop a planning-level cost estimate for the full costs of implementing the stormwater program, which may be used to support a funding measure for the City’s storm drain operations and maintenance and Clean Water Program needs. The assessment includes a summary of known revenues and estimates of prior year, current year, and future implementation costs of the stormwater program.3 This information may also be used in the future to budget program funding and/or to identify other potential funding sources. This memorandum is organized as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Approach 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Overall Summary 3.2. City Expenditures 3 Prior year is fiscal year 2017-2018; current is fiscal year 2018-2019; future is fiscal years 2019-2020 through 2023-2024. Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 17 156 2. APPROACH To understand the funding needs for the stormwater program, the “true” costs for full implementation of the MRP requirements must be understood. However, tracking and compiling staff time and resources across multiple departments can be a complex and time-consuming process. To identify the implementation costs for the City as comprehensively and efficiently as possible, an interview was conducted with key City staff, which included structured questions and discussions regarding the agency’s staffing, implementation approach for the range of MRP requirements, prior and current stormwater program revenues, and the estimated costs for program implementation. The revenues and expenditures were compiled and assigned to two main categories, which reflects how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-to- day stormwater-related operations: • Operations and Maintenance (O&M): This includes ongoing and routine activities supporting the O&M of the stormwater infrastructure, including inspection and cleaning of storm drain inlets, storm drain lines, and trash capture devices, as well as street sweeping management (primarily MRP provision C.2). • Clean Water Program: This includes ongoing and routine activities that are directly related to water quality improvement, such as implementation of the MRP requirements, participation in the SCVURPPP, clean creek programs, community outreach, business and construction site inspections, street sweeping, and implementation of the City’s trash reduction plan (all MRP provisions, with the exception of green infrastructure projects). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A summary and discussion of total City costs for implementation of the MRP during the prior year (2017-2018), current year (2018-2019), and future years (2019-2020 through 2023-2024), is provided within this section. The cost information is presented in two ways: a summary of City expenditures by cost category (O&M and Clean Water Program) (3.1. Overall Summary) and a detailed breakdown of expenditures (3.2. City Expenditures) as they relate to the two cost categories. The approach and assumptions used to develop each of these summaries are described below. All costs are in present-value dollars. 3.1. Overall Summary Costs for the full implementation of the stormwater program were estimated based on budgetary and supplemental information provided by the City. The approach and assumptions used were as follows: • The revenue and expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were based on the City’s 2018 and 2019 Adopted Budgets. • Future revenue was assumed to be the same as that for the current fiscal year, 2018-2019, without the transfers in from the General Fund (i.e., $379,000) (Table 1). • The category-specific expenditure totals in Table 2 were taken directly from the detailed City Expenditures for 2017-2018 through 2023-2024 (see Section 3.2, Table 4). • Future cost projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018, information obtained during City staff interviews, and a percentile multiplier (3% for personnel costs and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for participation in SCVURPPP). Additional details Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 18 157 regarding assumptions for future, potential cost increases related to specific MRP provisions are provided in 3.2. City Expenditures. Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 19 158 This page left intentionally blank for printing purposes Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 20 159 The estimated revenue for 2017-2018 through 2023-2024 is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Table 1. Overall Summary of Revenue Revenue Category Prior[a] Current[a] Future - Projected 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 O&M Fund 100-85 Total Fund Revenue $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer in (General Fund) $448,250 $476,503 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clean Water Program Fund 230-81 Fines and forfeitures $6,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Charges for services $380,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Transfer in (General Fund) $375,720 $341,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 [a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget4 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)). 4 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 21 160 The total estimated expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (based on the 2018 and 2019 Adopted Budgets) and the total estimated expenditures for the next five years, organized by cost category, are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs for MRP, by Cost Category and Fiscal Year Prior[a] Current[a] Future – Projected Cost Category 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 O&M Fund 100-85 $449,950 $476,503 $552,000 $569,000 $586,000 $603,000 $622,000 Clean Water Program Fund 230-81 $761,720 $720,785 $891,000 $918,000 $964,000 $994,000 $1,025,000 Total Expenses $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $1,443,000 $1,487,000 $1,550,000 $1,598,000 $1,646,000 [a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget5 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)). 5 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 22 161 Figure 1. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs and Revenue for MRP, by Cost Category and Fiscal Year 3.1.1. Overall Summary: Discussion Below are a few key observations regarding the overall estimated expenditures: • During the observed time period, the estimated cost of stormwater program implementation will exceed the estimated, dedicated revenue (Figure 1). • The Clean Water Program costs account for the larger portion (62%, as a seven-year average) of the City’s stormwater-related costs. • Overall, it is anticipated that the City’s stormwater program will spend similar percentages on O&M and the Clean Water Program annually. Additional, one-time cost increases are included for the Clean Water Program in FY 2021-2022, based on potential increases in MRP requirements (as described in 3.2. City Expenditures). • Based on the information available and the assumptions made, the total cost of the stormwater program is expected to increase by 36% between 2017-2018 and 2023-2024 (Figure 1). However, it should be noted that the cost increase could be greater depending upon the requirements of the final, renewed MRP. o Between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, a 21% increase in the total cost of the stormwater program is anticipated to occur. This increase is based on a thorough evaluation of the City personnel and non-personnel costs required to implement the current MRP provisions and provide storm protection (as described in 3.2. City Expenditures). Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 23 162 3.2. City Expenditures Costs for the implementation of the stormwater program for the MRP were estimated based on budgetary and supplemental information provided by the City. When determining which costs to include, the City considered, at a minimum, the following: • Labor; • Materials; • Contract Services; • Contingencies; and • Cost Allocation. The following key pieces of information were provided by the City: • “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY17_18 Expenditure (Actual)” spreadsheet, which details the expenditures for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2017-2018. • “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY17_18 Revenue (Actual)” spreadsheet, which details the revenues for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2017- 2018. • “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY18_19 Expenditure (Budget)” spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and expenditures to date for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2018-2019. • “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY18_19 Revenue (Budget)” spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and revenues to date for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2018-2019. • “100-85-818 FY17_18 Expense (actual)” spreadsheet, which details the expenditures for O&M by expense type for FY 2017-2018. • “100-85-818 FY18_19 Expense (Budget)” spreadsheet, which details the amended budget and expenses to date for O&M by expense type for FY 2018-2019. • Hard copy tables describing the staff positions under “230-81-802 Env Mgmt Cln Crk Strm Drain – Environmental Programs – Non Point Source” and “FTE – General Fund.” • Hard copy “Resolution 18-039, Schedule B – Engineering” describing the various fees effective July 1, 2018. • The City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget6 detailing the revenue, expenditure, and General Fund Costs for the 2018 adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100- 85) (p. 434-435). 6 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 24 163 The approach and assumptions used were as follows: • All costs were identified as O&M Costs or Clean Water Program Costs (Table 4). • The City’s “Cost Allocation” for each fund, which includes overhead costs such as Human Resources, Finance, and Information Technology Support, are divided as follows: o The full Cost Allocation amount for O&M (Fund 100-85) is accounted for under Provision C.2. o The Cost Allocation amount for Clean Water Program (Fund 230-81) is allocated proportionally to specific MRP provisions based on the identified labor costs. • The City’s contribution to SCVURPPP was determined as follows: o Based on the Memorandum of Agreement, the City's annual, proportional cost share is 2.46% of the annual SCVURPPP Program Budget. o The City's payment history (July 2008 through July 2018) was used to determine the average annual increase in the City’s contribution (3.57%). This multiplier was used to estimate contributions for future years. o The total SCVURPP contribution was distributed equally amongst the MRP provisions (C.2 through C.13). • Future costs were projected as follows: o Future projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018 and a percentile multiplier (3% for personnel costs and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for participation in SCVURPPP). This is based on preliminary feedback from Regional Water Board staff that the MRP should not change significantly. However, if significant changes are made to the MRP during the renewal process, then the estimates should be modified accordingly. o Implementation costs for specific MRP provisions are anticipated to require an additional increase during the first year of the next MRP term.7 These increases were applied as additive percent increases only for FY 2021-2022. These are preliminary estimates, and the actual cost increases are to be determined upon adoption of the new MRP. These provisions, the anticipated, potential cost increase for each, and the rationale for the potential increase are as follows: - C.3 New Development and Redevelopment (5%). This estimated increase is based on potential expansion of the C.3 requirements to small projects and single-family residences, which would necessitate updating the application materials and guidance, including the C.3 Technical Guidance. In addition, there will be increased costs associated with enhanced O&M requirements for green infrastructure projects. This does not include costs for implementation/installation of green infrastructure projects. 7 The current MRP expires on December 31, 2020. If the MRP is reissued on schedule, the new MRP will begin to be implemented on January 1, 2021. These increases have been applied to the anticipated, first full year of implementation of the new MRP, beginning July 1, 2021. Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 25 164 - C.10 Trash Load Reduction (7.5%). This estimated increase is based on anticipated, new monitoring/assessment costs and implementation requirements, including the assessment of private catchments. In addition, by 2022, the City will need to achieve 100% reduction of the trash load from its base trash generation level; based on the 2017-2018 Annual Report, the City is currently achieving 93% reduction. - C.11 Mercury Controls and C.12 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Controls (7.5%). This estimated increase is based on implementation of new programs for building demolition to address mercury and PCBs. - C.17 Annual Reports (5%). This estimated increase is based on anticipated changes in reporting requirements and the potential for some increased costs related to electronic reporting (via EPA) and cost reporting (via the state). o No incremental projections were made for expenses described as “one-time costs.” The total expenditures for 2017-2018 (prior year) and 2018-2019 (current year), based on the adopted budgets for those years, and the total, estimated expenditures for the next five years (future), organized by cost category (fund) and MRP provision, are shown in Table 4.8 Only total fund values are included for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. 8 The total costs for each cost category (fund) are also summarized in Table 2. Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 26 165 Table 4. City Estimated Expenditures for MRP, by Cost Category (Fund) and Fiscal Year Prior[a] Current[a] Future – Projected[b] Fund MRP Provision 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Fund 100-85, Operations & Maintenance Program Management $59,000 $61,000 $63,000 $65,000 $67,000 C.2 Municipal Operations $493,000 $508,000 $523,000 $539,000 $555,000 Fund Total $449,950 $476,503 $552,000 $569,000 $586,000 $603,000 $622,000 Fund 230-81, Clean Water Program C.1 Permit Compliance $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 C.2 Municipal Operations $148,000 $153,000 $157,000 $162,000 $167,000 C.3 New Development and Redevelopment $70,000 $72,000 $77,000 $80,000 $82,000 C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls $83,000 $86,000 $88,000 $91,000 $94,000 C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination $129,000 $133,000 $137,000 $141,000 $145,000 C.6 Construction Site Control $43,000 $44,000 $46,000 $47,000 $49,000 C.7 Public Information and Outreach $118,000 $122,000 $126,000 $129,000 $133,000 C.8 Water Quality Monitoring $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 C.10 Trash Load Reduction $130,000 $134,000 $148,000 $152,000 $157,000 C.11 Mercury Controls $24,000 $25,000 $27,000 $27,000 $28,000 C.12 PCBs Controls $51,000 $52,000 $57,000 $59,000 $61,000 C.13 Copper Controls $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 C.17 Annual Reports $29,000 $30,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 Fund Total $761,720 $720,785 $891,000 $918,000 $964,000 $994,000 $1,025,000 Total $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $1,443,000 $1,487,000 $1,550,000 $1,598,000 $1,646,000 [a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget9 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)). [b] Each value for the fiscal years under the “Future – Projected” column is considered to be estimated and has been rounded to the nearest $1,000; thus, summing individual values may result in a slightly different total than those shown in the “Fund Total” and “Total” rows. 9 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776 Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 27 166 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 PAGE 28 APPENDIX B –PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS Section 2.2.3 of the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP, 2018) provided information about the percentage of impermeable area (%IA) for various land use types. Table 8 below summarizes that information. TABLE 8 – PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN Land Use % I A Commercial/Industrial 85 Very Low Density Res.35 Low Density Res.55 Low-Medium Density Res 70 Medium Density Res 80 High Density Res.75 Medium-High Density Res.70 Open Water 100 Parks/Open Space 15 Public (Schools, Gov't, etc.)45 Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 Transportation/Right of Way 90 Undeveloped 0 Several of the SDMP land use types were the same as the rate categories for this Report. However, some of the rate categories in this Report did not precisely match the land uses in the SDMP, so adjustments were made. Table 9 below shows the SDMP categories on the left side and the Fee Report rate categories on the right side. The ones in green matched sufficiently to use them outright. The ones in beige required some adjustments, which are explained below the Table. 167 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 29 TABLE 9 – PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN Low-Medium Density Res 70 70 Small SFR Low Density Res.55 55 Medium SFR 45 Large SFR Very Low Density Res.35 35 Very Large SFR Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 65 Multi-Fam Commercial/Industrial 85 85 Comm/Indust Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 65 Office 55 Institutional 40 Schools Parks/Open Space 15 15 Parks 5 Vacant 0 Open Space Fee Report 0Undeveloped 45Public (Schools, Gov't, etc.) Storm Drain Master Plan EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO %IA ▪ Large Single-Family Residential – This category falls between the Medium and Very Large categories without a corresponding land use in the SDMP. That gap was split evenly to arrive at a %IA of 45%. This created an array of %IA for the residential rate categories that aligns well with other communities and associated fee reports. ▪ Institutional & Schools – The SDMP grouped schools with other governmental uses, however the Fee Report distinguishes between governmental/institutional uses and schools (with play field areas). The SDMP blended rate of 45% was used as a basis to split the Fee Report categories to arrive at %IA values of 55% and 40%, respectively. Again, these values align relatively well with other communities and associated fee reports. ▪ Vacant & Open Space – The SDMP assigned a value of 0% for the undeveloped land use while the Fee Report distinguishes between open space/natural terrain and vacant land that has been developed (but not improved). It is assumed that the SDMP blended the two categories, which was split for the Fee Report categories to arrive at %IA values of 5% and 0%, respectively. Further justification for the %IA of zero for open space land is provided in the body of the Fee Report. Again, these values align relatively well with other communities and associated fee reports. 168 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 30 APPENDIX C – STORMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES There have been relatively few voter-approved local revenue measures in the past 15 years to support stormwater programs in California. A summary of those efforts plus some others in process or being studied is shown in Table 10 on the following page, in roughly chronological order. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the equivalent. 169 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 31 TABLE 10 – RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES Municipality Status Annual Rate Year Mechanism San Clemente Successful $ 60.15 2002 Balloted Property-Related Fee Carmel Unsuccessful $ 38.00 2003 Balloted Property-Related Fee Palo Alto Unsuccessful $ 57.00 2003 Balloted Property-Related Fee Los Angeles Successful $ 28.00 2004 Special Tax - G. O. Bond Palo Alto Successful $ 120.00 2005 Balloted Property-Related Fee Rancho Palos Verde Successful , then recalled and reduced $ 200.00 2005, 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee Encinitas Unsuccessful $ 60.00 2006 Non-Balloted Property-Related Fee adopted in 2004, challenged, balloted and failed in 2006 Ross Valley Successful, Overturned by Court of Appeals, Decertified by Supreme Court $ 125.00 2006 Balloted Property-Related Fee Santa Monica Successful $ 87.00 2006 Special Tax San Clemente Successfully renewed $ 60.15 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee Solana Beach Non-Balloted, Threatened by lawsuit, Balloted, Successful $ 21.84 2007 Non-Balloted & Balloted Property-Related Fee Woodland Unsuccessful $ 60.00 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee Del Mar Successful $ 163.38 2008 Balloted Property-Related Fee Hawthorne Unsuccessful $ 30.00 2008 Balloted Property-Related Fee Santa Cruz Successful $ 28.00 2008 Special Tax Burlingame Successful $ 150.00 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee Santa Clarita Successful $ 21.00 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee Stockton Unsuccessful $ 34.56 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee County of Contra Costa Unsuccessful $ 22.00 2012 Balloted Property-Related Fee Santa Clara Valley Water District Successful $ 56.00 2012 Special Tax City of Berkeley Successful varies 2012 Measure M - GO Bond County of LA Deferred $ 54.00 2012 NA San Clemente Successful $ 74.76 2013 Balloted Property-Related Fee Vallejo San & Flood Successful $ 23.00 2015 Balloted Property-Related Fee Culver City Successful $ 99.00 2016 Special Tax Palo Alto Successful $ 163.80 2017 Balloted Property-Related Fee Reauthorization of 2005 Fee Town of Moraga Unsuccessful $ 120.38 2018 Balloted Property-Related Fee City of Berkeley Successful $ 42.89 2018 Balloted Property-Related Fee Los Angeles Flood Control Successful $ 83.00 2018 Special Tax City of Los Altos In Process NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee City of Alameda Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee County of San Joaquin Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee City of Sacramento Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee City of Salinas Studying NA NA NA City of Santa Clara Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee County of San Mateo Studying NA NA NA County of El Dorado Studying NA NA NA County of Orange Studying NA NA NA County of Ventura Studying NA NA NA 170 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT FEBRUARY 2019 Page 32 In addition to the agencies listed above in Table 10 that have gone to the ballot for new or increased Stormwater Fees, there are several other municipalities throughout the State that have existing Stormwater Fees in place. Some of these rates are summarized in Table 11 below. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the equivalent. The City’s proposed $44.42 SFR rate is well within the range of stormwater rates adopted by other municipalities. TABLE 11 – SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES Municipality Annual Rate Type of Fee Bakersfield 200.04$ Property-Related Fee Culver City 99.00$ Special Tax Davis 84.94$ Property-Related Fee Elk Grove 70.08$ Property-Related Fee 190.20$ Property-Related Fee Hayward 28.56$ Property-Related Fee Los Angeles 27.00$ Special tax Palo Alto 136.80$ Property-Related Fee Redding 15.84$ Property-Related Fee Sacramento (City)135.72$ Property-Related Fee Sacramento (County)70.08$ Property-Related Fee San Bruno 46.16$ Property-Related Fee San Clemente 60.24$ Property-Related Fee San Jose 91.68$ Property-Related Fee Santa Cruz 109.08$ Special Tax Stockton *221.37$ Property-Related Fee Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 23.64$ Property-Related Fee West Sacramento 144.11$ Property-Related Fee Woodland 5.76$ Property-Related Fee * This is the calculated average rate for the City of Stockton, which has 15 rate zones with rates ranging from $3.54 to $651.68 per year. 171 FOR PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINOFOR PROPOSED CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEEOඎඎඑඋඑඉඔ Bඉඔඔග EඖඋඔඛඍඌPRESORTEDFIRST CLASSU.S. POSTAGE PAIDSACRAMENTO, CA PERMIT NO. 333City Clerk’s Offi ceCity of Cupertino10300 Torre AvenueCupertino CA 95014OFFICIAL MAILOFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT ENCLOSEDPLEASE OPEN IMMEDIATELYMUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 P.M. JULY 5, 2019City of Cupertino Ballot Outgoing env.indd 1City of Cupertino Ballot Outgoing env.indd 13/28/2019 1:16:10 PM3/28/2019 1:16:10 PM172 Ballot TabulationEach parcel with a proposed fee greater than zero will get one vote. Ballots will be tabulated under the direction of the City Clerk at a location accessible to the public. The tabulation will commence the week of July 8, 2019 at City Hall, and may be performed by technological methods including but not limited to optically readable (bar-coded) ballots. Results of the tabulation are expected to be announced at the City Council meeting on July 16, 2019.Public Accountability SafeguardsIf approved by property owners, the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee revenues will be collected and deposited into a fund that can only be used for the Clean Water and Storm Protection Program. The funds cannot be taken by the County or the State, and cannot be used for other purposes. The revenues and expenditures will be reviewed by a local Citizens’ Oversight Committ ee, and will be regularly audited by an independent auditor along with the rest of the City’s budget.Why Did You Receive This Ballot?The City of Cupertino Clean Water and Storm Protection Program manages rain water that runs off hard surfaces such as roofs, driveways and streets. The City is responsible for constructing and maintaining an integrated system of storm drainage inlets, pipes, culverts, and ditches. The City also complies with strict government clean water standards regulating the removal of pollutants from storm water prior to its entering our local creeks and the San Francisco Bay.Current Funding for Clean Water and Storm Protection The Clean Water and Storm Protection program is funded by a fee that has been in place since 1992. This fee of $12 per home (and $144 per acre for non-residential property) has not been increased since it was implemented. As a result, the revenue to support this important program is no longer suffi cient to cover the costs.To provide suffi cient funding to prevent fl ooding and to ensure only clean water fl ows to our creeks and the Bay, the City is proposing this new funding measure.Community meetings on this topic were held on March 28, April 9, April 13, and April 30. A public hearing authorizing this ballot was held during the regular City Council meeting on May 7.The enclosed ballot provides property owners in the City the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the proposed new 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. If approved, the proposed new fee would be in addition to what you are already paying.Offi cial Ballot Information Guide Offi cial Ballot Information Guide City of Cupertino City of Cupertino 2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection Fee2019 Clean Water & Storm Protection FeePlease complete your ballot and mail it back promptly.Please complete your ballot and mail it back promptly.All Ballots must be received by 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019 to be counted.All Ballots must be received by 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019 to be counted.Ballot InstructionsTo complete the enclosed ballot, mark the oval next to either “Yes” or “No” for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. Then sign and date the ballot, place it in the provided postage-paid return envelope and mail or hand deliver it by 4:00 p.m. on July 5 to: City Clerk’s Offi ceCity of Cupertino10300 Torre AvenueCupertino, CA 95014Only offi cial ballots that are signed and marked with the property owner’s support or opposition, and are received by 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019, will be counted. Post marks do not count.The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee can not be imposed if votes submitt ed in opposition to the fee exceed the votes submitt ed in favor of the fee.If the fee is approved, the fee may be levied on property tax bills beginning in fi scal year 2019-20 and will continue in future years, unless ended by the City Council.Please Complete Your Ballot and Mail It Back PromptlyPlease Complete Your Ballot and Mail It Back PromptlyAll Ballots must be received by 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019 to be counted.All Ballots must be received by 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019 to be counted.Additional InformationFor additional information or if you lose your ballot, require a replacement ballot, or want to change your vote, please call (408) 777-3200.You may fi nd additional information on the City’s website at www.cupertino.org/CleanWater.What This Fee Would ProvideThe City of Cupertino provides essential clean water and storm protection services to prevent fl ooding, protect property values, and improve the environmental health, cleanliness, and safety of the community. Throughout the year, public works crews inspect and clean the underground storm system to ensure that trash, cigarett e butt s, litt er, and toxic particulates such as copper, nickel, zinc, pesticides, which adhere to dirt and mud, are removed before they can fl ow into the City’s storm drainage system and into our local creeks.The Clean Water program enhances the required Science curriculum of all third-graders in the Cupertino School District by training students to conduct creek water monitoring and teaches the concepts of preventing water pollution and conserving rain water. This education, taught by the City’s naturalist, runs throughout the school year and teaches children the importance of ecosystem and creek stewardship for the future. To ensure that these benefits to property owners are maintained and enhanced, The City Council voted to propose a new Clean Water and Storm Protection fee. The fee, in order to be implemented, must be approved by a majority vote of property owners, since the property owners will decide whether to fund these services.For more information, visit our website at www.cupertino.org/CleanWater.Third grade students conduct creek water monitering and learn about the ecosystem and its importance through the City’s educational program.173 Offi cial Ballot Information Guide Offi cial Ballot Information Guide City of Cupertino 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection FeeCity of Cupertino 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Visit the City of Cupertino Website For More Information Ballots Must Be Received By 4 p.m. on Visit the City of Cupertino Website For More Information Ballots Must Be Received By 4 p.m. on July 5, 2019July 5, 2019 To Be Counted To Be CountedHow Much Is the Proposed Fee?The proposed new 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee for your property (or properties) for fi scal year 2019-20 is printed on the Offi cial Ballot included with this notice and information guide. As shown below, the annual fee for a single-family home on a medium-sized parcel between 0.13 and 0.22 acres, (the most common size of residential parcel), would be $44.42. The total anticipated revenue to be collected by the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee in Fiscal Year 2019-20 is $1.1 million. The entire schedule of proposed rates is shown in the table below.Will the Fee Increase in the Future?In order to off set the eff ects of infl ation on labor and material costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Consumer Price Index-U (“CPI”), not to exceed 3 percent per year. How Long Will the Fee Last?The proposed ballot measure, if approved, may continue each year with Council approval. However, the Council must annually review actual clean water and storm protection needs and costs, and may not charge more than is needed to cover the costs of these services.What if This Fee Is Not Approved?Less Ability to Clean Water Flowing to CreeksThe City has implemented a variety of measures to remove from storm water the various types of pollutants it picks up as it fl ows from rooftops and streets through underground pipes and out into our local creeks. Trash capture devices, street sweeping, and other methods of trash and pollutant removal cannot be enhanced, and their frequency and eff ectiveness may even have to be reduced, if a dedicated source of funding for them is not secured. Reduced Service LevelsWithout the new fee, the program will compete for funding with all the other programs funded by the City’s general fund, and will face potential reductions in service levels, which will likely result in a decrease in water quality that impacts the creeks and Bay, as well as increased fl ooding. Without the funding, the City may not be able to respond to all the calls from the public regarding clogged storm drains and related issues, and may not be able to conduct its annual inspection and cleaning of all of the thousands of storm drain inlets and outfalls throughout the City. How Was the Fee Determined?The City of Cupertino protects the local environment and prevents fl ooding by collecting, cleaning, and managing all rainfall and urban runoff via its storm drainage system. Without additional revenue, the Clean Water and Storm Protection Program faces a rising defi cit over the next several years. The proposed fee will address the shortfall between projected revenues and expenses.The fee is based on the quantity of water runoff generated by each parcel or category of parcel, which is proportional to the impervious surfaces (such as pavement) found on the property or category of parcel. The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report, which includes more information about the Program’s revenues and costs, as well as more details about how the proposed fees were calculated, can be found on the City’s website.Open space acts like a sponge, absorbing rain water. Covering land with impermiable surfaces like paving and rooftops causes water to run off of proerty and into the storm drain system, carrying pollutants with it as it goes.Are any discounts available?The fee amount is calculated so each property will pay its fair share of the costs of the program Commercial properties which meet certain strict standards will receive a 25% lower rate in recognition of thir reduced impact on the system. Residential property owners may receive a rebate of part or all of the cost of certain improvements intended to reduce their impact on the system. Home owners may be able to reduce their impact on the system by replacing paving or other hard surfaces with a rain garden.City crews proactively clean clogged drains before.storms to prevent local fl ooding.Stormwater picks up pollutants as it runs off of roofs, driveways, and streets. Funds from this measure will help the City remove these pollutants from the water before it is discharged into our local creeks.174 OFFICIAL FEE BALLOTCඑගඡ ඎ Cඝඍකගඑඖ Cඔඍඉඖ Wඉගඍක ඉඖඌ Sගකඕ Pකගඍඋගඑඖ FඍඍCity of Cupertino10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014YES, I approve the proposed yearly fee for clean water and storm protection.* NO, I do not approve the proposed yearly fee for clean water and storm protection.*I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that I am the property owner or owner’s authorized representative of the parcel(s) identifi ed on this offi cial ballot.Signature of Record Property Owner, or Authorized RepresentativeFOLD SO THAT THIS SIDE IS ON THE INSIDE OF THE FOLD BEFORE PLACING THIS BALLOT IN THE RETURN ENVELOPESigned_________________________________________ Date ______________Print Name ___________________________________________________ This fee ballot may be completed by the person(s) or fi rm(s) owning the property or properties identifi ed by parcel number on this ballot. An explanation of who may complete the fee ballot on behalf of the recorded property owner and additional instructions are provided on the other side of this Offi cial Fee Ballot. To be tabulated, fee ballots MUST be received before Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. by the offi ce of the City Clerk at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA.You may return your ballot in the following ways:1) Mail your fee ballot to the address shown on the enclosed return envelope so that it is received on or before July 5, 2019.2) Deliver it in person to the address shown on the enclosed return envelope so that it is received before 4:00 p.m. on July 5, 2019. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COMPLETION AND RETURN OF OFFICIAL FEE BALLOTS*(The proposed fee amount is printed on the back of this ballot.)175 FOLD HERE (this side should be on outside after fold)1. Verify that the owner name, address, and parcel number(s) listed on the fee ballot are correct. If they are not correct call (408) 777-3200.2. Fill in or clearly mark the oval next to the word “YES” or “NO” to approve or disapprove of the proposed fee. You may use a pen only.3. Sign and date the fee ballot. Only offi cial fee ballots which are signed and marked with the property owner’s support or opposition will be counted. After marking your vote, simply FOLD the fee ballot so that your vote is on the inside of the fold. Then place the fee ballot in the return envelope provided. No postage is necessary to mail back your fee ballot.4. If you make a mistake in completing your fee ballot or wish to change or withdraw your assessment ballot, please call (408) 777-3200.(See enclosed notice for further information)Who May Complete this Offi cial Fee BallotSteps for Completing the Offi cial Fee BallotPlease see other side to complete this fee ballot.1. If the property is owned by an individual, the individual may sign.2. If a property is owned by more than one person, any one owner may sign for all.3. If the property is owned by a corporation, the fee ballot may be signed for the corporation by an offi cer or offi cers authorized to make contracts or by resolution of the corporation’s Board of Directors.4. If the property is owned by another legal entity, the fee ballot may be signed by any person authorized by law to make contracts for the entity.5. If the property is owned by a public agency, the fee ballot may be signed by any person authorized by law to make contracts for the agency or by resolution of the agency’s Governing Board.176 BUSINESS REPLY MAILFIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 101 FAIRFIELD CAPOSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEECITY CLERK’S OFFICECITY OF CUPERTINO10300 TORRE AVECUPERTINO CA 95014-99069906NO POSTAGENECESSARYIF MAILEDIN THEUNITED STATESCity of CupertinoClean Water and Storm Protection FeeProperty Owner BallotDo Not Open Before July ₅, ₂₀₁₉DAFDFFDTFFAFDFFFFDFTDFATTTDTAFDFATAFAAATAFTDDDTAFDDADFDTDFTTDFFTT177 May 1, 2019 The Honorable Steven Scharf Mayor, City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed New Fee for Clean Water and Storm Water Protection Program: SUPPORT Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the Board of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, we support the proposed new fees for clean water and storm water protection. The storm water maintenance and pollution prevention program that started in 1992 has been operating at a deficit because the current fee, which is $12 per single-family residential parcel per year, does not generate enough revenue to pay for the necessary operations and maintenance needed to proactively service the system and ensure that storm water flowing to the creeks, bay and ocean is clean. In the current fiscal year, the estimated costs of the program total $1.197 million, but the revenue from the current fee is only about $379,000 per year. The amount of the 1992 fee cannot be increased, so it is appropriate that a new property-related fee that would charge only the additional amount of revenues needed to offset the cost to provide proactive maintenance and clean water programs for that individual parcel. Under the current funding model, repair of a single system failure may cost an entire year’s program budget. The new storm drain fee will allow the program to utilize the best practices needed to safeguard our storm water system. In addition to the many significant program benefits including preventative maintenance, education and so much more that directly supports and protects the quality of our community, the fact remains that when storm drains are needed and do not function properly, collateral environmental and economic damage can be extensive. It is for these many reasons that the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken a position of SUPPORT, for the proposed new storm drain fees. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this issue. Sincerely, Anjali Kausar, CEO Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Cc: Cupertino City Clerk 178 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5284 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/3/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Options regarding three referendum petitions challenging approvals related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan: Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment for Vallco Town Center), Resolution No. 18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan), and Ordinance No. 18-2179 (Development Agreement for Vallco Town Center) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Resolution No. 18-085 Approving a General Plan Amendment B - Resolution No. 18-086 Adopting Specific Plan C - Ordinance No. 18-2179 Approving DA D - City Attorney Memo regarding Vallco Referendum Petitions E - Election Cost Estimates F - Draft Resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-085 G - Draft Resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-085 for Nov 2020 H - Draft Resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-086 I - Draft Resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-086 for Nov 2020 J - Draft Resolution repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 K - Draft Resolution submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 for Nov 2020 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Options regarding three referendum petitions challenging approvals related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan: Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment for Vallco Town Center), Resolution No. 18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan), and Ordinance No. 18-2179 (Development Agreement for Vallco Town Center) As required by California Elections Code Section 9241, the City Council must choose one of the following options for each of the referendum petitions: Repeal the resolution(s) and/or ordinance in their entirety; or submit the resolution(s) and/or ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election (November 3, 2020) or at a special election called for that purpose on a date determined by the Council, but occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., not before July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019): a.)Resolution No. 19-042 repealing Resolution No. 18-085 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™179 File #:19-5284,Version:1 b.)Resolution No. 19-043 submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to Nov. '20 regular election c.)Resolution No. 19-044 repealing Resolution No. 18-086 d.)Resolution No. 19-045 submitting Resolution No. 18-086 to Nov. '20 regular election e.)Resolution No. 19-046 repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 f.)Resolution No. 19-047 submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 to Nov. '20 regular election CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™180 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Options regarding three referendum petitions challenging approvals related to the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan: Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment for Vallco Town Center), Resolution No. 18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan), and Ordinance No. 18-2179 (Development Agreement for Vallco Town Center). Recommended Action As required by California Elections Code Section 9241, the City Council must choose one of the following options for each of the referendum petitions: Repeal the resolution(s) and/or ordinance in their entirety; or submit the resolution(s) and/or ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election (November 3, 2020) or at a special election called for that purpose on a date determined by the Council, but occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., not before July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019): Resolution No. 19-042 repealing Resolution No. 18-085 Resolution No. 19-043 submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to Nov 2020 regular election Resolution No. 19-044 repealing Resolution No. 18-086 Resolution No. 19-045 submitting Resolution No. 18-086 to Nov 2020 regular election Resolution No. 19-046 repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 Resolution No. 19-047 submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 to Nov 2020 regular election The Council may choose to place one or more of the approvals on the ballot while repealing the others. However, because the Specific Plan and Development Agreement both depend upon the General Plan Amendment to establish consistency with the City’s General Plan, if the Council decides to repeal the General Plan Amendment then it should also repeal the Specific Plan and Development Agreement. The Council also may choose to defer taking action on one or more of the referendum petitions. The Elections Code does not specify any particular deadline for the Council to take action on the petitions. Below are the specific options for each approval: 181 2 1. Resolution No. 18-085: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area: a. Repeal the resolution in its entirety; or b. Submit the resolution to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., on November 3, 2020); or c. Submit the resolution to the voters at a special election called for that purpose on a date to be determined by the Council at least 88 days after the order calling the election (after July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019). 2. Resolution No. 18-086: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan: a. Repeal the resolution in its entirety; or b. Submit the resolution to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., on November 3, 2020); or c. Submit the resolution to the voters at a special election called for that purpose on a date to be determined by the Council at least 88 days after the order calling the election (after July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019). 3. Ordinance No. 18-2179: Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Cupertino approving a Development Agreement by and between the City Of Cupertino and Vallco Property Owner LLC for the development of Vallco Town Center: a. Repeal the ordinance in its entirety; or b. Submit the ordinance to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election (i.e., on November 3, 2020); or c. Submit the ordinance to the voters at a special election called for that purpose on a date to be determined by the Council at least 88 days after the order calling the election (after July 16, 2019 if action is taken on May 7, 2019). As discussed below, the cost of submitting measures to the voters at a stand-alone special election called for that purpose is significantly higher than the cost of submitting measures to the voters at the next regular municipal election. Election costs also increase substantially with each additional page of text added to the voter information guide. Accordingly, staff recommends that should the Council wish to submit either of the resolutions or the ordinance to the voters, it do so at the next regular municipal election, which will be the general election held on November 3, 2020. To reduce costs, staff further recommends that the 182 3 full text (including exhibits) to each resolution and ordinance not be printed in the ballot materials, but rather be made available by the City Clerk. Draft resolutions or ordinances (a) repealing each measure and (b) submitting each measure to the voters at the next regular municipal election (and requesting consolidation with the November 3, 2020 general election) are attached. Should the Council instead wish to submit either of the resolutions or the ordinance to voters at a special election, staff can return to Council with draft resolutions to that effect. Discussion Opponents of the Vallco Town Center project submitted four separate referendum petitions challenging four enactments associated with the project: Resolution Nos. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment for Vallco Town Center) and 18-086 (Vallco Town Center Specific Plan), and Ordinance Nos. 18-2178 (Rezoning Parcels within Vallco Special Area) and 18-2179 (Development Agreement for Vallco Town Center). The Registrar of Voters validated the signatures on all four referendum petitions. On December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s certification that all four petitions had been signed by more than ten percent of the City’s voters. In letters dated December 6 and December 18, 2018, Vallco Property Owner, LLC (“Vallco”) claimed that the petitions challenging Resolution No. 18-085 and Ordinance No. 18-2178 were procedurally defective because they allegedly failed to include the “full text” of the challenged approvals. Those claims, and the City Attorney’s recommendations regarding those petitions, were discussed in a memorandum from the City Attorney dated February 13, 2019 (attached as Attachment D to this report). As discussed in the City Attorney’s memorandum, the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, determined that the referendum petition challenging Ordinance No. 18-2178 did not actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code’s procedural requirements. Accordingly, on February 13, 2019, the City Clerk notified referendum proponents of her rejection of the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178. With respect to the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085, however, the City Clerk and City Attorney concluded that although the petition substantially complied with Elections Code requirements despite certain technical deficiencies, the City Clerk lacked legal authority to accept the petition without a court order. On February 19, 2019, the Council authorized the City Attorney to file an appropriate legal action to obtain a judicial declaration that the referendum petition substantially complied with the Elections Code and could be processed. On March 20, 2019, the City Clerk and referendum proponents (Better Cupertino Action Committee and Liana Crabtree) filed a Joint Submission on Agreed Facts in Santa Clara Superior Court seeking a court order confirming that the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18- 085 substantially complied with the Elections Code. Attorneys for Vallco Property Owner, LLC 183 4 notified the City by letter dated March 18, 2019, that Vallco took no position on the substantial compliance issue and would accept the decision of the Court. On March 21, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order (1) finding that the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 substantially complied with the Elections Code; (2) directing the City Clerk to process the petition and promptly submit it to the City Council for action pursuant to Elections Code section 9241; and (3) directing that if the City Council submits the petition to voters, the version of Resolution No. 18-085 considered and adopted by the City Council on September 19, 2018, shall be made available to voters either in the ballot materials or as otherwise provided by law. The procedural validity of the petitions challenging Resolution No. 18-086 and Ordinance No. 18- 2179 has not been questioned. The City Clerk has determined that these petitions comply with the procedural requirements of the Elections Code and contain the valid signatures of more than ten percent of the City’s voters. Accordingly, pursuant to Elections Code section 9237, the effective dates of Resolution No. 18- 085, Resolution No. 18-086, and Ordinance No. 18-2179 have been suspended, and the City Council must now reconsider all three enactments. Elections Code section 9241 gives the City Council only three options for each resolution or ordinance: the Council may (1) repeal each resolution or ordinance in its entirety; (2) submit each resolution or ordinance to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election, or (3) submit each resolution or ordinance to the voters at a special municipal election called for that purpose and occurring at least 88 days after the order calling the election. Potential election dates and estimated costs are discussed below. Election Dates and Cost A detailed breakdown of the cost estimates for each election is attached as Attachment E. However, this chart gives an overview of the costs of putting both resolutions and the ordinance to a vote at the same election: Type of Election Date of Election Estimated cost with three ballot measures Special Election (Stand-Alone) TBD (after July 16, 2019) $1,491,320* Special Election (consolidated with presidential primary) March 3, 2020 $185,223** Next Regular Municipal Election Nov. 3, 2020 $153,741 *** 184 5 *Includes a $1,420,184 “base charge” for a stand-alone special election, plus $71,136 for three ballot measures (based on the Registrar of Voters’ estimated cost of $23,712 per measure in a special election). The “base charge” for a stand-alone special election could potentially be shared if any other city or entity has an election on the same day. **Includes $82,729 “initial item” charge for first measure, plus $51,247 “additional item” charge for each of the two additional ballot measures. ***Excludes $82,729 “initial item” charge for City Council seats, but includes $51,247 “additional item” charge for each of the three ballot measures. The figures in the chart above reflect estimated costs for three measures based on each measure taking up six pages in the printed voter information guide (one page for the text of the measure, one page for the impartial analysis, and four pages for arguments and rebuttals for and against the measure). The Council has the option of including the text of and exhibits to each of the measures in the ballot materials, but doing so would substantially increase costs to the City. For the March 3, 2020 and November 3, 2020 consolidated elections, each additional page in the voter information guide would add $6,493 to the cost of each measure. Although the resolutions and ordinance themselves are not especially lengthy, they include a total of 306 pages of exhibits (10 pages for Resolution No. 18-085, 202 pages for Resolution No. 18-086, and 94 pages for Ordinance No. 18-2179). Assuming that each page of each exhibit would require one page in the voter information guide, including the full text and exhibits of all three resolutions could add approximately $2 million to the total costs. Accordingly, staff recommends that the text of and exhibits to the resolutions and ordinance not be printed in the ballot materials, but rather be made available on the City’s web page and in the City Clerk’s office upon request. Finally, it is possible that some of the “base costs” for a stand-alone special election could be shared with another city in Santa Clara County if that other city were to call a special election for the same day. Should the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution calling a stand-alone special election, it also could direct staff to attempt to coordinate with other cities to the extent possible before bringing potential election dates back to a future Council meeting. Sustainability Impact There is no sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact depends on which option Council chooses. Election costs are noted in the chart above and in Attachment E. Unknown fiscal impact if Council chooses to repeal either the resolution or ordinance. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk in conjunction with Heather Minner, City Attorney Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager 185 6 Attachments: A – Resolution No. 18-085 B – Resolution No. 18-086 C – Ordinance No. 18-2179 D – Memorandum from City Attorney (February 13, 2019) E – Election Cost Estimates F – Draft resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-085 G – Draft resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to the voters at the next regular municipal election (Nov. 3, 2020) H – Draft resolution repealing Resolution No. 18-086 I – Draft resolution submitting Resolution No. 18-086 to the voters at the next regular municipal election (Nov. 3, 2020) J – Draft ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179 K – Draft resolution submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 to the voters at the next regular municipal election (Nov. 3, 2020) 186 RESOLUTION NO. 18-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIAL AREA SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No: GP A-2018-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: 10101 to 10333 N Wolfe Rd APN#s: 316 -20-080, 316-20-081, 316-20-103, 316-20-107, 316-20-101, 316-20-105, 316-20-106, 316-20-104, 316-20-088, 316-20-092, 316-20-094, 316-20-099, 316 -20-100, 316-20-095 SECTION .II: RECITALS WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan identifies the Vallco Town Center Special Area as being appropriate to accommodate at least 389 dwelling units to be developed pursuant to a specific plan for the Valko Town Center; and WHEREAS, the Valko Town Center Specific Plan has been developed pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to prepare a specific plan for the Valko Town Center Special Area, including any required changes to the adopted goals and objectives for the Special Area, in order to implement the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan and to plan for anticipated future development activity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council direction to conduct extensive public outreach the City conducted multiple forms of public outreach including two multi-day charrettes, online civic engagement, open houses and brown bag presentations, comment meetings etc.; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Valko Town Center Special Area (the "General Plan Amendment") is part of the Valko Town Center Specific Plan, all as fully described and analyzed in the May 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2018022021), as amended by the July 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Amendment ("EIR Amendment") and by text revisions in the August 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Final EIR document which contains Response to Comments to the Draft EIR and the EIR Amendment, and the August 30, 2018, September 11, 2018, and 187 Resolution No. 18-085 Page 2 of 3 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan -GP A September 13, 2018 Supplemental Text Revisions to the Valko Special Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; (together, the "Final EIR"); WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") for review and recommendation on August 31, 2018, and after considering the Final EIR, and Staff's presentation, the ERC recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, following necessary public notices given as required by the procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 4, 2018 to consider the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on September 4, 2018 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq ., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in Findings, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6860); and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-1 vote (Liu: no) that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2018-05), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6861) with additional recommendations to amend Strategy LU-19.1.2, correct Table LU-1, and consider a middle tier Development Allocation for the Valko Town Center Special Area as more particularly described in Resolution no. 6861; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018), upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on September 19, 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-084 certifying the Final EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting Mitigation Measures, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the Final EIR and finds that the scope of this Resolution falls within the certified Final EIR, in that the aspects of 188 Resolution No. 18-085 Page 3 of 3 Vallco Sp ecial Area Specific Plan -GPA the General Plan Amendment proposed in this Resolution that have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment have been examined in the Final EIR and therefore, no recirculation of the Final EIR is required. SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: After · careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council hereby adopts: 1. Amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2018-05) as shown in Exhibit GP A-1 and authorizes the staff to make grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist in production of the final published General Plan; and 2. Changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GP A-2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The City Council finds this Resolution is within the scope of the EIR and directs the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa Clara County Recorder in accordance with CEQA guidelines. PASS ED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2018 ( continued from September 18, 2018), at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan Paul, Scharf None None Grace Schmidt, City Clerk APPROVED: Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino 189 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) LU-1 Figure PA-1 SPECIAL AREAS PA-4 North Vallco Park Special Area Heart of the City Special Area South De Anza Special Area North De Anza Special Area Homestead Special Area Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area Bubb Road Special Area Monta Vista Village Special Area west crossroads central east South Vallco Park Gateway City Center Node Oaks Gateway North Crossroads Node North Vallco Gateway Stelling Gateway North De Anza Gateway Civic Center Node De Anza College Node Community Recreation Node Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose Los Altos 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Special Areas Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Heart of the City Vallco Town Center Shopping District North Vallco Park North De Anza South De Anza Homestead Bubb Road Monta Vista Village EXHIBIT GPA-1 190 PA-6 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) The City Center subarea is located south of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea, between De Anza and Torre Avenue/Regnart Creek. The primary use for this area is office/residential/hotel/public facilities/commercial retail/mixed- uses. This subarea is further defined into the City Center Node and Civic Center Node. The City Center Node includes Cali Plaza. The Civic Center Node includes City Hall, Cupertino Community Hall, Cupertino Public Library, as well as the Library Plaza and Library Field. The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located at the east end of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and extends from Portal Avenue to the eastern city limit. The area is largely defined by the South Vallco Park Gateway immediately east of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area, which includes Nineteen 800 (formerly known as Rosebowl), The Metropolitan and Main Street developments. This area is intended as a regional commercial district with retail/commercial/ office as the primary uses. Office above ground level retail is allowed as a secondary use, with residential/residential mixed-use as a supporting use per the Housing Element. VISION The Heart of the City area will continue being a focus of commerce, community identity, social gathering and pride for Cupertino. The area is envisioned as a tree-lined boulevard that forms a major route for automobiles, but also supports walking, biking and transit. Each of its five subareas will contribute their distinctive and unique character, and will provide pedestrian and bicycle links to adjacent neighborhoods through side street access, bikeways and pathways. While portions of the area is designated as a Priority Development Area (PDA), which allows some higher intensity near gateways and nodes, development will continue to support the small town ambiance of the community. The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor will continue to function as Cupertino’s main mixed- use, commercial and retail corridor. Residential uses, as allowed per the Housing Element, should be developed in the “mixed-use village” format described later in the Land Use and Community Design Element. 191 PA-8 VISION The Vallco Town Center Shopping District will continue to function as a major regional and community destination. The City envisions this area as a new mixed-use “town center” and gateway for Cupertino. It will include an interconnected street grid network of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets, more pedestrian-oriented buildings with active uses lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, and publicly-accessible parks and plazas that support the pedestrian- oriented feel of the revitalized area. New development in the Vallco Town Center Shopping District should be required to provide buffers between adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the form of boundary walls, setbacks, landscaping or building transitions. CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT CONTEXT The Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area encompasses Cupertino’s most significant commercial center, formerly known as the Vallco Fashion Park. This Special Area is located between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of the city. The North Blaney neighborhood, an established single-family area, is adjacent on the west side of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District. Wolfe Road bisects the area in a north-south direction, and divides Vallco Shopping District into distinct subareas: Vallco Shopping District Gateway West and Vallco Shopping District Gateway East. In recent years there has been some façade improvement to the Vallco Fashion Mall; however, there has been no major reinvestment in the mall for decades. Reinvestment is needed to upgrade or replace older buildings and make other improvements to that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community. Currently, the major tenants of the mall include a movie theater, and a bowling alley and three national retailers. The Vallco Town Center Shopping District is identified as a separate Special Area given its prominence as a regional commercial destination and its importance to future planning/redevelopment efforts expected over Vallco. Quasi-Public / Commercial Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Residential Land Use Designations Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Public Facilities City Boundary Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Parks and Open Space Land Use Map Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Transportation High Density (>35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Boulevards Avenues Neighborhood Connectors Neighborhood Center Commercial Center Employment Center Education/Cultural Center Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential �nd�strial/Residential �nd�strial/Commercial/Residential Public Facilities Quasi-Public Commercial/Office/Residential Parks and Open Space ��asi����lic/�nstit�tional Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Office/Residential 81 26 23 101 101 182 323 26 280 WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA DIAGRAM Quasi-Public / Commercial Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Residential Land Use Designations Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Public Facilities City Boundary Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Parks and Open Space Land Use Map Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Transportation High Density (>35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Boulevards Avenues Neighborhood Connectors Neighborhood Center Commercial Center Employment Center Education/Cultural Center Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential �nd�strial/Residential �nd�strial/Commercial/Residential Public Facilities Quasi-Public Commercial/Office/Residential Parks and Open Space ��asi����lic/�nstit�tional Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 LEGEND Commercial/Office/Residential 81 26 23 101 101 182 323 26 280 WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD 192 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) PA-32 NORTH BLANEY CONTEXT The North Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern portion of Cupertino, north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and east of De Anza Boulevard. This area, predominantly defined by single-family residential homes, is on the valley floor with minimal grade changes. Bounded generally by De Anza Boulevard, Highway 280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Perimeter Road, this area is served by amenities including Portal Park, which includes a number of recreational amenities such as a tot lot and a recreation building. The Junipero Serra drainage channel runs along the northern edge of the neighborhood along Interstate 280. North Blaney is a major north-south corridor through the area. The Portal Plaza Shopping Center, located in the Heart of the City Special Area, variety of neighborhood serving uses. Proximityincludes grocery facilities and a to the Vallco Shopping Mall Special Area in the Heart of the City Special Area provides opportunities for shopping for this neighborhood within close walking distance. Housing types located in this neighborhood include duplexes, townhomes and apartments closer to the freeway. The North Blaney Neighborhood includes Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School. VISION The North Blaney neighborhood will continue to be mainly a residential area. It is anticipated that there may be limited residential growth in this area on sites that may be subdivided or redeveloped. No other land use changes are anticipated in this area. Bicycle and pedestrian enhancements to North Blaney Avenue will improve the north-south connection through the city. There is also a potential to improve the east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection along the Junipero Serra channel along Interstate 280. NORTH BLANEY NEIGHBORHOOD DIAGRAM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM LEGEND 51 101 182 CollinsElementary Portal Park Lawson Middle School DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280 Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM LEGEND 51 101 182 Collins Elementary Portal Park Lawson Middle School DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280 193 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) LU-1.2.3: Unused Development Allocation. Unused development allocations may be re-assigned to the citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when development agreements and development permits expire. LU-1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate residential units in neighborhoods through the building permit process unless subdivision or development applications are required. POLICY LU-1.3: LAND USE IN ALL CITYWIDE MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed-use districts and economic goals. STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1: Commercial and Residential Uses. Review the placement of commercial and residential uses based on the following criteria: 1.All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception. 2.All mixed-use residential projects should be designed on the “mixed- use village” concept discussed earlier in this Element. 3.On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area. 4.Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on non-Housing Element mixed- use sites, unless otherwise allowed in a Specific Plan. LU-1.3.2: Public and Quasi-Public Uses. Review the placement of public and quasi-public activities in limited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when the following criteria are met: 1.The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals for the Planning Area, has similar patterns of traffic, population or circulation of uses with the area and does not disrupt the operations of existing uses. 2.The building form is similar to buildings in the area (commercial or office forms). In commercial areas, the building should maintain a commercial interface by providing retail activity, storefront appearance or other design considerations in keeping with the goals of the Planning Area. LU-12 194 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) POLICY LU-1.4: PARCEL ASSEMBLY Encourage parcel assembly and discourage parcelization to ensure that infill development meets City standards and provides adequate buffers to neighborhoods. POLICY LU-1.5: COMMUNITY HEALTH THROUGH LAND USE Promote community health through land use and design. POLICY LU-1.6: JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040 commercial (s.f.)office (s.f.)hotel (rooms)residential (units) current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available Heart of the City 1,351,730 214,5000 793,270 2,447,500 2,464,613 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469 Shopping District** 1,207,774 120,7774 --2,000,000 2,000,000 148 339 191 -389 389 Homestead 291,408 291,408 -69,550 69,550 -126 126 -600 750 150 N. De Anza 56,708 56,708 -2,081,021 2,081,021 -126 126 -49 146 97 N. Vallco 133,147 133,147 -3,069,676 3,069,676 -123 123 -554 1154 600 S. De Anza 352,283 352,283 -130,708 130,708 -315 315 -6 6 - Bubb ---444,753 444,753 ------- Monta Vista Village 94,051 99,698 5,647 443,140 456,735 13,595 ---828 878 50 Other 144,964 144964,-119,896 119,896 ----18,039 18,166 127 Major Employers ---109,935 633,053 523,118 ------ 3,632,065 4,430,982 798,917 8,916,179 11,470,005 2,553826,1116 1429 313 21,412 23,294 1,882 LU-13 600,000 750,000 750,000 2,034 2,034 24,939 3,52710,220,005 1,303,826 Tier 1 1,207,774 Tier 2 1,207,774 485,000 1,500,000**1,500,000**2,923 2,923 With Vallco Town Ctr Tier 1 3,823,208 CitywideWith Vallco Town Ctr Tier 2 3,708,208 10,970,005 2,053,826 25,828 4,416 ** Buildout totals for Office and Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan is not adopted by that date, City will consider the removal of the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco Shopping District. See the Housing Element (Chapter 4) for additional information and requirements within the Vallco Shopping District. * The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan authorizes a community benefits density bonus as an alternative to the State Density Bonus if proposed development meets specified criteria. The applicable Development Allocations, if the City approves a community benefits density bonus, are identified as Tier 2 in Table LU-1. ** For a Tier 2 project in the Vallco Town Center Special Area, an additional 250,000 square feet of allocation is allowed for office amenity space, as defined in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, for a total allocation of 1,750,000 square feet. Vallco Town Center *148 148 339 339 191 191 1,116 1,116 1,429 1,429 313 313 3,632,065 3,632,065 123 123 315 315 -- 195 n tiotioooonononononon ioiooottiti sitsitititsitsit Hi l lsi d e T id e T de T r a n s id e T r a n s sisiiti sit i iiononnoio iti o 280 280 280 85 85 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD Homestead Special Area Maximum Residential Density As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map; 15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites Maximum Height 30 feet Homestead Special Area North Vallco Park Special Area Maximum Residential Density Up to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map 15 units per acre (southeast corner of Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue) Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 (north of Bollinger) or 5-15 (south of 85) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet Maximum Residential Density 20 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 30 feet where designated by hatched line Maximum Residential Density Up to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map Maximum Height Up to 30 feet Heart of the City Special Area North De Anza Special Area South De Anza Special Area Monta Vista Village Special Area Vallco5PXO$FOUFSShopping District Special Area Neighborhoods North De Anza Gateway Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Stelling Gateway West of Stelling Road: Maximum Residential Density 15 units per acre (southwest corner of Homestead and Stelling Roads) 35 units per acre (northwest corner of I-280 and Stelling Road) Maximum Height 30 feet East of Stelling Road: Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Oaks Gateway Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet North Crossroads Node Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet South Vallco Park Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with retail North Vallco Gateway West of Wolfe Road: Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet East of Wolfe Road: Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet) City Center Node Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet or as existing, for existing buildings Building Planes: • Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads AreaDQGWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD. • For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan. •)RUWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHDVHHWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLILF3ODQ • For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review. • For the North and South Vallco Park areas (except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area): Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot RIEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVORSHOLQHGUDZQIURPWKH6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYGDQG+RPHVWHDG5RDGFXUEOLQHVDQGEHORZVORSHOLQHGUDZQIURP:ROIH5RDGDQG7DQWDX$YHQXHFXUEOLQH Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they areenclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sitesidentified in the adopted Housing Element shall be as reflected in the Housing Element. Legend City Boundary Special Areas Homestead North Vallco Park North De Anza South De Anza Bubb Road Vallco 5PXO$FOUFS Shopping District Monta Vista Village Avenues (Major Collectors) Boulevards (Arterials) Key Intersections Neighborhood Centers Heart of the City Hillside Transition Urban Service Area 4QIFSFPG*OˍVFODF Urban Transition Avenues (Minor Collectors) Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Figure LU-2 COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM Maximum Height 60 feet Maximum Height 45 feet %XEE5RDGSpecial Area Maximum Height 45 feet West of Wolfe Rd Maximum Residential Density 5JFS35 units per acre 5JFSVOJUTQFSBDSFJO BSFBTXIFSFUIF7BMMDP5PXO $FOUFS4QFDJGJD1MBO BVUIPSJ[FTBDPNNVOJUZ CFOFGJUTEFOTJUZCPOVTBTBO BMUFSOBUJWFUPUIF4UBUF %FOTJUZ#POVT Maximum Height 1FS4QFDJˌD1MBO East of Wolfe Rd Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 3HU6SHFLILF3ODQ 196 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) POLICY LU-19.1: SPECIFIC PLAN Implement the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and apply the adopted vision, policies or development standards in the review of any development on the site including the street layout, land uses, design standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements required. The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan will be is based on the following strategies: STRATEGIES: LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment will require a master developer in order to remove the obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design. LU-19.1.2: Parcel Assembly. Parcel assembly and a master site development plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to issuance of other implementing permits adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. Accommodate parcelization needs of certain development types, such as senior housing or affordable housing, or if demonstrated to be necessary for financing reasons. LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The “town center” Any site development plans should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision in the specific plan. LU-19.1.4: Land Use. The following uses are allowed on the site (see Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria): Uses allowed on the site shall be as shown in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and generally include residential, office, commercial (including retail, restaurant, entertainment, and cultural uses), and hotel uses. GOAL LU-19 Create a distinct and memorable mixed-use "town center" that is a regional destination and a focal point for the community VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Town Center Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. LU-50 197 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) 1.Retail Commercial: Include Hhigh- performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses. 2.Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses such as including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants, at key locations, on the ground floor . 3.Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail and active uses on the ground floor per the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active “town center” environment. 4.Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged in a pedestrian-oriented street grid with active uses, such as lobbies, cafes, break rooms, active office amenities, on the ground floor in key locations publicly-accessible street and that front plazas/green space. LU-9.1.5: “Town Center Layout" Create streets and blocks laid out using “transect planning” (appropriate street and building types for each area), which includes a discernible center and edges, public space at center, high quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street and building typology. LU-19.1.6: Connectivity. Provide a newly configured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards and alleys that is pedestrian-oriented, connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities, provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also contribute towards a study and improvements to a potential Interstate 280 trail along the drainage channel south of the freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from the project sites to the trail. LU-19.1.7: Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate the connections to Rosebowl Nineteen800, and Main Street and in the vicinity. LU-51 Table LU-1 identifies the development potential on the site in two levels: Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 identifies the maximum development potential for the site under the base density as defined in Figure LU-2 and the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Tier 2 identifies the maximum development potential for the site for projects that have applied for and received a community benefits density bonus, as an alternative to the state Density Bonus law, which is further defined in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and which requires certain community benefits to be incorporated into the project. 198 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SPECIAL AREA MONTA VISTA VILLAGE Regnart Canyon Stevens Creek Reservoir Cemetary Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon Residential Development Inspiration Heights Urban Service Area Rancho San Antonio County Park Urban S er vi c e Ar e a PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS Private Recreation Private OS Hanson Quarry Former Quarry # # §¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280 StevensCreekHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85 # # VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT Note: Land use densities for lands located outside the urban service area shall be consistent with residential densities established by the County of Santa Clara General Plan SARATOGA SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LOS ALTOS HILLS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Stevens Creek Blvd NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREA BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA HOMESTEAD ROAD SPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveProspect Rd McClellan Rd Homestead Rd Boll i n g e r R d Rainbow Dr Pruneridge Ave S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way Fargo Dr Sh elly Dr Dunbar Dr Larry Way Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave Corv ette Dr Shadygrove Dr Rollingdell Dr Northwood Dr B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln Pacifica Dr To m p k i n s D rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln Cliff o r d D r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln Chia l a L n La Mar Dr Fallenleaf Ln Pendleton Ave Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn D r Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr PeacockCt Arro wheadLn Bollinger Rd Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent u r a DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa k V all ey Rd Stern AveVall c o P k w y Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln Lorne Way Greenleaf Dr Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr Barnhart Ave Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr Alves Dr Ti l s o n A v e LoreeAv e Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy c amo r e D r B e a u c h a m p s L n Ca la ba z a s C ir Leo na rd AveDumas Dr Via Huerta Brookv a l e D rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr Cristo Re y D r WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay Linnet LnRollin g Hills RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir K e ntw o odAve Gle n v i e w A v e W Riv e r s i d e W a y Chelmsford DrWright AveSte r l ing B lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt ev en s Cr e ek F wy Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve Via Esplen dor Rodrigues Ave Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon RdProuty Way! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SPECIAL AREA MONTA VISTA VILLAGE Regnart Canyon Stevens Creek Reservoir Cemetary Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon Residential Development Inspiration Heights Urban Service Area Rancho San Antonio County Park Urban S er vi c e Ar e a PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS Private Recreation Private OS Hanson Quarry Former Quarry # # §¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280 StevensCreekHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85 # # Note: Land use densities for lands located outside the urban service area shall be consistent with residential densities established by the County of Santa Clara General Plan SARATOGA SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LOS ALTOS HILLS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Stevens Creek Blvd NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREA BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA HOMESTEAD ROAD SPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveVallco Town Center Prospect Rd McClellan Rd Homestead Rd Boll i n g e r R d Rainbow Dr Pruneridge Ave S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way Fargo Dr Sh elly Dr Dunbar Dr Larry Way Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave Corv ette Dr Shadygrove Dr Rollingdell Dr Northwood Dr B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln Pacifica Dr To m p k i n s D rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln Cliff o r d D r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln Chia l a L n La Mar Dr Fallenleaf Ln Pendleton Ave Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn D r Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr PeacockCt Arro wheadLn Bollinger Rd Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent u r a DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa k V all ey Rd Stern AveVall c o P k w y Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln Lorne Way Greenleaf Dr Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr Barnhart Ave Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr Alves Dr Ti l s o n A v e LoreeAv e Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy c amo r e D r B e a u c h a m p s L n Ca la ba z a s C ir Leo na rd AveDumas Dr Via Huerta Brookv a l e D rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr Cristo Re y D r WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay Linnet LnRollin g Hills RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir K e ntw o odAve Gle n v i e w A v e W Riv e r s i d e W a y Chelmsford DrWright AveSte r l ing B lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt ev en s Cr e ek F wy Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve Via Esplen dor Rodrigues Ave Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon RdProuty WayPrepared by the Community Development and GIS Departments Adopted: November 15 'UDIW'DWH$XJXVW 00.5 Miles LEGEND CITY OF CUPERTINO LAND USE MAP'UDIW Urban Service Area Special Center Boundaries Sphere of Influence Heart of the City!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vallco Town Center City Boundary (HE Housing Element Sites Creeks Low Density (1-6 DU/Ac.) Rancho Rinconada Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Low Density (1-5 DU/Ac.) Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Residential Land Use Designations High Density (> 35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Ac.) Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Ac.) Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (10-15 DU/Ac.) Sites designated are Priority Housing Sites as identified in the adopted Housing Element Commercial areas in neighborhoods have a residential density of 15 DU/AC. Notwithstanding the densities shown above, sites are designated as Priority Housing Sites in the adopted Housing Element shall have the densities shown in the Housing ElementXQOHVVDOORZHGDGLIIHUHQWGHQVLW\ZLWKD6WDWH'HQVLW\%RQXVRUWKH&RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV'HQVLW\%RQXVLQWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD Commercial properties in the Homestead Special Area except those on the South side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling have a density of 15 DU/Ac. (HE Commercial / O ffice / Residential Commercial / Residential Industrial / Residential Office / Industrial / Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Industrial / Residential / Commercial Quasi-Public / Institutional Overlay Parks and O pen Space Public Facilities Quasi-Public / Institutional Transportation Riparian Corridor County EXHIBIT GPA-2 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 To: Honorable Mayor Scharf and Members of the City Council From: Heather Minner, City Attorney Date: February 13, 2019 Re: Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project Referendum Petitions SUMMARY This memorandum addresses alleged legal deficiencies in two of the four referendum petitions submitted to the City protesting the City Council’s approvals for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project (“Project”). At the December 18, 2018, City Council meeting, the City Clerk certified that all four referendum petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot or repeal by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code Section 9241. As detailed below, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, the City Clerk has since concluded that one of the challenged referendum petitions (which protests the ordinance rezoning the Vallco property) is procedurally defective and must be rejected because it does not comply with the Elections Code’s requirement to include the full text of the challenged ordinance. The City Clerk accordingly informed the referendum proponents on February 13, 2019, that she has rejected that referendum petition. The City Clerk believes that the other challenged referendum petition (which protests the General Plan Amendment for the Project) “substantially complies” with the “full text” requirement and all other Elections Code requirements. However, under the applicable case law, it is not clear whether the City Clerk (as opposed to a court) has discretion to make such a substantial compliance determination on her own. Accordingly, the City Attorney has recommended that the City Clerk file an action for declaratory relief in Santa Clara County Superior Court to establish whether this referendum petition substantially complies with the full text requirement. At the February 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the City Attorney and the City Clerk will request that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to file such litigation on behalf of the City Clerk. 406 Page 2 of 9 Once the Court determines whether the referendum challenging the General Plan Amendment substantially complies with the Elections Code, staff will bring the two unchallenged referendum petitions (which protest approval of the development agreement and specific plan for the Project) back to the Council for a determination whether to place them on the ballot or repeal them pursuant to Elections Code section 9241. If the Court determines that the General Plan Amendment referendum substantially complies with the Elections Code, then the City Council would have these same two options with respect to the referendum on the General Plan amendment. The purpose of this memorandum is primarily to inform the City Council and the public of the City Attorney’s recommendations to the City Clerk regarding the two challenged referendum petitions. The only City Council action this memorandum recommends is to authorize the filing of litigation to determine the validity of the referendum petition against the General Plan Amendment. BACKGROUND In September and October 2018, the City Council adopted three resolutions and enacted three ordinances in connection with its approval of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project. Opponents of the Project filed a total of four referendum petitions challenging two of the resolutions (No. 18-085, amending the City’s General Plan, and No. 18-086, adopting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan) and two of the ordinances (No. 18-2178, adopting zoning designations and amending the City’s Zoning Map, and No. 18-2179, adopting a development agreement). The City Clerk accepted the petitions for signature verification. On December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s certification that each referendum petition contained sufficient valid signatures. In the meantime, the City received two letters from attorneys representing Vallco Property Owner, LLC, the developer and applicant for the Project. The first letter, dated December 6, 2018, claimed that the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 (the General Plan Amendment) failed to include the full “text” of that Resolution as required by the Elections Code. The second letter, dated December 18, 2018, claimed that the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178 (the Zoning Amendment) similarly failed to include the full “text” of the Ordinance. The two letters are attached to this report as Attachments A and B. 407 Page 3 of 9 DISCUSSION The City Attorney’s office and outside counsel have carefully reviewed the arguments contained in both letters and discussed these issues with the attorneys for both Vallco and the referendum proponents. On the basis of that review, the City Attorney’s office has recommended that the City Clerk proceed as follows: (1) seek a ruling from the Santa Clara County Superior Court regarding whether the Referendum Against Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment) substantially complies with the Elections Code; (2) reject the Referendum Against Ordinance No. 18-2178 (Zoning Designations and Zoning Map) for failure to actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code; and (3) after the Court determines whether the referendum on the General Plan Amendment substantially complies with the Elections Code, return to the City Council with options on the remaining referendum petitions. These recommendations are discussed in detail below. 1. Seek a ruling from the Santa Clara County Superior Court regarding whether the Referendum Against Resolution No. 18-085 (General Plan Amendment) substantially complies with the Elections Code. Resolution No. 18-085 amended the City’s General Plan to accommodate the development anticipated in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Those amendments included changes to General Plan Table LU-1, which establishes specific allocations for commercial, office, hotel, and residential development throughout the City, including in the Vallco Town Center area. As shown in an exhibit to Resolution No. 18-085 adopted by the City Council, Table LU-1 depicts the new development allocations in underlined red text, and the previous development allocations in blue text with red “strikethrough” lines indicating those allocations have been eliminated. A copy of Resolution No. 18-085 and exhibits, as presented to and voted upon by the City Council on September 18 and 19, 2018, is attached to this memorandum as Attachment C. Vallco’s December 6 letter claimed that the referendum petition challenging Resolution No. 18-085 failed to include the full text of the resolution. Specifically, Vallco claimed the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition omitted the “strikethrough” lines identifying the prior development allocations eliminated by the General Plan Amendment. Vallco argued that this discrepancy deprived potential petition signers of critical information about the effect of the General Plan Amendment and the referendum. 408 Page 4 of 9 The City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s office, determined that the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition omitted some of the “strikethrough” lines shown in the version adopted by the City Council. Staff further determined, however, that the “strikethrough” lines also were missing from the certified, printed version of Resolution No. 18-085 that the City Clerk maintained in her files and provided to the referendum proponents. A copy of Table LU-1, as it appears in the certified version of the Resolution provided to referendum proponents, is attached to this report as Attachment D. This certified version—although incorrect—was the version provided to the referendum proponents prior to the circulation of petitions. In response to the Vallco letter, and with the assistance of the City’s IT department and vendors, staff subsequently determined that the “strikethrough” lines were inadvertently eliminated during printing of the certified resolution due to a software setting affecting the printing of PDF documents.1 The City Clerk and City Attorney further determined that the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition also differed from the certified version provided to referendum proponents. For example, the words “With Vallco Town Center Tier 1” and “With Vallco Town Center Tier 2” were replaced with “With VTC Tier 1” and “With VTC Tier 2.” Moreover, some—but not all—of the “strikethrough” lines inadvertently omitted from the certified version of the resolution appear to have been restored in the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition. A copy of Table LU-1, as it appears in the referendum petition, is attached to this report as Attachment E. A referendum petition must include the “text” of the challenged resolution or ordinance. See Elec. Code § 9238(b)(2). Court decisions have made clear that the relevant “text” includes not only the text of the resolution or ordinance itself, but also any other documents attached to, or expressly incorporated by reference into, the resolution or ordinance. See Lin v. City of Pleasanton (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 408, 419-20. The purposes of the “text” requirement include reducing confusion, informing prospective petition signers regarding the effect of the challenged resolution or ordinance, and providing voters with the 1 The version of Resolution No. 18-085 available on the City’s website continues to contain the same software “glitch” that either shows—or does not show—the strikethrough depending on how the document is printed. Pending completion of our investigation into this matter, we recommended that the City staff make no changes to this document. Pending further clarification from the Court, we likewise recommend that City staff make no changes to this document as it appears on the City’s website. 409 Page 5 of 9 information they need to exercise their right of referendum intelligently. Billig v. Voges (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 962, 966. The California Supreme Court has held that “substantial” compliance with Elections Code requirements—as opposed to strict “technical” or “actual” compliance—is sufficient to allow a referendum to proceed to the ballot, so long as technical deficiencies do not deprive potential signers of critical information, mislead the public, or otherwise affect the integrity of the electoral process “as a realistic and practical matter.” Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1012- 13. This is particularly the case where the deficiency was inadvertent rather than intentional. See id. at 1029; see also MHC Financing Ltd. Partnership Two v. City of Santee (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1389-91 (ballot title and summary inadvertently prepared for wrong version of initiative sufficiently reflected initiative’s substance and did not invalidate city’s adoption of initiative ordinance). Other courts have suggested that referendum proponents may rely on the ordinances, resolutions, and exhibits provided by a city in preparing their petitions, and need not conduct their own investigations into what exactly the city might have intended to adopt. See Lin, 176 Cal.App.4th at 419. Here, the City Attorney believes—and the City Clerk agrees—that the version of Table LU-1 attached to the referendum petition substantially complies with the Elections Code’s “text” requirement notwithstanding the omission of some of the “strikethrough” lines shown in the exhibit to Resolution No. 18-085 adopted by the City Council. The “strikethrough” was omitted due to an entirely inadvertent technical error by City staff. City staff then provided referendum proponents with a copy of Resolution No. 18-085 that contained this inadvertent error. Under the applicable case law, it is our view that referendum proponents are entitled to rely upon the documents provided to them by City officials in preparing referendum petitions. Moreover, even without the “strikethrough,” it is reasonably clear from the context in which Table LU-1 appears in the referendum petition that the underlined, red text is new text added by the challenged resolution, and that the figures shown in blue in the table were replaced by the new text. Finally, the other changes in the referendum petition table made by the referendum proponents, although apparently intentional, do not materially affect the meaning of the table, and if anything appear to have been intended to improve the readability of the table compared to the version provided by the City. 410 Page 6 of 9 These conclusions are not free from doubt. One Court of Appeal decision invalidated a referendum petition that omitted three words from the title of the challenged ordinance, finding the omission created ambiguity as to the ordinance’s effect. Hebard v. Bybee (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340-41. That case, however, did not involve a referendum proponent’s reliance on a city’s inadvertent error in attachments to the challenged ordinance. The case also was decided prior to Costa and must be read in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent determination that an “inadvertent good-faith human error” will not invalidate a petition unless, “as a realistic and practical matter,” the error undermines the integrity of the electoral process or frustrates the underlying purpose of the statutory requirements. Costa, 37 Cal.4th at 1027-28. On balance—and considering that courts generally will uphold the exercise of the referendum power wherever reasonably possible—the City Attorney agrees with the City Clerk that the referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 substantially complies with the Elections Code. That said, it is unclear under the applicable court precedents whether the City Clerk has the authority to determine on her own that the petition is substantially compliant. A city clerk’s evaluation of a referendum petition is generally limited to comparing the petition itself with relevant statutory requirements, a ministerial exercise that does not allow for substantial discretion or subjective judgment. See Lin, 176 Cal.App.4th at 420-21; Alliance for a Better Downtown Millbrae v. Wade (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 123, 133-34. Accordingly, our office has advised the City Clerk that the most appropriate course of action under these circumstances is for the City Clerk to file an action for declaratory relief—essentially, a request that the Superior Court determine whether the referendum petition substantially complies with the Elections Code. Such an action is particularly appropriate here, where there is some legal uncertainty, and where any decision by the City Clerk—either to accept or reject the petition—would almost certainly result in litigation by either Vallco or the referendum proponents. Accordingly, the City Attorney recommends that the Council authorize the initiation of litigation on behalf of the City Clerk. 2. Reject the Referendum Against Ordinance No. 18-2178 (Zoning Designations and Zoning Map) for failure to actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code. Ordinance No. 18-2178 amended the zoning designations applicable to parcels within the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and made corresponding changes to the City’s official Zoning Map. A copy of Ordinance No. 18-2178, as adopted by 411 Page 7 of 9 the City Council and provided to the referendum proponents by the City Clerk, is attached to this report as Attachment F. Vallco’s December 18 letter claimed that the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178 “fail[ed] to include the full-text” of the ordinance and contained “wildly inaccurate exhibits.” Specifically, Vallco asserted that the version of the Zoning Map attached to the petition was “substantially and meaningfully different” from the Zoning Map attached to Ordinance No. 18- 2178. A copy of the Zoning Map attached to the referendum petition is attached as Attachment G. The City Clerk, in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, determined that the version of the Zoning Map attached to the referendum petition differs in numerous respects from the Zoning Map attached to Ordinance No. 18-2178. The deviations from the Zoning Map adopted by the City Council are substantial and material enough to create confusion and undermine potential signers’ understanding of the effect of the ordinance. See Hebard, 65 Cal.App.4th at 1340- 41 (incorrect ordinance title in petition created ambiguity and multiple interpretations of how ordinance might affect particular parcels); Chase v. Brooks (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 657, 664 (petition omitting exhibit describing property affected by ordinance failed to inform prospective signers of effect or breadth of ordinance). Moreover, the deviations in the version of the Zoning Map attached to the referendum petition are entirely due to actions taken by the referendum proponents. Unlike with the General Plan Amendment, there were no inadvertent good faith errors by City staff in providing the proponents a version of the document that differed from what was actually adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, and on the advice of the City Attorney, the City Clerk has determined that the referendum challenging Ordinance No. 18-2178 does not actually or substantially comply with the Elections Code. Under the applicable case law, the City Clerk thus has a legal duty to reject the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178 as procedurally defective. A copy of the City Clerk’s February 13, 2019, Receipt Rejecting [this] Referendum Petition is attached as Attachment H. Pursuant to the Elections Code, there is no further action for the City Clerk, or the City Council, to take in connection with this referendum petition. 412 Page 8 of 9 3. Return to the City Council with options on the remaining referendum petitions after the Court determines whether the referendum on the General Plan Amendment substantially complies with the Elections Code. As noted above, the City Clerk on December 18, 2018, certified that all four referendum petitions had sufficient valid signature to qualify for placement on the ballot or repeal by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code section 9241. Neither Vallco nor anyone else has identified any defects in the remaining two referendum petitions, which protest the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 18-086 (approving the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan) and Ordinance No. 18-2179 (approving the Vallco development agreement). Accordingly, the City Council must ultimately determine what actions to take with respect to these two referendum petitions (i.e., whether to (1) repeal one or both of the challenged enactments entirely; (2) place one or both of them on the ballot for the “next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of the election”; or (3) place one or both of them on the ballot for a special election occurring not less than 88 days after the order). The Elections Code does not specify any particular deadline for the City Council to take one of these specified actions, and the “next regular” municipal election on which the referendums could potentially appears is not until November 3, 2020. Although there is no published case law directly on point, it is possible that a court might conclude that the City Council must take one of the authorized actions within a reasonable period of time. Under the circumstances, and because the City Council’s decision with respect to these two referendums may depend upon the outcome of the declaratory relief action that we recommend the City Clerk file regarding the General Plan Amendment, we recommend that the City Council not make any decision on whether to repeal or place these two referendums on the ballot until after the Court has issued a decision in that case. Accordingly, we have recommended that City staff return to the City Council for possible action on the two unchallenged referendum petitions once the court has issued a decision regarding whether the General Plan Amendment referendum petition substantially complies with the Elections Code. If the court determines that the General Plan Amendment referendum petition does substantially comply with the Elections Code, the City Council would consider possible action on that referendum petition as well at the same time. 413 Page 9 of 9 Attachments: A – Dec. 6, 2018, letter from Sean Welch regarding alleged defects in referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 B – Dec. 18, 2018, letter from Sean Welch regarding alleged defects in referendum petition against Ordinance No. 18-2178 C – Resolution No. 18-085 and all exhibits, as presented to and voted upon by the City Council on September 18 and 19, 2018 D – Table LU-1, as it appears in the certified version of Resolution No. 18-085 provided to referendum proponents E – Modified Table LU-1, as it appears in the referendum petition F – Ordinance No. 18-2178 (including the Zoning Map and other all exhibits), as adopted by the City Council and as provided to referendum proponents G – Modified Zoning Map, as it appears in the referendum petition H – City Clerk’s February 13, 2019, Receipt Rejecting Referendum Petition 1081250.4 414 SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERSESTIMATED COSTS OF ONE 6-PAGE MEASURE2019 & 2020 ELECTIONSFOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINODATARegistration as of 01/23/1929,850 Projected Registration (115% of current registration)34,328 Estimated Number of English CVIG to be ordered (120% of projected registration)42,000 Estimated Number of Measure Pages*6Estimated No. of Measures1Unit CostTotalUnit CostTotalUnit CostTotalUnit CostTotalFixed Cost of Candidate Statement 5,311$ 3,451$ 2,375$ 1,934$ Est No of Pages 1 1 2 2 Total Fixed Costs 5,311$ 3,451$ 4,750$ 3,868$ 17,380$ Printing Cost of candidate Statement and Information PagesEst. number of English CVIG ordered 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 Ordering factor for all languages 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Estimated total number of CVIG in all languages 58,800 58,800 58,800 58,800 Estimated number of measure in the ballot 1 1 2 2 Total estimated number of pages 58,800 58,800 117,600 117,600 Printing cost per page/language 0.0201$ 0.0201$ 0.0201$ 0.0201$ Total printing costs for all languages 1,182$ 1,182$ 2,364$ 2,364$ 7,091$ Estimated Costs of One 6-page Measure in CVIG6,493$ 6,493$ 4,633$ 4,633$ 3,557$ 7,114$ 3,116$ 6,232$ 24,471$ Estimated Number of Measures in CVIG 1 1 1 1 1 Total Estimated Costs for 1 6-page Measure in CVIG6,493$ 4,633$ 7,114$ 6,232$ 24,471$ NOTE:Estimated costs of additional measure with the 6 basic pages (see details below)24,471$ EST COST PER PAGEText of Measure800-word page (whole page)Unlimited number of pages6,493$ Increase text measure, add $6,493 per pageImpartial Analysis500-word page1 page4,633$ Cannot adjust. Allowed only 1 impartial analysis per measure.Arguments (for & against)300-word page1 page per argument for & 1 against3,557$ To decrease argument pages, deduct $3,557 per pageRebuttals (to arguments fo250-word page1 page per rebuttal for & 1 against3,116$ To decrease rebuttal pages, deduct $3,116 per page(ONE 800-WORD PAGE)(ONE 500-WORD PAGE)(TWO 300-WORD PAGES)TEXT OF MEASUREIMPARTIAL ANALYSISARGUMENTS (FOR & AGAINST)REBUTTALS (FOR & AGAINST)TOTAL EST. COSTS OF MEASUREDESCRIPTION OF MEASURE PAGES IN COUNTY VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE (CVIG)MAXIMUM NO. OF PAGES IN CVIGTO ADJUST NUMBER OF PAGES IN A MEASURE, PLEASE SEE BELOW(TWO 250-WORD PAGES)1114331_1.xls - Est Costs of Meas.5/1/2019 2:45 PM415 416 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 18-085 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIAL AREA WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-085 approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 and GPA-2 to Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2018, proponents filed a referendum petition with the Cupertino City Clerk’s Office against Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 the Clerk’s Office performed a prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18 -085 pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9239 and 9210, as well as checking the petition form pursuant to Elections Code Section 9238; and WHEREAS, the prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 equaled or exceeded the minimum number of signatures required; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Clerk’s Office accepted the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 for filing and subsequently transferred the petition to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification; and WHEREAS, the Registrar’s Office validated the signatures on the petition against Resolution No. 18-085, using 100% signature verification, and determined that the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 had sufficient signatures; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s Certification of Sufficiency for the petition against Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk and City Council received letters dated December 6 and December 18, 2018, respectively, questioning whether the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 complied with technical requirements of Elections Code section 9238; and 417 WHEREAS, in response to these letters, on February 19, 2019, the City Council authorized the City Attorney, on behalf of the City Clerk, to initiate an appropriate action to determine whether the petition against Resolution No. 18 -085 substantially complies with Elections Code requirements; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County entered an order finding that the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 substantially complies with Elections Code section 9238 and directing the City Clerk to process the petition and submit it to the City Council for appropriate action pursuant to Elections Code section 9241; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s options for appropriate action pursuant to Elections Code section 9241 include: (1) repealing Resolution No. 18-085; or (2) submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order, or at a special election called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to choose the option to repeal Resolution No. 18-085, which approved a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 and GPA-2 to Resolution No. 18-085. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby repeal Resolution No. 18-085 approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 and GPA-2 to Resolution No. 18-085. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote. Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: 418 _________________________ ___________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 419 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020, FOR THE SUBMITTAL TO THE VOTERS OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-085 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIAL AREA; AND REQUESTING THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION AND TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-085 approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, as shown in Exhibits GPA-1 and GPA-2 to Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2018, proponents filed a referendum petition with the Cupertino City Clerk’s Office against Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 the Clerk’s Office performed a prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9239 and 9210, as well as checking the petition form pursuant to Elections Code Section 9238; and WHEREAS, the prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 equaled or exceeded the minimum number of signatures required; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Clerk’s Office accepted the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 for filing and subsequently transferred the petition to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification; and WHEREAS, the Registrar’s Office validated the signatures on the petition against Resolution No. 18-085, using 100% signature verification, and determined that the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 had sufficient signatures; and 420 WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s Certification of Sufficiency for the petition against Resolution No. 18-085; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk and City Council received letters dated December 6 and December 18, 2018, respectively, questioning whether the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 complied with technical requirements of Elections Code section 9238; and WHEREAS, in response to these letters, on February 19, 2019, the City Council authorized the City Attorney, on behalf of the City Clerk, to initiate an appropriate action to determine whether the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 substantially complies with Elections Code requirements; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County entered an order finding that the petition against Resolution No. 18-085 substantially complies with Elections Code section 9238 and directing the City Clerk to process the petition and submit it to the City Council for appropriate action pursuant to Elections Code section 9241; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s options for appropriate action pursuant to Elections Code section 9241 include: (1) repealing Resolution No. 18-085; or (2) submitting Resolution No. 18-085 to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order, or at a special election called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to choose the option to submit Resolution No. 18-085 to the voters at the next regular municipal election on November 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, November 3, 2020, is the date set by law for the election of Council members; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk is enjoined by law to take all steps necessary for the holding of said election; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of 421 Santa Clara canvass the return of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following question to the voters: Shall Resolution No. 18-085, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area, be adopted? YES NO 2. The text of Resolution No. 18-085 approving a General Plan Amendment to development allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Vallco Town Center Special Area is attached as Exhibit A and includes Exhibits GPA-1 and GPA-2. The text of the measure shall not be printed in the ballot materials, but copies of the measure shall be available from the City Clerk. 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast. 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to contract for the procurement and furnishing of any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. 422 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code § 10242, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. 7. Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 11, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Arguments are limited to 300 words. 8. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttals are limited to 250 words. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis shall also be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 9. That pursuant to the requirements of § 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the voters of Cupertino. 10. That the City of Cupertino requests the services of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County and the Registrar of Voters to conduct said General Election and to consolidate such election. The Registrar of Voters is requested to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in § 10418 of the Elections Code. 11. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. 12. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department of the County of Santa Clara, each a certified copy of this resolution. 13. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. 423 14. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 424 RESOLUTION NO. 18-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIAL AREA SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No: GP A-2018-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: 10101 to 10333 N Wolfe Rd APN#s: 316 -20-080, 316-20-081, 316-20-103, 316-20-107, 316-20-101, 316-20-105, 316-20-106, 316-20-104, 316-20-088, 316-20-092, 316-20-094, 316-20-099, 316 -20-100, 316-20-095 SECTION .II: RECITALS WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan identifies the Vallco Town Center Special Area as being appropriate to accommodate at least 389 dwelling units to be developed pursuant to a specific plan for the Valko Town Center; and WHEREAS, the Valko Town Center Specific Plan has been developed pursuant to City Council direction to initiate a project to prepare a specific plan for the Valko Town Center Special Area, including any required changes to the adopted goals and objectives for the Special Area, in order to implement the Housing Element of the Cupertino General Plan and to plan for anticipated future development activity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Council direction to conduct extensive public outreach the City conducted multiple forms of public outreach including two multi-day charrettes, online civic engagement, open houses and brown bag presentations, comment meetings etc.; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to Development Allocations, the General Plan Land Use Map and development standards related to the Valko Town Center Special Area (the "General Plan Amendment") is part of the Valko Town Center Specific Plan, all as fully described and analyzed in the May 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2018022021), as amended by the July 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Amendment ("EIR Amendment") and by text revisions in the August 2018 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Final EIR document which contains Response to Comments to the Draft EIR and the EIR Amendment, and the August 30, 2018, September 11, 2018, and Exhibit A 425 Resolution No. 18-085 Page 2 of 3 Vallco Special Area Specific Plan -GP A September 13, 2018 Supplemental Text Revisions to the Valko Special Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; (together, the "Final EIR"); WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") for review and recommendation on August 31, 2018, and after considering the Final EIR, and Staff's presentation, the ERC recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, following necessary public notices given as required by the procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino and the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 4, 2018 to consider the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, on September 4, 2018 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq ., and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implement all of the mitigation measures for the Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City that are identified in Findings, in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 6860); and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended on a 4-1 vote (Liu: no) that the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA-2018-05), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution no. 6861) with additional recommendations to amend Strategy LU-19.1.2, correct Table LU-1, and consider a middle tier Development Allocation for the Valko Town Center Special Area as more particularly described in Resolution no. 6861; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018), upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one public hearing to consider the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on September 19, 2018 (continued from September 18, 2018), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-084 certifying the Final EIR, adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopting Mitigation Measures, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has exercised its independent judgment in carefully considering the information in the Final EIR and finds that the scope of this Resolution falls within the certified Final EIR, in that the aspects of 426 Resolution No. 18-085 Page 3 of 3 Vallco Sp ecial Area Specific Plan -GPA the General Plan Amendment proposed in this Resolution that have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment have been examined in the Final EIR and therefore, no recirculation of the Final EIR is required. SECTION III: RESOLUTIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: After · careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council hereby adopts: 1. Amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2018-05) as shown in Exhibit GP A-1 and authorizes the staff to make grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist in production of the final published General Plan; and 2. Changes to the Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit GP A-2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The City Council finds this Resolution is within the scope of the EIR and directs the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the Santa Clara County Recorder in accordance with CEQA guidelines. PASS ED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2018 ( continued from September 18, 2018), at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan Paul, Scharf None None Grace Schmidt, City Clerk APPROVED: Darcy Paul, Mayor, City of Cupertino 427 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) LU-1 Figure PA-1 SPECIAL AREAS PA-4 North Vallco Park Special Area Heart of the City Special Area South De Anza Special Area North De Anza Special Area Homestead Special Area Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area Bubb Road Special Area Monta Vista Village Special Area west crossroads central east South Vallco Park Gateway City Center Node Oaks Gateway North Crossroads Node North Vallco Gateway Stelling Gateway North De Anza Gateway Civic Center Node De Anza College Node Community Recreation Node Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose Los Altos 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Special Areas Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Heart of the City Vallco Town Center Shopping District North Vallco Park North De Anza South De Anza Homestead Bubb Road Monta Vista Village EXHIBIT GPA-1 428 PA-6 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) The City Center subarea is located south of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea, between De Anza and Torre Avenue/Regnart Creek. The primary use for this area is office/residential/hotel/public facilities/commercial retail/mixed- uses. This subarea is further defined into the City Center Node and Civic Center Node. The City Center Node includes Cali Plaza. The Civic Center Node includes City Hall, Cupertino Community Hall, Cupertino Public Library, as well as the Library Plaza and Library Field. The East Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea is located at the east end of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and extends from Portal Avenue to the eastern city limit. The area is largely defined by the South Vallco Park Gateway immediately east of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area, which includes Nineteen 800 (formerly known as Rosebowl), The Metropolitan and Main Street developments. This area is intended as a regional commercial district with retail/commercial/ office as the primary uses. Office above ground level retail is allowed as a secondary use, with residential/residential mixed-use as a supporting use per the Housing Element. VISION The Heart of the City area will continue being a focus of commerce, community identity, social gathering and pride for Cupertino. The area is envisioned as a tree-lined boulevard that forms a major route for automobiles, but also supports walking, biking and transit. Each of its five subareas will contribute their distinctive and unique character, and will provide pedestrian and bicycle links to adjacent neighborhoods through side street access, bikeways and pathways. While portions of the area is designated as a Priority Development Area (PDA), which allows some higher intensity near gateways and nodes, development will continue to support the small town ambiance of the community. The Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor will continue to function as Cupertino’s main mixed- use, commercial and retail corridor. Residential uses, as allowed per the Housing Element, should be developed in the “mixed-use village” format described later in the Land Use and Community Design Element. 429 PA-8 VISION The Vallco Town Center Shopping District will continue to function as a major regional and community destination. The City envisions this area as a new mixed-use “town center” and gateway for Cupertino. It will include an interconnected street grid network of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets, more pedestrian-oriented buildings with active uses lining Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, and publicly-accessible parks and plazas that support the pedestrian- oriented feel of the revitalized area. New development in the Vallco Town Center Shopping District should be required to provide buffers between adjacent single-family neighborhoods in the form of boundary walls, setbacks, landscaping or building transitions. CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT CONTEXT The Vallco Town Center Shopping District Special Area encompasses Cupertino’s most significant commercial center, formerly known as the Vallco Fashion Park. This Special Area is located between Interstate 280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the eastern part of the city. The North Blaney neighborhood, an established single-family area, is adjacent on the west side of the Vallco Town Center Shopping District. Wolfe Road bisects the area in a north-south direction, and divides Vallco Shopping District into distinct subareas: Vallco Shopping District Gateway West and Vallco Shopping District Gateway East. In recent years there has been some façade improvement to the Vallco Fashion Mall; however, there has been no major reinvestment in the mall for decades. Reinvestment is needed to upgrade or replace older buildings and make other improvements to that this commercial center is more competitive and better serves the community. Currently, the major tenants of the mall include a movie theater, and a bowling alley and three national retailers. The Vallco Town Center Shopping District is identified as a separate Special Area given its prominence as a regional commercial destination and its importance to future planning/redevelopment efforts expected over Vallco. Quasi-Public / Commercial Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Residential Land Use Designations Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Public Facilities City Boundary Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Parks and Open Space Land Use Map Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Transportation High Density (>35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Boulevards Avenues Neighborhood Connectors Neighborhood Center Commercial Center Employment Center Education/Cultural Center Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential �nd�strial/Residential �nd�strial/Commercial/Residential Public Facilities Quasi-Public Commercial/Office/Residential Parks and Open Space ��asi����lic/�nstit�tional Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Office/Residential 81 26 23 101 101 182 323 26 280 WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA DIAGRAM Quasi-Public / Commercial Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Residential Land Use Designations Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Public Facilities City Boundary Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Parks and Open Space Land Use Map Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Transportation High Density (>35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) 0 1000 0 500 2000 3000 0 0.5 1Mile 1000 Feet Meters Legend City Boundary Urban Service Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas Boulevards Avenues Neighborhood Connectors Neighborhood Center Commercial Center Employment Center Education/Cultural Center Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential Office/�nd�strial/Commercial/Residential �nd�strial/Residential �nd�strial/Commercial/Residential Public Facilities Quasi-Public Commercial/Office/Residential Parks and Open Space ��asi����lic/�nstit�tional Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 LEGEND Commercial/Office/Residential 81 26 23 101 101 182 323 26 280 WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD 430 CHAPTER 2: PLANNING AREAS | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) PA-32 NORTH BLANEY CONTEXT The North Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern portion of Cupertino, north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and east of De Anza Boulevard. This area, predominantly defined by single-family residential homes, is on the valley floor with minimal grade changes. Bounded generally by De Anza Boulevard, Highway 280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Perimeter Road, this area is served by amenities including Portal Park, which includes a number of recreational amenities such as a tot lot and a recreation building. The Junipero Serra drainage channel runs along the northern edge of the neighborhood along Interstate 280. North Blaney is a major north-south corridor through the area. The Portal Plaza Shopping Center, located in the Heart of the City Special Area, variety of neighborhood serving uses. Proximityincludes grocery facilities and a to the Vallco Shopping Mall Special Area in the Heart of the City Special Area provides opportunities for shopping for this neighborhood within close walking distance. Housing types located in this neighborhood include duplexes, townhomes and apartments closer to the freeway. The North Blaney Neighborhood includes Collins Elementary School and Lawson Middle School. VISION The North Blaney neighborhood will continue to be mainly a residential area. It is anticipated that there may be limited residential growth in this area on sites that may be subdivided or redeveloped. No other land use changes are anticipated in this area. Bicycle and pedestrian enhancements to North Blaney Avenue will improve the north-south connection through the city. There is also a potential to improve the east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection along the Junipero Serra channel along Interstate 280. NORTH BLANEY NEIGHBORHOOD DIAGRAM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM LEGEND 51 101 182 CollinsElementary Portal Park Lawson Middle School DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280 Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Residential Land Use Designations Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Low Density (1-5 DU/Acre) Low Density (1-6 DU/Acre) Rancho Rinconada Low/Medium Density (5-10 DU/Acre) Medium Density (10-20 DU/Acre) Medium/High Density (20-35 DU/Acre) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) High Density (>35 DU/Acre) Non-Residential Land Use Designations Commercial/Residential 0ˎDF*OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM3FTJEFOUJBM *OEVTUSJBM$PNNFSDJBM3FTJEFOUJBM Public Facilities Quasi-Public $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM Parks and Open Space 2VBTJ1VCMJD*OTUJUVUJPOBM Riparian Corridor Creek Transit Route Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Acre) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Acre) Residential (10-15 DU/Acre) Neighborhood Commercial/Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Acre) 26 0B3EF9 Commercial/Residential $PNNFSDJBM0ˎDF3FTJEFOUJBM LEGEND 51 101 182 Collins Elementary Portal Park Lawson Middle School DE ANZA BLVDBLANEY AVE280 431 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) LU-1.2.3: Unused Development Allocation. Unused development allocations may be re-assigned to the citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when development agreements and development permits expire. LU-1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate residential units in neighborhoods through the building permit process unless subdivision or development applications are required. POLICY LU-1.3: LAND USE IN ALL CITYWIDE MIXED-USE DISTRICTS Encourage land uses that support the activity and character of mixed-use districts and economic goals. STRATEGIES: LU-1.3.1: Commercial and Residential Uses. Review the placement of commercial and residential uses based on the following criteria: 1.All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza Special Area is an exception. 2.All mixed-use residential projects should be designed on the “mixed- use village” concept discussed earlier in this Element. 3.On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, residential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area. 4.Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use Housing Element sites that propose units above the allocation in the Housing Element, and on non-Housing Element mixed- use sites, unless otherwise allowed in a Specific Plan. LU-1.3.2: Public and Quasi-Public Uses. Review the placement of public and quasi-public activities in limited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when the following criteria are met: 1.The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals for the Planning Area, has similar patterns of traffic, population or circulation of uses with the area and does not disrupt the operations of existing uses. 2.The building form is similar to buildings in the area (commercial or office forms). In commercial areas, the building should maintain a commercial interface by providing retail activity, storefront appearance or other design considerations in keeping with the goals of the Planning Area. LU-12 432 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) POLICY LU-1.4: PARCEL ASSEMBLY Encourage parcel assembly and discourage parcelization to ensure that infill development meets City standards and provides adequate buffers to neighborhoods. POLICY LU-1.5: COMMUNITY HEALTH THROUGH LAND USE Promote community health through land use and design. POLICY LU-1.6: JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040 commercial (s.f.)office (s.f.)hotel (rooms)residential (units) current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available current built (Oct 7,2014) buildout available Heart of the City 1,351,730 214,5000 793,270 2,447,500 2,464,613 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469 Shopping District** 1,207,774 120,7774 --2,000,000 2,000,000 148 339 191 -389 389 Homestead 291,408 291,408 -69,550 69,550 -126 126 -600 750 150 N. De Anza 56,708 56,708 -2,081,021 2,081,021 -126 126 -49 146 97 N. Vallco 133,147 133,147 -3,069,676 3,069,676 -123 123 -554 1154 600 S. De Anza 352,283 352,283 -130,708 130,708 -315 315 -6 6 - Bubb ---444,753 444,753 ------- Monta Vista Village 94,051 99,698 5,647 443,140 456,735 13,595 ---828 878 50 Other 144,964 144964,-119,896 119,896 ----18,039 18,166 127 Major Employers ---109,935 633,053 523,118 ------ 3,632,065 4,430,982 798,917 8,916,179 11,470,005 2,553826,1116 1429 313 21,412 23,294 1,882 LU-13 600,000 750,000 750,000 2,034 2,034 24,939 3,52710,220,005 1,303,826 Tier 1 1,207,774 Tier 2 1,207,774 485,000 1,500,000**1,500,000**2,923 2,923 With Vallco Town Ctr Tier 1 3,823,208 CitywideWith Vallco Town Ctr Tier 2 3,708,208 10,970,005 2,053,826 25,828 4,416 ** Buildout totals for Office and Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a Specific Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan is not adopted by that date, City will consider the removal of the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco Shopping District. See the Housing Element (Chapter 4) for additional information and requirements within the Vallco Shopping District. * The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan authorizes a community benefits density bonus as an alternative to the State Density Bonus if proposed development meets specified criteria. The applicable Development Allocations, if the City approves a community benefits density bonus, are identified as Tier 2 in Table LU-1. ** For a Tier 2 project in the Vallco Town Center Special Area, an additional 250,000 square feet of allocation is allowed for office amenity space, as defined in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, for a total allocation of 1,750,000 square feet. Vallco Town Center *148 148 339 339 191 191 1,116 1,116 1,429 1,429 313 313 3,632,065 3,632,065 123 123 315 315 -- 433 n tiotioooonononononon ioiooottiti sitsitititsitsit Hi l lsi d e T id e T de T r a n s id e T r a n s sisiiti sit i iiononnoio iti o 280 280 280 85 85 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA STEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD Homestead Special Area Maximum Residential Density As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map; 15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites Maximum Height 30 feet Homestead Special Area North Vallco Park Special Area Maximum Residential Density Up to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map 15 units per acre (southeast corner of Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue) Maximum Height 30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling) Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 (north of Bollinger) or 5-15 (south of 85) units per acre Maximum Height 30 feet Maximum Residential Density 20 units per acre Maximum Residential Density 25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 30 feet where designated by hatched line Maximum Residential Density Up to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use Map Maximum Height Up to 30 feet Heart of the City Special Area North De Anza Special Area South De Anza Special Area Monta Vista Village Special Area Vallco5PXO$FOUFSShopping District Special Area Neighborhoods North De Anza Gateway Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Stelling Gateway West of Stelling Road: Maximum Residential Density 15 units per acre (southwest corner of Homestead and Stelling Roads) 35 units per acre (northwest corner of I-280 and Stelling Road) Maximum Height 30 feet East of Stelling Road: Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet Oaks Gateway Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet North Crossroads Node Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet South Vallco Park Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet, or 60 feet with retail North Vallco Gateway West of Wolfe Road: Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 60 feet East of Wolfe Road: Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet) City Center Node Maximum Residential Density 25 units per acre Maximum Height 45 feet or as existing, for existing buildings Building Planes: • Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevard curb line or lines except for the Crossroads AreaDQGWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD. • For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan. •)RUWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHDVHHWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLILF3ODQ • For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review. • For the North and South Vallco Park areas (except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area): Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot RIEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVORSHOLQHGUDZQIURPWKH6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYGDQG+RPHVWHDG5RDGFXUEOLQHVDQGEHORZVORSHOLQHGUDZQIURP:ROIH5RDGDQG7DQWDX$YHQXHFXUEOLQH Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they areenclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. Priority Housing Sites: Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sitesidentified in the adopted Housing Element shall be as reflected in the Housing Element. Legend City Boundary Special Areas Homestead North Vallco Park North De Anza South De Anza Bubb Road Vallco 5PXO$FOUFS Shopping District Monta Vista Village Avenues (Major Collectors) Boulevards (Arterials) Key Intersections Neighborhood Centers Heart of the City Hillside Transition Urban Service Area 4QIFSFPG*OˍVFODF Urban Transition Avenues (Minor Collectors) Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Figure LU-2 COMMUNITY FORM DIAGRAM Maximum Height 60 feet Maximum Height 45 feet %XEE5RDGSpecial Area Maximum Height 45 feet West of Wolfe Rd Maximum Residential Density 5JFS35 units per acre 5JFSVOJUTQFSBDSFJO BSFBTXIFSFUIF7BMMDP5PXO $FOUFS4QFDJGJD1MBO BVUIPSJ[FTBDPNNVOJUZ CFOFGJUTEFOTJUZCPOVTBTBO BMUFSOBUJWFUPUIF4UBUF %FOTJUZ#POVT Maximum Height 1FS4QFDJˌD1MBO East of Wolfe Rd Maximum Residential Density 35 units per acre Maximum Height 3HU6SHFLILF3ODQ 434 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) POLICY LU-19.1: SPECIFIC PLAN Implement the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and apply the adopted vision, policies or development standards in the review of any development on the site including the street layout, land uses, design standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements required. The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan will be is based on the following strategies: STRATEGIES: LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment will require a master developer in order to remove the obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the highest levels of urban design. LU-19.1.2: Parcel Assembly. Parcel assembly and a master site development plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required prior to issuance of other implementing permits adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future. Accommodate parcelization needs of certain development types, such as senior housing or affordable housing, or if demonstrated to be necessary for financing reasons. LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The “town center” Any site development plans should be based on complete redevelopment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be planned to carry out the community vision in the specific plan. LU-19.1.4: Land Use. The following uses are allowed on the site (see Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria): Uses allowed on the site shall be as shown in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and generally include residential, office, commercial (including retail, restaurant, entertainment, and cultural uses), and hotel uses. GOAL LU-19 Create a distinct and memorable mixed-use "town center" that is a regional destination and a focal point for the community VALLCO TOWN CENTER SHOPPING DISTRICT SPECIAL AREA The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the existing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the community. This new Vallco Town Center Shopping District will become a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the Santa Clara Valley. LU-50 435 CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT | general plan (community vision 2015 - 2040) 1.Retail Commercial: Include Hhigh- performing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall consist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses. 2.Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference center and active uses such as including main entrances, lobbies, retail and restaurants, at key locations, on the ground floor . 3.Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail and active uses on the ground floor per the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Encourage a mix of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active “town center” environment. 4.Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged in a pedestrian-oriented street grid with active uses, such as lobbies, cafes, break rooms, active office amenities, on the ground floor in key locations publicly-accessible street and that front plazas/green space. LU-9.1.5: “Town Center Layout" Create streets and blocks laid out using “transect planning” (appropriate street and building types for each area), which includes a discernible center and edges, public space at center, high quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street and building typology. LU-19.1.6: Connectivity. Provide a newly configured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards and alleys that is pedestrian-oriented, connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities, provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also contribute towards a study and improvements to a potential Interstate 280 trail along the drainage channel south of the freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from the project sites to the trail. LU-19.1.7: Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate the connections to Rosebowl Nineteen800, and Main Street and in the vicinity. LU-51 Table LU-1 identifies the development potential on the site in two levels: Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 identifies the maximum development potential for the site under the base density as defined in Figure LU-2 and the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan. Tier 2 identifies the maximum development potential for the site for projects that have applied for and received a community benefits density bonus, as an alternative to the state Density Bonus law, which is further defined in the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan and which requires certain community benefits to be incorporated into the project. 436 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SPECIAL AREA MONTA VISTA VILLAGE Regnart Canyon Stevens Creek Reservoir Cemetary Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon Residential Development Inspiration Heights Urban Service Area Rancho San Antonio County Park Urban S er vi c e Ar e a PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS Private Recreation Private OS Hanson Quarry Former Quarry # # §¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280 StevensCreekHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85 # # VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT Note: Land use densities for lands located outside the urban service area shall be consistent with residential densities established by the County of Santa Clara General Plan SARATOGA SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LOS ALTOS HILLS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Stevens Creek Blvd NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREA BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA HOMESTEAD ROAD SPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveProspect Rd McClellan Rd Homestead Rd Boll i n g e r R d Rainbow Dr Pruneridge Ave S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way Fargo Dr Sh elly Dr Dunbar Dr Larry Way Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave Corv ette Dr Shadygrove Dr Rollingdell Dr Northwood Dr B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln Pacifica Dr To m p k i n s D rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln Cliff o r d D r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln Chia l a L n La Mar Dr Fallenleaf Ln Pendleton Ave Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn D r Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr PeacockCt Arro wheadLn Bollinger Rd Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent u r a DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa k V all ey Rd Stern AveVall c o P k w y Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln Lorne Way Greenleaf Dr Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr Barnhart Ave Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr Alves Dr Ti l s o n A v e LoreeAv e Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy c amo r e D r B e a u c h a m p s L n Ca la ba z a s C ir Leo na rd AveDumas Dr Via Huerta Brookv a l e D rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr Cristo Re y D r WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay Linnet LnRollin g Hills RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir K e ntw o odAve Gle n v i e w A v e W Riv e r s i d e W a y Chelmsford DrWright AveSte r l ing B lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt ev en s Cr e ek F wy Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve Via Esplen dor Rodrigues Ave Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon RdProuty Way! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE !(HE NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD SPECIAL AREA MONTA VISTA VILLAGE Regnart Canyon Stevens Creek Reservoir Cemetary Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon Residential Development Inspiration Heights Urban Service Area Rancho San Antonio County Park Urban S er vi c e Ar e a PROSPECT ROADStevensCreekRegnart Creek CalabazasCreekSa ratogaCreekPermenente Creek#Sphere of InfluencePr ivate OS Private Recreation Private OS Hanson Quarry Former Quarry # # §¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280 StevensCreekHEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA RegnartCreekFINCH AVENUEOrange AvenueCRISTO REY DRIVE85 # # Note: Land use densities for lands located outside the urban service area shall be consistent with residential densities established by the County of Santa Clara General Plan SARATOGA SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE LOS ALTOS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY UNINCORPORATED COUNTY LOS ALTOS HILLS UNINCORPORATED COUNTY Stevens Creek Blvd NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREA BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA HOMESTEAD ROAD SPECIAL AREA SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREAByrne AvenueSan Fernando AvePasadena AveImperial AveVallco Town Center Prospect Rd McClellan Rd Homestead Rd Boll i n g e r R d Rainbow Dr Pruneridge Ave S De Anza BlvdHomestead Rd S Tantau AveMiller AveS Blaney AveHomestead Rd N Wolfe RdN Blaney AveN Tantau AveN De Anza BlvdBollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Bubb RdStevens Canyon RdFoothill BlvdN Foothill BlvdS De Anza BlvdN Stelling RdBubb RdS Stelling RdMinetteD rErin Way Fargo Dr Sh elly Dr Dunbar Dr Larry Way Sunrise Dr Randy LnKimberly DrVista DrPlum Tree LnCulbertsonDrSaratoga Sunnyvale RdHanford Dr La Roda DrMenhart LnNewsom Ave Corv ette Dr Shadygrove Dr Rollingdell Dr Northwood Dr B eechwoodLnBa rnhart P l Via RoncoleSBernardoAveWaterford Dr Bonny DrStendhal Ln Pacifica Dr To m p k i n s D rStoneheavenDrFinchAveHeatherwood Dr BlueJayDrBark Ln Cliff o r d D r HubbardAveGarden Gate Dr Pendergast AveStJosephAvePhil Ln Chia l a L n La Mar Dr Fallenleaf Ln Pendleton Ave Richwood DrDenisonAveJohn D r Swiss Creek Ln ColbyAveScofield Dr PeacockCt Arro wheadLn Bollinger Rd Blue Hill DrTorre AveSierraVent u r a DrGascoigneDrCalvert DrLondonderry Dr Lazaneo Dr HillsdaleAveG ianniniDrWheaton DrOa k V all ey Rd Stern AveVall c o P k w y Bret AveJudy AveKirwin Ln Lorne Way Greenleaf Dr Weyburn LnR ai nb o w D rValley Green Dr Barnhart Ave Alderbrook LnNPortalAveMerritt Dr Alves Dr Ti l s o n A v e LoreeAv e Johnson AveE EstatesDrProspectRdLawrence ExpwyMariaLnJames Town DrBrookwellDrSy c amo r e D r B e a u c h a m p s L n Ca la ba z a s C ir Leo na rd AveDumas Dr Via Huerta Brookv a l e D rMaxine AveKamsack DrR e d wood Dr Cristo Re y D r WestlynnWayLancer DrVineyardDr Vicksburg DrArlingtonLnCeleste CirForgeWay Linnet LnRollin g Hills RdHeronAveBelvedereL nWindsor StArboretumDrInfin it e L oop PrimroseWayPoppy WayHighlandsCir K e ntw o odAve Gle n v i e w A v e W Riv e r s i d e W a y Chelmsford DrWright AveSte r l ing B lvdBeardon DrFaralloneDrMtEdenRdSt ev en s Cr e ek F wy Bandley DrDeodaraDrPerimeter RdHydeAve Via Esplen dor Rodrigues Ave Wunderlich DrR egnartRdStevens Canyon RdProuty WayPrepared by the Community Development and GIS Departments Adopted: November 15 'UDIW'DWH$XJXVW 00.5 Miles LEGEND CITY OF CUPERTINO LAND USE MAP'UDIW Urban Service Area Special Center Boundaries Sphere of Influence Heart of the City!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vallco Town Center City Boundary (HE Housing Element Sites Creeks Low Density (1-6 DU/Ac.) Rancho Rinconada Medium / High Density (20-35 DU/Ac.) Low Density (1-5 DU/Ac.) Medium (10-20 DU/Ac.) Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Ac.) Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula) Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula) Residential Land Use Designations High Density (> 35 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood Commercial / Residential Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.) Residential (4.4-12 DU/Ac.) Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Ac.) Monta Vista Land Use Designations Residential (10-15 DU/Ac.) Sites designated are Priority Housing Sites as identified in the adopted Housing Element Commercial areas in neighborhoods have a residential density of 15 DU/AC. Notwithstanding the densities shown above, sites are designated as Priority Housing Sites in the adopted Housing Element shall have the densities shown in the Housing ElementXQOHVVDOORZHGDGLIIHUHQWGHQVLW\ZLWKD6WDWH'HQVLW\%RQXVRUWKH&RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV'HQVLW\%RQXVLQWKH9DOOFR7RZQ&HQWHU6SHFLDO$UHD Commercial properties in the Homestead Special Area except those on the South side of Homestead between De Anza and Stelling have a density of 15 DU/Ac. (HE Commercial / O ffice / Residential Commercial / Residential Industrial / Residential Office / Industrial / Commercial / Residential Non-Residential Land Use Designations Industrial / Residential / Commercial Quasi-Public / Institutional Overlay Parks and O pen Space Public Facilities Quasi-Public / Institutional Transportation Riparian Corridor County EXHIBIT GPA-2 437 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 18-086 ADOPTING THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-086 adopting The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit SPA-1, and as amended by the errata shown in Exhibit SPA-2, to Resolution No. 18-086; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2018, proponents filed a referendum petition with the Cupertino City Clerk’s Office against Resolution No. 18-086; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 the Clerk’s Office performed a prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18 -086 pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9239 and 9210, as well as checking the petition form pursuant to Elections Code Section 9238; and WHEREAS, the prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 equaled or exceeded the minimum number of signatures required; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Clerk’s Office accepted the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 for filing and subsequently transferred the petition to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification; and WHEREAS, the Registrar’s Office validated the signatures on the petition against Resolution No. 18-086, using 100% signature verification, and determined that the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 had sufficient signatures; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s Certification of Sufficiency for the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 and directed staff to bring back options for the Council to take as required by California Elections Code Section 9241; and WHEREAS, those options include: (1) repealing Resolution No. 18-086; or (2) submitting Resolution No. 18-086 to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order, or at a special election called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order; and 438 WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to choose the option to repeal Resolution No. 18-086 which adopted The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit SPA-1, as amended by the errata shown in Exhibit SPA-2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby repeal Resolution No. 18-086 adopting The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit SPA-1, and as amended by the errata shown in Exhibit SPA-2, to Resolution No. 18-086. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote. Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ___________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 439 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020, FOR THE SUBMITTAL TO THE VOTERS OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-086 ADOPTING THE VALLCO TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN; AND REQUESTING THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION AND TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-086 adopting The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit SPA-1 and as amended by the errata shown in Exhibit SPA-2, to Resolution No. 18-086; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2018, proponents filed a referendum petition with the Cupertino City Clerk’s Office against Resolution No. 18-086; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 the Clerk’s Office performed a prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9239 and 9210, as well as checking the petition form pursuant to Elections Code Section 9238; and WHEREAS, the prima facie signature count on the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 equaled or exceeded the minimum number of signatures required; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Clerk’s Office accepted the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 for filing and subsequently transferred the petition to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification; and WHEREAS, the Registrar’s Office validated the signatures on the petition against Resolution No. 18-086, using 100% signature verification, and determined that the petition against Resolution No. 18-086 had sufficient signatures; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s Certification of Sufficiency for the petition against Resolution No. 18-086; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s options under Elections Code section 9241 include: (1) repealing Resolution No. 18-086; or (2) submitting Resolution No. 18-086 440 to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order, or at a special election called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to choose the option to submit Resolution No. 18-086 to the voters at the next regular municipal election on November 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, November 3, 2020, is the date set by law for the election of Council members; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk is enjoined by law to take all steps necessary for the holding of said election; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Santa Clara canvass the return of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following question to the voters: Shall Resolution No. 18-086, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopting the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, be adopted? YES NO 441 2. The text of Resolution No. 18-086 adopting The Vallco Town Center Specific Plan is attached as Exhibit A and includes Exhibit SPA-1, as amended by the errata shown in Exhibit SPA-2. The text of the measure shall not be printed in the ballot materials, but copies of the measure shall be available from the City Clerk. 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast. 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to contract for the procurement and furnishing of any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code § 10242, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. 7. Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 11, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Arguments are limited to 300 words. 8. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttals are limited to 250 words. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis shall also be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 9. That pursuant to the requirements of § 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the voters of Cupertino. 442 10. That the City of Cupertino requests the services of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County and the Registrar of Voters to conduct said General Election and to consolidate such election. The Registrar of Voters is requested to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in § 10418 of the Elections Code. 11. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. 12. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department of the County of Santa Clara, each a certified copy of this resolution. 13. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. 14. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 443 Exhibit A 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 ORDINANCE NO. 19-___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 18-2179 WHICH APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VALLCO TOWN CENTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Repeal The City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby repeals Ordinance No. 18-2179 in its entirety which approved a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and Vallco Property Owner LLC for the development of Vallco Town Center, as shown in Exhibit DA- 1 to Ordinance No. 18-2179. 2. Publication Clause 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 Section 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. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ____ day of ______ 2019 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 650 RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2020, FOR THE SUBMITTAL TO THE VOTERS OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-2179 APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VALLCO TOWN CENTER; AND REQUESTING THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION AND TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION WHEREAS, on October 2, 2018, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 18- 2179 approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and Vallco Property Owner LLC for the development of Vallco Town Center, as shown in Exhibit DA-1 to Ordinance No. 18-2179; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2018, proponents filed a referendum petition with the Cupertino City Clerk’s Office against Ordinance No. 18-2179; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 the Clerk’s Office performed a prima facie signature count on the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179 pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9239 and 9210, as well as checking the petition form pursuant to Elections Code Section 9238; and WHEREAS, the prima facie signature count on the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179 equaled or exceeded the minimum number of signatures required; and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Clerk’s Office accepted the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179 for filing and subsequently transferred the petition to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification; and WHEREAS, the Registrar’s Office validated the signatures on the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179, using 100% signature verification, and determined that the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179 had sufficient signatures; and 651 WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, the City Council received the City Clerk’s Certification of Sufficiency for the petition against Ordinance No. 18-2179; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s options under Elections Code section 9241 include: (1) repealing Ordinance No. 18-2179; or (2) submitting Ordinance No. 18-2179 to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order, or at a special election called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the City Council’s order; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to choose the option to submit Ordinance No. 18-2179 to the voters at the next regular municipal election on November 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, November 3, 2020, is the date set by law for the election of Council members; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk is enjoined by law to take all steps necessary for the holding of said election; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the city the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Santa Clara canvass the return of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Cupertino on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting the following question to the voters: 652 Shall Ordinance No. 18-2179, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and Vallco Property Owner LLC for the development of Vallco Town Center, be adopted? YES NO 2. The text of Ordinance No. 18-2179 approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and Vallco Property Owner LLC for the development of Vallco Town Center is attached as Exhibit A and includes Exhibit DA-1. The text of the measure shall not be printed in the ballot materials, but copies of the measure shall be available from the City Clerk. 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50% +1) of the votes cast. 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to contract for the procurement and furnishing of any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code § 10242, except as provided in § 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. 7. Arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 11, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Arguments are limited to 300 words. 653 8. Rebuttals to arguments in favor or against the proposed measure shall be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttals are limited to 250 words. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis shall also be filed with the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 9. That pursuant to the requirements of § 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the voters of Cupertino. 10. That the City of Cupertino requests the services of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County and the Registrar of Voters to conduct said General Election and to consolidate such election. The Registrar of Voters is requested to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in § 10418 of the Elections Code. 11. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. 12. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department of the County of Santa Clara, each a certified copy of this resolution. 13. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. 14. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May 2019, by the following vote: 654 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino 655 Exhibit A 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-4921 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/29/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Reject all bids received for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project (Project No. 2017-01.05) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Reject all bids received for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project (Project No. 2017-01.05) 1. Receive report on bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project; and 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to reject all bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™757 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Reject all bids received for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project (Project No. 2017-01.05). Recommended Action 1. Receive report on bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project; and 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to reject all bids for the Bike Boulevard Improvements Phase 1 Project. Description The project was advertised for bids on March 26, 2019, and bids were opened on April 16, 2019. Two bids were received, with the low bid amount approximately 13% over the engineer’s estimate. The lowest apparent low bid was received from O'Grady Paving, Inc. Bidder Bid Amount Variance Engineers Estimate $1,500,000 - O'Grady Paving, Inc. $1,693,907 12.9% Granite Construction Company $1,738,859 15.9% The purpose of this project is to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the Portal Avenue and Merritt Drive bike routes and at these various locations: - North Portal Avenue from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Merritt Drive - Merritt Drive from Portal Avenue to Larry Way - Greenleaf Drive at Beardon Drive to Castine Avenue - Bandley Drive at Mariani Avenue - Torre Avenue at Town Center Lane Improvements include sidewalk, curb ramps, bulb-outs, speed tables, raised crosswalks, and roadway markings. Bandley Drive included significant improvements to a bicycle and pedestrian path between Bandley Drive and Mariani Avenue. 758 Discussion Staff has reviewed the low bidder’s bid submission for completeness, and confirmed the experience and qualifications of O'Grady Paving, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. Staff is recommending that the lowest responsive bid be rejected due to the bid exceeding the engineers estimate by $194,000. Staff does not recommend rebidding the project in its current scope as it is not anticipated that near-term future bids will be lower. Next Steps Staff will redesign the project to be constructed with temporary bollards (instead of concrete curbs), pavement markings and raised asphalt speed tables and crosswalks where applicable and combine this project with the Phase 2 project with similar work completed. Phase 2 locations are: - Calle de Barcelona, between Miller Ave and Finch Ave - Finch Ave, between Calle de Barcelona and Tilson Ave - Tilson Ave, between Finch Ave and Wunderlich Dr - Wunderlich Dr, between Tilson Ave and Barnhart Ave - Barnhart Ave, between Wunderlich Dr and Sterling Blvd - Intersection of Kim St. and Kerwin Ln - Intersection of Meteor Dr. and Mary Ave. The redesign will be done internally with staff and a value to complete these re -scoped improvements will be negotiated with the contractor of the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Project (Project No. 2019-103) that was awarded on February 19, 2019. Prior to executing this change order, staff will return to Council for authorization to increase the authorized amount for the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 Project. As staff monitors the effectiveness of these improvements and receives public input, it will be the intent to re-bid the Bike Boulevard project into one single project that would replace the temporary bollards with concrete curbs and to also complete the improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian path between Bandley Drive and Mariani Avenue. Sustainability Impact These improvements are intended to improve bicycle safety and use and make the bicycling experience more appealing. This may reduce vehicle drive times and traffic congestion, which leads to reduced vehicle emissions helping the City achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals. 759 CEQA Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 14 C.C.R. Sections 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities); 15304 (minor alterations to land); 15061(b)(3) (no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment). Fiscal Impact To date approximately $171,000 has been spent for design and bid support for both phases of the Bike Boulevard improvements. The existing design will be used for the placement of the temporary bollards, pavement markings and raised asphalt speed tables and crosswalks for this interim work. The existing design for the more permanent work will be retained when it may be authorized and constructed in the future. Additional appropriation will be needed for the interim work and will be requested at a future time. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Mellownie Salvador, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Department Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: None 760 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5263 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/29/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: A Resolution of the Council of the City of Cupertino to support the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources needed to develop these projects. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: A Resolution of the Council of the City of Cupertino to support the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources needed to develop these projects. Adopt Resolution No. 19-048 supporting the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources to develop these projects. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™761 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject A Resolution of the Council of the City of Cupertino to support the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor; and authorizes the City Manager to assess resources needed to develop these projects. Recommended Actions Adopt Resolution No. 19-XX supporting the development of (1) A Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor as described in the scope of work prepared jointly by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose; and (2) High Capacity Transit Service Along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. Background City of Cupertino staff and appointed members of the Council have been coordinating with staff from the City of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, and VTA regarding transportation and circulation along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor since a working group was formed for this purpose in August 2017. Various issues have been discussed by this group, including streetscape improvements to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation along the boulevard, in addition to the need for high-capacity transit as this corridor has evolved into a major health, education, tech industry, shopping and housing spine in the South Bay. In 2012, VTA began planning and evaluation efforts for a proposed Bus Rapid Transit service along Stevens Creek Boulevard with a total of 13 stations that would connect Cupertino to the downtown San Jose Transit Mall. VTA has not pursued this project beyond this planning and evaluation stage to date. As part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Horizon Initiative , a Bay Area wide contest in search of innovative transportation concepts, City staff submitted a 762 proposal for a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station west to Cupertino. The proposal was selected among 94 other transportation projects for consideration to be included in Plan Bay Area 2040. Discussion The attached proposed resolution, Attachment A, is a resolution in support of the work of the multi-jurisdictional Stevens Creek corridor group, and would support the engagement of the City in the development of a Transit Implementation Plan along with the City of Santa Clara, City of San Jose and VTA to bring high capacity transit to the Stevens Creek corridor. The term “High Capacity Transit Service” could include of number of transit technologies, such as light rail, subway, bus rapid transit, aerial conveyances, or other emerging technologies. The resolution recommended for adoption is a ceremonial motion in support of “High Capacity Transit Service” along Stevens Creek Boulevard to connect Cupertino with downtown San Jose and the growing regional transportation network. The resolution proposed for Cupertino is to exclusively support grade separated solutions. Sustainability Impact None at this time, however high-capacity transit service along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles travelled, improve local air quality, and have other beneficial environmental impacts. Cupertino General Plan The Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015- 2040): 1. Supports the design and building of complete streets which optimize mobility for all modes through Policy M-2.1, Street Design, and Policy M-2.2, Adjacent Land Use; and 2. Supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M-1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and 3. Supports right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative to driving through Policy M -4.5, Access to Transit Services. 763 Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Chris Corrao, Senior Transit & Transportation Planner Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Acting City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution No.19-XX 1113424.1 764 Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. 19-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1) A COMPLETE STREETS AND NEAR TERM TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR AS DESCRIBED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK PREPARED JOINTLY BY THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) AND THE CITIES OF SANTA CLARA, AND SAN JOSÉ, AND 2) IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT SERVICE ALONG THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR. WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San José approved on August 8, 2017 forming a multi-jurisdiction group comprised of the cities of San José, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County to discuss key regional issues affecting West San Jose, with a focus on transportation and circulation; and WHEREAS, the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, along with VTA, jointly developed and submitted a grade separated high capacity transit concept along the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor to the Plan Bay Area 2040 process; and WHEREAS, The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) role as county congestion management agency (CMA) and transit provider enables them to bring the three cities and County along the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor together to transform it into a multimodal complete street that improves transit service, enhances safety, reduces distances of pedestrian street crossings, incorporates streetscapes improvements that provide complete and comfortable walkway and bikeway networks, and adds trees, landscaping, and pedestrian lighting; and WHEREAS, the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, along with VTA, jointly developed a scope of work for a Complete Street and Near Term Transit Study, that considers new modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has participated in regional discussions relating to high capacity transit along Stevens Cree k Boulevard to address worsening traffic congestion and connect the City to the regional transit network; and 765 Resolution No. __________________ Page 2 WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports the design and building of Complete Streets which optimize mobility for all modes through Policy M-2.1, Street Design, and Policy M-2.2, Adjacent Land Use; and WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M -1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative to driving through Policy M-4.5, Access to Transit Services; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby 1. Supports a Complete Streets and Near Term Transit Implementation Plan and a grade separated high capacity transit system for the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, which connects the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, that is supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; and 2. Authorizes the City Manager or designee to assess resources needed to develop these projects and report findings to the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of May, 2019 by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 766 Resolution No. __________________ Page 2 SIGNED: ________ Steven Scharf, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date ATTEST: ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk ________________________ Date 1113426.1 767 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-4998 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/11/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Annual Report on the Pavement Management Program Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Pavement condition index table B - Street improvements for 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 & 2 C - Street improvements for FY1819 Pavement Management Projects Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Annual Report on the Pavement Management Program Receive the report. No action is required. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™768 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 7, 2019 Subject Annual Report on the Pavement Management Program. Recommended Action Receive the report. No action is required. Discussion Cupertino’s street network is over 138 miles in length and covers approximately 26 million square feet (8% of the total area of the City). The network is an essential asset to businesses, residents and visitors and is among the most valuable assets maintained by the City. A properly designed asphalt street will typically last 20 years without the need of total reconstruction. However if some conditions change, such as more and/or heavier traffic, then reconstruction may be needed sooner. Extending the life of pavement, as opposed to the replacement of pavement, is the goal of the pavement management program (program). Over the last six years substantial funding and effort has been provided to the program that had been in decline during the years of the recession. These program resources are extending the life and improving the condition of Cupertino’s street network, while also saving the City millions of dollars into the future. To support the goal of preservation, a dependable infrastructure performance measure of a pavement condition index (PCI) equal to or greater than 82 has been established. Achieving this goal is important as more money is spent on preservation rather than rehabilitation, and consequently, costs to maintain are lower and it is easier to maintain that level. Ranges of PCI values and street conditions are included in Attachment A. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) monitors and reports on the condition of pavement in the Bay Area in their Regional Pavement Condition Summary Report (report). The PCI for Cupertino’s street network and the PCI for over 100 Bay Area agencies is updated annually in this report and staff anticipates that the report will show that the 2018 PCI of Cupertino’s street network will be an 85 and that the 3-year 769 2 moving average will be an 81. Note that the 2018 PCI value is most relevant as it represents the condition of the street network. The 3-year moving average method smooths high and low PCI values. With the Cupertino street network being improved steadily over the last several years, the 3-year average will lag in its representation of the City’s street network condition. Most street networks, including the Cupertino street network, degrade approximately 2 PCI points annually due to weather and wear/ tear from vehicles. Improvements to a street network can either offset this amount or, as has been the practice in Cupertino over the last several years, improvements have exceeded the aging process and the overall condition of the street network has been improved. The below table shows the Cupertino street network PCI values for years 2016-18. For reference, the 3-year MTC moving average is included. 2016 2017 2018 Annual PCI 78 80 85 3-year Moving Average PCI 72 76 81 The following table shows the PCI values for arterial, collector and residential streets for the last three years plus the 2019 PCI values that are anticipated upon completion of all scheduled projects this summer. Figure 1 77 80 85 86 7879 86 88 86 80 85 84 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 2016 2017 2018 2019 (estimated)Pavement Condition IndexArterial Collector Residential Network PCI The street network PCI is calculated by weighting the areas of arterial, collector and residential streets to the total combined area. The below pie chart represents the percent of total network area by arterial, collector and residential streets. 770 3 Figure 2 Residential, 70.9% Arterial, 12.2% Collector, 16.9% Residential streets represent the largest portion at over 70% of the total area. With residential streets having the largest area, their PCI value has the greatest contribution to the cumulative street network PCI. The pavement maintenance program in 2015 and 2016 focused on residential streets. In 2017 and 2018 both residential and arterial streets were improved. For the 2019 program residential and collector streets will be improved. Budget Options Report The MTC StreetSaver program provides the ability to run various budget scenarios. Based on a series of assumptions, StreetSaver allocates available funds across the street network, recommends improvements, and forecasts future PCI if recommendations are implemented. Staff routinely updates values in StreetSaver in order to update current costs with the type of pavement treatment recommended at various PCI values. StreetSaver predicts that the Cupertino street network will maintain a PCI of 84 through 2023 and for several years to follow under the following budget scenario: FY 19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 $3M $3M $3M $3M 2019 Pavement Management Project The 2019 Pavement Maintenance Project - Phase I overlay project opened bids in January and is scheduled to start near the week of June 10th. The 2019 Pavement Maintenance Project - Phase II micro-surfacing project is currently out to bid and is expected to begin in the fall. A street-by-street listing of the Phase 1 & Phase 2 projects is included in Attachment B and can be viewed online at https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24181. Current PCI values for all streets can be viewed online at https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24183. Streets completed in last year’s FY17/18 projects are included as Attachment C. Note that the street-by-street listing in Attachment B may be modified as unforeseen conditions arise. Sustainability Impact 771 4 Timely maintenance of the street network conserves valuable resources as compared to the consumption of additional resources that are required when maintenance is not performed and street reconstruction is required. Well maintained streets conserve the consumption of motorist fuels and help to reduce noise pollution. Fiscal Impact The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) will provide funding of approximately $1.0M in FY19/20 and then $1.1M annually for the next ten years. These amounts will augment the approximate $0.36M and $1.0M annual amounts currently received from the State for Cupertino’s share of vehicle license fees and gas tax receipts, respectively. Due to the good condition of the street network, the City has flexibility to allocate future SB 1 funds to other types of projects such as bicycle and/or pedestrian improvements. $1.13M in Measure B funds are also received annually. These funds can be used to enhance local street and road maintenance, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For FY19/20, it will be recommended that SB1, vehicle license fees and gas tax receipt funds be used to improve the street network and Measure B funds be used for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Funding for the 2019 Pavement Management program was approved in the FY18/19 operating budget. No additional funding is required. _____________________________________ Prepared by: JoAnne Johnson, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: A – Description of pavement condition range categories and street-by street pavement condition index table B – Street-by-street listing of improvements to be completed by the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 & Phase 2 Projects C – Street-by-street listing of improvements completed by the FY18/19 Pavement Management Projects 772 Attachment A Pavement Condition Value Street Condition 80-100 (Very Good–Excellent) New pavement with few signs of distress. 70-79 (Good) Pavement showing only low levels of distress. 60-69 (Fair) Pavement that may require a combination of rehabilitation and preventive maintenance. 50-59 (At Risk) Deteriorated pavement requiring immediate attention. 25-49 (Poor) Pavement showing extensive distress and requiring major rehabilitation or reconstruction. 0-24 (Failed) Extremely rough pavement that needs complete reconstruction. 773 STREET NAME FROM TO CURRENT PCI ACADIA CT BEARDON END 50 ADDINGTON CT REGNART END 81 ADRIANA AVE MANN END 94 AINSWORTH DR HARTMAN END 94 ALCALDE RD AVENIDA ALICIA 94 ALCALDE RD ALICIA FOOTHILL 94 ALCAZAR AVE BYRNE AV.ORANGE 94 ALCAZAR AVE ORANGE IMPERIAL AV.94 ALDERBROOK LN END (N)BLAZINGWOOD 93 ALDERBROOK LN BLAZINGWOOD BOLLINGER 93 ALDERBROOK WY ALDERBROOK END 94 ALHAMBRA AVE UNIVERSITY GRAND 30 ALHAMBRA AVE GRAND SANTA CLARA 73 ALHAMBRA AVE UNIVERSITY STOKES AV 36 ALICIA CT ALCALDE END 41 ALMADEN AVE ORANGE BYRNE 94 ALPINE DR SALEM FOOTHILL 95 ALPINE DR HENEY CREEK FOOTHILL 94 ALVES DR STELLING SAICH 97 ALVES DR SAICH BANDLEY 48 ALVES DR BANDLEY DE ANZA 86 ALVES DR STELLING ANTON 94 AMHERST DR PORTAL END 95 AMISTAD CT VOSS END 94 AMULET DR CASTINE ATHANSON 93 AMULET PL AMULET DR END 94 ANN ARBOR AVE LAURETTA 120' S/O HAZELBROOK 77 ANN ARBOR AVE 120' S/O HAZELBROOK GREENLEAF 83 ANN ARBOR CT LAURETTA END 84 ANNE LN TANTAU END 87 ANNETTE WY STANFORD ROLLINGDELL 97 ANSON AVE MILFORD RUMFORD 94 ANTHONY PL SALEM END 95 ANTOINETTE DR CLAY CLIFDEN 94 ANTON WY ALVES STEVENS CREEK 94 APPLE TREE DR VISTA PLUM TREE 77 ARATA WY LOREE CALVERT 71 ASTER CT ASTER END 94 ASTER LN RAINBOW 130' S/O PEACH BLOSSOM 82 ASTER LN NORMANDY WATERFORD 94 ASTER LN WATERFORD S END 94 ATHERWOOD AVE MILLER ALDERBROOK 94 AUBURN CT AUBURN END 78 AUBURN DR PORTAL END 78 AUGUST LN SEPTEMBER END 94 AVENIDA LN ALCALDE RD END 94 774 AVOCADO PL BIXBY END 94 BAHL ST VISTA KNOLL AINSWORTH 95 BALUSTROL CT DEEP CLIFF END 94 BANCHI WY STEVENS CREEK BLVD END 80 BANDLEY DR VALLEY GREEN ALVES 75 BANDLEY DR ALVES STEVENS CREEK 52 BARBARA LN PEPPER TREE SCOFIELD 95 BARNHART AVE JOHNSON STERLING 95 BARNHART AVE WUNDERLICH JOHNSON 95 BARNHART AVE MORETTI WUNDERLICH 95 BARNHART AVE CULBERTSON MORETTI 87 BARNHART AVE TANTAU CULBERTSON 80 BARNHART CT BARNHART AVE END 87 BARNHART PL GALWAY JAMESTOWN 92 BARNHART PL ASTER GALWAY 94 BARRANCA DR PENINSULAR HOMESTEAD 94 BAXLEY CT LINDA VISTA END 95 BAYWOOD CT MERRITT END 94 BAYWOOD DR MERRITT PEAR TREE 94 BEARDON AVE ALVES 500' N/O ALVES 89 BEARDON AVE 500' N/O ALVES ACADIA 89 BEARDON AVE ACADIA 100' N/O VALLEY GREEN 84 BEARDON AVE 100' N/O VALLEY GREEN N END 85 BEAVEN AVE STOKES NOEL 94 BEL AIRE CT COLUMBUS END 94 BELKNAP CT BELKNAP END 93 BELKNAP DR ELMSFORD YORKSHIRE 94 BELLEVUE AVE CARMEN END 93 BENETTI CT DEMPSTER END 94 BERKSHIRE CT SALEM END 81 BERLAND CT STELLING END 72 BETLIN AVE JOHN CLIFFORD 94 BETTE AVE GLENVIEW BRENT 56 BILICH PL WHEATON END 95 BIXBY DR SOUTH PORTAL COLD HARBOR 94 BLACK OAK WY SYCAMORE DR END 65 BLACKWOOD DR CANDLEWOOD COTTONWOOD 94 BLANEY AVE LUCILLE OLIVEWOOD 93 BLANEY AVE OLIVEWOOD 250' S/O OLIVEWOOD 94 BLANEY AVE HOMESTEAD NORTHFORDE (W SIDE)92 BLANEY AVE NORTHFORDE (W SIDE) CEDAR TREE 92 BLANEY AVE CEDAR TREE FOREST 91 BLANEY AVE FOREST STEVENS CREEK 86 BLANEY AVE BOLLINGER SOMERSET 83 BLANEY AVE SOMERSET STEVENS CREEK 81 BLANEY CT BLANEY END 82 BLAZINGWOOD AVE ALDERBROOK MYRTLEWOOD 89 775 BLOSSOM LN FELTON END 38 BLUE JAY DR HOMESTEAD END 72 BOLLINGER RD DE ANZA 170' E/O WESTLYNN (W DRIV 78 BOLLINGER RD 170' E/O WESTLYNN DE FOE 91 BOLLINGER RD DE FOE END 88 BOLLINGER RD NARCISO MILLER 65 BOLLINGER RD MILLER S BLANEY 90 BOLLINGER RD S BLANEY 1127' W/O S BLANEY 82 BOLLINGER RD 1127' W/O S BLANEY DE ANZA 83 BOLLINGER RD NARISCO LAWRENCE 70 BONNY DR SCOFIELD PEPPER TREE 95 BONNY DR PEPPER TREE MC CLELLAN 95 BRENT DR CLIFFORD JOHN 51 BRET AVE TILSON LOREE 93 BRET AVE LOREE STEVENS CREEK 88 BREWER AVE MILFORD DEXTER 94 BRITTANY CT LAS ONDAS END 94 BROOKGROVE LN SHADYGROVE WILLOWGROVE 89 BROOKWELL DR ALDERBROOK ALDERBROOK 93 BUBB RD STEVENS CREEK MCCLELLAN 86 BUBB RD MC CLELLAN TERRACE DR 67 BUBB RD TERRACE DR RAINBOW DR 75 BYERLY CT SALEM END 95 BYRNE AVE GRANADA BYRNE CT 94 BYRNE AVE 200' S/O FERNANDO (END OF SID GRANADA 94 BYRNE AVE MCCLELLAN 200' N/O DOLORES (END OF S 94 BYRNE CT BYRNE AVE END 94 CALI AV S DE ANZA BLVD END 94 CALIFORNIA OAK WY STEVENS CREEK MAJESTIC OAK 94 CALLE DE BARCELONA FINCH END (W/O MILLER) 94 CALVERT DR TILSON MENHART 93 CALVERT DR MENHART CITY LIMIT (92' N/O ARATA)74 CAMARDA CT RANDY END 95 CAMINO VISTA DR STEVENS CREEK DUBON 94 CANDLELIGHT WY CRESTLINE SHADOWHILL 94 CANDLEWOOD CT CANDLEWOOD END 94 CANDLEWOOD DR ATHERWOOD MYRTLEWOOD 94 CANNON OAK WY CRISTO REY MANZANITA CT 90 CANYON VIEW CIR LINDY LN END 80 CARMEN RD SCENIC END HOO HOO 93 CARMEN RD CUPERTINO END 62 CARNOUSTIE CT DEEP CLIFF END 94 CAROL LEE DR WHEATON CHAVOYA 95 CAROLINE DR MAXINE PENNINSULAR 95 CARRIAGE CIR STELLING END 94 CARTA BLANCA ST VISTA KNOLL AINSWORTH 95 CARVER DR NEWSOM TUGGLE 91 776 CARVER DR TUGGLE PENDERGAST 95 CASS PL JANICE END 94 CASTINE AVE RUMFORD GARDENA 92 CASTLETON ST WILKINSON CLARKSTON 90 CATALINA CT TERRACE END 94 CEDAR TREE CT CEDAR TREE END 93 CEDAR TREE LN ORANGE TREE BLANEY 93 CHACE DR STARLING END 95 CHADWICK PL CASTLETON END 84 CHARSAN LN RAINBOW END 80 CHAVOYA DR CAROL LEE RANDY 95 CHERRY TREE LN PEACH TREE APPLE TREE 91 CHERYL DR PARADISE WESTACRES 97 CHISHOLM AVE DEXTER MILFORD 94 CHRISTENSEN DR STELLING END 70 CLARKSTON AVE COLUMBUS CASTLETON 83 CLARKSTON AVE CASTLETON FLINTSHIRE 84 CLAY ST WHITNEY END 97 CLEARCREEK CT PHAR LAP END 95 CLEARWOOD CT PHAR LAP END 95 CLEO AVE GARDENSIDE DEAD END 94 CLIFDEN WY BOLLINGER MARTINWOOD 81 CLIFFORD CT CLIFFORD END 97 CLIFFORD DR E ESTATES BLANEY 97 CLUBHOUSE LN MCCLELLAN END 81 COLBY AVE WHEATON MERRITT 94 COLD HARBOR AVE VICKSBURG BIXBY 94 COLLINGSWORTH ST WLKINSON SUTHERLAND 89 COLONY HILLS LN HEATHERWOOD TIPTOE 93 COLUMBUS AVE VAI BUBB 77 COLUMBUS AVE BUBB MARIA ROSA 72 COLUMBUS AVE MARIA ROSA LINDA VISTA 89 CONRADIA CT BUBB END 76 CORDOVA RD SANTA LUCIA END (BARICADE)17 CORTE DE MADRID CALLE DE BARCELONA END 94 CORTE DE SEVILLE CALLE DE BARCELONA END 94 CORTE MADERA LN MANN END 94 COTTONWOOD CT COTTONWOOD END 76 COTTONWOOD DR BLACKWOOD ATHERWOOD 94 COZETTE LN TANTAU END 83 CRABTREE LN JOHNSON STERLING 94 CRAFT DR FINCH SORENSON 85 CRAIG CT PARADISE END 93 CRANBERRY CIR CRANBERRY END 93 CRANBERRY DR HOLLY OAK WOOD LARK 93 CREEKLINE DR NOVEMBER END 94 CREEKSIDE CT PHAR LAP END 96 777 CRESCENT CT CRESCENT END 62 CRESCENT RD HILLCREST CRESCENT CT 94 CRESCENT RD CRESCENT CT CUPERTINO 94 CRESTLINE DR SHADOWHILL CANDLELIGHT 95 CRESTON DR 150' N/O RIVERCREST (CITY LIMIT END 27 CRISTO REY DR THE FORUM CITY LIMITS 81 CRISTO REY DR CITY LIMIT (234' W/O KRING WAYN/O ROUNDABOUT 93 CRISTO REY DR N/O ROUNDABOUT RANCHO SAN AN TONIO PARK 79 CULBERTSON DR MEIGGS BARNHART 94 CUPERTINO RD CRESCENT STEVENS CREEK 95 CUPERTINO RD CARMEN HILLCREST 74 CUPERTINO RD HILLCREST FOOTHILL 64 CYNTHIA AVE GASCOIGNE STERLING 81 CYPRESS CT CYPRESS END 94 CYPRESS DR MERRITT END 94 DAVISON AVE GLENVIEW E ESTATES 28 DE ANZA BLVD HOMESTEAD 280 FWY 93 DE ANZA BLVD 280 FWY HOMESTEAD 93 DE ANZA BLVD WILDFLOWER S CITY LIMIT (PROSPECT)95 DE ANZA BLVD RAINBOW WILDFLOWER 95 DE ANZA BLVD CITY LIMITS (NEAR HWY 85) RAINBOW 63 DE ANZA BLVD BOLLINGER PACIFICA 95 DE ANZA BLVD PACIFICA BOLLINGER 95 DE ANZA BLVD PACIFICA RODRIGUES 95 DE ANZA BLVD RODRIGUES PACIFICA 95 DE ANZA BLVD RODRIGUES STEVENS CREEK 95 DE ANZA BLVD STEVENS CREEK RODRIGUES 95 DE ANZA BLVD STEVENS CREEK LAZANEO 93 DE ANZA BLVD LAZANEO STEVENS CREEK 93 DE ANZA BLVD LAZANEO MARIANI 93 DE ANZA BLVD MARIANI LAZANEO 93 DE ANZA BLVD MARIANI 280 FWY 93 DE ANZA BLVD 280 FWY MARIANI 93 DE ANZA BLVD 280 FWY 280 FWY 93 DE ANZA BLVD 280 FWY 280 FWY 90 DE ANZA CIR DREA DREA 93 DE FOE DR DE FOE WESTLYNN 91 DE FOE DR BOLLINGER DE FOE 94 DE FOE DR DE FOE DUMAS 93 DE LA FARGE DR WESTLYNN JOLLYMAN 94 DE PALMA LN BLANEY END 82 DEEP CLIFFE DR RIVERSIDE ST ANDREWS 94 DEEPROSE PL PRICE END 94 DEGAS CT MEDINA END 53 DEMPSTER AVE STOKES FITZGERALD 94 DENISON AVE WHEATON MERRITT 94 DEODARA DR MERRITT END 94 778 DERBYSHIRE DR ORION ROBINDELL 94 DEXTER DR BREWER CHISHOLM 94 DISNEY LN MILLER STENDHAL 85 DOLORES AVE ORANGE BYRNE 93 DONEGAL DR LEEDS PRIMROSE 91 DOS PALOS CT MANN END 94 DRAKE CT DRAKE END 54 DRAKE DR PORTAL AUBURN 52 DREA RD RIVERSIDE DE ANZA CIR 93 DRYDEN AVE SHATTUCK RUCKER 93 DUBON AVE CAMINO VISTA PRADO VISTA 94 DUMAS DR JOLLYMAN DE FOE 86 DUMAS DR JOLLYMAN WESTLYNN 91 DUNBAR DR GLEN COE BEARDON 66 DUNBAR DR BEARDON END 64 E ESTATES DR STEVENS CREEK RICHWOOD 76 E ESTATES DR RICHWOOD LA MAR 54 E ESTATES DR LA MAR JOHN DR 95 E ESTATES DR JOHN DR ESTATES DR 41 ECHO HILL CT STELLING END 82 EDWARD WY BUBB RONALD 94 EL PRADO WY VOSS MEDINA 50 ELDERWOOD CT TUSCANY END 83 ELENDA DR GLEN COE End 58 ELM CT BUBB END 93 ELMSFORD CT ELMSFORD END 94 ELMSFORD DR BELKNAP END (N) 94 EMPIRE AVE UNIVERSITY GRAND 84 ENGLISH OAK WY MAJESTIC OAK ANTHONY 94 ERIN WY STELLING KIM 97 ESQUIRE PL METEOR END 94 ESTATES DR W ESTATES BOLLINGER 93 EVULICH CT LINDA VISTA END 60 FAIRWOODS CT STELLING END 80 FALL CT SEPTEMBER END 94 FALLENLEAF LN COLONY HILLS WESTLYNN 84 FALLENLEAF LN WESTLYNN 285' E/O WESTLYNN 91 FARALLONE DR BOLLINGER JOHN 95 FARALLONE DR JOHN PACIFICA 93 FARALLONE DR PACIFICA LAS ONDAS 46 FARGO DR GLEN COE BEARDON 40 FARGO DR BEARDON END 22 FELTON WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 48 FENWAY CT CHRISTENSEN END 69 FERNGROVE DR SHADYGROVE WILLOWGROVE 89 FESTIVAL CT SEPTEMBER END 94 FESTIVAL DR SEPTEMBER END 94 779 FESTIVAL DR OROGRANDE NOVEMBER DR.94 FESTIVAL DR NOVEMBER DR.END 94 FIESTA LN SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER 93 FIGTREE CT PEARTREE END 84 FINCH AVE PHIL 290' S/O SORENSON 94 FINCH AVE 290' S/O SORENSON STEVENS CREEK 94 FITZGERALD DR STOKES AV DEMPSTER 95 FLINTSHIRE ST CLARKSTON PALOS VERDES 90 FLORA VISTA AVE HAZELBROOK GREENLEAF 83 FLORA VISTA AVE GREENLEAF GARDENA 64 FLORENCE DR PHAR LAP END 94 FLOWER CT POPPY END 89 FOLKESTONE DR BUBB YORKSHIRE 94 FOOTHILL BLVD STEVENS CREEK MC CLELLAN 81 FOOTHILL BLVD STEVENS CREEK CUPERTINO 82 FOOTHILL BLVD CUPERTINO ALPINE 82 FOOTHILL BLVD ALPINE STARLING 81 FOOTHILL BLVD STARLING N CITY LIMIT 80 FOOTHILL BLVD VISTA KNOLL SALEM 82 FOOTHILL BLVD SALEM STEVENS CREEK 81 FOREST AVE RANDY W BLANEY 95 FOREST AVE VISTA END (E) 95 FORT BAKER DR PRESIDIO HYANNISPORT 95 FRANCO CT HOMESTEAD END 48 GALWAY DR BARNHART PROSPECT 89 GARDEN GATE DR STELLING END 48 GARDENA CT GARDENA END 95 GARDENA DR CASTINE 150' E/O GARDENA CT 95 GARDENA DR 150' E/O GARDENA CT STELLING 95 GARDENSIDE LN KINGSBURY CLEO 94 GARDENSIDE LN RAINBOW CLEO 94 GARDENVIEW LN MANN END 94 GASCOIGNE DR NEWSOM WUNDERLICH 87 GASCOIGNE DR WUNDERLICH BARNHART 87 GATE OF HEAVEN CEMETERYCRISTO REY DR GATE 76 GILLICK WY MARTINWOOD CLIFDEN 94 GLEN COE DR ELENDA HANFORD 71 GLEN COE DR FARGO GREENLEAF 79 GLENVIEW AVE E ESTATES 725' S/O LA MAR (DW)47 GLENVIEW AVE 725' S/O LA MAR LA MAR 39 GRANADA AVE IMPERIAL ORANGE 94 GRANADA AVE BYRNE ORANGE 94 GRAND AVE EMPIRE PENNINSULA 89 GRAPNEL PL AMULET END 46 GREENLEAF DR FLORA VISTA CASTINE 94 GREENLEAF DR STELLING FLORA VISTA 94 GREENLEAF DR STELLING BEARDON 65 780 GREENLEAF DR BEARDON END 61 GREENWOOD CT MILLER END (SW)50 GREENWOOD DR MILLER END (E)53 GRENOLA DR ANN ARBOR FLORA VISTA 70 HALE PL GARDENA END 95 HALL CT BLANEY PARKSIDE 75 HAMMOND WY CRISTO REY DR HAMMOND 68 HAMMOND WY END END 77 HANFORD DR GLEN COE BEARDON 42 HANFORD DR BEARDON END 66 HANNA DR GASCOIGNE WUNDERLICH 80 HARTMAN DR CHACE AINSWORTH 64 HAZELBROOK DR ANN ARBOR STELLING 79 HEATHERWOOD DR WESTLYNN TUSCANY 87 HENEY CREEK PL ALPINE DR OAK CREST CT 94 HENEY CREEK PL OAK CREST CT NORTH END 94 HENEY CREEK PL ALPINE SOUTH END 94 HERMOSA AVE BYRNE ORANGE 94 HIBISCUS CT HIBISCUS END 95 HIBISCUS DR BARRANCA MAXINE 95 HILLCREST RD CUPERTINO CRESCENT 71 HILLCREST RD CRESCENT END 62 HOGUE CT RANDY END 95 HOLLANDERRY PL SCOTLAND HOLLYHEAD 93 HOLLY OAK DR BUBB CRANBERRY 90 HOLLYHEAD LN QUIREWOOD END 95 HOMESTEAD RD MARY STELLING 76 HOMESTEAD RD STELLING FRANCO 76 HOMESTEAD RD FRANCO DE ANZA 72 HOMESTEAD RD DE ANZA CL (330' W/O HERON)78 HOMESTEAD RD CL (400' W/O BLUE JAY) DE ANZA 82 HOMESTEAD RD DE ANZA FRANCO 71 HOMESTEAD RD LINNET WOLFE 76 HOMESTEAD RD WOLFE RD 92' E/O N TANTAU AVE.92 HOMESTEAD RD 92' E/O N TANTAU AVE. SWALLOW RD 92 HOMESTEAD RD EB CL (FOOTHILL CROSSING SHOPPINBARRANCA DR 77 HOMESTEAD RD EB BARRANCA DR FWY 85 (WEST SIDE PCC BOU 73 HOMESTEAD RD EB HWY 85 WEST SIDE AC BOUNDAR HWY 85 EAST SIDE AC BOUND 71 HOMESTEAD RD EB HWY 85 EAST SIDE AC BOUNDARYBERNARDO AVE 75 HOO HOO CT CARMEN END 84 HOWARD CT MILLER END 90 HUNTER WY MORENGO CARVER 95 HUNTERSON PL ROBINDELL ORION 95 HUNTRIDGE LN STELLING ROSE BLOSSOM 94 HYANNISPORT DR LINDA VISTA WILKINSON 94 HYANNISPORT DR WILKINSON BUBB 94 HYDE AVE BOLLINGER SHADYGROVE 90 781 IMPERIAL AVE STEVENS CREEK 315 FT S/O STEVENS CREEK 73 IMPERIAL AVE 315 FT S/O STEVENS CREEK 10290 IMPERIAL (END BUSINE 84 IMPERIAL AVE 10290 IMPERIAL (END BUSINESS DS END 85 IMPERIAL AVE MCCLELLAN ALCAZAR 79 JAMESTOWN DR PROSPECT PLUM BLOSSOM 93 JANICE AVE CARMEN MIRA VISTA 93 JANICE AVE MIRA VISTA STEVENS CREEK 94 JEANETTE CT CREEKLINE END 80 JOHANSEN DR MEIGGS PENDERGAST 92 JOHANSEN DR JOHANSEN END 71 JOHN DR BLANEY FARALLONE 95 JOHN DR E ESTATES BLANEY 93 JOHN WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 44 JOHNSON AVE BOLLINGER NEWSOM 73 JOHNSON AVE NEWSOM WUNDERLICH 95 JOHNSON AVE WUNDERLICH BARNHART 97 JOHNSON AVE BARNHART CRABTREE 95 JOHNSON AVE CRABTREE LOREE 95 JOLLYMAN DR DE LA FARGE DUMAS 94 JOLLYMAN LN STELLING END 41 JUDY AVE TILSON LOREE 93 JUDY AVE LOREE STEVENS CREEK 93 JUNIPER CT OAK VALLEY RD END 39 KENDLE ST VISTA KNOLL AINSWORTH 95 KENMORE CT FESTIVAL END 94 KENTWOOD AVE 600' W/O S DE ANZA TIPTOE 94 KIM ST KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 91 KIM ST BOLLINGER KIRWIN 91 KINGSBURY CT KINGSBURY END 94 KINGSBURY PL CANDLELIGHT SCOTLAND 94 KINGSBURY PL SCOTLAND GARDENSIDE 81 KIRWIN LN DE ANZA LONNA 97 KIRWIN LN LONNA ERIN 97 KRISTA CT VOSS END 47 KRZICH PL BUBB END 87 LA JOLLA CT TERRACE END 94 LA MAR CT E ESTATES END 97 LA MAR DR BLANEY E ESTATES 61 LA PALOMA DR SANTA TERESA COLUMBUS 94 LA PLAYA CT MONROVIA END 93 LA RODA CT LA RODA END 95 LA RODA DR SUISUN END 95 LANCER DR MYRTLEWOOD BOLLINGER 93 LANSDALE AVE OAKVILLE LA MAR 50 LARRY WY MERRITT LUCILLE 69 LAS ONDAS CT LAS ONDAS END 83 LAS ONDAS WY FARALLONE SOMERSET 94 782 LAS ONDAS WY SOMERSET PACIFICA 94 LAURETTA DR ANN ARBOR CHRISTENSEN 79 LAVINA CT FLORA VISTA END 97 LAZANEO DR DE ANZA VISTA 93 LAZANEO DR DE ANZA BANDLEY 83 LEAVESLEY PL SHATTUCK END 93 LEBANON AVE LOCKWOOD LEBANON 94 LEBANON DR LEBANON STEVENS CREEK 94 LEEDS AVE PRIMROSE DONEGAL 85 LEOLA CT GREENWOOD END 50 LEONG CT NOVEMBER END 94 LIBERTY CT PRESIDIO END 91 LILAC CT ROSEBLOSSOM END 94 LILAC WY STELLING ROSE BLOSSOM 94 LILY AVE ROSE BLOSSOM ROSE BLOSSOM 94 LILY CT LILY END 94 LINDA ANN CT CHACE END 95 LINDA VISTA DR MCCLELLAN HYANNISPORT 91 LINDA VISTA DR SANTA TERESA HYANNISPORT 95 LINDA VISTA PARK RD LINDA VISTA END 70 LINDA VISTA PL LINDA VISTA END 93 LINDENBROOK DR E ESTATES BLANEY 93 LINDSAY AVE LA MAR OAKVILLE 50 LINDY LN LINDY PL END 74 LINDY LN LINDY PL SANTA BELLA PL 62 LINDY LN SANTA BELLA REGNART 69 LINDY PL LINDY END 76 LOCKFORD CT SCOTLAND END 94 LOCKWOOD DR STEVENS CREEK WOODRIDGE CT 94 LOCKWOOD DR WOODRIDGE CT VOSS 94 LOCKWOOD DR ALCALDE VOSS 94 LOMITA AVE ORANGE BYRNE 92 LOMITA AVE IMPERIAL PASADENA 94 LOMITA AVE PASADENA ORANGE 94 LONNA LN KIRWIN MC CLELLAN 31 LOREE AVE STERLING JOHNSON 95 LOREE AVE CALVERT JOHNSON 85 LOREE AVE MORETTI CALVERT 95 LOREE AVE STERN MORETTI 75 LOREE AVE TANTAU STERN 94 LOREE AVE TANTAU END 85 LUBEC ST MARY ANSON 94 LUCILLE AVE BLANEY END 93 LUNAR CT DERBYSHIRE END 94 LYNTON CT FARALLONE END 94 MADERA DR PHAR LAP DR END 57 MADRID CT MCCLELLAN END 88 783 MADRONE CT END END 95 MAJESTIC OAK WY CALIFORNIA OAK ENGLISH OAK 94 MALVERN CT LA MAR END 56 MANITA CT RAINBOW END 93 MANN DR STEVENS CREEK 140' N/O STEVENS CREEK 83 MANN DR ADRIANA PHAR LAP DR.33 MANZANITA CT S END N END 95 MARCY CT LAURETTA END 85 MARIA ROSA WY ROSARIO COLUMBUS 94 MARIANI AVE DE ANZA END 18 MARIANI AVE BANDLEY DE ANZA 97 MARTINWOOD WY CLIFDEN BOLLINGER 77 MARY AVE STEVENS CREEK METEOR DR 72 MAXINE DR HOMESTEAD 250 FT S/O HOMESTEAD 81 MAXINE DR 250 FT S/O HOMESTEAD CAROLINE 93 MC CLELLAN PL MCCLELLAN RD END 78 MC CLELLAN RD DE ANZA LONNA 80 MC CLELLAN RD LONNA STELLING 78 MC CLELLAN RD STELLING ROSE BLOSSOM 78 MC CLELLAN RD ROSE BLOSSOM SR‐85 80 MC CLELLAN RD SR‐85 BUBB RD 71 MC CLELLAN RD BUBB ORANGE 80 MC CLELLAN RD ORANGE BYRNE 78 MC CLELLAN RD BYRNE AVE LINDA VISTA DR 76 MC CLELLAN RD LINDA VISTA DR TRESSLER CT 92 MC CLELLAN RD TRESSLER CLUBHOUSE 92 MC CLELLAN RD CLUBHOUSE FOOTHILL 92 MC KLINTOCK LN VOSS WOODRIDGE 94 MC LAREN PL WHEATON END 94 MEADOW PL VOSS END 94 MEADOWVIEW LN MANN END 94 MEDICUS CT STERLING END 93 MEDINA CT LOCKWOOD END 94 MEDINA LN EL PRADO LOCKWOOD 57 MEIGGS AVE TANTAU MORENGO 90 MELISSA CT VOSS END 94 MELLO PL PRICE END 94 MENHART LN MORETTI CALVERT 94 MERCEDES RD CORDOVA END 81 MERRIMAN RD VOSS END 94 MERRIMAN RD ALCALDE SANTA LUCIA 91 MERRITT DR BLANEY E END 94 MERRITT DR W BLANEY W END 87 METEOR DR CASTINE MARY 92 METEOR PL METEOR DR END 94 MEYERHOLZ CT STOKES END 94 MICHAEL CT CLIFDEN END 94 784 MILFORD DR CASTINE ANSON 94 MILKY WY ORION DERBYSHIRE 94 MILLARD LN MARY END 94 MILLER AVE STEVENS CREEK CALLE DE BARCELONA 80 MILLER AVE CALLE DE BARCELONA STEVENS CREEK 81 MILLER AVE CALLE DE BARCELON PHIL 80 MILLER AVE PHIL BOLLINGER 76 MINAKER CT GRANADA END 93 MINER PL LAZANEO N END 94 MINER PL LAZANEO S END 94 MINETTE DR NEWSOM WUNDERLICH 80 MINETTE PL MINETTE DR END 76 MIRA VISTA RD PALM MC CLELLAN 93 MIRA VISTA RD JANICE PALM 91 MIRAMONTE RD STEVENS CANYON END 54 MOLTZEN DR RUPPELL CANDLELIGHT 57 MONROVIA ST REGNART BUBB 93 MONTE CT MANN END 94 MONTEREY CT TERRACE END 94 MORENGO DR TUGGLE PL END 93 MORETTI DR LOREE BARNHART 94 MOUNT CREST DR MOUNT CREST PL END 68 MOUNT CREST DR LINDA VISTA MOUNT CREST 76 MOUNT CREST PL MOUNT CREST END 84 MURIEL LN TANTAU END 93 MYER PL WHEATON END 95 MYRTLEWOOD AVE BLAZINGWOOD CANDLEWOOD 89 NANCY CT PARADISE END 93 NATHANSON AVE METEOR END 93 NEW HAVEN CT PRESIDIO END 91 NEWCASTLE DR ROSE GARDEN ASTER 90 NEWSOM AVE CARVER JOHNSON 84 NEWSOM AVE JOHNSON WUNDERLICH 95 NOBLE FIR DR STELLING RED FIR 91 NOEL AVE BEAVEN FITZGERALD 94 NOONAN CT ORANGE END 65 NORMANDY CT SOMERSET END 91 NORMANDY WY ASTER ROSE GARDEN 89 NORWICH AVE AMHERST MERRITT 94 NOVEMBER DR FESTIVAL BULB (PVMT CHG) 93 NOVEMBER DR BULB (PVMT CHG) OCTOBER 93 OAK MEADOW CT STELLING END 91 OAK VALLEY RD CRISTOR REY DR SYCAMORE DR 77 OAKCREST CT HENEY CREEK END 93 OAKDELL PL PHAR LAP END 80 OAKLEAF CT OAKLEAF END 88 OAKLEAF PL OAKDELL END 91 785 OAKNOLL CT PHAR LAP END 94 OAKVIEW LN MANN END 94 OAKVILLE AVE GLENVIEW LA MAR 48 OASIS CT ALPINE END 95 OBSIDIAN CT OROGRANDE END 94 OCTOBER WY SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER 93 OLD TOWN CT PRESIDIO END 91 OLIVE AVE 80 FT E/O PASADENA (END) ORANGE 83 OLIVE AVE IMPERIAL 150' W/O IMPERIAL (END)90 ORANGE AVE HERMOSA END (N)78 ORANGE AVE MCCLELLAN NOONAN 94 ORANGE AVE ALCAZAR SAN FERNADO 94 ORANGE AVE NOONAN ALCAZAR 94 ORANGE AVE SAN FERNADO OLIVE 94 ORANGE AVE OLIVE LOMITA (ON EAST)86 ORANGE AVE GRANADA STEVENS CREEK 93 ORANGE AVE LOMITA (E SIDE)HERMOSA 88 ORANGE BLOSSOM DR ASTER PRIMROSE 93 ORANGE TREE LN MERRITT CEDAR TREE 94 ORCHARD CT CRESCENT RD END 34 ORION LN STELLING MILKY WAY 94 ORION PL ORION END 94 ORLINE CT JOLLYMAN END 37 OROGRANDE PL STELLING END 94 PACIFICA DR BLANEY FARRALONE 79 PACIFICA DR FARRALONE TORRE 94 PACIFICA DR TORRE DE ANZA 94 PALM AVE SCENIC PALO VISTA 91 PALM AVE PALO VISTA FOOTHILL 91 PALO VISTA RD PALM 325' S/O RANCHO VENTURA 91 PALO VISTA RD 325' S/O RANCHO VENTURA (~FIRJANICE 91 PALOS VERDES CT TERRACE END 91 PALOS VERDES DR TERRACE DR CASTLETON 90 PARADISE DR TERRY CHERYL 54 PARK CIR. DR ALVES ALVES 94 PARKSIDE LN RODRIGUES END 84 PARLETT PL LAZANEO N END 94 PARLETT PL LAZANEO S END 94 PASADENA AVE GRANADA 100' S/O LOMITA (END OF SW 94 PASADENA AVE GRANADA STEVENS CREEK 82 PASADENA AVE OLIVE 100' N/O OLIVE (BEGINNING O 94 PATRIC CT FARALLONE END 95 PEACH BLOSSOM DR PRIMROSE ASTER 90 PEACH TREE LN PLUM TREE CHERRY TREE 80 PEAR TREE CT PEAR TREE END 94 PEAR TREE LN BAYWOOD BLANEY 94 PEBBLE PL AMULET END 47 786 PENDERGAST AVE WUNDERLICH END 86 PENDERGAST AVE CULBERTSON WUNDERLICH 94 PENDERGAST AVE JOHANSEN CULBERTSON 90 PENINSULA AVE STEVENS CREEK FITZGERALD 95 PENNINGTON LN WOOD LARK PUMPKIN 89 PENNINSULAR AVE CAROLINE BARRANCA 95 PEPPER TREE LN STELLING BONNY 95 PERALTA CT CANYON OAK END 95 PHAR LAP DR MADERA STEVENS CREEK 94 PHIL CT PHIL END 97 PHIL LN MILLER FINCH 97 PHIL LN FINCH TANTAU 97 PINEVILLE AVE LA MAR GLENVIEW 39 PINOLE CT JOHN END 95 PLUM BLOSSOM DR PRIMROSE JAMESTOWN 90 PLUM TREE LN MERRITT FOREST 97 POPPY DR FOOTHILL END 61 POPPY WY RAINBOW 185 FT S/O RAINBOW 90 POPPY WY 185 FT S/O RAINBOW 420 FT S/O RAINBOW 90 POPPY WY 420 FT S/O RAINBOW PLUM BLOSSOM 89 POPPY WY PLUM BLOSSOM BARNHART 80 PORTAL AVE STEVENS CREEK END (N)41 PORTAL AVE WINTERGREEN STEVENS CREEK 91 PRADO VISTA AVE DUBON STEVENS CREEK 94 PRESIDIO DR BUBB FT. BAKER 91 PRICE AVE BLANEY PORTAL 94 PRIMROSE WY BARNHART PEACH BLOSSOM 90 PRIMROSE WY PEACH BLOSSOM RAINBOW 89 PRING CT STERLING END 55 PROSPECT RD DE ANZA JAMESTOWN 77 PROSPECT RD JAMESTOWN STELLING 55 PROSPECT RD CITY LIMIT STELLING 66 PROVIDENCE CT PRESIDIO END 91 PRUNE TREE LN APPLE TREE PEACH TREE 87 PRUNERIDGE AVE WOLFE RD 660' E/O WOLFE RD 89 PRUNERIDGE AVE TANTAU 300' E/O TANTAU ( CITY LIMIT 95 PUMPKIN CT PUMPKIN END 84 PUMPKIN DR CRANBERRY BUBB 84 RAE LN LINDA VISTA END 63 RAINBOW CT RAINBOW END 93 RAINBOW DR STELLING POPPY 81 RAINBOW DR POPPY DE ANZA 75 RAINBOW DR STELLING MANITA 92 RAINBOW DR MANITA WEYMOTH 92 RAINBOW DR WEYMOTH BUBB 92 RAINBOW DR 525' W/O BUBB (VILLA MARIA) END 94 RAINBOW DR BUBB VILLA MARIA 66 787 RAINBOW PL RAINBOW DR END 95 RALYA CT STERLING END 85 RAMONA CT JANICE END 94 RAMPART AVE E ESTATES GLENVIEW 94 RANCHO PL RANCHO VENTURA END 94 RANCHO VENTURA ST FOOTHILL PALO VISTA 94 RANDY LN MERRITT LUCILLE 66 RANDY LN FOREST STEVENS CREEK 95 RED FIR CT NOBLE END 91 REDONDO CT TERRACE END 94 REGNART CANYON RD REGNART END 94 REGNART CT LINDY END 85 REGNART RD BUBB LINDY 85 REGNART RD LINDY REGNART CANYON DR (EAST) 81 REGNART RD REGNART CANYON DR (EAST) CANYON VIEW CIR /REG CAN‐75 RICARDO RD STEVENS CANYON END 66 RICHWOOD CT MILLER END 74 RICHWOOD DR VICKSBURG MILLER 79 RIEDEL PL WHEATON END 95 RIVERCREST CT CRESTON END 93 RIVERSIDE DR STEVENS CANYON DREA 94 RIVIERA RD SCENIC END 83 ROBINDELL WY STELLING END 94 RODRIGUES AV BLANEY E END 72 RODRIGUES AVE WESTERN DE ANZA 49 RODRIGUES AVE TORRE BLANEY 52 RODRIGUES AVE. DE ANZA TORRE 46 ROLLINGDELL CT ROLLINGDELL END 97 ROLLINGDELL DR 200' W/O S DE ANZA ANNETTE 97 ROLLINGDELL DR ANNETTE KENTWOOD 97 RONALD WY EDWARD ROSARIO 94 ROSARIO AVE BUBB MARIA ROSA 93 ROSE BLOSSOM DR MCCLELLAN HUNTRIDGE 94 ROSE GARDEN LN PEACH BLOSSOM WATERFORD 90 ROSEMARIE PL MILLER END 91 RUCKER DR DRYDEN SANTA TERESA 91 RUMFORD DR ANSON CASTINE 94 RUNO CT STERLING END 93 RUPPELL PL KINGSBURY END 46 SAGE CT LILAC END 94 SAICH WY STEVENS CREEK ALVES 49 SALEM AVE ANTHONY FOOTHILL 49 SALEM DR FOOTHILL ALPINE 91 SAN FELIPE RD ALCALDE END 94 SAN FERNANDO AVE BYRNE ORANGE 93 SAN FERNANDO AVE BYRNE SAN FERNANDO C 93 SAN FERNANDO AVE SAN FERNANDO CT S END 94 788 SAN FERNANDO CT SAN FERNANDO END 93 SAN JUAN RD CORDOVA STEVENS CANYON 95 SAN LEANDRO AVE SANTA PAULA MC CLELLAN 95 SANTA BELLA PL LINDY END 90 SANTA CLARA AVE ALHAMBRA GRAND 78 SANTA CLARA AVE GRAND UNIVERSITY 44 SANTA LUCIA RD STEVENS CANYON ALCALDE RD 91 SANTA PAULA AVE FOOTHILL MIRA VISTA 93 SANTA TERESA DR HYANNISPORT TERRACE DR 89 SCENIC BLVD CARMEN END 60 SCENIC BLVD CARMEN PALM 93 SCENIC BLVD PALM SCENIC CIR 83 SCENIC CIR SCENIC BLVD SCENIC CIR 83 SCENIC CT SCENIC CIR END 81 SCOFIELD DR BARBARA WESTERN 95 SCOFIELD DR WESTERN DE ANZA 94 SCOTLAND DR QUIREWOOD KINGSBURY 94 SEEBER CT STELLING END 63 SEPTEMBER CT SEPTEMBER END 94 SEPTEMBER DR MC CLELLAN END 94 SERRA ST CANYON OAK END 95 SHADOWHILL LN STELLING CANDLELIGHT 94 SHADOWHILL LN CANDLELIGHT END 94 SHADYGROVE CT SHADYGROVE END 91 SHADYGROVE DR STENDAHL TANTAU 89 SHANNON CT BUBB END 92 SHATTUCK DR SANTA TERESA DRYDEN 93 SHELLY DR BONNY TONITA 97 SHELLY DR TONITA TERRY 97 SILVER OAK WY FOOTHILL END 93 SILVERADO AVE WHITNEY DE ANZA 94 SOLA ST BONNY TULA 94 SOMERSET CT SOMERSET END 94 SOMERSET DR FARALLONE LAS ONDAS 94 SOMERSET DR LAS ONDAS BLANEY 94 SORENSON AVE CRAFT FINCH 91 SQUIREHILL CT STELLING END 94 SQUIREWOOD WY SCOTLAND STELLING 94 ST ANDREWS AVE DEEP CLIFF STEVENS CANYON 94 STAFFORD DR SUNDERLAND FOLKSTONE 94 STAFFORD DR FOLKSTONE YORKSHIRE 94 STAFFORD DR YORKSHIRE ELMFORD 94 STANDING OAK CT VOSS END 74 STANFORD PL KENTWOOD ANNETTE 94 STARLING CT STARLING END 18 STARRETT CT STERLING END 80 STAUFFER LN PROSPECT END 94 789 STEEPLECHASE LN ROLLINGDELL KENTWOOD 94 STELLING RD GARDEN GATE DR GREENLEAF 93 STELLING RD ALVES STEVENS CREEK 88 STELLING RD STEVENS CREEK ALVES 94 STELLING RD ALVES GARDEN GATE DR 94 STELLING RD GREENLEAF 280 FWY 94 STELLING RD 280 FWY 450' N of 280 74 STELLING RD 450' N of 280 Homestead Rd 65 STELLING RD STEVENS CREEK MC CLELLAN 83 STELLING RD MCCLELLAN LILAC 83 STELLING RD LILAC MC CLELLAN 84 STELLING RD MCCLELLAN STEVENS CREEK 84 STELLING RD PROSPECT WATERFORD 72 STELLING RD WATERFORD RAINBOW 80 STELLING RD LILAC CARRIAGE 83 STELLING RD CARRIAGE ORION 77 STELLING RD RAINBOW SQUIREHILL 79 STELLING RD ORION SQUIREHILL 79 STENDHAL LN PHIL DISNEY 91 STERLING BLVD CYNTHIA AV BARNHART AV 93 STERLING BLVD BARNHART AV RUNO 93 STERLING BLVD RUNO N END 83 STERN AVE TILSON LOREE 97 STERN AVE LOREE STEVENS CREEK 71 STEVENS CANYON RD CITY LIMITS 1988 FT S/MIRA MONTE 82 STEVENS CANYON RD 1988 FT S/MIRA MONTE MIRA MONTE 75 STEVENS CANYON RD MIRA MONTE SANTA LUCIA 68 STEVENS CANYON RD SANTA LUCIA MC CLELLAN 72 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CITY LIMITS CALIFORNIA OAK 82 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CALIFORNIA OAK FOOTHILL 82 STEVENS CREEK BLVD FOOTHILL CUPERTINO 78 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO ORANGE 81 STEVENS CREEK BLVD ORANGE PASADENA 80 STEVENS CREEK BLVD PASADENA BUBB 81 STEVENS CREEK BLVD BUBB HWY 85 DECK 77 STEVENS CREEK BLVD HWY 85 DECK STELLING 92 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STELLING DE ANZA 93 STEVENS CREEK BLVD DE ANZA MILLER (WOLFE)93 STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER STERN 94 STEVENS CREEK BLVD BRET WOLFE 94 STEVENS CREEK BLVD MILLER (WOLFE)DE ANZA 93 STEVENS CREEK BLVD DE ANZA STELLING 93 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STELLING Hwy 85 Deck 93 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Hwy 85 Deck PENINSULA 75 STOKES AVE DEMPSTER END 94 STOKES AVE FITZGERALD DEMPSTER AVE 94 STONYDALE DR CRESTON END 46 790 SUISUN DR BLANEY FARALLONE 94 SUNDERLAND DR YORKSHIRE STAFFORD 94 SUNRISE DR WESTERN DE ANZA 94 SUTHERLAND AVE COLLINGSWORTH CASTLETON 90 SUTTON PARK PL TANTAU END 93 SYCAMORE CT SYCAMORE END 81 SYCAMORE DR OAK VALLEY GATE 64 TAMARIND CT FLORA VISTA END 64 TANTAU AVE HOMESTEAD PRUNERIDGE 93 TANTAU AVE STEVENS CREEK HWY 280 72 TANTAU AVE HWY 280 PRUNERIDGE 93 TANTAU AVE PHIL SUTTON PARK 83 TANTAU AVE SUTTON PARK BOLLINGER 87 TANTAU AVE MURIEL PHIL 83 TANTAU AVE COZETTE MURIEL 75 TANTAU AVE STEVENS CREEK COZETTE 78 TERRA BELLA DR TERRACE DR LINDY 88 TERRACE DR BUBB SANTA TERESA 89 TERRY WY RODRIGUES END 94 TILSON AVE CALVERT JOHNSON 89 TILSON AVE STERN CALVERT 94 TILSON AVE TANTAU STERN 94 TILSON AVE FINCH TANTAU 52 TIPTOE LN KENTWOOD WESTLYNN 93 TOMKI CT STELLING END 86 TONI CT FOREST END 84 TONITA WY SHELLY CHERYL 94 TORRE AVE PACIFICA RODRIGUES 94 TORRE AVE STEVENS CREEK RODRIGUES 94 TRESSLER CT MCCLELLAN END 84 TUGGLE AVE WUNDERLICH END 86 TUGGLE AVE TUGGLE PL WUNDERLICH 91 TUGGLE PL TUGGLE DR END 55 TULA CT TULA END 94 TULA LN SOLA N END 94 TULA LN SOLA S END 94 TULITA CT FLORA VISTA END 67 TUSCANY PL S END N END 84 TWIG LN TANTAU END 74 TWILIGHT CT BLANEY END 94 UNIVERSITY WY PENNINSULA ALHAMBRA 81 UPLAND CT UPLAND WY END 79 UPLAND WY RAINBOW 11593 UPLAND WY 77 UPLAND WY 11593 UPLAND WY SEVEN SPRINGS 96 UPLAND WY SEVEN SPRINGS END 94 VAI AVE BUBB COLUMBUS 82 VALLCO PKWY TANTAU WOLFE 79 791 VALLCO PKWY WOLFE TANTAU 84 VALLEY GREEN DR STELLING BEARDON 82 VALLEY GREEN DR BEARDON DE ANZA 64 VARIAN WY AINSWORTH DR END 91 VERNIE CT BOLLINGER END 84 VIA CAMINO CT AINSWORTH END 94 VICEROY CT ALPINE END 95 VICKSBURG CT VICKSBURG END 94 VICKSBURG DR MILLER E ESTATES 94 VICKSBURG DR COLD HARBOUR E ESTATES 94 VILLA DE ANZA LUCILLE BLANEY 93 VILLA MARIA CT RAINBOW END 80 VIRGINIA SWAN PL LAZANEO END 94 VISTA CT VISTA END 97 VISTA DR LAZANEO MERRITT 84 VISTA DR STEVENS CREEK LAZANEO 94 VISTA KNOLL BLVD AINSWORTH FOOTHILL 91 VOSS AVE KRISTA CT END 51 VOSS AVE KRISTA CT MELISSA CT 94 VOSS AVE MELISSA CT MC KLINTOCK 94 VOSS AVE MC KLINTOCK FOOTHILL 94 W ESTATES DR LINDENBROOK ESTATES DR 92 WALLACE DR BARRANCA MAXINE 95 WALLIN CT ORION LN END 59 WALNUT CIR WALNUT WALNUT 94 WALNUT CIR N FOOTHILL WALNUT 91 WALNUT CIR S WALNUT FOOTHILL 94 WATERFORD DR PRIMROSE STELLING 90 WEST HILL CT WESTHILL END 95 WEST HILL LN STELLING END 95 WESTACRES DR MCCLELLAN END 94 WESTERN DR RODRIGUES SCOFIELD 94 WESTLYN WY TIPTOE FALLENLEAF 91 WESTLYN WY FALLENLEAF BOLLINGER 77 WESTMINSTER CT SALEM END 63 WEYMOTH DR BELKNAP RAINBOW 90 WHEATON DR BLANEY N PORTAL 95 WHEATON DR PORTAL END 95 WHEATON DR W BLANEY CAROL LEE 95 WHITE FIR CT RED FIR END 94 WHITNEY WY PACIFICA CLAY 93 WILD FLOWER WY POPPY WILD FLOWER CT 79 WILD FLOWER WY WILD FLOWER CT DE ANZA 75 WILKINSON AVE HYANNISPORT COLUMBUS 95 WILKINSON AVE COLUMBUS COLLINGSWORTH 94 WILL CT LAZANEO END 94 WILLOWBROOK WY LINDENBROOK END 91 792 WILLOWGROVE LN FERNGROVE HYDE 91 WILSON CT STOKES END 94 WINTERGREEN DR COLD HARBOR SOUTH PORTAL 94 WOLFE RD STEVENS CREEK BLVD 600 N OF STEVENS CREEN 93 WOLFE RD 600 N OF STEVENS CREEK VALLCO PARKWAY 70 WOLFE RD VALLCO SS 280 FWY 61 WOLFE RD SS 280 FWY NS 280 FWY 62 WOLFE RD NS 280 FWY PRUNERIDGE AVE 92 WOLFE RD PRUNERIDGE AVE E HOMESTEAD RD 92 WOLFE RD E HOMESTEAD RD PRUNERIDGE AVE 92 WOLFE RD PRUNERIDGE AVE NS 280 FWY 92 WOLFE RD NS 280 FWY SS 280 FWY 54 WOLFE RD SS 280 FWY VALLCO 73 WOLFE RD VALLCO 600' N OF STEVENS CREEK 71 WOLFE RD 600' N OF STEVENS CREEK STEVENS CREEK 93 WOODBURY DR PHAR LAP MANN 94 WOODLARK WY CRANBERRY PENNINGTON 93 WOODRIDGE CT LOCKWOOD END 93 WUNDERLICH DR BOLLINGER GASCOIGNE 95 WUNDERLICH DR GASCOIGNE TUGGLE 62 WUNDERLICH DR TUGGLE TILSON 67 WUNDERLICH DR TILSON MENHART 94 YORKSHIRE CT YORKSHIRE END 93 YORKSHIRE DR RAINBOW SUNDERLAND 94 YORKSHIRE DR SUNDERLAND STAFFORD 94 793 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 & 2 Street List ATTACHMENT B STREET NAME FROM TO Treatment PCI FELTON WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN OVERLAY 55 ORLINE CT JOLLYMAN END OVERLAY 34 STARLING CT STARLING END OVERLAY 36 GRAPNEL PL AMULET END OVERLAY 40 PEBBLE PL AMULET END OVERLAY 40 ALICIA CT ALCALDE END OVERLAY 41 BLOSSOM LN FELTON END OVERLAY 42 KRISTA CT VOSS END OVERLAY 42 STANDING OAK CT VOSS END OVERLAY 44 JOLLYMAN LN STELLING END OVERLAY 45 RUPPELL PL KINGSBURY END OVERLAY 46 CRESTON DR 150' N/O RIVERCREST (CITY LIMIT)END OVERLAY 47 DEGAS CT MEDINA END OVERLAY 48 MARIANI AVE DE ANZA END OVERLAY 48 PORTAL AVE STEVENS CREEK END OVERLAY 50 HANFORD DR BEARDON END OVERLAY 51 VOSS AVE KRISTA CT END OVERLAY 52 ACADIA CT BEARDON END OVERLAY 53 DRAKE CT DRAKE END OVERLAY 54 JOHN WY KIRWIN MC CLELLAN OVERLAY 54 STONYDALE DR CRESTON END OVERLAY 55 EL PRADO WY VOSS MEDINA OVERLAY 56 LEOLA CT GREENWOOD END OVERLAY 56 LONNA LN KIRWIN MC CLELLAN OVERLAY 56 RODRIGUES AVE WESTERN DE ANZA OVERLAY 56 SALEM AVE ANTHONY FOOTHILL OVERLAY 56 MOLTZEN DR RUPPELL CANDLELIGHT OVERLAY 58 GREENWOOD DR MILLER END (E)OVERLAY 59 ALVES DR SAICH BANDLEY OVERLAY 60 POPPY DR FOOTHILL END OVERLAY 60 MEDINA LN EL PRADO LOCKWOOD OVERLAY 61 ELENDA DR GLEN COE End OVERLAY 62 DRAKE DR PORTAL AUBURN OVERLAY 65 PARADISE DR TERRY CHERYL OVERLAY 68 HANFORD DR GLEN COE BEARDON OVERLAY 69 STELLING RD 450' N of 280 (10870 N. Stelling Rd) Homestead Rd OVERLAY 69 GLEN COE DR ELENDA HANFORD OVERLAY 72 LINDY LN LINDY PL REGNART RD RUBBER CHIP 63 REGNART CT LINDY LN END RUBBER CHIP 85 OAKNOLL CT PHAR LAP END RUBBER CHIP 96 OAKDELL PL PHAR LAP END RUBBER CHIP 794 2019 Pavement Maintenance Phase 1 & 2 Street List ATTACHMENT B OAKLEAF CT PHAR LAP END RUBBER CHIP 89 HILLCREST RD CUPERTINO RD N END RUBBER CHIP 71 JEANETTE CT CREEKLINE END MICROSURFACING 81 SEEBER CT S STELLING END MICROSURFACING 64 WALLIN CT ORION END MICROSURFACING 60 SANTA BELLA PL LINDY LN END MICROSURFACING 91 UPLAND WAY RAINBOW 11593 Upland MICROSURFACING 78 VILLA MARIA CT RAINBOW END MICROSURFACING 81 RAINBOW DR BUBB RD VILLA MARIA MICROSURFACING 66 WILD FLOWER WAY POPPY DE ANZA MICROSURFACING 76 BERLAND CT S STELLING END MICROSURFACING 72 COLUMBUS AVE BUBB RD MARIA ROSA MICROSURFACING 73 NOONAN CT ORANGE AVE END MICROSURFACING 65 FAIRWOODS CT STELLING END MICROSURFACING 81 COTTONWOOD CT COTTONWOOD DR END MICROSURFACING 76 BARNHART AVE TANTAU MORETTI MICROSURFACING 80 CALVERT DR MENHART CITY LIMIT MICROSURFACING 75 CRESCENT CT CRESCENT RD CONFORM MICROSURFACING 63 795 2018 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PHASE 1 2 PROJECT STREET LIST ATTACHMENT C STREET NAME FROM TO TREATMENT LAVINA CT FLORA VISTA END OVERLAY ANNETTE WY STANFORD ROLLINGDELL OVERLAY ERIN WY STELLING KIM OVERLAY KIRWIN LN DE ANZA LONNA OVERLAY KIRWIN LN LONNA ERIN OVERLAY ROLLINGDELL CT ROLLINGDELL END OVERLAY ROLLINGDELL DR 200' W/O S DE ANZA ANNETTE OVERLAY ROLLINGDELL DR ANNETTE KENTWOOD OVERLAY CHERYL DR PARADISE WESTACRES OVERLAY SHELLY DR BONNY TERRY OVERLAY CLAY ST WHITNEY END OVERLAY E ESTATES DR JOHN LA MAR OVERLAY ALVES DR STELLING SAICH OVERLAY MARIANI AVE BANDLEY DE ANZA OVERLAY PHIL CT PHIL END OVERLAY PHIL LN FINCH TANTAU OVERLAY PHIL LN MILLER FINCH OVERLAY JOHNSON AVE WUNDERLICH BARNHART OVERLAY STERN AVE TILSON LOREE OVERLAY WUNDERLICH DR BOLLINGER GASCOIGNE OVERLAY MERRITT DR BLANEY EAST END OVERLAY PLUM TREE LN MERRITT FOREST OVERLAY VISTA CT N PORTAL END OVERLAY ADRIANA AVE MANN END OVERLAY FLORENCE DR PHAR LAP END OVERLAY PHAR LAP DR MADERA STEVENS CREEK OVERLAY CRESCENT RD CRESCENT CT CUPERTINO OVERLAY CASS PL JANICE END OVERLAY RAMONA CT JANICE END OVERLAY MC KLINTOCK LN VOSS WOODRIDGE OVERLAY DERBYSHIRE DR ORION ROBINDELL OVERLAY FESTIVAL DR OROGRANDE NOVEMBER DR.OVERLAY LUNAR CT DERBYSHIRE END OVERLAY MILKY WY ORION DERBYSHIRE OVERLAY OBSIDIAN CT OROGRANDE END OVERLAY ORION LN STELLING MILKY WAY OVERLAY ORION PL ORION END OVERLAY OROGRANDE PL STELLING END OVERLAY ROBINDELL WY STELLING END OVERLAY SQUIREHILL CT STELLING END OVERLAY BANDLEY AVE VALLEY GREEN ALVES DIG OUT BUBB RD MCCLELAN RD DIG OUT S TANTAU AVE STEVENS CREEK BLVD BOLLINGER RD DID OUT CLIFFORD CT CLIFFORD END OVERLAY CLIFFORD DR E ESTATES BLANEY OVERLAY SCOFIELD DR WESTERN DE ANZA OVERLAY PUMPKIN CT PUMPKIN END MICRO-SURFACING PUMPKIN DR CRANBERRY BUBB MICRO-SURFACING LEEDS AVE PRIMROSE DONEGAL MICRO-SURFACING CRAFT DR FINCH SORENSON MICRO-SURFACING PENNINGTON LN WOOD LARK PUMPKIN MICRO-SURFACING 796 2018 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PHASE 1 2 PROJECT STREET LIST ATTACHMENT C CASTINE AVE RUMFORD GARDENA MICRO-SURFACING GALWAY DR BARNHART PROSPECT MICRO-SURFACING PENDERGAST AVE JOHANSEN E END MICRO-SURFACING METEOR DR CASTINE MARY MICRO-SURFACING BARNHART PL GALWAY JAMESTOWN MICRO-SURFACING CARVER DR NEWSOM TUGGLE MICRO-SURFACING TUGGLE AVE TUGGLE PL WUNDERLICH MICRO-SURFACING DONEGAL DR LEEDS PRIMROSE MICRO-SURFACING JOHANSEN DR MEIGGS PENDERGAST MICRO-SURFACING SHANNON CT BUBB END MICRO-SURFACING AMULET DR CASTINE ATHANSON MICRO-SURFACING CRANBERRY DR HOLLY OAK WOOD LARK MICRO-SURFACING ELM CT BUBB END MICRO-SURFACING HOLLY OAK DR BUBB CRANBERRY MICRO-SURFACING LINDA VISTA DR MCCLELLAN HYANNISPORT MICRO-SURFACING JAMESTOWN DR PROSPECT PLUM BLOSSOM MICRO-SURFACING WOODLARK WY CRANBERRY PENNINGTON MICRO-SURFACING MEIGGS AVE TANTAU MORENGO MICRO-SURFACING PENDERGAST AVE CULBERTSON WUNDERLICH MICRO-SURFACING CRANBERRY CIR CRANBERRY END MICRO-SURFACING SORENSON AVE CRAFT DR FINCH AVE MICRO-SURFACING TUGGLE PL TUGGLE END MICRO-SURFACING 797 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:118-4786 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/20/2018 City Council On agenda:Final action:5/7/2019 Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council5/7/2019 1 Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Report on Committee assignments and general comments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 5/2/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™798